In a blog posting today, independent salmon biologist Alexandra Morton calls attention to the recent listing of Norway-based Marine Harvest – the world’s largest salmon farming company – on the New York Stock Exchange. The move comes on the heels of the revelation that the Harper Government is planning a major expansion of open net-pen salmon farms on BC’s coast, made public by First Nations Chief Bob Chamberlin.
As Chamberlin noted, the plan utterly disregards the conclusions of the $26 million Cohen Inquiry into collapsing Fraser River sockeye stocks, which recommended a partial moratorium on new farms and urged more scientific study into disease transfer from fish farms to wild salmon, calling for the Precautionary Principle to be implemented:
[quote]It’s time for us to hold this government to account. This is an urgent message to all the people who rely upon wild salmon in BC…I urge all of you to take a stand, to start writing letters to the editors, for First Nations people to start demanding that your chief and council stand up and do what’s right for wild salmon. We cannot sit back idly and hope something gets done. It’s up to you, it’s up to me. I want to lock arms with all of you and do what’s necessary to save wild salmon.[/quote]
For her part, Morton, connects the dots between the federal policy change and Marine Harvest’s move to recruit North American investment on the NYSE:
In early January, we learned the Harper government quietly invited the Norwegian salmon farming industry to expand in BC. He did this despite specific warnings to the opposite by his own federal Commission. He did this ignoring his constitutional responsibility to consult with First Nations. See press release by Living Oceans.
A few days later on January 28, 2014, Marine Harvest (the biggest of the three Norwegian operators using BC to grow “their” fish) was listed on the New York Stock Exchange. They rang the Opening Bell. Their press release states they plan to lead the blue revolution similar to 5000 years ago when we went from hunting to farming.They fail to mention salmon farming requires aggressive wild fisheries. Truth is a scarce commodity in this deal.
[quote]No U.S. government or international agency is monitoring the spread of low levels of radiation from Fukushima along the West Coast of North America and around the Hawaiian Islands.[/quote]
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s most recent food testing, which includes seafood, appears to be from June 2012. Its website states, “FDA has no evidence that radionuclides from the Fukushima incident are present in the U.S. food supply at levels that would pose a public health concern. This is true for both FDA-regulated food products imported from Japan and U.S. domestic food products, including seafood caught off the coast of the United States.”
Are Tuna and other fish contaminated with radiation?
The non-profit Canadian Highly Migratory Species Foundation has been monitoring Pacific troll-caught albacore tuna off the B.C. coast. Its 2013 sampling found “no residues detected at the lowest detection limits achievable.” The B.C. Centre for Disease Control website assures us we have little cause for concern about radiation from Japan in our food and environment. Websites for Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency yield scant information.
Not out of the woods yet
1,500 spent fuel rods are being removed from Fukushima Reactor 4
But the disaster isn’t over. Despite the Japanese government’s claim that everything is under control, concerns have been raised about the delicate process of removing more than 1,500 nuclear fuel rod sets, each containing 60 to 80 fuel rods with a total of about 400 tonnes of uranium, from Reactor 4 to a safer location, which is expected to take a year. Some, including me, have speculated another major earthquake could spark a new disaster. And Reactors 1, 2 and 3 still have tonnes of molten radioactive fuel that must be cooled with a constant flow of water.
[quote]The majority of the cesium-137 will remain in the North Pacific gyre – a region of ocean that circulates slowly clockwise and has trapped debris in its center to form the ‘Great Pacific Garbage Patch’ – and continue to be diluted for approximately a decade following the initial Fukushima release in 2011.[/quote]
Oceanographic Institution calls for public’s help
With the lack of data from government, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is asking the public for help. In January, Ken Buesseler, senior scientist and director of the Center for Marine and Environmental Radioactivity at the U.S.-based non-profit, launched a fundraising campaign and citizen science website to collect and analyze seawater along North America’s West Coast.
“Whether you agree with predictions that levels of radiation along the Pacific Coast of North America will be too low to be of human health concern or to impact fisheries and marine life, we can all agree that radiation should be monitored, and we are asking for your help to make that happen,” Buesseler said in a news release.
British Columbians can submit coastal water samples
Participants can help fund and propose new sites for seawater sampling, and collect seawater to ship to the lab for analysis. The David Suzuki Foundation is the point group for two sampling sites, on Haida Gwaii and at Bamfield on the west coast of Vancouver Island. Data will be published at How Radioactive Is Our Ocean?, and will include an evolving map showing cesium concentrations with links to information about radioactivity in the ocean and what the levels mean.
The oceans contain naturally occurring radioactive isotopes and radiation from 1960s nuclear testing. Buesseler doesn’t think levels in the ocean or seafood will become dangerously high because of the Fukushima disaster, but he stresses the importance of monitoring.
The Fukushima disaster was a wake-up call for the potential dangers of nuclear power plants, especially in unstable areas. North Americans may have little cause for concern for now, but without good scientific information to determine whether or not it is affecting our food and environment we can’t know for sure. The Woods Hole initiative is a good start.
With contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington.
WASHINGTON D.C., United States – Canadian officials say they’re encouraged by what they’re hearing about a long-awaited report on the environmental impact of the Keystone XL pipeline that could be released imminently by the U.S. State Department.
Those sources in Washington and Ottawa say they’ve been told the report could be ready for release within a few days — and that it will bolster the case for the controversial energy project.
“What we’re hearing is that it’s going to be positive for the project — and therefore positive for Canada,” said one diplomat in Washington, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he hadn’t seen the report himself, although he had discussed its contents with American contacts.
“The rumours certainly are that it’s very thorough and that the analysis will support the project.”
He said there was optimism amongst Canadian officials but no celebration just yet: “You’re not going to be seeing people high-fiving and toasting with champagne,” he said.
“It’s just another step (in the process).”
Canada ramps up pipeline pressure
Earlier this month, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird was in Washington pleading for a decision soon. He said enough time had been lost on the project and didn’t want to see another construction season wasted.
His U.S. counterpart, John Kerry, responded that there would be no fast-tracking the process.
The actual writing of the report began in August, according to the Canadian source in D.C. With the threat of almost-certain lawsuits looming, regardless of what the final Keystone decision might be, he said he’d heard from U.S. officials that the report authors were under pressure to be especially rigorous.
“What we need is an (environmental impact statement),” he said, “that is so thoroughly done that it will stand up to litigation.”
The report is the latest environmental impact statement on the $7-billion TransCanada project to come from the State Department, which has jurisdiction because the pipeline crosses an international boundary.
Supporters say pipeline won’t significantly affect climate change
The last report, released a year ago, concluded the project would not significantly impact the rate of oilsands development or crude oil demand, nor would it pose any greater risk to the environment than other modes of transportation. President Barack Obama has since declared that he will only approve the pipeline if it can be shown that it will not significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions.
Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said Wednesday that he expected the forthcoming report to draw the same conclusions as the last one. “There are no new facts on the ground,” Oliver said. “So you know, it’s to be expected that they would come out in the same way.”
Once that step is taken, the U.S. administration will conduct a 90-day review to determine if the project is in the national interest.
Not so fast…
Another Canadian diplomat warned against concluding that the report’s release is automatically imminent. Even if it’s slated to come in the next few days, there’s always a chance someone, somewhere, could hold up its release.
For starters, the accepted wisdom in Washington has been that the State Department document would not be released until an inspector general’s review of conflict-of-interest allegations against a consultant working on the report.
That review into the activities of contractor Environmental Resources Managament came after news that several of its consultants working on the project had also worked for TransCanada and its subsidiaries, without that previous work having been disclosed.
Gary Doer, Canada’s ambassador to the U.S., refused to speculate on the timing or content.
“We have no certainty on the timing,” Doer said in an interview.
But he expressed faith that the Canadian position would prevail: that the pipeline would be the safest, cleanest way to ship oil that would be transported to the U.S., one way or the other.
Oil-by-rail spills used to promote pipelines
Referring to train accidents, including the tragedy in Lac-Megantic, Que., Doer said events since the last State Department review had only served to reinforce the earlier conclusion.
“We believe that the facts have, regrettably, become only stronger on oil vs. rail,” he said. “We believe that (the earlier conclusion by the State Department) will be maintained: higher cost, higher (greenhouse gases) without a pipeline.”
A State Department spokesperson wouldn’t confirm anything.
“The State Department is working on the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final SEIS), addressing issues in more than 1.5 million public comments, as appropriate. There is no time line for the release of the Final SEIS,” the spokeswoman said in an email. “The Department continues to review the Presidential Permit application for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline in a rigorous, transparent, and objective manner.”
The $10 Billion proposed Site C Dam could provide power for export to California, BC Hydro representatives told the Joint Review Panel examining the project on the final day of public hearings, last week in Fort St. John.
A last-minute change to the story that keeps on changing, the new rationale for the dam confirmed the suspicions of some the hearings’ observers. “We thought we didn’t need the energy,” said the Peace Valley Environment Association’s Andrea Morison, “but we hadn’t heard from Hydro or any other credible source for a long time that it was for the U.S., and we just found out it was for California.”
Finally, in what came off as a weak, “Hail Mary” attempt to justify the dam before an increasingly skeptical review panel, BC Hydro offered the following explanation:
[quote]Our hydro capacity, including the existing capacity we have, and including Site C, is perfectly suited to helping California…We see that as a big opportunity.[/quote]
“Our trading folks are working very hard to try to find a way for us to help,” replied Chris O’Riley, Hydro’s executive vice-president overseeing generation in the province.
On one level, this makes perfect sense. Of all the reasons for building Site C, powering BC’s own homes and businesses is not one of them.
We know this because in 2012, BC exported a surplus of 5,800 gigawatt hours of power – roughly 10% of our total provincial demand. That figure more than doubled from the previous year. We’re already awash in private power we didn’t need in the first place but are forced to pay over a billion dollars a year for. On top of that, despite population increases, our demand has flatlined – BC uses roughly the same amount of electricity today as it did a decade ago.
That’s how you go from allegedly needing this power for 450,000 homes to having such an excess of it that the only possible justification for flooding the Peace Valley is selling power to California!
Rising costs drive conservation
This flatlining consumption undermines Hydro’s oft-repeated assumption that there is a direct and linear correlation between population growth and energy demand. The record suggests that’s simply not the case.
And it’s not just true in BC. According to a recent Associated Press story, the same trend can be observed south of the border – ostensibly our new market for power from Site C:
[quote]The average amount of electricity consumed in U.S. homes has fallen to levels last seen more than a decade ago, back when the smartest device in people’s pockets was a Palm pilot and anyone talking about a tablet was probably an archaeologist or a preacher. [/quote]
The combination of increased energy efficiency, conscious conservation efforts like Hydro’s Powersmart program, and higher power bills has kept consumption in check on either side of the 49th parallel.
But this should come as no surprise. Throughout its history, BC Hydro has chronically and significantly overestimated future demand – typically by 10-20% – a proud heritage that continues to this day.
Part of the issue is the way Hydro’s model for future energy demand in BC fails to take into account the effect of skyrocketing power bills for British Columbians – 28% over the next five years. And that’s without Site C, which Hydro pegs at an unbelievably low cost of $8 Billion. According to the World Bank, the average cost overrun for dams around the world is 27%. And this is the BC Liberals we’re talking about here – you know, the gang that can’t build a capital project for less than double the sticker price (see stadium roof, convention centre, Northwest Transmission Line, Port Mann Bridge).
Throw the cost of Site C on top of Hydro’s well over $20 Billion in total debt, plus over $50 Billion in high-priced contractual obligations and we can expect those bills to continue their steady climb. Just like high gas prices convince people to trade their SUVs for Corollas, so, apparently, do rate increases incentivize electricity conservation. But you won’t hear that kind of common sense from BC Hydro.
Powerex: a $750 million lesson
Before BC spends – let’s call it $10 Billion – of taxpayers’ money to build a dam which likely won’t produce one watt of energy until the middle of the next decade, let us pause for a moment to reflect on the utility’s last big foray into the California market: the scandalous energy crisis of the early 2000’s.
If we were deciding whether or not to build Site C based on typical spot market prices for power south of the border today, it would never happen – they’ve been far too low in recent years to make a profit off Site C’s costly power. In fact, this strategy would prove a big money loser, as our present experience dumping high-priced private power on the market today is teaching us.
Now, if the theory is that persistent drought conditions will mean higher electricity prices in California 10 years from now, well, that’s a $10 Billion gamble – one fraught with risk, which the Powerex debacle reminds us. Earlier this year, British Columbians were hit with a $750 million settlement relating to fraudulent power trading by Hydro’s export arm the last time the California market went into overdrive.
Thus, the dream of big exports to to California does not make for a sound foundation upon which to build Site C.
Hydro’s credibility gap
More than anything, Hydro’s continual flip-flopping on Site C’s need and its inability to accurately predict the future leave it with no credibility in the eyes of the public – and, let’s hope, the panel deciding the project’s future.
It’s time to pull the plug on Site C Dam, once and for all.
ACFN Chief Allan Adam on tour recently with Neil Young (Canadian Press)
FORT MCMURRAY, Alta. – The First Nation that was the main focus of Neil Young’s recent concert tour about Alberta’s oilsands has withdrawn from a government environmental panel.
The Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation announced Friday that it is pulling out of the Joint Oil Sands Monitoring program.
The program is the showpiece of federal-provincial efforts to monitor environmental change in the oilsands region.
A spokesman for the First Nation says it made the move because the program lacks meaningful input from aboriginals and doesn’t deal with concerns about treaty rights.
Last year the Fort McKay First Nation north of Fort McMurray pulled out of the program.
Bruce Maclean, a spokesman for the Athabasca Chipewyan, says the Alberta and federal governments aren’t serious about keeping tabs on the oilsands industry.
“It appears that the Alberta government and Environment Canada see the monitoring program as a way to assure Canadian and foreign investors that the oilsands are being developed in a sustainable way,” Maclean said.
Officials at Alberta Environment and Environment Canada were not immediately available for comment.
The First Nation said monitoring programs should include clear directives to address their concerns about land use and the environment, especially how the oilsands affect air, water and wildlife.
Maclean said the monitoring program did not include enough government money to allow First Nations to have an effective role.
Earlier this month Young played concerts in four Canadian cities to raise more than $500,000 to help the Athabasca Chipewyan band pay for a legal attempt to protect its traditional land north of Fort McMurray.
Young played in Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina and Calgary, and drew fire from politicians and industry over his comments likening the oilsands to Hiroshima.
NEW YORK – The frigid winter of 2014 is setting the price of natural gas on fire.
Friday, the price in the futures market soared past $5 per 1,000 cubic feet, up 9 per cent for the day to the highest level in three and a half years. The price of natural gas is up 29 per cent in two weeks, and is 50 per cent higher than last year at this time.
Record amounts of natural gas are being burned for heat and electricity. Meanwhile, it’s so cold that drillers are struggling to produce enough to keep up with the high demand. So much natural gas is coming out of storage that the Energy Department says supplies have fallen 20 per cent below a year ago — and that was before this latest cold spell. Says energy analyst Stephen Schork:
[quote]We’ve got record demand, record withdrawals from storage, and short-term production is threatened. It’s a dangerous market right now.[/quote]
Natural gas and electric customers are sure to see somewhat higher rates in the coming months. But they will be insulated from sharp increases because regulators often force natural gas and electric utilities to use financial instruments and fuel-buying strategies that protect residential customers from high volatility.
North America faces second major cold snap
To understand the price increase, just look at the thermometer. A second major cold snap this month is gripping much of the country, including the heavily-populated Northeast. And forecasters are now predicting colder weather in the weeks to come, extending south through Texas.
Natural gas is used by half the nation’s households for heating, making it the most important heating fuel. Electricity is the second most popular heating source, and electric power generators use natural gas to generate power more than any other fuel except for coal.
Commodity Weather Group, which predicts heating demand for energy companies and consumers, said in a report Friday that periodic breaks in the cold weather are expected to be “weaker and briefer, extending the duration of colder weather” in late January and early February.
Shale gas wells can freeze up
There are a couple of other factors at play. In the past, much of U.S. natural gas was produced in the Gulf of Mexico. If weather disrupted supplies there, it was typically in the early fall, during hurricane season, when heating and electricity demand are low and natural gas storage facilities are mostly full in preparation for winter.
Now, much of U.S. production comes from on-shore formations that are more susceptible to cold, ice and snow. Wells that are not designed for such extreme conditions can freeze, halting production.
“Now the threat to production is when demand is at its highest,” Schork says.
Also, electric utilities have for several years been switching to cheaper natural gas for power generation. And new pipelines aren’t being built fast enough to deliver all the gas required at times of high demand. That can lead to regional shortages that send prices skyrocketing.
Gas prices could remain high
When the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Station in Maryland shut down earlier this week because of an electrical problem brought on by snow and ice, power generators across the East Coast scrambled to replace the lost power by cranking up natural gas-fired plants. That sent natural gas prices for immediate delivery, known as the spot price, to a record $120 per 1,000 cubic feet in some markets on the East Coast. To put that in perspective, that’s equivalent to oil at more than $700 per barrel.
Analysts say there is plenty of gas to replenish supplies, and drillers will scramble to boost production so they can fetch prices they haven’t seen since the summer of 2010.
If, that is, the weather heats up later in February and March. If it’s still cold when baseball season opens in early April, though, Schork says, “we’ll be looking at much higher natural gas prices.”
Artist’s rendering of proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline and tanker expansion
VANCOUVER – An oil pipeline critic and New Democratic MP from British Columbia says plans by the National Energy Board to perform maintenance on its website this weekend are “ridiculous.”
Burnaby-Douglas MP Kennedy Stewart recently said his community office would hold Saturday computer labs to show people how they could apply online to participate in upcoming hearings on the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion.
The $5.4-billion Trans Mountain pipeline from Edmonton to B.C.’s coast could result in a seven-fold increase in tanker traffic in the waters that surround Vancouver.
But the National Energy Board says on its website that users could experience service interruptions, starting at 6 p.m. this evening and running until 6 a.m. Monday.
Stewart says the public application process was launched last week and is only open for 28 days.
He says the energy board has not made print copies or printable files of the application available so there is no choice but to apply online. Days Stewart:
[quote]With only 20 days yet to go, ‘network maintenance’ that takes the better part of three days is unacceptable and presents yet another challenge for people who want to have their voice heard during the hearing process. Even seeing that notice will discourage people from attempting to apply.[/quote]
Members of the Gitga’at First Nation lead a rally in Prince Rupert in 2012 (Damien Gillis)
by Dene Moore, The Canadian Press
VANCOUVER – The Gitga’at First Nation in British Columbia has filed a court challenge to the federal review panel recommendation in favour of the Northern Gateway pipeline, bringing to 10 the number of applications filed in Vancouver against the project.
The small community centred around Hartley Bay on the north coast said its way of life would be severely threatened by the bitumen-laden tankers that would navigate Douglas Channel on their doorstep.
In applications filed this week with both the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal, the band asks for a judicial review of the joint review panel’s decision.
“We’re talking about hundreds of ships passing by basically our front door… and the impact that that’s going to have on our way of life and the cultural identity of the Gitga’at people,” Cam Hill, an elected band councillor, said Wednesday.
“We are a sea-going people. Our life is on the sea.”
First Nation: Crown failed to consult
The band wants the court to declare that the panel “breached the honour of the Crown in its dealings with the Gitga’at” and failed to fulfil the Crown’s duty to consult aboriginal peoples.
They’re asking the court to quash the report and recommendations or, failing that, to refer the report back to the panel for further consideration.
The joint review panel issued a report last month recommending approval of the 1,200-kilometre pipeline from the Edmonton area to a tanker port in Kitimat, B.C. — with 209 conditions.
Ivan Giesbrecht, spokesman for Northern Gateway, said the company anticipates the court will deal quickly with the legal issues. Said Giesbrecht:
[quote]We’re confident the court will agree that the JRP process was thorough, fair, and based on sound science. In the meantime, we are focusing on the important task of meeting the conditions set forth by the province of British Columbia.[/quote]
Enbridge recommendation faces 10 legal challenges
The Federal Court registry said they have received 10 applications regarding the project with the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal. Most applicants have filed to both courts.
The Haisla Nation, the Gitxaala and several environmental groups also filed applications to both courts for a judicial review within the 30-day deadline.
The reasons for the court challenges vary, including that the panel erred in law by considering the economic benefits of the project to the Alberta oilsands, but ignoring the adverse effects of the development.
Opponents also said the panel made its decision despite gaps in the evidence, such as the absence of a federal study of diluted bitumen and how it behaves in water. That study, which found the heavier, molasses-like product sinks when mixed with sediment in salt water, was quietly released by Environment Canada after the panel wrapped up hearings.
The panel also didn’t get to consider a federal recovery strategy for humpback whales or a draft strategy for caribou, both published by Environment Canada after the hearings ended and years overdue under the federal Species At Risk Act.
All say the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency panel, which conducted the review for the agency and the National Energy Board, made legal errors in arriving at the opinion that the pipeline should be built.
Hill said the Gitga’at felt their voices really weren’t heard during the panel process.
“Court is not an avenue that we really wanted to go down,” he said.
The band did not accept any money from Northern Gateway Pipelines to fund its participation at the many months of hearings, but he declined to say where the money came from for panel participation or for a court fight.
The federal cabinet has 180 days from the time it received the report, released in December, to make a final decision.
NEW ORLEANS – A former Halliburton manager was sentenced Tuesday to one year of probation for destroying evidence in the aftermath of BP’s massive 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Anthony Badalamenti, of Katy, Texas, had faced a maximum of one year in prison at his sentencing by U.S. District Judge Jay Zainey. Badalamenti pleaded guilty in October to one misdemeanour count of destruction of evidence.
The 62-year-old also has to perform 100 hours of community service and pay a $1,000 fine.
Badalamenti was the cementing technology director for Halliburton Energy Services Inc., BP’s cement contractor on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig. Prosecutors said he instructed two Halliburton employees to delete data during a post-spill review of the cement job on BP’s blown-out Macondo well.
The judge said that the sentence of probation is “very reasonable in this case.”
“I still feel that you’re a very honourable man,” he told Badalamenti. “I have no doubt that you’ve learned from this mistake.”
Badalamenti apologized to his family and friends for causing them “undue stress”
“I am truly sorry for what I did,” he said.
Halliburton cut its own deal with the Justice Department and pleaded guilty in September to a misdemeanour charge related to Badalamenti’s conduct. The company agreed to pay a $200,000 fine and make a $55 million contribution to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, but the latter payment wasn’t a condition of the deal.
Tai Park, one of Badalamenti’s lawyers, said in October that guidelines calculated by prosecutors call for Badalamenti to receive a sentence ranging from probation to six months in prison. Zainey, however, isn’t bound by the sentencing guidelines.
Four current or former BP employees also have been charged in federal court with spill-related crimes.
On Dec. 18, a jury convicted former BP drilling engineer Kurt Mix of trying to obstruct a federal probe of the spill. Prosecutors said Mix was trying to destroy evidence when he deleted a string of text messages to and from a BP supervisor.
Mix faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. His sentencing is set for March 26.
BP well site leaders Robert Kaluza and Donald Vidrine pleaded not guilty to manslaughter charges stemming from the deaths of 11 workers on the Deepwater Horizon. Prosecutors claim Kaluza and Vidrine botched a key safety test and disregarded abnormally high pressure readings that were glaring signs of trouble before the April 2010 blowout of BP’s Macondo well triggered a deadly explosion.
Former BP executive David Rainey was charged with concealing information from Congress about the amount of oil that was gushing from BP’s well before the company sealed it.
Prosecutors said Badalamenti instructed two Halliburton employees to delete data from separate runs of computer simulations on centralizers, which are used to keep the casing centred in the wellbore. The data could have supported BP’s decision to use six centralizers instead of 21 on the Macondo project, but prosecutors said the number of centralizers had little effect on the outcome of the simulations.
Halliburton notified the Justice Department about the deletion of the data, which couldn’t be recovered.
Shea: Thank you for your correspondence of October 30, 2013, regarding the Commission of Inquiry into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River, which was headed by Justice Cohen.
Reid: As of January 19, 2014, DFO still has not responded to the Cohen Report, tabled Oct 31, 2012. This is why I and others started Environmental Petitions with the federal AG – to force DFO to respond concretely. That process requires a mandatory response in 120 days. No response yet.
Shea: The Cohen Commission provided Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) with valuable information that informs our day to day work of protecting Pacific salmon. DFO is responding to Commissioner Cohen’s recommendations by taking concrete actions that make a real difference.
Minister Gail Shea gives salmon farms a “thumbs up”
Reid: One of Cohen’s important recommendations was for DFO to relinquish its conflicting role of supporting fish farms and put its full effort into implementing the 2005 Wild Salmon Policy, and the 1986 Habitat Policy. The report says there should be a new western director general charged with bringing back Fraser sockeye. DFO has not responded to these recommendations.
Shea: The Government of Canada’s commitment and long-term support for the salmon fishery in British Columbia is demonstrated by the significant annual investment that is made on a wide range of activities including fisheries science, protection of fisheries habitat, salmon enhancement, catch monitoring, and enforcement. Currently, DFO invests more than $65 million per year, of which about $20 million is directly related to Fraser River sockeye.
Reid: Well, no. My estimate of habitat restoration needs is $500 Million over five years. If you look at the Clay Bank on the Cowichan that was fixed for a cost of $1.5 M and is perhaps 300 yards long, it is immediately clear the cost of habitat restoration needed in BC. And on the Fraser, DFO actually allowed removal of spawning gravel that resulted in the destruction of 3 Million pink salmon. And where is restoration for 20 miles of San Juan River that looks like a lunar landscape from logging damage? Ditto for the Klanawa. And there are those 77,000 culverts all over BC with electrical potentials fish will not cross to feed or spawn. The BC government fixed 50 and stated the rest would take 3,080 years. It has been letting science people go for years, and the Harper Government has been in the news for dismantling science all over Canada.
So, please, send me a disaggregated budget that identifies real projects and costs. Salmon enhancement is about $21 M for all of BC – but it’s not habitat restoration. Furthermore, by comparison, Bonneville Power, invests more than $40 Million each year for one river, the Columbia, with the entire US budget reaching $1 Billion some years. And your panel that follows Fraser sockeye stocks is an impressive technical achievement, requiring DNA analysis twice per week in real time. This is outstanding, but it is not habitat restoration, nor enhancement. And what does enforcement do with rehabilitation of freshwater salmon habitat which all agree is the real problem? I will take your budget apart to see what, if anything, matters to the issue.
Shea: In addition, Economic Action Plan 2013 included three major measures that are directly addressing Cohen Commission recommendations. First, the Government committed $57.5 million over five years that will help bolster environmental protection in the aquaculture sector through science, enhanced regulatory regime and improved reporting. Second, it contained a new program to support recreational fisheries conservation activities through partnerships with community groups. Third, all revenue collected from the Salmon Conservation Stamp will be dedicated to the Pacific Salmon Foundation, which will mean approximately $1 million more in revenue every year to support the Foundation’s great work.
Reid: Well, no, putting $57.5 M into fish farms is not the same thing as addressing the Wild Salmon Policy, enhancement and habitat restoration for wild, native Pacific salmonids. BC wants fish farms out of the water.
Second, your community group program is only $1.9 M over two years, with only $.2M on Vancouver Island in 2013.
Third, the Salmon Stamp money given to the PSF is actually $1.8 M per year – and is not new as it has been done for some years. I recommended to Brian Riddell, CEO, that he suggest quadrupling the Stamp so revenue was $7.2 M per year to local projects, and gain a commitment from DFO and BC for $7.2 M per year each. The resulting $21.6 M is the beginning of a program of some size, with the leverage of local restoration groups and businesses, that begins to seriously address habitat restoration.
And, in all fairness let’s put this $1.8 M in proper perspective. You are putting $400 M into NL for fish farms, so the $1.8 here is .45% of what you are currently giving to fish farms that Cohen said you should hive off from your activities because it is fundamentally opposed to your responsibilities for wild fish. Where is the $400 M for wild BC salmon?
Shea: The Government has also decided to limit salmon farming activities in the Discovery Islands until September 30, 2020, including not allowing any new marine aquaculture sites; this is in line with Commissioner Cohen’s recommendations. During this time, additional scientific research will be conducted and a disease risk assessment process will be completed. While the Canadian aquaculture industry already operates under some of the strictest regulations in the world in order to minimize risks to the environment, this action responds to the Commission’s call to address “scientific unknowns” in the Discovery Islands.
Reid: Well, yes, a moratorium on the Discovery Island farms is in line with Cohen. On the other hand, his terms of reference, which you set, only allowed him to look at Fraser sockeye. His recommendations should be viewed as applying to the entire province.
As for science, this paper shows a 50% drop in wild salmon numbers in BC since fish farms were introduced. They note the same in Ireland, Scotland and Atlantic Canada, in fact anywhere farmed salmon are introduced. Note that Commercial sector employment has been cut 50%, 1,700 jobs, in the same time period. So fish farm jobs likely eliminate jobs in other sectors, resulting in a net employment loss.
Also, you may recall that your own scientist, Kristi Miller, found the exotic disease, ISA, back to 1988 in Fraser sockeye and both ISA and HSMI, also an exotic Norwegian disease, in the Creative chinook farms – roughly 125,000 diseased fish per farm – in Clayoquot where your own estimate is only 501 wild chinook remaining in 6 streams. And didn’t they just win one of your ‘awards’ for being environmentally sustainable?
You will be aware that the Cohen evidence found an inability for DFO’s Moncton Lab, the CFIA and BC to find ISA disease. And now Miller and Riddell will be doing such work, which sounds good, but you have only allowed this with DFO, CFIA, and fish farms parsing the news releases. I’d say this is a ‘no’ as well.
And on the ‘strictest laws’ comment, this is regularly said all over the world. In the recent past, in Chile, USA, Norway and Scotland. The obvious answer is that your assertion cannot be true because every nation has its own laws.
Shea: The Department is committed to the viability of the salmon fishery in British Columbia so that it remains a sustainable and prosperous resource for years to come.
Reid: I would say, sadly, BC opinion is that DFO is managing wild salmon into extinction and in the end there will be no problem when all the salmon are gone. This includes Kennedy Lake sockeye, Georgia Strait coho, those Fraser 4-2s and 5-2s and the Owikeno sockeye that collapsed more than 20 years ago but have not recovered. Your own science says these are small fry and not killed in freshwater. You will know that the SFU Routledge Owikeno fry were the first ones to be found with ISA in BC, by three different labs.
