The CRD Environmental presentation - January 2015
The purpose of the environmental study is to determine if there is any species of plant or animal in the park that requires protection in the new park management plan. The Friends of Island View Beach support this, with the qualification that any proposal to exclude the public from the park on environmental grounds should only be made on factual, scientific data showing clear need.
The CRD had to abandon a draft park plan they put out in 2013 because it contained so many misrepresentations about the environment. In May 2014 the Regional Parks Committee gave staff direction that a new environment study was to be done to:
The purpose of the environmental study is to determine if there is any species of plant or animal in the park that requires protection in the new park management plan. The Friends of Island View Beach support this, with the qualification that any proposal to exclude the public from the park on environmental grounds should only be made on factual, scientific data showing clear need.
The CRD had to abandon a draft park plan they put out in 2013 because it contained so many misrepresentations about the environment. In May 2014 the Regional Parks Committee gave staff direction that a new environment study was to be done to:
"Provide factual technical and scientific information about the natural environment found in the park.
- Regional Geographic setting
- Natural features of the Park:
- Regional geographic setting
- Terrain, hydrology
- Species at risk (flora and fauna)"
After 8 months, CRD staff released in January 2015 what they called an environmental presentation. This was anything but factual, technical or scientific and we wrote to the CRD on January 14, 2015 expressing the many concerns we had, and requesting an explanation. No response has been received from the CRD except for one letter acknowledging there were not 33 species at risk in the park as their presentation leads readers to believe. Their latest claim is there are 9 species at risk in the park.
1. It grossly misrepresents the number of species at risk in the park. For example it claims there are 33 confirmed species at risk in Island View Beach Regional Park, but at least 11 of those listed are migratory marine birds that live off shore and neither breed nor feed in the park! UPDATE - the CRD have now admitted in writing there are only 9 species at risk in the park, not 33 species that their web site claims. How can they continually mislead the public like this? See Species at risk
2. Of the species actually in the park it fails to identify which ones need protection there. And it fails to identify which ones can be protected. Just because a species may be on an endangered list nationally does not mean it is at risk in the park. An example of an endangered species thriving in the park is the yellow sand verbena plant which has been increasing over the years, and evidently does not need protection. And some species will be endangered by uncontrollable issues, such as climate change and the impact of invasive species - for example there is an invasive species of grass in the area fenced off for the Contorted Pod Evening-Primrose at the north east end of the park. See species at risk
3. It fails to address climate change and rising sea level. Island View Beach is just at sea level, so with rising sea levels and increased storm surges, in a short number of years the park may be under sea water unless something is done to protect it. Talk about saving the "at risk" species in the park without a parallel plan to save the park itself, is a waste of CRD resources and taxpayer money. CRD staff were cautioned in the Ministry of Enviroment Stacey Filatow 2009 report, at page 17:
1. It grossly misrepresents the number of species at risk in the park. For example it claims there are 33 confirmed species at risk in Island View Beach Regional Park, but at least 11 of those listed are migratory marine birds that live off shore and neither breed nor feed in the park! UPDATE - the CRD have now admitted in writing there are only 9 species at risk in the park, not 33 species that their web site claims. How can they continually mislead the public like this? See Species at risk
2. Of the species actually in the park it fails to identify which ones need protection there. And it fails to identify which ones can be protected. Just because a species may be on an endangered list nationally does not mean it is at risk in the park. An example of an endangered species thriving in the park is the yellow sand verbena plant which has been increasing over the years, and evidently does not need protection. And some species will be endangered by uncontrollable issues, such as climate change and the impact of invasive species - for example there is an invasive species of grass in the area fenced off for the Contorted Pod Evening-Primrose at the north east end of the park. See species at risk
3. It fails to address climate change and rising sea level. Island View Beach is just at sea level, so with rising sea levels and increased storm surges, in a short number of years the park may be under sea water unless something is done to protect it. Talk about saving the "at risk" species in the park without a parallel plan to save the park itself, is a waste of CRD resources and taxpayer money. CRD staff were cautioned in the Ministry of Enviroment Stacey Filatow 2009 report, at page 17:
“Sea level rise due to global warming may threaten the ecosystems …. It is important to integrate climate change into management considerations …”
but they did not. See climate change and sea level rise.
4. Mosquito drainage ditches Much of the CRD presentation is aimed against the mosquito drainage ditches built in 1936 to alleviate the terrible mosquito problems. Their commentary on the ditches ranges from fabrication, half truths, to misleading by omission. See Mosquito Drainage Ditches
4. The dumb stuff
Conclusion:
The CRD has owned this park for 50 years and staff have been studying it for the last 9 years with a view to a new management plan. After all these years and expense, why is the CRD not capable of giving an unvarnished, factual report of what is in the park and what species need and can be protected? The public deserves better than this – a lot better.
This CRD environmental presentation is so flawed that no reasonable person would be able to come to an informed opinion from it. Environmental protection is critical, but it must be based on factual scientific data showing that a species at risk
It would be improper for the CRD to proceed with this flawed and misleading presentation. The CRD should postpone the two public meetings scheduled for January 29th and February 5th; have a proper environmental assessment done; and bring this back to the public in the summer when the people are at the park.
Click here to email the CRD with your thoughts
4. Mosquito drainage ditches Much of the CRD presentation is aimed against the mosquito drainage ditches built in 1936 to alleviate the terrible mosquito problems. Their commentary on the ditches ranges from fabrication, half truths, to misleading by omission. See Mosquito Drainage Ditches
4. The dumb stuff
- displaying two photos from the Saanich archives but changing the date and description on the photos
- showing data on the saline levels in the Tsawout lands as salt water, but not disclosing that those lands are flooded twice daily with sea water due to a malfunctioning flapper gate
- making off the wall statements about the mosquito drainage ditches that were wrong, but more puzzling was why they were made
- making the extraordinary statement that the average width of the park ditches is 3.4m!
- failing to disclose that the Regional Parks Committee has instructed staff that the mosquito drainage ditches and the mosquito control program are both to be maintained in any new park plan
- not disclosing when quoting measurements that these were for areas outside the park
- not disclosing the extent of invasive species in the park. Dr. Paul Blundon of Camosun College was quoted in the Vic News, October 30, 2013 as saying "About 95% of the plant species there originated in England. They are invasive species and it would take a massive expenditure of money and effort to remove those polants and return native species to the park."
- the "Species of Interest" section gives bird counts for "Island View Beach" but these are not counts within the park, they are mainly counts of marine birds outside the park.
Conclusion:
The CRD has owned this park for 50 years and staff have been studying it for the last 9 years with a view to a new management plan. After all these years and expense, why is the CRD not capable of giving an unvarnished, factual report of what is in the park and what species need and can be protected? The public deserves better than this – a lot better.
This CRD environmental presentation is so flawed that no reasonable person would be able to come to an informed opinion from it. Environmental protection is critical, but it must be based on factual scientific data showing that a species at risk
- exists in the the park;
- that it is in need of protection; and
- that it is capable of being protected.
It would be improper for the CRD to proceed with this flawed and misleading presentation. The CRD should postpone the two public meetings scheduled for January 29th and February 5th; have a proper environmental assessment done; and bring this back to the public in the summer when the people are at the park.
Click here to email the CRD with your thoughts