The article goes on to state: “Why are glaciers important to stream flow, and hydro, in the first place? Matthew Beedle, a PhD candidate at the University of Northern B.C. studying glaciers in relation to climate variability, describes glaciers as “nature’s beautiful time release mechanisms.”

During the long hot days of late summer and early fall — just when precipitation drops off and after all the snow is already gone — is when glaciers start to melt. The gush of icy water replenishes the glacial watershed.

“This is a critical time for salmon coming upstream, and it can also be a critical time for power demand,” says Beedle. “And glaciers are there to contribute to streamflow.”

In a stable climate, glaciers “recharge” each winter when they accumulate more snow and ice. “But unfortunately, in a warming climate, you don’t get that recharge,” says Beedle. “So we’re just drawing from that reservoir.”"

The the full article in The Tyee for more information.

See the full article in the Globe and Mail for further details.

They also highlight testimony from the Cohen Inquiry dealing with ISA virus, research from DFO’s Dr. Miller on the piscine reovirus and other research that detailed the risks associated with open-net salmon farming.

For more information see the full letter.  Also see Watershed Watch’s Salmon Leaks series for additional highlights from the Cohen Inquiry.

• Canada sees itself as a world leader in ocean management, but we have failed to meet most of our national and international commitments to protect marine biodiversity.
• Canada lags behind other modernized nations in almost every aspect of fisheries management. Despite pledges on conservation and sound policies, Fisheries and Oceans has generally done a poor job of managing fish stocks, planning for whole ecosystems and protecting marine biodiversity.
• The government should act to review and rewrite outdated statutes, take rapid action on national and international commitments, curtail the discretionary powers of the minister of Fisheries and Oceans and move to limit regulatory conflict in that department.
• Canada needs national operational objectives to protect and restore natural diversity and to rebuild depleted populations and species. Improving and protecting ocean health will restore the natural resilience of Canada’s marine ecosystems to adapt in response to the challenges posed by climate change and other human activities.

Also see the The Vancouver Sun article Canada must act decisively to protect marine biodiversity: report, for more information on this new report.

See transcripts below:

• Sept 15 Hydro, Water and Temperature
• Sept 16 Hydro, Water and Temperature
• Sept 19 Cumulative Impact Assessment
• Sept 20 Cumulative Impact Assessment
• Sept 22 DFO Priorities and Summary
• Sept 23 DFO Priorities and Summary
• Sept 26 DFO Priorities and Summary
• Sept 27 DFO Priorities and Summary
• Sept 28 DFO Priorities and Summary

On Sept 15, Dr. Craig Orr from Watershed Watch was questioned (starts on page 58, line 5) about the existence of groundwater legislation in BC and whether it was adequate. Dr. Orr responded with several comments:

“…there’s no regulation to licence groundwater extractions, and that is being considered in the Water Act modernization, although I just do not know where it is at this point.”

“There has to be blanket coverage, and it can’t just include problem areas and for extremely large groundwater extractions.”

“Watershed Watch and others, have been advocating for consistent groundwater protection, licensing of all groundwater wells that are drilled in British Columbia.”

“The laws in British Columbia are antiquated with regards to protecting flow needs for fish”

On Sept 16, counsel for Watershed Watch turned to independent power projects (IPPs) and questioned the panel on the Environmental Assessment (EA) process associated with their approval and the issue of splitting up larger projects into smaller components to potentially avoid an EA. Counsel referred to an internal DFO memo (page 67 line 4) that highlights a number of concerns associated with government habitat protection methods including:

“Project splitting is a current issue resulting from a poorly coordinated referral system.”

Jason Hwang, BC Interior Area Manager, DFO, elaborated on this point from his memo,

“So we’ll get a piece for a marina, and then we’ll get a separate referral for, say, a boat launch, and then we may or may not get a separate referral for upland development. But it tends to all be part of the same development activity. It would be more effectively managed and regulated if we were able to review it and consider it as a one singular project instead of three individual pieces of a project.”

The discussion moved to the idea that an EA could be avoided if an IPP is split-up. Glen Davidson, Director of Water Management, Ministry of Forests said:

“Yeah, the trigger for the formal environmental assessment process is 50 megawatts. So under that, they’re not required to have certificate.”

Counsel continued:

“And would it be possible to split a project into smaller projects to avoid the requirement to conduct an environmental assessment?”

Glen Davidson:

“I would say not generally I’m seeing projects being split to do that. It’s kind of obvious if that’s the case.”

Counsel then brought up a potential IPP example in which this situation may have occurred:

“there’s an example of a project in the Fraser River watershed, and it’s on the Holmes River, and I’m just wondering if you’re aware of an independent power project where it appears that there’s a total of ten licences that have been granted for a total of 76 megawatts of power production, so it’s ten licences on a row of streams that go into the Holmes River.”

On Sept 19 David Marmorek, from ESSA Technologies Ltd. spoke about his report on cumulative impacts produced for the Cohen Commission.

On Sept 23, Justice Cohen brought up the Wild Salmon Policy and the issue of its implementation (page 81, line 12):

“Now that we’re in 2011, we have about six years under our belt. First of all, how realistic is that statement, that implementation must be accomplished within DFO’s existing resource capability? I’m reading that to mean human and financial resource, but I could be misinterpreting that statement. And secondly, how realistic is it that DFO will find a solution to sharing responsibility with First Nations, governments, volunteers, stakeholders, and other governments? In other words, after six years of working with the Wild Salmon Policy, if I could just get some reality check on these statements, it would be helpful.”

On Sept 27, counsel entered an email (page 3, line 7) into evidence that indicated the Minster of Fisheries had a private meeting with the largest salmon farming company in BC—Marine Harvest Canada—about their concerns with the Cohen Commission. Environmental groups in the Conservation Coalition—a participant group of the inquiry—did not have an analogous meeting opportunity with the Minister.

An email string that included communications from Al Castledine—Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, BC—detailed a precautionary movement of Marine Harvest Canada’s fish from one farm to another which was funded by the province. The email suggests the news of the fish movement was to be made public, but the source of the funding to the company was not.

In questioning Deputy Minister Dansereau about the adequacy of DFO, counsel referred to questions previously posed to Dr. Brian Riddell, former DFO scientist. Please see line 47, page 15 for an interesting exchange which included previous testimony from Dr. Riddell:

“Well, I don’t think there’s any question that I disagree. I am not surprised at all at her [Ms. Danereau] reply because, of course, these people are under significant pressure for national priorities and I’m sure there’s a very substantial debate in Ottawa where the money goes to the various departments. But I don’t think there’s any question that you would get a very common response on the west coast with respect to salmon stock assessment, I have said publicly here, I believe, that it’s definitely at a marginal responsible level that sort of what we would define as a core stock assessment responsibility is barely being met now.”

For more information see:

• Watershed Watch’s Fraser Sockeye Inquiry page
• Salmon Leaks: Backgrounder
• Salmon Leaks Part 1: The Beginning
• Salmon Leaks Part 2: Additional Highlights from 2010
• Salmon Leaks Part 3: Ringing in 2011 with Harvest Management
• Salmon Leaks Part 4: Inquiry Digs Deeper into Fishing
• Salmon Leaks Part 5: Expert Reports on Climate Change and Habitat
• Salmon Leaks Part 6: A thorough cross-examination of DFO’s Regional Director of Science—Dr. Laura Richards
• Salmon Leaks Part 7: DFO habitat management and enforcement panel
• Salmon Leaks Part 8: Fraser Sockeye Management, Habitat Use and Dynamics Expert Reports
• Salmon Leaks Part 9: Predation, Contaminants and Fisheries Monitoring and Enforcement
• Salmon Leaks Part 10: Cultus Lake sockeye, Wild Salmon Policy, Human Impacts and Aboriginal Fishing
• Salmon Leaks Part 11: The Cohen Aquaculture Daily
• Salmon Leaks Part 12: Habitat in the Marine Environment and Aboriginal Fishing

Watershed Watch Salmon Society Fisheries Biologist, Stan Proboszcz, attended the recent Fisheries Roundtable meeting and raised concerns to Minister Ashfield about evidence revealed in the Cohen Inquiry around delayed WSP implementation, the ineffective no-net loss of habitat policy and disease risks posed by salmon farms.

For more information on aquaculture issues, see Watershed Watch’s Salmon Farming page.