The political cartoon shows two fishermen kneeling in their boats, eyes cast skyward.
Words alongside read: “Fishermen from Malpeque demonstrating the correct position to enter the harbour.”
It was dated 1997.
For more than 20 years, lobster fishermen have been gritting their teeth and hoping for the best, just to get back to the wharf safely and sell their catch.
But a solution might be on the horizon.
On Wednesday, July 8, Malpeque harbour users gathered in Summerside to hear proposed plans for a new wharf.
Around 50 people attended the presentation given by Harbourside Consulting and MRSB, which was hosted by the Malpeque Harbour Authority before its annual general meeting.
Most there were commercial fishers; some were members of the public.
The cartoon, projected on two big screens, was one of the first things they saw upon entering the meeting room.
TROUBLED WATERS
The navigational channel into Malpeque harbour, also called Malpeque Cove, is shallow and has needed near-constant dredging for decades.
The shallow channel is dangerous for boats and their crews who risk running aground, swamping full of water or capsizing.
“We heard numerous times from the fishers, from the municipality of Malpeque, from people that don’t even tie their boats there, from tourism – their biggest concern is the safety of the fishermen in this area, and they are very concerned about them. There is no question,” said Kerry Taylor, who is with Harbourside Consulting.
The dredging wasn’t complete in time for the 2020 spring lobster season, so the green and red channel marker buoys boaters use to find their way weren’t even installed. Many fishers scrambled at the last minute to launch from other harbours.
Malpeque harbour needed $750,000 in dredging this year alone. From 2009 to 2019, Small Craft Harbours, part of the federal department of fisheries and oceans (DFO), spent $4.5 million dredging the channel.
Despite this near-constant maintenance, most Malpeque boats still install steel-enforced keels and other modifications to help survive the shallow channel, said Taylor.
He also heard it’s hard to find help on the boats because of the added risk.
Productivity is curbed, too. Aquaculture boats must pass through the channel at half capacity to be safe. Lobster boats must make more than one trip on setting and landing days, said Taylor.
A NEW OPTION
Harbourside Consulting was hired to find a solution.
After collaborating with stakeholders like fishers, environmental groups, various level of government and community, Taylor presented plans for a new wharf structure, harbour and access road to be built at Cabot Shores.
The proposed plan was chosen from six wharf designs and two harbour locations discussed by a steering committee that met throughout the process.
The proposed channel entrance is in around 2.5 metres of water, which will prevent sand build up.
The harbour will be home to a combination of rigid and floating docks and will accommodate the fishers’ preferred stern-to berthing.
Stone breakwaters were designed to allow a long-arm excavator to reach the middle and clear out any sediment that may build up.
A culvert structure is planned to allow water to exit to the side of the wharf to prevent stagnant water in the harbour.
The wharf surfaces will be more spacious than the ones currently at Malpeque harbour, and there will be room to grow. Taylor mentioned recreational boaters or tour operators.
COSTS AND BENEFITS
This isn’t the first time that plans have been drawn up for a solution in Malpeque. Other documents from 2008, 2012 and 2015 described the issues but were then shelved, said one harbour user.
The 2020 proposal is the most detailed to date, said one fisher at the meeting.
It may also be the first to show a cost-benefit analysis that makes a new harbour the best choice.
Brenda Wedge, an economist with MRSB, crunched the numbers for the project. Maintaining the existing harbour for the next 25 years will cost $39.3 million of today’s dollars, net present value (NVP). That is the sum of $13.3 million in maintenance and $26.3 million in dredging.
To build the proposed Cabot Shores harbour would cost $36.9 million (NVP), but there are incremental benefits that will offset that outlay, said Wedge.
“It seems about even, until you see the intangibles,” said Wedge.
First, is the improved safety.
“The value of saving a life is $8.1 million,” said Wedge, citing the Canada Treasury Board. “That’s the additional cost that individuals would be willing to pay for a small reduction in risk that reduces the expected number of fatalities by one.”
Risk assessment calculations consider the impact of an incident as well as the probability, said Taylor. If someone were to lose their life in Malpeque, the impact would be equally serious as a death at any other harbour, it’s just more likely to happen in Malpeque, he said.
“There’s no question that the probability of something serious happening in Malpeque is a lot higher than it is in Rustico (for example), and that’s just because of the channel entrance,” said Taylor. “So, we had to factor that into the cost-benefit analysis. First off, it was raised by a lot of stakeholders and secondly, you take the voices raised and look at the probability and the impact and see that it has to be in there.”
If the life-saving potential of a new harbour wasn’t enough, Wedge also found a savings in vessel damage.
“(We’re) looking at about 16 aquaculture boats where there is an average of about $15,000 per vessel per year in damages. Twenty-five fishing boats averages $2,000 per vessel per year in damages,” said Wedge.
In addition, the improved efficiency for aquaculture operators could total as much as $50.3 million.
“They use twice as many boats now because they can only operate at 50 per cent capacity. So, they’re consuming more fuel, it leads to increased labour costs and there’s reduced yields.
They’re not always able to get to their leases to do the maintenance they should be. So, we factored that operational improvement in as a benefit if Cabot Shores was created.
“So, when we take the total cost for Cabot Shores and then reduce it by all of the opportunities that could be provided, we come up with a net cost of $3 million.
“So, we compare that option to just maintaining Malpeque Cove at $39.3, then there is significant advantage there with the opportunities,” said Wedge.
SOME REMAIN OPPOSED
Still, some in the room wanted the harbour to stay where it is.
“There’s too much money bein’ wasted on a study for a new wharf when we could just fix the one we (have),” said a man at the back of the room. “We got a great harbour, we got great shelter. … There’s no reason we can’t fix what we got for a lot less money than what you’re talking about here. … The time you get that harbour built there’s 90 per cent of our fishermen ain’t even goin’ to be around. So that ain’t fixing it for me or for a lot of the other older fishermen.”
Dave and Judith Sarson own Malpeque Cove Cottages which overlook the water.
“It’s kind of neat to see all the boats floating in the harbour,” said Judith. “But we want it to be safe for the fishermen for sure.”
Geoff and Pam Simpson enjoy it, too. They just moved into their cottage full-time after visiting for eight summers.
“It’s a million-dollar view,” said Geoff. “It’d be a shame to see it moved or shut down.”
At the annual general meeting held for members-only after the consultant’s presentation, the Malpeque Harbour Authority voted unanimously to move ahead with the plan for a new harbour at Cabot Shores.
Alison Jenkins is a local journalism initiative reporter, a position funded by the federal government.