Sign explaining marine clay at the Chevron/ KMLNG Open House, in Kitimat, March 13, 2014. (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)
Studies on the Clio Bay reclamation project have been postponed until the fall while the new prime contractor takes over the Kitimat LNG project.
A spokesperson for Chevron said at the Kitimat LNG open house on Wednesday now that Irving , Texas-based Fluor Corp, in partnership with a joint-venture partner, Japan’s JGC Corp. has won the engineering, procurement and construction contract for the KM LNG project, it will take some time for the new company to be briefed on the Clio Bay project and then begin working with Stantec the environmental contractor on the project. That means that the reclamation project itself will now not likely proceed until spring of 2015.
In community meetings last fall, Chevron had said it expected the preliminary studies to be completed in January or February.
KM LNG, a partnership between Chevron and Apache Corp, took over the Riverlodge Recreation Centre for three days from February 2 to 4, to brief employees and contractors on the transition from KBR Inc., the original prime contractor which lost the bidding for the second stage of the contract to Flour.
KM LNG organized the open house mainly to show what is happening at the old Eurocan site, which is being converted to a work camp for the project.
The Clio Bay project, however, had a prominent place among the panels on display at Riverlodge. In the panels, Chevron says that up to 40 per cent of the Clio Bay bottom is covered with wood debris, at some points, as much as 10 metres deep, meaning a degraded habitat for dungeness crab and eel grass.
As was announced in the fall, Chevron, in partnership with the Haisla Nation, plan to take marine clay from Bish Cove and use it to cover the wood debris to create a new sea bottom. One panel said: “The new layer of marine clay is expected to be colonized by eel grass and by species such as worms, crustaceans, small fish and other sea life that will encourage a more plentiful, healthy ecosystem replacing the degraded ecosystem created by the decomposing wood debris that now covers the ocean floor.”
Chevron sees the project as an example that others could follow. Another panel notes: “Project proponents around the world are moving away from the old practice of dredging and disposing of marine clay. The Clio Bay restoration project would see marine clay used wisely to deliver benefits to the environment, community and culture.”
Work continues on the remediation of the old Eurocan mill site. Chevron and Apache are, in effect, spending millions of dollars to clean up the mess left behind when West Fraser abandoned the mill.
The company has to demolish the old mill and remediate contaminated areas. One of the big challenges is dealing with the old landfill site, which Chevron says has to be brought up to 21st century environmental standards. That includes adding an impermeable lining to the landfill and upgrading the leachate treatment systems.
Cleaning up the mess left by Eurocan will take about five years, according to one of the panels at the Open House. Chevron says that job will improve the environment, where they plan to build a work camp both in the short term and in the long term as work continues.
Environment Canada is cutting its Compliance Promotion and Enforcement, marine pollution and emergency response budgets over the coming years, raising questions when cuts to other federal departments are added in, about just how the department can continue to operate, much less enforce the 209 conditions that the Joint Review Panel has laid down for the Enbridge Northern Gateway project, not mention future projects connected with LNG and mining in the northwest.
A table published on the site shows that Environment Canada spent $17,467,430 on compliance and enforcement in fiscal 2011 to2012; $16,695,292 in 2012 to2013. It estimates spending a little more in 2013 to 2014, $16,725,035; then comes a steady drop $15,821,926 for 2014 to 2015; $15,321,593 for 2015 to 2016 and $15,356,059 for 2016 to 2017.
According to organizational table on the spending estimates site, Marine Pollution and
Environmental Emergencies comes under the Substances and Waste Management division, with most of the department’s concentration on “substances management” and “effluent management.” Despite the probable growing threat to the environment from marine pollution and the possibility of a marine disaster from a tanker plying the northwest, the overall budget for Substances and Waste Management is also shrinking; from $83,291,322 in 2011 to 2012, $79,295,781 in 2012 to 2013. $76,209,841 for 2013 to 2014, $75,747,789 for 2014 to 2015 and $73,834,432 for 2015 to 2016.
The budget cuts take effect just as the Enbridge Northern Gateway project, if it gets a final go ahead and the LNG projects begin to come on stream.
Overall Environment Canada will spending from $1.01 billion in 2014 to 2015 to $698.8 million in 2016 to2017.
In addition, Environment Canada’s list of strategic priorities has absolutely no mention of either monitoring and enforcing pipeline conditions nor protecting the British Columbia coastline.
Plans for meeting the “Sustainable Environment” priority:
Improve and advance implementation of the Species at Risk program including by reducing the number of overdue recovery documents;
Pursue a collaborative approach to protect and conserve biodiversity at home and abroad, including by supporting the development of a National Conservation Plan and the maintenance and expansion of a network of protected areas;
Contribute to responsible resource development through the provision of science-based expert advice during environmental assessments;
Advance work through the Joint Canada-Alberta Implementation Plan for Oil Sands Monitoring;
Implement a comprehensive approach to protecting water and to ecosystem management;
Continue collaborative work with the provinces and territories on water quantity monitoring through the National Hydrometric Program; and,
Promote compliance with and enforce wildlife acts and regulations.
The Star notes “Spending on the department’s climate change and clear air program is projected to decrease from $234.2 million this year to $54.8 million in 2016-17.”
On the site, Environment Canada notes
As is the case for all organizations, Environment Canada faces uncertainties in meeting its objectives. These uncertainties create opportunities and risks with potential to positively or negatively affect program results and outcomes. Uncertainties include those driven by external environmental factors, such as dependencies on partners and stakeholders, changing regulatory and legislative requirements, increasing Canadian and international expectations concerning the management of the environment and the continuously increasing pace of advances in science and technology.
Environment Canada gives itself an out, should the Conservative government suddenly be converted to environmental protection while on the road to the 2015 election. Since it notes
The 2015–16 decrease is explained by the reduction in funding for the SDTC Foundation and the sun setting of temporary funds. In 2016–17, the decrease in funding is explained by the sun setting of funding for temporary initiatives. Sun setting programs are subject to government decisions to extend, reduce, or enhance funding. Outcomes of such decisions would be reflected in the Department’s future Budget exercises and Estimates documents.
In other words, Environment Canada is becoming more dependent on partnerships with private companies and foundations to help provide funding for what the government should be doing and it is allowing for the politicians to introduce new temporary programs, probably just before the election, to make it look green.
Camping and fishing on the Kitimat River. (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)
Fisheries and Oceans has once again snubbed District of Kitimat Council, by refusing to appear in public before council to answer questions about key issues.
At the Monday, March 10 council meeting, the snub was on the issue of who is responsible for the Kitimat River, facing “increased usage of the riverbank during future construction periods” as well as concerns raised by council earlier over waste left by campers.
In the fall, DFO also refused to appear before council when the department was asked to do so on the issue of Clio Bay remediation.
A report to Council from the District’s Deputy Administrative Officer, Warren Waycheshen, noted that district administration “was recently advised that Fisheries and Oceans are unable to participate in Council meetings, however, they will continue to meet at an operational level to provide information on DFO’s regulatory role.
Waycheshen’s report noted” “District Staff will continue to correspond with Fisheries and Oceans on riverbank camping, and when another operational meeting can be coordinated, Council will be advised of the date and time.”
In other words, DFO officials will continue to meet with district staff and council, in private, but are not accountable to the Kitimat public for their actions, except through what district staff may report to council.
The rest of the report consisted of quotes form the amended Fisheries Act and what appears to be a printout of a DFO Power Point presentation on how it sees its current role.
So now that the federal government appears to have downloaded responsibility to the District, the riverbank ball is now in the hands of Kitimat Council, whether or not the Council actually has jurisdiction.
Councillor Phil Germuth presented a motion asking that District staff prepare a map showing who exactly owns the land along the Kitimat River and what that land is being used for.
In the debate, Councillor Corrine Scott noted, “The first paragraph says Fisheries and Oceans won’t attend a council meeting. Fine, we’ve got that part. But then that’s it. Everything else is about the fisheries protection program and policy statements and all the rest of it. But it doesn’t actually answer the question about any concerns regarding waste left by campers and whether its okay or whether we should be putting in more garbage cans or that sort of thing.
“That’s what I was looking for from a report. What should the setbacks be? Should there be any setbacks. Should there be any camping? Do we have to have a certain number of receptacles for garbage? I just don’t know. I was expecting more than what we got out of this report.”
Councillors Mary Murphy and Mario Feldhoff noted that the District has done reports on how the riverbank is used.
District Planner Daniel Martin told Council that DFO has said the department has “no real concerns’ about people camping on the river “unless they begin to destroy fish habitat.” DFO told Kitimat staff. “If the District has concern about access to the river, then control access to the river.”
“I know that we have a report, it was a very, very good report,” Scott then said. “That’s not what we’re talking about. I was waiting to hear what Fisheries and Oceans has to say, I know what we’ve got and what we’re doing and what is being monitored. I thought motion was to find out from Fisheries and Oceans if there was some kind of other issues we should know about.” Scott noted that if Martin’s statement had been included in the report, she would have been satisfied. “I was waiting to hear what the Department of Fisheries and Oceans had to say.”
Germuth then pointed out that he wanted to know who the landowners are so if Council descies to control access to the river because, “If we put a gate up on the river, we’re not just controlling access for campers, we’re controlling access for everyone else that wants to go through. I want to know who owns the land, so if we decide to do something, we can chat with landowners.
“We’re not going to get anywhere with DFO,” Feldhoff said. “They’ve been here in the past, and , as I recall, they said they don’t think there is a problem. We may think there’s a problem but they don’t think it’s high enough in terms of priorities. So we might want to reacquaint ourselves with what was going on. There are enough reports to choke a horse, going back at least ten years.”
“Longer that that, I do believe,” Mayor Joanne Monaghan interjected.
Councillor Edwin Empinado agreed with Scott saying, “The response from DFO didn’t really answer the motion [the original question from Council]. Fisheries just gives us the Fisheries Act, their policies, regulations, guidelines, program changes. It doesn’t talk about riverbanks.”
The Coastal Gaslink pipeline proposal to bring natural gas to Kitimat for the Shell LNG Canada project is now entering the 45 day public comment environmental assessment period. It opens on March 21, 2014 and closes May 5, 2014.
Coastal GasLink Pipeline is a wholly-owned subsidiary of TransCanada Pipelines. The company is proposing to develop an approximately 650 kilometre pipeline to deliver natural gas from the area near the community of Groundbirch, B.C., to the LNG Canada gas liquefaction facility proposed to be developed by Shell Canada Ltd. and its partners in Kitimat.
An electronic copy of the Application and information regarding the British Columbia environmental assessment process are available at www.eao.gov.bc.ca.
The British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office, with the support of Coastal GasLink, will host four open houses in northern B.C. communities during the comment period.
The proposed Project would have an initial capacity of about two to three billion cubic feet (bcf) of natural gas per day with the potential for expansion up to about five billion cubic feet per day. The company says the expansion scenario assessed in the application does not involve the construction of additional pipeline; the number of potential future compressor stations would change.
The proposed pipeline is subject to review under British Columbia’s Environmental Assessment Act.
Starting on March 21, there are 45 days for the submission of comments by the public in relation to the Application. All comments received during this comment period will be considered. The intention of seeking public comments is to ensure that all potential adverse effects – environmental, economic, social, heritage and health – that might result from the proposed Project are identified for consideration as part of the assessment process.
LNG Canada, the project led by Shell Canada Energy, has passed the first step in the environmental review process for the liquified natural gas plant and terminal.
LNG Canada said Tuesday that the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office has approved LNG Canada’s Application Information Requirements (AIR) for the proposed project.
The company says the AIR outlines the studies, methods, and information that will be required in LNG Canada’s Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate.
LNG Canada says it will now continue to gather information and complete studies in support of developing our Environmental Assessment Application.
The company intends submit to the Environmental Assessment Application to the the B.C. EAO later this year.
LNG Canada will hold its next public meeting, an “LNG Demonstration and Presentation” on March 6, 2014 at the Mount Elizabeth Theatre starting at 6 p.m. The company says the event is to “to share information and answer questions about liquefied natural gas (LNG).” Starting at 7 pm there will be a a live demonstration using LNG to explain the science behind liquefaction and the properties of LNG.
For more information about the project’s EA process, www.eao.gov.bc.ca and look for our project under the “Proposed EAs” sections.
The other partners in the LNG Canada project are Diamond LNG Canada, an (“affiliate” of Mitsubishi), Korea Gas Corporation and Phoenix Energy (an “affiliate” of PetroChina).
Murray Minchin of Douglas Channel Watch gives District of Kitimat Council a preview of the group’s campaign presentation on the Northern Gateway project plebiscite at the council chambers. Feb. 24, 2014. DCW will host “Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Enbridge Plebiscite, but Were Afraid to Ask” at Riverlodge, Wednesday, Feb. 26 at 7 p.m. (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)
District of Kitimat Council will take another look at the Northern Gateway project plebiscite next Monday, March 3, when it considers a motion from Councillor Phil Germuth to cancel the vote altogether.
This Monday, February 24, Council voted to cancel the “undecided” option on the ballot, leaving voters with a simple yes or no question. That decision costs the district taxpayers $500, since council was told by the deputy administrative officer, Warren Waycheshen that the ballots had already been printed.
The question of whether “undecided” was still on the ballot came up as council was discussing the advertising campaign for the coming plebiscite—if it survives next Monday’ s vote. Apparently after the confusing Council session on January 20, some members of council believed that the “undecided” option had already been eliminated.
“Can I get clarification on it. I thought it was going to be strictly: yes or no?” Germuth asked.
There was apparently some confusion among District staff after the meeting as well. Waycheshen said he and other staff members had reviewed the minutes of that meeting and concluded there was no motions that dropped “undecided.”
Asked about the ballots, Waycheshen replied the ballots had already been ordered, but the $500 cost was minimal. He told Council that amount should not stand in their way if they wanted to amend the response to the question.
Both Germuth and Mayor Joanne Monaghan said that by now everyone should now how they feel. Germuth said that leaving the undecided option might lead to misinterpreted results.
District staff will wait until next Monday and the vote on Germuth’s motion to cancel the plebiscite altogether before ordering new ballots.
Earlier in the evening, it was not clear whether or not everyone in the Kitimat community “should know how they feel.” Murray Minchin of Douglas Channel Watch gave a preview of the environmental group’s campaign for a no vote:
Minchin began by rereading the plebiscite question.
Do you support the final report recommendations of the Joint Review Panel (JRP) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and National Energy Board, that the Enbridge Northern Gateway project be approved, subject to 209 conditions set out in Volume 2 of the JRP’s final report?”
Minchin then gave Council some samples of what will be a longer presentation at Riverlodge on Wednesday night.
He pointed to Condition #1 “Northern Gateway must comply with all the certificate conditions, unless the NEB otherwise directs.”
Minchin told council, “This means the plebiscite will be held on something that might not exist. It’s written in smoke and deposited on mirrors. Why are we voting on the Joint Review Panel conditions when they can be altered or removed at any time?”
He also said Condition 169, which calls on Enbridge to file a plan for a research program on spilled oil was rather late, “far into the game,” he said, and thus an example of how the conditions had no teeth.
Minchin said even those who support the project should be concerned about other conditions, including one that calls on Northern Gateway to notify the National Energy Board if they plan to hire foreign temporary workers.
“What about all of these jobs for Canadians which we have been hearing about since day one. It is supposed to be a job generating project for Canadians,” he asked Council.
He said the Joint Review Panel should have had conditions that there be no foreign temporary workers or that a certain percentage of jobs should go to Canadians and to people from the region.
Douglas Channel Watch will be hosting what they call “a community information forum” called ‘Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Enbridge Plebiscite, but Were Afraid to Ask.’ –in effect a campaign for the no side,. at Riverlodge on Wednesday, February 26th at 7:00 pm. Minchin said DCW members who developed expertise in their role as a JRP intervenor will be speaking on various topics.
Kitimat is supposedly a key to Canada's future, the gateway to Asia. You wouldn't know it from the attitude the federal cabinet has to the town and the District of Kitimat.
Jason Kenney, Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, came to town on Sunday, and like his colleague before him, Minister of Natural Resources, Joe Oliver, Kenney ignored the District of Kitimat, its Council and the town residents, while touting Kitimat's industrial development as the wave of the future.
This sort of thing, flying in and out and celebrating Kitimat as a boom town, is typical for both federal and BC provincial cabinet members who prefer to look the other way at all the problems "the boom" (which hasn't really happened yet and may never happen) is causing here–including a housing crisis for low and fixed income residents.
Kenney is tweeting his current tour of northern British Columbia, so it is easy to see that the minister met with the Mayor of Prince George and with community leaders in nearby Terrace. So if Kenney can meet with the Mayor of Prince George and have a meeting Terrace, what's wrong with Kitimat?
In Kitimat, Kenney met with the Haisla Nation and toured the Rio Tinto Alcan modernization project and the Shell LNG Canada facility. Apart from the officials who set up the tours, no one in town knew he was here until Kenney tweeted about his visit to the RTA modernization project. After his initial tweet, at least one member of the local media, tweeted Kenney asking for an interview, but was told there was no time.
The same thing happened in July 2013, when Joe Oliver came to Kitimat and met, as Kenney did, with Haisla Chief Counsellor Ellis Ross and the Haisla Nation Council. In that case, Kitimat Council member Mary Murphy was tipped off about Oliver being in the Village, and Mayor Joanne Monaghan had to lobby Oliver's Ottawa office to even get a fifteen minute photo op with the minister. In July, Oliver did arrange for an interview with the Northern Sentinel while ignoring other local media.
In March 2013, Oliver flew in to Terrace for a photo op when he announced the appointment of Douglas Eyford to speak to First Nations about the Northern Gateway pipeline. Since this was a full federal photo op, the local media was invited and the national medial listened in on a conference call. Oliver was asked if he would drive the 40 minutes to Kitimat from Terrace to see the town and meet people. His answer was that he was too busy and had to get back to Ottawa for the 2013 federal budget.
When District of Kitimat Council had its regular meeting on February 17, 2104, I asked Mayor Joanne Monaghan and Council if they knew Kenney was in town, had met with the Haisla and toured the industrial sites. The reaction was shock. No one on Council knew that a federal cabinet minister had come to Kitimat. (It was quite clear that they didn't follow #Kitimat on Twitter and this time no one got a trip from a friend). "We just don't count," Mayor Monaghan said.
It is fairly clear that the Harper government sees Kitimat as nothing more than a "gateway" which Alberta bitumen and northeast BC liquefied natural gas will go to China while the people of Kitimat sit and watch and and a few pick up the handful of permanent jobs from these projects. In the meantime, the stress in Kitimat is growing, while government ignores what is going on.
Just one example is the continuing refusal by the Harper government to upgrade Canadian Border Services at the Northwest Regional (Terrace Kitimat) Airport, which causes great inconvenience to the private jets from all over the world that bring both executives and workers to build up these projects which supposedly the future of the Canadian economy depend.
The biggest example of the Harper government's arrogant refusal to consider local issues was when the government unilaterally declared the Port of Kitimat, a private port since its founding in 1950, would be converted to a public port, without consulting either Rio Tinto Alcan or the District of Kitimat.
The politicians who cheer about the Kitimat "boom" are unwilling to even discuss the negative fallout from what's happening now, land and building speculation, the fact that the work camps are sucking business out of the town, the ongoing problem of balancing industrial development with environment in a way that the northwest wants, not what those far away in Ottawa and Calgary want.
One reason is that ever since Stephen Harper became prime minister in 2006, he and his colleagues have always worked to avoid uncomfortable and tough questions about their policies, whether those questions are from the media, from local officials who really know what is going on or–heaven forbid–the general public. It's easier for the Harper government to stay on message about Canada being an "energy superpower" for its base in Alberta and suburbia and to talk about economics in the abstract, spreadsheets in a Matrix, rather than reality.
If a cabinet minister actually sat down with the members of the District of Kitimat Council, they would have to deal with reality and answer specific questions about the problems in the Kitimat Valley rather than tweeting how great things are.
The second is likely partisan politics and the Conservative policy of the continuous, never ending and nasty campaign. Although Skeena Bulkley Valley has gone Conservative in the past, at this point it may be that the Conservative Party has written off Skeena Bulkley Valley and so it doesn't count. Checking the Elections Canada website, adding up the Kitimat polls, NDP incumbent Nathan Cullen had 1678 votes, with Clay Harmon, the Conservative, a distant second at 946 votes. (Across the entire riding, Cullen had 19,431 votes to Harmon's 12,117).
The tragedy is that if Stephen Harper, the cabinet and the Conservatives wanted to promote Kitimat as a gateway to Asia, they would pay attention to the Valley. If Harper and the Conservatives cared about the environment and actually embraced science rather than using "science" as an Orwellian newspeak phrase, they would probably have found that there would be more enthusiastic support and less skepticism about pipelines, LNG terminals and yes, even Northern Gateway.
And what about the veterans? When Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino showed up at that the last minute in January for what was likely to be an awkward meeting with vets angry at the closing of offices across the country, the Ottawa press gallery treated it as a blunder by the egomaniacal Fantino. As I was watching the live news conference by the bemedalled veterans expressing their anger at Fantino's attitude, I couldn't help wondering if this hasn't played out other times across the country, far from the view of the Ottawa press gallery and unnoticed by a Canadian media devastated by cutbacks. If Joe Oliver shows up at the last minute to meet District of Kitimat Council with just enough time for a photo op but no time for discussion, how many times has this happened elsewhere? It could be that the last minute show Is just another form of spin.
Did you find this story interesting? Be the first to like or comment.
Iain McKechnie and Dana Lepofsky examine ancient herring fish bones that tell the story about how gigantic herring fisheries were for thousands of years in the Pacific Northwest. (SFU)
The herring, now dwindling on on the Pacific Coast, was once “superabundant” from Washington State through British Columbia to Alaska and that is a warning for the future, a new study says.
A team of scientists lead by Simon Fraser University argue that the archaeological record on the Pacific Coast offers a “deep time perspective” going back ten thousand years that can be a guide for future management of the herring and other fish species.
An archaeological study looked at 171 First Nations’ sites from Washington to Alaska and recovered and analyzed 435,777 fish bones from various species.
Herring bones were the most abundant and dating shows that herring abundance can be traced from about 10,700 years ago to about the mid-nineteenth century with the arrival of Europeans and the adoption of industrial harvesting methods by both settlers and some First Nations.
That means herring were perhaps the greatest food source for First Nations for ten thousand years surpassing the “iconic salmon.” Herring bones were the most frequent at 56 per cent of the sites surveyed and made up for 49 per cent of the bones at sites overall.
The study is one of many initiatives of the SFU-based Herring School, a group of researchers that investigates the cultural and ecological importance of herring.
“By compiling the largest data set of archaeological fish bones in the Pacific Northwest Coast, we demonstrate the value of using such data to establish an ecological baseline for modern fisheries,” says Iain McKechnie. The SFU archaeology postdoctoral fellow is the study’s lead author and a recent University of British Columbia graduate.
Co-author and SFU archaeology professor Dana Lepofsky states: “Our archaeological findings fit well with what First Nations have been telling us. Herring have always played a central role in the social and economic lives of coastal communities. Archaeology, combined with oral traditions, is a powerful tool for understanding coastal ecology prior to industrial development.”
The researchers drew from their ancient data-catch concrete evidence that long-ago herring populations were consistently abundant and widespread for thousands of years. This contrasts dramatically with today’s dwindling and erratic herring numbers.
“This kind of ecological baseline extends into the past well beyond the era of industrial fisheries. It is critical for understanding the ecological and cultural basis of coastal fisheries and designing sustainable management systems today,” says Ken Lertzman, another SFU co-author. The SFU School of Resource and Environmental Management professor directs the Hakai Network for Coastal People, Ecosystems and Management.
Map of First Nations’ archaeological sites with high numbers of fish bones. Herring is abundant in sites throughout the Strait of Georgia. In 71% of sites, herring makes up at least 20 per cent of the bones found at the site. (SFU/PNAS)
Heiltsuk tradition
The paper says that the abundance of herring is additionally mirrored in First Nations’ place
names and origin narratives. They give the example of the 2,400-y-old site at Nulu where herring
made up about 85 per cent of the fish found in local middens. In Heiltsuk oral tradition, it is Nulu where Raven first found herring. Another site, 25 kilometres away at the Koeye River, has only has about 10 per cent herring remains and is not associated with herring in Heiltsuk tradition.
(In an e-mail to Northwest Coast Energy News, McKechnie said “there is a paucity of archaeological data from Kitimat and Douglas Channel. There is considerable data from around Prince Rupert, the Dundas Islands and on the central coast Namu/Bella Bella/ Rivers Inlet area and in southern Haida Gwaii.”)
The study says that the archaeological record indicates that places with abundant herring were consistently harvested over time, and suggests that the areas where herring massed or spawned were more extensive and less variable in the past than today. It says that even if there were natural variations in the herring population, the First Nations harvest did not affect the species overall.
It notes:
Many coastal groups maintained family-owned locations for harvesting herring and herring roe from anchored kelp fronds, eel grass, or boughs of hemlock or cedar trees. Herring was harvested at other times of the year than the spawning period when massing in local waters but most ethnohistorical observations identify late winter and springtime spawning as a key period of harvest for both roe and fish.
The herring and herring roe were either consumed or traded among the First Nations.
Sustainable harvests encouraged by building kelp gardens,wherein some roe covered fronds were not collected, by minimizing noise and movement during spawning events, and by elaborate systems of kin-based rights and responsibilities that regulated herring use and distribution.
Industrial harvesting
Industrial harvesting and widespread consumption changed all that. Large numbers of herring were harvested to for rendering to oil or meal. By 1910, the problem was already becoming clear. In that year British Columbia prohibited the reduction of herring for oil and fertilizer. There were reports at that time that larger bays on the Lower Mainland were “being gradually deserted by the larger schools where they were formerly easily obtained.”
But harvesting continued, in 1927 the fishery on eastern Vancouver Island, Columbia, processed
31,103 tons of herring. The SFU study notes that that is roughly twice the harvest rate for 2012 and would also be about 38 per cent of the current herring biomass in the Strait of Georgia.
In Alaska, reduction of herring began in 1882 and reached a peak of 75,000 tons in 1929.
As the coastal populations dwindled, as with other fisheries, the emphasis moved to deeper water. By the 1960s, the herring populations of British Columbia and Washington had collapsed. Canada banned herring reduction entirely in 1968, Washington followed in the early 1980s.
In the 1970s, the herring population off Japan collapsed, which opened up the demand for North American roe, which targeted female herring as they were ready to spawn. That further reduced the herring population so that the roe fishery is now limited to just a few areas including parts of the Salish Sea and off Sitka and Togiak, Alaska.
The First Nations food, social and ceremonial herring fishery continues.
Government fishery managers, scientists, and local and indigenous peoples lack consensus on the cumulative consequences of ongoing commercial fisheries on herring populations. Many First Nations, Native Americans, Alaska Natives, and other local fishers, based on personal observations and traditional knowledge, hypothesize that local herring stocks, on which they consistently relied for generations, have been dramatically reduced and made more difficult to access following 20th century industrial fishing
Deep time perspective
The SFU study says that some fisheries managers are suggesting that the herring population has just shifted to other locations and other causes may be climate change and the redounding of predator populations.
But the study concludes, that:
Our data support the idea that if past populations of Pacific herring exhibited substantial variability, then this variability was expressed around a high enough mean abundance such that there was adequate herring available for indigenous fishers to sustain their harvests but avoid the extirpation of local populations.
These records thus demonstrate a fishery that was sustainable at local and regional scales over millennia, and a resilient relationship between harvesters, herring, and environmental change that has been absent in the modern era.
Archaeological data have the potential to provide a deep time perspective on the interaction between humans and the resources on which they depend.
Furthermore, the data can contribute significantly toward developing temporally meaningful ecological baselines that avoid the biases of shorter-term records.
Other universities participating in the study were the University of British Columbia, University of Oregon, Portland State University, Lakehead University, University of Toronto, Rutgers University and the University of Alberta.
Oil spills kill fish. That’s well known. Now scientists say they have found out why oil spills kill adult fish. The chemicals in the oil often trigger an irregular heartbeat and cardiac arrest.
A joint study by Stanford University and the US National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration have discovered that crude oil interferes with fish heart cells. The toxic consequence is a slowed heart rate, reduced cardiac contractility and irregular heartbeats that can lead to cardiac arrest and sudden cardiac death.
The study was published Feb. 14, 2014 in the prestigious international journal Science and unveiled at the convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago.
The study is part of the ongoing Natural Resource Damage Assessment of the April 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Scientists have known for some time that crude oil is known to be “cardiotoxic” to developing fish. Until now, the mechanisms underlying the harmful effects were unclear.
Exxon Valdez
Studies going back to the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska in 1989 have shown that exposure to crude oil-derived chemicals disrupt cardiac function and impairs development in larval fishes. The studies have described a syndrome of embryonic heart failure, bradycardia (slow heart beat), arrhythmias (irregular heartbeats) and edema in exposed fish embryos.
After the Gulf of Mexico spill, studies began on young fish in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon spill. The two science teams wanted to find out how oil specifically impacts heart cells.
Crude oil is a complex mixture of chemicals, some of which are known to be toxic to marine animals.
Past research focused on “polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons” (PAHs), which can also be found in coal tar, creosote, air pollution and stormwater runoff from land. In the aftermath of an oil spill, the studies show PAHs can persist for many years in marine habitats and cause a variety of adverse environmental effects.
The scientists found that oil interferes with cardiac cell excitability, contraction and relaxation – vital processes for normal beat-to-beat contraction and pacing of the heart.
Low concentrations of crude
The study shows that very low concentrations of crude oil disrupt the specialized ion channel pores – where molecules flow in and out of the heart cells – that control heart rate and contraction in the cardiac muscle cell. This cyclical signalling pathway in cells throughout the heart is what propels blood out of the pump on every beat. The protein components of the signalling pathway are highly conserved in the hearts of most animals, including humans.
The researchers found that oil blocks the potassium channels distributed in heart cell membranes, increasing the time to restart the heart on every beat. This prolongs the normal cardiac action potential, and ultimately slows the heartbeat. The potassium ion channel impacted in the tuna is responsible for restarting the heart muscle cell contraction cycle after every beat, and is highly conserved throughout vertebrates, raising the possibility that animals as diverse as tuna, turtles and dolphins might be affected similarly by crude oil exposure. Oil also resulted in arrhythmias in some ventricular cells.
“The ability of a heart cell to beat depends on its capacity to move essential ions like potassium and calcium into and out of the cells quickly.” said Barbara Block, a professor of marine sciences at Stanford. She said, “We have discovered that crude oil interferes with this vital signalling process essential for our heart cells to function properly.”
Nat Scholz, leader of the Ecotoxicology Program at NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center in Seattle said.”We’ve known from NOAA research over the past two decades that crude oil is toxic to the developing hearts of fish embryos and larvae, but haven’t understood precisely why.”
Long term problems in fish hearts
He added: “These new findings more clearly define petroleum-derived chemical threats to fish and other species in coastal and ocean habitats, with implications that extend beyond oil spills to other sources of pollution such as land-based urban stormwater runoff.”
The new study also calls attention to a previously under appreciated risk to wildlife and humans, particularly from exposure to cardioactive PAHs that can also exist when there are high levels of air pollution.
“When we see these kinds of acute effects at the cardiac cell level,” Block said, “it is not surprising that chronic exposure to oil from spills such as the Deepwater Horizon can lead to long-term problems in fish hearts.”
The study used captive populations of bluefin and yellowfin tuna at the Tuna Research and Conservation Center, a collaborative facility operated by Stanford and the Monterey Bay Aquarium. That meant the research team was able to directly observe the effects of crude oil samples collected from the Gulf of Mexico on living fish heart cells.
“The protein ion channels we observe in the tuna heart cells are similar to what we would find in any vertebrate heart and provide evidence as to how petroleum products may be negatively impacting cardiac function in a wide variety of animals,” she said. “This raises the possibility that exposure to environmental PAHs in many animals – including humans – could lead to cardiac arrhythmias and bradycardia, or slowing of the heart.”
Tuna spawning
The Deepwater Horizon disaster released over 4 million barrels of crude oil during the peak spawning time for the Atlantic bluefin tuna in the spring of 2010. Electronic tagging and fisheries catch data indicate that Atlantic bluefin spawn in the area where the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig collapsed, raising the possibility that eggs and larvae, which float near the surface waters, were exposed to oil.
The spill occurred in the major spawning ground of the western Atlantic population of bluefin tuna in the Gulf of Mexico. The most recent stock assessment, conducted in 2012, estimated the spawning population of the bluefin tuna to be at only 36 percent of the 1970 baseline population. Additionally, many other pelagic fishes were also likely to have spawned in oiled habitats, including yellowfin tuna, blue marlin and swordfish.
Block and her team bathed isolated cardiac cells from the tuna in low dose crude oil concentrations similar to what fish in early life stages may have encountered in the surface waters where they were spawned after the April 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
They measured the heart cells’ response to record how ions flowed into and out of the heart cells to identify the specific proteins in the excitation-contraction pathway that were affected by crude oil chemical components.
Fabien Brette, a research associate in Block’s lab and lead author on the study said the scientists looked at the function of healthy heart cells in a laboratory dish and then used a microscope to measure how the cells responded when crude oil was introduced.
“The normal sequence and synchronous contraction of the heart requires rapid activation in a coordinated way of the heart cells,” Block said. “Like detectives, we dissected this process using laboratory physiological techniques to ask where oil was impacting this vital mechanism.”
This shows EPA Greenhouse Gas Inventory leakage estimates. Below: This shows results from recent experimental studies. Studies either focus on specific industry segments, or use broad atmospheric data to estimate emissions from multiple segments or the entire industry. Studies have generally found either higher emissions than expected from EPA inventory methods, or found mixed results (some sources higher and others lower). ( Stanford University School of Earth Sciences)
A new study indicates that atmospheric emissions of methane, a critical greenhouse gas, mostly leaking from the natural gas industry are likely 50 per cent higher than previously estimated by the US Environmental Protection Agency.
A study, “Methane Leakage from North American Natural Gas Systems,” published in the Feb. 14 issue of the international journal Science, synthesizes diverse findings from more than 200 studies ranging in scope from local gas processing plants to total emissions from the United States and Canada.
The scientists say this first thorough comparison of evidence for natural gas system leaks confirms that organizations including the EPA have underestimated U.S. methane emissions generally, as well as those from the natural gas industry specifically.
Natural gas consists predominantly of methane. Even small leaks from the natural gas system are important because methane is a potent greenhouse gas – about 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
“People who go out and actually measure methane pretty consistently find more emissions than we expect,” said the lead author of the new analysis, Adam Brandt, an assistant professor of energy resources engineering at Stanford University. “Atmospheric tests covering the entire country indicate emissions around 50 per cent more than EPA estimates,” said Brandt. “And that’s a moderate estimate.”
The standard approach to estimating total methane emissions is to multiply the amount of methane thought to be emitted by a particular kind of source, such as leaks at natural gas processing plants or belching cattle, by the number of that source type in a region or country. The products are then totalled to estimate all emissions. The EPA does not include natural methane sources, like wetlands and geologic seeps.
The national natural gas infrastructure has a combination of intentional leaks, often for safety purposes, and unintentional emissions, like faulty valves and cracks in pipelines. In the United States, the emission rates of particular gas industry components – from wells to burner tips – were established by the EPA in the 1990s.
Since then, many studies have tested gas industry components to determine whether the EPA’s emission rates are accurate, and a majority of these have found the EPA’s rates too low. The new analysis does not try to attribute percentages of the excess emissions to natural gas, oil, coal, agriculture, landfills, etc., because emission rates for most sources are so uncertain.
Several other studies have used airplanes and towers to measure actual methane in the air, to test total estimated emissions. The new analysis, which is authored by researchers from seven universities, several national laboratories and US federal government bodies, and other organizations, found these atmospheric studies covering very large areas consistently indicate total U.S. methane emissions of about 25 to 75 per cent higher than the EPA estimate.
Some of the difference is accounted for by the EPA’s focus on emissions caused by human activity. The EPA excludes natural methane sources like geologic seeps and wetlands, which atmospheric samples unavoidably include. The EPA likewise does not include some emissions caused by human activity, such as abandoned oil and gas wells, because the amounts of associated methane are unknown.
The new analysis finds that some recent studies showing very high methane emissions in regions with considerable natural gas infrastructure are not representative of the entire gas system. “If these studies were representative of even 25 percent of the natural gas industry, then that would account for almost all the excess methane noted in continental-scale studies,” said a co-author of the study, Eric Kort, an atmospheric science professor at the University of Michigan. “Observations have shown this to be unlikely.”
Top-down methods take air samples from aircraft or tall towers to measure gas concentrations remote from sources. Bottom-up methods take measurements directly at facilities. Top-down methods provide a more complete and unbiased assessment of emissions sources, and can detect emissions over broad areas. However, they lack specificity and face difficulty in assigning emissions to particular sources. Bottom-up methods provide direct, precise measurement of gas emissions rates. However, the high cost of sampling and the need for site access permission leads to small sample sizes and possible sampling bias. (Stanford University School of Earth Sciences)
Natural gas as a replacement fuel
The scientists say that even though the gas system is almost certainly leakier than previously thought, generating electricity by burning gas rather than coal still reduces the total greenhouse effect over 100 years. Not only does burning coal release an enormous amount of carbon dioxide, mining it releases methane.
Perhaps surprisingly though, the analysis finds that powering trucks and buses with natural gas instead of diesel fuel probably makes the globe warmer, because diesel engines are relatively clean. For natural gas to beat diesel, the gas industry would have to be less leaky than the EPA’s current estimate, which the new analysis also finds quite improbable.
“Fueling trucks and buses with natural gas may help local air quality and reduce oil imports, but it is not likely to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Even running passenger cars on natural gas instead of gasoline is probably on the borderline in terms of climate,” Brandt said.
The natural gas industry, the analysis finds, must clean up its leaks to really deliver on its promise of less harm. Fortunately for gas companies, a few leaks in the gas system probably account for much of the problem and could be repaired. One earlier study examined about 75,000 components at processing plants. It found some 1,600 unintentional leaks, but just 50 faulty components were behind 60 percent of the leaked gas.
“Reducing easily avoidable methane leaks from the natural gas system is important for domestic energy security,” said Robert Harriss, a methane researcher at the Environmental Defense Fund and a co-author of the analysis. “As Americans, none of us should be content to stand idly by and let this important resource be wasted through fugitive emissions and unnecessary venting.”
Gas companies not cooperating
One possible reason leaks in the gas industry have been underestimated is that emission rates for wells and processing plants were based on operators participating voluntarily. One EPA study asked 30 gas companies to cooperate, but only six allowed the EPA on site.
“It’s impossible to take direct measurements of emissions from sources without site access,” said Garvin Heath, a senior scientist with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and a co-author of the new analysis. “But self-selection bias may be contributing to why inventories suggest emission levels that are systematically lower than what we sense in the atmosphere.”
The research was funded by the nonprofit organization Novim through a grant from the Cynthia and George Mitchell Foundation. “We asked Novim to examine 20 years of methane studies to explain the wide variation in existing estimates,” said Marilu Hastings, sustainability program director at the Cynthia and George Mitchell Foundation. “Hopefully this will help resolve the ongoing methane debate.”
###
Other co-authors of the Science study are Francis O’Sullivan of the MIT Energy Initiative; Gabrielle Pétron of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the University of Colorado; Sarah M. Jordaan of the University of Calgary; Pieter Tans, NOAA; Jennifer Wilcox, Stanford; Avi Gopstein of the U.S. Department of State; Doug Arent of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the Joint Institute for Strategic Energy Analysis; Steven Wofsy of Harvard University; Nancy Brown of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; independent consultant Richard Bradley; and Galen Stucky and Douglas Eardley, both of the University of California-Santa Barbara. The views expressed in the study are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of State or the U.S. government.
