No Net Loss of Fish Habitat: A Review and Analysis of Habitat Compensation in Canada

Abstract

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.

Bidirectional connectivity in rivers and implications for watershed stability and management

“…The Fisheries Act can also protect fish and fisheries from activities that occur in or near aquatic habitats, but this Act was recently "gutted" (Hutchings and Post 2013). In addition, authorization of these projects can hinge on habitat compensation, yet audits of habitat compensation projects in Canada revealed that the majority of projects fail to achieve "no net loss" of productive fish habitat (Harper and Quigley 2005;Quigley and Harper 2006). Lastly, incremental changes from land uses such as forestry and urbanization have contributed substantially to watershed alteration (Slaney et al 1996), and these land uses are governed by different regulations.…”

Compliance with biodiversity compensation on New Zealand’s public conservation lands

“…For example, a study of compensatory wetland mitigation in Massachusetts, USA found 54% of wetland projects did not comply with the State's wetland regulations (Veneman & Brown 2011). Further, a study of habitat compensation under the Canadian Fisheries Act 1985 found that of 124 developments associated with fish habitat, over 85% were non-compliant with conditions (Harper & Quigley 2005). An environmental auditing study of artificial waterways in Western Australia found a similar non-compliance rate of 37% with conditions related to the mitigation of adverse effects (Bailey et al 1992).…”

Marsh and Riparian Habitat Compensation in the Fraser River Estuary: A Guide for Managers and Practitioners

“…Quantitative baseline data improves the ability to assess the success or failure of a project, and to conclude if no-net-loss/offsetting has been effectively achieved. 19,30,[47][48][49] For quantitative riparian habitat assessment methods please refer to Appendix I -Methods or to the methods section of Lievesley and Stewart (2016). …”

“…23 This lack of baseline data limits the ability to evaluate the success or failure of a project, and to conclude if no-net-loss/offsetting has been effectively achieved. 19,30,[47][48][49] It is recommended that quantitative, pre-impact assessment surveys be conducted prior to any habitat disturbance, and that inventory methods be repeatable during postconstruction monitoring to enable comparability of data. …”