SEHAB - Roundtable-Central VI-Nov 2009

Details: Hits: 8909

November 2009

Salmon Enhancement And Habitat Advisory Board (SEHAB) Roundtable
Date November 6, 2009
Area Central Vancouver Island
Representative Jack Minard
Challenges/Issues and Opportunities/Successes of the Volunteer Aquatic Stewards

We continue to have challenges with private forest logging. Logging has continued unabated through these challenging economic times with higher cut rates. We have seen more flooding again and silt and sediment events are commonplace

We have had very few "issues" arise recently on the Central Coast. We are still somewhat plagued by a lack of data when it comes to making the best enhancement decisions but DFO continues to partner effectively with us generally and we seem to be able to carry on.

Habitat, Oceans, Estuaries and Marine Protection

A new group of partners has formed to find some protection for the Courtenay River Estuary. Dubbed the Estuary Working Group (EWG) this group includes;

DFO - Bev Bravender - Estuaries Specialist

DFO - Dave Davies - Comunity Advisor

Project Watershed Society (PWS) - Don Castleden, Chair

PWS - Caila Holbrook - The Mapping Centre - Recording Secretary

Local Historian - Norma Morton

Professor Emiritus - Paul Horgen

Courtenay and District Fish and Game Protective Association - Ron Watanabe

Steelhead Society and Comox Valley Environmental Council Chair - Larry Peterson

Comox Valley Land Trust - Jack Minard

Tsolum River Restoration Society - Wayne White

Local Archeology Student (published study of ancient fishing weirs in the estuary) - Nancy Green

This group has created a vision and is currently working with local government to facilitate planning.

Stewardship & Community

Very interesting session in Campbell River hosted by PSF on Georgia Strait coho and facilitated by Dr. Brian Riddell. Many good suggestions emerged and we are hoping this initiative will move forward.

Province OF BC

Ministry of Environment and Mines and Energy are involved with the completion of the mine cover on Mt. Washington.

The geomembrane is in place and a full soil cover will be completed by August 2010. The site will then be planted and returned to a natural alpine meadow

Invasive Species

Japanese Knotweed continues to be a real problem. The Millard/Piercy Watershed Stewards have been leading efforts to control this invasive and have found that letting goats graze on it may be one of the best control methods discovered to date.

Riparian Area Conservation and Protection

From private forest logging to development we continue to see poor riparian management.

Estuary Working Group

http://maps.projectwatershed.bc.ca/documents/EstuaryVisionandGuidelines.pdf

February 2008

SEHAB ROUNDTABLE CONTRIBUTION – NORTH CENTRAL VANCOUVER ISLAND

REPRESENTATIVE – JACK MINARD
4916 Island Highway N.
Courtenay BC
V9N 1Z5
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Office (250) 703-2871
Home - 250.338.4934
Cell – 250.897.4670

COMMUNITY ADVISOR – DAVE DAVIES
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
O – 250.339.0431

General
I have had very little contact with constituency groups over the past few months. People who I have talked with however repeat the same four issues SEHAB has identified as priorities:
1) Lack of Resources, regulation and policy to properly protect fish and fish habitat
2) Lack of stock assessment to properly inform harvesting or the WSP
3) A lack of assessment, monitoring or enforcement with particularly “low-risk” activities but also with land use decisions and subsequent losses of habitat. (i.e. The Millard/Piercy estuary now has a condo development on it and there is no opportunity for the estuary to function properly anymore)
4) Confusion and very different benchmarks of protection with the RAR and the perception that the “development friendly” QEP’s are getting the work…

Oceanside Area
Georgia Basin Vancouver Island Living Rivers Fund has provided funding for the continuation of the Plan through meetings, media contacts and this newsletter. As well, GBLR has funded the MVIHES Water Limited project. Water Limited is delving into what we know, and what we don't know, about our water in the Oceanside area and the Regional District. People may have seen articles in the PQ News plus several information ads - both displaying the Water Limited logo.

The severe drought of 2003 that saw the burning of both BC interior forests and nearby subdivisons was a wake-up call for those responsible for fire safety all over the province. Recommendations were that communities should determine areas of greatest risk. Of particular concern locally, are the areas around the Englishman River Estates subdivision and the Middlegate subdivision. A program to remove "fuel" from the forests along the river was initiated in the summer of 2006. However in the event of a serious fire, more than 900 people could be trapped because there is only one exit- Englishman River Road . One solution that is being pondered is connecting The Englishman River and Middlegate subdivisions with Allsbrook Road via the gravel road through the Regional Park . One big problem exists though - there would have to be a crossing of Morison Creek. One has to wonder why issues like this are not resolved before any development takes place. More to come on this item.
A fish survey in June started off a bio-inventory of the Englishman River estuary. Led by fisheries biologist, Dave Clough, volunteers netted, counted and identified the creatures that inhabit the shoreline and the intertidal channels of the estuary.

Habitat restoration and preservation play an important role in watershed health. For the fish, we are finding that more and more, ocean survival is a factor as well. So with that in mind, our estuary project will include the shoreline and near marine environment. Already the eelgrass beds have been mapped and assessed and an exciting new project (watch for it) will involve mapping the spawning areas of forage fish - those important little fish that our salmon and other larger fish feed on that have, until now, been largely ignored.

Our many partners include Vancouver Foundation, Georgia Basin Vancouver Island Living Rivers Fund, Mountain Equipment Coop, Environment Canada's EcoAction, City of Parksville , Regional District of Nanaimo, The Nature Trust of B.C., Ministry of Environment, Shell Environmental Fund, Pacific Salmon Foundation, SeaChange Marine Conservation Society, Parksville-Qualicum Beach Community Foundation, Fisheries & Oceans, Arrowsmith Naturalists, Streamkeepers.

Comox Valley
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:27:21 -0800
From: Barry Minaker
Subject: RE: ACCAC follow-up
To: Jack Minard This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

If a resolution were to refer to the failure of the RAR to adequately
protect the environment I would want evidence to that effect I will pass on
to you a letter from Doug Swift stating his views. I hope to get Ronna Rae
to the new electoral area services meeting next month to address this issue.
I think it would be a good idea to send such a resolution to UBCM we have a
few months to prepare it. I would be looking to put together some good
supporting evidence to be able to speak to it in a knowledgeable way. I did
check the link that you sent to me from the West coast environmental law
group on the RAR but was on old article that speculated on its probable
failure. Let us continue to work on this resolution
Barry

From Doug Swift
One major change since the initial and subsequent signing of the MoU is the reduction in resources in DFO and I believe in MoE as well. In April 2003 the HCMP program sunsetted and we lost our Habitat Auxiliaries and I think Alison Mewett's position in the CSRD was changed as well. In addition there have been four full time habitat management staff retire from DFO on Vancouver Island since that time which have not been replaced. Overall, including the Habitat Auxiliaries, we have lost about 1/2 our strength since 2003 leaving 9 staff to cover VI, the mainland inlets and Sunshine Coast. To compensate we each have taken on much larger areas, for example I cover the Comox Valley, Port Alberni, Ucluelet, Tofino and parts of Gold River/Tahsis. I am brining this up as if we do sign the MoU with the CSRD and MoE I do not know how much support can be provided given the present workloads.

Overall the RAR appears to be working in the Comox Valley. I have attended meetings with my colleagues in other parts of Vancouver Island who have told me of the problems that they have encountered, often it seems due to the QEP's themselves and at times the local government. Here in the Comox Valley we have some very capable and diligent QEP's and the local governments have accepted that the RAR is here and is the way business is being carried out. I do not know if the developers/landowners appreciate the RAR though, especially the individual property owner who want to make some changes to their house or whatever which may be within 30 m of a stream. They see the RAR as an extra and perhaps unnecessary cost. The RAR does provide some consistency as far as how the width of the setbacks or SPEA are established but I do not think it has reduced our workload, in fact in some ways it has increased it.
There are some changes as a result of the RAR. For example, on the smaller streams, in fact all but the largest streams, the setbacks /SPEA under the RAR are generally coming in at 10-13 m in width. Under the land development guidelines the setbacks would normally be 15-30m. If the science is sound in the RAR methodology then maybe this is not a problem but it has taken one of the negotiating tools that we once had away from us. In the past we could relax a setback say from 30m to 20-25m in return for some additional stormwater management features. This would help the developer to pay for these features through reduced setbacks, which would still be quite a bit wider than under the RAR. The way it is now there is nothing to negotiate with when the PEA's are coming in less than 15m in width.

The other issue is enforcement. The RAR relies on the Fisheries Act and/or local bylaws to enforce the RAR. It has always been difficult to deal with small scale impacts to riparian areas under the Fisheries Act. It is difficult to get an expert witness testify to such incidents, the court does not want to hear minor cases and the Department of Justice normally would not approve them. So who does enforce the measures recommended by the QEP in the RAR report? If it is a sediment related issue DFO can issue and Inspector Direction which compels the owner to take certain measures to prevent sediment from entering fish bearing waters. But it has to be a significant risk before we can issue the direction so it is not a catch all for every problem. If the owner/developer does significant damage to the SPEA we may be able to charge, but if the impact is just a few trees, likely not. If the RAR report recommends that the owner plant certain areas in the setback (SPEA) who enforces this if it is not done.
I see a real role for the local government in the enforcement the RAR under local bylaws or DP's.

I note that there are some proposed changes in the Fisheries Act being presented. Although I do not have any details one of the changes is to make regulations for lower risk activities as they pertain to habitat. This may increase DFO's ability to deal with the type of issues that I have been discussing once these changes work their way through parliament.

Proposed addition to the Comox Valley Conservation Strategy

Preamble: A Valley-wide approach to conservation requires all governing jurisdictions to adapt a common method of collecting and displaying conservation habitats (i.e. through maps). Since the environment is subject to change over time, such maps require review and updating. To avoid duplication and confusion as to quality and currency of maps, a central collection and referral agency is required. In the past, this work has been undertaken, in part, by the voluntary sector, namely, by Project Watershed based on its ability to attract private foundation funding.

Purpose: To identify and adaquately resource a single-source environmental mapping organization (such as Project Watershed to:

(A) Organize and maintain a public repository for Sensitive Habitat information maintaining both a Desktop GIS and Internet-based Sensitive Habitat & Inventory Mapping (SHIM) GIS;

(B) Act as technical experts in the area of watershed inventory and GIS mapping and be responsible for day by day management of the repository;

(C) Be responsive to requests for updates to the SHIM GIS and mapping inventory of other important conservation features (following a common referral protocol);

(D) Maintain an inventory of sophisticated mapping equipment and a supply of suitably trained technicians to do mapping work for both private and public groups requiring additional environmental mapping on a cost plus administrative fee basis;

(E) Maintain membership in the Community Mapping network as a way to share resources among other communities and stay current with new advancements such as new "open source" mapping software (Mapguide, "Enterprise" edition) as well as other sources of advancement that allow for interconnections with other information technologies and mapping networks and ubiquitous services such as "Google Earth";

(F) Provide web-based training to Comox Valley residents, environmental groups, stream and wetland keepers and others who wish to develop their own mapping capability using web-based GIS tools;

(G) Act as a resource to local governments and NGOs in the Comox Valley on environmental mapping issues;

(H) Act as public educators and advocates for the concept that community environmental stewardship is people working together and acting upon their collective sense of responsibility to take care of local land, air and water environments.

To Doug swift
DFO

Dear Doug,

As you know, a blowdown occurred in Headquarters creek adjacent to our hatchery in the spring of 2007 after TimberWest had logged the area. Damage included trees in the river and a broken hatchery waterline. An onsite meeting between yourself on behalf of DFO, TimberWest representatives and Tsloum River Restoration Society soon after resulted in your directive to TimberWest that they clean up the mess : removing trees from the river, fixing some large woody debris to the bank and topping some trees that you thought were in danger of a future blowdown and which could destabilize the bank further.
None of the work was carried out.

Another onsite meeting between ourselves and TimberWest representatives was held on Oct.18. It was obvious then that it was too late in the year, that the water level was too high for instream work. TimberWest agreed to submit another proposal to yourself. Their explanation as to why the work had not been done was that the foreman responsible had died and noone at TImberWest realized this was on his agenda.
In fairness to TimberWest, they also had a strike and we did not pick up their error in time to remind them before water levels werer too high.

I would like to point out that we appreciate the timely, direct and professional manner with which you personally have dealt with us. We are aware that a cooperative relationship between us is to all our advantages, including the fish. We also realize that groups such as ourselves can complement your mandate in a number of areas. This seems to be especially important in light of DFO cutbacks in both funding and people.

Having said all that, we still have questions:
1. Has TimberWest submitted a second propoposal, have you approved it and what is the time frame?
2. Are there any consequences for a private landowner (in this case TimberWest) not carrying out a DFO directive in a timely manner?
3. What is DFO's enforcement policy in this type of situation?

I would like to point out that more trees fell across the river in the storm last week. One has to wonder if it would have happened if the directed work had been done.

October 2007

SEHAB ROUNDTABLE CONTRIBUTION – NORTH CENTRAL VANCOUVER ISLAND
REPRESENTATIVE – JACK MINARD
4916 Island Highway N.
Courtenay BC
V9N 1Z5
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
H/O - 250.338.4934
Cell – 250.897.4670

COMMUNITY ADVISOR – DAVE DAVIES
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
O – 250.339.0431

October 27, 2007

General:
Locally the Mt. Washington Minesite reclamation plan is moving forward, next step – Provincial and Federal Treasury Boards. Estimated $4-5m will be required to implement.
The Comox Valley Land Trust’s “Comox Valley Conservation Strategy – Nature without Borders” is moving forward. A Working Group (WG) is in place with their mandate is to achieve “buy-in” in the community. Interestingly, the WG is dropping “urban containment” boundaries as a recommendation. It is felt that to really affect long-term conservation of sensitive ecosystems (including all riparian zones) the area earmarked for conservation is establish first development then proceeds outside these areas. It is felt that if Urban Containment is established development, and most likely low density development, will rapidly reach infill. The effort than will be to “push” the UC boundary into ag land and sensitive ecosystems. It is also felt that by creating a UC small, extremely important sensitive systems will be lost by infill development.
The Strategy is gaining buy-in and has become a template for conservation in Growth Management locally.
TimberWest has made a commitment to leave 15 m riparian strips on all their private forest land. This would include a 5 m “no touch” zone along all wetlands, creeks and rivers with 10 m only being harvested away from the southern exposure and only the most merchantable of trees. Basically this is entrenched in the new private forest regulations but TW has made a commitment to go somewhat further.
Pinks low except for Quinsam, all groups got their eggs this year. Chum coming in and coho starting no indication of numbers yet.
Enforcement remains a top issue with volunteer groups asking about the status of the EPMP recommendations and follow up from the DFO/ENGO process.
Another question, asked in many different ways, that volunteers express is “How can we get Pacific Fisheries higher on the Federal agenda?”
Seal predation remains a problem in the Courtenay River, and with fishers generally. There is a mix of opinion with many calling for a cull and a deterrent fence with many others only interested in these measures as a part of an overall plan to improve fish stocks by restorative action and informed fisheries decision making. There is a call generally for more resources to restore habitat.
A great deal of interest is being expressed about development/approvals/notifications being subject in some manner to local stewardship and conservation group’s unique knowledge of their area. Many groups are asking for a formal way of participating in development and other approvals both Federal and Provincial.
Much concern about Coho and Climate Change.
Volunteerism continues to be reducing. Some of the reason is many more people are working and working later in life as well but, what I hear often is comments about not wanting to do the Government’s job if the Government doesn’t respect what we do or protect what we accomplish vigorously
There appears to be some improving relationship with Province with some groups receiving positive feedback around trout enhancement.
A Water symposium is in planning stage for Central VI. Will take place in Courtenay, spring 2008.
-Respectfully Submitted Oct 27, 2007
Jack Minard

June 2007

Dave Davies - East Coast Vancouver Island (Nanoose to oyster River), West Coast Vancouver Island (Nootka Sound to Kyuquot Sound)
SEHAB Representative: Jack Minard

Four basic issues have dominated the communications I have received over the past few months
1.    Problem seals in the Courtenay River
2.    General relationship with BCMoE
3.    Growth Planning and a perceived lack of inter-jurisdictional cooperation
4.    Concerns around changes to the Fisheries Act

1.    Groups asking for a lethal cull of problem seals. See attached letter from CVEC
2.    Groups dismayed at the lack of follow through with the Province’s claim of valuing community. See attached letter.
3.    In our rapidly growing communities there are concerns that a lack of regional planning is occurring. No integration while several initiatives underway Federally and Provincially (i.e. EPMP, RAR, WSP, etc.)
4.    Lots of emails and questions about bill C-45
Notes and letters from Groups on the central Island:
Jack-- speaking as co-chair of the Courtenay Fish and Game Protective Association Sportsfishing Committee, I am requesting that you pass along to any and all DFO reps that attend your meeting, the deep anger and disappointment of our association with the incompetent way the seal problem in the Courtenay River has been handled. Ten years ago, there were the same complaints-- "Get on with it!!!" Finally 50 problem seals were removed and the summer run chinook rebounded.   But not this time!! After leading the public down the garden path, South Coast Management has decided that they need to have a PLAN!!! and MORE public meetings!!! Incredible! Distasteful as killing a small number of seals is, the alternative is to sit by and watch the summer runs go the way of the steelhead.... And that is something that our association is not willing to be a party to.
Damn- I can't believe I almost missed mentioning Chris Hilliar’s retirement too!!! I know that you will let the troops know, Jack. In talks in dark corners, I have it on good account that he will be back in the habitat wars after he and Molly get away for a little quality time together.
Thanks. You might not be aware of the depth of our troubles with M.O.E. Nobody has attended our meetings for over a year and a half, letters to the Minister get passed off to subordinates for evasion and outright denial, we get hostile, false and irrational e-mails from Bob Hooton in Nanaimo, and still no action to deal with the problems- to name but a few. I have a letter into the Premier on the subject (again), the local NDP intend to hold an open house on the subject, Shane Simpson (Environment Critic for NDP) is supposed to have been asking questions in the House, and Bill Bennett ( MLA , Liberal, Kelowna ) is asking questions on behalf of the Outdoor Caucus of the Government, and keeping us informed. Anything you can do to exert pressure for change would be useful. I will send you a copy of my letter to Gordon Campbell in case you want more material. Roy Fussell
--------------------------------------------------------
PUNTLEDGE RIVER RESTORATION COMMITTEE
c/o 1293 Kye Bay Road, Comox, B.C. V9M 3T6
(250)-339-0791
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
May 11, 2007
Office of the Premier
Box 9041 Stn Prov Govt
Victoria, B.C.
V8W 9E1
Dear Premier Campbell:
I had some correspondence with you at the end of 2004 concerning fish species in the Puntledge River, namely steelhead, resident rainbow trout and cutthroat trout, for which the Province is responsible, and which are likely going extinct. I also complained that our communications with the Ministry responsible, then W.L.A.P., were very poor. My original letter was 5 Nov. 2004; your excellent reply was 19 Nov., and my following thank you letter was 11 Dec. 2004 in which I reported your Office had created a great improvement in communications.
Unfortunately, I must now report that communications are worse than ever. With the name change to the Ministry of the Environment, the fish seem to be even closer to extinction than ever. It seems names change, but people and organizations do not. I realize that you are very busy, and I will not be at all offended if you pass this matter to an assistant. However, in my view it is important, and is related to extinction of species in British Columbia, with economic consequences. Our mandate is only to the Puntledge, but I am told that much the same is happening on other Vancouver Island rivers, and my personal experience would support that view.
I would like to remind you that the Puntledge River Restoration Committee was set up with representatives of Federal Government, Provincial Government and Local Government, together with B.C. Hydro, local interest groups such as the Fish and Game Protective Association, the Steelhead Society, the Fly Fishers Club, and the Environmental Council which also pays any expenses. Catherine Bell M.P has not yet attended, but says she wants to. Nevertheless we are in close contact, and she has taken a couple of things for us to Ottawa. The Hon. Stan Hagen is President and his Assistant attends regularly. We are a rather respectable group and together have a lot of expertise available. We are non-partisan, of course, although it is difficult not to lay blame on the agency that is responsible for our fish and is letting them die out; and moreover actively prevents us from doing anything to help.
For example, we had a program by which we captured cutthroat for breeding purposes. B.C. Hydro provided the traps, the Fish and Game Association provided the labour and the Federal Hatchery looked after raising the fish. It was quite successful. However, the Ministry ordered it closed down on the excuse of incompetence in the Federal Hatchery, an excuse as unbelievable then as now. I am told that similar action has happened on other rivers on the Island, and jealousy is the supposed reason. This year some cutthroat volunteered for breeding by swimming into the Hatchery, but your Ministry ordered them turned out. I doubt if they were successful in breeding in the wild ¬ they certainly have not been before.
Letters of protest over the Ministry’s treatment of the Puntledge and its apparent apathy have been sent from the Councils of Cumberland, Comox, and Courtenay, the Environment Council and others, and of course from this Committee, all to no avail. Letters of reply are evasive but appear to be saying that the Ministry of the Environment has no intention of trying to remedy the situation. I give an example later. No representative of the Ministry has attended any of our meetings for over a year and a half now.
Following the failure of the steelhead program, in which the steelhead died (and nobody knows why because there was no study before, during nor after) and the cancellation of the program, your Ministry cancelled the cutthroat program also, which although it was a poorly disorganized thing, was at least something. The resident rainbow have not been helped at all for quite some years now.
By contrast, salmon have been improved greatly by the Federal Government. Fishing for trout has been substantially closed for some fifteen years, but stocks have not improved. They have got much worse, in fact, and now your Ministry has this year opened the River to fishing so there will be mortality.
I will quote my own correspondence. I wrote to Minister the Hon. Barry Penner on 26 Oct. 2006   basically requesting some stocking of at least some resident rainbow before they become extinct. (Normally this is done by capturing a few wild fish and raising their progeny.) Although I reminded a couple of times I got no reply. I did however get a very forceful e-mail on Nov. 16, 2006 from Mr. Bob Hooton, who is head of your Nanaimo office, accusing me of all sorts of things, mostly quite wrong. Most people thought it was very rude and they got very angry. The e-mail was quite public, because Mr. Hooton had sent it to my e-mail list, which is quite long, which means it was sent all over. Your office was sent a copy. I waited a while, consulted the Committee and then wrote a rebuttal, which was quite easy because his message was full of errors. A copy of this also came to your office.
Mr. Hooton then wrote again, getting more and more outlandish, and again the e-mail was widely circulated, including to your office. I doubt that sending it to you was intentional. At this point I thought that the matter was getting very silly, so did not reply in public. However I wrote some notes in reply and lodged them with Hon. Stan Hagen’s office, for the record. You could get a. copy if you wanted of course. It is significant that all these e-mails also went, possibly again by error on Mr. Hooton’s part, to the Minister of the Environment. I would regard his actions as very unprofessional, yet neither the Hon. Barry Penner nor Nancy Wilkin have ever alluded to them, and certainly have never apologized.
In the end, a reply to my letter to the Minister came from Nancy Wilkin, Assistant Deputy Minister, dated Jan 1, 2007. However, by the time it got here, I was out of the country. When I got back it was presented to the Puntledge River Committee who were quite angry and requested me to write a very strong letter to the Minister. After consideration and consultation, I see no point repeating writing to the Minister. Many of us have done that already, thus this letter.
The letter to me was supposedly from Nancy Wilkin, but most of it appears, by style and content, to have been written by Mr. Hooton. (He has told us before that all letters to the Minister come to him.) It starts by repeating back to me some of my statements about the Freshwater Fishing Society, but claiming they are their own and they are correcting us and telling us something we did not know. The next paragraph pursues some red herrings, including brown trout. Towards the end we have “I am also advised that resident rainbow stocking into coastal streams already home to the native cutthroat, steelhead, and a broad spectrum of salmon is not considered a good use of hatchery fish.”
Federal Government says that trout are no threat to salmon, so otherwise the statement seems to say the Ministry will not stock in order to protect the cutthroat and steelhead, and presumably will not stock with cutthroat to protect rainbow and steelhead, and will not stock with steelhead to protect the rainbows and cutthroat. The Ministry had already cancelled the cutthroat and steelhead programs. That was why I was writing. So the Ministry will do nothing. I note however, there was no attempt to counter my claims of impending extinction. I have been raising this for three years now, for example in my letter to you in 2004, and nobody has challenged me.
The rest of the letter repeats something about the agenda, which is another excuse for non-attendance and which I have already dealt with a number of times, and the Ministry has since shifted to other excuses. There is no mention of e-mails, nor of endangered species, nor of any plans to remediate. Ms. Wilkin then closes with” ... participation at meetings ... have been addressed previously and discussed at the PRRC meeting I attended March 25 2006.” Mr. Hooton also claims to have attended a meeting of the PRRC at around the same time and delivered a stern lecture to us. There have been no such meetings. Neither have ever met with the Puntledge River Restoration Committee and of course no message has ever been delivered.
There seems to be a lot of confusion in the Ministry. And dysfunction.
Thank you for your attempt at improving communications in 2004. In fact a representative did attend meetings for a while. Unfortunately, he was very patronizing, lectured us at great length, frequently asked us for money and was quite disruptive to our meetings, and sometimes rude we thought. Members got angry and eventually we had to ask that the Ministry send someone else and the Ministry withdrew him but sent nobody else.   We suppose we were the object of tactics. Nobody has attended for well over a year and a half now. There were other communication problems. A letter I wrote opposing a cutthroat funding proposal as being a waste of taxpayers’ money was included, I was told in that funding proposal as showing that the PRRC was in full support. Surely this was misrepresentation. My writing was quite forceful and not unclear.
Another time I found out the PRRC was being stated officially as being responsible for and in charge of a cutthroat program when we most certainly were not. Thus I cannot see any point in trying to repair co-operative relations again, except possibly with outside help, and it is my opinion that it is probably better that M.O.E. remain absent rather than have further disruption and negativity.
I think the only way out of this, and to save the fish, is if you would call in an impartial expert, or more than one, in order to investigate and make recommendations, with some assurance that the recommendations would be followed. I have something like the Cheakamus situation in mind. And I request this investigation please.
I would of course be quite happy to discuss this matter with anyone.
Sincerely
Roy Fussell, Chair,
Puntledge River Restoration Committee.
pc: Hon. Stan Hagen.
Name/Address
Dear Mr. Beggs,
Problem seals in the Courtenay and Puntledge Rivers are not responding in the manner hoped for with the use of the electric fence deterrent that has been deployed on several occasions his spring. These seals have been observed actually waiting for the deterrent to be shut off and are moving quickly into the backlit areas of the 17th and 5th street Bridges and have been observed as far upstream as the Condensory Bridge as soon as the deterrent has been removed. The deterrent would have to be in place 100% of the time that fry are outmigrating for it to work and yet these habituated predators would still decimate outmigrating fry by remaining just downstream of the deterrent.
The Comox Valley Environmental Council (CVEC) commends the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for its concerted attempts to reduce the impacts of seal predation without resorting to lethal means and that any approach towards solving this problem that incorporates a number of means to reduce the number of fatalities both of fish and seal would be preferred by the Council.
Capture and relocation has not worked in the past however, and lethal removal, while controversial with our community, may be the only short-term solution to a growing problem. Some 30+ seals were observed again just last night (May 17, 2007) in these areas.
The community would likely accept lethal removal of these problem seals if it was only the tip of a long-term and holistic management plan to protect production and wild fry from the Puntledge River and the struggling but slowly improving Tsolum River outmigration. Human effort and tax dollars are producing the fish required to populate these rivers but this money and effort is largely being lost to an abundance of harbour seals known to consume literally millions of these outmigrating smolts. Fragile coho and chinook stocks simply cannot survive this concentrated predation.
A longer-term management plan would have to include a holistic and ecological approach. A primary food source for seals, for example, is hake. DFO has authorized a significant fishery on this species and reductions of this species “forces” seals to look elsewhere for their sustenance. Current herring fisheries continue to decimate herring stocks that have affected orca whale stocks that have in turn allowed seal populations to rise with reduced predation of seal pups by this species. Managing seals alone cannot accomplish management of seal predation; the entire food chain must be managed to the best of our current understanding and ability.
Kelp planting in the estuary, complexing to offer refuge, the enhancement of stocks, restoration of lost and damaged habitats and protection from human incursion into salmonid habitats would begin to round out a holistic approach.
The CVEC recommends that, instead of concentrating only on the short-term removal of problem seals in the Courtenay and Puntledge Rivers, such a holistic approach be developed with expertise available and a commitment of effort and dollars to such a program. We further recommend the development of, or a redefining of an existing, protection, restoration and enhancement committee be undertaken to address both the short-term lethal removal of the existing problem seals in conjunction with a longer term ecological approach.

In the meantime and under the circumstances mentioned above, the CVEC supports the lethal removal of these problem seals and would encourage immediate implementation. Seal pups will be born soon and waiting to implement a cull will mean orphaned pups. If we are to implement lethal measures, let’s not add the suffering of these animals’ offspring.
Sincerely,
CVEC
FANNY BAY SALMONID ENHANCEMENT SOCIETY (FBSES)
The Annual General Meeting (AGM) was held on May 10th at the Rosewall Hatchery. We all enjoyed the guest speaker Darcy Miller, the new manager of Big Qualicum, Little Qualicum and Rosewall Hatcheries (Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO). Dave Davies our community advisor for DFO was also on hand to add words of support to our group. Elections were held, and the keen new Board of directors is as follows:
President – Judy Ackinclose
Vice President – Jim Burgess
Secretary – Terri Matheson
Treasurer – Dave Sands
Directors – Jessy Burgess, Pam Lengyel, Nelson Eddy, Doug Mole, Finn Keim, Bill Jackson and John Bradbury.
At the AGM, directors gave a brief overview of the past year’s work. Pam presented the survival rates of egg to fry which was 97% for chum and 93% for coho. It must be that good Rosewall water!
We are all looking forward to a busy year and there are a variety of plans for the summer in addition to the very important fry salvage work. There are major restoration projects for Chef Creek (Salmonberry Ponds), Cook Creek (mainstem and Relic side channel), Mud Bay Creek, Bob Springs Creek. By the end of these projects, hopefully it will be time for our pink salmon return and then we will be into broodstock time. Presently, we are doing our regular smolt count at Waterloo Creek. This important data is sent to DFO and in turn they allot us some funding.
We have also received confirmation from Pacific Salmon Foundation that we were successful in our grant proposals for a number of our projects. The funding is close to $27,000 and we have also received another $2,000 from the Mid Island Castaways Fly Fishing group in Qualicum Beach for the Bob Springs Creek Project.
These are exciting times for us as we will see several of our habitat enhancement projects completed this summer. We need to have more people involved so if you can help at anytime it would be terrific and we know you would enjoy the experience. There are many different areas within our group that may be of interest to you from fish salvage, to tree planting, to broodstock take, to hatchery maintenance … something for everyone! The work days are Wednesday and Saturday 9 to 12 at the Rosewall Hatchery on Berray Rd, we look forward to seeing you there!!! Keep buying those Duckie Tickets and support your local salmon enhancement group!!
For information, please call Judy Ackinclose at 335-0010 or Dave Sands at 757-9807.
By Judy Ackinclose

February 2007

May 2006

SEHAB ROUNDTABLE CONTRIBUTION - CENTRAL VANCOUVER ISLAND
REPRESENTATIVE – JACK MINARD
COMMUNITY ADVISOR – DAVE DAVIES
FEBRUARY 18, 2006

SEHAB Roundtable Issues Raised:

•    Some positive Bouquets:           CA program, especially Dave Davies
Excellent local DFO enforcement officer (Sandy Lochbaum).

The singlemost important issues surround the breakdown in protection of the work we do. There is a cry coming up from the trenches that says “All our work could be in vain!”
•    Rapid development and environmental impacts
•    Breakdown of communication/monitoring/environmental protection of construction/development projects
Millard/Piercy Estuary – City engineers working with developers to encroach seriously into both TNT protected land and completely mapped and established estuarial area. No Government involvement to protect the environment. TNT upset but too late to do anything.
•    City Engineers/developers/resource extraction “fighting” for less environmental protection
So much of work and communication seems to be with "the converted".   Does your mail list include representatives of local government, MLA's, MP's, board members of professional organizations?

I just got off the phone with the City Engineer for Parksville and I will tell you "we have much work to do".
The following debacle is the “violation of the Month” on Salmonopolis
The creek has not been moved during the Intrawest Craig Bay Estates development process. What has changed, is the developer (Intrawest/Intracorp) with the City of Parksville's approval, has changed their development of cluster 2-3 story town homes with a small golf course to a more spread out, single level configuration which has pushed the limits of this land and definitely encroached on the Craig Creek riparian zone. The photos in Salmonopolis were taken in December 2004 when there was a significant amount of sediments entering the stream from this development. Intracorp has accepted environmental awards for some of their Whistler developments, unfortunately there has been no attempt to protect the sensitive Craig Creek riparian habitat and floodplain. The sediment laden storm water from the CB Estates is now directed into Craig Bay causing a major algal bloom in early summer and water flows are redirected from the lower Craig Creek system. Some awareness of this problem and good will from the developer to replant the west side of the creek and donate to a conservancy the east remnant forest lands is the best solution at this point.

The greatest impact today is coming from the Timberstone development across Northwest Bay Road directly upslope to the estuary, their settlement ponds failed yesterday and dirty water has been running across the road into the estuary for months, with yesterday likely the worst event. You could report the habitat violation of the month regarding this development as it has been impacting the lower estuary for months and now is a good time for the photos.

Where is the RDN, DFO, MOE etc? I will do what I can, hopefully more pressure can be brought on to rectify these issues.
Michael Jessen, P.Eng.
Director of
French Creek Residents Association
Friends of French Creek Conservation Society
Arrowsmith Watersheds Coalition Society
Member, Parksville Streamkeepers
•    Stewardship groups need to think/know that somebody else (with some authority or mandate to assist and protect) cares about their streams
•    Sudden changes to existing programmes/projects without notice or consultation
•    Programs that start and then disappear (water quality monitoring e.g.)
Our group was wondering why D.F.O. wouldn't support our group after enhancing the Gold and Burman Rivers for the past twenty five years. (Gold River Chinook Project) Our eggtake targets were set at 250,000 Gold River coho, 500,000 Gold River chinook and 500,000 Burman River chinook. We are of the under standing that no coho eggs were taken and only approximately 110,000 chinook eggs were taken from both streams combined this past fall. Our contract was given to another group with out any consultation from D.F.O. Why break something when it doesn't need Fixed? Our group always obtained eggtakes greater than 500.000 eggs. D.F.O. should reconsider its position and let us get back to enhancing Nootka Sound chinook and coho..

Sincerely yours Dale Frame

•    Seal Predation
What bugs me is the predation of salmon by seals. I have been writing to Fisheries Ministers and deputy's for years about the over population of seals in Georgia Straight, DFO by their own figures over 10% of fish hooked by sportfishers are lost to seals and I don't understand that something is not done when are DFO biologists going to recommend a seal fishery? There is also a large predation of Ling Cod by seals, especially while the male is guarding the eggs I am told . A seal cull is a bad word, A seal harvest on a small scale to control the population in some areas, if done properly, it may create a small industry .We have created a imbalance in nature, we must harvest in equal manner, I feel it is our responsibility to recreate that balance.

One thing that really upsets me is the Vancouver Aquarium spends close to 300 thousand dollar's a year on seal rehabilitation, same time trying to reclaim a creek in the park for coho.
Would really like your thoughts on this and pass it on to the group?

Thanking you in advance James Mc Ginnis – Fanny Bay Enhancement Society

•    DFO Supports stretched too thin

Sandy Lochbaum
Nanaimo Habitat Branch Mel and Russ and Doug
Doug Swift
Not enough habitat personnel
Need more enforcement officers

•    East Coast VI coho returns

•    Forestry, particularly logging in headwaters/loss of riparian

•    How DFO allocates its budget - a cry for more money where the fish are

•    Individual Transferable Quotas for West Coast Fisheries - the further privatization of the People of Canada's resource

•    Fisheries act renewal - What does it mean?

•    Aquaculture vs Wild fish

DFO science questioned - politics or fish?

•    Climate change/global warming

February 2006

SEHAB ROUNDTABLE CONTRIBUTION - CENTRAL VANCOUVER ISLAND
REPRESENTATIVE – JACK MINARD
6963 Railway Avenue
Courtenay BC
V9J 1N4
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
O – 250.337.5077
C – 250.897.4670
H - 250.337.2190
COMMUNITY ADVISOR – DAVE DAVIES
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
O – 250.339.0431

FEBRUARY 18, 2006

General:

There are a lot of good things going on in this area - Community Education, stock assessments and enhancement as well as habitat work.

The Tsolum River Restoration Society asked six questions of the North Vancouver Island federal candidates and their responses can be viewed at www.tsolumriver.org

One of the most significant issues that has arisen in our area is about the sanctity of OCP’s and LAP’s. It would appear that after huge community consultations to find out and duly record the community’s vision of what they want their community to look like, developers and planners with the support of elected officials can change these without further community consultation. There is a gathering force that is holding officials feet to the fire and demanding that OCP’s and LAP’s be enforced and upheld or they must go back to the electorate for changes.

SEHAB Roundtable Issues Raised:

•    Some positive Bouquets:           CA program, especially Dave Davies
Excellent local DFO enforcement officer (Sandy Lochbaum).

The singlemost important issues surround the breakdown in protection of the work we do. There is a cry coming up from the trenches that says “All our work could be in vain!”
•    Rapid development and environmental impacts
•    Breakdown of communication/monitoring/environmental protection of construction/development projects
Millard/Piercy Estuary – City engineers working with developers to encroach seriously into both TNT protected land and completely mapped and established estuarial area. No Government involvement to protect the environment. TNT upset but too late to do anything.
•    City Engineers/developers/resource extraction “fighting” for less environmental protection
So much of work and communication seems to be with "the converted".   Does your mail list include representatives of local government, MLA's, MP's, board members of professional organizations?

I just got off the phone with the City Engineer for Parksville and I will tell you "we have much work to do".
The following debacle is the “violation of the Month” on Salmonopolis
The creek has not been moved during the Intrawest Craig Bay Estates development process. What has changed, is the developer (Intrawest/Intracorp) with the City of Parksville's approval, has changed their development of cluster 2-3 story town homes with a small golf course to a more spread out, single level configuration which has pushed the limits of this land and definitely encroached on the Craig Creek riparian zone. The photos in Salmonopolis were taken in December 2004 when there was a significant amount of sediments entering the stream from this development. Intracorp has accepted environmental awards for some of their Whistler developments, unfortunately there has been no attempt to protect the sensitive Craig Creek riparian habitat and floodplain. The sediment laden storm water from the CB Estates is now directed into Craig Bay causing a major algal bloom in early summer and water flows are redirected from the lower Craig Creek system. Some awareness of this problem and good will from the developer to replant the west side of the creek and donate to a conservancy the east remnant forest lands is the best solution at this point.

The greatest impact today is coming from the Timberstone development across Northwest Bay Road directly upslope to the estuary, their settlement ponds failed yesterday and dirty water has been running across the road into the estuary for months, with yesterday likely the worst event. You could report the habitat violation of the month regarding this development as it has been impacting the lower estuary for months and now is a good time for the photos.

Where is the RDN, DFO, MOE etc? I will do what I can, hopefully more pressure can be brought on to rectify these issues.
Michael Jessen, P.Eng.
Director of
French Creek Residents Association
Friends of French Creek Conservation Society
Arrowsmith Watersheds Coalition Society
Member, Parksville Streamkeepers
•    Stewardship groups need to think/know that somebody else (with some authority or mandate to assist and protect) cares about their streams

•    Sudden changes to existing programmes/projects without notice or consultation
•    Programs that start and then disappear (water quality monitoring e.g.)
Our group was wondering why D.F.O. wouldn't support our group after enhancing the Gold and Burman Rivers for the past twenty five years. (Gold River Chinook Project) Our eggtake targets were set at 250,000 Gold River coho, 500,000 Gold River chinook and 500,000 Burman River chinook. We are of the under standing that no coho eggs were taken and only approximately 110,000 chinook eggs were taken from both streams combined this past fall. Our contract was given to another group with out any consultation from D.F.O. Why break something when it doesn't need Fixed? Our group always obtained eggtakes greater than 500.000 eggs. D.F.O. should reconsider its position and let us get back to enhancing Nootka Sound chinook and coho..

Sincerely yours Dale Frame
•    Seal Predation
What bugs me is the predation of salmon by seals. I have been writing to Fisheries Ministers and deputy's for years about the over population of seals in Georgia Straight, DFO by their own figures over 10% of fish hooked by sportfishers are lost to seals and I don't understand that something is not done when are DFO biologists going to recommend a seal fishery? There is also a large predation of Ling Cod by seals, especially while the male is guarding the eggs I am told . A seal cull is a bad word, A seal harvest on a small scale to control the population in some areas, if done properly, it may create a small industry .We have created a imbalance in nature, we must harvest in equal manner, I feel it is our responsibility to recreate that balance.

One thing that really upsets me is the Vancouver Aquarium spends close to 300 thousand dollar's a year on seal rehabilitation, same time trying to reclaim a creek in the park for coho.
Would really like your thoughts on this and pass it on to the group?

Thanking you in advance James Mc Ginnis – Fanny Bay Enhancement Society

•    DFO Supports stretched too thin

Sandy Lochbaum
Nanaimo Habitat Branch Mel and Russ and Doug
Doug Swift
Not enough habitat personnel
Need more enforcement officers

•    East Coast VI coho returns

•    Forestry, particularly logging in headwaters/loss of riparian

•    How DFO allocates its budget - a cry for more money where the fish are

•    Individual Transferable Quotas for West Coast Fisheries - the further privatization of the People of Canada's resource

•    Fisheries act renewal - What does it mean?

•    Aquaculture vs Wild fish

DFO science questioned - politics or fish?

•    Climate change/global warming