Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Compliance with Canada’s Fisheries Act: A Field Audit of Habitat Compensation Projects

  • RESEARCH
  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • Beamish, F. W. H., Healey, P. J., and D. Griggs. 1986. Freshwater fisheries in Canada: a report on phase 1 of a national examination. Prepared for Canadian Wildlife Federation, Ottawa, Ontario, 155 pp

  • Brown P. H., C. L. Lant. 1999. The effect of wetland mitigation banking on the achievement of no-net-loss. Environmental Management 23:333–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole C. A., D. Shafer. 2002. Section 404 wetland mitigation and permit success criteria in Pennsylvania, USA, 1986–1999. Environmental Management 30:508–515

    Google Scholar 

  • DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 1986. Policy for the management of fish habitat. Ottawa, 28 pp

  • DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 1997. No net loss: assessing achievement. Workshop proceedings. February 26–27, 1997. Kwantlen University College, Richmond B.C., 68 pp

  • DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 1998. Habitat conservation and protection guidelines. Second edition. Ottawa, 19 pp

  • DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2002a. Practitioners guide to habitat compensation for DFO habitat management staff. Ottawa, 23 pp

  • DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2002b. Habitat referral tracking system. Version 4.3. Ottawa

  • Drodge, G., M. H. Beauchesne, and G. Feltham. 1999. National Habitat Referral Study: project report. Prepared for Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa, by KPMG, 41 pp

  • Environment Canada. 1992. Working together—Canada’s green plan in action. Ottawa, 39 pp

  • Goodchild G. A. 2004. Fish habitat is everyone’s business, Canada’s fish habitat management programme. Fisheries Management and Ecology 11:277–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Government of Canada. 1997. Fisheries and Oceans Canada—Pacific salmon: sustainability of the resource base. In Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons. Chapter 28. Public Works and Government Services Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, pp 1–28

  • Government of Canada. 1998. Sixth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on Fisheries and Oceans Canada—Pacific salmon: sustainability of the resource base. Ottawa, Ontario, pp 1–9

  • Harper D. J., J. T. Quigley. 2005a. A comparison of the areal extent of fish habitat gains and losses associated with selected compensation projects in Canada. Fisheries 30:18–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Harper D. J., J. T. Quigley. 2005b. No net loss of fish habitat: a review and analysis of habitat compensation in Canada. Environmental Management 35:1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartman G. F., C. Groot, T. G. Northcote. 2000. Science and management in sustainable salmonid fisheries: the ball is not in our court. In: Knudson E. E., C. R. Steward, D. D. MacDonald, J. E. Williams, D. W. Reiser (eds.), Sustainable fisheries management—Pacific salmon. Lewis Publishers, Washington, D.C. Pages 31–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland C. C., M. E. Kentula. 1992. Impacts of Section 404 permits requiring compensatory mitigation on wetlands in California (USA). Wetlands Ecology and Management 2:157–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koning, W. C. (ed.). 1999. Riparian assessment and prescription procedures. Watershed restoration technical circular no. 6. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, British Columbia

  • Kunz K., M. Rylko, E. Somers. 1988. An assessment of wetland mitigation practices in Washington State. National Wetlands Newsletter 10:2–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Kusler J. A., M. E. Kentula. 1990. Wetland creation and restoration: the status of the science. Island Press. Washington, D.C., 594 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Lackey R. T. 2001. Defending reality. Fisheries 26:26–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange, M., B. C. Cudmore-Vokey, and C. K. Minns. 2001. Habitat compensation case study analysis. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2576, 31 pp

  • Levings, C. D., and D. J. H. Nishimura. 1996. Created and restored sedge marshes in the lower Fraser River and estuary: an evaluation of their functioning as fish habitat. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2126, 143 pp

  • Levy, D. A. 1992. Potential impacts of global warming on salmon production in the Fraser River watershed. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1889, 96 pp

  • Lister, D. B., and W. E. Bengeyfield. 1998. An assessment of compensatory fish habitat at five sites in the Thompson River system. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2444, 63 pp

  • Metikosh, S. 1997. No net loss in the “real” world. In Levings, C. D., C. K. Minns, and F. Aitkens (eds.), Proceedings of the DFO workshop on research priorities to improve methods for assessing productive capacity for fish habitat management and impact assessment, Sidney, BC, May 13–15. Canadian Data Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2147, 109 pp

  • Millar, J., M. Child, L. Duncan, N. Page, D. Modien, and J. Robertson. 1997. Urban referral evaluation: an assessment of the effectiveness of the referral process for protecting fish habitat (1985–1995). Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (Resource Stewardship Branch) (Victoria, BC), and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Fraser River Action Plan) (Vancouver, BC)

    Google Scholar 

  • Minns, C. K. 1995. Calculating net change of productivity of fish habitats. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2282, 37 pp

  • Minns C. K., J. E. Moore. 2003. Assessment of net change of productive capacity of fish habitats: the role of uncertainty and complexity in decision making. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60:100–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearse P. H. 1988. Rising to the challenge: a new policy for Canada’s freshwater fisheries. Canadian Wildlife Federation, Ottawa, 180 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Race M. S., M. S. Fonseca. 1996. Fixing compensatory mitigation: what will it take? Ecological Applications 6:94–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Resources Inventory Committee (RIC). 1997. Freshwater biological sampling manual. Government of BC

  • Robb J. T. 2002. Assessing wetland compensatory mitigation sites to aid in establishing mitigation ratios. Wetlands 22:435–440

    Google Scholar 

  • SAS Institute. 2001. SAS users guide. Version 8.02 edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina

  • Schuett-Hames D., A. Pleus, L. Bullchild, S. Hall. 1994. Ambient monitoring program manual. Timber-Fish-Wildlife. TFW-AM9-94-001. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Olympia, Washington, 128 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Seber G. A. F., E. D. LeCren. 1967. Estimating population parameters from catches large relative to the population. Journal of Animal Ecology 36:631–643

    Google Scholar 

  • Shabman L., P. Scodari, D. King. 1996. Wetland mitigation banking markets, In: L. L. Marsh, D. R. Porter, D. A. Salvesen (eds.), Mitigation banking: theory and practice. Island Press, Covelo, California. Pages 109–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Sifneos J. C., E. W. Cake Jr., M. E. Kentula. 1992a. Effects of Section 404 permitting on freshwater wetlands in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi. Wetlands 12:28–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Sifneos J. C., M. E. Kentula, P. Price. 1992b. Impacts of Section 404 permits requiring compensatory mitigation of freshwater wetlands in Texas and Arkansas. The Texas Journal of Science 44:475–485

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokal R. R., F. J. Rohlf. 1981. Biometry, second edition. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, California, 859 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Zedler J., L. Shabman, V. Alvarez, R. O. Evans, R. C. Gardner, J. W. Gibbons, J. W. Gilliam, C. A. Johnston, W. J. Mitsch, K. Prestegaard, A. M. Redmond, C. Simenstad, R. E. Turner. 2001. Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 322 pp

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the staff in DFO Regional and Area offices for their support and access to files. Technical assistance and field support were provided by James Wilkinson. Earlier versions of this article were greatly improved from reviews by Scott Hinch, Otto Langer, Ryan Galbraith, and three anonymous reviewers. Special thanks are also due to Marcia Vanwely and Louise Archibald of the DFO Pacific Region library for their continued support and excellent service. Funding for this initiative was provided by the Environmental Science Strategic Research Fund.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oceans, Habitat and Enhancement Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Suite 200, 401 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, V6C 3S4, Canada

    Jason T. Quigley

  2. Habitat Policy and Regulatory Affairs, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Suite 12E, 200 Kent Street, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0E6, Canada

    David J. Harper

Authors
  1. Jason T. Quigley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David J. Harper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason T. Quigley.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Quigley, J.T., Harper, D.J. Compliance with Canada’s Fisheries Act: A Field Audit of Habitat Compensation Projects. Environmental Management 37, 336–350 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0262-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0262-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation