On this last point, the BC Court of Appeal has ruled that government does not have the power under the RAR to intervene to prohibit development where the hired professional has authorized it, even when they believe that the development will
harm fish habitat.
Not exact matches
When these changes take effect, on a date which has yet to be announced, the prohibition on altering a
fish's
habitat will be replaced with a prohibition on causing «serious
harm to
fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery, or to
fish that support such a fishery.»
Second, Director Hall will issue guidance to
Fish and Wildlife Service staff that the best scientific data available today can not make a causal connection between
harm to listed species or their
habitats and greenhouse gas emissions from a specific facility, or resource development project, or government action.
Less ice — coupled with more frequent and intense storms — leaves shores vulnerable to erosion and flooding and could
harm property and
fish habitat.
For example, under BC's Riparian Areas Regulation (or RAR), development should be set back from
fish bearing streams and lakes, to ensure that no
harm to
fish habitat results.
As a result, the protection for
fish habitat generally, found in subsection 35 (1), will be replaced by a narrower prohibition on «any work, undertaking or activity that results in serious
harm to
fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery, or to
fish that support such a fishery.»