Environmental Management

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 336–350 | Cite as

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

RESEARCH

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.

Keywords

Compliance Habitat compensation No net loss Field audit Fisheries Act Authorisation Policy Canada 

Literature Cited

  1. 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 ppGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown P. H., C. L. Lant. 1999. The effect of wetland mitigation banking on the achievement of no-net-loss. Environmental Management 23:333–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cole C. A., D. Shafer. 2002. Section 404 wetland mitigation and permit success criteria in Pennsylvania, USA, 1986–1999. Environmental Management 30:508–515Google Scholar
  4. DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 1986. Policy for the management of fish habitat. Ottawa, 28 ppGoogle Scholar
  5. DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 1997. No net loss: assessing achievement. Workshop proceedings. February 26–27, 1997. Kwantlen University College, Richmond B.C., 68 ppGoogle Scholar
  6. DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 1998. Habitat conservation and protection guidelines. Second edition. Ottawa, 19 ppGoogle Scholar
  7. DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2002a. Practitioners guide to habitat compensation for DFO habitat management staff. Ottawa, 23 ppGoogle Scholar
  8. DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2002b. Habitat referral tracking system. Version 4.3. OttawaGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 ppGoogle Scholar
  10. Environment Canada. 1992. Working together—Canada’s green plan in action. Ottawa, 39 ppGoogle Scholar
  11. Goodchild G. A. 2004. Fish habitat is everyone’s business, Canada’s fish habitat management programme. Fisheries Management and Ecology 11:277–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 1–28Google Scholar
  13. 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 1–9Google Scholar
  14. 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 30:18–25Google Scholar
  15. Harper D. J., J. T. Quigley. 2005b. No net loss of fish habitat: a review and analysis of habitat compensation in Canada. Environmental Management 35:1–13Google Scholar
  16. 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 31–50Google Scholar
  17. Holland C. C., M. E. Kentula. 1992. Impacts of Section 404 permits requiring compensatory mitigation on wetlands in California (USA). Wetlands Ecology and Management 2:157–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Koning, W. C. (ed.). 1999. Riparian assessment and prescription procedures. Watershed restoration technical circular no. 6. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, British ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  19. Kunz K., M. Rylko, E. Somers. 1988. An assessment of wetland mitigation practices in Washington State. National Wetlands Newsletter 10:2–5Google Scholar
  20. Kusler J. A., M. E. Kentula. 1990. Wetland creation and restoration: the status of the science. Island Press. Washington, D.C., 594 ppGoogle Scholar
  21. Lackey R. T. 2001. Defending reality. Fisheries 26:26–27Google Scholar
  22. 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 ppGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 ppGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 ppGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 ppGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 ppGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Minns, C. K. 1995. Calculating net change of productivity of fish habitats. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2282, 37 ppGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 60:100–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pearse P. H. 1988. Rising to the challenge: a new policy for Canada’s freshwater fisheries. Canadian Wildlife Federation, Ottawa, 180 ppGoogle Scholar
  31. Race M. S., M. S. Fonseca. 1996. Fixing compensatory mitigation: what will it take? Ecological Applications 6:94–101Google Scholar
  32. Resources Inventory Committee (RIC). 1997. Freshwater biological sampling manual. Government of BCGoogle Scholar
  33. Robb J. T. 2002. Assessing wetland compensatory mitigation sites to aid in establishing mitigation ratios. Wetlands 22:435–440Google Scholar
  34. SAS Institute. 2001. SAS users guide. Version 8.02 edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  35. 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 ppGoogle Scholar
  36. Seber G. A. F., E. D. LeCren. 1967. Estimating population parameters from catches large relative to the population. Journal of Animal Ecology 36:631–643Google Scholar
  37. 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 109–138Google Scholar
  38. 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 12:28–36Google Scholar
  39. 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 44:475–485Google Scholar
  40. Sokal R. R., F. J. Rohlf. 1981. Biometry, second edition. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, California, 859 ppGoogle Scholar
  41. 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 ppGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oceans, Habitat and Enhancement BranchFisheries and Oceans CanadaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Habitat Policy and Regulatory AffairsFisheries and Oceans CanadaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations