Implications of the Framework Agreement. The PPAs and Option Areas, if the latter are subject to incremental development constraints, will better protect anadromous (e.g., salmon and steelhead) and freshwater stocks (e.g. trout), which can be significantly affected by resource development on the terrestrial landbase. The Framework Agreement would place up to 21% of total watersheds deemed to be sensitive with respect to fisheries values by DFO. The extent of protection is much higher for sensitive watersheds in which there has been no logging (up to 54% of the GLB, if all Option Areas are protected) or in which there has been no development at all (up to 99% of the GLB). The protection of sensitive watersheds within the forest land base, which is at higher risk due to timber harvesting and related road building activities, is even higher. Up to 71% of unlogged sensitive watersheds and 99% of undeveloped sensitive watersheds within the THLB would be protected by the Framework Agreement if all Option Areas are eventually precluded from development. Protection or Option Areas with a marine component will be important for species such as groundfish, shellfish and xxxxxxx, particularly if such areas became “no take” zones. Such zones would serve as nurseries for these populations. As these populations migrated outside of PPAs they would help to increase stocks available for commercial use. However, as with other sectors, it is important to recognize that the land use designations in the Framework Agreement are only one factor affecting fisheries populations and fisheries-related economic activity in the Plan Area. For example, global climatic conditions and DFO fisheries management policies are particularly important determinants of fish populations and related economic activity. The common property problem and related over-capacity in some fisheries such as salmon are still not fully resolved and could have significant impacts on future fish populations. Also, a substantial proportion of fisheries-related employment of Plan Area residents is dependent on fish populations outside of the Plan Area, which will not be significantly affected by changes in land use designations proposed in the Agreement.
Implications of the Framework Agreement. The BC Fisheries section of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (MAFF) undertook an impact assessment of PPAs and Option Areas on existing and potential fin fish and shellfish aquaculture and wild marine plant harvesting in the plan area, all of which are provincially regulated activities.39 38 Economic Potential of the BC Aquaculture Industry (Phase I): Xxxxxxx & Xxxxxxx, 1998. 39 BC Fisheries Socio-Economic Assessment of Implementation of CCRLMP, Xxx Xxxxxxxx and Xxxx Xxxxxxxx, May 17, 2001 Impacts of the Framework Agreement on federally regulated sport and commercial marine fisheries are discussed briefly in Sections 3 and 4, respectively. The actual number of sites available for future development is uncertain, given that resource use conflicts can significantly affect siting opportunities, although such concerns are less serious for shellfish culture. Given the extensive presence of wild marine plants (e.g. spawn-on-kelp) in the plan area, there is likely to be considerable potential for marine plant culture and, therefore, a potential for impacts on future opportunities. However, a detailed impact assessment for marine plants was not possible due to lack of biophysical capability data. Due to poor natural oyster recruitment in the cooler northern waters, there is no existing or potential oyster production and therefore there can be no impact from the plan on wild oyster production. Although there is little clear direction in the Framework Agreement on allowable uses within proposed new PPAs, Plan participants have agreed that the “Protection Areas” are not Class “A”parks, and are therefore likely to be less restrictive in terms of exclusions. The Plan also affirms existing legal rights of First Nations to pursue activities for food, social and ceremonial purposes as well as for some economic gain. Non-First Nations economic activities (other than timber harvesting and mining) may also be allowed if the activities are consistent with the objectives for protection. There is also a set of Cabinet-approved Resource and Recreation Use Guidelines for Protected Areas which recommends the grand-parenting of existing aquaculture and marine plant uses for commercial purposes within new protected areas. As noted above, the Province has also placed a cap on salmon aquaculture, limiting new marine tenures to 5, and only if closed containment technology were employed. For these reasons, there is not likely to be any loss of existing aquaculture tenures...
Implications of the Framework Agreement. Most of the agricultural land and grazing permits are in or around communities in the Plan Area, particularly the Bella Coola valley. Since virtually all of these areas are not covered by any of the designations, the Framework Agreement has no significant implications for agriculture. The constraints and growth opportunities with the Agreement are essentially the same as in the Base Case.
Implications of the Framework Agreement. The Framework Agreement increases the proportion of the dry fir / pine CWH variant in PPAs and in SMZs (from a total of about 44% to 57%), which should better protect at least some botanicals, particularly pine mushrooms which are the most important commercial species. The economic implications of the Agreement depend in part on the management direction in new PPAs, since commercial harvesting of any botanical is illegal in existing parks and ecological reserves. However, management in PPAs is intended to be more flexible with respect to economic activities than Class A parks (as long as such activities do not conflict with the management objectives of the area). However, it should be noted that the large proportion of the Plan Area is in forested exclusions outside the THLB that may contain appropriate habitat for botanicals, and which will not be affected significantly by the Framework Agreement. Finally, the lack of a regulatory and policy framework will continue to place at risk the economic potential for botanicals. The Framework Agreement will also increase protection for furbearers and related trapping activity. For example, the Agreement approximately doubles the area of old growth and mature timber in PPAs, with additional protection in SMZs, Option and First Nations Lead Areas. This will be more supportive than the Base Case for populations of most important trapped species. The economic implications of this increased protection depends in part on allowable activities, particularly in PPAs. However, even if commercial trapping within PPAs is precluded (which is dependent on management strategies yet to be developed), such areas can help replenish populations and therefore support increased trapping activity outside of PPAs. Therefore, overall, the Framework Agreement should increase trapping activity compared to the Base Case. However, other factors, such as the extensive forested exclusions in mature and old growth forests and market trends will continue to be important factors regardless of the proposed designations in the Agreement.
