Part 7: Ecological Integrity for Race Rocks: The Problem with Destaffing

Posted on Wednesday,April 7, 1999 by Garry Fletcher

Carol and Mike Slater, formerly the light keepers and presently employees of Pearson College as Ecoguardians at Race Rocks attended the meeting. They will continue to live at Race Rocks until the end of June at which time there is no further funding available from Lester Pearson College. (Funding was provided and they stayed on until retirement in 2008). They were able to add their concerns to the possible problems that will come when surveillance of the island is not being done.

The Race Rocks ecosystem was given token protection in 1980 with the creation of an ecological reserve, and that protection strengthened in 1990 with a total closure on commercial fisheries and a partial closure on recreational fisheries. However, the ecological integrity that the place retains today would not be possible without the watchful eyes of the past light keepers and assistant keepers. We first met Trev and Flo Anderson in the late 70’s and started to work in this area as an outdoor laboratory. These individuals who were on location because of a job with the Coastguard became the eyes and ears in the area, looking after the ecosystem at Race Rocks. The following lightkeepers in the ensuing years have all welcomed us warmly, assisting with our educational programs and helping to facilitate outside researchers on the islands. In addition they have performed a valuable role for the ecology of the area. They regularly stop poachers and commercial harvesters and advise boaters not to anchor in the reserve. They have even been known to hand out information pamphlets, help in the arrest of fishermen who were shooting at sea lions and rescue our own students as well as countless others in the past twenty years. They have also contributed to the daily weather records and reports and daily seawater data recording. Carol Slater’s daily logbooks over the past two years are valued records of the daily changes in the birds and mammals as well as the increase in human impact on the reserve. They are included in the database as the best record of what has been happening in terms of reserve management over the past two years. To think of Race Rocks without these guardians in place is to accept that there will be a considerable human impact on this unique resource.

Return to the Contents page of the Workshop Garry Fletcher, April, 1999

ACOUSTICAL BATHYMETRY OF RACE ROCKS

Posted on Monday,February 15, 1999 by Garry Fletcher

ACOUSTICAL BATHYMETRY OF RACE ROCKS

In February 1999 the hydrographic survey boat from The Institute of Ocean Sciences in Sidney, B.C. has done an acoustical bathymetry program which has mapped the seafloor around Race Rocks to a depth of 100 meters. The project is under the direction of James Galloway. This project will eventually involve two other components as well, grab samples at 40 locations underwater and underwater towed video to a depth of 20 meters. More detail will follow on this page as the project progresses, but the initial two images of bathymetry from different perspectives are presented here.
Our thanks to the following who have made this project possible and have shared their results immediately with us.Doug Cartwright Hydrographer
Canadian Hydrographic Service
Pacific RegionAlso thanks to Lt.Mike Brissette at DND for final stages of work on these images.and to James L Galloway , PEng
Canadian Hydrographic Service, Head, Sonar Systems Institute of Ocean Sciences
9860 West Saanich Road
Sidney BC

Note: In this view, the black area is either where land is located, or it represents the margins of the survey .
(2d capture of entire area from south – 1 x magnification ). Bentick Island appears at the top of the picture. Great Race Rocks, where the light station is located is the large island in the center of the picture. Shoreline margins are not yet accurate. The present boundaries of the Ecological reserve are more or less the outer limits of the red area at 36 meters.
. The second image is a view from the South looking Northward. Colors toward the blue scale are representing depths of almost 100 meters.
( 3d capture of entire area from south : 1x magnification -3 x vertical exaggeration)
We hope to add further interpretation to the pictures , but at this stage they represent a significant step as the first layer of information on the seabed.

These projections represent three dimensional views looking toward Race Rocks from the North West underwater direction.

Race Rocks Announced as One of Canada’s First Marine Protected Area Pilots Sept. 1, 1998

Posted on Tuesday,September 1, 1998 by Garry Fletcher

Canada became the first country in the world to adopt its own Oceans Act in 1997. In it there were constructive plans for the designation of Marine Protected Areas

NEWS RELEASE: Race Rocks Announced as One of Canada’s
First Marine Protected Area Pilots Sept. 1, 1998

“Today at 1:30 pm. in Victoria, BC at a luncheon in the Empress Hotel in conjunction with the Coastal Zone Canada ‘ 98 Conference, The Honourable David Anderson , Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for Canada announced that Race Rocks and Gabriola Passage will become the first two Marine Protected Areas for the Pacific Coast of Canada. The minister emphasized that this was an historic occasion as it represents the first steps of many in creating these special areas for the conservation of marine resources. The two areas will serve as “Pilot MPA’s ” and represent the first of several areas to be designated in the three oceans of Canada. On hand for the announcement by the minister was Garry Fletcher, faculty member in biology and environmental systems at Lester Pearson College, along with many invited guests from the aboriginal communities, environmental groups, provincial government officials, and other stake holders in the marine environment of British Columbia.” (click on picture for the complete speech.)
In the ensuing months, negotiations will take place with the ministry in order to set up the parameters of these new Marine Protected Area pilot study areas.

DFO BACKGROUNDER: RACE ROCKS – XwaYeN
A Success Story for Community and Stakeholder Involvement- Sept 14 2000

In January of 1999, as part of the requirements of the Marine Protected Areas Pilot review process, Garry Fletcher was contracted by Fisheries and Oceans Canada to complete The Race Rocks Ecological Overview. An MS Access metadatabase of all the relevant Race Rocks ecological information was assembled . This database and accompanying references and audiovisual material are now available in the library at Lester B. Pearson College.

Go to the Proceedings of this workshop.

Official designation of Race Rocks as Canadas first Marine Protected Area

RACE ROCKS ADVISORY BOARDIn this index , you will find a complete set of references to the proceedings of meetings of the advisory board, the proposal sent to Ottawa and the subsequent disappointing Gazetted version which alienated First Nations, leading to the final ratification of MPA satus being put on hold.

DRAFT DOCUMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS OF MEETINGS– 1999-2002

Marine Protected Areas A Strategy for Canada’s Pacific Coast

Posted on Saturday,August 15, 1998 by Garry Fletcher

Marine Protected Areas

A Strategy for Canada’s Pacific Coast

Marine protected areas are a vital part of our commitment to sustainable economies, viable coastal communities, and a healthy, diverse marine environment. Our goals are to protect and conserve the natural beauty and richness of our marine areas, to maintain ecological diversity, and to preserve the many recreational, natural and cultural features of our Pacific coastline for all time.

DISCUSSION PAPER August 1998

A Joint Initiative of the Governments of Canada and British Columbia

Foreword

On behalf of the governments of Canada and British Columbia we are pleased to present this discussion paper, “Marine Protected Areas, A Strategy for Canada’s Pacific Coast“. The Pacific coast of Canada is one of the most diverse and productive marine environments in the world – we rely on it in many ways, as a source of food,employment, recreation and spiritual renewal. We want to build and protect this richness for present and future generations. Our commitment to a Marine Protected Areas Strategy isa key piece of the foundation for this goal.

This Strategy has been developed jointly by federal and provincial agencies and clearly reflects the need for governments to work in unison to achieve common marine protectionand conservation goals. The Strategy is not a new program, but an initiative to coordinate all existing federal and provincial marine protected areas programs under a singleumbrella. This will allow for the development of a national system of marine protected areas on the Pacific coast by the year 2010 which is interlinked with the marine componentof the B.C. Protected Areas Strategy.

This discussion paper reflects extensive advice and feedback from our resource agency staff, as well as local governments, First Nations, and community, stakeholder andindustry perspectives. We now want to provide all marine interests and users an opportunity to review and comment further on the Strategy.

We are pleased that Canada and British Columbia are able to release this paper in 1998-the International Year of the Ocean. The success of conserving and protecting naturalmarine areas is a shared responsibility, we look forward to working with you to complete a “Marine Protected Areas Strategy for Canada’s Pacific Coast“.

Signed by Donna Petrachenko (Director-General, Pacific Region – Department of Fisheries and Oceans) Co-chair, MPA Strategy Steering Committee

Signed by Derek Thompson (Assistant Deputy Minister – British Columbia Land Use Coordination Office) Co-chair, MPA Strategy Steering Committee

Foreword

1.0 Introduction

2.0 What are Marine Protected Areas

3.0 The Need to Create Marine Protected Areas

4.0 Vision and Objectives for a Marine Protected Areas Strategy

5.0 Developing a System of Marine Protected Areas

6.0 Your Feedback on the Strategy

Appendix A: Principal Participating Agencies in the Development of the Marine Protected AreasStrategy

Appendix B: Federal and Provincial Statutory Powers for Protecting Marine Areas

1.0 Introduction

The Pacific coast is host to a multitude of ecological, social, cultural and economic values which provide benefits and opportunities for all who have the good fortune to enjoyour spectacularly beautiful maritime coastline. Few people know that our coast is also among the most biologically productive in the world and continues to generate tremendouswealth for British Columbians and Canadians.

We have recognized that the sustainability of the world’s oceans is increasingly becoming a critical concern to coastal nations. The need to maintain the health andvitality of our marine resource base, together with broad ranging global issues such as continued urbanization of coastal areas, pollution, habitat alteration and loss, and overexploitation, are key concerns. These problems and opportunities are fueling our desire to establish a system of marine protected areas along the Pacific coast of Canada as oneessential tool to address the needs of our oceans.

The MPA Strategy proposes three important elements:

A joint federal-provincial approach: All relevant federal and provincial agencies will work collaboratively to exercise their authorities to protect marine areas.
Shared decision-making with the public: Commits government agencies to employ an inclusive, shared decision-making process with marine stakeholders, First Nations, coastal communities, and the public.
Building a comprehensive system: Seeks to build an extensive system of protected areas by the year 2010 through a series of coastal planning processes.

The benefits of marine protected areas are many, and include:

contributing to the protection of the structure, function and integrity of ecosystems;
encouraging expansion of our knowledge and understanding of marine systems;
enhancing non-consumptive and sustainable activities; and,
improving the health of our ocean resources.

A total of 104 marine protected areas on the Pacific coast have already beenestablished. These were put into place using a variety of legislative tools and they consist predominantly of relatively small marine parks, ecological reserves and wildlifemanagement areas created to meet specific conservation and recreation needs. In the past, the need to work in collaboration to reach mutual goals was not apparent, and the majorityof protected areas were created by individual federal and provincial agencies operating on their own.

Central to this Strategy are a number of coastal planning processes which would be undertaken by governments over time throughout six major coastal regions (see Section5.2). These planning processes are inclusive and collaborative, in order to involve everyone with an active interest and to ensure that general and specific uses of coastaland marine areas, including Marine Protected Areas, are addressed.

For example, as part of the coordinated planning approach, Canada and B.C. signed an agreement in 1995 called the Pacific Marine Heritage Legacy (PMHL), which has as itscentral vision the creation of a system of marine and coastal protected areas along the entire Pacific coast. The current focus of the PMHL is the acquisition of land in thesouthern Gulf Islands and the consideration of a complementary Marine Conservation Area in the Gulf Islands’ encompassing waters.

To date, a federal-provincial government Working Group and senior management Steering Committee have been working to develop this Strategy discussion paper. However, broaderpublic involvement and acceptance is needed and will be essential to the success of the Strategy. This paper provides readers with an overview of the proposed Strategy andinvites comments. Section 6.0 in particular poses specific questions to which we are seeking your comments.

2.0 What are Marine Protected Areas

“Marine protected areas” are sites in tidal waters that enjoy some level of protection within their respective jurisdictions, although internationally the term may bedefined and interpreted quite differently from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For example, the World Conservation Union uses it as a generic label for protected marine areas such assanctuaries, parks, reserves, harvest refugia and harvest replenishment areas. Under the new Canada Oceans Act, Fisheries and Oceans Canada has authority to formally designate Marine Protected Areas, however, in this discussion paper, we have agreed to usethe term broadly to describe all the federal and provincial designations that protect marine environments.

Sidebar #1: What are Marine Protected Areas

Marine Protected Areas could include:

-unique coastal inlets, bays or channels;

-representative marine areas;

-boat havens with important anchorages;

-marine-oriented wilderness areas;

-cultural heritage features;

-critical spawning locations and estuaries;

-species-specific harvesting refugia;

-foraging areas for seabird colonies;

-summer feeding and nursery grounds for whales;

-offshore sea mounts or hydrothermal seavents; and

-a host of other special marine environments and features.

Regardless of the particular designation, all marine protected areas (MPAs) under the Strategy would:

1. Be defined in law

The legal authority to establish an MPA will derive from one of several federal and provincial statutes including: Canada’s Oceans Act, Fisheries Act, National Parks Act, Canada Wildlife Act, Migratory Birds Convention Act, or proposed Marine Conservation Areas Act; and British Columbia’s Ecological Reserve Act, Park Act, Wildlife Act or Environment and Land Use Act.

2. Protect all or a portion of the elements within a particular marine environment

The federal and provincial governments have differing and, at times, overlapping jurisdiction in marine areas. Depending upon the statute under which an MPA is created,the area may comprise any combination of the overlying waters, the seabed and underlying subsoil, associated flora and fauna, and historical and cultural features.

3. Ensure Minimum Protection Standards

All MPAs would share Minimum Protection Standards prohibiting:

ocean dumping;
dredging; and,
the exploration for, or development of, non-renewable resources.

Building on these minimum protection standards, the system of MPAs will accommodatemultiple levels of protection. Levels of protection provided by an MPA will vary depending upon the objectives for each site. For example, MPAs may be highly protected areas thatsustain species and habitats; areas that are established primarily for recreational use or cultural heritage protection; or multiple use areas that balance resource conservationwith recreational and other activities such as commercial and sport fishing. Even within a particular MPA, levels of protection may vary through the use of zoning specifyingpermissible activities for sub-areas.

Establishing a system of MPAs is only one part of an integrated approach to oceans management, but it is an essential one. MPAs help conserve the ocean’s life-givingservices, species and habitats to ensure that our coastal resources can continue to support present and future generations. The intent of MPAs is not to take anything away. Quite the opposite. MPAs can contribute to the restoration and conservation of marineresources for people whose livelihoods depend on harvesting. As well, they can support a wide range of recreational and aesthetic values, providing a win-win for all. Perhaps mostimportantly, they will help us to protect the quality of life we cherish. They are an insurance policy for our future.

Sidebar #2: Marine Protected Areas in a Global Context

The establishment of MPAs now occurs in many coastal nations around the world. While still less numerous than terrestrial protected areas, more than 1,300 MPAs have beencreated worldwide. MPAs have gained a high level of acceptance as a tool to help achieve the conservation of marine biodiversity, the sustainability of commercial and sportfisheries, and the viability of coastal communities that depend upon them.

Early efforts in the evolution of MPAs as a management tool took place mostly in tropical and sub-tropical waters-in the Florida Keys in 1935, in Australia’s Great BarrierReef in 1936, the Philippines in 1941, the Bahamas in 1958 and Mexico in 1960. Still today, most MPAs around the world have been established in these warmer marineenvironments, focusing on such important features as coral reefs, seagrass habitats and coastal mangroves. Temperate waters such as Canada’s have not been the subject of the samelevel of conservation efforts and the high levels of public awareness that, for example, the Great Barrier Reef generates.

B.C. has been the most active of Canadian provinces in the establishment of MPAs. The designation in 1925 of Glacier Bay National Park in Alaska may be the only MPA in theworld’s temperate waters to predate B.C.’s first marine parks at Montague Harbour and Rebecca Spit in 1957. Many of these early marine parks in B.C. were small, protectinganchorages and scenic shoreline areas important to recreational boaters. Beginning in the 1960s, and continuing through the 1970s and 1980s, however, the world began to recognizethe merits of MPAs as management tools for conservation, as well as for recreation, and called for the establishment of larger and more conservation-oriented MPAs. B.C. andCanada responded with the creation of new and larger areas such as Desolation Sound Provincial Park, Pacific Rim National Park Reserve (half of which is waters of the openPacific Ocean), and Checleset Bay Ecological Reserve.

Today, B.C. and Canada manage 104 MPAs, totaling about 1955 square kilometres. In addition, Canada is in the process of establishing the 3050 square kilometres Gwaii HaanasNational Marine Conservation Area in the southern Queen Charlotte Islands

3.0 The Need to Create Marine Protected Areas

The motivation to protect marine areas derives from a widespread appreciation of the beauty and bounty of the world’s oceans in the face of numerous pressures now affectingits health and stability. Largely a consequence of human activities, the serious stresses placed upon our oceans globally have given rise to calls for coastal nations to makeconservation and preservation of marine biodiversity and ecosystems a worldwide priority. This is the strongest message in the United Nations initiative to declare 1998 as theInternational Year of the Ocean.

3.1 Values of Canada’s Pacific Marine and Coastal Environments

With more than 29,500 kilometers of coastline, 6,500 islands and approximately 450,000 square kilometres of internal and offshore waters, the marine and coastal environments of Canada’s Pacific coast have an impressive variety of marine landforms, habitats and oceanographic phenomena that accommodate a broad range of species diversity. Island archipelagos, deep fjords, shallow mudflats, estuaries, kelp and eel grass beds, strong tidal currents and massive upwellings all contribute to an abundant and diverse assemblage of species.

The Pacific coast of Canada is one of the most spectacular and biologically productive marine and coastal environments of any temperate nation in the world. The northeastPacific represents a significant and varied collection of marine invertebrates comprised of more than 6,500 species. In the vertebrate family, there are 400 fish species, 161marine birds, 29 marine mammals, and one of the world’s largest populations of orcas; there are nesting grounds for 80 percent of the world’s population of Cassin’s auklet, and wintering grounds for 60 – 90 percent of the world’s Barrow’s goldeneye; as well, the region boasts of the world’s heaviest recorded sea star, and largest octopus, sea slug,chiton and barnacle.

Recognized as a spectacular and productive marine and coastal region, the northeast Pacific contributes significantly to B.C.’s economy and strongly influences the cultureand identity of its residents. It is estimated that the Pacific marine environment contributes up to $4 billion annually to the coast’s economy. In addition, one in everythree dollars spent on tourism in B.C. goes toward marine or marine-related activities.

B.C.’s marine regions also contain a rich cultural history. For the First Nations peoples who have lived along the shores for thousands of years, many coastal areas remainimportant for food, social, ceremonial, and spiritual purposes. The cultural history of the Pacific coast is further illustrated by numerous physical relics of the past, such asship wrecks and whaling stations.

As well, a vast array of recreational opportunities are available in coastal areas. For example, the Inside Passage is one of the most popular cruising and sailing destinationsglobally, and kayakers are attracted to the numerous archipelagos peppered along the coast. In a recent divers survey, British Columbia’s coast was rated as the best overalldestination in North America, even when compared to such tropical destinations as the Florida Keys, the Gulf of Mexico and southern California.

Some of these significant ecological, cultural, and recreational values are already protected in MPAs along the B.C. coast. Much of the current system has, however, beenestablished in an ad hoc manner with an emphasis on near-shore environments. The result is that many marine values and ecosystems remain underrepresented, and the levelsof protection both between and within protective designations vary significantly.

3.2 Threats to Marine Ecosystems

1. Physical alteration of critical habitat and marine areas

The alteration, deterioration or degradation of habitat has a significant impact on marine ecosystems. Habitats may be damaged through actions such as dredging and filling,trawling, anchoring, trampling and unauthorized visitation, noise pollution, siltation from land based activities, and altered freshwater inputs. Most habitat loss in B.C.occurs in estuaries and nearshore areas, but deeper areas can also be affected by ocean dumping. A primary concern in B.C. is the degradation and loss of eelgrass habitat, whichis important for numerous fish and shellfish species as part of their life cycles.

2. Excessive harvest of resources

History has clearly shown that the productive capacity of the seas and their ability to deliver resources to the needs of humankind are limited. In addition to the economic andsocial consequences of the excessive harvest of many fish and shellfish species, there are other ecological consequences. Recent research has suggested that around the world marineresource harvesting is altering the natural cycle of marine food webs. The continuation of this trend could result in serious implications for people who depend on the oceans’resources.

3. Pollution

While the water quality along Canada’s Pacific coast is generally considered to be quite good, there are many area specific concerns. These sources of pollution may includeindustrial and municipal wastewater discharges, agricultural runoff, the dumping of dredged materials, and the threat of oil and chemical spills. To date there has been nocoast-wide assessment of marine environmental quality, and no data exist on either the current status of or long term trends for water quality. One indicator of water quality -the number of shellfish closures – has risen along the B.C. coast to about 160 per year. This covers an area of approximately 100,000 hectares.

4. Foreign or exotic species of fishes and marine plants

The introduction of foreign or exotic marine species has altered the composition of many biological communities on the Pacific coast. Large areas of mudflat have beencolonized by an introduced eelgrass, rocky shorelines in the Strait of Georgia are often covered in introduced oysters, and one of the more common clams – the soft shell clam -has also been introduced. While some of these impacts occurred as far back as the turn of the century, others are still happening, such as the recent northward expansion of thegreen crab towards B.C.’s waters.

5. Global climate changes

Although the mechanisms driving long term climatic variations are complex, and the role of human activities in these changes has not been established, these fluctuations have alarge impact on the kinds and nature of species found in B.C.’s waters at any particular time. For example, during the past 1997/98 El Nino event, species usually found only inwarmer waters migrated northward into B.C.’s waters, where in many cases they consumed large numbers of local species.

4.0 Vision and Objectives for a Marine Protected Areas Strategy on Canada’s Pacific Coast

4.1 The MPA Vision

Generations from now Canada will be one of the world’s coastal nations that have turned the tide on the decline of its marine environments. Canada and British Columbia will haveput in place a comprehensive strategy for managing the Pacific coast to ensure a healthy marine environment and healthy economic future. A fundamental component of this strategywill be the creation of a system of marine protected areas on the Pacific coast of Canada by 2010. This system will provide for a healthy and productive marine environment whileembracing recreational values and areas of rich cultural heritage.

Along the coast of British Columbia, comprehensive coastal planning processes will be undertaken, ensuring ecological, social and economic sustainability. These processes willprovide the mechanism for establishing an MPA system and ensuring a holistic, inclusive and multi-use approach to resource use and marine management.

This is the vision behind the MPA Strategy, a future that can be realized through a cooperative and integrated process, and by a step-by-step commitment to the key objectivesoutlined below.

4.2 Objectives for Establishing Marine Protected Areas

MPAs will serve a range of functions and exist in a wide array of sizes, shapes, and designs. They are an important conservation tool that, when used in conjunction with othermanagement applications, can result in many benefits for coastal communities, tourists, and regional and national economies. Under this proposed Strategy, the establishment of asystem of MPAs would serve six objectives:

1. To Contribute to the Protection of Marine Biodiversity, Representative Ecosystems and Special Natural Features

MPAs can contribute to the maintenance of biodiversity at all levels of the ecosystem, as well as protect food web relationships and ecological processes. They give refuge tovulnerable species thus helping to maintain species presence, age, size distribution and abundance; they protect endangered or threatened species, preventing species loss; andthey preserve the natural composition and special natural features of the marine community.

Biodiversity is the variability among living organisms and the living complexes of which they are a part. It is expressed in the genetic variability within a species(such as different stocks of the same species), in the number of different species (e.g., 36 species of rockfish on the Pacific coast), and in the variety of ecosystems andhabitats along the coast (such as different plant and animal communities that appear with increasing water depth).

Representative ecosystems have been identified on Canada’s Pacific coast through the use of ecological classification systems. Parks Canada has identified Marine Regionsat the national level to plan the system of Marine Conservation Areas. At a more refined level, the B.C. government has identified 12 marine ecoregions with 65 sub-componentecounits. Both classification systems will help guide the planning of the system of MPAs to ensure it is highly representative of the diverse marine environments found on thiscoast.

Special natural features are elements of the environment that are rare, outstanding or unique. These areas may include stopover sites for certain migratingspecies, areas with rare and unique capabilities for maintaining early-life stages of important fish and shellfish species, and habitats of high biodiversity, such as estuariesor upwelling areas. While many of these elements may be captured within large, representative MPAs, it is also necessary to specifically identify and protect special,and often site-specific, features.

2. To Contribute to the Conservation and Protection of Fishery Resources and Their Habitats

Conserving and protecting fish stocks is critical for the sustainability and stability of many B.C. coastal communities. As a result, stakeholders are keenly interested in theimplications of MPAs for all fisheries, whether First Nations,, recreational, or commercial.

Studies of marine protected areas in temperate waters indicate that they can increase population size, increase average individual fish size, lead to the restoration of naturalspecies diversity, and increase population reproductive capacity. Studies also indicate that subsequent spillover benefits to harvested areas outside and adjacent to closed areasoften occurs.

MPAs can help maintain viable marine species populations and support the continuation of sustainable fisheries by:

Providing harvest refugia
Protecting habitats, especially those critical to lifecycle stages such as spawning, juvenile rearing and feeding
Protecting spawning stocks and spawning stock biomass, thus enhancing reproductive capacity
Protecting areas for species, habitat, and ecosystem restoration and recovery
Enhancing local and regional fish stocks through increased recruitment and spillover of adults and juveniles into adjacent areas
Assisting in conservation-based fisheries management regimes
Providing opportunities for scientific research

3. To Contribute to the Protection of Cultural Heritage Resources and EncourageUnderstanding and Appreciation

Cultural resources are works of human origin, places that provide evidence of human activity or occupation, or areas with spiritual or cultural value. Some examples arearchaeological sites, shipwrecks, or cultural landscapes. Terrestrial cultural resources have traditionally had more meaning than marine cultural resources because they tend to bemore evident and observable. Yet thousands of years of human occupation, including original First Nations cultures and early European contact and settlement are representedin the marine environment. MPAs can protect this rich cultural marine heritage and preserve First Nations traditional use and practices.

4. To Provide Opportunities for Recreation and Tourism

MPAs can support marine and coastal outdoor recreation and tourism, as well as the pursuit of activities of a spiritual or aesthetic nature. The protection of specialrecreation features, such as boat havens, safe anchorages, beaches and marine travel routes, as well as the provision of activities such as kayaking, SCUBA diving, and marinemammal watching will help to secure the wealth and range of recreational and tourism opportunities available along the coast.

5. To Provide Scientific Research Opportunities and Support the Sharing of Traditional Knowledge

Scientific knowledge of the marine environment lags significantly behind that for the terrestrial environment which can affect the ability of marine managers to identify themerits of protection or management options. MPAs provide increased opportunities for scientific research on topics such as species population dynamics, ecology and marineecosystem structure and function, as well as provide opportunities for sharing traditional knowledge.

6. To Enhance Efforts for Increased Education and Awareness

Over the last few years, public understanding and awareness of marine environmental values and issues have been increasing. There is general recognition that proactivemeasures are necessary to protect and conserve marine areas to sustain their resources for present and future generations. However, there is still a significant need for publiceducation to instill greater awareness of the role everyone can play in the conservation of marine environments. Many MPAs will afford unique opportunities for public educationbecause of their accessibility and potential to clearly demonstrate marine ecological principles and values.

5.0 Developing a System of Marine Protected Areas

Sidebar #3: Guiding Principles for MPA Development

1. Working With People

The federal and provincial governments will work in partnership with First Nations, coastal communities, marine stakeholders and the public on MPA identification,establishment and management.

2. Respecting First Nations and the Treaty Process

Canada and B.C. consider First Nations’ support and participation in the MPA Strategy as important and necessary. Both governments will ensure and respect the continued use ofMPAs by First Nations for food, social and ceremonial purposes and other traditional practices subject to conservation requirements. Therefore, MPAs will not automaticallypreclude access or activities critical to the livelihood or culture of First Nations. The establishment of any MPA will not preclude options for settlement of treaties, and willaddress opportunities for First Nations to benefit from MPAs.

3. Fostering Ecosystem-Based Management

An ecosystem-based approach to management requires that the integrity of the natural ecosystem and its key components, structure and functions are upheld. This meansmaintaining natural species diversity and protecting critical habitats for all stages in species life cycles.

4. Learning-By-Doing

A key aspect of Canada and B.C.’s commitment to establishing MPAs is the concept of using a learn-by-doing approach. Both governments recognize that the process for MPAplanning should evolve and improve over time given the variations between coastal regions, the dynamics of a marine environment, and the information constraints concerning marinespecies, processes and ecosystems. Flexibility and adaptability will be required to meet effectively and efficiently the needs of all marine resource users.

5. Taking a Precautionary Approach

Taking a precautionary approach means, “When in doubt, be cautious.” This principle puts the burden of proof on any individual, organization or government agencyconducting activities that may cause damage to the marine ecosystem.

6. Managing for Sustainability

The MPA Strategy is intended to contribute to sustainability in our marine environments. This means that resources in areas requiring protection must be cared for inthe present so that they exist for future generations. In the marine environment, emphasis will be placed on maintaining viable populations of all species and on conservingecosystem functions and processes.

5.1 The Coastal Planning Framework

It is proposed that a network of MPAs would be developed through coastal planning processes carried out at a number of different levels. These may range from comprehensiveprocesses that plan for a wide variety of resource uses and activities, to processes which focus on planning for very specific purposes or for the resolution of defined issues.Regardless of the level of planning for MPAs, public participation will be a fundamental component of all processes, with the principles of openness and inclusiveness forming thebasis.

This approach would enable the collaboration of all governments, including First Nations, as well as stakeholders, advocacy groups, communities and individuals in theidentification of important marine values and areas that warrant consideration for MPA status. We are seeking a commitment from everyone who has an interest to work together toestablish a system of MPAs for Canada’s Pacific coast.

The coastal planning processes are to be collaborative planning efforts, consistent with both the federal objectives for Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) andprovincial objectives for coastal zone planning.

The establishment of a complete MPA system on the coast would be largely dependent on the rate at which planning processes occur, but a basic system is intended to be in placeby the year 2010.

5.2 Planning Regions for Marine Protected Areas

For the purposes of establishing an MPA system, six planning regions have been identified, reflecting the variety of oceanographic conditions, coastal physiography,management issues, and communities along Canada’s Pacific Coast (illustrated in Sidebar #4):

1. The North Coast

2. The Queen Charlotte Islands

3. The Central Coast

4. The West Coast of Vancouver Island

5. The Strait of Georgia

6. The Offshore

A coastal planning process is already underway for the Central Coast region. The Strait of Georgia region has also been identified as a priority for such processes, and a numberof initiatives are currently being undertaken or planned, such as the Georgia Basin Ecosystem Initiative and a Pacific Marine Heritage Legacy commitment to assess thefeasibility of establishing a Marine Conservation Area in the southern Strait of Georgia.

Sidebar #4: Proposed Marine Protected Area Planning Regions and Pilot Sites for Canada’s Pacific Coast

5.3 Federal-Provincial Coordination for Marine Protected Areas Establishment

To date a federal-provincial government Working Group and senior management Steering Committee have been working together to develop the MPA Strategy. To build on theseexisting working relationships and to solidify our commitment to federal – provincial collaboration we are proposing to ensure a coordinated approach to implementing the MPAStrategy via the establishment of an inter-governmental coordinating body.

This coordinating body would 1) provide policy, program advice, and interpretation to stakeholders and the public involved with MPAs and coastal planning processes, 2) overseepublic communications on program and policy issues, and 3) manage a joint, central system for tracking and monitoring the MPA program. It would support existing planning processeswhen required, and develop a standard analytical process to guide all MPA assessment work to ensure a consistent approach and achievement of the Strategy’s objectives. In areaswhere planning is not anticipated in the short term, this body would ensure a coordinated approach to the identification and assessment of candidate MPAs, and review requests forthe application of interim management guidelines for MPA candidates. Subject to public endorsement of this body, a specific Terms of Reference would be developed.

Sidebar #5: Interim Management Guidelines

Interim management guidelines may be applied to MPA candidates under exceptional circumstances where it has been demonstrated that they are necessary to protect specificmarine resources, habitats or values that may be under threat until coastal planning is completed. Any interim management guidelines instated would remain in place until MPAestablishment decisions have been made. Governments have various measures available for providing interim protection of marine resources and habitats, such as regulations underthe Fisheries Act and the deferment of granting tenures, permits or other rights to occupy or utilize certain sites. In addition, on an emergency basis, an MPA can beimmediately declared under the Oceans Act for a maximum-but renewable-period of 90 days.

Requests for the application of interim management guidelines may originate from the MPA proponent in areas where planning is not anticipated for the short term, or from thecoastal planning process participants in planned areas. Such requests would be reviewed by both levels of government for decision-making.

5.4 MPA Identification, Assessment and Recommendation

Step1: The Identification of MPA Candidates

The first step in establishing a system of MPAs would be to identify candidate areas that reflect important or key marine values, attributes or features. MPA candidates may benominated and presented to the technical teams supporting each planning process within their associated time-frames. Planning process participants would normally includegovernment agencies, First Nations, marine stakeholders, community groups, academic institutions or individuals.

Step 2: Assessment of MPA Candidates

Candidates would be assessed according to the objectives of the MPA Strategy. Criteria for the assessment, as listed in Sidebar #6, have been assembled from the federal andprovincial agency programs for protecting marine areas. The standards to be met would reflect the intended purpose of the MPA candidate as well as unique characteristics thatmight distinguish it.

Candidate MPAs would be considered within the context of all marine resource uses and activities along the coast and in the offshore. Participants in coastal planning processeswould review the results of MPA assessments and conduct any further research necessary-such as feasibility or socio-economic impact studies-in order to make theirrecommendations.

For example, in the coastal planning process now underway in the Central Coast, a multi-agency technical team will be receiving MPA candidate proposals from processparticipants, area residents, and from interested stakeholders directly. These candidates will then be assessed by the team according to MPA objectives and criteria and then byplanning participants in the context of other resource values and uses, MPA criteria, and environmental, social and economic objectives.

Step 3: Recommendations for MPA Designation

Recommendations for MPAs would be developed on the basis that the chosen candidates are both consistent with the objectives of the MPA Strategy and complementary to the range ofother coastal and marine uses and activities being considered under an existing planning process.

In areas where a comprehensive planning process is not underway, MPAs may be assessed and recommended through the application of a tailored MPA planning process. This approachwould be limited in use and applied only in certain situations, such as where there are pressing federal or provincial priorities or major gaps in the MPA network. Consistentwith the MPA Strategy Guiding Principles, public participation will be a fundamental component of both comprehensive and tailored planning processes, employing the principlesof inclusive, shared decision making.

Step 4: Decision-Making for MPAs

Recommendations would be reviewed by governments for decision-making. It may be necessary to undertake subsequent analyses or additional studies or approve therecommendations and proceed with the establishment of the MPA.

Legal designation formalizes the management authority, the geographic boundaries for the marine protected areas, and a broad description of acceptable or permissible uses. Insome cases, a marine protected area may have deliberately overlapping federal and provincial designations, depending on its location and the level of protection required.

Step 5: Management Plans for MPAs

The agency supporting the designation of a MPA would be responsible for developing and implementing a management plan. The management plan – consistent with the approvedplanning process recommendations – would clearly define the purpose of the marine protected area; its goals and objectives, and how the goals and objectives are to bereached. similarly, the management plan will provide the detailed terms and conditions around “where” “what” and “when” permissible uses can occur.

Management plans will be subject to periodic review. Reviewing the management plan for existing MPAs would provide an important opportunity to periodically assess theeffectiveness of the management regime in place, and to revise protection levels accordingly.

5.5 Pilot Marine Protected Areas

Adhering to the learn-by-doing principle, several pilot MPAs have been identified to test and explore a number of applications including: partnering and cooperative managementopportunities and mechanisms; criteria for evaluating proposed MPAs; and coordination among agencies or governments involved in the development of the MPA Strategy.

Areas that have been proposed as pilot MPAs include Gabriola Passage, Race Rocks Ecological Reserve (which is already formally designated as an Ecological Reserve), theBowie Seamount and the Endeavour Segment Hydrothermal Sea Vents. (see Map)

For several of these sites, stakeholder consultation is underway. Gabriola Passage has been subject to detailed study and consultation, but a few outstanding issues have yet tobe resolved. First Nations involvement will be considered very important to moving forward in this area. For Race Rocks Ecological Reserve, consultation is already underway througha management planning process.

Criteria used in selecting these areas as pilot projects included the following:

level of existing stakeholder and/or community support;
ecological, recreational and/or cultural heritage value;
information availability;
potential for building education and awareness; and,
opportunities for research and monitoring.

The primary goal for pilot projects is to provide an opportunity to learn and testdifferent applications of MPA identification, assessment, legal designation, and management. Upon completion and evaluation of the pilots, formal designation may or maynot occur depending on the desire of local communities and First Nations, as well as stakeholders and the public. Throughout the MPA piloting process, opportunities will beprovided for public review and input.

In addition to these proposed pilot MPAs, both governments will be acting on their commitment in the Pacific Marine Heritage Legacy to study the feasibility of establishinga marine conservation area in the southern Strait of Georgia.

5.6 A Question of Targets – How Much is Enough?

There are varying views on the need for targets. As our knowledge of the marine realm greatly lags behind our knowledge of terrestrial environments, there is a need todetermine if MPA targets are appropriate, and if they are, then what they should be. There have been several attempts at designing measures to assess MPA targets both in B.C. and inother parts of the world, which include:

targeting a set number of MPAs per planning region;
targeting a percentage of area in each planning region;
setting a target of a minimum of one relatively large “representative” MPA for each planning region (for example Parks Canada has used this approach for Marine Conservation Areas);
targeting MPAs to protect representative areas of each habitat, ecosystem, or community type (B.C. has used this model for its terrestrial Protected Areas Strategy);
using the best available science to determine protection requirements; and,
not setting firm standards and limits for what needs to be protected and how much protection is required

We are seeking your advice on this important question.

5.7 Federal and Provincial Statutory Powers to Protect Marine Areas

Extensive legislative authorities already exist among the federal and provincial agencies to implement a comprehensive system of MPAs. These tools complement each otherand represent the various sources of constitutional and legislative powers necessary to enable us to work together to achieve the objectives of the MPA Strategy.

This federal-provincial partnership is essential since jurisdictional responsibilities in the marine environment are shared. For example, in all internal waters, the seabed isunder provincial jurisdiction, whereas in offshore areas it is under federal care. Throughout the marine environment, the organisms in the water column are under federaljurisdiction. However, the management of certain resources, such as aquaculture and the commercial harvest of oysters and kelp, is under the purview of the provincial government.Keeping this in mind, in some circumstances dual designation of an MPA using both federal and provincial legislative authorities may be required. For instance, some provincialparks and ecological reserves may need the added protection provided by an MPA under the Oceans Act to achieve their management objectives.

The various federal and provincial statutes and their designations for protecting marine areas are outlined in Appendix B. These consist of:

Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Marine Protected Areas under the Oceans Act
Fisheries Closures under the Fisheries Act

Environment Canada

National Wildlife Areas and Marine Wildlife Areas under the Canada Wildlife Act
Migratory Bird Sanctuaries under the Migratory Birds Convention Act

Parks Canada

National Parks under the National Parks Act
National Marine Conservation Areas under the proposed Marine Conservation Areas Act

British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks

Ecological Reserves under the Ecological Reserve Act
Provincial Parks under the Park Act
Wildlife Management Areas under the Wildlife Act
Protected Areas under the Environment and Land Use Act

Sidebar #6 demonstrates how these designations relate and may be combined to achievespecific management objectives, and lists what criteria may be used to select the most appropriate designation(s) in each case.

Sidebar #6: Federal and Provincial Marine Protection Designations

                                                                                       
MPA Protection Objectives       Potential Protective        Determining Criteria     
Designation(s)                                    

To contribute to the          Oceans Act MPAs              -representativeness          
protection of marine          Marine Conservation Areas    -degree of naturalness       
biodiversity, representative  Marine Wildlife Areas        -areas of high biodiversity  
ecosystems and special        Provincial Parks             or
natural features.             Ecological Reserves          biological           
                              Wildlife Management Areas    productivity                
(e.g. upwelling               National Wildlife Areas      -rare and endangered         
environments, eelgrass beds,  Migratory Bird Sanctuaries   species                     
and soft coral communities.)                               -unique natural phenomena    
                                                           -ecological viability        
                                                           -vulnerability               
                                                           -unique habitat              

To contribute to the          Oceans Act MPAs              -areas of high biodiversity  
protection and conservation   Ecological Reserves          and/or biological           
of fishery resources and      Marine Conservation Areas    productivity                
their habitats.               Provincial Parks             -rare and endangered         
                                                           species                     
(e.g. spawning, rearing and                                -vulnerability               
nursery areas.)                                            -areas supporting unique or  
                                                           rare marine habitats        
                                                           -areas supporting            
                                                           -significant spawning        
                                                           concentrations or           
                                                           densities                   
                                                           -areas important for the     
                                                           viability of populations    
                                                           and genetic stocks          
                                                           -areas supporting critical   
                                                           species, life stages and    
                                                           environmental support       
                                                           systems                     

To protect cultural heritage  Marine Conservation Areas    -presence of significant     
resources of the Pacific      Provincial Parks             cultural heritage values,   
coast of Canada and to                                     such as physical artifacts  
provide opportunities for                                  and structural features     
British Columbians and                                     places of traditional use   
others to explore,                                         or of spiritual importance  
understand and appreciate                                                              
the marine and coastal                                                                 
cultural heritage of                                                                   
Canada's Pacific coast.                                                                

(e.g. shipwrecks and areas                                                             
of cultural significance.)                                                             

To provide a variety of       Marine Conservation Areas    -degree of naturalness       
marine and coastal outdoor    Provincial Parks             significance of cultural    
recreation and tourism                                     heritage values             
opportunities.                                             -presence of significant     
                                                           recreation or tourism       
(e.g. scenic areas, boat                                   values                      
havens, marine trails, and                                 -ability to attract and      
dive sites.)                                               sustain recreational use    
                                                           -facilitate close contact    
                                                           with the marine             
                                                           environment;                
                                                           -aesthetics                  
                                                           -rare, scarce, outstanding   
                                                           or unique marine            
                                                           recreation                  
                                                           features                    

To provide opportunities for  Oceans Act MPAs              -value as a natural          
increased scientific          Ecological Reserves          benchmark;                  
research on marine            Marine Wildlife Areas        -value for developing a      
ecosystems, organisms and     Marine Conservation Areas    better understanding of     
special features, and         Provincial Parks             the function and            
sharing of traditional        National Wildlife Areas      interaction of species,     
knowledge.                                                 communities, and            
                                                           ecosystems                  
(e.g. long term monitoring                                 -value for determining the   
of undisturbed populations.)                               impact and results of       
                                                           marine management           
                                                           activities                  

To provide opportunities for  Oceans Act MPAs              -ability to foster           
education and to increase     Ecological Reserves          understanding and           
awareness of marine and       Provincial Parks             appreciation;               
coastal environments and our  Marine Conservation Areas    -area provides               
relationship to them.         Wildlife Management Areas    opportunities for use,      
                              National Wildlife Areas      enjoyment, and learning     
(e.g. interpretive signage,   Marine Wildlife Areas        about the local natural     
nature tours, and outdoor     Migratory Bird Sanctuaries   environment                 
classrooms.)                                               -accessibility               
                                                           -suitability and carrying    
                                                           capacity

Return to Table of Contents

6.0 Your Feedback on the Strategy

The public, marine stakeholders, First Nations, and coastal communities of British Columbia can participate in the implementation of the MPA Strategy by providing feedbackon this discussion paper. Please comment on any aspect of the document or, to assist you in providing your feedback, you may wish to address the questions below. All responses andinquiries should be directed by October 31, 1998 to:

Fisheries and Oceans Canada

450 – 555 West Hastings Street

Vancouver BC V6B 5G3

Telephone: (604) 666-1089

Fax: (604) 666-4211

B.C. Land Use Coordination Office

PO Box 9426 Stn. Prov. Govt.

Victoria BC V8W 9V1

Telephone: (250) 356-7723

Fax: (250) 953-3481

Thank you-we look forward to your replies.

Questions:

Do you support the vision and objectives of the MPA Strategy? (Please see Section 4.0)
Do you support the Minimum Protection Standards for MPAs? (Please see Section 2.0)
Do you support the process for MPA identification, assessment and decision-making? (Please see Section 5.0)
Do you support the formation of an inter-governmental coordinating body? (Please see Section 5.3)
Should some form of public advisory committee be established? If so, how should it be structured and what role should it have?
Do you support tailored MPA planning processes being conducted in unplanned areas? (Please see Section 5.4)
Do you support the learn-by-doing approach and the identification of MPA pilot projects? (Please see Section 5.5)
Should we define targets for the MPA Strategy, and, if so, what should these targets be? (Please see Section 5.6)

Appendix A: Principal Participating Agencies in the Development of the Marine Protected AreasStrategy

Department of Fisheries and Oceans

B.C. Land Use Coordination Office

Parks Canada

B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks

Environment Canada

B.C. Ministry of Fisheries

Appendix B: Federal and Provincial Statutory Powers for Protecting Marine Areas

    Agency       Legislative Tools       Designations                                  Mandate                              

Fisheries and  Oceans Act             Marine Protected    To protect and conserve:                                          
Oceans Canada                         Areas               fisheries resources, including marine mammals and their habitats  
(Federal)                                                 endangered or threatened species and their habitats											
unique habitats											
areas of high biodiversity or biological productivity											
areas for scientific and research purposes				

Fisheries Act		Fisheries Closures	Conservation mandate to manage and regulate fisheries, conserve																
and protect fish, protect fish habitat and prevent pollution of   
                                                          waters frequented by fish.                                        

Environment    Canada Wildlife Act    National Wildlife   To protect and conserve marine areas that are nationally or       
Canada                                Areas               internationally significant for all wildlife but focusing on      
(Federal)                             Marine Wildlife     migratory marine birds.					
Areas                                                                                 

		Migratory Birds	Migratory Bird	To protect coastal and marine habitats that are heavily used by		
Convention Act 	Sanctuaries		birds for breeding, feeding, migration and overwintering.                                                                          

Parks Canada   National Parks Act     National Park       To protect and conserve for all time marine conservation areas    
(Federal)      Proposed Marine        National Marine     of Canadian significance that are representative of the five      
               Conservation Areas     Conservation		Natural Marine Regions identified on the Pacific coast of         
               Act                    Areas               Canada, and to encourage public understanding, appreciation and   
                                                          enjoyment.                                                        

Ministry of    Ecological Reserve     Ecological          To protect:                                                       
Environment,   Act                    Reserves            representative examples of BC's marine environment;               
Lands and                                                 rare, endangered or sensitive species or habitats;                
Parks                                                     unique, outstanding or special features; and                      
(Provincial)                                              areas for scientific research and marine awareness.					

Park Act		Provincial Parks	To protect:								
representative examples of marine diversity, recreational and     
                                                          cultural heritage; and                                            
                                                          special natural, cultural heritage and recreational features.     
                                                          To serve a variety of outdoor recreation functions including:     
                                                          enhancing major tourism travel routes;                            
                                                          providing attractions for outdoor holiday destinations.		

Wildlife Act 		Wildlife		To conserve and manage areas of importance to fish and wildlife					
Management Areas	and to protect endangered or threatened species and their																	
habitats, whether resident or migratory, of regional, national																
or global significance.																		

Environment and Land	"Protected Areas"	To protect:		
Use Act 					representative examples of marine diversity, recreational and								
cultural heritage; and								
special natural, cultural heritage and recreational features

Contemporary History of the Race Rocks Light station 1974-1997

Posted on Monday,December 15, 1997 by Garry Fletcher

The Demolition Phase :

The demolition by the Canadian Coast Guard of some of the historic structures on the island in the 1960’s and 1970’s

In July 1966, Trev and Flo Anderson took over responsibility for the light station at Race Rocks. They moved into the keeper’s residence which had recently been constructed. Unfortunately the Department of Fisheries and Oceans ( Coastguard) demolished the original house at the base of the tower in 1974. The squared rock remains of the old building can still be seen where they had been bulldozed into the shallow water to the south of the tower.

Trev and Flo had unusual retirement plans. They constructed a magnificent forty-four foot ketch right on the shore at Race Rocks. During seven years of construction, Trev had the fledgling hull secured by heavy cables to eyes driven into the rocks to prevent a shipwreck from the winter North East storms before she was even launched. While she was under construction the sailboats ribs looked more like a beached whale.

On February 7, 1982 Wawa the Wayward Goose was launched and the Andersons set off on a two year voyage that took them north to the Queen Charlottes and across the Pacific to New Zealand and back aboard their Race Rocks built sailboat.

Go to this file on Trev and Flo Anderson: The Andersons started a great tradition of hospitality that built a close relationship with the students of nearby Pearson College.

Lester B. Pearson College was established in nearby Pedder Bay in 1974. Students from around the world came to study at the College which was named in memory of the former Canadian Prime Minister and Nobel Prize winner. The College was established to promote international understanding. All students attended Pearson College on full scholarship and came from everywhere; from Papua New Guinea to Poland. It wasn’t long until the students started to visit Race Rocks as Pearson College operated a much needed rescue service in the area. Faculty and students in marine biology classes and in the Diving Service began to study the extraordinary marine life at Race Rocks. It became clear that the fast flowing, nutrient rich waters supported large, diverse populations of marine life. After over a century of protecting others, Race Rock was in fact in need of protection itself. From 1978 on, they urged the faculty and students to seek formal protection for the natural environment and the rich biodiversity of the area. In 1980, after Pearson College students and faculty worked with the Ecological Reserves office of the (then) Department of Lands, Parks and Housing, the Race Rocks Ecological Reserve was established by an order in Council of the Cabinet of the Provincial Government in British Columbia. In the few years preceding this, the Andersons had assisted the students in every way they could and kept a watchful eye over the area.

( Go to this file for a more detailed history of the establishment of the Ecological Reserve.)

CHARLES AND JOAN REDHEAD
(Lightkeepers At Race Rocks 1982-1990)

After a short interval after the departure of the Anderson’s in 1982, when the station was covered by relief keepers, the Redheads took over at Race Rocks. They served more than the station during their tenure; they served muffins! Several generations of Pearson College students the world over still remember hot chocolate and muffins in their kitchen, after a cold scuba dive. Charles and Joan Redhead continued the strong interest in protecting the ecology of Race Rocks. For a few years before retirement, they shared the island with the assistant lightkeepers Warren and Elaine Kennedy. All four keepers often turned out to greet the students as they came ashore. See updates in the file on these four lightkeepers

MIKE AND CAROL SLATER-The last lightkeepers of Race Rocks 1990-1997In 1990 the head keeper Mike Slater and his wife Carol came to the station. Carol in particular held strong views about the need to live in harmony with the nature that truly surrounds Race Rocks. The Slaters worked hard to protect the reserve and assist researchers. These volunteer activities fall far outside their regular lightstation duties. During the early 1990’s the ominous signs of the first radical change at Race Rocks became apparent as the Coast Guard experimented with automated equipment to operate the station. In the spring of 1994 the first announcements about de-staffing of lightstations on the British Columbia Coast were made. The decision was surprising and unpopular. In September, 1995, the Minister of Fisheries, Brian Tobin and the MP for Victoria and Environment Minster David Anderson paid a visit to the island and are shown here talking with Mike and Carol Slater and Garry Fletcher and Mike Hobbis, and Pearson students. Most surprising, a few months later was the announcement that Race Rocks was on the list of the seven stations to be de-staffed in the first round of budget cuts. Race Rocks was to be closed on March 1st 1997. Mike and Carol watched as the last of the automated equipment was installed and a maintenance crew measured the windows of their house for shutters. They might as well have measured the keepers for a box too as the end of a way of life would be coming to Race Rocks.

TEMPORARY REPRIEVE, 1997:

For the time being Race Rocks and its keepers won a reprieve. In an emergency two year agreement Pearson College undertook to operate the facility in cooperation with the Coast Guard, as an education centre. A private donor agreed to cover the salary costs for the Slaters who were invited to stay on at Race Rocks by Pearson College. The College continued negotiations with the Provincial Government, the actual owners of the land, to operate the facility on a long term basis. Seventeen years later, Lester B. Pearson College is still managing the island on a long term lease from BC Parks.

They have to raise the funding and manage all utilities and repairs on the island without government help and are determined to make the island self-sufficient. With that in mind, the Race Rocks endowment fund has been set up for operating racerocks.

In December of 2008, Mike and Carol Slater retired from Race Rocks where they had been employed by Lester Pearson College as the Ecological Reserve and MPA Guardians since 1997. This Powerpoint presentation touches on some of the aspects of their life in the last few years at Race Rocks.

During the following years, from 1997 to 2000, The Canadian Coast Guard and the Provincial Parks Department started the process of transferring the property, upgrading essential parts and restoring some of the areas used by the Coastguard back to a natural ecosystem.
In 2001, Great Race Rocks was added to the Ecological reserve.

In September of 1998, The Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, the Honourable David Anderson, announced the proposal to make the Ecological reserve and all the Islands of Race Rocks into a Pilot Marine Protected Area (pilot MPA) for eventual designation as a Marine Protected Area ( MPA) under the Ocean’s Act. This index contains the information on that prolonged process.

In recognition of the FirstNations role in Race Rocks, A process of involving the Coast Salish people in the educational program for the Race Rocks MPA was started. .The Race Rocks Advisory Board with First Nations representation was set up in the fall of 1999 to further the creation of the MPA.

Race Rocks Marine Protected Area Update , May 6, 2001

See this file for information on Administration of the Islands

I wish to acknowledge the assistance of the British Columbia Archives in making the photos from the early years on Race Rocks available to us, and Trev and Flo Anderson, and Joan Redhead for the more recent pictures.

An Approach to the Establishment and Management of Marine Protected Areas Under the Oceans Act: A Discussion Paper

Posted on Wednesday,January 15, 1997 by Garry Fletcher

This archival reference originally appeared on the DFO website at http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/canwaters-eauxcan/infocentre/publications/docs/discussion_e.asp

An Approach to the Establishment and Management of Marine Protected Areas Under the Oceans Act: A Discussion Paper

The purpose of this Discussion Paper is to seek input and comment on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ proposed approach to establishing Marine Protected Areas under the Oceans Act.

JANUARY 1997

(Ce document est aussi disponible en français)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

0.0 Executive Summary
1.0 What is a Marine Protected Area?
2.0 Why are MPAs Important for Canada?
3.0 MPAs under the Oceans Act
- 3.1 Overall Goals and Strategies
- 3.2 Overall Purposes for MPAs
4.0 How will MPAs be identified & established?
5.0 How will MPAs be managed?
6.0 The Next Step – Your Comments
7.0 Contacts on Marine Protected Areas

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

An Approach to the Establishment and Management of Marine Protected Areas under the Oceans Act

Rationale

Canada’s marine resources form an essential part of our economic and cultural heritage, and conserving these resources is a responsibility shared by all Canadians. To help meet this national obligation, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), under the authority of the Oceans Act, has begun work on a Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) Program. We believe that this paper, by serving as a basis for preliminary discussion and comment, will help to secure the public consensus and cooperation required to make this program an effective means of sustaining the rich diversity of marine life in Canada.

Description: the Marine Protected Area

According to Canada’s Oceans Act , a marine protected area is:

“An area of the sea that forms part of the internal waters of Canada, the territorial sea of Canada or the exclusive economic zone of Canada and has been designated under this section [35.(1)] for special protection…”

Possible examples of MPAs include:

Genetic “seed banks”
“Rare species” habitats
Polynyas
Estuary zones
Tidal flats
Kelp forests
Offshore banks
Deep-sea vents
Sea mounts
Salt marshes
Marine mammal habitat
Permanent or seasonal upwelling or mixing areas
Spawning and nursery areas

Scope of Authority

The Oceans Act authorizes the Government of Canada to establish a “national system of marine protected areas”, and to make regulations that allow MPAs to be designated, zoned, and closed to certain activities.

Focus of Protection

Under the Oceans Act , an area can be designated as an MPA to conserve and protect one or more of the following:

Commercial and non-commercial fishery resources, including marine mammals, and their habitats
Endangered or threatened marine species and their habitats
Unique habitats
Marine areas of high biodiversity or biological productivity
Any other marine resource or habitat as is necessary to fulfill the mandate of the Minister

Program Development

The process for developing an MPA Program and individual MPAs will include the steps of area identification, area evaluation and selection, area establishment, and area management.

DFO recognizes that a successful MPA Program will require flexibility enough to allow each MPA to be managed according to its particular needs, as well as coordination of human activities and marine conservation objectives.

Need for Public Action

DFO is now committed to resolving two crucial questions:

1) How to go about establishing a workable MPA Program? 2) How to manage MPAs so as to achieve the goals set forth in the Oceans Act?

DFO is well equipped to provide the science required for a thorough and intelligent consideration of these questions. Science alone, however, cannot produce complete answers. To mount a program that serves both our environment and our citizens, DFO needs the cooperation and practical experience of the Canadian public. In this partnering initiative lies the future of one of our most vital resources. We encourage you to make your ideas available to us without delay.

For more information contact:

Written Comments/ Questions/ Ideas:

Please write to: Marine Protected Areas, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 200 Kent Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E6

Or you may look to the inside of the back cover on the Discussion Paper to find the Marine Protected Areas contact closest to you or e-mail DFO at mpa@dfo-mpo.gc.ca.

1. What is a Marine Protected Area?

Marine Protected Area (MPA) is a term used, in slightly different senses, throughout the world. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), for example, defines an MPA as:

“Any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment.”¹

More to our purpose, Canada’s Oceans Act (Section 35: see Appendix A) states:

Section 35

(1) A marine protected area is an area of sea that forms part of the internal waters of Canada, the territorial sea of Canada or the exclusive economic zone of Canada; and has been designated under this section for special protection for one or more of the following purposes:

(a) conservation and protection of commercial and non-commercial fisheries resources, including marine mammals and their habitats; (b) conservation and protection of endangered or threatened marine species, and their habitats; (c) conservation and protection of unique habitats; (d) conservation and protection of marine areas of high biodiversity or biological productivity; (e) conservation and protection of any other marine resource or habitat as is necessary to fulfill the mandate of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

(2) For the purposes of integrated management plans, referred to in sections 31 and 32, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will lead and coordinate the development and implementation of a national system of Marine Protected Areas on behalf of the Government of Canada.

(3) The Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, may make regulations:

(a) establishing marine protected areas, subject to paragraph 35(1); and (b) prescribing measures which may include but not be limited to:

(i) the zoning of marine protected areas; (ii) the prohibition of classes of activities within marine protected areas; (iii) any other matter consistent with the purpose of the designation.

The diversity of the Canadian ocean environment suggests that each MPA will be unique. Some examples of areas that might be protected as an MPA include: breeding areas, spawning areas, nursery areas, genetic ‘seed banks’, ‘rare species’ habitats, polynyas, estuary zones, tidal flats, kelp forests, offshore banks, permanent or seasonal upwelling or mixing areas, deep sea vents, sea mounts, salt marshes, or marine mammal habitat.

The Oceans Act allows for the establishment of zones within MPAs and for the prohibition of classes of activities. The level of human activities allowed will vary with the area, will depend on the purpose of the MPA in question, and will be decided in consultation with local resource users. Levels of protection can vary from a strict ‘no take’ area, where access is severely limited, to areas where controlled use or resource harvesting is allowed. Zoning could also be temporal; that is, seasonal restrictions could apply. The zoning approach allows for flexibility in planning for an MPA, and recognizes the need to coordinate human activities and marine conservation objectives.

The Oceans Act authorizes the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to work collaboratively with interested Canadians to develop and pursue a national strategy for the management of estuary, coastal and marine ecosystems. Therefore, DFO has been made responsible for untangling the overlapping and complex jurisdictional arrangements; establishing coordination among inland, coastal and marine management regimes; and establishing roles and processes for public and stakeholder involvement in marine and coastal management. The concepts of ‘leading’ and ‘facilitating’ mean a process of convening all interested persons, organizations, and agencies in a cooperative process.

The Oceans Management Strategy (OMS), Part II of the Oceans Act , identifies three complementary initiatives that will be part of a national strategy for managing Canada’s oceans. These legislated initiatives include Marine Protected Areas, Integrated Management of activities in estuaries, coastal waters and marine waters, and Marine Environmental Quality. The OMS will provide the basis for incorporating MPAs into a broader national planning framework for the coastal zone. At the same time, stakeholders will participate in developing the overall vision of MPAs for Canada.

The Oceans Act states that the national strategy will be based on the principles of sustainable development, integrated management, and precautionary approaches. Consequently the application of these principles will be an integral part of developing and implementing the MPA Program. Appendix B provides a more detailed discussion of these principles, and others as they apply to ocean management in general, and MPAs in particular.

2. Why are MPAs important for Canada?

Marine protected areas are an important tool for conserving Canada’s oceanic heritage. Our coastline stretches 244,000 km along the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic Oceans, making it the longest coastline of any country in the world. Eight of Canada’s provinces and territories are coastal. The oceans have influenced our history, our culture and our nation’s identity, and have been important to aboriginal people for thousands of years.

The richness of Canada’s ocean has enormous potential to benefit both present and future generations. Marine and coastal areas are important for fishing, recreation and tourism, transportation, subsistence, and mineral production. Canada’s continental shelf, covering 3,700,000 km², is the second largest in the world, and represents approximately one percent of the surface area of the world’s oceans. Coastal and marine ecosystems extend from Arctic waters to temperate estuaries to large offshore marine ecosystems. These ecosystems are host to a remarkable diversity of species, from commercial fish to marine mammals to a variety of invertebrate species and plants.

In the past, Canada did not have adequate long-term protection for its ocean environment and resources. Commercial fish stocks have seriously declined in some areas, greatly affecting coastal communities and regional economies. Sensitive habitats are being modified by a wide variety of activities, both inshore and offshore. Ocean waters in some areas are seriously polluted, and persistent organic pollutants are accumulating in pristine environments. As a result, the biodiversity and ecological integrity of the marine system is being threatened. Canada is facing decisions it has not had to face in the past. The nation needs action now – an MPA program is a decisive step in the right direction.

2.1 International and Canadian Experience with MPAs

MPAs are not a new concept. The first MPAs were established approximately sixty years ago, and currently there are almost 1,300 marine protected areas around the world. MPAs have been established by a growing number of countries and have been actively promoted by a variety of organizations such as the United Nations Environment Program, IUCN, World Wildlife Fund, and UNESCO. The world leader in establishing marine protected areas is Australia with 303 MPAs, including the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, the largest MPA in the world.

MPAs have been established for a wide variety of purposes: for helping to preserve important fisheries, for protecting historical and cultural resources, for conducting scientific research, for preserving natural communities and freeing them from exploitation, and for establishing parks for diving. By learning from the experiences of the international community, Canada can facilitate the implementation of its own MPA program, in terms of both the management of MPAs and the process of working alongside affected stakeholders.

Canada is gaining experience in protecting the marine environment. Some examples of current formal marine protection initiatives are: the ratification and implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation, implementation of the Ramsar Convention, the Pacific Coast Joint Venture, the Fraser River Estuary Management Program, the Atlantic Coastal Action Program, the Community-Based Coastal Management Project, the Gulf of Maine Council, and policy development in the Canadian Arctic Environmental Strategy. Canada also participates with seven other Arctic nations in the implementation of the International Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy. Moreover, Canada is signatory to a range of international conventions concerning the protection of the marine environment.

Federal and provincial agencies have developed, or are developing, MPA programs to provide additional conservation measures of important coastal and ocean areas and resources. These efforts are discussed below.

2.2 Federal Government Initiatives

Currently, the Federal government has two formal marine protected area programs. These are administered by Canadian Heritage (Parks Canada) and by Environment Canada. The protected areas designated by each agency serve somewhat different purposes, but each has conservation of the marine environment as a central focus. Appendix C describes the programs in greater detail.

Canadian Heritage is developing a system of protected areas that represent each of Canada’s 29 marine natural regions.² The Canadian Heritage National Marine Conservation Areas (NMCA) Program is in the process of establishing a number of NMCAs including Gwaii Haanas (3050 km²) on the Pacific Coast and Saguenay – St. Lawrence (1138 km²) located at the confluence of the Saguenay River and the St. Lawrence Estuary.

Environment Canada has three designations available for protecting ocean and land areas to conserve significant habitats and wildlife resources.³ All three designations have a focus on habitat for migratory birds. These protected areas include National Wildlife Areas, Migratory Bird Sanctuaries and, more recently, the development of Marine Wildlife Areas. All told, they protect over 2.9 million hectares of critical wildlife habitat in coastal, estuary, and marine areas.

The Oceans Act will establish a third federal program for marine protected areas. These will be administered by DFO, which already has experience in establishing protected areas, including the recent designation of three Whale Sanctuaries off Nova Scotia. In addition, a number of area closures to fishing activity have been established in order to protect spawning and juvenile concentrations of commercial fish species.

The three federal programs have distinct but complementary purposes. It is incumbent on the federal agencies to coordinate their approach and to take advantage of shared objectives and resources, despite the fact that the three programs are in different stages of development. This coordination will ensure efficiency in establishing protected areas that are complementary, and will also maximize protection of our oceans.

2.3 Provincial Government Initiatives

Provincial governments have established a number of coastal and marine protected areas under legislation designed to create provincial parks, ecological areas, and wildlife management areas. In the Canadian context, British Columbia has been the most active in the establishment of MPAs. British Columbia has two pieces of legislation that are used to create MPAs—either the Park Act (designating provincial parks) or the Ecological Reserves Act (designating ecological reserves), both of which are primarily for recreation purposes. The first marine protected areas established by British Columbia, dates back to 1957. Today, British Columbia manages 53 provincial parks and recreation areas and 11 ecological reserves with marine components, totaling about 1,400 km². This program in British Columbia will be a valuable contribution to the development of a national system of marine protected areas. Furthermore, British Columbia recently established the Marine Protected Areas Strategy, a joint federal-provincial initiative that addresses the need to develop a range of MPAs with multi-stakeholder involvement.

On the east coast, the Province of Prince Edward Island is developing an interagency Marine Conservation Areas Strategy that will also be a valuable addition to the protection of marine resources.

3.0 MPAS under the Oceans Act

3.1 Overall Goals and Strategies

The Oceans Act designates DFO to lead and facilitate the development of a planning framework for the oceans. The process of development will include goals and strategies to guide the management of ocean resources. At present, goals and strategies relate primarily to individual sectors such as fisheries, transportation, mineral resources, wildlife, and other resources. Without coordination and consistency among these goals, conflicts are inevitable. The development of this planning framework will guide the MPA Program and will consequently assist in the conservation of ocean resources and habitats.

The Oceans Act states a number of conservation goals that bear on the development of an MPA Program. A key goal in DFO’s approach to MPAs is to establish a network of unique MPAs that will reflect the diversity of our oceans. Another key and related goal is to develop an MPA program complementary to those established by Canadian Heritage and by Environment Canada. The work of creating and assessing MPAs and MPA Programs has already begun in some areas. The implementation of the Oceans Act will help to strengthen and focus DFO’s commitment.

Some of the proposed work that DFO will conduct to meet its commitment includes the following (see Sections 5.0 and 6.0):

Conduct consultations and develop partnering arrangements with interested stakeholders
Coordinate amongst all federal MPA programs
Establish procedures for accepting nominations for proposed MPAs
Identify possible priority sites
Conduct regional overviews of resources and develop criteria for the selection of candidate sites and the MPA network
Establish “pilot” MPAs for further assessment
Develop national guidelines and strategies which further develop criteria and provides direction for the development of MPA management plans
Establish a public information and education program

3.2 Overall Purposes for MPAs

The broad purposes for MPAs are presented in the text of theOceans Act, section 35(1). These purposes are discussed in more detail in the following pages.

3.2.1 Purpose A – Conservation of Commercial and Non-Commercial Fisheries Resources

The relationship between fisheries and MPAs is of prime importance. Canada, as a coastal nation, depends heavily on the oceans and their resources, both for commercial commodities and for cultural reasons. In 1994, 165,000 people were employed in the fishing industry in Canada. Families depend on these workers for food, shelter, and income. Healthy communities depend on the families. It is no small tragedy, then, when a fishery is closed because of depleted stocks. Aboriginal communities also have strong cultural ties to the marine resources, and their commercial interest is expanding as a result of land claim agreements and the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy. Recreational fishers and tourists (eco-tourism industry) also enjoy the fisheries resources and make a contribution to the economy of coastal communities. MPAs can help preserve and restore the marine environment while ensuring that these activities will continue.

The relationship of DFO, fisheries, and MPAs is one that deserves much attention. Fisheries regulation and management were traditionally the primary focus and expertise of DFO. With MPAs, fisheries science, management, and regulation have a new focus—one that will require working cooperatively with coastal communities to help in the future management and understanding of our valuable and dynamic fisheries. Consequently, the Oceans Act identifies as one of its purposes the need to conserve commercial and non-commercial fisheries. How the MPA Program affects the current fisheries management regime is of critical importance, but, it should be stressed, this does not limit or minimize the value of the other four purposes for MPAs that are listed in the Oceans Act.

The Role of MPAs as a Fisheries Management Tool

There is growing experience, internationally, in the use of MPAs to protect and sustain fisheries resources. Protected areas, or “marine refuges”, may be used in combination with existing management techniques to accomplish a variety of fisheries management objectives. Currently, the regulation of fishing activity can be related to the level of harvest, closures, or gear use. As some major stocks decline and fisheries management becomes more complex, it is important to employ new and innovative approaches, and to continually ask ourselves if there are more effective means available.

MPAs are an effective way of incorporating precautionary and ecosystem approaches into fisheries management. Reduced fishing pressure, in an MPA with fisheries closures, may result in the increased abundance, size, weight and diversity of fisheries resources. Such closures could also be an effective means of protecting fisheries resources for future use. Moreover, MPAs can protect critical habitats from disturbances that would otherwise affect fish production. History shows that many traditional fisheries have enjoyed natural refuges in offshore locations that prevented overfishing. However, new technologies, increased market value, lack of effective restrictions, and expansion of the offshore fishery has lead to the exploitation of these natural refuges. The restoration of some of these refuges through use of MPAs could help contribute to the sustainability of these fisheries.

Protected areas for fisheries management can vary in many ways, depending on the purpose and type of MPA created. The size, location, and activities permitted within a fisheries-oriented MPA will be jointly determined, taking into account the management objectives, current fishing activities, the health of the stock, and input from the area stakeholders. In cases where an MPA involves a fishing closure, fishers may have to forgo access to some of their original fishing territory. Such closures may ultimately result in an increase in harvestable fish in waters outside the MPA. The input from, and partnering arrangements with, fishing stakeholders and coastal communities will be critical in establishing such areas.

Some of the more prominent uses and goals of fisheries-oriented MPAs are listed below.

Adult Recruitment

An MPA could operate as a haven or ‘feeder area’, producing adult fish and large juveniles that will naturally migrate into unprotected areas, thereby replenishing fishery stocks.⁴ Moreover, it has been demonstrated that MPAs are better at supporting more dense populations of larger individuals.⁵ Therefore, MPAs may help maintain the number of adult spawners in an area.⁶

Recovery of Depleted Stocks

The same principles and goals as above apply to the recovery of depleted fish stocks. An MPA can also provide protection of these stocks and habitats during the rebuilding phase of certain fisheries. Key, in this scenario, is establishing an MPA early enough to be of value. If the target population is too small at the time of establishing the MPA, the goal of being a ‘feeder area’ will not be met.

Life Stage Protection

MPAs can be designated to protect fish and their habitats during sensitive or vulnerable life stages, such as critical spawning or nursery areas. Spawning concentrations of fish are particularly vulnerable to over-harvest and need to be protected from over-fishing and other pressures. As well, an MPA would allow more plentiful and often larger and older fish to produce a greater number of eggs with a better survival rate. Protection of relatively sedentary species, such as scallops or lobsters, has a strong potential to enhance the production of populations outside the refuge area, through the increased export of larval recruits.

Critical nursery areas need to be protected from pressures that affect the survival of juvenile populations. Again, this helps replenish fisheries outside the refuge, by increasing the populations through the export of juveniles.

Spawning and juvenile habitat closures, many of which are seasonal, are currently used for managing select fisheries in Atlantic Canada. For example, off Nova Scotia, a harvest closure on Browns Bank protects concentrations of berried female lobsters and contributes significantly to regional egg production.⁷ An MPA may enhance the capabilities of such sites through broader protection during the specified season. For example, it can regulate not only ‘no take’ during the closed season but it can restrict other activities that may be detrimental to the berried females and young.

Genetic Diversity

Well-designed MPAs can protect critical breeding stocks, maintain the genetic diversity of stocks, and can help preserve the population and age structures of target species. Consequently, MPAs can act as ‘genetic reservoirs’ for conserving the genetic diversity of adjacent stocks. MPAs can be useful in protecting smaller and unique sub-populations, which are particularly vulnerable to fishing and habitat alteration pressures.

Hedge Against Uncertainty

One of the most important uses of an MPA as a tool for fisheries management is to provide a hedge or “insurance” against unexpected events or activities such as climate change. In essence, it provides a direct means of applying principles and objectives common to the precautionary approach and to sustainable development. This is of great need today, for in many cases our understanding of the dynamics of fisheries resources and the marine ecosystem is limited.

3.2.2 Purpose B – Conservation of Endangered or Threatened Species

MPAs can be an important tool for preserving endangered and threatened species and their associated habitats.

The MPAs for threatened or endangered species are different from those established for the conservation and protection of commercial and non-commercial species. They target the protection of an endangered species or the community that supports the endangered species, and do not have the central goal of enhancing harvests elsewhere. MPAs designed for endangered species protection must provide enough suitable habitat and space to maintain the ecosystems and the genetic pools that support viable populations of threatened species. The success of these MPAs is dependent upon the appropriate and complementary use of adjacent lands and water.

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) identifies the following as endangered, threatened, or vulnerable in the marine environment:

17 fish species, 15 marine mammal populations, and one species of turtle. Four species of fish are extinct or extirpated (locally extinct), as well as two marine mammal populations. In addition, endangered and threatened species in need of protection can include those considered key to ecosystem functioning and valuable from an economic or ethical perspective.

The role of MPAs in protecting these species is described below.

Loss of a Key Species

MPAs can assist in maintaining or re-establishing key species by protecting them from activities that affect their populations. Current understanding of marine and coastal ecosystems often makes it difficult to anticipate the effects of the loss of a single species on the functioning of an ecosystem.

The disappearance of a ‘keystone species’ can alter and disrupt the functioning of an entire ecosystem. The history of the sea otter is a good example. As the populations of sea otters declined because of trapping, their prey, the sea urchin, exploded in numbers. Sea urchin food—kelp—disappeared, leaving ‘sea urchin’ barrens, a dramatically diminished habitat. In recent decades, re-introduction of the sea otter by conservation agencies to these ‘sea urchin’ barrens has brought about a reversing of the ecological processes and a return of the kelp. With them came other algal species, crustaceans, squid, fish, and other organisms.⁸

In this case, the blind exploitation of sea otters drastically changed ecosystems along the Pacific Coast. The damage was done before scientists and fur managers were aware of the key role of the sea otter. Remote natural ‘refuges’ offered protection that

ensured the survival of the sea otter and the opportunity to re-introduce them to their former ranges.

Loss of Valuable Species

MPAs can help protect species that have an economic value. The loss of certain species could lead to serious economic losses in the future. There are a number of activities that could adversely effect the gene pool in the flora and fauna of the oceans. Oceans contain the raw material that could provide new sources of food, fibre and medicines, and that could contribute to scientific and industrial innovations. In pharmaceuticals, for example, species that were relatively unknown or thought to be weeds have emerged as potential sources of miracle drugs. The ecological adaptability of this genetic ‘raw material’ also depends on the genetic capability, contained within species, to respond and adapt to changing conditions. If a fish species declines due to global environmental changes, will another be able to replace it? We cannot know in advance which species are likely to be important. For example, species such as sea urchins, sea cucumbers, rock crabs and Jonah crabs were once thought to be of no commercial value, but have developed into locally significant fisheries. MPAs provide the opportunity to address this issue and protect valued resources.

Loss of Intangible Values

The loss of species and the destruction of biodiversity is ethically unacceptable to many people. Some concerned citizens believe that many species are ‘priceless’ and have intrinsic value because of their very existence. Studies show that, in considering habitat restoration, people place a higher value on the existence of a species than on its potential for use.⁹ MPAs provide the opportunity to protect species and habitats that are considered valuable from these perspectives.

Marine Mammals

Marine mammals and their habitats are specifically identified in the Oceans Actas being worthy of special protection through the establishment of an MPA.

A wide variety of marine mammals are found in Canadian waters. These include whales (gray, bowhead, beluga, narwhal, minke, humpback, and killer whales as well as sperm, northern bottlenose, blue and right whales further offshore), porpoises, dolphins, seals, walrus, sea lions, and sea otters. Some of these species are listed as endangered, such as the beluga, bowhead, and right whale. Threatened species include the harbour porpoise, sea otter, humpback whale, and beluga (Hudson Bay population). Some species have been affected by past whaling or fur hunters, as well as present-day pollution, shipping collisions, fishing practices, and other human activities. Some marine mammal populations that were once exploited commercially and some that are traditionally used by aboriginal people are experiencing difficulty in recovering to viable or manageable levels.

Many marine mammals and their critical habitats can benefit from an MPA in order to limit the impact of detrimental activities. MPA design must focus on temporal and other special considerations related to calving and feeding grounds, which can change over time. Highly migratory species such as whales require national or even international networks of MPAs to protect them throughout their ranges.

3.2.3 Purpose C – Conservation of Unique Habitats

MPAs designated to protect unique habitats have several benefits. Unique habitats can be defined as ‘centres of endemism’, in which rare species are endemic to a single habitat area. In this case, protection of the area is a means of preventing the extinction of a species. However, endemism is generally believed to be rare because of the potential for long-range recruitment of many species, particularly free-swimming marine species.

Unique habitats can also be seen as having intrinsic or existence values—that is, they are especially valuable because they are unique. Many offshore benthic (bottom-dwelling) organisms, for example, are relatively restricted in their ranges. Some benthic communities are associated with specialized environments such as hydrothermal vents, isolated seamounts, and oceanic trenches or canyons. These unusual and isolated habitats result in confined ecological communities. The species endemic to these habitats may be at risk because of their limited means of dispersing to recolonize other areas.

3.2.4 Purpose D – Conservation of Productive Ecosystems and Biodiversity

MPAs can provide an important tool for protecting productive marine ecosystems and biodiversity. Many marine areas have a range of biota (the plant or animal life of a region) rivaling or exceeding that of tropical forests. The term “biodiversity” includes genetic, species, and ecological diversity, as well as the variety of responses to environmental change. Several scientists believe that coastal and marine zones are being rapidly depleted of their resources and diversity. Marine biodiversity can be adversely affected in several ways. Serious problems such as the introduction of exotic organisms, habitat alterations, overfishing, or increasing contamination can reduce the diversity and impair the operation of marine ecosystems. Consequently, the ability of the marine environment to support commercial activities is threatened.

A number of highly productive ecosystems can be identified as being in need of protection as an MPA. For example, many estuaries are highly productive, providing critical habitats for the life stages of a variety of fish and other species. Estuaries are under considerable stress throughout Canada, requiring greater levels of protection from both ocean and land-based activities. Similarly, upwelling and mixing areas typically have high productivity and support the life stages of a variety of fish, mammal, and other species. Upwelling occurs under specific conditions in coastal locations, such as the west coast of Vancouver Island, in the St. Lawrence Estuary (at the mouth of the Saguenay River), and on the Atlantic offshore. Other highly productive and diverse ecosystems include offshore banks, kelp forests, and deep sea features such as sea vents.

In order to protect highly productive ecosystems and areas of high biodiversity, an MPA typically needs to be large—encompassing a variety of critical ecosystem components. This presents a unique management challenge, since it is necessary to coordinate protection objectives with a variety of human activities. A wide variety of factors and influences affecting productivity and biodiversity need to be considered in the development of MPAs for this purpose. Often ‘no take’ areas or zones are required in order to ensure that critical ecosystem functions and key species and communities are maintained.

3.2.5 Purpose E – Conservation of Other Marine Resources and Habitats to Fulfill The Mandate of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

The establishment of MPAs will provide a unique opportunity to help fulfill other mandates given to the Minister, including that of scientific research. The Oceans Act (sections 35 and 42) supports this by providing for MPAs to be established to protect marine resources or habitat necessary to fulfill the mandate of the Minister, including the area of marine science.

MPAs can provide a number of opportunities for scientific research because they can range from pristine areas to heavily utilized areas to recovering areas. They can provide opportunities for testing management approaches including those of conservation, restoration ecology, and monitoring. However, of utmost importance is the opportunity to study and compare relatively ‘untouched’ ecosystems with others that have been subject to human contact.

Scientific research within MPAs can further our understanding of how ecosystems function and how conservation strategies contribute to the recovery of marine species and ecosystems. Researchers can assess the effectiveness of MPAs and provide guidance in developing an MPA Program. This is particularly important because of the lack of information on different designs for MPAs (size, boundaries, use restrictions, types of biota, proximity to human activities).

Improved scientific knowledge will aid in coastal management, including fisheries management. It can address major gaps in our current understanding, reduce uncertainty, and provide a basis for adaptive management and future planning. There are a number of researchers within government, universities, and other institutions who have identified potential areas, and who can serve as important players in developing research-oriented MPAs.

4.0 HOW WILL MPAs BE IDENTIFIED & ESTABLISHED?

Establishing the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ MPA Program will be a complex process of public consultation, information gathering, and building of collaborative arrangements with stakeholders. The process will take many years and will require a ‘learn-by-doing’ approach to program development—an approach that recognizes the need to act quickly on priority sites and issues, while at the same time developing and adjusting the overall MPA Program based on this experience.

At the national level, the overall MPA Program framework and strategy will be developed, defining its goals and standards for operation, creating collaborative arrangements, and the linking of global, national, and regional concerns. The MPA Program will be implemented at the regional level through activities such as the identification of candidate sites, consultation and creating collaborative arrangements with local user groups, governmental and non-government interests, and the establishment and management of individual MPAs.

DFO’s MPA Program will consider the following in its development:

that MPAs must be seen as an important means of marine conservation—a means suitable to a national strategy for ocean management and fisheries management as well as provincial and community-based conservation strategies;
that the MPA program must be adaptable to and determined by regional and local circumstances and issues;
that the process of completing a system of MPAs, as well as establishing individual candidate sites, may require many years; and,
that monitoring will need to be established to determine if the program is meeting its goals, and to take advantage of the lessons learned.

A number of principles of conservation, singularly or in combination, will guide the development of the MPA Program. Discussed further in Appendix B, these include the following: ecosystem based approach, sustainable development, precautionary approach, adaptive management, integrated management, regional flexibility, consultation, and partnering.

4.1 The Process for Establishing an MPA Program

The development of marine protected area programs around the world, and in Canada, indicates that there are a number of relatively standard stages in a typical process. Potential marine protected areas are identified, evaluated, selected, established, and managed. The process suggested below, and represented in Figure 1, is based on that experience.¹⁰ The process for the MPA Program is not necessarily linear. Each

Figure 1: Proposed MPA Establishment Process

missing alt tag

stage may be conducted on a continuous basis, and stages are often carried out simultaneously.

4.2 Area Nomination

There is a balance to be sought between the need to act on critical areas immediately and the need to be systematic in looking at an overall MPA network. The judgment of government staff and users in discussions has been that we do not need to wait for full network systems plans to identify some of the known high priority areas. Indeed, waiting for such plans can delay overdue action. Typically, certain important areas are designated in advance of a systems plan. The best approach is to begin consideration of priority areas while at the same time proceeding on a systematic basis, conducting overviews of marine regions to identify candidate MPAs.

Two complementary processes are being proposed to nominate areas in need of protection as an MPA: i) Nomination by Interested Groups, and ii) Regional Overviews.

Nomination by Interested Groups

The MPA program will accept nominations of areas for designation as MPAs. This route provides a unique opportunity for interested groups to nominate areas for consideration, including those from local resource users, government agencies, industry, non-government organizations (NGOs), research institutions, and private sector organizations. If, for example, a local lobster fisher committee wishes to pursue establishment of an MPA for protection of a lobster nursery area, the nomination process would provide a channel for this purpose. Based on survey and workshop information, various interested groups in Canada have already identified potential MPAs. As well, candidate areas currently under some form of special protection could be identified in this process. As considerable support exists for some of these potential sites, a built-in constituency and potential collaborators exist in many areas.

Regional Overviews

Over the longer term, there is also a need for a systematic approach to identifying a network of MPAs that reflects all the purposes identified in the Oceans Act. The systematic development of an MPA network will be accomplished through regional overviews conducted by an interdisciplinary team. This is complementary to the nomination-by-interested-parties process, with selected sites added to the area identification list (see below). Moreover, the regional overview would identify knowledge gaps that require further research and inventory. Consultation with affected organizations and interested parties will be conducted to identify issues and concerns and to gather information on the valued components of marine systems. The regional overview will cumulate into a working database of MPA-related information, providing a centralized and organized means of assessing candidate sites.

The MPA Proposal

The nomination of an MPA should be accompanied by a stated purpose, objectives, and a proposed plan for management of the area, possibly termed the “preliminary MPA proposal”. The proposal will be prepared through a cooperative process involving coastal communities, organizations, and government agencies. This proposal should be based on existing information and can provide the core elements of a draft management plan, should the site be selected. Appendix D provides an example of the typical information that might be expected for an MPA proposal.

Area Identification List

Nominated areas are placed on an area identification list (AIL), a working list of potential MPAs from which candidates are selected for further evaluation. Inclusion on the AIL is based on an evaluation of preliminary selection criteria, which will need to be defined.

An MPA Program will establish an AIL early on in the process. Those areas on the list will be considered for early establishment. There is already enough information to identify and justify certain priority areas for protection. In the case of unique habitats, offshore sea vents are an obvious example. The spawning areas of many important species are known and may already be identified in existing studies as requiring protection. Appropriate research and monitoring can be carried out within areas that are established early, and the knowledge gained can assist in planning for a full network of MPAs. As well, the public visibility of early MPA initiatives will provide a basis for greater public understanding and input into regional level activities.

Candidate MPAs that have been added to the AIL for a region will need to be monitored to ensure that the potential of the area is not lost while awaiting final decision. Protection can be provided, as necessary, within other regulatory authorities assigned to DFO. This will allow areas and plans to be evaluated during the decision process.

4.3 Area Evaluation and Selection

Each MPA proposal will be evaluated on the basis of extensive criteria. One set of criteria are the purposes stated for MPAs in section 35 of the Oceans Act. Areas may rate high on several of these criteria. For example, the area could support rare species within a zone that is high in biological diversity and that supports commercially important species. Other sites not within the scope of the Oceans Act and mandate of DFO would be forwarded to relevant federal and provincial agencies for their consideration.

Other types of evaluation criteria are also important in selecting a site. These include social and economic values, the immediacy of need, practicality, opportunities of partnering arrangements, community support, adequacy of existing regulatory regimes, potential human activity threats to the area, ecological fragility, feasibility of enforcement, scientific importance, educational value, fiscal constraints, and regional, national, or international significance. Provided the candidate area is consistent with the purposes identified in the Oceans Act, these criteria add to the importance of the site. Discussions on specific sites will take place with resource users, governments, affected interests, and the public at large.

It is possible that consideration of the proposals and input from consultation may delay implementation of an important proposal. While a delay may be of concern, establishing inappropriate MPAs or ‘paper’ MPAs without feasibility for implementation would add little in value to marine conservation. A form of interim protection of an area may be necessary for some candidates at this stage.

4.4 Development of an Area Management Plan

The management plan for each MPA will be based on the proposal that was developed in the Area Nomination stage, and on additional information from the Area Evaluation and Selection stage. These elements will have to be expanded in the management plan so that all players, particularly if there is a some form of partnering arrangement involved, will clearly understand their roles and responsibilities.

Since each MPA is different, the management plan of each will be unique. Each plan will attempt to reflect the issues and concerns of the stakeholders. An interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral planning team will be assembled to develop the management plan. It will clearly define the purpose of the MPA, its goals and objectives, how the goals and objectives are to be reached, and how the success of the MPA will be measured. Input from a variety of interested parties will be required at this stage in order to identify key management issues and constraints.

In many candidate MPA areas there will be existing and proposed activities and interests, some of which may conflict with the conservation objectives of the MPA. A key component of the management plan will be the development of regulatory actions, including the zoning of activities to be prohibited or limited. The Oceans Act (section 35) allows for the establishment of zones within MPAs and the prohibition of classes of activities. Levels of protection defined in the management plan can vary from a strict ‘no take’ area, where access is severely limited, to areas where controlled use, resource harvesting, and various socio-economic activities are allowed. Buffer areas may be defined around MPAs to ensure that nearby human activities are managed in a manner that conserves the marine resources in the MPA core areas.

4.5 Area Establishment

The Oceans Actallows for the establishment and management of MPAs through regulations created under section 35 (3). The form that these regulations will take has not been determined. It has been suggested that each MPA would have its own set of regulations specifying boundaries and the measures that have to be taken to protect the area. Another alternative would be to establish a set of general regulations that would authorize, first, the creation of MPAs on a regional level in support of formal management plans; and second, the permitting of activities within the MPA that do not conflict with the plan. Formal designation of an MPA would in any case define geographic boundaries and all the elements described in the management plan. These regulations would be enforceable by persons appointed under section 39 of the Act and subject to fines specified in section 37.

The Oceans Act(section 36) permits the Minister to designate an MPA on an emergency basis. This power could be used if resources or habitats are at particular risk and require protection on an interim basis.

4.6 Area Management

MPAs will typically be managed on a site-by-site basis. This means that each MPA will have its own management plan, tailored to the type of site, and the purposes for which it was established. MPAs will be managed in close cooperation with other agencies and interested parties. Guidance for management will be contained in a management plan and based on the proposal prepared and on the regulations adopted. The key management issues that need to be addressed are discussed below in Section 5.

5.0 How will MPAs be managed?

Management challenges for a successful MPA Program include: establishing effective partnering arrangements, providing jurisdictional coordination, developing information, providing management resources, providing an enforcement capability, and developing awareness and education for MPAs. These are discussed below, with possible solutions proposed.

5.1 Need for Effective Partnering

The concept of partnering is a driving force in the MPA Program. Stakeholder information, cooperation, and ongoing support is key in creating and managing MPAs. Cooperation and coordination between interested parties and DFO is required to ensure efficiency and to avoid duplication of effort. It has been said that “environmental management is most effective when implemented by those who have the most to lose and the most to gain from the management of the environment”.¹¹ This is particularly true for marine users. By considering their interests early in the process, areas of constraint and potential conflict can be identified and negotiated where appropriate.

The number of interested parties, like the diversity of interests and uses, will vary with sites, regional needs and attitudes and valued resources. The degree of involvement and responsibility of interested parties will depend on the purpose of the MPA and its geographical location. For example, with offshore MPAs such as seamounts, DFO may be solely responsible. However, the MPA will likely involve shipping, mineral resource extraction, and fishing interests. One advantage of establishing effective partnering arrangements with the fishing and shipping community is improved compliance with MPA regulations.

Partnering arrangements in an MPA Program will often involve ‘different’ groups and interests. Some of these groups could include coastal communities, the fishing industry, aquaculturalists, aboriginal organizations, conservationists, ocean industries, and federal, provincial and municipal governments.

5.2 Coastal Communities and Non-Government Conservation Organizations

The MPA Program provides an opportunity for communities as well as local, regional and national conservation groups, to be involved in conservation activities in the marine environment. For coastal MPA management, local organizations and communities play a prominent role, ranging from nomination and co-management of sites to consultation activities and public awareness programs. Organizations nominating an MPA could become a ‘sponsor’ for the site. A sponsor is an organization prepared to take a long term partnering arrangement in managing the MPA.

Partnering arrangements with provincial and federal departments are being formed. For many years, conservation organizations have been actively acquiring coastal lands. This practice allows them to preserve the lands, while promoting marine conservation and protected areas. Some MPAs such as the Whytecliff Marine Sanctuary in West Vancouver lend themselves to local management. In Atlantic Canada, several types of community/government partnering arrangements have been formed to study the local resources and economy with an eye to sustainable management and development. Such arrangements would have value in the management of MPAs.

5.3 Fishing Interests

Fishing interests have an important investment in MPAs. It is essential to all involved parties that fishing groups, including commercial and aboriginal fish harvesters, recreational fishers, businesses, processing companies, and the fishing-dependent communities, play an active role in the MPA process.

Fish harvesters have been strong proponents for conserving the marine resources upon which they depend. They have much knowledge to add to the scientific information that shapes the management approach. Experience suggests that MPAs need strong support from fishing interests, particularly if the MPAs will remove territory from their traditional fishing areas or affect their application of fishing rights in the area. Support for MPAs grows when harvesters see the results of a successful MPA, or when they become involved in the many stages of the MPA establishment process.¹²

Currently, the development of the Canadian Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing Operations in Atlantic Canada complements the MPA process and encourages

collaborative approaches to management of the fisheries resources.

5.4 Aboriginal Organizations

Aboriginal organizations have a strong interest in conserving marine resources for cultural, subsistence, and economic reasons. MPAs will be managed in collaboration with aboriginal people in accordance with mutual interests in marine conservation. MPAs will be identified and designated in a manner consistent with Aboriginal land claims and rights.

Co-management provides a means of marine conservation and protection, pending the resolution of aboriginal claims. It provides opportunities for better resource management and for mutual learning among scientific and aboriginal experts. Aboriginal people have extensive traditional knowledge about marine resources and apply customary management practices in maintaining marine resource productivity. Currently, a number of co-management institutions exist in the North, under the Nunavut Final Land Claim Agreement and the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. Similar land claim agreements are being negotiated between the province of Quebec and the Inuit of Northern Quebec.

5.5 Ocean Industries

There are a number of ocean industries that have a direct interest in the development of an MPA Program, particularly in the management of individual MPAs. These industries and interests could include oil and gas companies, marine mining interests, tourism operators, shoreline developers, and shipping agencies. It is important that these interests be included early on in the development of management plans to ensure that conflict with both current and future uses of oceans is avoided where possible. Many of these industries may wish to assume a long-term collaborative role in managing an MPA, assisting in activities such as enforcement and monitoring.

5.6 Provinces and Municipal Governments

Effective partnering arrangements between DFO, its federal counterparts, and the provinces are crucial to the success of an MPA Program. This has been clearly demonstrated elsewhere in the world (Australia, the United States, and Spain, to name a few). In Canada, coastal provinces have varying degrees of jurisdiction over the seabed in inshore waters. Moreover, the provinces and municipalities are responsible for managing most of the land-based activities that affect the marine environment and potential MPAs: run-off (pollution), tourism, and shoreline development .

At present, many coastal provinces have specific initiatives that show their interest in MPAs. These initiatives are: considering and/or developing a number of terrestrial protected areas adjacent to potential MPA sites; and establishing coastal zone management initiatives that complement the MPA Program (e.g., Coastal 2000 in Nova Scotia, or ‘conservation easements’ for marine protected areas in British Columbia). In addition, both British Columbia and Prince Edward Island are establishing MPA programs through collaborative arrangements with a variety of government departments, non-government organizations, and the fishing industry.

5.7 Federal Departments

With the passage of the Oceans Act , DFO will join two other federal departments—Canadian Heritage and Environment Canada—in having direct responsibility for the identification, designation and management of protected areas in the marine environment (Appendix C). The partnering process has been initiated at the federal level, where a steering committee on MPAs has been created: the Marine Protected Areas Interdepartmental Committee. The aims of this committee are to develop a comprehensive and complementary system of MPAs and to ensure that individual MPAs have a full range of support, expert advice, and protection. This level of partnering will be reflected at the regional level and at individual MPA sites. Other federal agencies such as the Department of Transport, Natural Resources Canada, and the Department of Defence will be approached in addressing specific issues and in considering particular sites.

5.8 International

Cooperative agreements and joint planning exercises between Canada and its neighbours will be necessary in order to meet common conservation objectives. Some potential marine protected area sites are shared with, or are in close proximity to, the United States. A similar situation exists in the Arctic, where Canada and Greenland have a common marine environment that requires protection. Finally, Canada and France (Saint Pierre and Miquelon) share valuable resources on the east coast. Highly migratory species such as whales have critical habitats located thousands of kilometres from Canadian waters, requiring a network of protected areas throughout their range. Existing management structures such as the Gulf of Maine Council may provide the basis for an international collaborative arrangement on MPAs to be developed.

5.9 Addressing Information Requirements

MPAs will be managed using present information, ongoing research, and traditional ecological information from a variety stakeholders. Accurate information on the marine environment, its resources, and uses will be critical in identifying, evaluating, and managing MPAs. A broad information base will be developed in order to evaluate individual MPA proposals and to support regional overviews (Section 5 of the discussion paper).

The database will consist of such information categories as:

existing and proposed protected areas (federal, provincial, private)
existing and planned uses (fishery activities, resource extraction, recreation)
environmental data (oceanographic processes)
ecological information (key species distribution, critical habitats, ecological systems)

A common database, developed through tools such as a geographic information systems (GIS) will be used for storing, interpreting, and displaying the information. An agency and team of information specialists will be identified and charged with coordinating the development of the data.

Information Constraints and Sources

A major constraint in planning for MPAs is the limited understanding of the dynamics of our marine ecosystems. Even in the foreseeable future, management decisions will be made with limited knowledge. The MPA Program will address information deficits by:

exercising the sustainable development, integrated management, and precautionary principles
using MPAs as a learning opportunity by applying the adaptive management principle
establishing a monitoring component as part of some MPAs, and
using MPAs as natural laboratories to conduct environmental research.

Information to ensure sound management of MPAs will continue to be gathered. The Oceans Act (section 42) defines DFO’s marine sciences role. This includes collecting data for understanding oceans and their living resources, as well as hydrographic, oceanographic, fisheries, and other marine systems. Provincial agencies are developing a number of coastal databases that will be useful for decision-making. Federal and provincial agencies are also cooperating in the assembly of coastal zone information management systems. For example, federal and provincial agencies in the Atlantic region are cooperating in an Atlantic Coastal Zone Information Management Committee (ACZIMC) established to improve and standardize information infrastructure related to the coastal zone.

Community groups have information that an MPA Program can put to use in decision-making. Conservation groups involved in activities such as the Atlantic Coastal Action Program (ACAP) also have, on a site-specific basis, important information for use in an MPA Program.

Monitoring programs will be established to determine whether the goals of individual MPAs have been effectively realized. Environmental parameters will be monitored to detect natural and artificial changes in environmental systems. These data are essential for demonstrating management success. If success is demonstrated, compliance with regulations and public support for additional MPAs would be expected to increase.

5.10 Awareness and Education

Education and awareness of DFO’s MPA Program is of the utmost importance. If partnering arrangements are to be a key method for delivering this MPA Program, the parties must be well informed and knowledgeable. Also, as the approach will be an evolving one, the aims of the program must be clearly defined and understood.

The awareness-and-education component of the program will develop different types of materials for different audiences, including: schools, resource users, DFO and other government agencies, communities, and various non-government agencies. A wide range of educational tools can be used, e.g., public meetings, brochures, booklets, and educational videos. A coordinated awareness and education program between Canadian Heritage, Environment Canada, and DFO will be needed. This should clarify each agency’s role in establishing protected areas, and provide information on the collaboration between agencies.

Effective education and stakeholder support can reduce enforcement requirements in three important ways:

by encouraging participation by all interested parties in enforcement efforts;
by creating an understanding that leads to better compliance; and
by providing a forum, through the partnering arrangements, to address enforcement concerns.

Existing fisheries management enforcement tools can provide a basis for enforcement approaches within many of the MPAs. However, given the types of MPAs that are envisaged under the Oceans Act, the enforcement challenges presented may be equally diverse. Many of the issues related to enforcement capabilities and alternatives will be addressed on a site-by-site basis and will be identified in the management plan.

The Oceans Act contains enforcement provisions, that are included in Appendix A.

6.0 The next step – your comments

MPAs provide a powerful and proven tool for achieving conservation objectives in the marine environment. Through MPAs we can begin to protect important ecosystems and species, thereby protecting the marine environment and resources upon which our coastal communities depend.

The Oceans Actand the development of an MPA Program presents an exciting new challenge for DFO and for Canada. Over the next few years, DFO, together with various partnering organizations and stakeholders, will build an MPA Program encompassing a broad network of protected areas. The MPA Program will evolve over time, adopting a learn-by-doing approach and will be developed in close coordination with existing protection initiatives undertaken by other organizations. This will take commitment, active involvement, and consensus-building among a wide range of stakeholders.

A number of complementary tasks have been identified as critical for developing the MPA Program. The MPA Program framework needs to be structured, pilot MPAs in priority sites need to be established, and extensive partnering arrangements and consultation exercises are required. The discussion paper represents a starting point for addressing the issues surrounding MPAs in Canada. It also provides a general set of principles and approaches DFO can adopt. The approach to the MPA Program provided in this discussion paper is not a prescriptive one. On the contrary: the needs and design of the MPA Program will be developed in cooperation with a range of stakeholders.

Your comments on this discussion paper will provide an initial step in this process, helping to develop an innovative, effective, and coordinated approach to conserving our marine heritage.

For further information, and to provide your comments, please contact your regional DFO office—addresses are provided at the back of this paper. We look forward to hearing from you.

Appendix A-

Oceans Act

PART II – OCEANS MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

Part does not apply to inland waters

28.For greater certainty, this Part does not apply in respect of rivers and lakes.

Development and implementation of strategy

29.The Minister, in collaboration with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, with provincial and territorial governments and with affected aboriginal organizations, coastal communities and other persons and bodies, including those bodies established under land claims agreements, shall lead and facilitate the development and implementation of a national strategy for the management of estuarine, coastal and marine ecosystems in waters that form part of Canada or in which Canada has sovereign rights under international law.

Principles of strategy

30.The national strategy will be based on the principles of

(a)sustainable development, that is, development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs;

(b)the integrated management of activities in estuaries, coastal waters and marine waters that form part of Canada or in which Canada has sovereign rights under international law; and

(c)the precautionary approach, that is, erring on the side of caution.

Integrated management plans

31.The Minister, in collaboration with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, with provincial and territorial governments and with affected aboriginal organizations, coastal communities and other persons and bodies, including those bodies established under land claims agreements, shall lead and facilitate the development and implementation of plans for the integrated management of all activities or measures in or affecting estuaries, coastal waters and marine waters that form part of Canada or in which Canada has sovereign rights under international law.

Implementation of integrated management plans

32.For the purpose of the implementation of integrated management plans, the Minister

(a)shall develop and implement policies and programs with respect to matters assigned by law to the Minister;

(b)shall coordinate with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada the implementation of policies and programs of the Government with respect to all activities or measures in or affecting coastal waters and marine waters;

(c)may, on his or her own or jointly with another person or body or with another minister, board or agency of the Government of Canada, and taking into consideration the views of other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, provincial and territorial governments and affected aboriginal organizations, coastal communities and other persons and bodies, including those bodies established under land claims agreements,

(i)establish advisory or management bodies and appoint or designate, as appropriate, members of those bodies, and

(ii)recognize established advisory or management bodies; and

(d)may, in consultation with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, with provincial and territorial governments and with affected aboriginal organizations, coastal communities and other persons and bodies, including those bodies established under land claims agreements, establish marine environmental quality guidelines, objectives and criteria respecting estuaries, coastal waters and marine waters.

Cooperation and agreements

33.(1) In exercising the powers and performing the duties and functions assigned to the Minister by this Act, the Minister

(a)shall cooperate with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, with provincial and territorial governments and with affected aboriginal organizations, coastal communities and other persons and bodies, including those bodies established under land claims agreements;

(b)may enter into agreements with any person or body or with another minister, board or agency of the Government of Canada;

(c)shall gather, compile, analyse, coordinate and disseminate information;

(d)may make grants and contributions on terms and conditions approved by the Treasury Board; and

(e)may make recoverable expenditures on behalf of and at the request of any other minister, board or agency of the Government of Canada or of a province or any person or body.

Consultation

(2) In exercising the powers and performing the duties and functions mentioned in this Part, the Minister may consult with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, with provincial and territorial governments and with affected aboriginal organizations, coastal communities and other persons and bodies, including those bodies established under land claims agreements.

Logistics support, etc.

34.The Minister may coordinate logistics support and provide related assistance for the purposes of advancing scientific knowledge of estuarine, coastal and marine ecosystems.

Marine protected areas

35.(1) A marine protected area is an area of the sea that forms part of the internal waters of Canada, the territorial sea of Canada or the exclusive economic zone of Canada and has been designated under this section for special protection for one or more of the following reasons:

(a)the conservation and protection of commercial and non-commercial fishery resources, including marine mammals, and their habitats;

(b)the conservation and protection of endangered or threatened marine species, and their habitats;

(c)the conservation and protection of unique habitats;

(d)the conservation and protection of marine areas of high biodiversity or biological productivity; and

(e)the conservation and protection of any other marine resource or habitat as is necessary to fulfil the mandate of the Minister.

Marine protected areas

(2)For the purposes of integrated management plans referred to in sections 31 and 32, the Minister will lead and coordinate the development and implementation of a national system of marine protected areas on behalf of the Government of Canada.

Regulations

(3)The Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister, may make regulations

(a)designating marine protected areas; and

(b)prescribing measures that may include but not be limited to

(i)the zoning of marine protected areas,

(ii)the prohibition of classes of activities within marine protected areas, and

(iii)any other matter consistent with the purpose of the designation.

Interim marine protected areas in emergency situations

36.(1) The Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister, may make orders exercising any power under section 35 on an emergency basis, where the Minister is of the opinion that a marine resource or habitat is or is likely to be at risk to the extent that such orders are not inconsistent with a land claims agreement that has been given effect and has been ratified or approved by an Act of Parliament.

Exemption from Statutory Instruments Act

(2) An order made under this section is exempt from the application of sections 3, 5 and 11 of the Statutory Instruments Act.

Temporary effect

(3)An order made under this section that is not repealed ceases to have effect 90 days after it is made.

Offence and punishment

37.Every person who contravenes a regulation made under paragraph 35(3)(b) or an order made under subsection 36(1) in the exercise of a power under that paragraph

(a)is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine not exceeding $100,000; or

(b)is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a fine not exceeding $500,000.

Contravention of unpublished order

38.No person may be convicted of an offence consisting of a contravention of an order made under subsection 36(1) in the exercise of a power under paragraph 35(3)(b) that, at the time of the alleged contravention, had not been published in the Canada Gazette in both official languages unless it is proved that reasonable steps had been taken before that time to bring the purport of the order to the attention of those persons likely to be affected by it.

Enforcement officers

39.(1) The Minister may designate any person or class of persons to act as enforcement officers for the purposes of this Act and the regulations.

Designation of provincial government employees

(2) The Minister may not designate any person or class of persons employed by the government of a province unless that government agrees.

Certificate of designation

(3)Every enforcement officer must be provided with a certificate of designation as an enforcement officer in a form approved by the Minister and, on entering any place under this Act, the officer shall, if so requested, show the certificate to the occupant or person in charge of the place.

Powers of peace officers

(4)For the purposes of this Act and the regulations, enforcement officers have all the powers of a peace officer, but the Minister may specify limits on those powers when designating any person or class of persons.

Exemptions for law enforcement activities

(5)For the purpose of investigations and other law enforcement activities under this Act, the Minister may, on any terms and conditions the Minister considers necessary, exempt enforcement officers who are carrying out duties or functions under this Act, and persons acting under their direction and control, from the application of any provision of this Act or the regulations.

Obstruction

(6)When an enforcement officer is carrying out duties or functions under this Act or the regulations, no person shall

(a)knowingly make any false or misleading statement either orally or in writing to the enforcement officer; or

(b)otherwise wilfully obstruct the enforcement officer.

Inspections

39.1(1) For the purpose of ensuring compliance with this Act and the regulations, an enforcement officer may, subject to subsection (3), at any reasonable time enter and inspect any place in which the enforcement officer believes, on reasonable grounds, there is any thing to which this Act or the regulations apply or any document relating to the administration of this Act or the regulations, and the enforcement officer may

(a)open or cause to be opened any container that the enforcement officer believes, on reasonable grounds, contains any such thing or document;

(b)inspect the thing and take samples free of charge;

(c)require any person to produce the document for inspection or copying, in whole or in part; and

(d)seize any thing by means of or in relation to which the enforcement officer believes, on reasonable grounds, this Act or the regulations have been contravened or that the enforcement officer believes, on reasonable grounds, will provide evidence of a contravention.

Conveyance

(2)For the purposes of carrying out the inspection, the enforcement officer may stop a conveyance or direct that it be moved to a place where the inspection can be carried out.

Dwelling-place

(3)The enforcement officer may not enter a dwelling-place except with the consent of the occupant or person in charge of the dwelling-place or under the authority of a warrant.

Warrant

(4)Where on ex parte application a justice, as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code, is satisfied by information on oath that

(a)the conditions for entry described in subsection (1) exist in relation to a dwelling-place,

(b)entry to the dwelling-place is necessary in relation to the administration of this Act or the regulations, and

(c)entry to the dwelling-place has been refused or there are reasonable grounds for believing that entry will be refused,

the justice may issue a warrant authorizing the enforcement officer to enter the dwelling-place subject to any conditions that may be specified in the warrant.

Search and seizure without warrant

39.2For the purpose of ensuring compliance with this Act and the regulations, an enforcement officer may exercise the powers of search and seizure provided in section 487 of the Criminal Code without a warrant, if the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist but by reason of exigent circumstances it would not be feasible to obtain the warrant.

Custody of things seized

39.3(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), where an enforcement officer seizes a thing under this Act or under a warrant issued under the Criminal Code,

(a)sections 489.1 and 490 of the Criminal Code apply; and

(b)the enforcement officer, or any person that the officer may designate, shall retain custody of the thing, subject to any order made under section 490 of the Criminal Code.

Forfeiture where ownership not ascertainable

(2)Where the lawful ownership of or entitlement to the seized thing cannot be ascertained within thirty days after its seizure, the thing or any proceeds of its disposition are forfeited to

(a)Her Majesty in right of Canada, if the thing was seized by an enforcement officer employed in the public service of Canada; or

(b)Her Majesty in right of a province, if the thing was seized by an enforcement officer employed by the government of that province.

Perishable things

(3)Where the seized thing is perishable, the enforcement officer may dispose of it or destroy it, and any proceeds of its disposition must be

(a)paid to the lawful owner or person lawfully entitled to possession of the thing, unless proceedings under this Act are commenced within ninety days after its seizure; or

(b)retained by the enforcement officer pending the outcome of the proceedings.

Abandonment

(4)The owner of the seized thing may abandon it to Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province.

Disposition by Minister

39.4Any thing that has been forfeited or abandoned under this Act must be dealt with and disposed of as the Minister may direct.

Liability for costs

39.5The lawful owner and any person lawfully entitled to possession of any thing seized, abandoned or forfeited under this Act are jointly and severally liable for all the costs of inspection, seizure, abandonment, forfeiture or disposition incurred by Her Majesty in right of Canada in excess of any proceeds of disposition of the thing that have been forfeited to Her Majesty under this Act.

Contravention of Act or regulations

39.6(1) Every person who contravenes subsection 39(6) or any regulation made under section 52.1

(a)is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to a fine not exceeding $100,000; or

(b)is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to a fine not exceeding $500,000.

Subsequent offence

(2)Where a person is convicted of an offence under this Act a second or subsequent time, the amount of the fine for the subsequent offence may, notwithstanding subsection (1), be double the amount set out in that subsection.

Continuing offence

(3)A person who commits or continues an offence on more than one day is liable to be convicted for a separate offence for each day on which the offence is committed or continued.

Fines cumulative

(4)A fine imposed for an offence involving more than one animal, plant or other organism may be calculated in respect of each one as though it had been the subject of a separate information and the fine then imposed is the total of that calculation.

Additional fine

(5)Where a person has been convicted of an offence and the court is satisfied that monetary benefits accrued to the person as a result of the commission of the offence,

(a)the court may order the person to pay an additional fine in an amount equal to the court’s estimation of the amount of the monetary benefits; and

(b)the additional fine may exceed the maximum amount of any fine that may otherwise be imposed under this Act.

Forfeiture

39.7(1) Where a person is convicted of an offence, the convicting court may, in addition to any punishment imposed, order that any seized thing by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, or any proceeds of its disposition, be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of Canada.

Return where no forfeiture ordered

(2) Where the convicting court does not order the forfeiture, the seized thing, or the proceeds of its disposition, must be returned to its lawful owner or the person lawfully entitled to it.

Retention or sale

39.8Where a fine is imposed on a person convicted of an offence, any seized thing, or any proceeds of its disposition, may be retained until the fine is paid, or the thing may be sold in satisfaction of the fine and the proceeds applied, in whole or in part, in payment of the fine.

Orders of court

39.9Where a person is convicted of an offence, the court may, in addition to any punishment imposed and having regard to the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission, make an order containing one or more of the following prohibitions, directions or requirements:

(a)prohibiting the person from doing any act or engaging in any activity that could, in the opinion of the court, result in the continuation or repetition of the offence;

(b)directing the person to take any action that the court considers appropriate to remedy or avoid any harm to estuarine, coastal or ocean waters, or their resources that resulted or may result from the commission of the offence;

(c)directing the person to publish, in any manner that the court considers appropriate, the facts relating to the commission of the offence;

(d)directing the person to pay the Minister or the government of a province compensation, in whole or in part, for the cost of any remedial or preventive action taken by or on behalf of the Minister or that government as a result of the commission of the offence;

(e)directing the person to perform community service in accordance with any reasonable conditions that may be specified in the order;

(f)directing the person to submit to the Minister, on application to the court by the Minister within three years after the conviction, any information respecting the activities of the person that the court considers appropriate in the circumstances;

(g)requiring the person to comply with any other conditions that the court considers appropriate for securing the person’s good conduct and for preventing the person from repeating the offence or committing other offences; and

(h)directing the person to post a bond or pay into court an amount of money that the court considers appropriate for the purpose of ensuring compliance with any prohibition, direction or requirement under this section.

Suspended sentence

39.10(1) Where a person is convicted of an offence and the court suspends the passing of sentence pursuant to the Criminal Code, the court may, in addition to any probation order made on suspending the passing of that sentence, make an order containing one or more of the prohibitions, directions or requirements mentioned in section 39.9.

Imposition of sentence

(2) Where the person does not comply with the order or is convicted of another offence, within three years after the order was made, the court may, on the application of the prosecution, impose any sentence that could have been imposed if the passing of sentence had not been suspended.

Limitation period

39.11(1) Proceedings by way of summary conviction in respect of an offence may be commenced at any time within, but not later than, two years after the day on which the subject-matter of the proceedings became known to the Minister.

Minister’s certificate

(2) A document appearing to have been issued by the Minister, certifying the day on which the subject-matter of any proceedings became known to the Minister, is admissible in evidence without proof of the signature or official character of the person appearing to have signed the document and is proof of the matter asserted in it.

Procedure

39.12(1) In addition to the procedures set out in the Criminal Code for commencing a proceeding, proceedings in respect of any offence prescribed by the regulations may be commenced by an enforcement officer

(a)completing a ticket that consists of a summons portion and an information portion;

(b)delivering the summons portion to the accused or mailing it to the accused at the accused’s latest known address; and

(c)filing the information portion with a court of competent jurisdiction before the summons portion has been delivered or mailed or as soon as is practicable afterward.

Content of ticket

(2)The summons and information portions of the ticket must

(a)set out a description of the offence and the time and place of its alleged commission;

(b)include a statement, signed by the enforcement officer who completes the ticket, that the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the accused committed the offence;

(c)set out the amount of the fine prescribed by the regulations for the offence and the manner in which and period within which it may be paid;

(d)include a statement that if the accused pays the fine within the period set out in the ticket, a conviction will be entered and recorded against the accused; and

(e)include a statement that if the accused wishes to plead not guilty or for any other reason fails to pay the fine within the period set out in the ticket, the accused must appear in the court on the day and at the time set out in the ticket.

Notice of forfeiture

(3)Where a thing is seized under this Act and proceedings relating to it are commenced by way of the ticketing procedure, the enforcement officer who completes the ticket shall give written notice to the accused that, if the accused pays the fine prescribed by the regulations within the period set out in the ticket, the thing, or any proceeds of its disposition, will be immediately forfeited to Her Majesty.

Consequences of payment

(4)Where an accused to whom the summons portion of a ticket is delivered or mailed pays the prescribed fine within the period set out in the ticket,

(a)the payment constitutes a plea of guilty to the offence and a conviction must be entered against the accused and no further action may be taken against the accused in respect of that offence; and

(b)notwithstanding section 39.3, any thing seized from the accused under this Act that relates to the offence, or any proceeds of its disposition, are forfeited to

(i)Her Majesty in right of Canada, if the thing was seized by an enforcement officer employed in the public service of Canada, or

(ii)Her Majesty in right of a province, if the thing was seized by an enforcement officer employed by the government of that province.

Regulations

(5)The Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing

(a)offences in respect of which this section applies and the manner in which the offences are to be described in tickets; and

(b)the amount of the fine for a prescribed offence, but the amount may not exceed $2,000.

Appendix B – Guiding Principles for an MPA Program

The following provides a description of management principles to be used to guide the development and implementation of the MPA Program.

Sustainability Principle

Sustainable development is defined in the Oceans Act, Section 30, as:

“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.

Sustainability has become a well-accepted principle in resource management. It says that our activities today should not diminish the opportunities of future generations. Our approach is to put emphasis on conserving ecosystem functions and services on which economic and social values depend. As such, MPAs provide an anchor for marine conservation, and consequently, assist in meeting sustainability objectives.

Precautionary Principle

The precautionary approach is defined in the Act as “erring on the side of caution”. For example, lack of scientific certainty about where to put MPAs, or how big they should be, or how many are needed, should not be used as a reason not to establish MPAs. Similarly a lack of scientific certainty about the need for and efficacy of MPAs, especially as related to fisheries management, does not mean MPAs are unnecessary or ineffective. Indeed a precautionary approach to fisheries management suggests that establishment of MPAs is imperative.

The precautionary principle puts the ‘burden of proof’ on activities, including those of both individuals and the government, that may cause damage to ecological resources, as opposed to the current approach that permits activities until harm is demonstrated.

Consultation Principle

The consultation principle provides that interested persons, and those who would in any way be affected by the designation of MPAs, should be consulted in making decisions. The Oceans Act includes provision for broad consultation and collaboration with interested persons and agencies in exercising the powers and duties within Part II of the Act, including the designation of MPAs. The benefits of consultation are well documented, including equity and fairness, better information for decisions (especially local and traditional knowledge), broader public understanding of decisions, stronger commitment to decisions, cooperation, and ultimately, better decisions.

Integrated Management Principle

The Oceans Act also states that the national oceans strategy should be based on the following principle (Section 30):

“the integrated management of activities in estuaries, coastal waters and marine waters that form part of Canada or in which Canada has sovereign rights under international law”.

Integrated management is a decision-making process used to coordinate the management of human activities that affect marine resources. It requires attention to environmental, social and economic values. Integrated management brings affected interests, sectors and government agencies with differing goals together in a process for agreeing on common goals, plans and policies. Integrated management also implies an evolving consistency among government and non-government objectives and programs.

Adaptive Management Principle

The principle of adaptive management assumes that we do not have all of the information that we would prefer for identification and management of an MPA. Plans and regulations need to be flexibly designed to adapt to changes in information about effectiveness in achieving an area’s objectives, to changes in the environment or to changes of circumstances outside the MPA.

Ecosystem Principle

The ecosystem principle requires that we consider the entire ecosystem when establishing an MPA, including the maintenance of the integrity of the ecosystem and key ecosystem components, functions and services. This may not require that the entire ecosystem be included within the MPA. In a marine system, this will usually not be possible. However, MPAs should also not focus on a single species or stock but rather on the ecosystem or fragment of the ecosystem to which they belong.

Regional Flexibility Principle

Standardized national policies for MPAs would be difficult to establish, given the diversity of Canada’s ocean environments which range from high Arctic to temperate west coast marine to the Atlantic. Canada has a mosaic of ecosystems, socioeconomic and cultural systems, and management systems. To be relevant and effective locally, programs need to recognize local circumstances and history.

Partnering Principle

Partnering means working together on mutual interests. MPAs will benefit many interests, including coastal communities, coastal provinces and territories, aboriginal organizations, commercial fishers, environmental groups, wildlife groups, tourism enterprises, and others. Partnering will optimize the use of scarce government, non-profit, and private resources for marine conservation. Wherever possible, the marine protected areas program will need to seek opportunities to work closely with interested parties in all phases of the program.

Appendix C – Marine Conservation Programs of Canadian Heritage and Environment Canada

Canadian Heritage – National Marine Conservation Areas (NMCA)

Purpose

In 1986, Parks Canada initiated the national marine park program. It has since been renamed the national marine conservation area (NMCA) program recognizing that conservation through shared stewardship would be the main focus in the planning and management of these areas.

The purpose of the NMCA program is to protect and conserve for all time a system of marine protected areas representative of Canada’s oceans and Great Lakes and to provide opportunities for public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment of the country’s natural and cultural marine heritage. To do this, Canada’s oceans and Great Lakes have been divided into 29 marine natural regions based on their natural features. Canadian Heritage (Parks Canada) is working to establish NMCAs that represent each of these marine natural regions.

Concept

NMCAs contain one or more highly protected zones buffered by cooperatively managed multiple-use areas. They include the sea bed, its subsoil and the overlying water column. In coastal areas, NMCAs may include wetlands, river estuaries, islands and other coastal lands. They may also, however, be established wholly offshore.

In contrast to national parks where the primary goal is to protect ecosystems in a state essentially unaltered by human activity, within NMCAs only activities such as ocean disposal, seabed mining and oil and gas extraction would be totally prohibited. Outside of highly protected zones, activities such as commercial shipping, commercial and recreational fishing and hunting would be permitted provided that these uses will not seriously degrade the essential structure and function of the area’s ecosystems.

Flexibility is required in the planning and management of these areas. Traditions and socioeconomic values concerning the protection and use of the marine environment vary from region to region in Canada. While NMCAs must make a meaningful contribution to the protection of the country’s marine heritage, they must also respect the life styles of local people. In fact, it is unlikely that NMCAs will succeed without the continuing cooperation and good will of those most directly affected by their establishment.

Each NMCA will be managed in accordance with a management plan. These plans will reflect the decisions taken during the feasibility study for a proposed NMCA. They set out management objectives and a zoning plan for the area and provide guidelines for day-to-day management and use. Management advisory committees are established in each NMCA to ensure that local people are directly involved in the preparation, review and implementation of management plans.

Legislation

In 1988, minor amendments were made to the National Parks Act to allow for the establishment of NMCAs. This was intended as an interim measure only since the Act was not developed to respond to the legislative requirements of protected areas in marine environments. Work is now under way to develop new legislation to establish and manage NMCAs.

The Saguenay – St. Lawrence Marine Park is a special partnership initiative with the province of Quebec. The 1990 federal – provincial agreement calling for the establishment of this park recognizes that seabed and subsoil will remain under provincial jurisdiction while the management of the super—adjacent waters will be a federal responsibility. The agreement requires each government to develop complementary legislation. In December 1996, federal and provincial governments each tabled parallel legislation to establish and administer the Park.

Status of the NMCA Program

The NMCA program is relatively young. To date, only four of the 29 marine regions are represented by three sites (one NMCA represents two regions).

Fathom Five, in Georgian Bay was established as the country’s first NMCA in 1987. This was followed, in 1988, by an agreement to establish Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Reserve off the Queen Charlotte Islands of British Columbia. This one site represents both Hecate Strait and the Queen Charlotte Island Natural regions. In 1990, an agreement was signed with Quebec calling for the establishment of the Saguenay – St. Lawrence marine park at the confluence of the Saguenay fjord and the St. Lawrence Estuary.

Work is now under way to examine the feasibility of establishing new NMCAs in other regions. Consultations recently began with provincial officials and local people on the possibility of establishing an NMCA in the Bonavista – Funk Island areas adjacent to Terra Nova National Park. The proposed area would represent the Newfoundland Shelf Marine Region.

In July 1995, the federal and provincial governments launched the Pacific Marine Heritage Legacy, a five-year program to create an expanded and integrated network of coastal and marine parks on Canada’s Pacific Coast. As part of the Legacy, the feasibility of establishing two new NMCAs on the Pacific Coast will be studied. The first of these studies will examine the possibility of an NMCA representing the Strait of Georgia Marine Region.

Environment Canada – National Wildlife Areas, Protected Marine Areas, and Migratory Bird Sanctuaries

Purpose

Environment Canada has three mechanisms available for protecting ocean and land areas to conserve significant habitats and wildlife resources, especially migratory birds. These mechanisms include National Wildlife Areas, protected marine areas, and Migratory Bird Sanctuaries.

National Wildlife Areas (NWAs), established under the Canada Wildlife Act, protect nationally significant habitats—especially for migratory birds but also for all wildlife—for the purpose of wildlife research, conservation and interpretation. Protected marine areas – which will likely be called “Marine Wildlife Areas” – extend the NWA concept beyond the territorial sea out to the 200 nautical mile limit (with the passage of the Oceans Actwithin the EEZ) They are also provided for in the Canada Wildlife Act but require a different regulatory regime. Migratory bird sanctuaries, established under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, seek to conserve the diversity of migratory birds by controlling human activities within important areas that are managed for the protection of birds.

This suite of mechanisms provides Canada with the opportunity to protect important coastal and offshore marine areas having significant seasonal concentrations of marine birds and other wildlife. These include areas where marine birds congregate for nesting, feeding, molting, wintering and migration stopover.

Concept

These designations aim to protect wildlife by prohibiting human activities that would be harmful to the wildlife (migratory bird sanctuaries) and to the environment (national wildlife areas, protected marine areas). Through a flexible permitting system, specific activities such as ecotourism can be allowed provided that they are compatible with wildlife conservation. The permit system allows the management regime to be tailored to the specific conditions of a given location or for a given period of time. Co-operation in wildlife management is the basis of the Canada Wildlife Act. Partnering agreements can be developed with all levels of government, communities (including aboriginal groups), and individuals both for the establishment of a protected area and for its subsequent co-operative management.

Legislation

Authority rests under the Canada Wildlife Act for the establishment of NWAs on Canada’s lands, internal waters and territorial sea. In 1994, regulation-making authority was added to the Act to allow for the establishment of protected marine areas within any fishing zone prescribed under Section 4 of the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act (with the passage of the Canada Oceans Act, the Canada Wildlife Act will be amended to refer to the EEZ). A regulation has not yet been developed for protected marine areas.

In the Canada Wildlife Act, wildlife includes any animal, plant or other organism belonging to a wild species and also the habitat of any wild animal, plant or other organism. Owing to federal and international responsibilities for migratory birds, the focus of protected areas has been primarily on migratory birds, although sites are managed for the benefit of all wildlife occurring in the area.

Under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, the Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing protection areas for migratory birds and nests, and for the control and management of those areas. These areas may be established on Canada’s lands, internal waters and territorial sea.

Status of the Marine Component of Wildlife Marine Protected Areas

A number of migratory bird sanctuaries have marine components, usually in coastal situations. A number of NWAs are coastal wetlands. The first primarily marine national wildlife area was designated in 1995 in the Northwest Territories. A second marine national wildlife area—a joint proposal between EC, DFO, Inuit agencies and others—is nearing designation in 1996. Other areas are under consideration.

Appendix D – The MPA Proposal

The preliminary proposal would provide information necessary to describe the proposed MPA and evaluate its potential. It would include the following information:

a statement of significance that justifies the area as a potential MPA including information related to the purposes defined for MPAs in the Oceans Act
the suggested location and proposed boundaries of the area
environmental and ecological information such as important natural processes, species present, habitat characteristics, and special features, e.g., upwellings, nutrient rich areas
social and economic characteristics within and near the area, including potential human activity impacts on the area and present and historical known uses
clearly document past and present commercial fishing activities and opportunities and have an analysis of impact on the commercial fishery and options to reduce this impact
suggestions as to how the proposed MPA would be managed, including assessment of management capabilities and proposals for enforcement
description and listing of interested groups or individuals in the development of an MPA
an outline of proposed zones including restrictions and prohibited activities within each zone
research needs including suggested approaches for monitoring and assessing the success of the MPA in meeting its objectives, and for evaluating the environmental and socioeconomic effects and benefits of the MPA
estimate of costs and possible funding opportunities for management of the MPA

ENDNOTES FROM TEXT:

¹ Kelleher, G. and Kenchington, R.A. 1992. Guidelines for Establishing Marine Protected Areas. A Marine Conservation and Development Report. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
² A full description of the National Marine Conservation Area Program developed under Canadian Heritage is documented in Parks Canada (1995) “Sea to Sea to Sea: Canada’s National Marine Conservation System Plan. Parks Canada: Hull.
³ A full description of the marine conservation programs developed under Environment Canada is documented in Zurbrigg, E. (1996). Towards an Environment Canada Stratgegy for Coastal and Marine Protected Areas. Canadian Wildlfe Service: Hull.
⁴ Clark, C.W., Lauck, T. and Munro, G.R. (In Press) Managing uncertain fishery resources: The case for fully protected marine reserves. and Rowley, R.J. (1994). Marine Reserves in Fisheries Management. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. Vol. 4, pp. 233-254.
⁵ Rowley, R.J. (1994). Marine Reserves in Fisheries Management. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. Vol. 4, pp. 233-254.
⁶ Shackel, N. and Lien, J. (1995). An Under-Utilized Conservation Option for fisheries managersL Marine Protected Areas in the Northwest Atlantic. In. Marine Protected Areas and Sustainable Fisheries. Proceedings of the Symposium on Marine Protected Areas and Sustainable Fisheries conducted at the Second International Conference on Science and the Management of Protected Areas held at Dalhousie, Halifax, Nova Scotia, May 16-20, 1994. Science and Management of Protected Areas Association, Wolfville, pp. 21-31.
⁷ Campbell, A. and Pezzack, D.S. (1986). Relative egg production and abundance of berried lobsters, Homarus americanus, in the Bay of Fundy and off southwestern Nova Scotia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43:2190-2196.
⁸ Wilson, E.O. (1993). The creation of ecosystems. The Diversity of Life. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
⁹ Vatn, A. and Bromley, D.W. (1994). Choices without prices without apologies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 26, pp. 129-148.
¹⁰ The steps in this process are further detailed in Salm, R.V. and Clark, J.R. (1989). Marine and Coastal Protected Areas: A Guide for Planners and Managers. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN and Kelleher, G. and Kenchington, R.A. (1992). Guidelines for Establishing Marine Protected Areas. A Marine Conservation and Development Report. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
¹¹ Barchard, W.W. and Hildebrand, L.P. (1993). Canada’s Atlantic Coastal Action Program: A community-based approach to coastal management. In. Coastlines of Canada (Ed. Hildebrand, L.P.). American Society of Civil Engineers: New York.
¹² Somerton, D.A. and Jones, J. (1984). A cost-benefit method of determining optimal closed fishing areas to reduce trawl catch of prohibited species. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 41, pp. 93-98.

7.0 CONTACTS ON MARINE PROTECTED AREAS

Internet Access:

You may obtain additional copies of the Discussion Paper on the Department of Fisheries Oceans internet site http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Sitemap

Location and Maps

Educational Resources Index

Contact

webmaster:
Garry Fletcher

Copyright

Options for an MPA at William Head

Posted on Saturday,June 15, 1996 by Garry Fletcher

Interests of Stakeholders and Options for Establishing a Marine Protected Area at William Head
a Discussion Paper DRAFT

June 1996 by Julie Barr , Westwater Research
Institute for Resources and Environment
University of British Columbia
208A – 1933 West Mall
Vancouver, Canada
V6T IZ2

A Discussion Paper

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report has not yet been subject to external review. Therefore, the author requests that any errors or omissions be brought to her attention and that, before quoting from the report, written permission be obtained. This report represents the opinion of the author alone and should not be considered to reflect the policy or position of World Wildlife Fund or Westwater Research Centre.

The purposes of this discussion paper are two-fold. The first is to introduce the marine protected area concept to William Head, located on the southern tip of Vancouver Island. The second is to report in a preliminary fashion on the interests of stakeholders in the William Head area.
The specific objectives of this discussion paper are:

1) to provide background information on William Head and its surrounding areas;

- 2) to define the term marine protected area (MPA);

- 3) to identify why MPAs are considered to be important;

- 4) to preliminarily identify William Head area stakeholders, and their interests; and

- 5) to identify possible options for meeting the objectives of those stakeholders.

William Head is an isthmus located on the southern tip of Vancouver Island Historically, this site has been used for many purposes. However, since 1959, the land area has been used by the Correctional Service of Canada as a penitentiary.

Since its establishment, the William Head Institution has provided de facto protection of marine life around William Head from fishers and divers. Recent dives around William Head have revealed this area to be very productive with high biological diversity. For example, Northern Abalone (Haliotis Kamtschatkana), a commercially extinct species in British Columbia, are possibly much larger and more abundant around William Head than anywhere else on the West coast.

Marine protected areas have a number of environmental, economic, and social benefits. Some of the recognized benefits of MPAs include: protection of population age structure; recovery of marine populations in depleted regions; protection of biodiversity; development of unique opportunities for education and scientific research; enhancement of recreational activities; and significant opportunity for economic development in such areas as tourism (Winfield, 1995).

Through preliminary discussions, the interests of several community stakeholders in Metchosin, William Head, Pedder Bay, and Beecher Bay involved in the establishment of a MPA around William Head were identified. From these discussions, possible options for establishing a MPA meeting their objectives were considered. They include: maintaining the status quo; establishing a non marine harvest refugia MPA; or establishing a marine harvest refugia MPA.

Before any of these options can be implemented, further discussions with community stakeholders are required.

Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECTUTIVE SUMMARY		1
TABLE OF CONTENTS		2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS		4
1.0 INTRODUCTION		5
2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON WILLIAM HEAD AND ITS SURROUNDINGS		6
3.0 WHAT ARE MARINE PROTECTED AREAS?		8
4.0 WHY ARE MARINE PROTECTED AREAS IMPORTANT?		9
5.0 STAKEHOLDERS AND THEIR INTERESTS		10
	5.1 William Head Institution	10
	5.2 Lester B. Pearson College	10
	5.3 Metchosin Town Council	11
	5.4 Pedder Bay marina and Trailer Park	11
	5.5 Beecher Bay First Nation	11
	5.6 Department of National Defence	12
6.0 OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE		13
	6.1 Status Quo	13
	6.2 Non Marine Hrvest Refugia MPA	13
	6.3 Marine Harvest Refugia	14
7.0 CONCLUSION		15

Page 2 – 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author gratefully acknowledges the advice and assistance of a large number of individuals and organizations including: Richard Paisley, Westwater Research Centre; Scott Wallace, Institute for Resources and Environment, U.B.C.; Randie Scott and Michael Gallagher, William Head Institution; Garry Fletcher, Lester B. Pearson College; Sean Moore, Pedder Bay Marina; Patricia Chipps, Beecher Bay First Nation; John Rans and Gerry Mellott, District of Metchosin; and community resident Peter Chettleburgh. This discussion paper was funded in part by the World Wildlife Fund as part of their Endangered Spaces Campaign and by the Westwater Research Centre.

Page 4
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report has not yet been subject to external review. Therefore, the author requests that any errors or omissions be brought to her attention and that, before quoting from the report, written permission be obtained. This report represents the opinion of the author alone and should not be considered to reflect the policy or position of World Wildlife Fund or Westwater Research Centre.

The purposes of this discussion paper are twofold. The first is to introduce the marine protected area concept to William Head, located on the southern tip of Vancouver Island. The second is to report in a preliminary fashion on the interests of stakeholders in the William Head area.

The specific objectives of this discussion paper are:

1) to provide background information on William Head and its surrounding areas;

2) to define the term marine protected area (MPA);

3) to identify why MPAs are considered to be important;

4) to preliminarily identify in the William Head area stakeholders, and their interests; and

5) to identify possible options for meeting the objectives of those stakeholders.

This project, funded by the World Wildlife Fund as part of their Endangered Spaces Campaign, focuses on identifying the interests of community stakeholders in relation to the possibility of establishing a MPA at William Head.

The project consists of three phases. The first phase included the collection of information, and involved literature searches, identification of stakeholders, a site visit, and discussion with community stakeholders regarding their interests.

Phase two involved incorporating the collected information into this discussion paper, which outlines the interests of stakeholders and poses possible solutions for meeting their objectives.

The third phase will involve sending out copies of this paper to several stakeholders for their approval and incorporating their feedback into the final report. This phase may also include organized site visits.

Page 5
2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON

WILLIAM HEAD AND ITS SURROUNDINGS.

William Head is an isthmus located on the southern tip of Vancouver Island. It extends 48 degrees 24′ North, 123 degrees 32′ West into the Straight of Juan de Fuca. The land area consists of exposed volcanic rock shoreline with the dominant geological characteristic being steep bedrock. It is surrounded on the northwest by Quarantine Cove, which is part of Parry Bay; on the southwest by Pedder Bay; and on the West by forested Department of National Defense land (William Head Institute, 1995) (refer to Appendix A and B).

The shoreline surrounding William Head is a rich and productive area due to the upwelling wave action from the Straight of Juan de Fuca and current patterns around the Head. Due to this productivity, biological diversity of marine life is high in and amongst its shores. Preliminary dives off William Head by Scott Wallace, Institute for Resources and Environment, U.B.C., revealed a population of Northern Abalone possibly much larger and more abundant than anywhere else on the West coast. In addition, there is an abundance of marine mammals and plants, crustaceans, echinoderms, sponges, kelp beds, seaweeds, and fishes.

The land area of William Head has had many historical uses. In 1862, Robert Weir became the first owner of William Head. He and his family resided there and managed a large sheep and cattle farm. >From 1893 to 1959 the site was used as a quarantine station for ships and passengers to control the spread of communicable disease. The only exception to this was during the wartime years of 1939 to 1945, when William Head became a training ground for W.W.II naval officers (Burns, 1982).

Since 1959, the land area of William Head has been used by the Correctional Service of Canada as a penitentiary (refer to Appendix C). William Head Institution is classified as a medium security facility with two hundred and twenty inmates and one hundred and fifty staff. The facility has a very progressive structure when compared to conventional correctional systems. Inmates live in an environment promoting responsible, socially acceptable behavior through moderately restricted freedom of movement (William Head Institute, 1995). Educational, vocational, recreational, and environmental activities are offered at the Institute and all of the inmates are encouraged to take part in their area of interest.

Over the last few years, the William Head Institution has actively involved both staff and inmates in programs to make the facility more “environmentally friendly”. An advanced recycling program has taken effect, significantly reducing waste disposal services. With the help of engineers, inmates have been involved in the design and construction of an on-site sewage treatment plant. Sludge produced from this plant will be used as fertilizer on non-agriculture crops.

An inmate fishing program has also developed as part of the Institution’s recreational activities. Twenty two of the two hundred and twenty inmates have fishing licences and a further seven are allowed to fish as an aboriginal right. The Institution has restricted fishing to a wharf located on the West side of William Head. The wharf was originally constructed by a group of inmates and is used in the late spring, summer, and early fall for salmon fishing. Due to high wave and wind action in the winter months, the wharf is taken out of the water to avoid damage.
page 6

Since the construction of the prison in 1959, most local boaters have avoided fishing near the Institution’s shores. This is due to the public’s incorrect perception that the prison has imposed a minimum distance around William Head which is off limits to boaters. Diving around William Head has only been permitted with approval from the Institution and therefore very little extraction of marine life due to SCUBA diving has occurred. As a result, the Institution has already indirectly provided de facto protection of marine life around William Head since its establishment.

Situated to the South of William Head is a group of islands referred to as Race Rocks. In 1980, with the support of Lester B. Pearson College and Metchosin residents, these islands were designated an ecological reserve. Pearson College is now the official custodian of the area and Garry Fletcher, a member of the College’s biology faculty, has been appointed warden. Since 1990, all waters inside the 20 fathom contour surrounding Race Rocks have been closed to sport fishing for all fish species except salmon and halibut. This action was taken to protect all resident marine species within the reserve.

Adjacent to William Head is Pedder Bay in which Lester B. Pearson College and Pedder Bay Marina are situated. Pearson College is an internationally acclaimed private school actively involved in a diving program in the outer part of Pedder Bay, Rocky Point, Bentinck Island, Beecher Bay, and Race Rocks. Students have been involved in the identification and recording of the marine life found in these areas. In the last few years this group has noticed the significant impact that commercial and sports fisheries have had on the underwater invertebrate populations. This has been especially evident in the sea urchin, abalone, swimming scallop, and octopus populations. However, at Race Rocks Ecological Reserve, students have seen a stability of species since the subtidal fisheries closure in 1990 (Fletcher, pers. comm.).

The Pedder Bay Marina and Trailer Park is one of several marinas owned and operated by the Oak Bay Marine Group. This is a medium-sized marina catering primarily to sports fishers. The majority of their clientele fish the West side of Pedder Bay up to Eemdyk Passage and out to Race Rocks. At the marina is a map showing ten “hot spots” for fishing. It appears that only one “hot spot” exists on the East side of Pedder Bay: off the tip of William Head (Pedder Bay Marina). Although salmon fishing here is variable, it can apparently be exceptional at times due to the upwelling and current patterns circulating around the head.

Beecher Bay in which the Beecher Bay Marina is situated is located to the East of Pedder Bay. Beecher Bay Marina is a medium sized marina owned and operated by the Beecher Bay First Nation for sport fishing purposes. The clientele of the marina fish predominately up the East and West side of Beecher Bay to Church Island and Beechey Head. Relatively few fishers from this marina appear to go to William Head to fish.

Inside Beecher Bay is an area referred to as the “Bedfords”, which consists of West Bedford Island and Large Bedford Island. These islands are located on the East side of the Bay and are closed to all commercial and recreational fishing for six months of the year for conservation purposes.

Page 7

3.0 WHAT ARE MARINE PROTECTED AREAS?

The term “marine protected area” or “MPA’ is a generic term describing a wide range of oceanic protected areas.

In 1986 the United Nations “Man and the Biosphere” Program established a definition of the term MPA and the purpose for establishing MPAs:

“…….. the term MPA refers to: any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying waters and associated flora, fauna and historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by legislation to manage and protect part or all of the enclosed environment …… “

“…the primary goal of establishing MPAs is to: provide for the protection, restoration, wise use and understanding and enjoyment of the marine heritage of the world, in perpetuity, through the creation of a global, representative system of MPA, and through the management of human activities that use or affect the marine environment ……. “

Within Canada, the potential exists to create a range of MPA types. These types vary in two ways. First, by the extent to which they conserve and/or protect the marine environment. Second, by the level of government which ultimately controls their establishment (Paisley, 1992).

Figure 1: Range of MPA Types in British Columbia

In British Columbia, the extent to which MPAs protect the marine environment ranges from protecting everything within the marine environment to protecting very little. An example of a highly protected MPA in British Columbia is “marine harvest refugia” which protect and restrict resource extraction of all marine species. There are only two marine harvest refugia in British Columbia: Whytecliff Park in West Vancouver and Porteau Cove in Howe Sound. A third site is now on the verge of establishment at Gabriola Passage in Georgia Strait (Paisley, 1992). Protecting these areas is significant for a number of scientific, ecological, cultural, and economic reasons.

Examples of MPAs in British Columbia that provide lesser protection include provincial marine parks, national marine conservation areas, and provincial marine ecological reserves. None of these MPAs fully protect marine resources from exploitation. However, they can meet certain educational and scientific objectives.

Page 8
4.0 WHY ARE MARINE PROTECTED AREAS IMPORTANT?

MPAs have a number of environmental, economic, and social benefits. MPAs make significant contributions to enhancing many areas of human interest including species protection, commercial and recreational fisheries, undisturbed sites for scientific research and educational programs, and opportunities for a wide range of non-consumptive recreational activities.

Some of the recently acknowledged benefits of MPAs further include:

(1) complementing traditional fisheries management by allowing resident species to reproduce in an undisturbed environment and act as sources of recruitment and repopulation for exploited areas;

(2) maintaining biomass and natural age structure of populations, thus protecting the reproductive potential of resident populations;

(3) providing a safe haven for marine species, thus allowing for the maintenance of genetic diversity;

(4) allowing unexploited populations to act as environmental insurance in case of resource management failures;

(5) providing areas for scientific research and offering natural study areas and opportunities for educating students and community groups about the marine environment; and

(6) enhancing economic development through non-disruptive activities, such as tourism.

Many of these benefits are thought to be maximized by marine harvest refugia. Appendix D, E and F provide a more in depth listing of the benefits of marine harvest refugia.

Page 9

5.0 STAKEHOLDERS AND THEIR INTERESTS

Through initial conversations with Garry Fletcher of Lester B. Pearson College, community stakeholders in Metchosin, William Head, Pedder Bay and Beecher Bay were identified (refer to Appendix G). Many of these stakeholders were then contacted and arrangements were made to meet with each group during a site visit to William Head. From these meetings, the preliminary interests of stakeholders in establishing a MPA around William Head were identified. The interests of each group are outlined below.
5.1 William Head Institution

William Head Institution expressed significant interest in establishing a MPA around William Head for two reasons: conservation purposes and to enhance security around the facility.

The Institution and its inmates have been adapting new methods for reducing their impact on the environment and, as a result, the facility is interested in involving inmates in programs that focus on stewardship and promoting an increased sensitivity to their surrounding environment. The formation of a MPA around the facility would further facilitate these objectives.

Since the Institution has been in operation, there have been several inmate escapes and attempted escapes from the shores of the facility. As a result, the prison has a natural interest in finding new ways to enhance security and reduce the risk of additional escapes. At present, the prison has no way of regulating the number of boaters coming into the area or their proximity to the facility’s shores. Establishing a MPA that restricts resource harvesting could assist them in meeting security objectives.

The Institution also has some interest in the continuance of the inmate fishing program currently established in William Head.

5.2 Lester B. Pearson College

Lester B. Pearson College is an internationally acclaimed school actively involved in a diving program in the outer part of Pedder Bay, Rocky Point, Bentinck Island, Beecher Bay, and Race Rocks. For many years, students have extensively studied and recorded the marine life found in these areas; however, over the last few years, this group has noticed the significant impact that resource harvesting has on a number of invertebrate populations (Fletcher, pers. comm.).

Pearson College has been the official custodian of Race Rock Ecological Reserve since its establishment in 1980. Garry Fletcher, a member of College’s biology faculty and coordinator of its diving program, has been appointed warden. In 1990, Race Rocks was closed to all subtidal fisheries. Since that time, students in the diving program at Lester B. Pearson College have seen an increase in species diversity, abundance, and size around Race Rocks Ecological Reserve (Fletcher, pers. comm.).

Lester B. Pearson College has expressed great interest in establishing a MPA around William Head for three reasons: the protection of species biodiversity, particularly the underwater invertebrate populations (e.g.; sea urchin, abalone, swimming scallop and octopus); the

Page 10

development of unique opportunities for education and scientific research; and the development of a stewardship role in the establishment and monitoring of a MPA around William Head.

5.3 Metchosin Town Council

On behalf to its residents, the Metchosin District Council has interests in preserving and conserving the marine environment, supporting the college’s diving program, representing the interests of Metchosin residents, and enhancing security around William Head Institution. The Metchosin Town Council met on Monday June 3, 1996 to discuss the possibility of establishing a MPA adjacent to William Head. The minutes from the meeting state that “Council will endorse the creation of a marine protected area around William Head with the exception of salmon fishing” (Town Council minutes, 1996).

One of the Council’s mandates is to make decisions in favor of its community’s interests. As previously mentioned, inmates fish for salmon off a wharf located on the West side of William Head as part of the Institute’s recreational activities. In the Council meeting, it was stated that there is limited community support for prison programs, such as the fishing program. In addition, there is feeling among many Metchosin residents that the inmates at William Head Institution are living the “easy life”. As a result, the Councillors felt they were unable to advocate restricting Metchosin residents from salmon fishing in the area if inmates continued salmon fishing from the wharf.

Another interest of Town Council is to consider opportunities for enhancing security around the prison. If the Institution were to restrict boats from entering the William Head area to increase security, the Council would support the prison’s decision. In these circumstances Town Council would not appear to have a problem with a total ban on fishing in the William Head area.

5.4 Pedder Bay Marina and Trailer Park

Pedder Bay Marina and Trailer Park, owned by the Oak Bay Marine Group, caters primarily to sports fishers. Fishers from Pedder Bay Marina occasionally fish for salmon at the tip of William Head; however, the majority of their clientele appear to fish on the West side of Pedder Bay.

The marina has three main interests. These include: conserving and preserving marine species to ensure sustained availability of resources for harvesting; ensuring the marina’s long-term financial success; and not unduly restricting the amount of coast available for recreational fishing opportunities.

5.5 Beecher Bay First Nation

The Beecher Bay First Nation owns and operates the Beecher Bay Marina adjacent to Pedder Bay. Their business is supported primarily by sports fishers who charter boats for salmon fishing on the East and West sides of Beecher Bay. It appears that relatively few of the recreational fishers chartering boats from this marina fish at William Head.

In general, the Beecher Bay First Nation has a number of interests. They include resolving First Nation land and sea claims, maintaining aboriginal rights to ocean resources, and preserving and protecting ocean resources to ensure availability for future generations.

Page 11

The Beecher Bay First Nation also has an interest in supporting the interests of the Pedder Bay Marina due to the solidarity between the two marinas.

Due to past conflicts, the Beecher Bay First Nation has an interest in not being involved in projects that have to be approved by the federal government.

5.6 Department of National Defence

Department of National Defence (DND) land borders William Head to the West. Canadian Armed Force’s divers frequently dive for sunken artifacts around William Head and Parry Bay. DND has an interest in the establishment of an MPA around William Head to ensure the safety of these divers.

Page 12
6.0 OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE

6.1 Status Quo

Maintaining the status quo would mean that the harvesting of salmon, rockfish, and invertebrates would continue as usual around William Head.

Maintaining the status quo is unlikely to satisfy either the conservation or security objectives of William Head Institution on a sustainable basis as pressure to exploit ocean resources increases.

Nor does it correlate with the interests of Pearson College: to protect species biodiversity, develop education and scientific research opportunities, or provide an opportunity for the college to take on a stewardship role in this area.

The objectives of Metchosin Town Council, which are to conserve the marine environment, support the college’s diving program, represent the interests of Metchosin residents, and enhance security around William Head are also not well met by this option.

Maintaining the status quo only partially meets one objective of Pedder and Beecher Bay Marinas, which is to not unduly restrict the amount of coast available for recreational fishing. However, it probably falls short in meeting the marinas’ other objectives: to conserve and preserve marine species, and to ensure the marinas’ long-term financial success.

The objective of DND to preserve the area for diving is also not likely to be met by the status quo option.

6.2 Non Marine Harvest Refugia MPA

One variation of this option would allow species-specific fishing (e.g. salmon fishing) to occur within a MPA around William Head.

Establishing a non marine harvest refugia MPA would probably not meet the interests of William Head Institution in conserving the marine environment or enhancing security around the facility.

Pearson College’s interest in protecting species diversity, particularly the underwater invertebrate populations, in developing opportunities for education and scientific research, and in becoming stewards in the establishment and monitoring of the area would not be facilitated. From the College’s experience at Race Rocks, where there are closures on all marine species except salmon and halibut, they have found that it is hard to monitor who is fishing illegally for bottom fish and fishing legally for salmon. The result is that many subtidal species are still being exploited in this reserve.

Page 13

The objectives of the Metchosin Town Council to preserve and conserve the marine environment, support the College’s diving program, represent the interests of Metchosin residents, and enhance security around William Head Institution would only be partially met by this option. Since some of the Metchosin residents salmon fish in the area, establishing a non marine harvest refugia would allow fishing to continue. However, as seen at Race Rocks, where species-specific fishing occurs, there are problems with monitoring and enforcement.

To establish a non marine harvest refugia would not meet Pedder or Beecher Bay Marinas’ objectives to conserve and preserve marine species to guarantee sustained availability of this resource and ensure the marinas’ long-term financial success. It would, however, meet one of the marinas’ objectives in allowing their clientele to continue salmon fishing around William Head.

This option would not appear to satisfy the interest of DND, which is to provide a safe area around William Head for Canadian Armed Force divers.

Marine Harvest Refugia MPA

Establishing a marine harvest refugia MPA at William Head would restrict all consumptive use activities from occuring within the MPA’s boundary.

By establishing a marine harvest refugia MPA at William Head, the conservation and security interests of William Head Institution would probably be met.

In addition, the objectives of Pearson College to protect species diversity, develop opportunities for education and scientific research, and develop a stewardship role in the establishment and monitoring of an MPA around William Head would be facilitated.

By establishing this option around William Head, the majority of the Metchosin Town Council’s interests which are to preserve and conserve the marine environment, support the college’s diving program, represent the interests of Metchosin residents, and enhance security around William Head Institution would be facilitated.

The Pedder and Beecher Marinas’ objectives to conserve and preserve marine species, and ensure the marinas’ long-term success would be met to some degree by establishing a marine harvest refugia. Recent academic research has shown that marine harvest refugia enhance fishing outside the protected areas through the dispersal of resident fish and invertebrate species into adjacent regions. Therefore, creating a protected area could strengthen the marinas business by providing their clientele with an area abundant in fish year after year. On the other hand, this option would not facilitate their objective to provide as much of the coastline as possible for their clientele to fish. However, as previously mentioned, fish stocks outside the marine harvest refugia boundary could increase from fish dispersing from the protected area to adjacent regions thus improving fishing conditions for the marinas’ clientele overall.

The objective of DND to provide a safe area for Canadian Armed Forces divers would be met by the marine harvest refugia option.

Page 14
7.0 CONCLUSION

The purposes of this discussion paper have been twofold. The first was to introduce the marine protected area concept to William Head. The second was to report in a preliminary fashion on the identity and interests of stakeholders in the William Head area.

The specific objectives of this discussion paper were:

1) to provide background information on William Head and its surrounding areas;

2) to define the term marine protected area (MPA);

3) to identify why MPAs are considered to be important;

4) to preliminarily identify in the William Head area stakeholders, and their interests; and

5) to identify possible options for meeting the objectives of those stakeholders.

Through preliminary discussions, the interests of several community stakeholders in Metchosin, William Head, Pedder Bay, and Beecher Bay involved in the establishment of a MPA around William Head were identified. From these discussions, possible options for establishing a MPA meeting their objectives were considered. They included: maintaining the status quo; establishing a non marine harvest refugia MPA; or establishing a marine harvest refugia MPA.

To guarantee the success of any MPA type it is important that the chosen MPA option have the support of community stakeholders.

This paper only provides the baseline information required for establishing a MPA at William Head. It is hoped that stakeholders will find this document useful in catalyzing further discussions.

Page 15
8.0 REFERENCES

Burns, Geoffrey. 1982. William Head – The Land – The History – The People. William Head Institution. Victoria, B.C.

Fletcher, Garry. personal communication

Hydrographic map chart # 3410. 1994. U.B.C.

McNally, Rand. 1994. Victoria City Map. AJmaps Canada Limited. Markham, Ontario.

Metchosin Town Council minutes for June 3, 1996.

Paisley, Richard. 1992. Marine Protected Areas (MPA) in British Columbia. Westwater Research Centre. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.

Pedder Bay Marina wall map showing fishing “hot spots”. Pedder Bay, B.C.

William Head Institution. 1995. William Head Institution Background.

Winfield, Nicholas. 1995. A Community Guardian Pilot Project at Mizecliff Park Marine Protected Area.

Page 16

Interests of Stakeholders and Options for Establishing a Marine Protected Area at William Head

Posted on Saturday,June 15, 1996 by Garry Fletcher

Interests of Stakeholders and Options for Establishing a Marine Protected Area at William Head  Discussion Paper DRAFT
June 1996 by Julie Barr , Westwater Research  Institute for Resources and Environment  University of British Columbia  208A – 1933 West Mall  Vancouver, Canada  V6T IZ2

A Discussion Paper  
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report has not yet been subject to external review. Therefore, the author requests that any errors or omissions be brought to her attention and that, before quoting from the report, written permission be obtained. This report represents the opinion of the author alone and should not be considered to reflect the policy or position of World Wildlife Fund or Westwater Research Centre.

The purposes of this discussion paper are two-fold. The first is to introduce the marine protected area concept to William Head, located on the southern tip of Vancouver Island. The second is to report in a preliminary fashion on the interests of stakeholders in the William Head area. The specific objectives of this discussion paper are:

to provide background information on William Head and its surrounding areas;
to define the term marine protected area (MPA);
to identify why MPAs are considered to be important;
To preliminarily identify William Head area stakeholders, and their interests; and
to identify possible options for meeting the objectives of those stakeholders.

William Head is an isthmus located on the southern tip of Vancouver Island . Historically, this site has been used for many purposes. However, since 1959, the land area has been used by the Correctional Service of Canada as a penitentiary.
Since its establishment, the William Head Institution has provided de facto protection of marine life around William Head from fishers and divers. Recent dives around William Head have revealed this area to be very productive with high biological diversity. For example, Northern Abalone (Haliotis Kamtschatkana), a commercially extinct species in British Columbia, are possibly much larger and more abundant around William Head than anywhere else on the West coast.
Marine protected areas have a number of environmental, economic, and social benefits. Some of the recognized benefits of MPAs include: protection of population age structure; recovery of marine populations in depleted regions; protection of biodiversity; development of unique opportunities for education and scientific research; enhancement of recreational activities; and significant opportunity for economic development in such areas as tourism (Winfield, 1995).
Through preliminary discussions, the interests of several community stakeholders in Metchosin, William Head, Pedder Bay, and Beecher Bay involved in the establishment of a MPA around William Head were identified. From these discussions, possible options for establishing a MPA meeting their objectives were considered. They include: maintaining the status quo; establishing a non marine harvest refugia MPA; or establishing a marine harvest refugia MPA.
Before any of these options can be implemented, further discussions with community stakeholders are required.
Page 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECTUTIVE SUMMARY

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON WILLIAM HEAD AND ITS SURROUNDINGS
3.0 WHAT ARE MARINE PROTECTED AREAS?
4.0 WHY ARE MARINE PROTECTED AREAS IMPORTANT?
5.0 STAKEHOLDERS AND THEIR INTERESTS
5.1 William Head Institution
5.2 Lester B. Pearson College
5.3 Metchosin Town Council
5.4 Pedder Bay marina and Trailer Park
5.5 Beecher Bay First Nation
5.6 Department of National Defence

6.0 OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE
6.1 Status Quo
6.2 Non Marine Hrvest Refugia MPA
6.3 Marine Harvest Refugia

7.0 CONCLUSION

Page 2 – 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author gratefully acknowledges the advice and assistance of a large number of individuals and organizations including: Richard Paisley, Westwater Research Centre; Scott Wallace, Institute for Resources and Environment, U.B.C.; Randie Scott and Michael Gallagher, William Head Institution; Garry Fletcher, Lester B. Pearson College; Sean Moore, Pedder Bay Marina; Patricia Chipps, Beecher Bay First Nation; John Rans and Gerry Mellott, District of Metchosin; and community resident Peter Chettleburgh. This discussion paper was funded in part by the World Wildlife Fund as part of their Endangered Spaces Campaign and by the Westwater Research Centre.
Page 4 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report has not yet been subject to external review. Therefore, the author requests that any errors or omissions be brought to her attention and that, before quoting from the report, written permission be obtained. This report represents the opinion of the author alone and should not be considered to reflect the policy or position of World Wildlife Fund or Westwater Research Centre.
The purposes of this discussion paper are twofold. The first is to introduce the marine protected area concept to William Head, located on the southern tip of Vancouver Island. The second is to report in a preliminary fashion on the interests of stakeholders in the William Head area.
The specific objectives of this discussion paper are:
•   1) to provide background information on William Head and its surrounding areas;
•   2) to define the term marine protected area (MPA);
•   3) to identify why MPAs are considered to be important;
•   4) to preliminarily identify in the William Head area stakeholders, and their interests; and
•   5) to identify possible options for meeting the objectives of those stakeholders.
This project, funded by the World Wildlife Fund as part of their Endangered Spaces Campaign, focuses on identifying the interests of community stakeholders in relation to the possibility of establishing a MPA at William Head.
The project consists of three phases. The first phase included the collection of information, and involved literature searches, identification of stakeholders, a site visit, and discussion with community stakeholders regarding their interests.
Phase two involved incorporating the collected information into this discussion paper, which outlines the interests of stakeholders and poses possible solutions for meeting their objectives.
The third phase will involve sending out copies of this paper to several stakeholders for their approval and incorporating their feedback into the final report. This phase may also include organized site visits.
Page 5 2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON
•   WILLIAM HEAD AND ITS SURROUNDINGS.
William Head is an isthmus located on the southern tip of Vancouver Island. It extends 48 degrees 24′ North, 123 degrees 32′ West into the Straight of Juan de Fuca. The land area consists of exposed volcanic rock shoreline with the dominant geological characteristic being steep bedrock. It is surrounded on the northwest by Quarantine Cove, which is part of Parry Bay; on the southwest by Pedder Bay; and on the West by forested Department of National Defense land (William Head Institute, 1995) (refer to Appendix A and B).
The shoreline surrounding William Head is a rich and productive area due to the upwelling wave action from the Straight of Juan de Fuca and current patterns around the Head. Due to this productivity, biological diversity of marine life is high in and amongst its shores. Preliminary dives off William Head by Scott Wallace, Institute for Resources and Environment, U.B.C., revealed a population of Northern Abalone possibly much larger and more abundant than anywhere else on the West coast. In addition, there is an abundance of marine mammals and plants, crustaceans, echinoderms, sponges, kelp beds, seaweeds, and fishes.
The land area of William Head has had many historical uses. In 1862, Robert Weir became the first owner of William Head. He and his family resided there and managed a large sheep and cattle farm. >From 1893 to 1959 the site was used as a quarantine station for ships and passengers to control the spread of communicable disease. The only exception to this was during the wartime years of 1939 to 1945, when William Head became a training ground for W.W.II naval officers (Burns, 1982).
Since 1959, the land area of William Head has been used by the Correctional Service of Canada as a penitentiary (refer to Appendix C). William Head Institution is classified as a medium security facility with two hundred and twenty inmates and one hundred and fifty staff. The facility has a very progressive structure when compared to conventional correctional systems. Inmates live in an environment promoting responsible, socially acceptable behavior through moderately restricted freedom of movement (William Head Institute, 1995). Educational, vocational, recreational, and environmental activities are offered at the Institute and all of the inmates are encouraged to take part in their area of interest.
Over the last few years, the William Head Institution has actively involved both staff and inmates in programs to make the facility more “environmentally friendly”. An advanced recycling program has taken effect, significantly reducing waste disposal services. With the help of engineers, inmates have been involved in the design and construction of an on-site sewage treatment plant. Sludge produced from this plant will be used as fertilizer on non-agriculture crops.
An inmate fishing program has also developed as part of the Institution’s recreational activities. Twenty two of the two hundred and twenty inmates have fishing licences and a further seven are allowed to fish as an aboriginal right. The Institution has restricted fishing to a wharf located on the West side of William Head. The wharf was originally constructed by a group of inmates and is used in the late spring, summer, and early fall for salmon fishing. Due to high wave and wind action in the winter months, the wharf is taken out of the water to avoid damage. page 6
Since the construction of the prison in 1959, most local boaters have avoided fishing near the Institution’s shores. This is due to the public’s incorrect perception that the prison has imposed a minimum distance around William Head which is off limits to boaters. Diving around William Head has only been permitted with approval from the Institution and therefore very little extraction of marine life due to SCUBA diving has occurred. As a result, the Institution has already indirectly provided de facto protection of marine life around William Head since its establishment.
Situated to the South of William Head is a group of islands referred to as Race Rocks. In 1980, with the support of Lester B. Pearson College and Metchosin residents, these islands were designated an ecological reserve. Pearson College is now the official custodian of the area and Garry Fletcher, a member of the College’s biology faculty, has been appointed warden. Since 1990, all waters inside the 20 fathom contour surrounding Race Rocks have been closed to sport fishing for all fish species except salmon and halibut. This action was taken to protect all resident marine species within the reserve.
Adjacent to William Head is Pedder Bay in which Lester B. Pearson College and Pedder Bay Marina are situated. Pearson College is an internationally acclaimed private school actively involved in a diving program in the outer part of Pedder Bay, Rocky Point, Bentinck Island, Beecher Bay, and Race Rocks. Students have been involved in the identification and recording of the marine life found in these areas. In the last few years this group has noticed the significant impact that commercial and sports fisheries have had on the underwater invertebrate populations. This has been especially evident in the sea urchin, abalone, swimming scallop, and octopus populations. However, at Race Rocks Ecological Reserve, students have seen a stability of species since the subtidal fisheries closure in 1990 (Fletcher, pers. comm.).
The Pedder Bay Marina and Trailer Park is one of several marinas owned and operated by the Oak Bay Marine Group. This is a medium-sized marina catering primarily to sports fishers. The majority of their clientele fish the West side of Pedder Bay up to Eemdyk Passage and out to Race Rocks. At the marina is a map showing ten “hot spots” for fishing. It appears that only one “hot spot” exists on the East side of Pedder Bay: off the tip of William Head (Pedder Bay Marina). Although salmon fishing here is variable, it can apparently be exceptional at times due to the upwelling and current patterns circulating around the head.
Beecher Bay in which the Beecher Bay Marina is situated is located to the East of Pedder Bay. Beecher Bay Marina is a medium sized marina owned and operated by the Beecher Bay First Nation for sport fishing purposes. The clientele of the marina fish predominately up the East and West side of Beecher Bay to Church Island and Beechey Head. Relatively few fishers from this marina appear to go to William Head to fish.
Inside Beecher Bay is an area referred to as the “Bedfords”, which consists of West Bedford Island and Large Bedford Island. These islands are located on the East side of the Bay and are closed to all commercial and recreational fishing for six months of the year for conservation purposes.
Page 7
3.0 WHAT ARE MARINE PROTECTED AREAS?
The term “marine protected area” or “MPA’ is a generic term describing a wide range of oceanic protected areas.
In 1986 the United Nations “Man and the Biosphere” Program established a definition of the term MPA and the purpose for establishing MPAs:
•   “…….. the term MPA refers to: any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying waters and associated flora, fauna and historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by legislation to manage and protect part or all of the enclosed environment …… ”
•   “…the primary goal of establishing MPAs is to: provide for the protection, restoration, wise use and understanding and enjoyment of the marine heritage of the world, in perpetuity, through the creation of a global, representative system of MPA, and through the management of human activities that use or affect the marine environment ……. ”
Within Canada, the potential exists to create a range of MPA types. These types vary in two ways. First, by the extent to which they conserve and/or protect the marine environment. Second, by the level of government which ultimately controls their establishment (Paisley, 1992).
Figure 1: Range of MPA Types in British Columbia
In British Columbia, the extent to which MPAs protect the marine environment ranges from protecting everything within the marine environment to protecting very little. An example of a highly protected MPA in British Columbia is “marine harvest refugia” which protect and restrict resource extraction of all marine species. There are only two marine harvest refugia in British Columbia: Whytecliff Park in West Vancouver and Porteau Cove in Howe Sound. A third site is now on the verge of establishment at Gabriola Passage in Georgia Strait (Paisley, 1992). Protecting these areas is significant for a number of scientific, ecological, cultural, and economic reasons.
Examples of MPAs in British Columbia that provide lesser protection include provincial marine parks, national marine conservation areas, and provincial marine ecological reserves. None of these MPAs fully protect marine resources from exploitation. However, they can meet certain educational and scientific objectives.
Page 8 4.0 WHY ARE MARINE PROTECTED AREAS IMPORTANT?
MPAs have a number of environmental, economic, and social benefits. MPAs make significant contributions to enhancing many areas of human interest including species protection, commercial and recreational fisheries, undisturbed sites for scientific research and educational programs, and opportunities for a wide range of non-consumptive recreational activities.
Some of the recently acknowledged benefits of MPAs further include:
•   (1) complementing traditional fisheries management by allowing resident species to reproduce in an undisturbed environment and act as sources of recruitment and repopulation for exploited areas;
•   (2) maintaining biomass and natural age structure of populations, thus protecting the reproductive potential of resident populations;
•   (3) providing a safe haven for marine species, thus allowing for the maintenance of genetic diversity;
•   (4) allowing unexploited populations to act as environmental insurance in case of resource management failures;
•   (5) providing areas for scientific research and offering natural study areas and opportunities for educating students and community groups about the marine environment; and
•   (6) enhancing economic development through non-disruptive activities, such as tourism.
Many of these benefits are thought to be maximized by marine harvest refugia. Appendix D, E and F provide a more in depth listing of the benefits of marine harvest refugia.
Page 9
5.0 STAKEHOLDERS AND THEIR INTERESTS
Through initial conversations with Garry Fletcher of Lester B. Pearson College, community stakeholders in Metchosin, William Head, Pedder Bay and Beecher Bay were identified (refer to Appendix G). Many of these stakeholders were then contacted and arrangements were made to meet with each group during a site visit to William Head. From these meetings, the preliminary interests of stakeholders in establishing a MPA around William Head were identified. The interests of each group are outlined below. 5.1 William Head Institution
•   William Head Institution expressed significant interest in establishing a MPA around William Head for two reasons: conservation purposes and to enhance security around the facility.
•   The Institution and its inmates have been adapting new methods for reducing their impact on the environment and, as a result, the facility is interested in involving inmates in programs that focus on stewardship and promoting an increased sensitivity to their surrounding environment. The formation of a MPA around the facility would further facilitate these objectives.
•   Since the Institution has been in operation, there have been several inmate escapes and attempted escapes from the shores of the facility. As a result, the prison has a natural interest in finding new ways to enhance security and reduce the risk of additional escapes. At present, the prison has no way of regulating the number of boaters coming into the area or their proximity to the facility’s shores. Establishing a MPA that restricts resource harvesting could assist them in meeting security objectives.
•   The Institution also has some interest in the continuance of the inmate fishing program currently established in William Head.
5.2 Lester B. Pearson College
•   Lester B. Pearson College is an internationally acclaimed school actively involved in a diving program in the outer part of Pedder Bay, Rocky Point, Bentinck Island, Beecher Bay, and Race Rocks. For many years, students have extensively studied and recorded the marine life found in these areas; however, over the last few years, this group has noticed the significant impact that resource harvesting has on a number of invertebrate populations (Fletcher, pers. comm.).
•   Pearson College has been the official custodian of Race Rock Ecological Reserve since its establishment in 1980. Garry Fletcher, a member of College’s biology faculty and coordinator of its diving program, has been appointed warden. In 1990, Race Rocks was closed to all subtidal fisheries. Since that time, students in the diving program at Lester B. Pearson College have seen an increase in species diversity, abundance, and size around Race Rocks Ecological Reserve (Fletcher, pers. comm.).
•   Lester B. Pearson College has expressed great interest in establishing a MPA around William Head for three reasons: the protection of species biodiversity, particularly the underwater invertebrate populations (e.g.; sea urchin, abalone, swimming scallop and octopus); the
Page 10
•   development of unique opportunities for education and scientific research; and the development of a stewardship role in the establishment and monitoring of a MPA around William Head.
5.3 Metchosin Town Council
•   On behalf to its residents, the Metchosin District Council has interests in preserving and conserving the marine environment, supporting the college’s diving program, representing the interests of Metchosin residents, and enhancing security around William Head Institution. The Metchosin Town Council met on Monday June 3, 1996 to discuss the possibility of establishing a MPA adjacent to William Head. The minutes from the meeting state that “Council will endorse the creation of a marine protected area around William Head with the exception of salmon fishing” (Town Council minutes, 1996).
•   One of the Council’s mandates is to make decisions in favor of its community’s interests. As previously mentioned, inmates fish for salmon off a wharf located on the West side of William Head as part of the Institute’s recreational activities. In the Council meeting, it was stated that there is limited community support for prison programs, such as the fishing program. In addition, there is feeling among many Metchosin residents that the inmates at William Head Institution are living the “easy life”. As a result, the Councillors felt they were unable to advocate restricting Metchosin residents from salmon fishing in the area if inmates continued salmon fishing from the wharf.
•   Another interest of Town Council is to consider opportunities for enhancing security around the prison. If the Institution were to restrict boats from entering the William Head area to increase security, the Council would support the prison’s decision. In these circumstances Town Council would not appear to have a problem with a total ban on fishing in the William Head area.
5.4 Pedder Bay Marina and Trailer Park
•   Pedder Bay Marina and Trailer Park, owned by the Oak Bay Marine Group, caters primarily to sports fishers. Fishers from Pedder Bay Marina occasionally fish for salmon at the tip of William Head; however, the majority of their clientele appear to fish on the West side of Pedder Bay.
•   The marina has three main interests. These include: conserving and preserving marine species to ensure sustained availability of resources for harvesting; ensuring the marina’s long-term financial success; and not unduly restricting the amount of coast available for recreational fishing opportunities.
5.5 Beecher Bay First Nation
•   The Beecher Bay First Nation owns and operates the Beecher Bay Marina adjacent to Pedder Bay. Their business is supported primarily by sports fishers who charter boats for salmon fishing on the East and West sides of Beecher Bay. It appears that relatively few of the recreational fishers chartering boats from this marina fish at William Head.
•   In general, the Beecher Bay First Nation has a number of interests. They include resolving First Nation land and sea claims, maintaining aboriginal rights to ocean resources, and preserving and protecting ocean resources to ensure availability for future generations.
Page 11
•   The Beecher Bay First Nation also has an interest in supporting the interests of the Pedder Bay Marina due to the solidarity between the two marinas.
•   Due to past conflicts, the Beecher Bay First Nation has an interest in not being involved in projects that have to be approved by the federal government.
5.6 Department of National Defence
•   Department of National Defence (DND) land borders William Head to the West. Canadian Armed Force’s divers frequently dive for sunken artifacts around William Head and Parry Bay. DND has an interest in the establishment of an MPA around William Head to ensure the safety of these divers.
Page 12 6.0 OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE

The objective of this section is to assess the interests of various stakeholders and try to identify options for meeting their interests. There are at least three options for the establishment of a MPA around William Head. They include: maintaining the status quo; establishing a non marine harvest refugia MPA; or establishing a marine harvest refugia MPA. Each option varies with respect to its ability to meet the interests of the stakeholders. This is discussed below.
6.1 Status Quo
•   Maintaining the status quo would mean that the harvesting of salmon, rockfish, and invertebrates would continue as usual around William Head.
•   Maintaining the status quo is unlikely to satisfy either the conservation or security objectives of William Head Institution on a sustainable basis as pressure to exploit ocean resources increases.
•   Nor does it correlate with the interests of Pearson College: to protect species biodiversity, develop education and scientific research opportunities, or provide an opportunity for the college to take on a stewardship role in this area.
•   The objectives of Metchosin Town Council, which are to conserve the marine environment, support the college’s diving program, represent the interests of Metchosin residents, and enhance security around William Head are also not well met by this option.
•   Maintaining the status quo only partially meets one objective of Pedder and Beecher Bay Marinas, which is to not unduly restrict the amount of coast available for recreational fishing. However, it probably falls short in meeting the marinas’ other objectives: to conserve and preserve marine species, and to ensure the marinas’ long-term financial success.
•   The objective of DND to preserve the area for diving is also not likely to be met by the status quo option.
6.2 Non Marine Harvest Refugia MPA
•   One variation of this option would allow species-specific fishing (e.g. salmon fishing) to occur within a MPA around William Head.
•   Establishing a non marine harvest refugia MPA would probably not meet the interests of William Head Institution in conserving the marine environment or enhancing security around the facility.
•   Pearson College’s interest in protecting species diversity, particularly the underwater invertebrate populations, in developing opportunities for education and scientific research, and in becoming stewards in the establishment and monitoring of the area would not be facilitated. From the College’s experience at Race Rocks, where there are closures on all marine species except salmon and halibut, they have found that it is hard to monitor who is fishing illegally for bottom fish and fishing legally for salmon. The result is that many subtidal species are still being exploited in this reserve.
Page 13
•   The objectives of the Metchosin Town Council to preserve and conserve the marine environment, support the College’s diving program, represent the interests of Metchosin residents, and enhance security around William Head Institution would only be partially met by this option. Since some of the Metchosin residents salmon fish in the area, establishing a non marine harvest refugia would allow fishing to continue. However, as seen at Race Rocks, where species-specific fishing occurs, there are problems with monitoring and enforcement.
•   To establish a non marine harvest refugia would not meet Pedder or Beecher Bay Marinas’ objectives to conserve and preserve marine species to guarantee sustained availability of this resource and ensure the marinas’ long-term financial success. It would, however, meet one of the marinas’ objectives in allowing their clientele to continue salmon fishing around William Head.
•   This option would not appear to satisfy the interest of DND, which is to provide a safe area around William Head for Canadian Armed Force divers.
•   Marine Harvest Refugia MPA
•   Establishing a marine harvest refugia MPA at William Head would restrict all consumptive use activities from occuring within the MPA’s boundary.
•   By establishing a marine harvest refugia MPA at William Head, the conservation and security interests of William Head Institution would probably be met.
•   In addition, the objectives of Pearson College to protect species diversity, develop opportunities for education and scientific research, and develop a stewardship role in the establishment and monitoring of an MPA around William Head would be facilitated.
•   By establishing this option around William Head, the majority of the Metchosin Town Council’s interests which are to preserve and conserve the marine environment, support the college’s diving program, represent the interests of Metchosin residents, and enhance security around William Head Institution would be facilitated.
•   The Pedder and Beecher Marinas’ objectives to conserve and preserve marine species, and ensure the marinas’ long-term success would be met to some degree by establishing a marine harvest refugia. Recent academic research has shown that marine harvest refugia enhance fishing outside the protected areas through the dispersal of resident fish and invertebrate species into adjacent regions. Therefore, creating a protected area could strengthen the marinas business by providing their clientele with an area abundant in fish year after year. On the other hand, this option would not facilitate their objective to provide as much of the coastline as possible for their clientele to fish. However, as previously mentioned, fish stocks outside the marine harvest refugia boundary could increase from fish dispersing from the protected area to adjacent regions thus improving fishing conditions for the marinas’ clientele overall.
•   The objective of DND to provide a safe area for Canadian Armed Forces divers would be met by the marine harvest refugia option.
Page 14 7.0 CONCLUSION
The purposes of this discussion paper have been twofold. The first was to introduce the marine protected area concept to William Head. The second was to report in a preliminary fashion on the identity and interests of stakeholders in the William Head area.
The specific objectives of this discussion paper were:
•   1) to provide background information on William Head and its surrounding areas;
•   2) to define the term marine protected area (MPA);
•   3) to identify why MPAs are considered to be important;
•   4) to preliminarily identify in the William Head area stakeholders, and their interests; and
•   5) to identify possible options for meeting the objectives of those stakeholders.
Through preliminary discussions, the interests of several community stakeholders in Metchosin, William Head, Pedder Bay, and Beecher Bay involved in the establishment of a MPA around William Head were identified. From these discussions, possible options for establishing a MPA meeting their objectives were considered. They included: maintaining the status quo; establishing a non marine harvest refugia MPA; or establishing a marine harvest refugia MPA.
To guarantee the success of any MPA type it is important that the chosen MPA option have the support of community stakeholders.
This paper only provides the baseline information required for establishing a MPA at William Head. It is hoped that stakeholders will find this document useful in catalyzing further discussions.
Page 15 8.0 REFERENCES
Burns, Geoffrey. 1982. William Head – The Land – The History – The People. William Head Institution. Victoria, B.C.
Fletcher, Garry. personal communication
Hydrographic map chart # 3410. 1994. U.B.C.
McNally, Rand. 1994. Victoria City Map. AJmaps Canada Limited. Markham, Ontario.
Metchosin Town Council minutes for June 3, 1996.
Paisley, Richard. 1992. Marine Protected Areas (MPA) in British Columbia. Westwater Research Centre. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.
Pedder Bay Marina wall map showing fishing “hot spots”. Pedder Bay, B.C.
William Head Institution. 1995. William Head Institution Background.
Winfield, Nicholas. 1995. A Community Guardian Pilot Project at Mizecliff Park Marine Protected Area.
Page 16

Interests of Stakeholders and Options for Establishing a Marine Protected Area at William Head – A Discussion Paper

Posted on Saturday,June 15, 1996 by Garry Fletcher

Interests of Stakeholders and Options for Establishing a Marine Protected Area at William Head – A Discussion Paper
DRAFT

June 1996

by Julie Barr , Westwater Research

Institute for Resources and Environment

University of British Columbia

208A – 1933 West Mall

Vancouver, Canada

V6T IZ2

voice telephone: (604) 822-9224 fax telephone: (604) 822-5357 E Mail: jbarr@capcollege.bc.ca

A Discussion Paper

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The specific objectives of this discussion paper are:

1) to provide background information on William Head and its surrounding areas;

- 2) to define the term marine protected area (MPA);

- 3) to identify why MPAs are considered to be important;

- 4) to preliminarily identify William Head area stakeholders, and their interests; and

- 5) to identify possible options for meeting the objectives of those stakeholders.

Before any of these options can be implemented, further discussions with community stakeholders are required.

Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY		1
TABLE OF CONTENTS		2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS		4
1.0 INTRODUCTION		5
2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON WILLIAM HEAD AND ITS SURROUNDINGS		6
3.0 WHAT ARE MARINE PROTECTED AREAS?		8
4.0 WHY ARE MARINE PROTECTED AREAS IMPORTANT?		9
5.0 STAKEHOLDERS AND THEIR INTERESTS		10
	5.1 William Head Institution	10
	5.2 Lester B. Pearson College	10
	5.3 Metchosin Town Council	11
	5.4 Pedder Bay marina and Trailer Park	11
	5.5 Beecher Bay First Nation	11
	5.6 Department of National Defence	12
6.0 OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE		13
	6.1 Status Quo	13
	6.2 Non Marine Hrvest Refugia MPA	13
	6.3 Marine Harvest Refugia	14
7.0 CONCLUSION		15

Page 2 – 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Page 4

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The specific objectives of this discussion paper are:

1) to provide background information on William Head and its surrounding areas;

2) to define the term marine protected area (MPA);

3) to identify why MPAs are considered to be important;

4) to preliminarily identify in the William Head area stakeholders, and their interests; and

5) to identify possible options for meeting the objectives of those stakeholders.

Phase two involved incorporating the collected information into this discussion paper, which outlines the interests of stakeholders and poses possible solutions for meeting their objectives.

Page 5

2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON

WILLIAM HEAD AND ITS SURROUNDINGS.

page 6

Page 7

3.0 WHAT ARE MARINE PROTECTED AREAS?

The term “marine protected area” or “MPA’ is a generic term describing a wide range of oceanic protected areas.

In 1986 the United Nations “Man and the Biosphere” Program established a definition of the term MPA and the purpose for establishing MPAs:

“…….. the term MPA refers to: any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying waters and associated flora, fauna and historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by legislation to manage and protect part or all of the enclosed environment …… “

“…the primary goal of establishing MPAs is to: provide for the protection, restoration, wise use and understanding and enjoyment of the marine heritage of the world, in perpetuity, through the creation of a global, representative system of MPA, and through the management of human activities that use or affect the marine environment ……. “

Figure 1: Range of MPA Types in British Columbia

Page 8

4.0 WHY ARE MARINE PROTECTED AREAS IMPORTANT?

Some of the recently acknowledged benefits of MPAs further include:

(1) complementing traditional fisheries management by allowing resident species to reproduce in an undisturbed environment and act as sources of recruitment and repopulation for exploited areas;

(2) maintaining biomass and natural age structure of populations, thus protecting the reproductive potential of resident populations;

(3) providing a safe haven for marine species, thus allowing for the maintenance of genetic diversity;

(4) allowing unexploited populations to act as environmental insurance in case of resource management failures;

(5) providing areas for scientific research and offering natural study areas and opportunities for educating students and community groups about the marine environment; and

(6) enhancing economic development through non-disruptive activities, such as tourism.

Many of these benefits are thought to be maximized by marine harvest refugia. Appendix D, E and F provide a more in depth listing of the benefits of marine harvest refugia.

Page 9

5.0 STAKEHOLDERS AND THEIR INTERESTS

5.1 William Head Institution

William Head Institution expressed significant interest in establishing a MPA around William Head for two reasons: conservation purposes and to enhance security around the facility.

The Institution and its inmates have been adapting new methods for reducing their impact on the environment and, as a result, the facility is interested in involving inmates in programs that focus on stewardship and promoting an increased sensitivity to their surrounding environment. The formation of a MPA around the facility would further facilitate these objectives.

Since the Institution has been in operation, there have been several inmate escapes and attempted escapes from the shores of the facility. As a result, the prison has a natural interest in finding new ways to enhance security and reduce the risk of additional escapes. At present, the prison has no way of regulating the number of boaters coming into the area or their proximity to the facility’s shores. Establishing a MPA that restricts resource harvesting could assist them in meeting security objectives.

The Institution also has some interest in the continuance of the inmate fishing program currently established in William Head.

5.2 Lester B. Pearson College

Lester B. Pearson College is an internationally acclaimed school actively involved in a diving program in the outer part of Pedder Bay, Rocky Point, Bentinck Island, Beecher Bay, and Race Rocks. For many years, students have extensively studied and recorded the marine life found in these areas; however, over the last few years, this group has noticed the significant impact that resource harvesting has on a number of invertebrate populations (Fletcher, pers. comm.).

Pearson College has been the official custodian of Race Rock Ecological Reserve since its establishment in 1980. Garry Fletcher, a member of College’s biology faculty and coordinator of its diving program, has been appointed warden. In 1990, Race Rocks was closed to all subtidal fisheries. Since that time, students in the diving program at Lester B. Pearson College have seen an increase in species diversity, abundance, and size around Race Rocks Ecological Reserve (Fletcher, pers. comm.).

Lester B. Pearson College has expressed great interest in establishing a MPA around William Head for three reasons: the protection of species biodiversity, particularly the underwater invertebrate populations (e.g.; sea urchin, abalone, swimming scallop and octopus); the

Page 10

development of unique opportunities for education and scientific research; and the development of a stewardship role in the establishment and monitoring of a MPA around William Head.

5.3 Metchosin Town Council

On behalf to its residents, the Metchosin Town Council has interests in preserving and conserving the marine environment, supporting the college’s diving program, representing the interests of Metchosin residents, and enhancing security around William Head Institution. The Metchosin Town Council met on Monday June 3, 1996 to discuss the possibility of establishing a MPA adjacent to William Head. The minutes from the meeting state that “Council will endorse the creation of a marine protected area around William Head with the exception of salmon fishing” (Town Council minutes, 1996).

One of the Council’s mandates is to make decisions in favor of its community’s interests. As previously mentioned, inmates fish for salmon off a wharf located on the West side of William Head as part of the Institute’s recreational activities. In the Council meeting, it was stated that there is limited community support for prison programs, such as the fishing program. In addition, there is feeling among many Metchosin residents that the inmates at William Head Institution are living the “easy life”. As a result, the Councillors felt they were unable to advocate restricting Metchosin residents from salmon fishing in the area if inmates continued salmon fishing from the wharf.

Another interest of Town Council is to consider opportunities for enhancing security around the prison. If the Institution were to restrict boats from entering the William Head area to increase security, the Council would support the prison’s decision. In these circumstances Town Council would not appear to have a problem with a total ban on fishing in the William Head area.

5.4 Pedder Bay Marina and Trailer Park

Pedder Bay Marina and Trailer Park, owned by the Oak Bay Marine Group, caters primarily to sports fishers. Fishers from Pedder Bay Marina occasionally fish for salmon at the tip of William Head; however, the majority of their clientele appear to fish on the West side of Pedder Bay.

The marina has three main interests. These include: conserving and preserving marine species to ensure sustained availability of resources for harvesting; ensuring the marina’s long-term financial success; and not unduly restricting the amount of coast available for recreational fishing opportunities.

5.5 Beecher Bay First Nation

The Beecher Bay First Nation owns and operates the Beecher Bay Marina adjacent to Pedder Bay. Their business is supported primarily by sports fishers who charter boats for salmon fishing on the East and West sides of Beecher Bay. It appears that relatively few of the recreational fishers chartering boats from this marina fish at William Head.

In general, the Beecher Bay First Nation has a number of interests. They include resolving First Nation land and sea claims, maintaining aboriginal rights to ocean resources, and preserving and protecting ocean resources to ensure availability for future generations.

Page 11

The Beecher Bay First Nation also has an interest in supporting the interests of the Pedder Bay Marina due to the solidarity between the two marinas.

Due to past conflicts, the Beecher Bay First Nation has an interest in not being involved in projects that have to be approved by the federal government.

5.6 Department of National Defence

Department of National Defence (DND) land borders William Head to the West. Canadian Armed Force’s divers frequently dive for sunken artifacts around William Head and Parry Bay. DND has an interest in the establishment of an MPA around William Head to ensure the safety of these divers.

Page 12

6.0 OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE

6.1 Status Quo

Maintaining the status quo would mean that the harvesting of salmon, rockfish, and invertebrates would continue as usual around William Head.

Maintaining the status quo is unlikely to satisfy either the conservation or security objectives of William Head Institution on a sustainable basis as pressure to exploit ocean resources increases.

Nor does it correlate with the interests of Pearson College: to protect species biodiversity, develop education and scientific research opportunities, or provide an opportunity for the college to take on a stewardship role in this area.

The objectives of Metchosin Town Council, which are to conserve the marine environment, support the college’s diving program, represent the interests of Metchosin residents, and enhance security around William Head are also not well met by this option.

Maintaining the status quo only partially meets one objective of Pedder and Beecher Bay Marinas, which is to not unduly restrict the amount of coast available for recreational fishing. However, it probably falls short in meeting the marinas’ other objectives: to conserve and preserve marine species, and to ensure the marinas’ long-term financial success.

The objective of DND to preserve the area for diving is also not likely to be met by the status quo option.

6.2 Non Marine Harvest Refugia MPA

One variation of this option would allow species-specific fishing (e.g. salmon fishing) to occur within a MPA around William Head.

Establishing a non marine harvest refugia MPA would probably not meet the interests of William Head Institution in conserving the marine environment or enhancing security around the facility.

Pearson College’s interest in protecting species diversity, particularly the underwater invertebrate populations, in developing opportunities for education and scientific research, and in becoming stewards in the establishment and monitoring of the area would not be facilitated. From the College’s experience at Race Rocks, where there are closures on all marine species except salmon and halibut, they have found that it is hard to monitor who is fishing illegally for bottom fish and fishing legally for salmon. The result is that many subtidal species are still being exploited in this reserve.

Page 13

The objectives of the Metchosin Town Council to preserve and conserve the marine environment, support the College’s diving program, represent the interests of Metchosin residents, and enhance security around William Head Institution would only be partially met by this option. Since some of the Metchosin residents salmon fish in the area, establishing a non marine harvest refugia would allow fishing to continue. However, as seen at Race Rocks, where species-specific fishing occurs, there are problems with monitoring and enforcement.

To establish a non marine harvest refugia would not meet Pedder or Beecher Bay Marinas’ objectives to conserve and preserve marine species to guarantee sustained availability of this resource and ensure the marinas’ long-term financial success. It would, however, meet one of the marinas’ objectives in allowing their clientele to continue salmon fishing around William Head.

This option would not appear to satisfy the interest of DND, which is to provide a safe area around William Head for Canadian Armed Force divers.

Marine Harvest Refugia MPA

Establishing a marine harvest refugia MPA at William Head would restrict all consumptive use activities from occuring within the MPA’s boundary.

By establishing a marine harvest refugia MPA at William Head, the conservation and security interests of William Head Institution would probably be met.

In addition, the objectives of Pearson College to protect species diversity, develop opportunities for education and scientific research, and develop a stewardship role in the establishment and monitoring of an MPA around William Head would be facilitated.

By establishing this option around William Head, the majority of the Metchosin Town Council’s interests which are to preserve and conserve the marine environment, support the college’s diving program, represent the interests of Metchosin residents, and enhance security around William Head Institution would be facilitated.

The Pedder and Beecher Marinas’ objectives to conserve and preserve marine species, and ensure the marinas’ long-term success would be met to some degree by establishing a marine harvest refugia. Recent academic research has shown that marine harvest refugia enhance fishing outside the protected areas through the dispersal of resident fish and invertebrate species into adjacent regions. Therefore, creating a protected area could strengthen the marinas business by providing their clientele with an area abundant in fish year after year. On the other hand, this option would not facilitate their objective to provide as much of the coastline as possible for their clientele to fish. However, as previously mentioned, fish stocks outside the marine harvest refugia boundary could increase from fish dispersing from the protected area to adjacent regions thus improving fishing conditions for the marinas’ clientele overall.

The objective of DND to provide a safe area for Canadian Armed Forces divers would be met by the marine harvest refugia option.

Page 14

7.0 CONCLUSION

The specific objectives of this discussion paper were:

1) to provide background information on William Head and its surrounding areas;

2) to define the term marine protected area (MPA);

3) to identify why MPAs are considered to be important;

4) to preliminarily identify in the William Head area stakeholders, and their interests; and

5) to identify possible options for meeting the objectives of those stakeholders.

Through preliminary discussions, the interests of several community stakeholders in Metchosin, William Head, Pedder Bay, and Beecher Bay involved in the establishment of a MPA around William Head were identified. From these discussions, possible options for establishing a MPA meeting their objectives were considered. They included: maintaining the status quo; establishing a non marine harvest refugia MPA; or establishing a marine harvest refugia MPA.

To guarantee the success of any MPA type it is important that the chosen MPA option have the support of community stakeholders.

This paper only provides the baseline information required for establishing a MPA at William Head. It is hoped that stakeholders will find this document useful in catalyzing further discussions.

Page 15

8.0 REFERENCES

Burns, Geoffrey. 1982. William Head – The Land – The History – The People. William Head Institution. Victoria, B.C.

Fletcher, Garry. personal communication

Hydrographic map chart # 3410. 1994. U.B.C.

McNally, Rand. 1994. Victoria City Map. AJmaps Canada Limited. Markham, Ontario.

Metchosin Town Council minutes for June 3, 1996.

Paisley, Richard. 1992. Marine Protected Areas (MPA) in British Columbia. Westwater Research Centre. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.

Pedder Bay Marina wall map showing fishing “hot spots”. Pedder Bay, B.C.

William Head Institution. 1995. William Head Institution Background.

Winfield, Nicholas. 1995. A Community Guardian Pilot Project at Mizecliff Park Marine Protected Area.

Page 16

Marine Protected Area Proclaimed under the Ocean’s Act.

Posted on Thursday,September 1, 1988 by Garry Fletcher

Canada became the first country in the world to adopt its own Oceans Act in 1997. In it there were constructive plans for the designation of Marine Protected Areas<

NEWS RELEASE: Race Rocks Announced as One of Canada’s
First Marine Protected Area Pilots Sept. 1, 1998

Marine Protected Areas for the Pacific Coast of Canada. The minister emphasized that this was an historic occasion as it represents the first steps of many in creating these special areas for the conservation of marine resources. The two areas will serve as “Pilot MPA’s ” and represent the first of several areas to be designated in the three oceans of Canada. On hand for the announcement by the minister was Garry Fletcher, faculty member in biology and environmental systems at Lester Pearson College, along with many invited guests from the First Nations communities, environmental groups, provincial government officials, and other stake holders in the marine environment of British Columbia.
In the ensuing months, negotiations will take place with the ministry in order to set up the parameters of these new Marine Protected Area pilot study areas.

Statement by David Anderson
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

This site was available on the DFO website at the following URL until 2007:
http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/english/release/statement/1998/st9805e.htm

MARINE PROTECTED AREAS

I want to thank you all for joining me today for lunch. Victoria is my hometown, I was born here and have lived here for most of my life. So I feel very proud that I will be making Oceans history today in Victoria.
Here in British Columbia, we live in what I consider one of the most beautiful parts of the world. We enjoy a host of natural riches. Many of you heard my address on Sunday, during which I spoke about oceans and our need to conserve and protect them.

I spoke then of the growing need to protect the health and vitality of our marine resource base. Broad-ranging global issues, like those described eloquently on Sunday by Judith Swan in her keynote address, such as pollution, habitat alteration and loss, and over-exploitation of our oceans, are of growing concern.

Unfortunately, we too often overlook our collective responsibility to the ocean and its resources.

I said when I was appointed Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in June 1997 that I had three priorities as Minister: conservation, conservation, and conservation. I can tell you that is not always easy.

And if you watched the news over the past few days, as I know most of you do, you would think my mandate is strictly fisheries. But I am the Minister of Fisheries AND Oceans. And it is the OCEANS part of my mandate that I am here to speak about today.

When I addressed conference delegates on Sunday night, I talked about the oceans and the importance of the oceans to Canada and our way of life. I also talked about the International Year of the Ocean, and how we in Canada have adopted the United Nations’ stated goals for the year — to make people more aware of the ocean, to bring oceans-related issues to the forefront, and to build a lasting legacy of programs to conserve and protect the world’s oceans and oceans resources.

And I discussed Canada’s Oceans Act. This Act, passed in January 1997, gives the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the lead in developing an Oceans Strategy for Canada. The Strategy will be based on the principles of the Oceans Act: integrated management, sustainable development and an ecosystem-based and precautionary approach.

On Oceans Day this year, I established a new Oceans Sector in my department to provide a clearer focus on oceans issues.

One of the tasks I have assigned this new team is the development, in collaboration with other federal agencies, other levels of government including First Nations, stakeholders, communities and the public, of a national network of Marine Protected Areas by the year 2000.

The Oceans Act provides me as Minister with the authority to designate areas for the conservation and protection of marine habitats and resources.

Over the past year, we have held extensive public consultations on our proposed approach to establishing Marine Protected Areas. In April of this year, I released a Policy regarding Marine Protected Areas and a national framework for establishing Marine Protected Areas.

Marine Protected Areas can be established, under Canada’s Oceans Act, for many different reasons, including the conservation and protection of:

fisheries resources;
endangered or threatened marine species and their habitats;
unique habitats; and
marine areas of high biodiversity or biological productivity.

Marine Protected Areas established under the Oceans Act must satisfy a range of needs in a variety of jurisdictional settings. As a result, we MUST take a flexible approach to their design and management.

The overall objective of the Marine Protected Areas program is to conserve and protect the ecological integrity of marine ecosystems, species, and habitats. At the same time, they will further the gathering of scientific knowledge and understanding and contribute to the sustainability of coastal communities.

We have adopted a “learn-by-doing” approach. This involves, as a first phase, the establishment of pilot MPA projects to provide practical experience in establishing and managing Marine Protected Areas.

Pilot MPA projects will be used to test various aspects of the MPA framework. For example, partnering opportunities and mechanisms will be explored; criteria for evaluating MPAs will be tested; minimum standards of protection will be examined; and opportunities for collaboration with other agencies, First Nations and other levels of government will be explored.

Learning from these pilot projects will be an integral part of the development of a national network of Marine Protected Areas.

For us in Canada, today is an historic moment.

Today I am pleased to announce that Fisheries and Oceans Canada, along with its federal and provincial partners, is establishing the first two pilot project Marine Protected Area projects in Canada here in the waters of our West Coast. These first two sites will be at Race Rocks and Gabriola Passage, here within view of the Coastal Zone Conference ‘98.

I expect to announce further pilot projects for all three coasts over the coming months. Taken together, these pilot projects will be a first step towards a network of Marine Protected Areas by the year 2000.

The pilot Marine Protected Area projects I am announcing today will provide an opportunity to learn and test different applications of MPA identification, assessment, legal designation and management. This will allow us to address the concerns of local first Nations. The lessons we learn from these will better enable us to establish and manage these areas in the future.

The aspect of the announcement today that I personally find most gratifying is the degree of cooperation and collaboration that has preceded this announcement.

My officials here in Pacific Region have been working closely with their colleagues both in Parks Canada and Environment Canada at the federal level and with the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, the provincial Ministry of Fisheries, and the Land Use Coordination Office of the Province of British Columbia. Many representatives from all of these departments, both federal and provincial, are here today.

And I would like to acknowledge the growing number of citizens who are looking out at the sea and getting involved to protect it. Their involvement is critical.

I would like to make particular mention of First Nations involvement in Marine Protected Areas. The cultural values of First Nations are consistent with the values directing our work on Marine Protected Areas.

There are important needs of our First Nations that I would like to emphasize today.

First, the establishment of these two pilot areas will not affect First Nations opportunities to fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes.

Second, the development of Marine Protected Areas will be completely consistent with long-term direction toward future Treaties between first nations and the two levels of government — federal and provincial.

Finally, First Nations will be fully involved with the development of an effective decision-making process for Marine Protected Areas.

I have directed my Pacific Region officials to continue to meet with First Nations who have a direct interest in Gabriola Passage and Race Rocks.

I anticipate that our Provincial colleagues will play a significant role in consultations with First Nations, stakeholders and the public.

I would also like to emphasize that community support and involvement are crucial to the success of Marine Protected Areas.

Last Friday, a federal-provincial discussion paper titled “Marine Protected Areas, A Strategy for Canada’s Pacific Coast,” was released.

The paper reflects the common objectives of both governments for a more integrated approach to marine protection and conservation.

It also reflects extensive advice and feedback from local governments, First Nations, communities, stakeholders, industry and interested people gathered during a number of public fora and meetings over the past three years.

This on-going process will, I know, ensure the success of these pilot projects.

The hallmark of Marine Protected Areas is cooperation.

The announcement today is a testimony to what we all can achieve when they work together, in good faith, for a common and beneficial cause. We all have a stake in protecting the ocean, in order to ensure that its resources are sustained for our children and for their children.

Today we all give something back to the ocean.

This is a benchmark for cooperation amongst peoples. Let’s build on this experience and learn from it. And let’s put the benefits of our combined, cooperative efforts to use for the benefit of the oceans of the future.

The Marine Protected Areas program will provide us with a form of ecological insurance to conserve and protect oceans and ocean resources.

We need to learn from the past and pass on to our children a legacy of measures to protect the world’s oceans, which are the cornerstone of our survival on the planet. Marine Protected Areas will form a very important part of that legacy.

Today is a wonderful day for our oceans.

Thank you. (The Hon. David Anderson)

This site was available on the DFO website at the following URL until 2007:
http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/english/release/statement/1998/st9805e.htm

Marine Protected Areas

A Strategy for Canada’s Pacific Coast

DISCUSSION PAPER August 1998

A Joint Initiative of the Governments of Canada and British Columbia

Foreword

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction

2.0 What are Marine Protected Areas

Sidebar #1: What are Marine Protected Areas

Sidebar #2: Marine Protected Areas in a Global Context

3.0 The Need to Create Marine Protected Areas

3.1 Values of Canada’s Pacific Marine and Coastal Environments

3.2 Threats to Marine Ecosystems

4.0 Vision and Objectives for a Marine Protected Areas Strategy on Canada’s Pacific Coast

4.1 The MPA Vision

4.2 Objectives for Establishing Marine Protected Areas

5.0 Developing a System of Marine Protected Areas

Sidebar #3: Guiding Principles for MPA Development

5.1 The Coastal Planning Framework

5.2 Planning Regions for Marine Protected Areas

Sidebar #4: Proposed Marine Protected Area Planning Regions and Pilot Sites for Canada’s Pacific Coast

5.3 Federal-Provincial Coordination for Marine Protected Areas Establishment

Sidebar #5: Interim Management Guidelines

5.4 MPA Identification, Assessment and Recommendation

5.5 Pilot Marine Protected Areas

5.6 A Question of Targets – How Much is Enough?

We are seeking your advice on this important question.

5.7 Federal and Provincial Statutory Powers to Protect Marine Areas

Sidebar #6: Federal and Provincial Marine Protection Designations

6.0 Your Feedback on the Strategy

Appendix A: Principal Participating Agencies in the Development of the Marine Protected AreasStrategy

Appendix B: Federal and Provincial Statutory Powers for Protecting Marine Areas

This archival reference originally appeared on the DFO website at http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/canwaters-eauxcan/infocentre/publications/docs/discussion_e.asp

An Approach to the Establishment and Management of Marine Protected Areas Under the Oceans Act: A Discussion Paper

Rationale

Description: the Marine Protected Area

Scope of Authority

Focus of Protection

Program Development

Need for Public Action

For more information contact:

Written Comments/ Questions/ Ideas:

1. What is a Marine Protected Area?

Section 35

The Role of MPAs as a Fisheries Management Tool

Adult Recruitment

Recovery of Depleted Stocks

Life Stage Protection

Genetic Diversity

Hedge Against Uncertainty

Loss of a Key Species

Loss of Valuable Species

Loss of Intangible Values

Marine Mammals

4.0 HOW WILL MPAs BE IDENTIFIED & ESTABLISHED?

Nomination by Interested Groups

Regional Overviews

The MPA Proposal

Area Identification List

Information Constraints and Sources

Appendix A-

Appendix B – Guiding Principles for an MPA Program

Appendix C – Marine Conservation Programs of Canadian Heritage and Environment Canada

Environment Canada – National Wildlife Areas, Protected Marine Areas, and Migratory Bird Sanctuaries

Purpose

Concept

Legislation

Status of the Marine Component of Wildlife Marine Protected Areas

Appendix D – The MPA Proposal

ENDNOTES FROM TEXT:

Internet Access:

Interests of Stakeholders and Options for Establishing a Marine Protected Area at William Head a Discussion Paper DRAFT

Interests of Stakeholders and Options for Establishing a Marine Protected Area at William Head – A Discussion Paper DRAFT

Statement by David Anderson Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

See also: DFO Backgrounder Race Rocks XwaYeN: A Success Story for Community and Stakeholder Involvement,

Interests of Stakeholders and Options for Establishing a Marine Protected Area at William Head
a Discussion Paper DRAFT

Interests of Stakeholders and Options for Establishing a Marine Protected Area at William Head – A Discussion Paper
DRAFT

Statement by David Anderson
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans