Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

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

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • A. O. Allen J. Feddema (1996) ArticleTitleWetland loss and substitution by Section 404 permit program in Southern California, USA Environmental Management 20 263–274 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF01204011

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Breaux F. Serefiddin (1999) ArticleTitleValidity of performance criteria and a tentative model for regulatory use in compensatory wetland mitigation permitting Environmental Management 24 327–336 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s002679900236 Occurrence Handle10486043

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • M. A. Brinson R. Rheinhardt (1996) ArticleTitleThe role of reference wetlands in functional assessment and mitigation Ecological Applications 6 69–76

    Google Scholar 

  • A. C. Cole D. Shafer (2002) ArticleTitleSection 404 wetland mitigation and permit success criteria in Pennsylvania, USA, 1986–1999 Environmental Management 30 508–515 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s00267-002-2717-4 Occurrence Handle12481917

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • L. M. Cowardin V. Carter F. C. Golet E. T. LaRoe (1979) Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States US Fish and Wildlife Service Washington, DC 103

    Google Scholar 

  • Cudmore-Vokey, B. C., M. Lange, and C. K. Minns. 2000. Database documentation and critical review of national habitat compensation literature. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 2526:vii+34p

  • Drodge, G., M. H. Beauchesne, and G. Feltham. 2000. National Habitat Referral Study. Prepared for Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Ottawa, by KPMG. 41 pp

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

  • DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 1998. Habitat conservation and protection guidelines, 2nd edition. Ottawa, Ontario, 19 pp

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

  • DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2003. Habitat referral tracking system. Version 4.3. Ottawa, Ontario

  • Gallihugh, J. L., and J. D. Rogner. 1998. Wetland mitigation and 404 permit compliance study, Vol. 1. Report and appendices A, B, C, D, E. Vol. 2. Appendix C. Barrington: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chicago, Illinois. June 1998

  • D. J. Harper J. T. Quigley (2005) ArticleTitle A comparison of the areal extent of fish habitat gains and losses associated with selected compensation projects in Canada Fisheries 30 IssueID2 18–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Harper, D. J., and J. T. Quigley, R. G. Bonnell, J. Bateman. 2001. The habitat accounting database. Version 1.0. Vancouver, British Columbia

  • D. J. Harper J. T. Quigley (2000) ArticleTitleNNL of fish habitat: An audit of forest road crossings of fish-bearing streams in British Columbia, 1996–1999 Canadian technical report of fisheries and aquatic sciences 2319 44

    Google Scholar 

  • C. Holland M. E. Kentula (1992) ArticleTitleImpacts of Section 404 permits requiring compensatory mitigation on wetlands in California (USA) Wetlands Ecology and Management 2 157–169 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF00215322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. L. Jones R. G. Randall D. Hayes W. Dunlop J. Imhof G. Lacroix N. J. R. Ward (1996) ArticleTitleAssessing the ecological effects of habitat change: Moving beyond productive capacity Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53 IssueIDsuppl. 1 446–457 Occurrence Handle10.1139/cjfas-53-S1-446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • N. M. Kelly (2001) ArticleTitleChanges to the landscape patterns of coastal North Carolina wetlands under the Clean Water Act, 1984–1992 Landscape Ecology 16 3–16 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1008168322720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. E. Kentula J. C. Sifneos J. W. Good M. Rylko K. Kunz (1992) ArticleTitleTrends and patterns in Section 404 permitting requiring compensatory mitigation in Oregon and Washington, USA Environmental Management 16 95–108

    Google Scholar 

  • W. L. Krucynski (1990) Options to be considered in preparation and evaluation of mitigation plans J. A. Kusler M. E. Kentula (Eds) Wetland creation and restoration: The status of the science Island Press Washington, DC 143–158

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • M. K. La Peyre M. A. Reams I. A. Mendelssohn (2001) ArticleTitleLinking actions to outcomes of U.S. state wetland management Wetlands 21 66–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar J., M. Child, L. Duncan. N. fuge, D. Modren, 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) Vancourer, BC. 100pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • C. K. Minns J. R. M. Kelso G. Randall (1996) ArticleTitleDetecting the response of fish to habitat alterations in freshwater ecosystems Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53 IssueIDsuppl 1 403–414 Occurrence Handle10.1139/cjfas-53-S1-403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • C. K. Minns (1997) ArticleTitleQuantifying “NNL” of productivity of fish habitats Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54 2463–2473 Occurrence Handle10.1139/cjfas-54-10-2463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • C. K. Minns J. E. Moore (2003) ArticleTitleAssessment 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 Occurrence Handle10.1139/f02-168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • InstitutionalAuthorNameNRC (National Research Council) (2001) Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act National Academy Press Washington, DC, USA 322

    Google Scholar 

  • M. S. Race M. S. Fonesca (1996) ArticleTitleFixing compensatory mitigation: What will it take? Ecological Applications 6 94–101

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • J. C. Sifneos M. E. Kentula P. Price (1992a) ArticleTitleImpacts of Section 404 permits requiring compensatory mitigation of freshwater wetlands in Texas and Arkansas The Texas Journal of Science 44 475–485

    Google Scholar 

  • J. C. Sifneos E. W. Cake SuffixJr M. E. Kentula (1992b) ArticleTitleEffects of Section 404 permitting on freshwater wetlands in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi Wetlands 12 28–36

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Sokal F. J. Rohlf (1981) Biometry. second edition W. H. Freeman and Company San Francisco 859

    Google Scholar 

  • E. D. Stein R. F. Ambrose (1998) ArticleTitleCumulative impacts of section 404 Clean Water Act permitting on the riparian habitat of the Santa Margarita, California watershed Wetlands 18 393–408

    Google Scholar 

  • M. F. Sudol R. F. Ambrose (2002) ArticleTitleThe US Clean Water Act and habitat replacement: Evaluation of mitigation sites in Orange County, California, USA Environmental Management 30 727–734 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s00267-002-2787-3 Occurrence Handle12375092

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • USEPA/USACE (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1990. Memorandum of agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army concerning the determination of mitigation under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) guidelines. USEPA, Washington, DC

  • J. B Zedler (1996) ArticleTitleCoastal mitigation in Southern California: The need for a regional restoration strategy Ecological Applications 6 84–93

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the staff in the DFO Regional and Area Offices for their support and access to files. We also thank Joan Bateman, James Wilkinson, and Angela d’Eon for their support, and Otto Langer, Scott Hinch, Patrice LeBlanc, Pierre Lemieux, Christine Stoneman, and two anonymous reviewers for their technical review. Special thanks are also due to Marcia Vanwelly and Louise Archibald of the DFO Pacific Region Library for their continued support and the excellent service they provide. Funding for this initiative was provided by the Environmental Science Strategic Research Fund.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Habitat Protection and Sustainable Development, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 12th floor – 200 Kent Street, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0E6

    D. J. Harper

  2. Oceans, Habitat and Enhancement Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Suite 200 – 401 Burrard Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6C 3S4

    J. T. Quigley

Authors
  1. D. J. Harper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. T. Quigley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. J. Harper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Harper, D.J., Quigley, J.T. No Net Loss of Fish Habitat: A Review and Analysis of Habitat Compensation in Canada. Environmental Management 36, 343–355 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0114-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0114-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation