By Lynda V. Mapes
SEATTLE TIMES

SEATTLE -- It looked big. It looked bad. But the marine heat wave that threatened much of the West Coast in the fall of 2019 has mostly dissipated, at least at the surface.

The Northeast Pacific Marine Heatwave of 2019, or NEP19, lasted 225 days and at its peak covered about 3.2 million square miles. It was the second longest-lasting and second-largest such event recorded in the northern Pacific Ocean over the past 39 years, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The disturbance decreased below the agency's classification threshold for a heat wave as of Jan. 5, said Chris Harvey, a fisheries biologist at the agency's Northwest Fisheries Science Center, on Tuesday.

But while NEP19 is mostly gone, it's not forgotten: Scientists caution that it is not clear the heat wave is entirely dissipated, or that it will not return. The deep ocean is still retaining significant amounts of heat. Monitoring of sea surface temperature readings from multiple platforms, including satellites, ships and buoys will continue.

The biggest marine-warming event ever was the original 2014-16 “Blob,” which resulted in unprecedented harmful algal blooms, invasive species, shifts in migratory ranges for animals, including humpback and gray whales, and changes in the marine food web that, among other things, depressed salmon returns for years.

Seabirds and marine mammals starved to death as a result of The Blob, as their marine food supplies collapsed and the heat wave barreled all the way to the shore, leaving them with nowhere to go. Warming water also stoked disease in starfish, wiping out sunflower stars, once a common species.

Salmon and steelhead runs crashed in part because of ocean conditions, hitting lows not seen since the 1990s. Many runs have yet to rebound. That in turn compounded the troubles of endangered southern resident orcas. Lack of regularly available, quality salmon is one of the factors driving them to extinction.

In both marine heat waves, the main driver was the atmosphere, said Andy Leising, research oceanographer with NOAA's Southwest Fisheries Science Center in San Diego. In the case of The Blob, an unusually large and persistent high pressure system stoked warm weather and killed winds that normally would have stirred up cooler water from below. The system stalled and reinforced itself, baking heat into the deeper ocean.

"The atmosphere failed to have its normal pattern of strong winds and storms that would come through and mix that warm water, Leising said. "What happened this winter was it kicked in late, but we got the change in wind and atmosphere patterns and storms that were able to mix the warm water in."

But scientists remain wary. The last event came and went, and came back again, partly because of heat still stored at depth.

"We are going to keep our eyes very peeled on this," Harvey said. "The Blob had a heartbeat to it, there were times when it was very strong and times when it backed off, then it resurged. ... We need to keep our guard up."

The ocean is still on the warm side and the climate models used for forecasting are unanimous in predicting warmer than normal water near the coast, said Nicholas Bond, the state climatologist and senior research scientist with the Joint Institute for the Study of Atmosphere and Ocean at the University of Washington.

The ocean has a memory. With so much lingering heat in the deep ocean, effects from the first Blob are still being seen and it doesn't take much to pile on new impacts.

The Pacific cod fishery in the Gulf of Alaska has collapsed as cod have fled north because heat is still stored in the deep ocean in the gulf, where the adult cod usually thrive. "Right now in that 100-to-200-meter layer, it is warmer than it was during the original Blob," Bond said.

Closer to home, the location of tuna that sport fishers delighted in catching close to shore in Oregon last year was a clue that the ocean was disrupted by the 2019 heat wave, said Nate Mantua, research scientist at NOAA's SW Fisheries Science Center.

Albacore typically are found in warmer water, but last year, Oregon anglers were nailing them right off the beach. Salmon catches, meanwhile, in the same area were dismal.

A bright spot looking ahead is the storms that broke up the 2019 heat wave also dumped enough snow in the mountains in Washington that the freshwater migration conditions for salmon -- at least where there isn't flooding -- should be favorable this year, Bond said.
​
“Our snow pack right now is right around normal, we are still in good shape.”

SOURCE: https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2020/02/19/feared-return-of-the-blob-fizzles-at-least-for-now-as-storms-churn-and-chill-the-north-pacific/

By Adam Vaughan
NEW SCIENTIST

The reappearance of a vast ‘blob’ of abnormally warm water in the Pacific, around seven times the size of Alaska, has raised the prospect of serious impacts on marine ecosystems and the weather.

The marine heatwave stretches up the US and Canadian west coast, covering a similar extent to a mass of warm water in the region between 2014 and 2016, dubbed ‘the blob’. The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which reported the new patch this week, notes the last blob caused toxic algal blooms and massive die-offs of marine life.

“There’s definitely already been impacts and there’s likely to be further,” says Andrew Leising at NOAA. Algal blooms have already been seen off Washington state.

Simon Boxall at the University of Southampton, UK, says: “We do sometimes see anomalous warm or cold blobs in our oceans so shouldn’t necessarily assume the end of the world is coming. However, the fact it’s becoming more frequent will have an impact on ecosystems.”

Watched carefullyHe adds: “In the long term, if this is happening regularly, it could be we are seeing a difference because of climate change. It is something that needs to be watched carefully. It will bring changes to the area both in terms of ecology and weather.”

Scientists have different definitions of marine heatwaves, says David Ferreira at the University of Reading, UK. But typically, rises of 2-4°C over a region for a prolonged time would be considered a marine heatwave, he says.

While such blobs can’t be attributed to climate change, warmer average global temperatures create the conditions for them to appear, says Ferreira. “In the context of global warming, the warmer the background temperature the higher the probability you might get a blob.”

The climate phenomenon El Nino may also play a role in the formation of blobs, Leising adds.

Shallow blobOne of the key differences between this blob and the last one is the heat only goes down a fraction of the depth of the last event. The depth is a measure of how much heat is being stored, and gives a sense of how long the blob might persist, says Ferreira.

It is unclear clear how long this blob will last. The weather will be key and there are already some signs in the latest data – which comes via satellites and ocean buoys – that some cooling may have occurred in September, according to Leising. “But the jury is still out on whether it will dissipate,” he concludes.

If the blob lasts into next year, it is likely to have significant impacts on ecosystems and weather. “What’s happening in the Pacific is clearly very worrying,” says Jason Hall-Spencer of Plymouth University, UK. “The warming of the sea creates severe destruction to the marine ecology but also to our weather.”
​
Hall-Spencer is in Japan this week to undertake marine research but expects his equipment to be destroyed by super typhoon Hagibis, one of the most powerful in decades, which is expected to hit Japan by the weekend
​
Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2219501-return-of-warm-water-blob-in-the-pacific-threatens-marine-life/#ixzz6MjSVRYWt

By Amanda Jackson
CNN

With hibernation fast approaching, a grizzly bear family is spotted searching for fish near the shores of Canada's Knight Inlet. They're emaciated.

The heartbreaking images, captured by a Canadian photographer, have sparked concern from wildlife observers. They worry whether the bear and two cubs will even make it through hibernation.

It also shines light on another victim of the climate crisis and the depletion of wild salmon population.

Knight Inlet is a prime tourist spot in British Columbia, Canada for grizzly bear viewing. Visitors from all over the world come to take in the wilderness and admire the wildlife.
​
The Mamalilikulla First Nation has been monitoring the bears, specifically those in Hoeya Sound and Lull Bay, for several years.

"They have drastically changed within a couple months," Jake Smith, guardian watchman manager for the Mamalilikulla First Nation, told CNN. "The bears are in trouble."

Smith said when he saw the images on Friday, he knew he had to try to help. The bears' main food source, salmon, is at an all time low in the area. Commercial fishermen in British Columbia are calling this the worst salmon season in nearly 50 years.

In August, a report released by the Fisheries and Oceans Canada noted that Canada's climate is warming twice as fast as the global average, drastically impacting the salmon's ecosystems. The report also cited marine heatwaves, increased floods and droughts as causing greater stress on the fish.

Smith arranged for 500 salmon, donated by A-Tlegay Fisheries Society on Vancouver Island, to be distributed along the shorelines that the grizzlies frequent. Volunteers on Sunday piled the fish in ice chests and delivered them by boat to the area. Smith said bears were present and started eating the fish right away.

"We were about 30 feet away from them," Smith said. "A little grizzly looked up at us and the mother bear came out to get the fish."
​
While this is only a small step to help the bears, the First Nation will now continue to monitor the bears for any updates.

Causes of decline in wild salmon population

The wild salmon population has been steadily declining in the British Columbia area over the past few years. Just last month, advocates for commercial fishing asked the government for disaster relief to help the industry.

"The impacts of this climate change disaster has been coast wide," said Joy Thorkelson, president of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union, at a press conference in September.

The warmer weather has impacted the temperature of the water and drastically impacted the salmon run this year, according to CNN news partner CTV.

Another factor for the wild salmon population loss is the open-net fish farming that critics say are spreading disease and pollution in the water.

"Everywhere in the world where there is salmon farming you have a decline in the wild salmon population," said biologist Alexandra Morton, who has been researching the effects of farming for the past 30 years. This type of farming allows for waste to be added back into the water and exposes the wild salmon population to viruses, according to Morton.

In December, the British Columbia government along with First Nations created a plan to transition out of open-net farming by 2023 so that the wild salmon population can recover. The Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance has defended open-net farming as environmentally sustainable, calling plans to phase out open-net farming "a reckless policy, not grounded in science."

Bears forced to travel far for food

​Rolf Hicker, a wildlife photographer, took the images of the thin bears while giving a boat tour. He posted them on Facebook on September 23.

"We saw this sow with her two little ones a couple of weeks ago and then we saw her again only a few days ago," he posted. "I have no idea how she would make it through the winter without salmon."

More than half of Canada's grizzly population lives in British Columbia, and their average weight is 220 to 880 pounds, according to the Nature Conservancy of Canada. They forage for berries and plants, but salmon is their main food source.

Hicker told CNN that not all of the bears that he's seen are this thin, but the majority are not healthy.

Smith and Hicker said the grizzlies are starting to relocate and island hop to other areas, including Vancouver Island, looking for food.

"Provincial biologists cannot confirm why the bears appear to be in poor shape," said a statement from the province's Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development.

"If salmon runs in the area are lower than expected, this will have an added effect and bears may have to travel further to find food."

Grizzly bears hibernate for five to seven months each year and live off the fat built up during the summer and fall months, according to the National Park Service. If female bears go into hibernation leaner than normal, this might impact how many cubs she has, according to Parks Canada.

"Grizzlies are not native to Vancouver Island," said Hicker. " They are spending all their energy swimming to go to another location. They are being forced to do that for food."

Swanson Island, about an hour boat ride from Knight Inlet, is another location where grizzlies are showing up, Smith said.

"They were approaching our camps, and we are seeing them in areas we rarely ever see bears," Rick Snowdon, owner of Spirit of The West, told CNN. He takes tourists to Swanson Island for camping trips and kayaking.

Snowdon said while they haven't had a negative interaction with the bears, they have had to emphasize to guests to use caution.

"I've seen several grizzles with cubs," he said. "They definitely looked lightweight."
​
The natural resources ministry told CNN they will be meeting with First Nations on Thursday to discuss the situation.

Canada isn't the only area facing issues with wild salmon populations. This summer, the heat wave in Alaska resulted in scientist finding hundreds of dead salmon due to heat stress. The water temperatures broke records as it rose to 81 degrees in July in Cook Inlet.

SOURCE: https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/03/americas/emaciated-grizzly-bears-knights-inlet-canada-trnd-scn/index.html

By Stephanie Axmann & Bryn Gray
McCARTHY TETRAULT

​On August 28, 2019, Canada’s new federal environmental legislation under Bill C-69 (including the Impact Assessment Act (IAA), Canadian Energy Regulator Act (CERA), and Canadian Navigable Waters Act (CNWA)) and Bill C-68 (amendments to the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence) came into force.  These new statutes and legislative amendments introduce enhanced Indigenous consultation requirements for mining, pipeline, and other projects that require federal impact assessments and certain federal regulatory approvals and permits. McCarthy Tétrault’s update on the new IAA (including key transitional provisions) and associated Regulations is available here.

Bill C-69 Amendments

In February 2018, we wrote an overview of the Indigenous-related aspects and implications of the proposed IAA. The House of Commons’ proposed amendments to Bill C-69 were subsequently reviewed by the Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. Of the Senate’s 188 proposed amendments, the House of Commons accepted 62 amendments fully and 37 with modifications. Bill C-69, as amended, received Royal Assent on June 21, 2019.

In broad strokes, the overall scope and approach with regard to the Indigenous aspects of the now-in force IAA (as well as CERA and CNWA) have remained substantially similar since First Reading. The new Indigenous-related aspects of the IAA and other Acts generally focus on new measures designed to:

1. increase opportunities for Indigenous participation, cooperation and partnership with government in impact assessment processes and decision-making;
2. enhance recognition and consideration of Indigenous rights and interests; and
3. enhance consultation and engagement opportunities for Indigenous groups.

As part of this, the IAA and CERA expands the scope of what must be considered vis-à-vis Indigenous interests in decisions or recommendations under these statutes. The decision-maker will be required to consider any impacts on Indigenous peoples and their asserted and established Aboriginal or treaty rights.  This goes beyond the common law requirements of the duty to consult, which is limited to the consideration of impacts on section 35 rights and does not consider impacts on Indigenous peoples generally. 

The federal government summarized the House of Commons’ proposed Indigenous-related amendments to Bill C-69 in a summary document; these proposals were largely adopted by the Senate and embodied in the final version of the Bill. Below are some notable Indigenous-related amendments made to Bill C-69 (and particularly to the IAA) since First Reading in the House of Commons in 2018.

Express reference to UNDRIP

No reference was made to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in the initial draft of Bill C-69. This absence was notable given that the federal government had previously committed to implementing UNDRIP.  UNDRIP contains a number of provisions relating to seeking the free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) of Indigenous groups in various situations, including the approval of projects affecting their lands or territories. UNDRIP is now referred to in the preambles of the IAA and CERA (which state, “Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to implementing” UNDRIP) but there are no requirements for Indigenous consent in either statute except for reiterating pre-existing consent requirements for the use of reserve land and certain treaty lands in CERA. The IAA and CERA now also expressly mandate government authorities to exercise their powers in a manner that respects the Government of Canada’s commitments with respect to the rights of Indigenous peoples. It is unclear how this mandate provision will be interpreted and we anticipate that both provisions could become the subject of future litigation. (These references have not been added to the CNWA).

Bill C-69 generally reflects the federal government’s apparent intentions to implement the principles of UNDRIP and specifically the concept of FPIC of Indigenous groups in decision-making. The federal government is doing so by increasing opportunities for Indigenous participation in decision-making (“aiming to secure consent”) rather than by implementing a stricter standard of consent in respect of all decisions affecting Indigenous peoples or rights.  The wording of certain FPIC provisions and the manner in which UNDRIP has been implemented outside of Canada provides support for Canada’s position. The federal government’s approach aims to strike a balance between competing interests, including where certain affected Indigenous groups support a project and others oppose it. However, there continues to be heightened expectations of consent and confusion in this area. This is due in part to earlier statements by the federal government about their “unqualified support” for UNDRIP which they have in fact qualified through further statements and actions, including Bill C-69.  

The various agreement, arrangement, substitution and delegation approaches set out in the IAA give rise to the potential for Indigenous groups to negotiate consent principles into decision-making processes. These types of agreements and arrangements are discretionary on the part of either the Minister or the Impact Assessment Agency (Agency). If exercised, they give rise to potential opportunities that would significantly shift assessment and decision-making authority from government to Indigenous groups whose rights may be affected by a project. In our view, the true extent to which such measures will have any meaningful impact on the impact assessment regime will largely depend on the government’s willingness to implement them in practice, and particularly the degree to which they are willing to enter into such agreements with Indigenous groups that are not parties to modern treaties, and whether government will offer up authority beyond projects on modern treaty or reserve lands.

Consideration and Protection of Indigenous Knowledge

“Indigenous knowledge” has replaced references to the “traditional knowledge of the Indigenous peoples of Canada” in each Act in Bill C-69. Indigenous knowledge is defined broadly as “the Indigenous knowledge of the Indigenous peoples of Canada. The federal government has indicated that this change in terminology is to clarify that Indigenous knowledge is intended to include the evolving knowledge of Indigenous peoples and is not limited to “traditional knowledge”.

New measures have also been added to ensure transparency in the consideration of Indigenous knowledge. For example, the IAA includes various new reporting requirements on the Agency, review panel, or jurisdiction for a substituted process to expressly describe how Indigenous knowledge was considered and applied in their assessment and decision-making processes.

There are also new measures to ensure the protection of confidentiality of Indigenous knowledge. For example, under the IAA, CERA and CNWA, prior to disclosing Indigenous knowledge for purposes of procedural fairness and natural justice, the Minister, Agency, committee, review panel, or Regulator, as applicable, must consult with the provider of Indigenous knowledge about the scope of proposed disclosure and potential conditions of disclosure.

This still leaves many unanswered questions about how Indigenous knowledge will be considered in project reviews and how to address the challenges that have arisen in the past with the collection and incorporation of Indigenous knowledge into project reviews. With respect to next steps for the implementation of the Indigenous knowledge provisions under Bills C-69 and C-68, the federal government has announced that “federal organizations will work in partnership with Indigenous peoples to promote a common understanding for the consideration and protection of Indigenous knowledge in project reviews and regulatory decisions through the development of an Indigenous Knowledge Policy Framework and other procedures and guidance.” Further information regarding the development of the Indigenous Knowledge Policy Framework is available here.

Additional Consultation and Cooperation Requirements

The final version of Bill C-69 contains amendments to ensure additional consideration of Indigenous interests in certain decision-making.  For example, under the IAA, in deciding whether an impact assessment of a designated project is required, the Agency must take into account a range of factors, including comments received within the specified time period from any jurisdiction or Indigenous group that is consulted. Moreover, if the Agency decides that an impact assessment of a designated project is required, it must provide the proponent with certain documents, including tailored guidelines regarding information or studies required from the proponent and “plans for cooperation with other jurisdictions, for engagement and partnership with Indigenous peoples, for public participation and for the issuance of permits.”  It remains to be seen how detailed and prescriptive this information will be.

Indigenous Representation on Advisory Councils

Under the IAA, the Minister must establish an advisory council to advise him or her on issues related to the implementation of the impact assessment and regional and strategic assessment regimes set out under the Act. Amendments were made to ensure a distinction-based approach to Indigenous membership on advisory councils, such that the interests of First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples are all represented. Membership on this council must include at least one person representing interests of each of First Nations, Inuit and Métis.  Similarly, membership on the committee to advise the Agency regarding the interests and concerns of Indigenous peoples in relation to assessments to be conducted under the Act must also include at least one person representing interests of each of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis.

Similarly, under CERA, the establishment of an Indigenous advisory committee by the Regulator is now mandatory, for the purpose of enhancing the involvement of Indigenous peoples and organizations in respect of pipelines, power lines, offshore renewable energy projects and abandoned projects. Membership on the advisory committee must also include at least one person representing the interests of each of First Nations, Inuit and Métis.

References to Indigenous Women

Express requirements for consideration of the rights of Indigenous women have been added to two sections of the IAA. Before making an order to designate a physical activity that is not prescribed by regulations, the Minister may consider adverse impacts of the physical activity on the rights of Indigenous peoples – including Indigenous women. As well, when conducting a regional assessment or committee assessment of a federal policy, plan or program relevant to conducting impact assessments, the Agency or committee must take into account Indigenous knowledge provided with respect to the assessment – including the knowledge of Indigenous women.

Indigenous Capacity Support Program

Separate from Bill C-69, the federal government recently announced a new Indigenous Capacity Support Program as part of its efforts to improve and facilitate Indigenous participation in the new IA process. The program aims to assist Indigenous peoples, communities and organizations develop skills to better participate in impact assessments. The government’s Public Notice states that “[t]his funding, provided outside the context of specific project reviews, is intended to support better informed and more meaningful engagement and leadership of Indigenous peoples in consultations on project assessments, regional and strategic initiatives, and policy development.”

All Indigenous organizations, groups and communities are eligible, including: Indigenous groups or collectives coordinating more than one Indigenous group; and incorporated or registered Indigenous non-profit organizations, such as a band council, association, co-operative or institution. The nature and type of activities that are considered eligible (to a maximum funding allocation of $300,000) include: developing or supporting organizational capacity to participate in or undertake, as well as deliver information, data and studies on behalf of Indigenous communities or organizations mandated to support the implementation of environmental assessments; and outreach activities to strengthen awareness of environmental assessment issues; and design and delivery of workshops, training programs, or materials for Indigenous peoples for related activities.

Bill C-68 Amendments

In February 2018, we also wrote an overview of the Indigenous-related aspects of the initial draft of Bill C-68 and its proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act. In furtherance of the federal government’s reconciliation efforts with Indigenous peoples, the Fisheries Act amendments provide opportunities to increase and strengthen the role of Indigenous groups in decision-making under the Act, which includes the potential for an increased role in project reviews, monitoring and policy development.

Following the introduction of Bill C-68, there were a number of Indigenous-related amendments including:

• The definition of Indigenous, in relation to a fishery, has been amended to mean: “that fish is harvested by an Indigenous organization or any of its members pursuant to the recognition and affirmation of Aboriginal and treaty rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 or for any purposes set out in any rights implementation measures as agreed to by the Crown and Indigenous peoples.” The earlier definition referred to the use of fish as food for social or ceremonial purposes, or for purposes set out in a land claims agreement. Although nuanced, the new definition seems to potentially broaden the scope of what could constitute an Indigenous fishery under the Act.
  
  
• The Act introduces new measures to maintain and rebuild major fish stocks prescribed by regulations, which could affect Indigenous fisheries.
  
  
• The Rights of Indigenous peoples of Canada are now positively recognized under the Act, which “is to be construed as upholding” section 35 rights, and not as abrogating or derogating from them. As well, any agreement entered into by the Minister with an Indigenous governing body to further the purposes of the Act, must now expressly “respect the rights recognized and affirmed by section 35.”
  
  
• As with Bill C-69, references to the traditional knowledge of Indigenous peoples of Canada have been changed to Indigenous knowledge. As well, before disclosing Indigenous knowledge for the purposes of procedural fairness and natural justice, the Minister must consult with the provider of the Indigenous knowledge about the scope and potential conditions of disclosure.

We will continue to monitor and provide commentary on the new legislation and associated regulations, and as any implementation guidelines that are released. 

SOURCE: https://www.mccarthy.ca/en/insights/blogs/canadian-era-perspectives/indigenous-implications-bills-c-69-and-c-68-worth-second-look?utm_source=Mondaq&utm_medium=syndication&utm_campaign=View-Original

NEWS PROVIDED BY
Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pacific Region

​VANCOUVER, Sept. 5, 2019 /CNW/ - Healthy wild fish stocks are vital to the economic prosperity and social fabric of British Columbia's coastal communities, and are fundamental to the culture of many Indigenous communities.

The focus on habitat restoration projects and research science is part of a broader approach to addressing declines in salmon stocks that include restoring lost protections for fish and fish habitat in the modernized Fisheries Act, science-based fisheries management measures, reviewing concerns regarding predation and implementing a plan to fight climate change.

Today, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, the Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, and the British Columbia Minister of Agriculture, the Honourable Lana Popham, announced 14 projects under the British Columbia Salmon Restoration and Innovation Fund (BCSRIF), amounting to almost $6.2 million in year one funding and almost $30 million in funding over the five years of the program.

Projects funded under BCSRIF will advance work to enhance salmon habitats to help support British Columbia's fish and seafood sector, and help secure the sustainability of wild Pacific salmon, as well as other wild fish stocks. Over the next five years, investments through the BCSRIF will help ensure British Columbia's wild fisheries are environmentally and economically sustainable for the long-term, and that employment in the fishery is resilient to the challenges of climate change, as well as evolving economic conditions.

BCSRIF funding is open to Indigenous communities, industry associations, environmental non-governmental organizations and academic institutions. Each application is reviewed and approved by Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Province of British Columbia. Investments through this program will benefit commercial and recreational fishing and aquaculture, as well as science and research initiatives.

​Quotes

"Our government understands the need to protect and restore salmon habitats as a key part of our plan to sustain and restore wild salmon populations. Through the investments being made under the British Columbia Salmon Restoration and Innovation Fund, we are taking decisive action in improving conditions and habitat in waterways across the province. Working in partnership with the Province of British Columbia, I am confident that we can and are making substantive progress in protecting and enhancing our wild fish stocks and in strengthening our fishing industry for today, and for generations to come."

The Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard

"These projects highlight how many British Columbians are working together to help wild salmon, and how our collective knowledge, respect and appreciation of the species will help them recover. Multiple First Nations, governments, conservation organizations, industry, and academic institutions are working to restore habitat in key streams and rivers in different parts of the province, research ways to optimize performance in community hatcheries, and help understand and prepare for the threats salmon face through climate change. It is a lot of hard work, and it will be ongoing, but the impressive cooperation and commitment of so many British Columbians is helping the outlook for wild salmon recovery."

The Honourable Lana Popham, BC Minister of Agriculture

Quick Facts

• Additional information on the 23 initial projects selected for BCSRIF funding can be found online here.
• The British Columbia Salmon Restoration and Innovation Fund is a 70 per cent federal, 30 per cent provincial cost-shared program.
• The Government of Canada is investing $100 million over five years through the British Columbia Salmon Restoration and Innovation Fund, and is providing a one-time investment of $5 million for the Pacific Salmon Endowment Fund.
• The Government of British Columbia is investing $42.85 million over five years through the fund and has provided a one-time grant of $5 million for the Pacific Salmon Foundation.
• Indigenous communities, commercial organizations in the wild fisheries and aquaculture sectors, recreational fisheries, as well as non-commercial organizations such as universities and research institutions, industry associations and conservation groups, can apply.
• Salmon are a part of intricate food webs, from tiny zooplankton, to large mammals like whales and bears, in both their freshwater and marine environments.
• Wild salmon are culturally important for many First Nations in British Columbia. Wild salmon is also part of the province's long-running tradition of recreational and sport fishing, which is directly connected to its tourism industry.
• Further opportunities to apply for funding will be provided in the late fall of 2019. Details and exact dates will be made available at a later date.

Associated Links

• British Columbia Salmon Restoration and Innovation Fund
• Canadian Fish and Seafood Opportunities Fund
• National Indigenous Fisheries Institute
• British Columbia Conservation Foundation
• Baker Creek Enhancement Society
• Nazko First Nation
• Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium (UVic)
• Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia
• Scw'exmx Tribal Council
• Secwepemcul'ecw Restoration and Stewardship Society
• Tides Canada
• Watershed Watch Society
• Pacific Salmon Foundation
• Canadian Wildlife Federation
• British Columbia Cattlemen's Association
• 'Namgis First Nation
• Kwikwasut'inuxw Haxwa'mis First Nation
• Mamalilikulla First Nation

Backgrounder
British Columbia projects that are receiving funding through the British Columbia Salmon Restoration and Innovation Fund include:

• The National Indigenous Fisheries Institute will engage with Indigenous communities to identify potential large-scale, multi-Nation initiatives that could be supported by BCSRIF. This work will also encourage increased Indigenous involvement in science partnerships, innovation and infrastructure investments that would improve productivity, sustainability, and safety across the sector. The National Indigenous Fisheries Institute will receive up to $385K in funding.
• Led by the British Columbia Conservation Foundation, the "Innovative Habitat Restoration Demonstration" is a multi-year, watershed-scale demonstration project to showcase innovative habitat restoration methods that accommodate the effects of recent ecosystem shifts with benefits to Chinook, coho, sockeye and steelhead. The project will promote restoration, protection and maintenance of healthy and diverse salmon populations and their habitats. The 'Innovative Habitat Restoration Demonstration' will receive nearly $5M (approximately $792K in year 1) in funding.
• The Baker Creek Enhancement Society will collaborate with the Nazko First Nation to undertake restoration of critical habitat affected by the Plateau Fire. This work will also prevent further habitat degradation from normal precipitation and predictable storm events. The Baker Creek Enhancement Society in collaboration with the Nazko First Nation will receive up to $750K (approximately $150K in year 1) in funding.
• The Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium (UVic) will conduct research to improve our understanding of potential threats to Pacific salmonids and their habitats posed by climate change and develop risk assessment tools to support adaptive regional management approaches. The Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium (UVic) will receive close to $1M (approximately $113K in year 1) in funding.
• BCSRIF will support elements of the Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia (SFI) Vision 2021. This is an action plan to maximize the social and economic potential of the recreational fishery on Canada's Pacific coast. The project aims to improve representation of the fishing community and increase participation in the fishing sector by youth, new Canadians and others. SFI will receive up to $701K (approximately $149K in year 1) in funding.
• The Scw'exmx Tribal Council and partners will assess and rehabilitate degraded habitats in the Coldwater River and Guichon Creek watersheds to improve survival of Thompson steelhead and Chinook salmon. The Scw'exmx Tribal Council and partners will receive close to $1.3M (approximately $126K in year 1) in funding.
• The Secwepemcul'ecw Restoration and Stewardship Society, in partnership with Secwepemc communities and the 100 Mile Natural Resource District will undertake restoration of critical habitat affected by the 2017 Elephant Hill Wildfire in the Traditional territories of the 8 Secwepemcul'ecw Nations. The Secwepemcul'ecw Restoration and Stewardship Society, Secwepemc communities and the 100 Mile Natural Resource District will receive nearly $2.6M (approximately $430K in year 1) in funding.
• Tides Canada and the Watershed Watch Society along with other partners, will implement "Connected Waters", a project to identify priority sites requiring infrastructure upgrades and habitat restoration across the Lower Fraser River watershed, which will support the reintegration of vital wild salmon habitats. Tides Canada and the Watershed Watch Society will receive nearly $600k (approximately $232K in year 1) in funding.
• The Pacific Salmon Foundation (PSF) will conduct a science-based review of hatcheries in the Pacific Region (including community hatcheries and DFO major facilities) to evaluate performance and the effectiveness of current genetic and genomic tools, in order to optimize salmon production in BC. PSF will receive nearly $1.1M (approximately $305K in year 1) in funding.
• The Canadian Wildlife Federation will bring together partners, including federal and provincial governments, non-governmental organizations, First Nations and communities to prioritize fish passage remediation efforts across BC to maximize the benefits for steelhead trout and Pacific salmon. The Canadian Wildlife Federation will receive close to $4M (approximately $1.2M in year 1) in funding.
• The British Columbia Cattlemen's Association will deliver the Farmland Riparian Interface Stewardship Program, promoting habitat restoration and stewardship on agricultural lands in BC. The program will encourage environmental farm planning within the agricultural sector for more "fish friendly" land management practices around riparian corridors, as well as promoting water conservation for BC Interior salmon streams experiencing frequent critical low flows. The British Columbia Cattlemen's Association will receive up to $550K (approximately $110K in year 1) in funding.
• The 'Namgis, Kwikwasut'inuxw Haxwa'mis, and Mamalilikulla First Nations will partner on activities to assess, prioritize and restore critical salmon habitat in the Nimpkish and Kokish Rivers, Rivers flowing from Bond Sound, Thompson Sound, Wakemen Sound, Viner Sound and Rivers Near Hoyea Sound and Lull Creek. The 'Namgis, Kwikwasut'inuxw Haxwa'mis, and Mamalilikulla First Nations will receive more than $4.2M (approximately $479K in year 1) in funding.
• The 'Namgis, Kwikwasut'inuxw Haxwa'mis, and Mamalilikulla First Nations will work together on the first steps towards establishing a genomics lab to analyze samples collected by First Nations with an interest in conducting independent fish health sampling. The 'Namgis, Kwikwasut'inuxw Haxwa'mis, and Mamalilikulla First Nations will receive approximately $50K in funding.
• The 'Namgis, Kwikwasut'inuxw Haxwa'mis, and Mamalilikulla First Nations will implement the Broughton First Nations Indigenous Monitoring and Inspection Plan, using BCSRIF support to build monitoring and oversight capacity over finfish farms in the Broughton, capacity to monitor wild salmon, other marine species (and their ecosystems) and to conduct salmon habitat restoration activities. The 'Namgis, Kwikwasut'inuxw Haxwa'mis, and Mamalilikulla First Nations will receive close to $7.3M (approximately $1.7M in year 1) in funding.

Stay Connected

• Follow Fisheries and Oceans Canada on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube.
• Follow the Canadian Coast Guard on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube.
• Subscribe to receive our news releases and more via RSS feeds. For more information or to subscribe, visit http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/rss-eng.htm

SOURCE Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pacific Region
​
For further information: Jocelyn Lubczuk, Press Secretary, Office of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, 343-548-7863, Jocelyn.lubczuk@dfo-mpo.gc.ca; Media Relations, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 613-990-7537, Media.xncr@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Related Linkswww.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

SOURCE: https://prn.to/2MZ4EiF​

By Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) Canada

OTTAWA, Aug. 28, 2019 /CNW/ - Canada's oceans, lakes, and rivers are important to the millions of people, including Indigenous communities, that depend on them for work, food, and recreation and cultural purposes. To ensure these waters and the species that live in them are protected, in 2015 the Government of Canada committed to strengthening fish and fish habitat protections and incorporating modern safeguards to the Fisheries Act.

Today, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, the Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, announced an important milestone has been reached towards ensuring the protection and conservation of fish and fish habitat. On August 28, 2019, strengthened fish and fish habitat protection provisions under the modernized Fisheries Act, as well as regulations that support these provisions, officially come into force.

These changes include:

• protection for all fish and fish habitats;
• restoring the previous prohibition against the "harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat"; and,
• restoring a prohibition against causing "the death of fish by means other than fishing".

Updated guidance and information on these new provisions is available on Fisheries and Oceans Canada's website.

Quotes
"This is the culmination of a long journey to strengthen protections into the Fisheries Act. Canada is home to the world's longest coastline and our countless lakes, rivers, streams and wetlands hold one-fifth of the world's freshwater. With a modernized Fisheries Act, we now have the right tools in place to fully protect our fish and fish habitat from coast to coast to coast."

The Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard

Quick Facts

• The Government of Canada announced its intention to propose amendments to the Fisheries Act in 2016. Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence, was tabled in Parliament on February 6, 2018. The Bill received royal assent on June 21, 2019.
• In developing these new provisions, the Government of Canada consulted broadly with provincial and territorial governments, Indigenous peoples, industry stakeholders, environmental non-government organizations, and the public to discuss planned amendments to the Fisheries Act.
• The coming into force of these provisions coincides with the coming into force of the Authorizations Concerning Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Regulations, which will repeal and replace the existing Applications for Authorization under Paragraph 35(2)(b) of the Fisheries Act Regulations.
• Additional Fisheries Act amendments, to provide for a public registry of decisions made under the fish and fish habitat protection provisions, will be brought into force at a later date.

Associated Links
A modernized Fisheries Act for Canada
Projects Near Water
Canada Gazette II: Order Fixing August 28, 2019 as the Date on which Certain Provisions of that Act Come into Force
Canada Gazette II: Authorizations Concerning Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Regulations

​Stay Connected

• Follow Fisheries and Oceans Canada on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube.
• Follow the Canadian Coast Guard on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube.
• Subscribe to receive our news releases and more via RSS feeds. For more information or to subscribe, visit http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/rss-eng.htm.

By Ryan Prior
CNN

Alaska has been in the throes of an unprecedented heat wave this summer, and the heat stress is killing salmon in large numbers.

Scientists have observed die-offs of several varieties of Alaskan salmon, including sockeye, chum and pink salmon.

Stephanie Quinn-Davidson, director of the Yukon Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, told CNN she took a group of scientists on an expedition along Alaska's Koyokuk River at the end of July, after locals alerted her to salmon die-offs on the stream.

She and the other scientists counted 850 dead unspawned salmon on that expedition, although they estimated the total was likely four to 10 times larger.They looked for signs of lesions, parasites and infections, but came up empty. Nearly all the salmon they found had "beautiful eggs still inside them," she said. Because the die-off coincided with the heat wave, they concluded that heat stress was the cause of the mass deaths.

Quinn-Davidson said she'd been working as a scientist for eight years and had "never heard of anything to this extent before."

"I'm not sure people expected how large a die-off we'd see on these rivers," she said.

The heat wave is higher than climate change models predicted

The water temperatures have breaking records at the same time as the air temperatures, according to Sue Mauger, the science director for the Cook Inletkeeper.

Scientists have been tracking stream temperatures around the Cook Inlet, located south of Anchorage, since 2002. They've never recorded a temperature above 76 degrees Fahrenheit. Until now.

On July 7, a major salmon stream on the west side of the Cook Inlet registered 81.7 degrees.
Mauger said she and her team published a study in 2016, creating models outlining moderate and pessimistic projections for how climate change would drive temperatures in Alaska's streams.

"2019 exceeded the value we expected for the worst-case scenario in 2069," she said.
Mauger said that the warm temperatures are affecting salmon in various ways, depending on the stream.

"Physiologically, the fish can't get oxygen moving through their bellies," Mauger said. In other places in the state, the salmon "didn't have the energy to spawn and died with healthy eggs in their bellies."

Salmon under threat

Salmon populations are under stress from other angles as well.

Overfishing is threatening salmon further south in southwestern Canada and northwestern Washington. Orca whales, which are themselves endangered, feed on salmon.

With fewer salmon to eat, populations of orca whales have steadily declined over the past decades.

And last week the Environmental Protection Agency told staff scientists it would no longer oppose a mining project in Alaska that had the potential to devastate one of the world's most valuable wild salmon fisheries, just after President Trump met with Alaska's Gov. Mike Dunleavy.

But in other areas, things are looking up. "Salmon are very resilient. They've overcome a lot," said Mary Catharine Martin, a spokeswoman for the non-profit Salmon State.

Alaska's Bristol Bay, the largest sockeye salmon fishery in the world, is annually seeing boom times for salmon returns, and in 2016 celebrated the 2 billionth salmon caught in its waters, after more than a century of commercial fishing.
​
"That's very good," she said. "Salmon have sustained the way of life of the people of Alaska for thousands of years."​

By KASHMIRA GANDER 
NEWSWEEK

Levels of methane—the second biggest contributor to climate change after carbon dioxide—have spiked in the atmosphere in the past decade. And a study says fracking in North America could be partly to blame.

The gas is linked to climate change, as well as ground-level ozone levels that can harm agriculture. It can also trigger a range of health problems, including chest pains, as well as reducing lung function and worsening conditions such as bronchitis, emphysema and asthma.

In the last half of the 20th, century levels of methane in the atmosphere rose. They then plateaued, and spiking in 2008. Robert W. Howarth of Cornell University, who published a study in the journal Biogeosciences, investigated fracking as a potential culprit.

Hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking, is the process of extracting gas and oil from shale sedimentary rock using pressurized liquid. The method is controversial and has been linked to contaminated drinking water in the U.S, methane gas escaping from wells into the atmosphere and earthquakes.

First performed in 1949, the fracking industry has boomed in the past decade or so. Between 2005 and 2015, global rates of fracking went from producing 31 billion cubic meters per year to 435 billion, according to Howarth. Of this, 89 percent occurred in the U.S., and 10 percent in Canada. The U.S Department of Energy forecasts production will spike to 1500 billion cubic meters per year by 2040.

For the new study, Howarth looked at existing research on the levels of certain carbon isotopes of atmospheric methane to find a potential source, and created an equation to investigate the link.

Methane is a compound made up of carbon and hydrogen. While methane released in the late 20th century was enriched with the carbon isotope 13C, Howarth highlights methane released in recent years features lower levels. That's because the methane in shale gas has depleted levels of the isotope when compared with conventional natural gas or fossil fuels such as coal, he explained.

This leads Howarth to conclude: "The commercialization of shale gas and oil in the 21st century has dramatically increased global methane emissions."

If trends of releasing methane continue, he said, this will "significantly increase global warming and undercut efforts" to meet the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to keep post-industrial revolution global temperatures below 2 C.

Howarth urged those involved in the energy industries to "move as quickly as possible away from natural gas, reducing both carbon dioxide and methane emissions."

The good news, argued Howarth, is that climate reacts quicker to methane than carbon dioxide, meaning cutting emissions of the gas emissions "could provide an opportunity to immediately slow the rate of global warming."

This could help the commitment of the Paris Agreement be met.

Howarth said in a statement: "This recent increase in methane is massive. It's globally significant. It's contributed to some of the increase in global warming we've seen and shale gas is a major player."

"If we can stop pouring methane into the atmosphere, it will dissipate. It goes away pretty quickly, compared to carbon dioxide. It's the low-hanging fruit to slow global warming."

Researchers not involved in the study welcomed Howarth's efforts, but pointed out some limitations. 

Grant Allen, professor of atmospheric physics at the U.K.'s University of Manchester, commented: "A wide range of different methane fluxes from different source types (e.g. fossil fuels, agriculture, wildfires and wetlands) can all simultaneously explain the observed trend in methane (and carbon isotopes of methane) within the limits of uncertainty in our knowledge of their carbon-isotopic fingerprints and estimates of total methane emitted from each source type.

"Other work has also proposed a role for changing chemical sinks of methane in the atmosphere. The jury is still out on the relative importance of all of these sources in explaining methane's rise."

Allen continued: "However, this paper makes a very important point—some sources of methane are within our gift to control, other (natural sources) are not as easily targeted. Controlling emissions from fracking, and fossil fuels in general, represents a potential policy quick fix to stemming the rise of methane still further."

Quentin Fisher, professor of petroleum geoengineering at the U.K.'s University of Leeds, said he was "deeply skeptical" about the study.

"The results are extremely sensitive to highly questionable assumptions regarding the isotopic composition of methane found in shale. The arguments made by previous studies that increase in methane in the atmosphere is from biogenic sources, such as release from wetlands and agriculture or burning of biomass, seem far more convincing."

"It's also the case that the study itself admits that even if the increased methane concentrations were from shale that they are not a direct result of the hydraulic fracturing process," he argued.
​
"For example, the USA has an aging gas transportation network, which results in significant methane leakages."

By Paulina Adamson, Tony Crossman, Terri-Lee Oleniuk
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
JDSUPRA

The federal government’s long-awaited overhaul of key environmental laws (Bill C-69, which implements the new Impact Assessment Act, the Canadian Energy Regulator Act and the Canadian Navigable Waters Act and related regulations) will take effect on August 28, 2019. The Impact Assessment Act will replace the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, (CEAA 2012) overhauling the federal environmental assessment (now impact assessment) system. The new regime includes a revised list of activities that will trigger an impact assessment (see the Physical Activities Regulations (Project List)); and some other details of how the impact assessment process will work.

For more information on Bill C-69, please see our February 2018 Blakes Bulletin: Federal Government Overhauls Canadian Environmental Legislation and June 2019 Blakes Bulletin: Federal Government Passes Controversial Environmental Legislation and Tanker Ban.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT TRIGGERS: THE PROJECT LIST

The federal government has released an unofficial version of the Project List with an official version to be published on August 21, 2019, prior to coming into force on August 28, 2019. While the Project List maintains many of the existing categories in CEAA 2012, the list also expands the categories of projects subject to an impact assessment. For example, there is a new trigger for in-situ oil sands extraction facilities or expansions of in-situ oil sands extraction facilities if the facility is located in a province that has not limited the amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced by oil sands sites in that province or, if a greenhouse gas emissions limit exists, but has been reached. Further, many of the thresholds of projects caught by CEAA 2012 have changed. While new thresholds have been introduced (i.e., more projects will be caught), somewhat surprisingly, other thresholds have increased (meaning fewer of these categories of projects will be caught). For example, the trigger for assessment of a new pipeline is now 75 km or more of new right of way, as opposed to 40 km under the CEAA 2012 regime.

After much speculation, discussion and consultation, the publication of the Project List provides some greater certainty to project proponents regarding whether an impact assessment will be required. However, considerable uncertainty remains as the Minister has the ability to, on request or on his or her own initiative, designate a physical activity that is not contained in the Project List if the Minister is of the opinion either that the activity “may cause adverse effects within federal jurisdiction or adverse direct or incidental effects, or public concerns related to those effects warrant the designation”. It remains to be seen what public concerns may warrant such a designation.

PROJECTS THAT DON’T REQUIRE ASSESSMENT, TIME LIMITS AND REQUIRED INFORMATION

The federal government has also released an unofficial version of the Information and Management of Time Limits Regulation (IMTLR). Time limits under the Impact Assessment Act may be suspended (1) upon the proponent’s request; (2) to undertake additional studies or collect additional information related to changes in the design, construction or operation plans for a designated project; and (3) for the collection of certain fees and costs if they are not paid by the proponent within the required time limits. The IMTLR also sets out what information is required to be provided by proponents in the initial description of a designated project. The required information includes a list of all Indigenous groups that may be affected by the project, a summary of engagement undertaken with Indigenous Peoples and the key issues raised during the engagement.

Still to come is clarification of what projects will not require an impact assessment. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is currently seeking input on a ministerial order that will designate proposed classes of projects on federal lands and outside Canada that will only cause insignificant adverse environmental effects and will not be required to undergo an impact assessment. Comments will be accepted until August 21, 2019.

COMMENTARY
​
The overhaul of federal environmental laws has been many years in the making, with the most significant being the new impact assessment regime. The release of draft regulations, including the Project List, provide some clarity on the new impact assessment system. However, the Impact Assessment Act contains many discretionary provisions and new mandatory considerations that leave many questions unanswered about how the new system will work in practice.

By Fatima Syed
CANADA'S NATIONAL OBSERVER

Environmental groups have given Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government a passing grade on its efforts to restore protections to Canada's natural habitats, which the Liberals say are in jeopardy if the Conservatives return to power following this fall's federal election.

Nature Canada has created a report card — in consultation with Freshwater Alliance and other environmental law groups such as Ecojustice, West Coast Environmental Law and Centre Québécois du droit de l’environnement — to assess the Trudeau government's efforts to restore public trust and transparency in Canada's environmental legislation.

"The overall takeaway (is) that the government has done a pretty good job — better in some areas, worse in some," said Stephen Hazell, director of policy and general counsel at Nature Canada.

The report card is the first of its kind, according to Hazell. It examines six major changes to four major environmental laws passed in 2019 — averaging roughly a B grade across the board.

Hazell said the grading in Nature Canada's report card was assessed based on what the environmental community thought was needed to deal with each of the issues at hand, and the extent to which the government fulfilled its 2017 promises.

"We did it partly because there had been such a flurry of environmental laws enacted by Parliament in 2019," Hazell said in an interview. "The last time there was anything similar was 2012 with the Conservatives... when they basically trashed all environmental regulations.

"This sort of thing doesn’t happen very often," he added. "It's very rare that you get a government that’s as interested in dealing with environmental law issues as the Trudeau government was in 2019."

The Trudeau government proposed sweeping amendments to Canada’s environmental laws in 2017 to reverse a series of "very controversial" changes implemented by the Harper administration in 2012, which immediately cancelled about 3,000 environmental assessments.

During the 2015 election campaign, Trudeau committed to restoring credibility to the environmental assessment process and launched a series of advisory panels and consultations to help create new legislation.

One of his underlying goals was to manage environmental reviews under a transparent process that makes it easier for the public to participate, and urges federal officials to consider all economic, social and health effects of a project, including effects on Indigenous Peoples.

"Under Stephen Harper the protections for fish and fish habitat were lost when the Fisheries Act was revised in 2012," Fisheries and Oceans Minister Jonathan Wilkinson told National Observer in an email. "That was part of a broader agenda with respect to fisheries and the environment where we saw significant layoffs of scientists, significant layoffs of protection officers, the closures of Coast Guard facilities including the Kitsilano Coast Guard base and $100 million in operating budget reductions."

The Harper cuts to environmental protects also "gutted the scientific capacity of the department such that ideologies started to play far more of a role than science and evidence," he said.

Wilkinson thanked "the thousands of Canadians from coast to coast to coast who participated in the consultations that were incredibly important in informing the changes" made to the Fisheries Act and other environmental legislation, calling them "a promise made and a promise kept."

Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna's office echoed similar sentiments, noting that the Trudeau government had "reform(ed) a broken system and restore(d) protections that Harper’s government gutted and (Conservative Leader) Andrew Scheer has promised to return to."

"The Conservatives made it harder, not easier, for major projects to be developed in Canada," Caroline Thériault, spokeswoman for McKenna, said in a statement to National Observer. "That’s why Canada urgently needed better rules, and why we’ve worked hard since Day 1 to restore public trust in how decisions about resource development and other major projects are made."

Tories argue Trudeau gets 'failing grade'

In an emailed statement to National Observer, Scheer’s spokesman disagreed with this characterization.
“Justin Trudeau’s report card on the environment gets a failing grade from everyday Canadians struggling to make ends meet and get ahead," wrote Daniel Schow.

"The Trudeau Liberal carbon tax increases the price of everything from home heating, gas and groceries while doing nothing to reduce emissions and meet our Paris targets.”

Hazell said the process to create the report card did find some flaws in the political process as it pertains to environmental legislation.

For instance, many of the changes to these bills were proposed by the Senate, the majority of which were "anti-environment," he argued.

"The Senate has become the problem. That’s the place where good environmental law would die if we didn’t have a government committed to this file," he said.

Hazell also said that, despite the passing grade report card, more work needs to be done.

In an Aug. 2 letter to Trudeau, a coalition of environmentalists including Hazell urged the prime minister to expand the project list subject to environmental assessments.

"We are keenly aware of the upcoming federal election, and (the) closing of a window of opportunity for dramatic action on the project list," the letter reads.

The report card

Here are the grades for the major environmental laws that were passed:

Impact Assessment Act (Bill C-69) — C

This act established a single federal agency to ensure public participation in the approval process of any energy project, pending cabinet approval. The new agency would look at the social and health aspects of a project, as well as the effects on the economy, environment and Indigenous Peoples.

It also included a "climate test" (how the project affects Canada's ability to meet its climate targets) — the first time such a thing has been included in federal legislation.

Hazell said they were disappointed the Senate brought an amendment that allowed the agency to select the members of the review panels, and only designated projects were subject to this agency. For example, it excluded pipeline assessments to those 75 kilometres or more.

Fisheries Act amendments (Bill C-68) — B+

The Liberal government reinstated this act after the Harper Conservatives axed it, thus restoring important protections for fish habitat. The act also created new requirements to rebuild depleted or threatened fish populations, and a more transparent process to approve any projects/activities that would harm fish or fish habitat.

The act also bans the import and export of shark fins, and includes a mandatory review every five years for any changes.

Hazell said environmentalists were disappointed in a provision removed by the Senate that ensured water flows would also be a protected habitat.

Canadian Navigable Waters Act (Bill C-69) — C+

This act extended protections for any project happening near navigable water, requiring all such projects to receive federal approval.

Canadian Energy Regulator Act (Bill C-69) — B

This act created the role of Canadian energy regulators and also established a group of independent commissioners responsible for timely and transparent project reviews and decision-making.

Oceans Act, Canada Petroleum Resources Act amendments (Bill C-55) — A

This was a straightforward bill, Hazell said, and accomplished what it was designed to: temporarily protecting Canada's oceans for up to five years as a step to permanent Marine Protected Area protection.

Oil Tanker Moratorium Act (Bill C-48) — B+

This act protected the northern British Columbia coast from major oil spills by banning tankers carrying more than 12,500 tonnes of crude oil from being in the area. A Senate committee voted against the bill, but it narrowly passed the full Senate in June.