Pipeline politics trump sisterhood of the premiers: Globe and Mail

Energy Environment Politics

Pipeline politics trump sisterhood of the premiers

The Northern Gateway pipeline could be the most glittering jewel of all in Premier Christy Clark’s highly-hyped jobs plan for British Columbia.

The proposed, $5.5-billion project to carry Alberta crude from the oil sands through northern B.C. to the West Coast port of Kitimat would create 4,000 well-paying construction jobs and hundreds of permanent positions.

Yet, awash in mutual admiration as women leaders of Canada’s two westernmost provinces, Ms. Clark nonetheless found herself differing with Alberta’s freshly-minted premier, Alison Redford, on the ambitious Gateway megaproject during Ms. Clark’s brief visit to Calgary last week.

NEB approves KM LNG export licence

Energy

The National Energy Board has approved KM LNG’s (also known as Kitimat LNG) application for an natural gas export licence.

A NEB news release says:

The National Energy Board (NEB or the Board) today approved an application by KM LNG Operating General Partnership (KM LNG) for a licence to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Kitimat, British Columbia to markets in the Asia Pacific region.

The export licence authorizes KM LNG to export 200 million tonnes of LNG (equivalent to approximately 265 million 10³m³ or 9,360 Bcf of natural gas) over a 20 year period. The maximum annual quantity allowed for export will be 10 million tonnes of LNG (equivalent to approximately 13 million 10³m³ or 468 Bcf of natural gas).

The supply of gas will be sourced from producers located in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. Once the natural gas has reached Kitimat by way of the Pacific Trail Pipeline, the gas would then be liquefied at a terminal to be built in Bish Cove, near the Port of Kitimat.

The construction and operation of the pipeline and the terminal will require provincial regulatory decisions.

This is the first application for an LNG export licence that the Board has considered since the de-regulation of the natural gas market in 1985.

In approving the application, the Board satisfied itself that the quantity of gas to be exported does not exceed the amount required to meet foreseeable Canadian demand. The exported LNG will not only open new markets for Canadian gas production, but the Board believes that ongoing development of shale gas resources will ultimately further increase the availability of natural gas for Canadians.

Prior to approving the licence, the Board considered environmental and related socio-economic effects of KM LNG’s application. These effects included matters related to marine shipping, and the proposed LNG terminal and Pacific Trail Pipeline.

The Board also acknowledges the potential economic benefits associated with KM LNG’s project. These benefits include employment opportunities due to the development of the LNG terminal and the Pacific Trail pipeline.

Kitimat mayor Joanne Monaghan said, “I am glad they got it, because now the project can move forward.”

KM LNG is owned by Apache Canada Ltd. (40 per cent), EOG Resources Canada Inc. (20 per cent) and Encana Corp. (20 pre cent). The Front End Engineering for the LNG terminal at Bish Cove is now underway. The companies say a final investment decision will be made in early 2012.


A news release from Apache
said:

“The Kitimat LNG project represents a remarkable opportunity to open up Asia-Pacific markets to Canadian natural gas and we’re leading the way in being able to deliver a long-term, stable and secure supply to the region,” said Janine McArdle, Kitimat LNG President. “This export licence approval is another major milestone for Kitimat LNG as we move forward and market our LNG supply. LNG customers can have even more confidence in a new source of supply.”

“Today marks a historic day for Canada’s natural gas industry and this is fantastic news for our project and the communities where we operate. Kitimat LNG will bring revenues and jobs and the associated benefits to Canada,” said Tim Wall, Apache Canada President. “The Kitimat LNG partners are very pleased with the NEB’s approval of our export licence and we’d like to thank them for their support and confidence in the project.”

Text of NEB Decision on KM LNG(pdf)

Want a job? Come to Kitimat, Christy Clark aide tells Vancouver Island

Economy Link

Robert Matas of the Globe and Mail reports in Crosscheck: Looking for a job in B.C.? that Chilliwack MLA, John Les, parliamentary secretary to BC Premier Christy Clark told an audience in Nanaimo:

Everybody is looking for work around home, but [they] may not be aware that there are jobs available in Kitimat or in Terrace or Fort St. John. That’s not for everybody, but if you’re a young person looking for a job, maybe horizons need to be expanded a bit…

Matas adds in his article:

…up North, the cities are on the cusp of an economic boom, sparked by projects worth $11-billion. The developments are expected to create thousands of new jobs within the next five years.

The list of projects includes a new export terminal near Kitimat for natural gas; modernization of the Rio Tinto Alcan Kitimat smelter; construction of a new 344-kilometre Hydro transmission line that will open up prospects for several more mining properties; a 195-megawatt run-of-river hydroelectric project on Tahltan First Nation lands; and development of a copper and gold property.

The jobs could transform Terrace, a forest-dependent city that has been in a slump since its mills closed down. The mining town of Kitimat has been more stable than Terrace but will also feel the glow from the multibillion-dollar investments in the region…

Editor’s note: One has to wonder why the business media keeps referring to Kitimat as a mining town, since the only mine in the area, the Golden Crown copper and gold venture was abandoned in 1909, more than 100 years ago and Rio Tinto Alcan’s raw material comes from far, far away. (Unless, of course, Matas is referring to some previously unknown revival of the Golden Crown venture is his unnamed copper and gold property)

Kelp has great potential as green biofuel studies suggest

Energy Environment Biofuel

522-tywynsurf.jpgA surfer enters the water on a stormy beach at Tywyn, Wales, July, 2008.  Scientists from nearby Aberystwyth University  have studied kelp as a potential biofuel. The kelp was growing near a rocky outcrop some kilometres south of  Tywyn at Aberystwyth Beach near Ceredigion.  (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)

 

Kelp has potential as a renewable biofuel resource because it is a fast-growing, large “macro-algae” that could be harvested, processed and turned into ethanol, methane or bio-oil, according to a recent study in Wales.

The study by Jessica Adams  and colleagues at Aberystwyth University in the west of Wales was presented at a biology conference in Glasgow on July 4, 2011 and published in the journal Bioresource Technology.

Coastal Wales has a similar environment to the west coast of North America and  both regions are abundant in kelp.

In her paper, Adams says that most biofuels today come from terrestrial sources such as agricultural products or forests, and both sources can cause environmental problems.  Harvesting kelp  for biofuel would mean that potential food crops,  such as maize, would not be taken out of the food supply chain. She says the ocean  accounts for half of the primary biomass on the planet, but has not been used very much in the search for biofuel.

Her study, assisted by the Energy and Resources Institute at the University of Leeds, concentrated on the potential that kelp has for producing fuel at various times of its life cycle during the year.


View Larger Map


By analyzing the chemical composition of kelp harvested  at low tide at rocky outcrop on Abesrtystwyth Beach, Ceredigion, Wales, Adams and her colleagues determined the best time to harvest the kelp for use as potential biofuel, which in the case of Wales, was in July when the kelp had the highest levels of carbohydrates, including two key sugars, mannitol and laminarn, which are easily converted to biofuel. Those carbohydrates could be fermented or put through anaerobic digestion to produce either ethanol or methane. Another method is pyrolysis,  a method of heating the fuel in the absence of oxygen, which can produce bio-oil.

Another advantage that kelp has over terrestrial plants is that it contains little cellulose and thus is easier to handle when creating biofuel.

The First Nations of British Columbia used the kelp for centuries, as a place to find  fish, crustaceans and shell fish in the kelp beds or to hunt seals that fed on the fish. In some parts of the BC coast, First Nations used kelp branches to harvest herring roe  (before the collapse of the herring stocks)

 For the past century, modern use has concentrated on the minerals the kelp produces,  it was burned to obtain soda ash (sodium carbonate) , used for the production of soap, ice cream and lotions as well as in some processes for making glass. 

Kelp is increasingly popular as a health food, both as an edible seaweed and for health supplements.   In British Columbia, kelp is harvested  for health food at a time of peak mineral content, when the content is  25 per cent to 50 per cent minerals,  including potassium, calcium, magnesium, phosphorus and iodine. Salt extracted from BC kelp is high in potassium and thus attractive for people on low sodium diets.

For biofuel, however,  the time when kelp is highest in minerals, and thus attractive to the current harvesters, is not the time it would be best for biofuel.  Adams says: “Seaweed ash has previously been reported to contain, potassium, sodium and calcium-carbonate  and high concentrations will lead to increased slagging, fouling and other ash related  problems during thermochemical conversion.”

In Wales, Adams’ study showed that the mineral concentration in the kelp peaked in March and was lowest in July, a time when the carbohydrate content is also higher.  She says   “This means that a July harvest would provide the highest heating value and the lowest ash  and alkali index values, making it the best month for harvesting  for thermochemical conversion.”

It appears also that cleaner water will produce kelp that is better suited to biofuel conversion, since the kelp her study used from Cardigan Bay had a lower mineral content than kelp from areas off Cornwall where effluent from the tin mines was carried by rivers into the ocean in that region.

An earlier small pilot project in 2008 at a royal estate on the north coast of Scotland looked into the possibility of setting up a kelp farm that could potentially used for biofuels.  That project showed that using kelp for biofuel meant that agricultural land did not have to be taken out of production for biofuel planting and even that agricultural runoff could be used to fertilize a concentrated kelp farm.

The species of kelp used in the Welsh study had high concentrations of both water and minerals and  that is whyJuly was the optimal time for a possible biofuel  harvest.  Other species, in other areas,  once studied, might be better suited to be used as biofuels. Adams concludes by saying: “Macroalgae or macroalgal residues could pryrolysted to create a bio-oil or used in hydrothermal liquefaction to make bio-crude  in a process which does not require the initial drying of the feedstock.”

523-haidaqwaiikelpmap.jpg
Map of the kelp beds on the north coast of Haida Gwaii, taken from the BC provincial government kelp inventory survey.

Correction: An earlier version of the story said the journal was Biosource Technology. This has been corrected to Bioresource Technology.

DFO closes recreational halibut fishery as internal memo warns of “significant economic impacts in the fishery”

Environment Fishery
Originally posted  Aug 23, 2011  1:15 PT
Updated Aug. 23, 2011, 2104 PT.

.Just after noon on August 22, 2011, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans  quietly announced that the it was closing the Pacific region  recreational halibut fishery as of  midnight Sept. 5,  2011 cutting off charter, lodge and recreational anglers from the fishery.

The commercial halibut fishery will continue, as planned, until November 18, 2011.

At the same time, DFO continued the highly controversial program of allowing those recreational fishers who can afford it to “‘lease” quota from the commercial fishery.

The closure notice posted on the DFO website on August 22. says:

Throughout the 2011 recreational halibut fishing season, the Department has reviewed in-season monthly catch estimates for the recreational halibut fishery. Catch information indicates that the recreational share of the Total Allowable Catch will be achieved in August. Therefore, recreational fishing for halibut under the BC tidal water licence will close effective 23:59 hours September 5, 2011 for the balance of the year. 2012 management actions will be developed this fall and announcements will be made in early 2012.
 Variation Order 2011 – 404 is in effect

DFO did not issue a news release on the closure and the opportunity to
lease, instead only posting the notices on the official notices to
fishery site. That meant that many recreational fishers did not learn
about the closure until the story broke in the British Columbia news
media almost 24 hours later.

Yet at the very same time, DFO did issue a news release,  at 155 pm, also on August 22, about a shell fish closure on the St. Lawrence.

 It is the earliest date that the recreational halibut fishery has been closed. Last year, the recreational halibut fishery closed on October 18.

Although the  total halibut biomass is considered healthy over the long term,  the stocks are low at the moment, probably due the lifecycle of the fish, and most of the existing stock is usually too small for harvest.

An internal memo from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, dated  Sept. 1, 2010, obtained by Northwest Coast Energy News under the Access to Information, outlined three possible closure dates for the recreational halibut fishery in 2010.

The memo gave the deputy minister three options for that year,  September 1, October 1 and “no closure” which would mean that the closure would have come on the traditional date of  December 1.

The documents predict the consequences for the recreational fishery if it was closed on Sept. 1, 2010 consequences that are likely to happen this year.

“An end of August closure does not allow time for the recreational  community  to make contingency plans or to inform clients in a timely manner,”  a problem that recreational fishers and charter operators   have been predicting since the protest meetings last winter.

Since 2003, the Canadian halibut harvest has been divided between the commercial fishery, which gets  88 per cent and the recreational fishery, which includes lodges, charters and individual anglers at 12 per cent.  The recreational fishery has disputed that division since it began.  The recreational halibut fishery has generally exceeded its quota for the past few years.

Thus the DFO memo says that: “Closing the recreational fishery  at the end of August  would reduce the potential  recreational fishery overage significantly. This would assist in Canada’s commitment  to managing within the TAC” (the total allowable catch set by the International Pacific Halibut Commission which sets catch limits for the Pacific US states, British Columbia and Alaska)

The DFO memo adds that an end of August closure would: “Although the recreational  fishing community has been advised of a possible in-season  closures, there will be significant economic impacts in the fishery  and there are concerns about the regular sports fishermen  who continue to  fish in the latter part of the year.”

(more to come)

The salmon study controversy. How to write a news release without answering the question

Environment

Fisheries minister Keith Ashfield and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans today issued a news release concerning the controversy over the muzzling of DFO scientist Kristi Miller and her genetic study of Fraser River salmon which suggests a virus may be responsible for the decline of the stock.  Although Miller published her study in the journal Science, she was not permitted to speak the media about it.

The DFO news release from this afternoon is a classic example of not answering the actual question while seeming to assure the public that the minister and department are doing their job. DFO also says it supports the department’s scientists, without mentioning that the DFO was originally willing to make Miller available to the media, it was Stephen Harper’s Privy Council Office that said she couldn’t.

You can read the full  news release. Response to Media Reports about Science at Fisheries and Oceans Canada

On Miller’s study the news release says:

 In fact, the research and report by Dr. Kristi Miller on Pacific salmon was not withheld from anyone; Dr. Miller’s report was published in a broadly circulated science magazine and remains widely available to the media and public through the Fisheries and Oceans Canada website, and as an exhibit through the Commission’s website.

(The Commission refers to the Cohen Commission on the decline of salmon stocks)

The publication of a scientific article in the journal Science is not at question.

What the Privy Council Office did was forbade a prominent scientist the opportunity to explain to the public in layman’s terms the significance of her findings.

Science journalism works like this. The major journals advise the media well ahead of time, under embargo, about the pending publication of major papers. The reason for this simple and supported by both the media and the scientific community. It takes time and effort to craft an accurate report of a scientific paper, whether reporting for a newspaper or the web. Creating an accurate and accessible television item on a scientific paper, a television item that also needs pictures and voice clips is both an art and science. Even in these days of cutbacks, the networks hunger for reporters and producers who can do it in under two minutes. If instead the media has to rush out a story on a scientific article on the day of publication, it is bound to be superficial and inaccurate. This was the process that was short circuited by the Privy Council Office when it, not DFO, muzzled Kristi Miller.

This is the question that the DFO news release ignores.

The news release then raises a smokescreen by saying:

Our scientists have also published hundreds of reports subscribed to by tens of thousands of people throughout Canada and the world. For example, this week, Fisheries scientist Dr. Kenneth Frank released a report about positive signs in the recovery of groundfish stocks off the coast of Nova Scotia. Dr. Frank’s research was published in Nature, the world’s most highly cited science journal, and he spoke to nearly a dozen interested members of the press on his report this week alone.

. While it is true, that the report on the rebound of groundfish stocks is receiving wide attention and as DFO says, Kenneth Frank was made available to the media, a cynical observer would be quick to point out that the Kenneth Frank story is good news for Canada and for the Harper government, while the Kristi Miller salmon virus could be bad news for both the country and the government.

So now it looks that the Privy Council Office is adopting a “good news” agenda. If it’s good, a government scientist can talk to the media, if it’s bad news, bury it.

 Finally the government relies in this case, on the “before the courts” excuse it used when the story of the salmon study first broke in Post Media News, referring to Justice Bruce Cohen’s commission of inquiry into the decline of the Pacific salmon stocks.

 Moreover, at Justice Cohen’s request, the government has provided almost 500,000 documents and many hours of testimony deemed relevant by Justice Cohen to his inquiry. Dr. Miller will also present her research findings at the Commission in the coming weeks along with several other scientists and officials.

Our government has been very clear that judicial inquiries are not conducted through the media. Evidence that may be relevant to Justice Cohen’s findings should be managed through the commission process.

What this means is that government may use the “before the courts” excuse in the future to muzzle any scientific debate on a controversial issue. In reality, of course, that simply means excluding the public and media from a debate on any subject that would likely be discussed openly at any scientific gathering or congress.

Of course, if the Harper government is in favour of something, then a “commission process” appears to be irrelevant. As has been widely reported, the Minister of Natural Resources, Joe Oliver, is ignoring the quasi-juidicial nature of the National Energy Board hearings into the Enbridge Northern Gateway project and the various LNG projects, all potentially using the port of Kitimat, by telling any reporter and any audience that the projects are in the “national interest” when finding the public interest is the mandate of the NEB.

“Call the Americans.” Canadian Coast Guard cutbacks now an issue in the US Senate

The Coast

The controversy over the Harper government’s cutbacks to Canadian Coast Guard resources on both west and east coasts  has now become an issue in the United States Senate.

While most of the media attention last week was on Newfoundland, where there are fears not only of moving the search coordination centre from the island to Trenton, and the possible privatization of the entire search and rescue service, the cutbacks on the northern coast of British Columbia have yet to become a national story, even though the conservative government is increasing its promotion of tanker traffic from Pacific ports.

Now the issue has come to attention of  Senator Maria Cantwell, a Washington Democrat, who is raising alarm bells in the Senate about the dangers of tanker traffic, the possibility of a spill and  the probable inadequacy of the Canadian response to any major shipping accident along the coast.

 


Cantwell’s main concern is upgrading the ability of the United States Coast Guard to respond to such an accident, “This is a major threat to our region,” Cantwell said at hearing on July 20 of the Senate  Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard Subcommittee. “It seems that Canada’s oil spill response plan in the Pacific Northwest is to call the Americans.  …Obviously any such spill in the narrow and heavily populated waters of the Puget Sound or Strait of Juan de Fuca would cause tens of billions of dollars in damage and impact millions of my constituents. … I think it deserves a very robust oil spill response plan.”

Cantwell  says she secured a commitment  from  Rear Admiral Paul F. Zukunft, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety, Security and Stewardship for the United States Coast Guard, to have the U.S. Coast Guard perform an extensive analysis of cross-border readiness and ability to respond to potential spills given the potentially dramatic increase in oil tanker traffic along the U.S.-Canada maritime border off Washington state.

After the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Cantwell pushed a bill through the U.S. Congress  that, strengthens oil spill protections for Puget Sound and other U.S. coastal waters. The bill, which was signed into law by President Barack Obama on October 15, 2010, includes  provisions that significantly enhance oil spill response and prevention to protect valuable coastal communities and their economies.

Cantwell’s news release  says

The legislation expands the oil spill response safety net from Puget Sound out to the entrance of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, ensuring that Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca have spill response teams and equipment in place. The bill further reduces ship and tanker traffic in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary; enhances spill prevention efforts on vessels transporting oil; and establishes a stronger role for tribes.

Cantwell also fought to include a provision that requires tug escorts for double-hulled tankers in Prince William Sound. Approximately 600 oil tankers and 3,000 oil barges travel through Puget Sound’s fragile ecosystem annually, carrying about 15 billion gallons of oil to Washington’s five refineries. The Strait of Juan de Fuca also has significant outbound tanker traffic originating in Vancouver and carrying Canadian oil. Prior to the 2010 Coast Guard Reauthorization Bill, American industry only had to position oil spill response equipment in Puget Sound, leaving the busy shipping lane in the Strait of Juan de Fuca unprotected.

Cantwell’s provision extended the “high volume port area” designation west to Cape Flattery. As a result, oil spill response equipment, such as booms and barriers, are now prepositioned along the Strait, supplementing the response equipment already in place in Puget Sound.

An oil spill in waters in Washington state interior waterways could be devastating. According to the Washington State Department of Ecology, a major spill would have a significant impact on Washington state’s coastal economy, which employs 165,000 people and generates $10.8 billion. A spill would also severely hurt our export dependent economy because international shipping would likely be severely restricted. Washington state’s waters support a huge variety of animals and plants, including a number of endangered species, all which would be harmed by a spill.

Cantwell says she was successful in protecting a tanker ban in Puget Sound.  Former  Alaskan Repuiblican Senator Ted Stevens attempted to overturn the then 28-year-old protections authored by former Senator Warren Magnuson limiting oil tanker traffic in the Puget Sound. In 1977, Senator Warren Magnuson had the foresight to recognize the great risk that oil supertankers would have on the waters of Puget Sound. He put his findings into law and essentially banned supertankers in the Puget Sound by prohibiting the expansion of oil terminals in Puget Sound.

Enbridge, environmentalists agree

The inadequate Canadian Coast Guard resources in the Pacific region bring rare agreement between Enbridge which wants to build the controversial Northern Gateway pipeline and the project’s environmental opponents.

While Enbridge maintains that safety systems it plans would make a tanker accident a rare event, when officials were questioned at last September’s public meeting in Kitimat, they said Enbridge was worried about Coast Guard resources on the west coast.   They said that Enbridge’s emergency planning scenarios call for it to take 72 hours for the Canadian Coast Guard to respond with its meagre equipment from Victoria and Vancouver to a tanker accident in Douglas Channel.  The Enbridge team admitted under questioning from the audience that the company would urge to Canadian government to call on US Coast Guard resources from Alaska and as far away as California in the event of a major spill, confirming Sen. Cantwell’s statement to the subcommittee that Canada would “Call the Americans.”

Enhanced by Zemanta

Rex Murphy’s rant on search and rescue cutbacks: National Post

Link The Coast

Rex Murphy: A decision so dumb, only a government would make it

Rex Murphy, writing in The National Post is fully justified in his rant Saturday against more search and rescue cutbacks in Newfoundland by the Harper government. Since it involves his beloved “Rock,” my former colleague is at his rhetorical best (and as the northwest knows the BC coast faces equally dumb cutbacks here)

Scarcely had Mr. Harper captured the PM’s job again, this time as a
majority leader in the last election, when one of his ministers came out
with the equally ludicrous decision to move search-and-rescue
operations: Last week, it was announced that the co-ordination centre in
St. John’s (along with one in Quebec City) was slated for termination,
with services relocated to Halifax and Trenton, Ont.

And according to reports circulating this week, the Department of
National Defence’s search-and-rescue services might soon be privatized.
(Currently, the job is done in partnership between DND and the Coast
Guard, which is overseen by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans). If
that happens, there’s no telling where the services would be relocated.

What is in the air in Ottawa? How do such absurd notions take root in
the federal mind? Would they ever take similar steps in regard to, say,
the regulation of Lake Ontario shipping?

Search and Rescue is not some toy service. It concerns life and
death. And considering the tragedies that fret the history of the
province over the centuries, this would not only be a wrong decision,
but an offensive one, as well.

Rex is certainly right on this issue, but wrong about the weather, when he says about Newfoundland being special:

Newfoundland is unique. It stands alone, shrouded in impenetrable mists and answering to the rhythms of its own weather gods. Newfoundland weather is not a little like the world of subatomic physics; a buzz of random and paradoxical probabilities, a thing that may be observed but not measured or, contrariwise, measured but not observed, and not either, ever, from Halifax. It is a wonder and a despair.

The weather along the BC coast has been shrouded in impenetrable mists for most of this summer (if you can call it summer).

The decision by Coast Guard bureaucrats  to replace the (70 foot, 21 metre) Point Henry in Prince Rupert with a smaller, (47 foot, 14 metre) open motor life boat and the similar move in Campbell River replace the Point Race was protested up and down the coast, and almost cost Vancouver Island North MP John Duncan his seat in the May election. Duncan, of course, is  toeing the Conservative party line now that he is safely back in the Commons.

The decisions on both coasts are equally dumb. The ocean is as dangerous in Newfoundland as on the BC coast.

 But Rex spoils his rant with his own dumb ideological conclusion:

My only explanation is that it serves to illustrate this unshakeable
axiom: Some decisions are so dumb that only governments can make them.

Northwest BC has had been the victim of many really dumb decisions by the private, corporate sector over the years and those dumb decisions are responsible for the economic decline of the region (with no help from government). The difference should be that government decisions may be influenced and changed by the electorate.  There are no checks or balances on corporate decisions.

So if Rex is right and search and rescue is privatized, becomes some sort of  for-profit venture, what dumb decisions are we going to hear from the CEO of SARCAN LLC? Checking someone’s credit score before launching a rescue?

Enhanced by Zemanta

US proposes handing Alaska halibut allocation dispute to international commission, have charters buy commercial quota

Environment

Editor’s note: With this entry, Northwest Coast Energy News launches its planned expansion of coverage from energy and energy related environment issues to include other environmental and related issues in the northwest, including fishery issues.

For the past year, anglers, guides and outfitters on the British Columbia coast have been concerned about the allocation problems with the halibut fishery, with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans sticking to the original quota system of 88 per cent of the total allowable catch going to the commercial fishery and 12 per cent to the recreational fishery, which includes both recreational anglers and the tourist industry.

There have been parallel problems in the state of Alaska, where the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which governs the US fishery, began moves to take away the licences from many of the halibut charter operators on the lower end of the income scale. That move is currently being challenged in a federal court in Washington, DC.

On Thursday,  NOAA proposed solutions to Alaska halibut dispute,  in effect, handing the hot potato decision on halibut allocationover to the International Pacifc Halibut Commission, suggesting that the Commission decide the split for charter and commercial allocation when making the overall decision on total allowable catch.  NOAA has also proposed allowing Alaska halibut charter operators to buy commercial quota, similar to the Canadian proposal from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans last winter.

The key phrase in the July 21 NOAA news release says

The International Pacific Halibut Commission, through which the United
States and Canada jointly manage the halibut resource from California to
the Bering Sea, would determine total commercial and charter catch
limits for southeast Alaska and the central Gulf of Alaska each year
before the fishing season….

Allocations to the charter and commercial sectors would vary with changes in the number of halibut available for harvest as determined by the best available science.

The actual details from the US Federal Register states:

The International Pacific Halibut Commission would
divide the annual combined catch limits into separate annual catch limits for the commercial and guided sport fisheries. The CSP (catch sharing plan) allocates a fixed percentage of the annual combined catch limit to the guided sport and commercial fisheries. The fixed percentage allocation to each sector varies with halibut abundance. The IPHC would multiply the CSP allocation percentages for each area by the annual combined catch limit to calculate the commercial and guided sport catch limits in net pounds. At moderate to low levels of halibut abundance, the CSP could provide the guided sport sector with a smaller poundage catch limit than it would have received under the GHL (guideline harvest levels) program. Conversely, at higher levels of abundance, the CSP could provide the guided sport sector with a larger poundage catch limit than it would have received under the GHL program.

The North Pacific Fishery Management Council intended the CSP sector allocations to balance the needs of the guided sport and commercial sectors at all levels of halibut abundance.
Although the CSP allocation method is a significant change from the current allocation method under the GHL, National Marine Fisheries Service believes that the allocation under the CSP provides a more equitable management response

On the issue of buying commercial quota, the NOAA release says:

The catch sharing plan would authorize transfers of commercial halibut individual fishing quota to charter halibut permit holders for harvest by anglers in the charter halibut fishery.
Those transfers would offer charter vessel anglers in southeastern Alaska and the central Gulf of Alaska an opportunity to catch additional halibut, up to specified limits.

The news release goes on to say:

The North Pacific Fishery Management Council recommended the rule to
establish a clear allocation between the commercial and charter sectors
that fish in these areas.

Currently, the commercial and charter halibut fisheries are managed
under different programs. The commercial halibut fishery has been
managed under a catch limit program since 1995. The charter halibut
sector has been managed under a different harvest guideline since 2003,
which gives charter fishermen a number of fish they can catch per guided
angler per day, but does not ensure the overall catch stays within a
definitive catch limit.

The proposed catch sharing plan, which is scheduled to be in place by
2012, is designed to foster a sustainable fishery by preventing
overharvesting of halibut and would introduce provisions that provide
flexibility for charter and commercial fishermen.

Those who wish to comment on the draft policy must respond before September 6.

Link to NOAA news release

NOAA draft rule in US Federal Register

Enhanced by Zemanta