Angus over from the college testing the new cell phone that has been installed. At 1150 and elephant seal has hold out in East Bay, 50 feet from the water. It seems to be in moult many sores on the body, shivering although out of the wind. W
Category Archives: Facility work
Contemporary History of the Race Rocks Light station 1974-1997
The Demolition Phase :
|
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.
- 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.)
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.
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.
- 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
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
- 3.2.1 Purpose A – Conservation of Commercial and Non-Commercial Fisheries Resources
- 3.2.2 Purpose B – Conservation of Endangered or Threatened Species
- 3.2.3 Purpose C – Conservation of Unique Habitats
- 3.2.4 Purpose D – Conservation of Productive Ecosystems and Biodiversity
- 3.2.5 Purpose E – Conservation of Other Marine Resources and Habitats to Fulfill The Mandate of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
- 4.0 How will MPAs be identified & established?
- 5.0 How will MPAs be managed?
- 5.1 Need for Effective Partnering
- 5.2 Coastal Communities and Non-Government Conservation Organizations
- 5.3 Fishing Interests
- 5.4 Aboriginal Organizations
- 5.5 Ocean Industries
- 5.6 Provinces and Municipal Governments
- 5.7 Federal Departments
- 5.8 International
- 5.9 Addressing Information Requirements
- 5.10 Awareness and Education
- 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
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 | Contact |
webmaster:
Garry Fletcher |
Copyright |
Options for an MPA at William Head
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
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
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
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 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 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
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
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 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
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
Joan and Charles Redhead, Race Rocks Lightkeepers 1982-1990
After a short interval after the departure of the Anderson’s in 1982, when Race Rocks lightstation was covered by relief keepers, Joan and Charles Redhead moved to the island and Charles took over as the Head Keeper 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. The keepers also often shared the island and boathouse slipway with stray elephant seals or sea lions that strayed from the large herds that hauled out on the outer rocks during the winter months.
In retirement in Vancouver and then Victoria, Charles and Joan remained in contact with the college. It was with sadness that we learned of the death of Charles in the spring of 1996. The students of the year 11 and 12 reunion have remembered Charles with a walnut tree planted in his honour on the Pearson College campus in June of 1996.
In 2012, we received he news that Joan Redhead had also passed away. Pearson College had now lost two devoted supporters.
From TheVictoria Times-Colonist, May 11, 2012:
REDHEAD, Joan Elizabeth April 28, 1927 April 30, 2012
Joan Redhead (nee Wilson) died suddenly in Victoria on Monday, April 30, 2012. Joan was predeceased by her husband Charles; her parents, Thomas and Doris Wilson (nee Shaw) and her brothers, Derrick and Bryan. She is survived by her sons, Alec and Peter (Sheila); her beloved grandchildren, Emily and Thomas as well as her sisters, Doreen Cartwright and Mary Blades and her brother John Wilson. Joan was born and raised at Bridlington, Yorkshire where she married her childhood sweetheart, Charles, in 1947. Joan and Charles emigrated to Vancouver with their young boys in 1957, retiring to Victoria in 1994. An active volunteer, compassionate and principled, Joan was devoted to her family and to her friends. We are left with our loving memories.
Return to the List of Lightkeepers File
Marine Protected Area Proclaimed under the Ocean’s Act.
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<
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 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
See also: DFO Backgrounder Race Rocks XwaYeN: A Success Story for Community and Stakeholder Involvement,
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 Acccess 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.
Part 9 : Executive Overview: Pilot MPA Program: Pacific Inshore Ecosystem Overview of Race Rocks
EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW: A. Objectives: It is the intent of the Race Rocks Overview to produce a comprehensive package of knowledge, including scientific and natural history, of the Race Rocks Ecological Reserve and the surrounding area in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. These materials will provide a common information source and knowledge base for future activities such as : |
|||||||||||
B.The Database:
It must be appreciated that the extensive searchable database for the Race Rocks Ecological Overview that has been developed is the central unifying work It is designed to draw together a diverse range of information. It has been made purposely so that it can be added to and expanded as more information on the Race Rocks Area becomes available. It may also be linked into other MSAccess Databases, and it will also be made available on the Race Rocks web site, after first being tested in a CD version.
|
Race Rocks National Marine Park A Preliminary Proposal: 1976
Indian and Northern Affairs, Parks Canada
(Affaires Indiennes et du Nord;Parcs Canada)
NATIONAL PARKS DOCUMENTATION CENTRE
D. Hardie and C. Mondor .
Marine Themes Section
Parks System Planning Division
National Parks Branch
February 1976
Document No. 10 726R1
Contents
Introduction | i |
1. Regional Context | 1 |
2. Natural Systems and Dimensions of the Proposed Race Rocks National Marine Park | 7 |
3. Park Site Resource Analysis | 37 |
4. Park Concept | 47 |
Appendix |
Introduction
At the First World Conference on National Parks held in Seattle in 1962, an important resolution was passed that participating countries should establish National Marine Parks.
In response to this resolution and being desirous of protecting outstanding areas and features of Canada’s marine environments as part of the national heritage, the Canadian Cabinet in January 1971 endorsed the National Marine Park concept. In that same year, a Federal Task Force was created to examine federal responsibility and jurisdiction relating to the establishment of a National Marine Park on Canada’s west coast.
Following the completion of this task a second Interdisciplinary Federal-Provincial Task Force Working Group was established in 1972. This Task Force, subsequently selected the marine and coastal area surrounding Race Rocks as one of several sites in the Strait of Georgia and Juan de Fuca Strait warranting further study as a potential National Marine Park.
In 1973, the Province of British Columbia responded favourably to the Race Racks proposal. As a result, a second Federal-Provincial Task Force was established consisting of members of the British Columbia Parks and Recreation Branch and the Parks System Planning Division of the National Parks Branch.
The Task Force was given the responsibility of developing a proposal for establishing the Race Rocks area as a National Marine Park.
As the industrial base in the Strait of Georgia – Puget Sound region continues to expand with increased population growth, the need to preserve parts or sections of the coastal and marine environs for recreation and ecosystem conservation has become an ever increasing requirement. It is within this context that the Race Rocks National Marine Park has been conceived and ultimately planned.
1. Regional Context
Geographical Setting
The proposed Park is located in the southwest portion of the Strait of Georgia – Puget Sound Lowland, an area which commands six percent of the combined area of British Columbia and Washington State and two thirds of their combined populations. Victoria and vicinity with a population of two hundred and fifty thousand is the largest urban centre in proximity to the proposed Park. All of the major urban centres on Vancouver Island as well as the cities of Vancouver, Tacoma and Seattle Washington are located within a radius of one hundred air miles. These centres have a combined population of over four million.
Proposed Park Boundaries
The proposed Park consists of approximately twenty square miles of surface water and offshore lands defined on the west by Sooke Peninsula in a straight line from Beechey Head to Rosedale Rock and on the east by a line extending from Rosedale Rock to Fisgard Light. The Park fronts on the regional land districts of Sooke, Metchosin and Esquimalt and encompasses some thirty-six miles of rugged shoreline, much of which remains in a relatively undisturbed state. The proposed shoreland component includes portions of Rocky Point, Albert Head Peninsula and Aldridge Point and totals some two and one half square miles (see map 1).
Regional System of Parks
In the Strait of Georgia – Puget Sound Lowland there are over two hundred recognized parks and recreation areas. Over sixty of these parks are located in coastal areas and provide facilities for water-based recreation activities. A system of Ecological Reserves, bird sanctuaries and Outstanding Natural Areas (U.S. designation) have been established to preserve outstanding natural ecosystems in the region.
The Park, lying west of Victoria commands easy access by road and water. Two major road networks provide access to existing shoreland areas, beach and marina facilities. A semi-integrated system of national, provincial and regional parks is found in the immediate backshore area adjacent to the proposed Park. Several single family sub-divisions and country estates are scattered throughout the shoreland while gravel pit and private recreation facilities are examples of commercial and industrial developments.
The visitor service facilities in the shoreland areas adjacent to the Park and surrounding region provide basic services such as: research centres, stores, motels, gas stations, dive shops, hospitals, museums, universities, and charter boat services.
Marine Setting
The Park is located in the transition zone between the Vancouver Island Inland Sea and the Pacific West Coast Marine Region. These two regions are part of a much larger oceanic system, namely the Pacific Coastal Domain, a temperate faunistic province extending from the middle of Baja California into the Bering Sea.
Tides and currents of varying velocities and direction control the exchange of waters as well as the chemical and physical properties of the water column in the Park and in Juan de Fuca Strait in general. The oceanographic phenomenon associated with this transition zone are responsible for the development of an outstanding marine environment with varied and abundant intertidal and subtidal community assemblages
A variety of erosional and depositional phenomenon characterize the coastal zone. The coastal geomorphology is controlled by the structural geology and the various facets of erosion and deposition common to the land-sea interface. The relatively undisturbed rugged volcanic coastline with secluded beaches, headlands, marshes, steep sandcliffs and offshore islands, offers a striking contrast to the more industrialized coastline surrounding Victoria to the east.
A rich coastal and natural marine history combined with a congenial climate makes the Race Rocks area an excellent setting for Canada’s first National Marine Park.
2. Natural Systems and Dimensions of the Proposed Race Rocks National Marine Park
2.1 Natural Resources
2.1.1 Climate
The climate of the Park is influenced by the surrounding coastal mountain systems and to some extent by the drift of the warm Japanese Kuroshio Current. Three climatic zones are recognized in the Park and are described below.
Cool Mediterranean Climate
Located in the rainshadow of Washington State’s Olympic Mountains and the Insular Mountains of southern Vancouver Island, the eastern portion of the Park is dominated by a characteristically cool Mediterranean climate. Summers are cool and dry, often to the point of drought; winters are wet and it is rarely very cold. The shoreland areas assume a parkland character and are dotted with groves of Arbutus and Garry Oak – tree species characteristic of regions without harsh climatic extremes. This climate, rare to the Canadian landscape gives way to a more transitional climate westward along the coast.
Transitional Climate
West of Race Rocks, summers are cooler while winters, being subject to the stormy influence of the more open Strait, are cooler and wetter than areas to the east. Fog is prevalent along the coast from Race Rocks to Beechey Head during the fall and winter. An annual average of fifteen annual fogs occur between August and October.
Maritime Climate The maritime climate common more so to the coastal regions north of the Park occasionally intrudes southward into the Becher Bay and Rocky Point regions. This system brings with it cool, wet and foggy weather primarily during the fall, winter and spring seasons.
Park Climate The coastal zone of the Park experiences less than 15 inches of snow per year and much of this melts soon after reaching -the ground. The southeasterly and southwesterly gales which blow frequently in the fall and winter months subject the Park to stormy weather. The combination of the rugged shoreline and strong wave action creates a magnificent setting to experience the ferocity of Pacific storms. The climatic phenomenon of the Park from one area to another and throughout the seasons is perhaps the most exciting yet restrictive aspect of the area,
It is not uncommon to experience on any one day a bright sunny day in the eastern portion of the Park and a dense, cool and damp flog in the western part, particularly west oil Race Rocks.
This chart illustrates the seasonal and spatial climatic variations for the Park area and Victoria.
Precipitation Mean Annual (in inches) | Temperature Mean Daily (Max. Summer) (¡F) | Temperature (Mean Annual) (¡F) | |
Becher Bay | 39.57 | 67 | 49.2 |
William Head | 35.67 | 67 | 48.7 |
Esquimalt | 31.09 | 67 | 50.0 |
Victoria | 25.87 | 66 | 50.1 |
Much of the coastal lowland region from William Head to Victoria can expect a mean of 2,200 hours of bright sunshine – the highest of all Canadian stations outside of the southern prairies.
The more unsettled weather of the western section of the Park will periodically limit activities somewhat especially during the fall and winter months.
Nevertheless, the long days with abundant sunshine and dry weather conditions offer unlimited possibilities for the pursuit of recreational, scientific and interpretive activities during the summer months.
2.1.2 Geology and Geomorphologic Processes of the Coastal Zone-– (Geology of Race Rocks)
In the coastal zone of the proposed Park are some of the most interesting geological and geomorphological features to be found on southern Vancouver Island. These include features of both original parent material and landforms that have been formed since the last ice age.
Two basic geologic formations, namely the Vancouver Formation of the Lower Mesozoic and the Metchosin Formation of the Upper Eocene dominate the land-sea interface. Glacial drift deposits of considerable depth dominate the shoreland in the eastern portion of the Park. Other glacial features such as: glacial grooves, abrasion and striation marks, record two epochs of glacial occupation and two corresponding epochs of glacial retreat.
The proposed Park and adjacent shoreland can be divide into three broad geologic and geomorphologic units as follows:
1. INNER COAST – ROYAL ROADS BAY AND PARRY BAY
The intertidal and subtidal environs in this coastal unit are characterized by gradually sloping sand, silt and mud flats to an average depth of 30 fathoms. In the intertidal area, sand and gravel beaches and mud flats are exposed at low tides.
The immediate subtidal area is covered with a diverse mixture of sands, silts and muds. Areas of exposed and partially exposed bedrock are interspersed throughout the shoreland, the intertidal and subtidal areas.
Glacial drift deposits its formed along the shore from Parry Bay to Royal Roads have been retrograded to form steep seacliffs up to one hundred feet in height. Much of the eroded sands and gravels from the cliffs have been carried eastward by longshore currents to form spits, baymouth bars, beaches, tidal flats and other coastal geomorphologic features at Witty’s Lagoon, Albert Head and Esquimalt Lagoon.
At Albert Head, basalts of the Metchosin formation occur as pillow lavas. It is believed these deposits were either erupted beneath the ocean floor or flowed from the sides of ancient volcanic islands into the sea.
At Albert Head and William Head, boulder beaches, gravel beaches, subtidal bedrock with smooth vertical faces, and bottom sediments of sands, muds and clays are characteristic.
A Generalized Profile of Royal Roads Bay and Parry Bay – Inner Coast.
(Not to scale)
2. EAST ROCKY POINT – RACE ROCK SHOALS
Interspersed with islands, this area is the most variable geomorphologic unit in the Park. The area incorporates diverse shore features, such as: talus slopes, abrasion platforms, shingle beaches, vertical rock faces, sandy coves, boulder beaches and cobble stone coves.
The subtidal area is a series of jagged ledges and channels with undersea talus slopes, current scoured bedrock, reefs, shoals, exposed islets and rocks, undersea ridges and cliffs. In the quieter areas in the lee of, some islands tombolos, spits, caves, and stacks are common. In the subtidal areas, sands, muds, and silts are characteristic to a depth of 45 fathoms.
A Generalized Profile Sketch of West Rocky Point Beecher Bay Basin (Not to scale)
3. WEST ROCKY POINT – BECHER BAY
The coastal zone of the west Rocky Point – Becher Bay is characterized by rather broad shallow bays between equally broad and irregular headlands with offshore islands and rock outcrops. This shoreline is cut largely in Metchosin Volcanics and Sooke Intrusive rocks and presents all the irregularities of a depressed, glaciated rock surface with added features such as: undersea caves, stacks, islets, coves and wave chasms all which were produced by the more successful attack of the waves on sheer zones, joints and dykes.
In Becher Say, steep basaltic shoreline cliffs and isolated pocket beaches give way to a subtidal environment characterized by shoals, exposed undersea basaltic ledges, ridges, reefs, shallows and islets.
A progressively steepening bottom to over seventy fathoms (420 feet) occurs to the outer portions of the Bay. The deeper portions of the basin are covered with vast deposits of sands, silts and muds.
The shoreland and subtidal geology and geomorphology contain great potential as an interpretive feature of the Park. The purely scenic experience of the Park visitor will take on an added dimension if he becomes aware of the geological phenomena which have altered and shaped the coastal zone of the Park.
a) Sandcliffs of superficial glacial deposits at Witty’s Lagoon
b) Pillow lavas at Albert Head
c) Sooke formation at Aldridge Point
Generalized Profile Sketch of East Rocky Point – Race Rocks Shoals. (Not to scale)
2.1.3 Oceanography
The important oceanographic features which will have a bearing on the conservation and use aspects of the Park are tides, currents, wave action, water temperature and underwater visibility.
The surface waters in the Park consist of a mixture of warm brackish Georgia Strait water and cold, saline ocean water which is relatively rich in nutrients. The tides, a dominant factor controlling the type and distribution of intertidal life forms, are of the mixed, mainly diurnal type. The lower low tides occur in the daylight hours during spring and summer (March to August) and during the evening in the fall and winter. The mean tidal range in the eastern portion of the Park is 5.7 feet. In Becher Bay tides approximate 6.1 feet while during large tides the range may reach 9.9 feet.
Tidal action in combination with shoreline configuration creates weak to strong currents along the shoreline proper and between offshore islands and islets. These currents achieve speeds of 2 to 7 knots and change direction according to tide, wave and wind direction. The strong currents west of William Head to Beechey Head represent a hazard to the. diving community.
The indented character of the shoreline, offshore islands, shoals, the fetch distance across Juan de Fuca Strait and the direction of storm winds affect the character and size of waves. Wave action is more pronounced in the western portion of the Park due to the exposure to the outer portion of Juan de Fuca Strait. In the eastern portion of the Park, southeasterly gales produce smaller swells (8 feet to 12 feet) due to the limited fetch across the Strait.
Rip tide at Race Rocks
The variability in undersea topography results in waves being reflected, diffracted, and refracted in irregular patterns. This factor combined with abrupt wind and current changes can result in hazardous inshore water conditions.
Water temperature in the Park is everywhere greater than 7¡C with no distinct thermocline occurring. Mean surface temperatures are 7¡C to 8¡C in January, rising to 10¡C to 11¡C in August and September. In summer, the water is slightly cooler during flood than during the ebb tidal phase. Tidal flushing and turbulent currents reduce vertical layering of water masses. Surface salinity values in the Park average 31 0/00 throughout the year and are characteristic of the waters in Juan de Fuca Strait. Water clarity in the Park is a seasonally dependent phenomena, being largely determined by the phytoplankton content of the water. In winter, low phytoplankton populations result in good underwater visibility (sometimes greater than 50 feet) except after storms. In summer the situation reverses. There is no significant turbidity due to freshwater run-off in the Park area.
Diver exploring the underwater communities at Race Rocks
Fair weather diving and water activities occur during July through September when water temperatures are high. The lack of winter ice in the Strait allows for year round diving and boating in certain areas of the Park. Strong currents restrict diving in some areas to specific times of day throughout the various seasons of the year.
2.1.4 Marine life of the Intertidal and Subtidal Zone
The Pacific Coast
The rich variety and abundance of seashore life of the Pacific coast is due in large measure to the nutrient rich waters, relatively uniform seasonal range of temperature and freedom from winter icing. Approximately three times as many of the fauna of most major crustacean groups are found here as at equivalent latitudes on the Atlantic coast.
Echinoderm fauna is perhaps the richest in the world while sea moss fauna is abundant and diverse although not yet completely documented.
As on the Atlantic coast, the invertebrate fauna of the Pacific coast contains two main elements: a sub-arctic group and a larger Pacific boreal assemblage. A small number of warm-water species, native to places south of Point Conception, California, or elsewhere in the world, are isolated in the summer-warm surface waters of the Strait of Georgia. Practically all phyla of invertebrate animals known to frequent the Pacific sea-shore are found in and around the Park.
I
Southern Vancouver Island – Juan de Fuca Strait
In the area of Canada’s Pacific coast, the northern portion of the transitional zone between the California and Aleutian Faunal Regions overlap resulting in an immensely diverse marine fauna.
Park Marine Life
Marine flora and fauna species of the partially exposed southwest coast of Vancouver Island gradually merge here with the species of the exposed (heavy wave action) west coast of the island. Species entering Juan de Fuca Strait from the more open Pacific extend their range to the semi-exposed coast in the western portion of the Park but gradually disappear as they enter the more sheltered environs eastward to Victoria.
This transition in association with high current velocities and rich food supply results in a concentration of echinoderms, crustaceans, mollusks, coelenterates and plants in higher population densities than occurs elsewhere in the region. Some species, usually rare, in terms of distribution and abundance may be found in the proposed Park area in surprising numbers.
Representative Species
Intertidal Communities:
The intertidal species of macroflora and macrofauna are characteristic of the southwest coast of Vancouver Island. The intertidal flora and fauna are diverse and abundant in most situations becoming somewhat less diverse, but no less abundant in areas subject to continuous heavy wave action. The intertidal areas in the Park are very usual of northern cold-temperate regions – a strong representation of barnacles, mussels, Fucus and laminarians, arranged in a typical manner.
The barnacles Balanus glandula, B. carious, the mussel Mytilus Californianus, the snails Littorina sps. and the limpets Acmaea sps. are frequent in the upper intertidal zones at Albert Head, Rocky Point and Becher Bay. An unusual number of the gregarious anemone Anthopleura elegantissima, the large white anemone Metridium senile and the colourful anemone Epiactus prolifera dominate the lower intertidal and upper infralittoral rocks in the more exposed areas of the Park – especially where “cryptic habitats” are dominant.
Here also, is a marked abundance of a variety of echinoderm fauna, several of which are of a truly remarkable size. Conspicuous species of the infralittoral fringe and zone are the very large sunflower star Pycnopodia helianthoides, the common starfish Pisaster orchraceus., and Pisaster brevispinus.
Splendid echinoids include the green sea urchin, the large purple urchin Strongylocentrotus purpuratus and the reddish cucumber Cucumaria miniata.
Fucus and laminarians are abundant, some gradually disappearing in the more protected eastern portions of the Park. Among the seaweeds, Nereocystis exceeds thirty feet in length; Egregia, Cystoseira, and Alaria exceed ten feet; and there are smaller algae, the colonies which attain sizes up to six feet, including species Ulva, Iridaea heterocarpa, Egregia menziesii, and Zostera marina to name but a few.
In the eastern portion of the Park, salt marsh, lagoon and tide flats are conspicuous habitats. The marine macroflora and macrofauna assemblages are very different, with the macrofauna being less conspicuous to the observer than those associated with the rocky shores described above. Here, the clams Clinocardium nuttallii, Saxidomus gigantus and Protothaca staminea, and Acmaea digitatis are numerous on the tidal flats and among the rocks in the intertidal areas around Albert Head and Witty’s Lagoon.
The green sponge Halichondria, the red encrusting sponge Ophlitaspongia pennata and the coralline algae Lithophyllum sp. and Bossiella sp., are frequent in the infralittoral zone. The six-rayed starfish Leptasterias hexactis. the shore crab Hemigrapsus nudus, the kelp crab Pugettia producta and Cancer magister inhabit the intertidal rocks. Recognizable among marine worms are the sabellid worm, Eudistylia vancouveri the colonial Eudistylia polymorpha and the free swimming Nereis vexillosa.
Subtidal Communities:
The subtidal macroflora and macrofauna are constant and uniform in areas subject to moderate to weak currents. In areas of high-velocity currents (primarily Race Rocks)-a unique biotic community is found. The unusual feature is not only the appearance of species not found elsewhere (Gersemia sp., Gorgonocephalus sp.) but also the unusual abundance of some ubiquitous species Corallina sp. and Epiactis prolifera. Here also, Balanus cariosus achieves a prickly texture and Balanus nubilis excessive sizes (up to 4 inches). The rare occurrence of disjunct echinoderm species such as the seastar, Ceremaster articus, numerous specimens of the solitary coral Balanophyllia elegans, the abalone Haliotis kamtschatkana., the crab Crytolithoides sp., and at least one species of anemone as yet unidentified attests to the unusual character of the subtidal communities of the rocky shore environs particularly in the transition zone of the Park.
Critical Habitats:
The degree to which important life stages or entire life histories of species are dependent on an area is an important aspect to consider in the designation of any National Marine Park*. The marsh, lagoon and offshore marine habitats in the Park function as underwater nurseries and feeding areas for the larval and mature stages of many fishes, echinoderms, coelenterates, crustaceans, mollusks, and other creatures. Conservation and protection of key habitats such as: lagoons, marshes, and high current velocity habitats in the Park and in the surrounding region will be a critical factor in maintaining healthy marine community assemblages.
Schematic Profile of Subtidal Macroflora and Macrofauna at Race Rocks
Naturalness:
The naturalness of a habitat relates to the degree of perturbation by man. Ray has noted that care should be taken that naturalness not exclude man’s use**. Although the Park lies close to Victoria, lack of public access to much of the shoreline areas has resulted in the development of a perfectly characteristic marine environment.
This abbreviated description of the invertebrate marine life scarcely does justice to the immensely abundant, diverse and dynamic community assemblages found throughout the Park. Some species are common and beautiful while others are rare and fragile.
The protection and conservation of this spectacular array of marine life existing in a relatively unmolested and pollution free environment will be a paramount objective of the overall planning and development of the Park.
* Ray. G.C. Critical Marine Habitats., May 1975.
** Ibid.
a) Hermissenda crassicornis at Race Rocks
b) Ceremaster arcticus at Race Rocks
c) Cancer Magister at Witty’s Lagoon
d) Weed-covered rocks surrounding tide pool at Fraser Island
e) Mopalia muscosa at west Bedford Island
f ) Pisaster ochraceus at Aldridge Point
g) Epiactus prolifera at Race Rocks
h) Metridium senile at Swordfish Island
i)Hydro coral Allopora pacifica at Race Rocks
j) Aglaophenia sp. and Abietinaria sp.at Great Race Rock
k) Triopha carpenteri at Bentinck Island
l) Strongylocentrotus franciscanus, Epiactus prolifera, Balanophyllia elegans and Allopora pacifica at Race Rocks
2.1.5 Marine Fishes
The living habits and adaptations of many fishes in the proposed Park are remarkable. There are only a few species of Pacific coast fishes of the temperate latitudes that cannot be found in the Park. There are at this time no known rare or endangered species occurring in the Park. In addition, the currents passing in and out of the Park provide passive transport for migrating species. The mixed waters of Juan de Fuca Strait support abundant plankton growth which in turn supports a wide variety of pelagic fishes.
Representative Species:
Principle species common to Juan de Fuca Strait can be found in the Park. Fishes most likely to be seen by the park visitor who visits the sea beach or spends some time on coastal Park waters include: the dogfish Squalus acanthias, the lingcod Ophiodon elongatus, the black rockfish Sebastes melanops and greenling Hexagrammos lagocephalus.
In the intertidal areas numerous species of Sculpin, particularly the tide pool sculpin Oligogattus maculosus, and snailfish Liparis florae, are common in the rocky shore tide pools. Several species of Gobies can be found in great numbers in the muddy tide pools.
Migrants:
The Park is known to be frequented by many migrant fish species during annual migrations through the Juan de Fuca Strait. The coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch, and chinook salmon, 0. tshawytscha are two major migrants. These are accompanied by other salmonids and schooling fishes such as the anchovy, herring, sole, and variety of other ground fish.
Critical Habitats:
The extensive eelgrass and kelp beds of the coastal marshes, lagoons, bays and passages, function to some degree as nursery and rearing areas for the larval and maturing stages of many marine fishes found in the Park and surrounding regions.
a) Greenling Hexagrammos lagocephalus at Pedder Bay
b) Rockfish Sebastodes caurinus at Whirl Bay
C) Grunt sculpin Rhamphocottus Richardsoni with the sea cucumber Parastichopus californicus in background at Albert Head
Shellfish:
Crabs and shellfish, particularly the Dungeness crab Cancer magister, and butterclam Saxidomus giganteus and other bivalve mollusks, are common in the shallow bays and tide flats in the eastern portion of the Park. Scuba diving for abalone and rock scallops and digging for clams is common. Populations of these species are relatively still abundant in many areas of the Park.
Fishing:
No commercial fishing for salmon occurs in the Park. However, herring is fished on a commercial bases during designated seasons from Albert Head to Race Rocks just inside the Park boundary. Sports fishing for salmon is a major activity in the Park.
2.1.6 Shoreland and Marine Bird Life
The shoreland and marine areas of the Park abound with bird life. The birds frequenting the Park can be classified as abundant year round residents, common or uncommon migrants, winter visitors or accidentals. Bird populations are most conspicuous during the spring and fall months. The variety of habitats, availability of food and the relatively undisturbed nature of the shoreland and marine environment are partially responsible for attracting the large numbers of sea’brds, song-birds, shorebirds and waterfowl to the Park. ”
Representative Groups
Seabirds and Waterfowl:
The Park is frequented by a variety of seabirds from the Diving, Dabbling Duck, Totipalmates, Tubenosed Swimmer, and Alcids families. Year round residents include the pelagic cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus, the pigeon guillemot Cephus columbia, the common murre Uria aalge, the glaucous-winged gull Larus glaucescens and the black oystercatcher Haematophus bachman. Common migrants of the Pacific flyway frequenting the Park are the Brandt cormorant Phalacrocorax penicillatus, the black brant Brant nigricans, Bonaparte’s gull Larus philadephia and the mute swan Cygnus olor.
Some common winter visitors include: the bufflehead Bucephaca albeola, the white-winged scoter Melanitta degandi, the oldsquaw duck Clangula hyemalis, and the ancient murrelet Synthliborampthus antiquus.
Rare Occurrences Uncommon visitors such as the rhinoceros auklet Cerorhinca monocerata., Cassin’s auklet Ptychoramphus aleuticus. the ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis and the black-footed albatross, Diomedea nigripes are sighted on occasion. Rare occurrences such as that of the white-fronted goose Anser albifrons. the whistling swan Olor columbianus and the Pacific kittiwake, add to the orthinological significance of the Park. Many of these birds frequent the Park in response to the availability of food and protection from exceptionally bad weather.
Shorebirds:
The occurrence of marshes, lagoons, tide flats and offshore island habitats, attract and support a wide variety of shorebirds and waterfowl.
Concentrations of shorebirds representing over ten species occur in attractive feeding areas where mudflats are exposed at low tide. Common visitors include the spotted sandpiper Actitis macularia, the rock sandpiper Erolia ptilocnemis, the black-bellied plover Squatarola squatarola and the greater yellow legs Totanus melanoleucus.
Song-Birds and Birds of Prey:
Shoreland areas support a variety of song-birds, birds of prey and chicken like birds such as the blue grouse Denoragapus obscurus and the mountain quail Oreortyx pictus. Rarer song-birds include the Oregon junco Junco oreganus, MacGillivary’s warbler Oporornis tolmiei. The osprey Pandion haliaetus and the bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus are the most conspicuous birds of prey.
a) Pelagic cormorants nesting at Race Rocks
b) Bald eagle at Christopher Point
c) Mute swan on Blue Lagoon
d) oystercatcher at Rocky Point
Critical Habitats:
As is true for nearly all natural situations close to a technological society, the Park is threatened with the possibility of man-made environmental perturbations which may alter the structure, stability, or the very existence of one or more of the biological communities present. The increased pressure being exerted on key feeding, resting and roosting areas in the Park and region by recreation and other marine activities poses a threat to the bird communities of the Park.
Preservation of vital shoreland and marine habitats (for example, Witty’s and Esquimalt Lagoons, Race Rocks and Bentinck Island and offshore Islands in Becher Bay) will assure, to a certain degree, continued abundance and diversity of Pacific coast birdlife in the Park and surrounding regions.
2.1.7 Mammals
Marine mammals have always been a strong attraction for visitors to the seacoasts of Canada. As a consequence, areas known to be frequently or seasonally used by these animals become particularly important in providing for typical or unique samples of marine mammal habitat.
Many of the marine mammals, although seasonal in their visitation, are perhaps the Most spectacular and readily visible components in the Park – each possessing a distinctive adaptability to the marine environment.
Due to the isolation of Vancouver Island from mainland British Columbia many of the more common shoreland animals have developed as distinctive subspecies.
Marine Mammals:
A number of cetaceans and pinnipeds known to occur in British Columbia waters frequent the Park. The most common of these are the harbour seal Phoca vitulina, the northern sea lion Eumetupias jubatus, the California sea lion Zalophus californianus, and the harbour porpoise Phocaena vomerina.
Rare Occurrences:
Less frequent visitors to the park include: the killer whale Orcimus orca., the northern fur-seal Callorhinus ursinus cynocephalus, the blue whale Balenoptera musulus, the minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata, the dall porpoise Phocoenoides dalli, and the Pacific striped dolphin Aagenorhynchus obliquides. Occasionally, the northern elephant seal Mirounga angustirostris is sighted at Race Rocks.
Shoreland Animals:
Many mammals common to the Coastal Forest and Gulf Islands Biotic Regions can be found in the shoreland areas bordering the Park. Here many species of shoreland mammals occur as distinctive subspecies in shoreland and upland areas adjacent to the Park. The Columbian blacktail deer Odocoileus hemionus, columbianus., the longtailed vole Microtus longicaudus, and several insular subspecies, the shrews Sorox cinereus striatori, and Sorex vagrans setosus, and the martin Martes americana caurina are noteworthy. The White-footed mouse Peromyscus maniculatus angustus, and Townsend vole Microtus townsend tetramerus are more numerous here than elsewhere on the island.
The river otter Lutra canadensis, the mink Mustela vison energumenos, the short-tailed weasel Mustela erainea anquinae and the racoon Procyon lotor vancouverensis are frequently seen along the shoreland areas. Larger preditors such as the cougar Felis concolor vancouverensis and the American black bear Ursus americanus vancouveri, are known to sometimes frequent the shoreland areas of Rocky Point and Becher Bay.
Critical Habitats and Species Protection The establishment of a Park in the region affords the opportunity to preserve vital habitats critical to the continuation of many shoreland subspecies of animals uncommon to other parts of Vancouver Island and mainland British Columbia. Also, it presents the opportunity to preserve critical feeding, resting, and pupping areas for many coastal pinnipeds and cetaceans, particularly the killer whale, which is still frequently captured in the Pedder Bay area on its migrations through the proposed Park area.
2.1.8 Shoreland Biota
The many years of logging and agricultural occupation of the land as well as the varied soils, irregular te~rain and transitional climate have had a marked effect on the type and distribution of vegetation from the coastal lowlands to the forested uplands adjacent to the Park.
Representative Flora:
Two major forest regions, namely the Coastal Forest and Gulf Islands find representation in adjacent shoreland areas. Three distinct forest communities have been identified in the shoreland areas adjacent to the Park. These are the Douglas-fir dry forest, the Douglas-fir wet forest, and the Western hemlock dry forest.
Dry Douglas-Fir
The dry Douglas-fir forest, covers the shoreland from Esquimalt Lagoon to Becher Bay. The forest cover ranges in character from dry, open woodlands to closed-canopy forests of western red cedar and grand fir.
The Garry oak, Quercus garryana., and arbutus, Arbutus menziesii, Canada’s only broad leafed evergreen, occur in association in this forest and create a parkland landscape typical of many mediterranean areas. A prominent feature in the parkland areas is the abundance of spring flowering bulbous and herbaceous plants.
Wet Douglas-Fir
The wet Douglas-fir forest is found primarily in the western extremities of the shoreland bordering the Park. There are no species endemic to the forest. Douglasfir is characteristically dominant, while western hemlock occurs as a secondary climax species. Arbutus and Garry’oak occur in small isolated pockets along the shoreline.
Dry Western Hemlock
The dry western hemlock forest occurs only in a small portion of the shoreland bordering the Park at Aldridge Point. The climax vegetation of this forest varies but western hemlock is the major climax dominant. Shrub species indicative of the zone include: the ninebark, Physocarpus capitatue, California rhododendron, Rhododendron macrophyllum, and red-flowering currant, Ribes sanguineum.
Rare Occurrences – Arbutus and Garry Oak
Few areas in British Columbia outside of the Gulf Islands have as good a representation of arbutus Garry oak parkland as the shoreland adjacent to the Park. On Rocky Point extensive stands of undisturbed Garry oak dominate the landscape while small groves of arbutus extend throughout the region in areas below 1000 feet.
The associated plant communities on this southern coast are in their own right a rare and unique heritage of the moderating influences of the ocean and surrounding
topography. Preservation of this special forest area will afford Canadians the opportunity to see and experience a truly unique shoreland landscape.
Arbutus at Aldridge Point
Garry Oak at Royal Roads Bay
2.1.4 Coastal and Marine Biology
2.2 Cultural Resources
2.2.1 Coastal and Maritime History
Prehistorically, the southern portion of Vancouver Island was the territory of the Coastal Salish Indians. The coastal lowlands from Victoria to Sooke were inhabited by the Songhees, Esquimalt and Sooke tribes.
Evidence of Indian habitation along the shoreland areas adjacent to the Park is best exemplified at Becher Bay, Rocky Point and Parry Bay. Petrologist of seals and whales may be seen on the black volcanic rocks in the vicinity of Aldridge Point. Rings and cairns of stones identify a major Indian burial site at Eye Point. Further east at Parry Bay ancient fortifications mark the site of an Indian settlement. This site has been identified as warranting consideration a future Natural Historic Site/Park. Scattered remnants of fishing camps, dumping areas and hunt camps are found throughout the shoreland areas adjacent to the Park. It was from this rugged coast that the various Indian tribes hunted and reaped the rich harvest from the sea.
Exploration of the region dates back to 1592 when the Mexican explorer Juan de Fuca first visited Vancouver Island. Two centuries passed before Juan Perez, Cook, Valdes, Vancouver and others began the era of serious exploration. Mapping, exploration and settlement commenced in earnest during the fur trading period. By 1898 the port of Victoria had grown into the major trading centre of the region.
During the late 1800’s, railroads pushed north and west with the clearing and development of the land. The rail networks continued to expand as new logging and mining areas were opened in the interior of Vancouver Island.
The rapid growth of the fur trade also saw an expansion of shipping activity. A dynamic and complex shipping industry developed between ports of the Pacific northwest and Victoria. By 1900 scores of ships had gone aground or sank on the many shoals and small islands in the Park and surrounding regions.
Maritime History
The age of trans-pacific travel initiated the development of Canada’s first west coast quarantine station on William Head Peninsula. For 40 years plague ridden ships docked and transferred ashore men dying of plague, smallpox and other communicable diseases.
Race Rocks and Fisgard Lights, with their giant limestone blocks, were constructed in 1860 (ed note:corrected from 1860 and 1861). Today, they remain as one of the finest monuments to the history of aids to navigation and to the era of sail and steam on Canada’s Pacific coast. The wrecks of the Swordfish and S.S. Barnard Castle remain as vivid legacies of the many vessels that floundered in storms or were dashed against the jagged shoreline of the Park.
Fishard light at entrance to Esquimalt Harbour
Wreck of the Faultless at Wolf Island
Bentick Island was the first established leper colony on the Pacific coast and it continued to function in this capacity up until the early 1950’s. The population of lepers never exceeded twenty-two. Today thirteen graves stand as a memorial to those who lived and died on the island of the “Living Dead”.
a) Coastal Indian burial site at Edye Point
b) Coastal Indian petroglyph at Aldridge Point
Coastal Military History
With the advent of the Great War a series of coastal defences were constructed to protect the Royal Navy base at Esquimalt Harbour and the entrance to the Strait of Georgia. With the advent of World War II gun batteries were strengthened along the shoreland west of Victoria.
9.2 inch guns were constructed at Christopher Point, Mary Hill, and Albert Head. All posts were fully manned during the war but none fired a single shot in anger. Today, the old rusted gun implacements and flooded labyrinth of tunnels on Albert Head and at Mary Hill stand as silent reminders of the coastal military history of the Park and region.
Coastal History – Review
Shipwrecks, historic lights and gun batteries, Indian burial sites, and an abandoned leper colony, blend with the maritime landscape in making the Park a historical marine resource of truly national significance.
Abandoned gun batteries at Mary Hill
3. Park Site Resource Analysis
3.1 Preliminary Park Site Evaluation
3.1.1 Marine Resource Units
The purpose of the analysis section is to make qualitative statements about the various natural and natural phenomenon that were identified in the resource section and the relationships between them.
Climate, geology, vegetation and soils are the physical parameters employed to assist in the preliminary structuring of shoreland units. The watermass characteristics in combination with benthic community assemblages and marine mammal and bird distribution form the framework for the preliminary selection of the marine resource units.
The particular character of each of these units forms the basis for the development of a park “plan” as well as management guidelines governing preservation and use of the marine and shoreland resources. Areas with significant natural and cultural values (for example, ecologically sensitive areas) were also identified in each of the marine and shoreland units. The significant attributes of these areas are briefly described under each resource unit heading.
The following three marine resource units were identified as follows:of unique values)
1. Protected Inner Coast
2. Transition Coast
3. Semi-Exposed Outer Coast.
Protected Inner Coast
This resource unit is under the influence of a climatic pattern which approximates a winter wet, summer dry, never cold condition. The shoreland is sheltered and experiences pronounced wave action only during southeasterly gales in fall and winter. The following natural phenomenon are characteristic of this resource unit:
Parry Bay and Royal Roads Bay are subject to weak currents; tide range approximates 5.7 feet with low tides occurring during the day in spring and summer (March to August) and during the evening in fall and winter; 10 degC surface water temperature; variable water clarity; mean salinity approximates 31pt/oo yearly; steep glaciated nearshore topography; sediment transport by longshore currents; salt marshes and lagoons; significant geomorphologic features and variable coastline.
Areas with Significant Natural and Cultural Values
Esquimalt and Blue Lagoons
*Saline lagoon ecosystems
*Sand, mud, silt subtidal habitats
*Sandspit and dune ecosystems
*Nursery and rearing area
*Waterfowl and shorebird feeding and breeding area
*Tide flats (high concentration of univalves)
*Sand-gravel beaches
*Shellfish habitat
*High nutrient and detritus production
Albert Head
*Rocky headland (Gulf coast forest representation)
*Basaltic cliffs Metchosin volcanics)
*Undersea and shoreline pillow lavas
*Arbutus – Garry oak stands
*Military structures – marine military history
*Seabird islets
*Kelp forests
*Rocky intertidal and subtidal habitats
*Rocky shore tide pools
*Marine mammals
Witty’s Lagoon
*’Salt water marsh (good example of natural succession) vegetation communities
*Fresh water estuary
*Waterfalls
*Lagoon
*Arbutus – Garry oak stands
*Tide flats
*Surge channel
*Sandspit and beach (sand)
*Aspen parkland
*Sandy beach and subtidal marine life
*Natural nursery area
*Waterfowl and shorebird feeding and roosting area
*Marine mammals (harbour seals)
a Albert Head Peninsula
b Blue Lagoon
c Witty’s Lagoon
d William Head Peninsula
William Head
*Rock headland (scenic view)
‘Arbutus – Garry oak stands
*Deepwater habitats
*Rocky shore habitats
*Pocket beaches
*Protected bays *
*Kelp forest (seasonal)
*Rocky tide pools
‘Rich subtidal marine life
‘Marine mammals (harbour seals and killer whales)
*Contemporary maritime history
Transition Coast
This marine resource unit has a variable climate.pattern with frequent fogs and unsettled weather.The shoreline is exposed and experience’s pronounced wave action and tide surge.
The following natural phenomena are characteristic of this resource unit:
Offshore areas are subject to strong current and tide action; tide range approximates 6.1 feet ‘
but may reach 9.9 feet; tide occurrence similar to inner coast; 7¡C to 9¡C surface water temperature; water subject to constant mixing; whirlpools common in passages; variable water clarity (seasonal); mean salinity approximates 31 parts /1000 yearly; steep forested shoreline topography; rugged intertidal zone; offshore islands and islets occur throughout the resource unit.
Areas With Significant Natural and Cultural Values
Bentinck Island and Eemdyk Passage
*Strong ocean currents
*Protected bays
*Shoals and reefs
*Shingle beaches
*Steep nearshore topography – good zonation of
intertidal habitats
*Kelp forests (over 30 species of algae)
*Shallow high current velocity subtidal ecosystems
*Rocky shore tide pools’Sea and shorebird habitats
*Marine mammals (killer whale, harbour seal, otters, mink, sea lions, porpoises and whales (baleen)
*Historic Indian burial site and historic leper colony grave site and buildings
Race Rocks
*Strong ocean currents
*High tides
*Unique subtidal benthos
*Kelp forests (seasonal)
*Shoals and reefs
*seabird feeding and nesting area
*Marine mammal feeding and resting area
*Marine mammals (harbour seals, sea lions, killer whales, elephant seals, and other cetaceans)
*Whirlpools
*Abundant subtidal marine flora and fauna community assemblages
*Historic lighthouse
*Salmon fishery
Semi-Exposed Outer coast
This marine resource unit has a relatively unsettled climate due to,the influence of the outercoast climatic patterns and frequent southwesterly gales. The shoreline is exposed and experiences pronounced and continuous wave swells and tide surge due to the extended fetch across Juan de Fuca Strait.
The following natural phenomena are characteristic of this resource unit:
Nearshore Rocky Point is subject to strong currents and tide surge; tide range is comparable to transition coast; 7 degC surface water temperature; mean salinity approximates 31 pt/00 yearly; variable water clarity; steep to vertical nearshore in Rocky Point area; protected bays and shallows; narrow intertidal zone; cold water upwellings; pocket beaches; and offshore islands, islets, shoals and reefs.
Areas with Significant Natural and Cultural Values
Swordfish – Church Islands
*Strong ocean currents
*Rich subtidal flora and fauna
*Underwater caves and cliffs
*Surge channels
*Steep nearshore topography (vertical intertidal zonation)
*Waterfowl and seabirds
*Kelp forests (seasonal)
*Salmon fishery
Race Rocks and Juan de Fuca Strait
Shallows at Bentinck Island with Eemdyk Passage in background
*Marine mammals (harbour seals, sea,lions, killer whales
and other cetaceans)
*Coastal geomorphological features
*Unique subtidal benthos (dense populations of Metridium senile in seacave)
*Shoals and reefs
Aldridge Point
*Protected bay
*Interesting geologic formations
*Rocky tide pools
*Sand beaches
*Spectacular headland and steep sea cliffs
*Parkland shoreline
*Rocky and sand subtidal habitats
*Garry oak – arbutus
*Western hemlock forest
*Indian petroglyphs
*Salmon fishery
The land-sea interface in the Park exhibits a wide diversity of landforms and marine communities within a relatively confined geographical area. The areas just outlined, are perhaps the most conspicuous and ecologically sensitive sites in the Park. It is in these areas, where the coastal habitats, marine communities and oceanographic phenomenon achieve their greatest expression.
Small bay at Aldridge Point
Church Hill
3.1.2 Shoreland Resource Units
The shoreland of the park is located in the Coastal Forest and Gulf Islands Biotic Regions. Two shoreland resource units were identified as follows:
1. Gulf Coast Forest
2. Coastal Forest.
Gulf Coast Forest
The vegetation of this resource unit ranges in character from dry, open arbutus – Garry oak parkland to closed canopy forests of western red cedar and grand fir in seepage areas.
The Garry oak occurs in extensive, pure groves in dry areas and where the soil is shallow and rock outcrops frequent. Extensive groves are found at Albert Head, Mary Hill and Rocky Point. The arbutus is more often found singly or in small groves along the coast. The arbutus and Garry oak dominate in dry areas and create a parkland character in much of the shoreland east of Mary Hill.
Valley and upland areas which are subject to periodic. Heavy rains are covered with natural stands of western red cedar, grand fir, red alder and big leaf maple while areas closer to the shore are dominated by shore pine. Sitka spruce is occasionally found on low ground.
Snowberry Symphoricarpos mollis, oceanspray Holodiscus discolor, ninebark Physocarpus capitatus, and choke cherry Prunus virginiana, are a few of the shrub and herbs commonly found in this unit.
Coastal Forest
A small portion of the coastal forest resource unit is located in the western portion of the Park. The wet Douglas-fir borders the western portion of Becher Bay and is dominated by Douglas-fir and western red cedar. In shoreland areas western red cedar is the characteristic tree on sites with abundant seepage water and on alluvial soils it is frequently accompanied by black cotton wood, Sitka spruce, grand fir, red alder and bigleaf maple. Garry oak and arbutus occur in isolated groves. Toward Sooke Peninsula the Garry oak gradually disappears and the parkland character is replaced by coastal forest.
The soils of this biotic community are derived from surface tills deposited by the last glaciation, and the soil types belong to the dystric brunisol, humoferric podsol and.regosol groups.
Dry Western Hemlock Forest at Beechey Head
4. Park Concept
4.1 Park Objectives
The philosophy and objectives for the designation and establishment of Race Rocks National Marine Park are outlined in the Preliminary National Marine Park Guidelines (see Appendix 1).
The primary values of Race Rocks National Marine Park are to be found in the diversity of natural and cultural resources which provide highly significant conservation, scientific and outdoor recreation opportunities.
Race Rocks National Marine Park encompasses a marine region which can be developed and managed for public use and enjoyment. To this end, the Park provides Parks Canada with an opportunity to protect and conserve not only representative species of marine benthos, fishes, waterfowl , seabirds, shorebirds, shoreland and marine mammals but also the respective habitats which are vital to the continuation of each respective species.
Intimately associated with these natural marine features are significant outdoor recreation values. The Park provides the opportunity to introduce to the diving and non-diving visitor the images and ecological systems of the marine world. The intent of the Park is not only the protection and conservation of the marine environment but also the presentation of a rich and
varied experience for the park visitor.
The Park resource unit evaluation and Park design concept outlined in the following sections describe how the above objectives can be achieved.
Becher Bay Marina
Witty’s Lagoon Regional Park
4.2 Park Resource Unit Evaluation
The purpose of this preliminary evaluation section is to utilize the data gained from analyzing the resource units and to summarize the important characteristics that would influence planning decisions in terms of natural and cultural constraints, development constraints, and suitability for use in each resource unit. The accompanying chart briefly describes the basic objectives, use potential and concerns envisaged for each marine and shoreland unit.
For the shoreland resource units, attention is directed only to those areas which have been identified as possessing outstanding representative shoreland features and which are considered as being critical to the overall Park development concept. (see Park development concept page 52). The objectives, use potential and concerns as related to the shoreland units is considered within the context of the respective marine resource units.
Table of resource units, goal, objectives, use potential, management considerations.
4.3 Preliminary Park Design Concept
Concept – Land Base
To complement the marine component it is envisioned that a land bas e(s) will function to support a variety of facilities from which the visitor can be introduced to the Park and from which most park activities will originate. The land base(s) will support a main visitor centre and secondary activity areas. The main function of the centres will be visitor services with the key element being interpretation. This will include: information and interpretive services and educational and recreational programming.
The development of the appropriate land base(s) will require cooperation with federal, provincial and regional agencies and conservation organizations to provide resources, facilities, interpretation and protection for visitor use. Various federal agencies administer lands on Rocky Point, Bentinck Island, Race Rocks, William Head, Albert Head and Esquimalt Lagoon. The designation of these lands as recreation and open space areas now, or sometime in the future, will assist in securing the integrity of key shoreland and intertidal areas which are critical to the overall management, preservation, and future development of Race Rocks National Marine Park.
Park Centre Christopher Point is the area on the shoreland bordering the Park which has the physical and visual characteristics required to accommodate a major visitor centre facility. The site is readily accessible by land and sea and offers a panoramic view of the marine component and adjacent shoreland areas. The semi-protected shoreline provides for the development of excellent docking and access facilities. The rugged shoreline with protected beaches, offshore islands, offshore islets, good underwater visibility and abundant marine life provides the opportunity to develop a wide range of centralized shoreland and marine based interpretive facilities.
The main centre would be designed to accommodate park visitors under all weather conditions. The development of a kaleidoscope of interpretive techniques such as specimen, slide and film displays and possibly in the future underwater tower, underwater cameras and so on would expose the park visitor to the natural and cultural marine history themes of the Park.
From the main visitor centre the visitor can actively participate in onsite activities such as surface boat tours to Bentinck Island and Race Rocks, interpretive walks, shoreline hikes to scenic viewpoints such as Church Hill, and underwater observation.
The centre would also function as the focal point for all diving and underwater activities in the Park.
Albert Head Activity Area
A second activity centre on Albert Head would support an interpretive program on a limited scale. Interpretation would utilize outdoor exhibits and shoreland tours to impart to the visitor the coastal maritime and natural history of the inner coast resource unit. Intertidal walks, beach-combing, marine mammal and bird watching, and general enjoyment of the ocean setting and marine life would replace more common beach oriented activities. Facilities for day-use recreation and overnight camping could be made available to provide a reasonable amount of accommodation for campers close to the main park centre at Christopher Point. A scenic parkway and surface boat facilities would link this centre with the centres at Christopher Point and a second activity area at Aldridge Point.
Aldridge Point Activity Area
A second activity centre at Aldridge Point would permit the park visitor physical and visual access to one of the finest seascape vistas on southern Vancouver Island. The rugged shoreline cliffs, pocket beaches, frequent fogs and storms and the semi-wilderness aspects of the surrounding landscape offers an out in contrast to t he seascape of the inner coast. Exploration and interpretation of a variety of coastal habitats and cultural themes will complement minor day-use activities.
Christopher Point
Eastern portion of Albert Head Peninsula
Park Circulation
The two secondary activity centres could be connected on land via the existing road networks or by a more scenic parkway designed to parallel the coast. The proposed parkway would function to integrate not only the Park activity centres but also existing recreation and historic sites which occur in the shoreland adjacent the Park. Water transport between the main visitor centre and secondary activity areas would be facilitated by tour boats and private cruiser.
4.4 Phasing
The following is a general outline of the proposed phases for development of Race Rocks National Marine Park. These phases do not relate specifically to a given time period but are intended to indicate the necessary priorities to achieve logical development of the Park.
*Establish marine Park boundary and define legislative procedures necessary to control development and use of the Park area and surrounding waters.
*Publication of management recommendations.
*Development of safety facilities, equipment and procedures prior to construction of park centre.
*Acquisition via purchase or lease of the three land base sites – Christopher Point, Albert Head and Aldridge Point.
*Acquisition via purchase or lease of park centre access right of way as shown on preliminary park region concept plan.
*Development of park centre access road, proposed park centre. Parking areas, and associated marine facilities – e.g., dock facilities, interpretive facilities (shoreline trails, boats, etc.), underwater structures
*Development of secondary activity areas, first at Albert Head and second at Aldridge Point, and associated camping and interpretive services.
*Development of shoreland scenic parkway and reconstruction of historic sites as shown on preliminary park region concept plan.
*Extension of marine boundary from Beechey Head to Iron Mine Bay.
4.5 Summary
It is the purpose of this report to point out the outstanding coastal and marine natural and cultural resources and use considerations contained within the project area and the potential that exists for a National Marine Park at Race Rocks. The information contained in this report was obtained from published works and on site investigations. There remains much study and research to do in order to more adequately document the complete resource. General intertidal and sublittoral observations clearly indicate that the project area is worthy of National Marine Park status.
The preliminary proposal presented here does not give full consideration to existing established coastal zone uses in the project area. No doubt, these will have important ramifications on any planning that may occur in the region particularly as it relates to the development of the park centre and activity areas, recreation patterns and types of use in the marine component, Control of access to the marine component and park phasing and development.
The establishment and development of Race Rocks National Marine Park should be guided by a number of planning considerations. These will result from an evaluation of the marine capabilities and development potential. This proposal is an initial attempt at identifying and delineating the major resources of the Park as they relate to the cultural and natural characteristics of the region. The proposal also provides a preliminary resource evaluation and attempts to designate areas for the development of visitor facilities in relation to the sensitivity of the resource base.
Future Outlook
The planning process is unending; the preliminary proposal is a primary step. From this basic plan will hopefully come detailed plans which will more fully consider the many aspects of the Park and its development.
Considerations
Given that the resource base is representative of the Strait of Georgia – Juan de Fuca Marine Region, thoughtful deliberation must be directed to the following considerations:
*The feasibility of creating a National Marine Park in the project area in view of existing established shoreland and marine uses.
*The capability of management programs to deal with environmental disruptions such as major oil spills and/or shoreland and water quality deterioration due to urban industrial and commercial growth in surrounding regions.
*The suitability of the project area to provide the full range of underwater opportunities with safety to all participants without causing serious environmental disruption.
*Within the project area and its contiguous lands a number of jurisdictional bodies are represented. Matters relating to jurisdiction must be fully explored by all parties prior to the designation of the area as a park.
*A re-adjustment of the Park boundaries to maximize management controls while reducing resource conflicts is an appropriate consideration at this time..
a) Scuba-diving at Race Rocks
b) Scientists conducting underwater research at Race Rocks
c) Salmon fishing in Pedder Bay d Intertidal explorers at Witty’s Lagoon
e) Boating in Race Passage , Hiking on Rocky Point
f) Hiking on Rocky Point
NATIONAL MARINE PARKS
Definition: National Marine Parks are ocean areas (sea bed and overlying water column) together with associated landunits, established in order to preserve marine areas of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic Oceans that encompass significant marine ecosystems, themes, and features of biological, oceanographical, geological, recreational, aesthetic, historical and scientific interest.
Objectives
National Marine Parks are established to preserve unspoiled marine areas of national significance; to protect and restore marine areas encompassing significan features warranting preservation; to protect and restore individual species of marine life; to provide opportunities for scientific studies, education, and tourism benefits.
Qualifying Criteria
1 In order to be considered as a potential National Marine Park a marine area must encompass one or more of the following attributes:
(a) Unique – a unique marine area is one which encompasses either rare or “one-of-a-kind” habitat types, biotic associations, oceanographic features, or processes, ecological processes, or historically important ancient wrecks.
(b) Representative – an outstanding representative sample area that is typical of a marine region or marine natural history theme(s).
(c) Aesthetic – Underwater landscapes of outstanding scenic and inspirational value.
In addition, a candidate area for a Marine Park should satisfy the following criteria:
(a) Diverse – the candidate marine area should include several habitat types, biotic associations, oceanographic features and processes.
(b) Natural – Marine areas under consideration should be in a relatively undisturbed condition. Loss of naturalness, however, should not mitigate against inclusion so long as a high degree of restoration is possible.
(c) Critical – when possible, the marine area should include habitat types which are essential for either the entire life histories or important life stages (i.e. feeding, resting and breeding) of marine mammals or birds. Obvious cases are areas where rare or endangered species are present.
(d) Usable – the marine area should provide outstanding opportunities for enjoying marine-oriented activities such as SCUBA diving, surfing, or the observation of marine mammals and seabird life.
(e) Accessible – Public access systems to the marine area are desirable but not critical.
(f) Size – The land and water area in a Marine Park should exceed 10 square miles with larger water quality protection zones surrounding the park.REFERENCES
Introduction
Barker, M.L. Water Resources and Related Land Uses Strait of Georgia – Puget Sound Basin, Geographical paper no. 56, Lands Directorate, Department of Environment, Ottawa, 1974.
Paish, H. and Associates. A Theme Study of the Marine Environment of the Straits Between Vancouver Island and the British Columbia Mainland. Ottawa. November, 1970.
The Interdepartmental Task Force on National Marine Parks, National Marine Parks Straits of Georgia and Juan de Fuca, Ottawa 1971.
2.1.1 CLIMATE
Department of Transport, Meteorological Division, Ottawa Climatic Data for Periods 1941-1970 Vancouver Island.
Forward, C.N. Land Use of the Victoria Area, British Columbia. Geographical Branch, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Ottawa, 1961.
Kerr, D.P. “The Summer-dry Climate of Georgia Basin British Columbia”, Transactions of the Royal Canadian Institute, vol. 29, 1951-1952, pp. 23-31.
W2.1.2 GEOLOGY AND GEOMORPHOLOGIC PROCESSES OF THE COASTAL ZONE
Clapp, C.H. “Geology of Portions of the Sooke and Duncan Map-Areas, Vancouver Island, British Columbia”, Geological Survey, Department of Mines, Sessional Paper Number 26, Ottawa, 1914, pp. 41-54.
Clapp, C.H. and H.C. Cooke. Sooke and Duncan Map-Areas, Vancouver Island, Memoir 96, Geological Survey, Department of Mines, Ottawa, 1917.
Day, J.H. et al. Soil Survey of Southeast Vancouver Island and Gulf Islands British Columbia. Report no. 6 of the British Columbia Soil Survey, Research Branch, Canada Department of Agriculture, 1959.
2.1.3 OCEANOGRAPHY
Dodimead, A.J. et al., “Review of Oceanography of the Subarctic Pacific Region”, Intern. North Pacific Fish. Comm. Bull. 13. 1963.
Doodson, A.T. and H.D. Warburg, Admiralty Manual of Tides, Hydrographic Department, Admiralty, London 1941
Department of Environment, Marine Sciences Directorate, Canadian Tide and Current Tables, 1975. Vol. 5, Ottawa
b6Herlinveaux, R.H. and H.P. Tully, “Some Oceanographic Features of Juan de Fuca Strait”, J. Fish. Bd. Canada. 16(6). 1961.
Pike, G.C. and I.B. MacAskie, Marine Mammals of British Columbia, Fish. Res. Bd. Can. Bulletin 171, Ottawa. 1968.
2.1.4 MARINE LIFE OF THE INTERTIDAL AND SUBTIDAL ZONE
Dobrocky “Seatech” Limited, The Intertidal and Subtidal Macroflora and Macrofauna in the Proposed Race Rocks Marine Park near Victoria, British Columbia. A Report to the National Parks Branch, Ottawa, May 1975.
Kozloff, E.W. Seashore Life of Puget Sound, the Strait of Georgia and the San Juan Archipelago. J.J. Douglas Ltd., Vancouver, 1973.
Ricketts, E.F. and J. Colvin, Between Pacific Tides, revised by J.W. Hedgpeth, Stanford University Press, Stanford California, 1974.
Stephenson, J.A. and A. Stephenson, “Life Between Tidemarks in North America: IV a Vancouver Island, 4. J. Ecology, vol. 49, (1): 1-29.
Stephenson, J.A. and A. Stephenson, “Life Between Tidemarks on Rocky Shores” W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francico, 197?.
2.1.5 MARINE FISHES
Carl, G.C. Some Common Marine Fishes, British Columbia Provincial Museum, Handbook no. 23, 1973.
Hart, J.L. Pacific Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Bulletin 180, Ottawa, 1973.
2.1.6 SHORELAND AND MARINE BIRDS
Godfrey, W.E. The Birds of Canada, National Museums of Canada, Bulletin no. 203, Ottawa, 1966.
Guiguet, C.J., The Birds of British Columbia:__(3) Shorebirds. Handbook No. 8, British Columbia Provincial Museum, 1973.
Guiguet, C.J., The Birds of British Columbia: (9) Diving Birds and Tube-nosed Swimmers. Handbook No. 29, British Columbia Provincial Museum, 1971
Guiguet, C.J, The Birds of British Columbia: (6) Waterfowl. Handbook No. 15, British Columbia Provincial Museum, 1973
Guiguet, C.J, The Birds of British Columbia: (5) Gulls. Handbook No. 13, British Columbia Provincial Museum, 1974.
Munro, J.A. and I. Mct. Cowan. A Review of the Bird Fauna of British Columbia.. B.C. Prov. Mus., Spec, Pub. No. 2: 1-285.
Victoria Natural History Society, Annual Bird Report 1972.
2.1.7 MAMMALS
Bigg, M.A. The Harbour Seal in British Columbia Fish. Res. Bd. Canada. Bulletin 172, Ottawa, 1969.
Guiguet, C.J. “An Apparent Increase in Californian Sea Lion Zaloplus Californianue, and Elephant Seal, Mirouaga Angustirostris, on the coast of British Columbia”, Notes, Syesis, Vol. 4, 1971.
Hannock, D. “California Sea Lion as a Regular Winter Visitant off the British Columbia Coast”. J. of Mammalogy, Vol. 51, No. 3.
Pikee, G.C. and I.B. MacAskie, Marine Mammals of British Columbia, Fish. Res. Bd. Canada, Bulletin 171, Ottawa, 1968.
Seed, A., Toothed Whales in-Eastern North Pacific and Arctic Waters, Pacific Search, Seattle Washington, 1971
Seed, A., Baleen Whales in Eastern North Pacific and Arctic Waters, Pacific Search, Seattle Washington,
1972.Seed, A., Seals, Sea Lions, Walruses in Eastern North Pacific and Arctic Waters, Pacific Search, Seattle Washington, 1972.
2.1.8 SHORELAND BIOTA
Hosie, R.C. Native Trees of Canada, Canadian Forestry Service, Dept. of Fish. And Forestry, Queen’s Printer, Ottawa, 1969.
Rowe, J.S. Forest Regions of Canada, Dept. of Environment, Canadian Forestry Service. Ottawa 1972.
2.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Begg, A. History of British Columbia, William Briggs, Toronto, 1894.
Duff, W. The Indian History of British Columbia, Volume 1: The Impact of the White Man. Anthropology in British Columiba, Memoir No. 5, 1964.
Forward, C.N. Land Use of the Victoria Area, British Columbia, Geographical Paper No. 43, Geographical Branch, Dept. of E.M.R., Ottawa.
Hawthorn, H.B. et al, The Indians of British Columbia, University of Toronto Press. 1958.
Hazlitt, W.C. British Columbia and Vancouver Island, S.R. Publishers Ltd., New York, 1966.
Nickolson, G. Vancouver Island’s West Coast 1762-1767, Morriss Printing Co., Victoria, 1962.
Ravenhill, A. The Native Tribes of British Columbia, King’s Printer, Victoria, 1938.
Rogers, F. Shipwrecks of British Columbia, J.J. Douglas Ltd. Vancouver, 1973.
Memorandum on File
OTTAWA, Ontario KlA OR4October 29, 1976.
Meeting with Mr. A. Fairhurst and Mr. D. Ross,, Province of British Columbia Department of Conservation-and Recreatio
October 19, 1976 — Race Rocks National Marine Park Proposal
On the morning of Tuesday October 19, 1976 I met with Mr. A. Fairhurst and Mr. D. Ross, members of the Coastal Planning Section, Conservation and Recreation Branch, British Columbia and the Federal-Provincial Task Force for the Establishnent of Race Rocks National Marine Park in the vicinity of Victoria,, British Columbia,
Up until this meeting no correspondence had transpired between the members of the Task Force since Mr. C, Mondor, Co-ordinator, Area Identification, sent a copy, of the report entitled “Race Rocks National MarinePark: A Preliminary Proposal”, on March 10, 1976 to Mr. Fairhurst. This report was prepared by the Marine Themes Section,, Parks System Planning Division in compliance with the original terms of reference of the Task Force.
The purpose of the October 19th meeting, therefore, was twofold:
(1) to solicit from the Provincial members of the Task Force their initial impressions and comments an the above document.
(2) to establish what steps needed to be taken to successfully complete the terms of reference of the Task Force.
Some time was spent in considering the preliminary proposal, with the
Province making the following comments:(1) the concept as it deals with the identification and use of marine resources is well developed.
(2) existing resource uses in the foreshore and backshore areas of the proposal requires more emphasis in the report.
(3) the potential social-economic Impact and how it relates to park development on the area requires further emphasis.
Several comments are in order with respect to points two and three. It was recognized at the on-set of writing the report, that existing resource uses in the area should receive minor consideration. The main objective of the report was to assess the natural resources of the area and how they could best he preserved, used and interpreted. Nevertheless it should be pointed out that existing resource uses in the park proposal area are well documented under separate cover and need only to be inserted In the appropriate section of the report when the need arises.
Point three was accepted as a valid point by all members. However, Mr. Fairhurst suggested that prior to commencing phase two of the Task Force duties, i.e. completion of points two and three as an intricate part of the planning process for the Park., a copy of the preliminary –resource document should be sent from the Director of the National Parks Branch, namely Mr. Steve Kun to Mr.. Tom Lee, Director of the Provincial Parks Branch. This was requested as no official communication at the Director level had transpired, as it relates to the review of the preliminary resource concept plan.
Mr. Ross suggested that both Directors should be made aware of the scope of the preliminary concept plan; that points two and three were considered prior to commencement of the first phase of the project that these aspects have yet to be incorporated in the final report. It was therefore agreed by the Task force members at the meeting that the following course of action be pursued:
(1) a copy of the preliminary resource document entitled “Race Rocks National Marine Park: A Preliminary Proposal”, be reviewed at the Director level.
(2) the Task Force awaits a directorate comments and approval in principle of the preliminary report prior to commencement of phase two and three.(3) If such approval is obtained that a meeting of the Task Force be convened in early January to discuss future action as it relates to the Director directions.
A letter is presently being drafted for Mr. Kun’s signature in compliance with point above.
The matter rests.
Duncan Hardie,
Marine Themes Section.
Parks System Planning Division,
National Parks Branchcc. Steve Kun
cc. John Carruthers
cc. Claude Mondor