E.COLI in RANGELAND STREAMS 2017: The problem continues.

Our new report:      for 2017 is the fourth in a series of reports documenting E.coli in range-land streams.       

see the full report:    here

The project began in 2007 and has shown that  E.coli counts are almost entirely related to range-cattle presence or absence and that E.coli counts that could be attributable to wildlife (in the absence of cattle) are negligible or frequently nil.

Monthly stream testing going back to 2007 firmly established the patterns of contamination to the point that further monthly testing at our own considerable expense is no longer necessary to prove the point. It is interesting however to periodically sample, based on cattle activity in riparian zones, and when observations suggest, that contamination is likely.

Our new report again focuses on Johnstone Creek, Ingram Creek, Gilpin Creek and the Gilpin.

Notably two of the areas of sampling are within Provincial Parks, Johnstone and Gilpin.

As in past years the stream contamination speaks to the inability or unwillingness of oversight agencies to prevent damage and contamination on public-lands.

For the full 2017 Report and links to the three preceding reports,       here

dugout in Gilpin Grasslands. See report for contamination results.
click to enlarge

Same oozing dugout as in above picture.
click to enlarge

 

 

 

ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION: Is it working? We say no.

In recent years a number of Ecosystem Restoration (Ecological Restoration) projects have been undertaken in the Boundary area, closely following the examples of projects in the Kootenay Trench area where projects have a 12 year or more record.

The effectiveness and “success” of these projects is questionable. It is apparent from reports, “reading between the lines of reports” and talking to land managers, that planned objectives are rarely met, and that the same old stories of cattle and wildlife competition (in the Kootenays) are unresolved.

In the Boundary our observations of various projects are that excessive thinning and removal of forest have detrimentally affected wildlife habitat in a variety of ways.

Funding for these projects has drawn on various public funded sources with significant contributions from the Habitat Conservation Fund which is largely funded by hunter/fisher contributions. In our view the extent to which projects have detrimentally affected wildlife habitat has not yet been recognized by those interested in protecting and enhancing wildlife habitat. We are working on it.

Our new article focuses on the Johnstone Creek Park project, west of Rock Creek.

           See full article and pictures here.

An area designated as Important Ungulate Winter Range and an important wildlife corridor. This treed area was the only substantial north south wildlife corridor west to Osoyoos, North to Westbridge and East to Greenwood.

The Park is being logged heavily to the point that the important aspects of Important Ungulate Winter Range are being trashed, with removal of any effective snow interception cover, thermal cover and security cover.

The rational for this and similar projects is “returning” an area to some previous, unspecified point in time when the forest may have been more “open.”

“When invoking some ‘desirable” point in time to recreate, plan authors need to not only document the period and the specifics, but consider the intervention on a landscape scale, recognizing adjacent and area changes that have occurred, transforming surrounding areas.

Forest removal by agriculture, forest removal for commercial use, much of it clearcuts, except for local woodlot treatments that generally provide thinning while retaining favourable wildlife habitat. Substantial forest loss to wildfire.

After recognizing these changes, planners might better "see" the value of a forested remnant area like Johnstone Creek.

                A couple of before and after pictures from the Johnstone Creek Project:

 

West end of Johnstone Creek Park before logging

After logging. This tree density provides no effective snow interception cover,
 thermal cover or security cover.

 

For the full article and pictures: here

CRYPTOGAMIC SOIL LOSS and other damaging effects of Cattle Grazing

CRYPTOGAMIC SOIL LOSS & OTHER CONSEQUENCES of CATTLE GRAZING on PUBLIC LANDS

A Photo-essay in which we:

(1) show range-cattle effects on Cryptogamic Crusts, AKA Biological Soils or crusts, Microbiotic Soils or Cryptobiotic Soils.

Cattle trampling results in loss of these soils, encourages weed spread, particularly cheat grass and knap weed, forest expansion into grasslands and has various other land degrading effects. Beneficial effects include maintenance of soil stability, atmospheric nitrogen fixing, infiltration, nutrient contributions and resistance to water and wind erosion. See Addendum to read more on Cryptogamic Crusts/Soils and Cheatgrass.

(2) show other damaging effects by range-cattle on grasslands and vegetation, including inhibited recovery of plant communities as a result of overgrazing, soil compaction, time of grazing.

While this article illustrates some of the degrading effects of range-cattle grazing, other damaging effects, particularly in riparian zones, impact water quality and quantity. These effects are the subject of several other reports on our website, documenting damage and water contamination.

 

See the full article with pictures:   here

An area ungrazed by cattle. Here the Cryptogamic crusts provide

protection against weed growth and forest ingrowth.

 

CANNINGS & COWS

 

                                                 CANNINGS  & COWS

Area representative M.P. Dick Cannings recently authored a piece in local papers in support of the National Park proposed for the Okanagan in which he advocated the continuance of cattle grazing on public land.

As supporters of the National Park idea, we have published articles of support with our support contingent on removal of the cow.

See:

http://www.boundaryalliance.org/nationalpark.pdf

http://www.boundaryalliance.org/scientists_parkdeclaration.pdf

We recently wrote to M.P. Cannings to take issue with his support for cattle grazing, the precedent that would be created that could affect other National Parks, and the background reasons behind his cattle grazing support.

In the absence of any acknowledgement or reply by M.P. Cannings, we are now publishing an Open Letter to M.P. Cannings.
          See full story here

The following is an extract from our “Open Letter to M.P. Cannings.”

 

“Your support for continued cattle grazing, and the precedent that would be established in a National Park is an unfortunate proposal that fails to promote willing seller, willing buyer discussions that would result in removal of the cow. More significant is that your support for continued cattle grazing ignores the role of cattle as “degradation agents” whose presence has greatly damaged grasslands and habitat, and continues to do so.

 

We might have expected, given your environmental interests, you would be well aware of the economic and environmental absurdity of cattle grazing on public land.

 

We were aware however of a cautionary note when we saw/heard your reported comment, prior to your election, that cattle grazing in the Okanagan benefitted some birds. In enquiring (to people better acquainted with your work) as to whether this might mean that you would support continued cattle grazing in a Park, respondents thought good sense would prevail, not cows.

 

It seems clear that desired habitat for some nesting bird is of more concern to you than the wide-ranging damage occurring, thanks to cattle grazing.

 

Some comment on the bird in question may be useful.

 

To quote from your own book and your other comments, “Lark Sparrow, (nesting is)associated with bare earth between grass clumps and shrubs in grasslands, so may actually benefit from cattle grazing”.

 

Interestingly, the Audubon Society, perhaps better aware of cattle damage, describes the Lark Sparrow as “fairly common and widespread in the West....nesting in open country, bare ground, overgrazed pastures”

 

 

 

We provided the following partial list of cattle related problems and damage to M. P. Cannings.

 

A partial list of problems associated with cattle grazing:

 

 

• grassland and riparian degradation
• absurd water consumption raising low value crops
• water contamination
• cattle contribution to weed spread, cheat grass and other invasives.
• public fencing costs
• ecological-restoration costs (millions in public funds spent to repair damage, without removing the root cause, cattle)
• lost opportunity costs
• forest regrowth damage
• conflicts with wildlife, habitat, food
• growing awareness of cattle contribution to global warming.

 

 

 

For the complete story see the full article:           here

PROFESSIONAL RELIANCE REVIEW: Our Comments

B.C Government Professional Reliance Review:  Our Submission

The Provincial Government recently requested public input on the question of “Professional Reliance.”

We provided a response and published it together with a response by Dr Brian Horejsi of Speak Up For Wildlife Foundation.                         See the full submissions:                here

In our view Professional Reliance has been increasingly used to off-load Governments oversight of public resources and has resulted in a handover of resources to proponents and those developing or exploiting resources, effectively enabling industry to dictate conditions affecting public resources.

While Government has defended the PR model, together with so-called “Results Based” oversight, some of the more egregious examples of failure of the model, Shawnigan Lake,Mount Polley, will continue to demonstrate the problems inherent in the model.

The model also distances the public from engagement with processes having an effect on public assets, enables proponents to limit information provided, based (for example) on spurious claims of withholding “proprietary” information, and enables proponents to effectively control public input or concerns. The latter being the transfer of responsibility of public hearings to proponents while Government removes itself from the process.

While the myth that PR can effectively represent the public interest is propagated by Government and proponents. It is the opinion of this writer:

that professionals employed by or contracted by proponents have an inherent conflict of  interest and that to a greater or lesser degree can be expected to prioritize the interests of  their employer/agency, over the public interest.

Given the expectations of proponents, their ability to dictate Terms of Reference, devote or withhold resources or information and their ability to control and edit information, an essential bias in  favor of the proponent’s interests is inevitable. When you add the weight of  the control proponents have over the future advancement, re-employment prospects of the professionals involved, some degree of bias is a natural, predictable and inevitable outcome.

What checks and balances are in place to counter such bias? Increasingly, nothing effective, but a disingenuous claim by Government that critics of PR should take their case to the Professionals Regulatory Bodies. (See BC Auditor report and concerns re Mount Polley where Government replied to the criticisms by suggesting that, “concern about over reliance on qualified professionals is a criticism of professional body’s ability to regulate their professions.”)

Government is suggesting that it is the responsibility of professional bodies to maintain some mythical level of objectivity that will maintain the public interest, while being well aware that regulation within professions is a moveable attempt to mostly control the ways in which professionals should avoid "stepping on each other". This has resulted in various efforts by professions to silence, punish or remove members who have "in their professional actions" taken issue with another professional. So much for expectations of objectivity.

 

Extract from Dr Brian Horejsis’s comments:

“Each and every corporation, company, commercial entity, individual and/or association that
is engaged  in the use of or exploitation of public “resources”, (land, water, forests, wildlife, fish and birds) must be subject to scrutiny and regulatory oversight by an accountable, structured, disciplined and supervised Public Service Ministry.”

If any reader thinks the Forest Practices Board (FPB) could presently fill that role, we add Dr Horejsi’s  comment on the FPB as follows:

“The Forest Practices Board of today is an offshoot of the Professional Reliance revolution. It was born to provide technical analysis of the consequences of Public Service and Ministry

behavior but was designed deliberately to be neutered of regulatory authority.

While it produces report upon report of Ministry failures and land user misconduct, it

remains but a pimple on the chin of the Ministry of FLNRO, and continues dutifully to have no material bearing on the actions of commercial and corporate land users.”

We would note that a former Chair of the FPB has proposed that the FPB should be the entity to do the oversight in a variety of areas. Other recent public comment has proposed that the FPB should provide oversight of Oil and Gas production.

In our opinion the FPB as presently structured does not and can not provide meaningful oversight for the reasons noted above by Dr Horejsi (highlights by us) and we have a number of personal experiences that confirm those concerns.

It is unlikely that some “restructuring” of the FPB would result in the necessary regulatory oversight needed.

We propose a completely new structure.

To read the full submissions        here

 

LIVESTOCK WATERING REGULATIONS PROPOSALS: Our Comment

Jan 2018 the Ministry of Environment & Climate Change (MOE) issued Intentions Papers to enable ranchers to more easily access water on Public (Range) Land.
 
The Intentions Papers, although issued by MOE appears to have been written by the cattle industry or Range Branch and contains so many misleading statements that we doubt that this is a credible process undertaken in good faith.
Despite the emphasis on the objectives of protection of the environment, this process comes from the demands of the cattle industry for easy access and effective ownership of a public resource.  
The proposed regulations, with the numerous misleading statements in the Intentions Papers make us doubt that this is a credible process.

Anyone who thinks this narrowly focused attempt to respond to the wants of the cattle industry will result in meaningful improvements is ignoring the history and the failures of oversight agencies to prevent damage and public cost.

A few of the problems associated with cattle grazing:

grassland and riparian degradation…..

absurd water consumption raising low value crops…..

water contamination…..

cattle contribution to weed spread, cheat grass and other invasives…..

public fencing costs (decaying infrastructure which will result in huge public cost.)…..

ecological-restoration costs (millions in public funds spent to repair damage, without removing the primary root cause, cattle)…..

lost opportunity costs……

increased fire risk (and fire season) from cattle induced cheat grass infestations…..

forest regrowth damage…..

conflicts with wildlife, habitat, food…..

growing awareness of cattle contribution to global warming……

We have submitted comment to Government and have detailed the :

• Broader Issues
• Misleading Statements
• Why Existing & Proposed Regulations Fail to serve the Public Interest
• Conclusions & Recommendations

 However it appears that MOE is not publishing submissions (as has been the practice on other issues) nor have we received any confirmation of receipt of our submission. That suggests further that this process may not be credible.

Our detailed submission can be viewed at:

http://www.boundaryalliance.org/livestockwateringsubmission.pdf

Our recommendation in that submission is that these proposals should be shelved pending a full comprehensive and independent economic analysis of public land (Range) use to include public and environmental costs including lost opportunity costs.

It is our expectation that an independent, objective analysis would show that the public cost of Range use greatly exceeds the Public benefits, even before the inclusion of lost opportunity costs. Similar analysis in the US (with a similar range use regime) shows that public costs far exceed benefits, to the point that it would be cheaper in the mid to long term to pay ranchers to relinquish grazing permits, for payment. Paying ranchers in effect for grazing rights that they do not in fact “own.”

Proposal of a full economic/environmental assessment/study then poses a difficult question.

No Ministry in our experience could be relied upon to produce or commission such a study without inserting the usual bias in favour of the ranching industry.

Perhaps it is a job for the Auditor General

................................................................................................................................................

Gov't also provided short term access to a blog to allow comment on these proposed regulations. It appears that the blog is now closed for comment. For now the comments can be viewed at:

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/watersustainabilityact/2018/01/12/blog-post-24-proposed-livestock-watering-regulations-what-do-you-think/

 

KETTLE RIVER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN: A CRITIQUE

In 2010 the Regional District of Kootenay Boundary began a process for a Kettle River Watershed Management Plan (KRWMP). The Plan was finalized and published 2014/2015.

The process began after repeated appearances of the Kettle on the Endangered Rivers List.
The Outdoor Recreation Council of B.C.’s Endangered Rivers List of March 2011 listed the Kettle River as the #1 Endangered River in the Province. The Kettle reached this sorry position after climbing up the list over several years, having been #2 in 2010.

See our full critique here:

http://www.boundaryalliance.org/krwmp_a_critique.pdf

Our extended article critiques the way this process was initiated, the inadequate Terms of Reference and critical gaps, errors and omissions in the Technical Assessment (Summit Environmental Report) and the KRWMP Report. The article also criticizes the adequacy of the Plan in addressing current and future issues affecting the Kettle Watershed and in creating full public awareness of those issues. The KRWMP is less a “Management Plan” than a limited overview of the issues, lacking concrete actions to address the issues, and a Plan which largely suggests other levels of Government do what is needed.

Our extended article expands on the following topics:

·         Background

·         Terms of Reference

·         Process Structure,

·         How well did the KRWMP Structure Work ?

·         Public Meeting Format

·         Water Quality & Source Water Protection

·         Water Quality: Heavy metals & substances

·         Low water flows & High temperatures

·         Conclusions & Recommendations

Our final recommendation is that no one should use the KRWMP as a template.

Our extended article also links to our youtube video below.
If your devices and download speeds allow, video is available in up to 1920 x 1080 high definition.

KETTLE RIVER DRONE TOUR

Other KRWMP articles can be found on our website and the website page below:

Our KRWMP page: http://www.boundaryalliance.org/ba_014.htm

E.COLI COUNTS IN RANGELAND STREAMS: 2016 EDITION

Our full report on testing of representative rangeland (public land) streams in 2015 and 2016 is available in the link below.

 http://www.boundaryalliance.org/e.colireport2016.pdf
 

As in previous reports, the patterns show that E.coli counts are almost entirely related to range-cattle presence or absence and that E.coli counts that could be attributable to wildlife (in the absence of cattle) are negligible or frequently nil.

The multi-year, multi-month scope of this study is unusual in that most studies monitor over shorter periods.

Our 2015-2016 results together with our other reports going back to 2007 provide compelling evidence that

E. coli contamination in streams relates directly to the presence or absence of range-cows.

Testing in 2015-2016 is a continuation of earlier studies, reported in earlier articles:

http://www.boundaryalliance.org/e.coli_report2013.pdf

http://www.boundaryalliance.org/ecolireport2009.pdf

 

The 2013 Report has a full discussion of factors affecting stream contamination (in addition to tenure holders) including the roles of Ministry of Forests and Range, Forest & Range Evaluation Program, BC Cattlemen's Association.

 For all E.coli & Cattle related articles see our web page:

http://www.boundaryalliance.org/ba_008.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

GILPIN GRASSLANDS SAGA: 2016 Edition

The sorry history of “range management” in the Gilpin continued in 2016.

For the complete story see extended article at:     http://www.boundaryalliance.org/gilpin_saga2016.pdf

 The video below tells part of the tale, and if your devices and download speed allow, the video is viewable at up to 1920 x 1080 high definition.

Drone views provide a new perspective.

In 2016 we saw repeats of earlier issues plus some new ones.

• Range cattle invading, damaging, and  contaminating parkland, and a protected area at Gilpin Creek.
• New wildlife unfriendly fencing installed in the Gilpin.
• Flooding of Lost Lake area by tenure holder or agents through failure to set up cattle waterer.
• Will the tenure holder do the right thing in 2017 to prevent damage? Will Range Branch, MFLNRO, ensure it?
• Cattle grazing on public land makes no economic or ecological sense

For previous articles on problems in the Gilpin and on range cattle issues see www.boundaryalliance.org

and the page  http://www.boundaryalliance.org/ba_008.htm

LOGGING in BC: 32 YEAR TIMELAPSE VIEW

Timelapse is a global, zoomable, view on Google Earth showing how the Earth has changed over 32 years.
Navigate to areas of interest as usual within Google Earth, mosaics can be viewed at various speeds.

Navigate to the Boundary area BC, for a startling view of the extent of logging in the area. Although the Timelapse video indicates it covers the period 1984 to 2016 it appears that their info is taken from 2 year old source views, so the last couple of years of active logging in the Boundary don't show.
Sustainable?

https://earthengine.google.com/timelapse/#v=50.42741,-119.97841,9.911,latLng&t=1.20

Our thanks to independent Biologist Brian Horejsi for the link.

NEW ZEALAND RIVER WORLD'S FIRST LEGAL ENTITY

2017:
New Zealand passed a bill recognizing the Whanganui River as a legal entity. A world first.

Ruling means the river will be entitled to representation in court proceedings.

The New Zealand Parliament passed the bill making it the first natural resource to be given a legal personality.

I know the initial inclination of some people will say it's pretty strange to give a natural resource a legal personality, " said New Zealand's Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson. "But it is no stranger than family trusts, or companies or incorporated societies."


 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39282918

With extracts from BBC and Daily Mail
Our comment:
Good to think about the possibility of legal status for rivers here. Locally the Kettle River was given Heritage Status years ago, but Heritage Status and the recent Kettle River Watershed Management Plan, have failed to protect the Kettle River system from past, present and future threats.


A few days later:
An Indian Court, acknowledging the New Zealand action, has given similar protection to the Ganges and Yamuna Rivers, "meaning that if anyone harms or pollutes either river, the law would view it as no different from harming a person."      See more:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/indian-court-gives-2-rivers-same-rights-as-a-human-1.3333556

LOST LAKE REVISITED

At the end of April 2014 a group of public minded citizens replaced a section of fence around Lost Lake in the Gilpin Grasslands to better protect the area from off-road vehicles and range cow damage. The new fence was constructed as fully wildlife friendly fencing.

The Story on the new fencing was originally reported Nov 2014  at:    www.boundaryalliance.org/lostlake.pdf     

In spring 2015 Range Branch and Ministry of Forests Lands and Natural Resources (MFLNRO) and Ministry of Environment, installed signage and a seating bench at Lost Lake, some six years after their original fence construction.   The major message on that signage appears to have been prompted by the concerns raised in our original Nov 2014 article: see section on “Waterer Not Activated.”      
Incredibly the major message on the Governments new signage in 2015:  

1. tried to justify the original placement of the fence as bounding existing riparian vegetation.
2. introduced a long winded and misleading rationale for why there was no water in the waterer.

  Regarding (1) it became apparent over time that the older fence failed to protect existing riparian  vegetation which showed up outside that fence and also failed to provide any worthwhile setback from such vegetation. The original fence placement also did not prevent a throughway for off-road vehicles.  The new wildlife friendly fence installed by public minded citizens in 2014 fixed those problems.

 Regarding (2) the claim on the new signage blaming the City of Grand Forks for not providing water for the waterer, is contrary to what was claimed by MFLNRO in extended conversations with the writer  June 20 2014. See more detail on those discussions in our Nov 2014 article:

www.boundaryalliance.org/lostlake.pdf

Crucially however, the Government’s claim on the sign, that the City of Grand Forks would not provide water for the waterer, is according to the City of Grand Forks, not true.

 In addition to the misleading (or worse) information provided on the sign, the sign is placed looking down the length of the new fence installed in 2014 by volunteers. Viewers of the sign might expect that this new wildlife friendly fence was the work of Government. On the contrary, Range Branch and MFLNRO have resisted such installations despite public concerns and the advice of the Forest Practices Board. MFLNRO was in fact engaged in “investigating who was responsible” for the “unauthorized” new fence while placing this misleading signage that suggests it is their work.

In addition to the serial misrepresentations of the signage, it was installed together with a bench and sign celebrating off-road vehicle usage in the area. The scars on the land from such activities will be apparent in upcoming articles. We wonder if those supporting or sponsoring the signage including the Trails signage are fully aware of the damage done to public land by range-cattle and off road activities.

 

youtube video 3.14 min

if your devices and download speed allow, available at up to 1080 HD

 

 

Our November 2014 article on installation of the new wildlife friendly fence:

www.boundaryalliance.org/lostlake.pdf

made a number of complaints and suggestions regarding Government oversight of public resources and faulty installation of fences and waterers in the Gilpin Grasslands and elsewhere.

The misleading signage installed by Government in 2015 further demonstrates their lack of competence and inability to honestly deal with the damaging realities of Range use and oversight.

 

Extended pdf  version with additional pictures, background and  transcript of message on signage, available at:

www.boundaryalliance.org

 

Our Fencing Project on Nature Trust Land: Revisited

 

 As told in an earlier article July 2015:     http://www.boundaryalliance.org/naturetrust.pdf      

 A portion of damaged Nature Trust property in the Gilpin Grasslands has been fenced by volunteers to protect a spring and riparian area. This will be the first time since the property was acquired by Nature Trust in 1973, that this piece, approximately 6 acres, will be protected from range cows and off-roaders.

The fence was proposed at meetings of the Committee for the Enhancement of the Gilpin. Work began late 2014 and was completed June 2015.

Approximately 6 acres of Nature Trust land is now protected by wildlife friendly fencing as per recommendations of Montana State Wildlife Friendly Fencing Brochure. See details on www.dryrotjournal.blogspot.ca Lost Lake blog of Nov 2014.

For more on that story see the link above.

Volunteers returned to the newly fenced area Oct 2015 to remove the dysfunctional fence installed a few years earlier by Range Branch, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

That Range Branch fence deserves further comment as it was a non-wildlife friendly fence installed too close to a spring and seasonal flow to provide any worthwhile setback or protection from range cows. The Range Branch fence was constructed in a U shape, open at the North end where it was apparently assumed that dense brush would prevent cattle access. The assumption was wrong, cattle pushed into the supposed enclosure and having done so, exited through the wire, damaging the fence. The fence did not extend into the headwaters area of the spring which remained open to cattle damage. In order to construct that fence, Range Branch or designates felled numerous trees in the area and left them where they fell. That fence and the damage were done on Nature Trust property without permission or notice to Nature Trust.

Other examples of Range Branch’s work can be found in the Gilpin and elsewhere in the Boundary. Poorly planned, poorly executed, non-wildlife friendly fencing and fencing along the edge of riparian zones that are hazardous to wildlife. See more on that in our Nov 2014 article: http://www.boundaryalliance.org/lostlake.pdf

The following YouTube video shows the new fence construction and the take down of the older Range Branch dysfunctional fence.

 

 

 If your device and download speed allow, select up to 1080 high definition video.

 

 

 

It is our hope that this initiative will:

• Allow recovery of the Nature Trust Spring and surrounding area.

• Demonstrate improved natural values in the absence of cattle grazing and off-roading.

• Demonstrate the effectiveness of wildlife friendly fencing in the face of Range Branch’s reluctance to use same.

On the latter point we are less than optimistic. Range Branch has shown no ability or inclination to change their practices for the benefit of anything other than cattle grazing.

This article and video link are also available as a printable pdf at http://www.boundaryalliance.org