| |
|
HRM and Ingramport development: a question of scale
By PAUL F. BRODIE PhD*
BOUTILIERS POINT (10 June 2005) -- MUNICIPAL and provincial governments fully appreciate the importance of viable business and industry within their boundaries, often going to some effort and expense to attract them. They understand that one activity supports and interacts with another, generating spinoff and increasing growth and economic stability. They are equally aware that loss of major components within that economy can spell its demise, and go to extreme lengths to protect it. We all too frequently observe this in smaller communities: a fish plant in Canso, coal mines in Cape Breton, a ferry in Yarmouth. The same understanding can be directly applied to our natural assets within HRM and the province. Once seen in this context, it can be better appreciated and managed, using the same terminology and determination.
HRM is fortunate to have a complex and productive coastline within its boundaries, viable fisheries, abundant terrestrial wildlife, whales and seals along the coast and in our major harbour, large numbers of seabirds, ospreys, eagles and loons year-round. Cap this all off with the Ingram River, attracting salmon, trout and gaspereau, and we are fortunate indeed.
HRM and the provincial government must take the time and effort to consider these important assets and their interrelationships. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Once sufficient environmental damage is done to parts of the ecological linkage along our coast, we will learn a hard lesson. For example, the large numbers of fin whales which congregate off Chebucto Head at the Halifax harbour entrance for several weeks during most winters, are drawn there for one purpose only; to feed on the shoals of overwintering herring. These whales place such priority on this seasonal resource, that they continue to feed for weeks within the busy and noisy shipping lanes. The herring are exploited as well by commercial seiners. Interruption of this linkage of predator and prey along the coast could result in the loss of this spectacular event, with collateral ecological damage, and loss of the associated tourist trade as well.  The proposed development in St. Margarets Bay should be seen in the context of the relatively small area of this marine inlet fed by the Ingram River. Because of its small size, this inlet is dominated by the influence of the Ingram river and, of equal importance, the relatively large, rocky shoreline. In addition there is the existing housing density, as well as commercial fishing and recreational vessel traffic. Using these parameters, and considering the all-important scale (1.5 sq km vs 400,000 sq km: a ratio of circa 267,000 : 1) the miniscule Ingramport area would probably match or exceed the relative fish and lobster landings and activity on the entire Scotian Shelf: commercial fishing and cargo vessel traffic, and all offshore platforms. In terms of scrutiny by various levels of government however, seemingly larger projects often become the convenient focus of attention, with scrutiny of seemingly smaller nearshore projects diminished as a consequence. The importance of the Ingram River as a dynamic component of the nearshore marine ecosystem is evident to any observer, in particular at this time of year. The volume of spring outflow from this river alters the salinity, temperature, and nutrients, extending it’s influence well past the confines of Ingramport headlands into the main bay. This attracts enormous shoals of young herring and feeding mackerel throughout the summer and fall. That much of the recreational mackerel fishing is conducted by hundreds of fishers actually standing on the shore, further underscores the importance of the immediate nearshore habitat, defined as well by the distribution of feeding seabirds, marine mammals, lobster traps and bait fisheries. The Ingram River continues to draw salmon and gaspereau as they track it’s influence to the source. We still do not fully understand all of the qualities which make a particular site more attractive to fish and crustacea. Enhancing an already productive habitat is one thing; assuming that we can succesfully displace it, could be a risky experiment.
Awareness of changing weather patterns, ocean dynamics, marine invasive species, changes and collapses in some fish stocks and fisheries, have all taken place since the initial proposal for development at Ingramport in 1991. On the positive side we now recycle more waste material and realize that we should tread more lightly. We should be careful when referring to previous onshore activity near the proposed site in such terms as: ”it seemed fine then, so why not now?”. In the worst case, the most high profile example of that mode of thinking in the province (and all of Canada), would be the Sydney tar ponds. Mayor Kelly, HRM council, provincial minister of natural resources Mr. Hurlburt, federal minister of fisheries Mr. Regan and federal MP Mr. Keddy should take very careful reconsideration of this proposal in light of an everchanging environment, and changing public attitudes. Paul F. Brodie PhD 316 Kennedys Rd. Boutiliers Point, HRM pbrodie@hfx.eastlink.ca 820-2311 Source: Op Ed, Halifax Chronicle Herald |
||||
|
*Paul Brodie conducted field research on whales and seals out of the Inuit hunting camps (1960s), was a senior research scientist with DFO, many seasons on the seal hunt, Canadian scientific representative to the International Whaling Commission (1980-1982), on exchange to the Norwegian Fisheries Directorate (1976-1983), field scientist in Iceland(1980-1989), lead DFO scientist on shocktrial testing of the new frigate class (1994), consultant on offshore Sable gas, consultant in Singapore shipyards, and is presently researching ship ballast water treatment technology. He has sculpted numerous whale exhibits for museums. |
||||
|
Comments to : shunpike@shunpiking.com Copyright New Media Services Inc. © 2006. The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do not necessarily reflect those of shunpiking magazine or New Media Publications. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content. Copyright of written and photographic and art work remains with the creators. |
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link