Taking the Ocean’s Breath Away: Oceanic Dead Zones

Goddard Earth Sciences, NASA.  Science Focus: Dead Zones.  August 2, 2010.  Accessed March 31st, 2011 from http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceancolor/additional/science-focus/ocean-color/science_focus.shtml/dead_zones.shtml

Yoon, C.K.  A "Dead Zone" Grows in the Gulf of Mexico.  The New York Times, January 20th 1998.  Accessed online March 31st 2011 from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B04E1DD1338F933A15752C0A96E958260

Two elements are limiting agents in plant growth: nitrogen and phosphorus.  Phosphorus clings to sediments, but nitrogen mostly dissolves in water.  This means on land, phosphorus is typically available in soil, as it doesn’t wash away into streams or oceans.  Terrestrial plants are typically limited in their growth by the availability of nitrogen, which can easily wash through soils and into water bodies.  As a result, farmers often use nitrogen enriched fertilizers to maximize crop growths.

Unfortunately, the ability of nitrogen to dissolve into and be carried away by water has its downsides.  As nitrogen enters the ocean, it fertilizes plants.  Algae thrive when they come in contact with nitrogen enriched water, and massive blooms appear.  Great, right?  Algae use up carbon dioxide, produce oxygen, and act as the base of almost every food web in the ocean, so how is this a bad thing?  Well, the algae eventually die, and when they do, they sink to the bottom of the ocean where they are consumed by bacteria through a process called “bacterial respiration”.  In bacterial respiration, the bacteria consume oxygen and produce carbon dioxide in the process of decomposing the dead algae.

Being deep in the ocean, far below air and a ready supply of oxygen, it becomes very difficult to replace the oxygen consumed in decomposing bacteria.  Such massive algal blooms caused by fertilizer runoff results in so many dead algae sinking to the bottom, that bacteria pull almost or even all the oxygen from the water.  Through the process of bacterial respiration, the bacteria create a “dead zone” in which life for oxygen-breathing organisms is impossible to maintain (Goddard Earth Sciences).

Theses dead zones are appearing all over the world.  One of the largest dead zones occurs in the Gulf of Mexico.  The Mississippi River is formed by headwaters from Canada all through the United States until it empties into the Gulf of Mexico.  The Mississippi happens to pass through thousands of acres of prime agricultural land; a considerable amount with nitrogen enriched soil.  The resulting runoff from agricultural emptying into the Mississippi and eventually the Gulf of Mexico, has created a dead zone approximately 7,000 square miles (New York Times). Unfortunately, this phenomenon has struck close to home.  Saanich, just outside of Victoria, BC, has recorded a dead zone.  In the Saanich Inlet, at depths below 100 m, the water becomes anoxic as a result of nitrogen runoff from farmlands on Vancouver Island (Goddard Earth Sciences).

 How can we stop this?  Many scientists are attempting to fuse nitrogen-fixing bacteria with plants.  Their success would make it possible for the plant to pull nitrogen out of the atmosphere rather than have to rely on nitrogen-fixing soil bacteria or fertilizers.  Legumes are among the few plants which can do this.  Unfortunately, until the scientists can manage this, the only feasible option is to ban nitrogen fertilizers; a choice which would certainly be shot down by governments worldwide.

Words: 468

Reconstructing Habitat for the Vaux's Swift

Bull, E.  2003.  Use of Nest Boxes by Vaux's Swifts.  Journal of Field Ornithology.  74-4:394-400.

Logging has diminished the amount of old growth forests over the past 100 years.  For many years now, forestry companies have replanted trees in areas which have been logged, and clear cuts are only clear for a few years until saplings take root and replace them.  However, despite this reforestation effort, much habitat is still lost because may species require either large, old growth trees, or the additional habitats provided by an old growth forest.

One example of such species, is the Vaux’s Swift.  This species of bird has a summer breading range from northern California, through Oregon, Washington and into the interior of British Columbia, from the coast into southern Alberta, northern Idaho and western Montana.  Vaux’s swift nest in deep, hollow cavities which form in old growth trees which have become infected by heart-rot fungi (Bull 2003).  Heart-rot fungi invade the heartwood (inner wood of the tree), and decays it to a point of collapse, forming a hollow cavity.

Because of logging practices, many trees do not live long enough anymore in order to develop heartwood, and subsequently become infected by heart-rot.  Most forests are secondary or even tertiary forests, which are not old enough to have developed hollow cavities.  In addition, dead hollow trees are cleared away during logging, so these have diminished also.

In an effort to re-establish nesting sites for Vaux’s swifts, Evelyn Bull began constructing artificial hollows out of pine (Bull 2003).  She used 2.4 cm by 30 cm (1x12 for all of you carpenters or Americans out there) planks of pine to create a square shaft 28 cm wide and 3.5 m long.  These were hung on trees at a height between 10 and 15 meters, in three different forest types: late-seral stands of Grand Fir (the swifts natural habitat), harvested stands of Grand Fir, and mature stands of Ponderosa Pine and Douglas Fir.  99 boxes were constructed and distributed approximately evenly throughout the three forest types.

Over the four year period, 30 nest boxes were used by Vaux’s Swifts, with a total of 51 nest attempts and a 53% success rating.  Percentage of boxes used over time changed, with the first year having all ten boxes used in the late-seral Grand Fir stand.  Over the four year study the percentage shifted to most boxes being used in the pine and harvested stands, rather than the late-seral Grand Fir stands.  Bull suggests this is because the swifts will nest in other habitats, but needed to discover nest sites available in habitats other than the late-seral Grand Fir stands.

This study has provided a number of key highlights in Vaux’s Swift restoration efforts.  First, it is possible for swifts to exist in habitats other than old growth forests.  It seems they only require old growth forests for the nesting habitat, and if alternate nesting sites are available, the swifts can nest in 2˚ or 3˚ forests.  Second, the study provides examples of nesting sites, their construction and placement, all steps which are easily replicatable.

Words:  500

Mountain Caribou and Snowmobilers: A New Harmony?

Simpson, K., and E. Terry. 2000. Impacts of Backcountry Recreation Activities on Mountain Caribou – Management Concerns, Interim Management Guidelines and Research Needs. B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl. Branch, Victoria, BC. Wildl. Working Rep. No. WR-99. 11pp.

Price, G., Roorda, L.  2006. Four Year Summary of the Quesnel Highland Snowmobile- Mountain Caribou Monitoring Project, Cariboo Region.  Ministry of Environment, Environmental Stewardship Division.  Caribou Region.

            (accessed via Google on March 1, 2011)

In 2000, the mountain caribou (Rangifer tarandus-caribou) was nationally listed as “threatened”, and provincially red listed.  A suspected conservation concern for these mountain caribou is backcountry winter motorsport activities, such as snowmobiling, heli-skiing and cat-skiing (Simpson & Terry 2000; Price & Roorda 2006).  Winter territories for the mountain caribou consist of alpine glades, where snowpack is high and powder is common.  This makes it difficult for predators, such as wolves, to reach them.  Not only must they travel through snow typically deeper than 2 m, but also uphill. 

This type of wintering territory is common throughout the interior of British Columbia.  There are 13 subpopulations of mountain caribou living throughout the interior.  Two populations inhabit Wells Gray Provincial Park; one in the north end and one in the south (Simpson & Terry 2000).  The southern population ranges between Clearwater and Wells Gray park, in the North Thompson Region.  Snowmobile concerns here are less prominent inside the park than out.  Just south of the park, and still within the mountain caribou’s territory, lies the town of Clearwater.  Snowmobiling is popular in the Clearwater Forest District, and caribou-snowmobile conflicts are common. 

The northern subpopulation of mountain caribou in Wells Gray park are also subjected to snowmobile encounters.  Here they primarily occupy the Quesnel Highlands, which offers prime territory for snowmobiling.  Access to this area is frequent from various towns, including 100 Mile, Likely, Horsefly and others.  Common mountains used for snowmobiling include Mica, Boss and Deception Mountain, as well as Cameron Ridge.  All of these mountains lie within the northern Wells Gray subpopulations winter territory.

Ideal snowmobiling conditions, unfortunately, match these ideal winter habitats for the mountain caribou.  Alpine ridges offer scenic views and a challenge to reach for snowmobilers, but these same types habitats also are the preferred late-wintering habitats for mountain caribou (Simpson & Terry 2000).  Noise pollution from motorized vehicles, such as helicopters, snow-cats and snowmobiles, have a tendency to deter caribou.  Also, mountain caribou have a keen sense of smell, and they typically avoid areas where they can smell humans.

A primary reason for caribou to winter in alpine territories is the deep powder which accumulates at high elevations.  Caribou have long legs and large hooves, excellent for travelling through deep snow.  Predators such as wolves have much shorter legs, and have more difficulty travelling through deep snow.  This makes for an easy escape in the event that wolves attempt to hunt caribou while in the alpine.

If the mountain caribou are inhabiting areas where snowmobile or snow-cat’s have accessed recently, their predators suddenly have an advantage.  The weight of the sleds compacts the snow, creating a track in which wolves have a much easier time travelling along.  Following a snowmobiles tracks into the alpine can lead wolves into the caribous wintering territory with ease.  While snow-cats are heavier than snowmobiles, and create larger tracks, they are much less common than snowmobiles thus pose less of a concern.

But it would seem snowmobilers are willing to sacrifice some prime sledding territory in order to help out this struggling group of reindeer.  In 2002, Price and Roorda began a four year study in collaboration with various local snowmobile clubs in the Quesnel Highland.  It was a monitoring plan to collect baseline data about snowmobile use in the area, with “voluntary closure zones” (VCZ) and “caution zones” (CZ).  VCZs were areas deemed critical caribou habitat, and CZs were defined as sensitive caribou habitat.  Although the study itself did not include areas within Wells Gray park, it included the Wells Gray North mountain caribou subpopulation.

These VCZ and CZ regions were mapped out by the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (MAL) over four zones (A through D).  The plan involved the cooperation of local snowmobile clubs from 100 Mile House, Quesnel and Williams Lake, who spread word of the closure and caution zones as well as agreed to adhere to the voluntary rules.  The Ministry of Environment (MOE) also collaborated with this plan.

To determine snowmobile activity in caribou territory, flights over the study area were taken every weekend.  The flights looked for both caribou as well as snowmobiles/snowmobile tracks in the VCZs and CZs.  Global positioning systems were used to record the locations of snowmobilers as well as caribou. 

The results of this study were uplifting.  In the four year study, 708 snowmobiles were observed.  241 caribou were observed directly, and an additional 362 were estimated to be in the area, either by tracks or beds seen in the snow.  Of the 708 snowmobiles sighted, 627 were seen in the CZs, and only 51 were seen in the VCZs.  This was a 92.5% compliance of snowmobilers.  There were only a total of 21 encounters with snowmobilers and mountain caribou over the four year study.

In my own opinion, this study is uplifting on many ways, but also leaves me wondering.  I’m ecstatic to hear that local snowmobilers willing to sacrifice some sled terrain in order to assist a struggling species.  I’m glad that this study is a collaboration between both the government and local people.  I believe the best way to encourage conservation is to engage the public and this study did just that.

Some concerns of mine are the lack of previous data.  Did snowmobilers use the VCZs before?  Were they already not frequently accessed, or was there a significant decline in usage once this voluntary plan was initiated?  I’m also curious as to who these snowmobilers were, and if they had any idea they were in a voluntary closure zone?  Explanatory signs were erected, but would everyone have stopped to read them?

In conclusion, I strongly supports plans such as this one.  Engaging the public is a step in the right direction for conservation.

Words: 956

Short Distance Translocation of Western Rattlesnakes: A Temporary Solution

Brown, J., Bishop, C., Brooks, R. 2009. Effectiveness of Short Distance Translocation and its Effects on Western Rattlesnakes.  Journal of Wildlife Management 73(3):419-425.

Western Rattlesnake Picture

Brown et al discuss short distance translocation (SDT) as a possible solution to potentailly dangerous interactions between humans and the western rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus).  They propose that snakes found in an anthropocentric (important for humans) area could be moved a short distance; less than 500 meters from the snakes capture point, ensuring suitable relocation habitat.  This technique is not new, and previous studies of SDT effectiveness already exist, but these studies used mark and recapture techniques to determine if the snakes returned to their original points of capture.  They yielded varying results, between a 2 and 56% were recaptured in anthropocentric areas within 2 years.  To help determine if SDT is an effective way of keeping snake and human interactions to a minimum, Brown et al used radiotelemetry to accurately record snakes positions.

The study was conducted near Osoyoos, BC, and was divided into two regions.  The south region bordered a winery, resort, golf course and a campground.  The north had no human development contact.  Both regions were approximately 235 hectares.  In all, 23 male snakes were surgically implanted with a radiotransmitter.  Snakes from the north region were used as the control, and not translocated, however they were handled to determine if handling had any effects on the snakes.  Snakes from the south region were moved 500 meters from their point of capture, away from human areas.  Results showed SDT had no effects on the snakes health.  Unfortunately, the radiotelemtry showed 12 of 14 snakes returning to their home territories within and average of 20 days.

The problem with SDT is 500 meters does not take the snake far from its home range, and once released it will wander until it orientates itself with familiar territory.  It doesn't take long for the snake to return to it’s original home territory.  Brown et al have shown that SDT is not a detrimental procedure to western rattlesnakes, and has some uses.  For example, if a music festival was to be held in such an area, SDT of rattlesnakes would ensure both the humans and snakes would be safe for a three day festival period.  However, it is only a temporary solution to the problem. 

SDT is clearly an ineffecient way of removing snakes in the long term.  Adults will find their old territories and soon return.  As for long distance translocation, Brown et al cite other papers that find LDT to have adverse health affects on rattlesnakes, so that isn't an option either.  I'm curious about middle ground though.  Putting a snake in a territory similar enough to its home range, but without chance of wandering back into its original home range.  A suggestion from Brown et al was to use SDT on juvenile snakes, before they had a chance to orientate themselves with a territory.  Perhaps they would associate the area they were relocated to as their home territory, effectively and safely removing them from human contact.  It's a option well worth investigating, both for humans and snakes alike.

Words: 498

Proposed Open-Pit Mine on the Sunshine Coast

Wagler, J. McNab Valley gravel mine project launched. Coast Reporter, Sechelt, BC. Available from http://www.coastreporter.net/article/20100521/SECHELT0101/305219986/-1/sechelt/mcnab-valley-gravel-mine-project-launched (accessed January 2011). 

http://www.bigpacific.com/about/business.html

Burnco Rock Products

Recently, Burnco Rock Products (BRP) has proposed a plan to build a new open-pit mine located at McNab Valley, on the Sunshine Coast of BC.  The company owns 320 hectares of land in the area, and intends on mining 77 hectares.  Additionally, 10 hectares is proposed for storage, buildings and conveyor systems.  The plan is to extract more than 30 million tonnes of sand and gravel over a 20-30 year period.  The material would be shipped by barge ship to Burnaby (Wagler).

The location of this proposed mine is quite controversial.  McNab Creek runs though BRPs property.  Golder Associates was the consulting company hired to asses the environmental impact of the mine (Wagler).  According to environmental specialist Mark Johannes, McNab Creek is a salmon run for chum, coho, pink and chinook salmon as well as anadromous (fish which migrate from salt to fresh water to spawn) cutthroat and steelhead trout. BRP does not plan on placing the mine anywhere near the creek, but plans on removing an existing artificial groundwater channel.  Johannes report claims this channel is ineffective anyway, and BRP intends on replacing it with a more effective one.  He is quoted in Wagler's article, “We have five concepts that would more than double the loss of this channel in terms of viable habitat” (Wagler).  The area has already been logged, and no additional trees are intended to be removed either.

The Sunshine Coast has a reputation for being environmentally savvy, and many local businesses are based on eco-tourism (Alpha Adventures, Off The Edge, Rockwater Resort).  Residents of the Sunshine Coast have had to deal with poorly managed open-pit mines before (Pan Pacific Aggregates mine at Mission Hill, near Sechelt) (Wagler), so BRP is already under heavy scrutiny from the locals.  On top of that, the Sunshine Coast already has the largest open pit mine in North America (Big Pacific), located in Sechelt.  Near the proposed building site is the Howe Sound Pulp and Paper mill, as well as a sawmill, Terminal Forest Products.  Do residents of this area want another giant industry in their once pristine backyard?

As a resident of the Sunshine Coast myself, I have mixed opinions.  I respect BRPs interest in opening the mine.  As a business based in aggregate, they need aggregate to function.  As do we, the residents of the Sunshine Coast.  The lives we lead can’t function without mines such as this one proposed.  The houses, apartments, condos and buildings we live and work in almost all have concrete.  On top of that,  we need sand/gravel for everything from building our roads, to lining our septic fields, to filling sand traps and infields, repairing a soccer field or leveling your rocky backyard. 

We need these types of mines.  But not here.  Not in an area already inhabited by two major natural resource industries.  The Sunshine Coast already has Construction Aggregates; the scar clearly visible from Vancouver Island.  Sorry, BRP.  Your mine and environmental promises are valid, but your location is not.

Words: 499