proposed coal ship anchorages off gabriola

[lazylump]

Here's a link to the article in the Gabriola Sounder.

http://www.soundernews.com/news/ship-anchorages-proposed-off-gabriolas-shores.html

 

[Dogbreath]

I don't see what the BFD is-if you live on the ocean ships travel/moor nearby that's the price you pay.

 

[lazylump]

Well how about the fact that area is an important fishing area, fish migration route and a herring spawn occurs there. The ships are several hundred meters long and ugly. I imagine the anchor chains would carve up a huge swath on the ocean floor. Not to mention the fact that they are coal ships.

 

[Dogbreath]

Well how about the fact that area is an important fishing area, fish migration route and a herring spawn occurs there.

The whole of the BC coast is a migration area, fish used to be everywhere but aren't any longer and Herring spawn all over the damned place.

The ships are several hundred meters long and ugly.

I've met dozens of humans who post here most are nothing special in the looks department but that doesn't mean they have to be hidden away in dark basements.

I imagine the anchor chains would carve up a huge swath on the ocean floor. Not to mention the fact that they are coal ships.

Look @ a chart it's mostly mud bottom and Coal is Big Money and Money is God now.

 

[KV1]

Interesting. Close to Entrance prime fishing grounds. I would be more concerned with the proposed "park" from thrasher on DFO website.Very curious how that will limit access to fishing. Look at it this way Gabriola citizens won't go down without a fight. Media has been pretty quiet on this one.

 

[KV1]

You are right though cash is king and the rest matters less and less these days. It's all for sale. Makes me wonder though how much we benefit from that happening. Could use that useless cruise ship terminal in Nanaimo that cost twenty million and will never pay for itself.

 

[tykkyt e blue]

Coal ships are not product specific - ANY bulk ship can carry ANY bulk cargo. The ship that had concrete powder in it last trip takes grain next week, iron ore a month later and then coal after that, etc

The ships do not drag their anchors at anchorage sites.

The BC economy is still heavily dependant on resources

 

[lazylump]

I consider that whole stretch to be prime fishing grounds and it would suck to have to weave through a bunch of 1000' ships to fish there. Water is God.

 

[Sangstercraft]

Yeah they don't drag their anchor, but they swing with tides and wind, and the chain on the bottom is what removes eel grass, coral, or whatever happens to be down there.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Peahead]

The whole of the BC coast is a migration area, fish used to be everywhere but aren't any longer and Herring spawn all over the damned place.


I've met dozens of humans who post here most are nothing special in the looks department but that doesn't mean they have to be hidden away in dark basements.



Look @ a chart it's mostly mud bottom and Coal is Big Money and Money is God now.

Sorry Carl but gotta agree with the thinking this would be a bad place for the humans that are not so special in the looks department to park themselves !!! - sure don't put them in a "dark basement" but NOT eastern gabriola. This area is a prime gorgeous recreational playground that provides some of the most sought after fishing grounds in the lower GS and should be kept from being turned into a massive ugly anchorage .........I'd expect you to know that specific stretch is VERY popular with rec fishers, many on this forum!!! ( THIS IS where there are still fish for us to catch and probably the most consistent fishery we have after the hump each season) An eyesore is one thing but having to weave in and out of anchorages as well as dodge all the commercial prawn traps that are already there in season, its not good news at all.

Having prime recreational areas provides $ to our province too ....lets not forget that.

 

[Tugcapitan]

Couple points from reading above,
Most coal ships these days are actually cargo specific.
Ships do indeed drag anchor during high winds and then have to be re-anchored by pilots when out of their designated position.
There is no coral in the proposed designated anchorages.
If English Bay is anything to go by, the anchored ships if they arrive there may be somewhere you might want to sniff around the bottom for winter springs!

 

[KV1]

Couple points from reading above,
Most coal ships these days are actually cargo specific.
Ships do indeed drag anchor during high winds and then have to be re-anchored by pilots when out of their designated position.
There is no coral in the proposed designated anchorages.
If English Bay is anything to go by, the anchored ships if they arrive there may be somewhere you might want to sniff around the bottom for winter springs!

That last statement is actually very true. In Vancouver anyways.

 

[Susan@TheProvince]

Hello, KV1 or anyone else (yes, I'm fishing for comments): As sportsfishermen, how will the proposed anchorages for coal ships off Gabriola's northeast side affect you? I'm writing an article about the issue and would welcome any comments from those willing to have their full names published. Please contact me at 604-605-2010 or at slazaruk@theprovince.com today (July 29) before 3 p.m. Thank you. Please feel free to pass my request along to anyone who may be interested. Thank you, Susan Lazaruk, Province Reporter

Interesting. Close to Entrance prime fishing grounds. I would be more concerned with the proposed "park" from thrasher on DFO website.Very curious how that will limit access to fishing. Look at it this way Gabriola citizens won't go down without a fight. Media has been pretty quiet on this one.

 

[capt hook]

Coal ships are not product specific - ANY bulk ship can carry ANY bulk cargo. The ship that had concrete powder in it last trip takes grain next week, iron ore a month later and then coal after that, etc

The ships do not drag their anchors at anchorage sites.

they may not drag anchor , but dumping tons on chain on protected sponge reefs are not a good thing. especially when they are closing many areas on the coast and in the gulf for commercial and sport prawn fishing.
People not opposed to trade and shipping , its just the WRONG SPOT .
There are many other mud bottoms to anchor .

 

[Tugcapitan]

Coal ships are not product specific - ANY bulk ship can carry ANY bulk cargo. The ship that had concrete powder in it last trip takes grain next week, iron ore a month later and then coal after that, etc

The ships do not drag their anchors at anchorage sites.

they may nodrag anchor , but dumping tons on chain on protected sponge reefs are not a good thing. especially when they are closing many areas on the coast and in the gulf for commercial and sport prawn fishing.
People not opposed to trade and shipping , its just the WRONG SPOT .
There are many other mud bottoms to anchor .

Uh, you're not making much sense here Hook.
This is not a coral sponge habitat that is being considered for commercial anchorage.
Where are these other "lots of" anchorages with good holding ground, appropriate depths, within striking distance of Deltaport that are also somewhat protected from the winter SE's?
The only thing "wrong" with this spot is that the Gabriola locals aren't sure they are going to enjoy the view of a handful of ships....

 

[KV1]

If anyone likes to fish or prawn or just bob around uninhibited at the proposed anchorages make what little voice you have heard by emailing or calling the Pacific Pilotage Authority and voicing those concerns. It will forever change the landscape and will benefit us common folk with nothing. Surely all we have in Canada is not just to be consumed by a multinationals just to sell it back to us in cheap consumer goods.

 

[agentaqua]

Uh, you're not making much sense here Hook.
This is not a coral sponge habitat that is being considered for commercial anchorage.
Where are these other "lots of" anchorages with good holding ground, appropriate depths, within striking distance of Deltaport that are also somewhat protected from the winter SE's?
The only thing "wrong" with this spot is that the Gabriola locals aren't sure they are going to enjoy the view of a handful of ships....

Gotta agree with TugCaptain on this one - on the dragging anchor potential impacts. At least from the nautical charts (see screensave pic) it's about 200m depth - likely mud - although not stated on the chart. The most likely potential "risk" of damaging habitat would be from dragging anchor over the ridge running East from Entrance Island in a SE blow. The ship would have to drag anchor over a 2+km stretch to connect with the ridge.

I don't see how a ship that big, with deep draughts would even get close to the eelgrass beds (see pic below - eelgrass in red). From: http://www.islandstrust.bc.ca/media/253758/EelgrassMethodReport.pdf

TugCaptain is right - residents don't want to "see" the coal ships at anchor disrupting their "view". The more likely scenario is that there will be some impacts - prob. ones you won't "see", though.

There is an "Important Bird Area" (IBA) at Snake Island - a little North and West of the proposed anchorage (see: http://www.ibacanada.ca/documents/conservationplans/bcsouthernvancouverisland.pdf and attached pic). There are Glaucous-winged Gulls (Larus glaucescens) (Vermeer and Devito 1989) and Pelagic Cormorants (Phalacrocorax pelagicus) that could be attracted to the lights of the large vessels while at anchor. Might have a few of them fly into the ships.

I think the most likely impact would be something you wouldn't necessarily see - ballast water discharges with potential invasive species. While "lightship" and waiting to get loaded with coal - they would discharge their ballast water - that they loaded in some other part of the world. Yes there are regs about exchanging ballast water some mile offshore - but really - how does one enforce that or disprove that they did or didn't?

We've had a pretty nasty experience world-wide over unintended releases of exotic" species - like green crabs and such. That'd be where I would put energies into combating potential impacts - in the regulation and enforcement of ballast water discharges.

 

[Tugcapitan]

The proposed anchorages will not be in 200m of water. They'll be closer to shore in 100m or less. Most ships only hold enough chain for just over 100m of water to be a maximum for good holding. 30m to 80m is best.

The important bird area on Snake island is already alongside the 5 designated Nanimo anchorages.

Ships crews log their offshore ballast water exchange in their official logbooks for our government types to look at when they get here. I doubt many crews would be willing to risk there careers by subjecting their owners to fines by falsifiying records. It's a standard practice for them all over the world since the dangers of invasive species became apparent, and certainly doesn't inconvience the engineers enough that they would avoid it. It's just a matter of pushing a few buttons on most ships.

Appreciate the support Agentaqua, but sometimes I'm just getting another opinion out on here...
I'm sure that anchored ships create some small unfavorable impacts. However I really don't feel that the environment would be threatened in the big way some people are making it out to be. Nor do I think the potential risks are that much to get so worked up about. My opinion.
We are lucky to be a successful West Coast Port. Seattle and Tacoma would love to take a chunk of it back. To the people who don't like our raw exports being shipped away, how do they suggest Canada compete on the world market? There's nothing we can manufacture that would be made cheap enough!

 

[agentaqua]

Well, TugCaptain - guess this is where we agree to disagree. Thanks for the come-back and info, by-the-way!

I believe that there are conscientious and professional mariners - like yourself - out there. Maybe even the majority are.

However, the quantities of ballast water are sufficiently large - and the tonnage going in/out ports sufficiently large and numerous - that there are no guarantees. The history of introduced aquatic species includes many unintended releases from ballast water - world-wide.

I am sure you are aware that the Canadian Government has tried to mitigate that risk by introducing Ballast Water legislation in 2006, and revised in 2011: http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...hICIBQ&usg=AFQjCNHzjQOOhK9H7bh1mRFa52I7zZuPRQ

Even if a ship actually follows these guidelines (rather than just writing down in a log book that they did ballast water exchanges out 200km from shore) - here's some of the holes in those guidelines:

If the vessel(s) operate:
a) exclusively in waters under Canadian jurisdiction;
b) pleasure craft that are less than 50 m in overall length and that have a maximum ballast water capacity of 8 m3; and/or
c) between ports, offshore terminals and anchorage areas on the west coast of North America north of Cape Blanco.

They do not have to "manage" ballast water.

So - they way I read this - a bulk carrier can drop a load in say Port Angeles Washington - where there are green crabs, say - and travel lightship (after filling it's ballast tank in PA) to another port North of Cape Blanco (say Prince Rupert - North of the current range of green crab invasion - or - North Side of Gabriola), and drop it's load of ballast water while waiting to get loaded in port w/o even "managing" their ballast water.

Then the "managing" only requires that there is at least 95% volumetric exchange - and many propagules can remain in that 5% left-over tank water.

Apparently, they test for Vibrio cholerae (O1 and O139) per 100 mL or one cfu of that microbe per gram (wet weight) of zooplankton samples; 250 cfu of Escherichia coli per 100 mL; and 100 cfu of intestinal enterococci per 100 mL.

How does the testing work? Do they save-up their samples and send them in when they get to port? Do they test for things like green crab larvae, as well?

 

[agentaqua]

http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/c...html?sid=981345b8-fa56-4ec3-9d1f-12b855bf19a6
Ballast water transport of non-indigenous zooplankton to Canadian ports
Claudio DiBacco1*, Donald B. Humphrey1, Leslie E. Nasmith1, and Colin D. Levings 2 1Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Dartmouth, NS, Canada B2Y 4A2
2Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Centre for Aquaculture and Environmental Research, 4160 Marine Drive, West Vancouver, BC, Canada V7V 1N6, and University of British Columbia, Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, 429-2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4
*Corresponding Author: tel: +1 902 4269778; fax: +1 902 4266695; e-mail: Claudio.DiBacco@dfo-mpo.gc.ca.
DiBacco, C., Humphrey, D. B., Nasmith, L. E., and Levings, C. D. 2012. Ballast water transport of non-indigenous zooplankton to Canadian ports. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 69: 483–491. Received 31 March 2011; accepted 11 July 2011; advance access publication 2 September 2011.

Ballast water is one of the primary transport vectors for the transfer and introduction of non-indigenous zooplankton (NIZ). Regulations require vessels from overseas to conduct mid-ocean exchange before discharging ballast in Canadian ports. Intracoastal vessels from nearby ports may be exempt from exchange, whereas intracoastal vessels from more distant ports are required to exchange. Zooplankton in the ballast water of transoceanic exchanged (TOE), intracoastal exchanged (ICE), and intracoastal unexchanged (ICU) vessels arriving at Canada’s west (WC) and east (EC) coasts were examined. NIZ density, propagule pressure, taxon richness, and community composition were compared among the three shipping classes. The WC ports received greater densities of NIZ and had greater NIZ propagule pressure than EC ports. Within WC vessels, NIZ propagule pressure and density were significantly greater in ICU vessels. TOE vessels on the EC had the greatest NIZ propagule pressure and density. ICU vessels entering Vancouver ports represented the greatest invasion risk to Canadian waters. These vessels likely mediate secondary invasions by facilitating the transport of unexchanged ballast directly from ports previously invaded, whereas short ICU voyage duration enhances organism survivorship and vessels transport NIZ over natural dispersal barriers.

Keywords: aquatic invasive species, ballast water, intracoastal transport, mid-ocean exchange, non-indigenous species, secondary invasion.