Fish habitat loss has been prevalent over the last century in Canada. To prevent further erosion of the resource base and ensure sustainable development, Fisheries and Oceans Canada enacted the habitat provisions of the Fisheries Act in 1976. In 1986, this was articulated by a policy that a "harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction to fish habitat" (HADD) cannot occur unless authorised with legally binding compensatory habitat to offset the HADD. Despite Canada's progressive conservation policies, the effectiveness of compensation habitat in replicating ecosystem function has never been tested on a national scale. The effectiveness of habitat compensation projects in achieving no net loss of habitat productivity (NNL) was evaluated at 16 sites across Canada. Periphyton biomass, invertebrate density, fish biomass, and riparian vegetation density were used as indicators of habitat productivity. Approximately 63% of projects resulted in net losses in habitat productivity. These projects were characterised by mean compensation ratios (area gain:area loss) of 0.7:1. Twenty-five percent of projects achieved NNL and 12% of projects achieved a net gain in habitat productivity. These projects were characterised by mean ratios of 1.1:1 and 4.8:1, respectively. We demonstrated that artificially increasing ratios to 2:1 was not sufficient to achieve NNL for all projects. The ability to replicate ecosystem function is clearly limited. Improvements in both compensation science and institutional approaches are recommended to achieve Canada's conservation goal.
The achievement of No Net Loss (NNL) through habitat compensation has rarely been assessed in Canada. Files relating to 124 Fisheries Act Section 35(2) authorizations issued by Fisheries and Oceans Canada for the harmful alteration, disruption, and destruction of fish habitat (HADD) were collected and reviewed. Data extracted from these files were pooled and analyzed to provide an indication of the types of HADDs that have been authorized in Canada, what habitats have been affected, and what habitat management approaches have been used when compensating for HADDs and monitoring and ensuring the success of the compensation. Determinations regarding the effectiveness of habitat compensation in achieving NNL were made. Impacts to 419,562 m2 of fish habitat from the 124 authorized HADDs were offset by 1,020,388 m2 of compensatory habitat. Eighty percent of the authorizations had compensation ratios (compensation area:HADD area) of 2:1 or less, and 25% of the authorizations had a compensation ratio that was less than 1:1. In-channel and riparian habitat were the most frequently impacted habitats. Urban development and roads and highways resulted in the greatest areal loss of habitat. The compensation option that was most often selected was the creation of in-kind habitat. The mean duration of post-construction monitoring programs was 3.7 years. Determinations of NNL could only be made for 17 authorizations as a result of poor proponent compliance with monitoring requirements and the qualitative assessment procedures used by the monitoring programs. Adequate resources, proper training, and standardized approaches to data management and monitoring programs are required to ensure that the conservation goal of NNL can be achieved in Canada.
Loss of fish habitat in North America has occurred at an unprecedented rate through the last century. In response, the Canadian Parliament enacted the habitat provisions of the Fisheries Act. Under these provisions, a "harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction to fish habitat" (HADD) cannot occur unless authorised by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), with legally binding compensatory habitat to offset the HADD. The guiding principle to DFO's conservation goal is "no net loss of the productive capacity of fish habitats" (NNL). However, performance in achieving NNL has never been evaluated on a national scale. We investigated 52 habitat compensation projects across Canada to determine compliance with physical, biological, and chemical requirements of Section 35(2) Fisheries Act authorisations. Biological requirements had the lowest compliance (58%) and chemical requirements the highest (100%). Compliance with biological requirements differed among habitat categories and was poorest (19% compliance) in riparian habitats. Approximately 86% of authorisations had larger HADD and/or smaller compensation areas than authorised. The largest noncompliance in terms of habitat area occurred in riverine habitat in which HADDs were, on average, 343% larger than initially authorised. In total, 67% of compensation projects resulted in net losses of habitat area, 2% resulted in no net loss, and 31% achieved a net gain in habitat area. Interestingly, probable violations of the Fisheries Act were prevalent at half of the projects. Analyses indicated that the frequency of probable Fisheries Act violations differed among provinces. Habitat compensation to achieve NNL, as currently implemented in Canada, is at best only slowing the rate of habitat loss. In all likelihood, increasing the amount of authorised compensatory habitat in the absence of institutional changes will not reverse this trend. Improvements in monitoring and enforcement are necessary to move towards achieving Canada's conservation goals.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.