HABITAT MANAGEMENT 23 



tain enhancement techniques, but only if the natural 

 environment is capable of supporting larger populations. 

 Ultimately, the health of habitat will govern the natural 

 productivity of the fisheries. 



The federal Parliament's role in habitat protection 

 stems from its constitutional jurisdiction over sea coast 

 and inland fisheries. Courts have held that this authority 

 extends beyond simply regulating fishing activities, to 

 enacting legislation intended to protect fish habitat. 

 Under this authority, provisions of the Fisheries Act 

 prohibit the "harmful alteration, disruption or destruc- 

 tion of fish habitat" (section 31) and the "deposit of a 

 deleterious substance ... in water frequented by fish" 

 (section 33(2)). Other sections require fish facilities to be 

 constructed to pass fish over dams and other obstructions 

 (section 20) and screens to be installed on water diversion 

 intakes (section 28). However, in British Columbia, the 

 province owns most of the uplands and the freshwater 

 that serve as fish habitat; and it controls most of the 

 timber and mineral resources (as landowner), which it 

 allocates to private interests through a variety of agree- 

 ments. It also has legislative authority over municipal 

 affairs and most other upland activities that threaten fish 

 habitat. 



This division of ownership and jurisdiction between 

 the two levels of government lies at the root of much of 

 the difliculty associated with habitat protection in the 

 province. The federal government may regulate activities 

 that impinge on fish habitat even though it does not own 

 the land and water resources. Thus, forest, iruning and 

 other operators on provincial Crown land are typically 

 required to serve two masters: they must comply with the 

 terms of their resource agreeinents with the provincial 

 government, while ensuring that their activities do not 

 contravene the Fisheries Act. As well, the gains from 

 resource developments are often seen to accrue to the 

 provincial Crown and to private interests, while the cost 

 inflicted by them on fish habitat is borne largely by the 

 federal government and those who depend on fish. 



Activities on privately owned land, such as private tim- 

 ber operations, land developments and so on, do not 

 invt>lve provincial agencies to nearly the same extent. But 

 the habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act 

 apply to them as well, pitting private interests directly 

 against the health offish habitat. 



The task of reconciling conflicts over the use of public 

 and private land with the needs of fisheries resources is 

 the fundamental issue to be addressed in formulating pol- 

 icy for habitat management. Under current policy, the 

 Department of Fisheries and Oceans participates in refer- 

 ral and other programs with provincial government agen- 

 cies, so that the Department has the opportunity to 

 review proposed developments in watersheds. Tlie suc- 



cess of these arrangements ultimately hinges on the 

 Department's knowledge of the habitat it is attempting to 

 protect, the objectives it tries to serve and the legal and 

 other mechanisms that are available to it in fulfilling its 

 mandate. Eiach of these is discussed below. 



Habitat Information 



Despite the pivotal importance of the habitat for fisher- 

 ies management and development, the Department 

 knows surprisingly little about the present quality of fish 

 habitats in the Pacific region or their ability to support 

 fish. These vary widely among water systems, depending 

 on their size, gravel conditions, hydrological characteris- 

 tics, streambank cover, nutrient levels in streams and 

 lakes, and tidal patterns and vegetation in estuaries, 

 among other things. These dimensions determine the 

 capability of land and water to support fish, but to date 

 the Department has made no comprehensive insentory of 

 habitat in the region. 



This lack of basic information stands in the way of 

 effective planning. Moreover, the Department needs 

 much improved information about fish habitat for its 

 dealings with other resource industries. Without it, fisher- 

 ies managers cannot properly assess the impact of pro- 

 posed operations and proponents cannot design appro- 

 priate means of avoiding or minimizing damage. 



British Columbia's Ministry of Environment has 

 already initiated a computerized aquatic inventory pro- 

 gram, and I understand that the Department of Fisheries 

 and Oceans has been exploring alternative methods of 

 collecting, collating and disseminating such information 

 (a subject I return to in Chapter 6). My recommendations 

 are intended to recognize the need for both governments 

 to obtain improved habitat information and to minimize 

 duplication of effort. 



1. Tlie gmcmnK^nt of Canada should invite the govem- 

 nieiit of British Columbia to participate in a joint pro- 

 gram aJnK>d at compiling a comprehensive inventory 

 of fish habitats in freshwater streams and estuaries in 

 British Columbia. Tlie in>entor> should describe the 

 biophysical characteristics of individual areas of fish 

 habitat, and should include an assessment of their 

 potential for prixlucing fi.sh. 



The program should be a substantial one. combining, 

 expanding and coordinating the present efforts of the two 

 governments to produce a systematic inventory of at least 

 the most important aquatic systems in the province. And 

 while it will complement the intergovernmental Salmonid 

 Enhancement Program discussed in Chapter 5, it should 

 be organized separately, and the respective contributions 

 of the two governments could differ. In Chapter 18 I pro- 

 pose that both be incorporated into a general federal- 

 provincial agreement on fisheries matters. The cost of the 



