Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Effectiveness of Fish Habitat Compensation in Canada in Achieving No Net Loss

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

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

  • Allen A. O., J. J. Feddema. 1996. Wetland loss and substitution by the Section 404 permit program in southern California, USA. Environmental Management 20:263–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambrose R. F. 2000. Wetland mitigation in the United States: assessing the success of mitigation policies. Wetlands (Australia) 19:1–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Amiro, P.G. 1997. Assessing productive capacity of maritime region rivers to produce Atlantic salmon and other diadromous fish: review of methods used and under development. Pages 49–56 in C. D. Levings, 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

  • Applegate, R., P. Bisson, B. Bradbury, P. Delaney, F. Goetz, L. Huner, D. MacDonald, M. McBurney, P. Merritt, J. Nelson, J. Stavinga, C. Steward, and T. Stearns. 1996. Towards Sustainable Fisheries: Building a Cooperative Strategy for Balancing the Conservation and Use of Westcoast Salmon and Steelhead Populations. The Sustainable Fisheries Foundation, 68 pp

  • Beamish, F. W. H., P. J. Healey, and D. Griggs. 1986. Freshwater fisheries in Canada. Report on phase I of a National Examination. Canadian Wildlife Federation, Ottawa, Ontario

  • Breaux A., F. Serefidden. 1999. Validity of performance criteria and a tentative model for regulatory use in compensatory wetland mitigation permitting. Environmental Management 24:327–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinson M. M., R. Reinhardt. 1996. The role of reference wetlands in functional assessment and mitigation. Ecological Applications 6:69–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Brouha P. 1993. Emulating Canada: recognizing existing aquatic and fish habitat areas as invaluable. Fisheries 18:4

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Brown, S. C., and P. L. M. Veneman. 2001. Effectiveness of compensatory wetland mitigation in Massachusetts, USA. Wetlands 21:508–518

    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 

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

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

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

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

  • Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2002a. Practitioners guide to compensation. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 23 pp

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

  • Gordon, D. C., P. D. Keizer, P. Lawton, R. J. Rutherford, and W. L. Silvert. 1997. Assessing the productive capacity of fish habitat: synopsis of current methods used in estuarine and marine habitats, Maritimes region. Pages 57–67 in C. D. Levings, 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

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Harper D. J., J. T. Quigley. 2005b. 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 

  • Hartman, G. F., and M. Miles. 1997. Jones Creek Spawning Channel: Post-Failure Analysis and Management Recommendations. Prepared for Fraser River Action Plan, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 94 pp

  • Jones M. L., R. G. Randall, D. Hayes, W. Dunlop, J. Imhof, G. Lacroix, N. J. R. Ward. 1996. Assessing the ecological effects of habitat change: moving beyond productive capacity. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53:446–457

    Google Scholar 

  • Kentula M. E., J. C. Sifneos, J. W. Good, M. Rylko, K. Kunz. 1992. Trends and patterns in Section 404 permitting requiring compensatory mitigation in Oregon and Washington, USA. Environmental Management 16:109–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Kistritz, R. U. 1996. Habitat compensation, restoration, and creation in the Fraser River estuary: are we achieving a no-net-loss of fish habitat? Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2349, 113 pp

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

    Google Scholar 

  • La Peyre M. K., M. A. Reams, I. A. Mendelssohn. 2001. Linking actions to outcomes in wetland management: an overview of U.S. State wetlands management. Wetlands 21:66–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange, M., B. C. Cudmore-Vokey, 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

  • Levings, C. D., C. K. Minns, and F. Aitkens. 1997. Proceedings of the DFO workshop on research priorities to improve methods for assessing productive capacity for fish habitat management and impact assessment, Sidney, B.C., May 13–15, 1996. Canadian Data Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2147, 109 pp

  • Mapstone B. D. 1995. Scalable decision rules for environmental impact studies: effect size, type I and type II errors. Ecological Applications 5:401–410

    Google Scholar 

  • Metikosh, S. 1997. No net loss in the “real” world. Pages 8–15 in C. D. Levings, 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

  • Miller R. R., J. D. Williams, J. E. Williams. 1989. Extinctions of North American fishes during the past century. Fisheries 14:22–38

    Article  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. D. Meisner, J. E. Moore, L. A. Greig, and R. G. Randall. 1995. Defensible methods for pre- and post-development assessment of fish habitat in the Great Lakes. I. A prototype methodology for headlands and offshore structures. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2328, 65 pp

  • Minns C. K., J. R. M. Kelso, R. G. Randall. 1996. Detecting the response of fish to habitat alterations in freshwater ecosystems. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53:403–414

    Google Scholar 

  • Minns C. K. 1997. Quantifying “no net loss” of productivity of fish habitats. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54:2463–2473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Ontario

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, M., J. T. Quigley, D. H. Harper, and R. V. Galbraith. 2005. Monitoring and assessment of fish habitat compensation and restoration projects: study design and example case studies. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2729, 143 pp

  • Quigley, J. T., and D. J. Harper. 2005. Compliance with Canada’s Fisheries Act: a field audit of habitat compensation projects. Environmental Management (in press)

  • Race M. S. 1985. Critique of present wetlands mitigation policies in the United States based on an analysis of past restoration projects in San Francisco Bay. Environmental Management 9:71–82

    Article  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 British Columbia

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubec C. D. A. 1994. Canada’s federal policy on wetland conservation: a global model. In: W. J. Mitsch (ed.), Global wetlands: old world and new. Elsevier, New York. Pages 909–917

    Google Scholar 

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

  • Scott W. B., E. J. Crossman. 1998. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Galt House Publications Ltd., Oakville, Ontario, Canada, 966 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Scruton D. A. 1996. Evaluation of the construction of artificial fluvial salmonid habitat in a habitat compensation project, Newfoundland, Canada. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 12:171–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Scruton, D. A., J. B. Dempson, R. J. Gibson, and M. A. Barnes. 1997. Freshwater/anadromous productive capacity: Newfoundland region. Pages 15–34 in C. D. Levings, 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

  • 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 

  • Stewart-Oaten A., J. R. Bence. 2001. Temporal and spatial variation in environmental impact assessment. Ecological Monographs 71:305–339

    Google Scholar 

  • Sudol M. F., R. F. Ambrose. 2002. The US Clean Water Act and habitat replacement: evaluation of mitigation sites in Orange County, California, USA. Environmental Management 30:727–734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Underwood A. J. 1991. Beyond BACI: experimental designs for detecting human environmental impacts on temporal variations in natural populations. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 42:569–587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Underwood A. J. 1993. The mechanics of spatially replicated sampling programmes to detect environmental impacts in a variable world. Australian Journal of Ecology 18:99–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Underwood A. J. 1995. Ecological research and (research into) environmental management. Ecological Applications 5:232–247

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters C. J., C. S. Holling. 1990. Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing. Ecology 71:2060–2068

    Google Scholar 

  • Welch, H. 1997. Assessment of productive capacity for Canadian Arctic seas and estuaries. Pages 81–87 in C. D. Levings, 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

  • Williams, I., M. Bradford, K. Shortreed, J. Hume, S. Macdonald, B. Holtby, G. Ennis, G. Logan, and H. Stalberg. 1997. Productive capacity freshwater freshwater/anadromous Pacific region. Pages 88–101 in C. D. Levings, 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

  • Zedler J. 1996. The challenge of protecting endangered species habitat along the southern California coast. Coastal Management 19:35–53

    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. Effectiveness of Fish Habitat Compensation in Canada in Achieving No Net Loss. Environmental Management 37, 351–366 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0263-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0263-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation