no net loss of habitat - dfo-mpo.gc.ca · habitat report in 1978 and called for a no net loss of...

NO NET LOSS OF HABITAT: Assessing Achievement

WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS

Sponsored by Fraser River Action Plan

Fisheries and Oceans Canada

February 26 - 27, 1997 Kwantlen University College

Richmond, BC

Prepared by Quadra Planning Consultants Ltd.

Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data

Main entry under title : No net loss of habitat : assessing achievement : workshop proceedings

"February 26-27, 1997 , Kwantlen University College, Richmond BC" ISBN 0-662-26030-9 Cat. no. FS23-304/9- l 997E

1. Fish habitat improvement -- Pacific Area -Government policy -- Congresses. 2. Sustainable fisheries -- Pacific Area -Government policy -- Congresses. 3. Stream conservation -- Pacific Area -Government policy -- Congresses. I. Quadra Planning Consultants. II. Fraser River Action Plan (Canad_a)

SH157.8N65 1997 639.92'0971 l C97-980354-3

No Net Loss Workshop

PREFACE

The National Habitat Policy is over 10 years old and a national review of the policy is planned. This workshop provided an opportune time to review experience related to the "no net loss" of habitat principle underlying the policy in the Pacific Region and to determine what input should be provided into the national review of the policy. The workshop was to encourage information exchange and set out to answer the following questions:

• What have we achieved in terms of the conservation goals of the policy? • Are the concepts of mitigation and compensation being met in practice?

Although the workshop was largely oriented to DFO staff, it brought habitat managers together from around the province to address these questions. The workshop was organized in two parts: Day 1 involved individual presentations and discussions on a wide range of projects in which the habitat policy has been applied. Day 2 allowed more time in discussion groups to examine a number of key project sectors and to bring forward recommendations that will provide the basis for input into the national review.

The workshop was initiated by Otto Langer (Fraser River Action Plan, Fisheries and Oceans Canada) as a follow up to several assessments to determine the success of numerous "no net loss" projects. Mike McPhee and Janine Robinson (Quadra Planning Consultants Ltd.) assisted

· with workshop organization, facilitation and preparation of workshop proceedings. Larry Wolfe (Quadra Planning Consultants Ltd.) and Patricia Howie (Praxis Pacific) provided discussion group facilitation. Fem Hietkamp, FRAP, provided assistance in organizing the workshop and editing the proceedings.

These proceedings are organized into three main sections:

• Presentation Summaries • Discussion Group Results • Summary of Key Issues, Conclusions and Recommendations

Funding for the workshop was provided by Fisheries and Oceans Canada's Fraser River Action Plan and Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

More information or additional copies are available at:

Habitat and Enhancement Branch Fisheries and Oceans Canada

360 - 555 W. Hastings St. Vancouver, BC

V6B 5G3

PREFACE

NO NET LOSS OF HABITAT: Assessing Achievement

WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS

February 26 -27, 1997 Kwantlen University College

Richmond, BC

TABLE OF CONTENTS


TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................ .................................................................. i

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................... .................................... ..... .................................................................... ii

DAY 1-PRESENTATIONS ................................. ......... ........... .................................................................................. 1

W ELCOME AND INTRODUCTION : EVOLUTION OF POLICY AND REVIEW OF DFO's ATTEMPTS TO ACHIEVE A No NET

LOSS OF HABITAT .... . .. . . .. . ... ..... ................... .. .. ..... . ... . ...... ........ . .... . ....... . ....... . .... . ....... . ... .. ... .. ... . .. .. . .. .. .. ...... . .. ..... . .. . .. . .. ..... . I

Otto Langer, Fraser River Action Plan, DF0 .. .................... .. ... ... ...... ... ... ...... .. ........ .. ... ...... .... ..... ...... ... .. ......... ......... 1 NO NET LOSS IN THE FRASER RIVER ESTUARY: ASSESSMENT OF METHODOLOGY .... ... .. .... ...... .... ...... .. .. . .... . .. . ....... . .... .. 6

Otto Langer, Fraser River Action Plan, DFO .... .. ...... .... .. ........ .. .......... .. ....... .. .. .......... .. .. ... .... ........ ...... .. .. ... ...... ........ 6 CREATED AND RESTORED SEDGE MARSHES IN THE LOWER FRASER RIVER AND E STUARY: AN EVALUATION OF THEIR

FUNCTIONING AS FISH H ABITAT .... ...... .. ..... .. ...... .. ......... .. . .. . .. .. . ......... ... ............................. .. ..... .. ... ......... . .... ................... 8 Colin Levings, DFO Pacific Science Branch .... .... .... ...... ... .... ... ..... ... .... ........ ... .... .... ....... ....... ..... .. .... .. ... .. ........... ..... . 8 Discussion ... .... ... ... ........ .... .... ... ... ..... .. .... ... ...... ...... .............. ........ .' ... ... ...... .. ........... ........ ......... ..... ... ... ........ .... ............ 8

EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE URBAN REFERRAL PROCESS IN PROTECTING WATER QUALITY AND FISH

HABITAT IN BRITISH COLUMBIA ... .... ...... .... ... . .. .. ... .. .. .. ................... .. ............................................................... .. ............ 9 Melody Farrell, Fraser River Action Plan, DF0 .. .... ..... ... .... ..................... ..... ... ..... .. ... ...... .... .... ... ... ...... ..... .. ..... .. .. ... 9 Discussion .. ...... .... ............................. .... .... ...... ... .. ............ ................. ...... ...... .. .. .... ...... .. .. ....... .... .. ...... ..... .... .... ... ..... 12

FISHERIES HABITAT PROJECT SUCCESS: SW .ALBERTA, BC, ALASKA, OREGON & WASHINGTON ...... .. ....... ............... 14 Mike Miles, M Miles and Associates .. ....................................... .. ... .. .. ....... .. .... .......................... .. ...... .. .. .. ... ....... .. ... 14 Discussion ... ...... .... ...... ....... ... ..... ... ..... .. .. ....... ..... .. .... .... ........ ..................... ...... ...... ...... .. ... ..... .... .... .... .. ....... ....... .. .. .. 16

No NET Loss AND THE COQUIHALLA HIGHWAY: ALONG THE COLDWATER RIVER .......... .. ...... ..... . ..... .... .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. 17 Brent Lister, D.B. Lister & Associates Ltd. ........................... .. ........ ..... .. ... ............... ... ... .. ..... .. .. .... .. ... .... ...... ... .. ...... 17 Discussion .... ....... .... ...... ..... ..... ... ..... ... .... .... .. ..... ... .. .... .... .. ...................... ............ ........ ... ... ... .. .. ... .. .. ... ......... .... .. .... .. . 18

VANCOUVER ISLAND NATURAL GAS PIPELINE PROJECT ....... .. .. ....... .. ......... .... . .... ....... .. ... .. .. .. ..... .. ............. .................. 20 Rick Higgins, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Nanaimo .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .......... .. ..... .. ... ..... ........ .. .. .. ......... .......... .. ... .... .. 20 Discussion ..... ... .. ....... ............. .... ... .... ..... ..... .. ..... ..... .. ... ..... ... .. ... .. .... ... ...... .... .. ...... ........ ... ........... ..... ... .... ... .... .... ... ... 21

THE v ANCOUVER ISLAND HIGHWA y PROJECT: STRIVING FOR No NET Loss ...... .... ... ...... .. .... .. .. . .. ..... .... ..... .... .. ... ...... . 22 Brent Lister, D.B. Lister & Associates Ltd. .. .. ... .................................. .. .... ..... ........... .... .... .... .. ... .. ....... ..... ... ... ...... .. . 22 Discussion .. ..... ................ ... ..... .. : .......... .... ........ ... ..... ... ...... ..... ... ....... .... ... .. .. ... ... .... .. ..... .... : ...... ..... ... ... ... ... ....... ........ 22

PRINCE RUPERT HARBOUR PROJECTS .. ........... .. .... .... .. ..... ....... . ............... .. ..... .................. .......... .. . .. ............... .. .. ... .... . .. 24

Uriah Orr, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Prince Rupert ..... .. .. ...... ... ... .... .... ......... .. ... .. ............ ...... ..... .. .. ... ..... ..... . 24 Discussion ..... .. ............ ....... ............. .. ........... ........ ....... .......... ... .... .. .. ..... ..... ............... ........ ....... ........... ... ..... .. ....... ... 2 4

RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION AND No N ET Loss: EXAMPLES FROM THE NORTH THOMPSON AND THOMPSON RIVER

SYSTEMS ... .. . .. . ... . ... ..... . .. . .. .... . .. . .. ..... ....... .. ... .... .. .. . ....... .. .. .. .. . .. .. . ....... . .... .... . ..... . .. .. . ... ... .. .. .. . ....... .. .. .. . ........ . .... .... .... . ... . . 27


Brent Lister, D.B. Lister & Associates Ltd. .................. ...... ...... .... .... .. ........ .. ................. .. .. .. .. .... ........ ...... ........... .. .. . 27 SKEENA RIVER HIGHWAY UPGRADE PROJECT: KHYEX-TYEE.. ...... ......... .. .. .. ...... .. ................ .. .. .... ....... ........ .. ........ .. .. 29

Tom Pendray, Habitat Biologist, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, North Coast Region ........ .. .. .. ....... .. ............ .. ... .. 29 Discussion ......... .......... ...... ...... ... ... .... ... ..... ....... ............. ........... ...... ... .. .......... ............... ... ... ... ... ....... .. .. ..... .. .. ........ ... 30

DISCUSSION AND REVIEW OF DAY 1 ................................................................ ......... ...................................... 31

DAY 2 - DISCUSSION GROUPS ........................ : .................................................................................................... 32

INTRODUCTION ....... ..... . .... . .. .... . .. . .. ... ...... .... . ..... . .. . ... .. . .... ... . .. .. . .. .. .... .... .......... ... . ... . .... . .. .. .... . .. .. ....... .. .. .. .. . ... . .. . .... .. . .... . . . 32

GROUP I: MAJOR LINEAR PROJECTS .... .. .. ......... .. .. .... ........... .... .................... .... .... .. . ...... ..... ........ ... ...... . .... ......... .... ....... 33

GROUP 2 :·MAJOR SITE-SPECIFIC PROJECTS ...... . ............. .. .. .... ..... ........ . .. ............ .... ......... ....... ....... .. ... .... ..... ... .. ..... ... .... 37

GROUP 3 : URBAN D EVELOPMENT ... ..... . ...... ... . .. ...... . ... .. ..... .. ... .. .................. .. . .. ....................... .. ...... .. . .. ............. .... . .... .. 43

GROUP 4 : RURAL SETTING (AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY) .... .. .... .. .......... ... ... .. . ... .. ... ......... .. .. .. .. .. ... . .. . .. .. .. .. ........ .... .. 49

Final Discussion ........ ................. ... .. .... ..................... ... ......... ....... ..... ..... ...... .... ...... .. .. ... .... .... ..... ... .. ........ .. ..... ... .... .. 54

SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......... .................................... 55

KEY ISSUES ...... .... ..... ...... .. . . .. ...... . . ... . .. .. . . ...... . .. . ... . ......... . ... .. .. .. .... . .... . .. .. . ..... . . .. . . .. ... .. -. . .. .... .. .. ... ... . .. . . .. .. ... ...... . .. .... . .... . .. 55

MAJOR CONCLUSIONS .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. . ... . ... ... .. ... .. ... .. .. . ........ . ......... . .. ................. . ..... . .. ... ... . .. .. ... ...... .. .. ......... .... ........ . .. .. . ... ... 56

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS ..... ... .. ...... ..... .. . .... .. ... ... .. .. .. .... ..... .. .. .. ........ .. . ...... .... .... ... .. .... ... .. .. . ........ ..... .. ... .. .................. .. . 57

APPENDIX A: AGENDA ......................................................................................................................................... 61

APPENDIX B: SPEAKER BIOGRAPHIES ........................................................................................................... 63

APPENDIX C: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ........................................................................................................... 65

ENDNOTES ............................................................................................................................................................... 68

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Bridgepoint Market (Richmond) mudflat and marsh habitat compenstion .. .... ........................ .... 5 Figure 2. Coldwater River - Coquihalla Highway off channel habitat compensation ....................... .. ...... 19 Figure 3. Prince Rupert eel grass bed compensation ............................................. .. .......................... .. .. .. .. 26 Figure 4. Coquihalla River - Coquihalla Highway habitat compensation (riprap, boulder placement) .... 28 Figure 5. Thompson River - CN Rail habitat compensation (rock spurs) ........... .......................... .. .......... 28

II


DAY 1 - PRESENTATIONS

Welcome and Introduction: Evolution of Policy and Review of DFO's Attempts to Achieve a No Net Loss of Habitat

Otto Langer, Fraser River Action Plan, DFO

During the early formation of Canada, our political leaders in 1868 brought together fish conservation and management legislation from Upper and Lower Canada to form Canada's first Fisheries Act. Although the 1868 version had pollution provisions in it similar to Section 36(3) of the present Act, early versions had little in them to protect physical habitat other than from water use and stream obstructions.

A dedicated physical habitat protection provision did not appear in the Act until 1976. Like the pollution provision, it was simple and encompassing in its wording, and its application and intent were equally simple. The section read "No person shall carry on any work or undertaking that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat" (Section 35( 1 )). This wording, although simple, required better definition. Recently this wording has been summarized by the acronym HADD (harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat).

Once implemented in 1977, the new provisions of the Act were slow to take hold. To define its provisions, guidelines were put together to allow the public to direct their activities so as to not harm habitat. Early guidelines to support the habitat section ~ere the 1978 urban Land Development Guidelines. These were followed by the Fish Forestry Guidelines.

Throughout the time period from 1950 to the time of the habitat section and into the 1980s, the guiding principle in the protection of the habitat of fish was to "minimize damage". Much internal debate centred on this objective and by the late 1970s there was a general understanding that minimizing damage was simply not good enough, especially in finite habitat areas such as the Fraser River Estuary. The Fraser River Estuary Study (FRES) (forerunner to the Fraser River Estuary Management Program - FREMP) released its habitat report in 1978 and called for a no net loss of habitat in the estuary.

Discussion for the need for a policy on this matter carried on into the 1980s. The concept of no net loss of habitat was opened up for public discussion in 1982, and by 1984 a draft policy was available for public discussion. The policy as implemented in 1986 was upgraded to a net gain policy; however, the no net loss provisions remained the same.

In releasing the policy the Minister of Fisheries noted, "This new policy on fish habitat management is an explicit recognition by the federal government that fish habitat is a national asset. It is, I believe, an ambitious but realistic policy designed to achieve a Net Gain of Habitat for Canada's fisheries resources in a manner that will be of benefit to all user's. It does this by providing a comprehensive framework for the conservation, restoration and development of fish habitats and strategies for the implementation of its various components."

It is beyond this abstract to review the no net loss provisions of the policy other than if " ... the proposed development would result in a loss of productive fish habitat, the Department would review the measures

Day 1 - Presentations


required to achieve a no net loss ... "subject to a hierarchy of preferences. The first preference is to " ... maintain without disruption the natural productive capacity of the habitat(s) in question by avoiding any loss or harmful alteration at the site of the proposed project or activ ity." Should this not be possible the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) may look at compensation options to replace losses that cannot be totally avoided or mitigated. The first preference would be for like compensation on site; a last resort would be off site artificial production as compensation.

As the policy was developed, many staff expressed concern that no net loss had to be better founded on the principle of no habitat loss, and that the concept of "natural productive capacity" has caused confusion . Without a strongly worded prohibition many relate to no net Joss as never having to say no to developments in that compensation options are an easy way out. Further, the measurement of productive capacity versus habitat are two very different concepts.

To understand whether or not we are achieving a no net loss of habitat, the concept of HADD must be defined in user terms. I am not aware of a court interpretation of the meaning of the component parts of HADD. The section, unless authorized, prohibits three levels of negative impact that can occur when activity takes place in or near fish habitat. Although the section does not mention the impacts sequentially, the graded impact on a highway stream crossing project could be as follows.

As part of surveying the route of the stream crossing, workers may have driven across a stream in their 4X4. This is an unlawful disruption of habitat. The violation is a lower level of impact that will probably be short lived in duration. However, the cutting down of the trees along the stream to allow the 4X4 to cross the stream is a harmful alteration of habitat. The impact is of a mid term duration and will probably recover given months or a few years for nature to take its course. However, should the highway crew bulldoze fill

· into the stream and place a culvert into it for their work - that is a destruction of habitat. The basic features that define it as habitat (i .e. light, banks, vegetation, substrate, etc.) have been destroyed . Usually the impact is long term (years to indefinite) and human intervention is required should recovery take place.

Our first application of no net loss (NNL) took place well before the habitat provisions or the policy existed. In 1954 DFO and BC Electric (now BC Hydro) worked out an informal agreement whereby BC Hydro would dam Wah leach Lake and divert all water upstream of the lake into a power house. In turn they would build and maintain a salmon spawning channel that could function with only a fraction of the water that was available after the dam was built. DFO determined that the habitat of the major species (i.e. pink salmon) spawning in Jones Creek should be recreated so as to maintain the productive capacity of the run. Accordingly, since eggs in clean gravel would have a several fold higher survival, it was agreed that Hydro had to just provide I 0% of the spawning gravel that previously existed and assure adequate water to allow successful spawning and incubation. Although many may see this as a crude approach, it i ~ little different than many present applications ofNNL.

The application of NNL was routinely applied to Fraser River Division projects starting in 1983 - some 3 years before the policy came into place. The policy and its guiding principle of NNL required quick definition because many parties felt NNL with its compensation provisions meant that any project could be approved - no net loss was never having to say no! The Fraser River Estuary Study (FRES) had designated uses along the estuary (e.g. from recreational , industrial, conservation to undetermined use due to a Jack of consensus). Unfortunately these use designations lacked definition, did not relate to the Fisheries Act and were not part of a process necessary to relate designations to foreshore use applications.

In 1984 the Bridgepoint Market development in Richmond was proposed by the North Fraser Harbour Commission in a valuable mudflat/marsh area that FRES had designated as " undetermined use". The

Day 1 - Presentations 2

- -- - -- - - -------------------------------


development proposal became very controversial and as part of a compromise, DFO approved the loss of a part of the site subject to full compensation in an adjacent area and an environmental management plan for the I 00 km of harbour shoreline.

DFO required that the highest value marsh in Duck Slough be retained arid the mud and marsh to be lost in the adjacent area had to be replaced based on a formula of 2: I for marsh loss and I: 1 for mudflat loss. The 2: I requirement was established because it was hoped that a fully productive marsh would be in place in 3 to 5 years from time of planting and to address the lag time, a 2X consideration was applied in that marsh transplant. Data from Campbell River Estuary had indicated that it may take I 0 years for a new marsh to reach production of a control marsh. Further, the 2: I formula was to address risk due to hydraulic erosion of the site or simple failure for a number of other reasons.

Key to the application of NNL at this site was the development of a harbour management plan with the North Fraser Harbour Commission. The plan was developed around a simple concept - inventory all foreshore areas and colour code them. Areas of high value and in relatively good condition were coded red (requiring maximum protection under the Fisheries Act). They can be referred to as conservation areas and are to be avoided as development areas. An adjacent development was to have a zero impact. Yellow areas had some good habitat in them but development in these areas could take place subject to compensation (i.e. marsh 2: I/mudflat I: I/riparian I: I on a linear basis). Green areas had very low value habitat due to past development and redevelopment of these sites could occur with good engineering practices.

The value of the North Fraser Environmental Management Plan was that it was designed to put a simple but logical framework to the National Habitat Policy and its NNL principle. NNL, if applied without a strong conservation ethic (i.e. saying no to development in sensitive and productive habitat areas) and in a random manner, will result in a fragmentation and a slow net loss of the habitat base. The plan protects the key habitats and allows development in low value habitat areas. However, any habitat loss must be compensated for and replacement habitat will become red coded habitat.

The above system seems to have worked well and it was adopted and applied to the entire estuary in I 990, replacing the original FRES area designation system as a method of managing foreshore habitats. Those not knowing the history of the development of the system now refer to it as the "FREMP colour coding system". This habitat classification system became a critical tool for updating the earlier area designation map. FREMP is now updating this map with individual municipalities, federal and provincial agencies and harbour commissions.

Speaking Notes:

An assessment of 10 years of application of NNL principle.

Is the policy understood • by DFO? • the public?

Is NNL consistently applied • from area to area? • sector to sector?

Have we adequately monitored and/or audited projects?

3 Day 1 - Presentations


Are we achieving a "no net loss"? If not, why not?

How do we improve upon what we are doing?

Where do we go from here?

HADD

What is harmful disruption?

What is harmful alteration?

What is harmful destruction?

What is mitigation?

What is compensation? When does it take place?

A Historical Perspective

• Pre 1950s: develop at any cost.

• Habitat protection 1950 - 1965: rather hit and miss!

• Exception: 1956 Jones Creek Project: replace spawning productive capacity .

• 1965 - 1980: minimize habitat loss.

• 1977: HADD legislation

• 1980: FRES goal : a no net loss of estuary habitat.

• 1983: NNL in Fraser River

• 1986: National Habitat Policy

1994 Habitat Conservation & Protection Guidelines 1995 Authorization Directive 1996 Decision Framework for HADD (ESSA) 1996 Determination of HADD (Rescan)



Figure 1. Bridgepoint Market (Richmond) mudfl at and marsh habitat compenstion.

Top photo (July, 1988): Construction of the Bridgepoint Market on the N011h Arm of the Fraser River . The development resulted in the loss of mudflat and marsh habitat. Bottom photo (June, 1994): Compensation marsh/mudflat bench was developed at upstream site on Mitchell Island to replace marsh on a 2: 1 ratio and mudflat on a 1: 1 ratio .



No Net Loss in the Fraser River Estuary: Assessment of Methodology

Otto Langer, Fraser River Action Plan, DFO

Beginning in 1983 , all approved developments in the Fraser River Estuary were treated as " no net loss" projects. In many cases, development was refused in sensitive areas; however, when a project was approved, mitigation was required and any measurable habitat loss had to be replaced as compensation habitat.

Between 1983 and 1993 , approximately 60 projects in the estuary were implemented as no habitat loss (NNL) projects. In 1993 , the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) completed a review of the success of our experiences with NNL and it was published in 1996 (Kistritz, 1996). 1

In that NNL was applied differently from project to project, and differently in 1983 than in 1992, an objective assessment of whether we were achieving a no net loss of the productive capacity or even of habitat is difficult and even controversial. In the review, we assessed projects that had been in place several years as well as projects that were as little as a year old. At times different compensation formulae where used (e.g. marsh was replaced at 1: 1 and later at 2: 1) and formulae for unlike habitat tradeoffs (e.g. marsh for mudflat - 0.1: 1 to 0.5: 1) were often different. Also problematic was the question: do you subtract the loss of the productively capacity of a mudflat when it is " upgraded" to a marsh habitat?

An issue that caused much discussion was the yardstick used to measure a successful compensation project (i.e. a successful no net loss project). Does one assess success based on the specified area of replacement (e.g. the 2 m2 of marsh that was to be created to replace the 1 m2 lost) or do you determine you are 100% successfu l if you end up with 1 m2 at the time of the assessment? In our assessment we determined that compensation in the latter scenario was 50% successful (i .e. only one half existed of what was required). This was done because we felt that most of the assessed projects were much less than 10 years old and would not be up to full production (especially marsh compensation projects) and therefore the required replacement area should be fully in place if one was to consider it a complete success at that time.

The only solution to the above problem is to assess all projects at a specified time after the compensation habitat is built, relate this information to the habitat that is present at the time, and assess success of the project based on the area of the habitat created and its productivity. It is suggested that a 10 year time frame would be adequate to determine whether a project is successful or not. It must be appreciated that a great reliance is placed on the area of lost and replaced habitat. For practical purposes, area of habitat will probably be continued to be used in that our understanding and practicality of measuring productive capacity and function is limited. In this review a fully "greened-up" marsh was considered a successful replacement for the lost habitat if built to the correct size.

Therefore, when we measured and determined success based on the specified replacement areas, we ended up with habitat losses in the marsh, mud/sandflat and riparian categories. If we include the loss of sub-tidal habitats due to infilling, losses were also significant in this area. Although sub-tidal areas are important fish habitat, replacement for the loss of this habitat was not a consideration in most compensation type projects.

Mud/sandflat habitats were lost at a greater rate than marsh habitats because it was these unvegetated flats that were often filled in to create a higher elevation platform to plant a compensation marsh . One could



argue that the value of the mudflat may have been elevated but the question remains whether the subsequent loss of the mudflat function makes sense, especially if this scenario is repeated on an ongoing basis.

The (Kistritz/DFO) review highlighted a number of considerations that must be taken into account for any such future monitoring and audits of this type. Although the review was a first of this type, its cost was significant and throws in doubt our ability to conduct such reviews in the future . A failure to report objectively on how well no net loss is working will undermine the policy and/or the resource.



Created and Restored Sedge Marshes in the Lower Fraser River and Estuary: An Evaluation of their Functioning as Fish Habitat

Colin Levings, OFO Pacific Science Branch

Ecological comparisons of transplanted, natural (reference) and disrupted (unvegetated) marsh sites on the lower Fraser River and estuary, British Columbia, were conducted between 1991to1993.2 The study examined vegetative biomass and cover, invertebrate abundance, fish abundance, fish residency and fish food, and submergence time for the three habitat types. Standing crop biomass at three transplant sites were within the range of values for reference sites but was much lower at an unstable site where sediment slumping had occurred. The percent cover of Lyngbyei's sedge (Carex lyngbyei) in eight transplant sites was <50% of that observed in adjacent reference sites when data were averaged over the study area; rushes (Juncuss spp.) were more abundant in transplant sites. In all study reaches, abundance of invertebrates at transplant and reference sites was significantly higher than at disrupted sites. In several instances invertebrate abundance at transplant sites was greater than at reference sites. No significant difference (p>0.05) was observed among marsh sites when chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) and chinook salmon (0. tshawytscha) fry abundance were compared. However, chinook and sockeye ( 0. nerka) smolt catches were significantly different (p<0.05) among marsh sites and were usually higher at disrupted sites.

In nine sites in the North Arm and Deas Slough area chum fry residency was examined. At one transplant site (DE 1) marked chum fry were caught up to 48 hours after release. No fry were caught 1 hour after release at a transplant site (Dll) and a disrupted site (DE4). At the remaining sites fry were caught up to 1 and 3 hours after release. At all sites, over 80% of the total number of food organisms examined in chum fry stomachs was harpacticoid copepods. Mean submergence time for reference marshes ranged from 33 .2 to 50.7%, but for transplanted sites the value ranged from 26.4 to 60.1 %. Our study shows that numerous factors need to be examined in determining if restored marshes will function as natural habitats. The development of a standardized set of reference criteria would assist in evaluating whether or not transplanted marshes are functioning as designed.

Discussion

Q: What exactly is a "disrupted" site? A: That is a place within the same reach of river without vegetation, such as a sand flat, a mudflat, or a gravel beach. No restoration or compensation efforts were done on these sites. These were used to simulate disrupted sites.

Q: What kind of performance criteria are there for a marsh? A: Some of the performance criteria we use in marshes include submergence, plant production, density, vertebrates, and long term presence (i.e. does it stay, or is it washed away) .

Q: There is a concern that deposition will occur at restored sites. Is information available regarding the range of sediment accumulation? This is something that needs to be examined over the long term (i.e. "How long do these marshes live?") . A: The information is spotty. Public Works used to do channel surveys. People are aware of the need for long term examination, but it does not have the profile that it should .



Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Urban Referral Process in Protecting Water Quality and Fish Habitat in British Columbia

Melody Farrell, Fraser River Action Plan, DFO

The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (MELP) and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) have the legislative mandate to protect the fisheries resource, aquatic habitat, and water quality in British Columbia. This environmental management mandate extends to small urban watersheds where urban development proposals have the potential to significantly impact fish habitat and water quality. DFO (Habitat Management Sector) and MELP (Fish and Wildlife (F&W) Management, and Water Management Branch (WMB)) become involved in development proposals through the urban referral process, whereby they provide approval conditions pursuant to their legislation, policies a,nd guidelines.

This study evaluates the effectiveness of the urban referral system: it assesses how well the referral process is protecting fish habitat and water quality.3 Effectiveness was assessed by determining the level of compliance with the senior environmental agencies' referrai approval conditions in five study watersheds over a ten year period (1985-1995). The study area watersheds were located in the Lower Mainland (Bear and Hoy Creeks), the east coast of Vancouver Island (Departure Bay and Willow Creeks), and the Okanagan (Kelowna (Mill) Creek).

The urban referral files for each watershed were reviewed to determine the agencies' requirements for each site. Water Management Branch referrals (e.g. instream works, water licenses), municipal government referrals (e.g. rezoning, subdivision, building permits), and higher level planning referrals (e.g. official community plans) were reviewed. Following the file review phase each site (or a representative sample of sites) was visited in the field. Compliance with the relevant approval conditions was assessed using standardized evaluation forms. A summary of the findings are as follows:

Overall Project Compliance(% of projects falling into each category) Watershed Compliant Minor non- Significant non- Compliance

compliance compliance cannot be determined

Bear Creek 24% 4% 64% 7% Hoy Creek 40% 9% 38% 13% Willow Creek 15% 27% 50% 8% Dep. Bay Creek 25% 15% 25% 35% Kelowna Creek 38% 14% 33% 14%

The results of this study demonstrate that although compliance with the referral approval conditions of the senior environmental agencies varies between watersheds, the range of non-compliance with approval conditions is significant for all watersheds. Therefore, the effectiveness of the urban referral process in protecting fish habitat and water quality is limited.

This study also suggests that there is significant variation in the type and rigor of approval conditions issued in each of the geographic regions investigated as part of this study. We note that this is quite independent of the level of compliance with these approval conditions.

A series of recommendations pertaining to regional management approaches, monitoring and enforcement, technical/biological issues and requirements, and respective government roles are outlined in the final section of the report.



Questions for discussion: • Are we achieving NNL using this process? • What are the implications of this to revisions to the National Habitat Policy? How do we strengthen

the National Habitat Policy?

Speaking Notes:

I. Purpose 1. Evaluate the effectiveness of the urban referral system. 2. Assess the implementation of project approval conditions.

II. Background • System established in 1970 • Provides review I approval process • First formal evaluation

Ill. Types of Urban Referrals · Three types of referrals were evaluated :

• Water Management Branch • Municipal government • Higher level plans

IV. Study Areas The study focused on projects undertaken in five watersheds between 1985 - 1995

• Bear Creek (Surrey) • Hoy Creek (Coquitlam) • Departure Bay Creek (Nanaimo) • Willow Creek (Campbell River) • Kelowna (Mill) Creek (Kelowna)

V. Methods Phase 1 - File Review

The following types of referral files were reviewed for each watershed : • Subdivisions • Rezoning • Building permits • Higher level plans • Water Act applications

Files were chosen for review based on : • Size • Watershed distribution • Proximity to mainstream or large tributary • Approval I project timing • lnstream and land development linkage

Phase 2 - Field Program 1. Watershed health assessments 2. Project compliance analysis

• Setback I Leavestrip • Construction I site development practices • Storm water management I detention • Engineering requirements


' )


V. Watershed Analysis Bear Creek

• 25% EIA from 1985-95 • Significant riparian loss • Loss of wetted area • Culverting; Infilling; Bank stabilization • Significant WQ concerns • Local stewardship groups

Hoy Creek • Prior to 1990 lower reaches commercial • WESTWOOD PLATEAU (1991- present) • Loss of habitat • Riparian • WQ • Local stewardship group

Willow Creek • < 10% urban development, majority-timber reserve • Residential (lower 1.5km) • Chum loss coincided with 1950's water storage dam (removed 1961) • Some projects not referred • Significant local stewardship activity

Departure Bay Creek • Virtually 100% developed (pre 1985) • Early development to t-o-b • EIA from 1985 - 1995 • Many projects not referred • No local stewardship groups

Kelowna Creek • Development concentrated d/s of airport • Significant loss of habitat

1. channelization 2. Bank Protection 3. Culverts 4. Riparian clearing 5. Diversions (>3.2m315 diverted to Mission Crk)

• Enhancement efforts failing due to sediment inputs (1988) • No local stewardship groups

VI. Conclusions • Effectiveness of the referrals is questionable. • Non-compliance is significant for all watersheds. • Full compliance does not equal full protection.

Most deficiencies result from : 1. Variations in process. 2. Variations in conditions and standards: 3. Type and level of monitoring & enforcement. 4. Willingness to comply with approval conditions.


---------~----- ~


VII. Recommendations Regional

• Establish standard referral framework. • Collective endorsement and promotion of NNL and LOG. • Conduct information exchange workshops.

Monitoring

Discussion

• Use independent monitors. • Require monitoring reports. • Track monitoring reports. • Follow-up non-compliance. Enforcement

• Use bonding and securities. • Increase priority for enforcement by COs I FOs. • Develop regional enforcement strategy.

Technical I Biological Issues • Develop detailed application package. • Require EIAs for all large projects. • Adopt a standardized riparian protection approach . • Explore new BMPs. • Address cumulative environmental impacts. • Continue emphasis on education and awareness.

Municipal Role • Develop new approaches. • Formalize monitoring and enforcement functions.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs Role : • Designate OCP specialists. • Provide municipalities with model stewardship bylaws.

Q: How do conditions and standards vary among municipalities and regions and agencies? A: Processes, conditions and standards vary greatly among regions and between DFO and MELP.

Q: What are the projects not compliant with? A: The projects are not compliant with the conditions that were in the approval.

Q: Do you prefer independent or DFO monitors? A: We need to talk more about that. Now, 99% of our effort is in the referral stage. It would be nice if staff could get out in the field and follow up on the work. We get better results when that happens.

Q: Is there any work being done in urban areas, like the Forest Practices Code (i.e. Urban Practices Code)? A: We hope so. Why would we participate in a process where we are getting no compliance? We looked at 261 lots. There was 75% violation on lots with covenants, and only 70% violation on lots without covenants.



Q: How can we develop mechanisms to tie NNL to the Land Development Guidelines? How can we develop a process for dealing with situations where there is a loss of habitat? A: The objective of the Land Development Guidelines was to achieve NNL, but we are not achieving that at all.

Q: How can we ensure that the Municipal Act requires local governments to see environment as their responsibility rather than an option? A: There is a move underway to consider changes.

Q: Are there any differences between the 1980s and the 1990s? A: There have been significant improvements in standards and conditions associated with referral approval letters over time.



Fisheries Habitat Project Success: SW Alberta, BC, Alaska, Oregon & Washington

Mike Miles, M. Miles and Associates

A variety of studies have been recently undertaken to assess the performance of fisheries habitat development projects. The results are summarized below:

AGENCY AND LOCATION % PHYSICAL REFERENCE SUCCESS RATE

Alberta Fish and Game, SW Alberta 19 1, 2, 3,4, 5,6

Oregon and Washington 40 7, 8

Alaska 44 9, 10

Alberta Oldman River Dam Project, SW Alberta 49 6

BC Ministry of Environment 55 11,12,13

US National Forests 80 14, 15

With the exception of work in the US National Forests, the reported physical success rates are discouragingly low, particularly when it is realized that the post-construction assessment period is typically on the order of 2 to 6 years. Biological success was not commonly evaluated. Most biological assessments were undertaken principally on the basis of physical stability. The US National Forest projects have anomalously high physical success rates. This is thought to reflect both an annual maintenance program and the methodology used to define success.

Hartman and Miles (Ref 16) have recently reviewed the history of the Jones Creek spawning channel located near Hope .4 This project was more-or-less successful in maintaining pink salmon numbers until the channel was destroyed by a sizable flood in November 1995. The principal cause of failure was an increase in sediment supply due to logging activity in the upstream watershed.

The above results indicate, at the least, that better criteria for locating, designing and constructing fisheries habitat structures are required . A provision for on-going maintenance is also necessary, as are better monitoring programs to determine biological success and improve the basis for future design. However, the principal lesson is that structural measures to provide fisheries habitat do not persist, particularly in higher energy alluvial channels. This conclusion is not surprising, given that fisheries habitat in unimpacted channels is routinely created and destroyed. The primary objective of stream restoration projects should therefore be to restore the processes which are responsible for habitat development, rather than to artificially create structures which are frequently ephemeral. This is much more difficult than placing woody debris and boulders in the channel or excavating off-channel habitat areas. It requires evaluating, and possibly modifying, land use practices throughout the watershed . It means dealing with water quality and quantity issues . Ideally, it requires the preservation or restoration of valley flat and riparian areas and educating the population as to ecological and practical benefits of maintaining a corridor through which a stream can freely migrate. These tasks are formidable given the large areas over which they need to be undertaken . Such work requires competent technical expertise, landowner cooperation and political will. However, the compilation of regional success statistics indicate



that, if stream process is not restored and maintained, stream restoration projects will frequently have little or no long term benefit.

From the perspective of DFO's "No Net Loss" policy, the above results indicate that compensation or mitigation projects will likely require on-going monitoring and maintenance to ensure that they meet the intended objectives. If these studies indicate that "process" has been re-established no further work may be required. However projects which are dependent on created structures will likely have to be monitored · and maintained "forever" if "No Net Loss" is to be truly achieved. This necessitates an on-going source of funding and a regulatory framework which will ensure that the required work is actually undertaken.

Our results indicate that restoration and compensation or mitigation projects are frequently unsuccessful. More experience and better designs may improve future success rates. The obvious lessori however may be that it is easier to prevent future habitat damage than it is to repair it. This is a significant challenge for habitat protection biologists and others involved with stream management.

REFERENCES:

R.L.& L. Environmental Services Ltd., 1993 . Jnstream habitat structure audit 1992 summary report. Unpublished report prepared for Alberta Environmental Protection, southern Alberta Region, Lethbridge, AB.

2 R.L.& L. Environmental Services Ltd., M. Miles and Associates Ltd. and the Alberta Research Council. 1994. Analyses of the performance of stream habitat structures in southwestern Alberta-data report. Unpublished report prepared for Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Sustainable Fisheries Program, Winnipeg, MB.

3 O'Neil, J. and R. Pattenden. 1994. Making sense of the numbers - evaluating the response of fish populations to habitat structures in southwestern Alberta (1987-1993) . Jn Proceedings of 9th International Trout Stream Habitat Improvement Workshop, September 6-9, 1994, Calgary, AB. Trout Unlimited Canada, Calgary, AB.

4 Fitch, L., M. Miles, J. O'Neil, R. Pattenden and G. Van Der Vinne. 1994. Defining the variables that influence success of habitat structures in southwestern Alberta: a work in progress. Jn Proceedings of 9th

International Trout Stream Habitat Improvement Workshop, September 6-9, 1994, Calgary, AB. Trout Unlimited Canada, Calgary, AB.

5 R.L.& L. Environmental Services Ltd. and M. Miles and Associates Ltd. 1996. Post-flood status of instream habitat structures in southwestern Alberta. Unpublished report prepared for Alberta Environmental protection, Southern Region, Lethbridge AB.

6 Pattenden, R., M. ·Miles, L. Fitch, G. Hartman and R. Kellerhals. In Press. Can lnstream Structures Restore Fish Habitat. Jn Proceedings: Forest Fish Conference 1996, Land Management Practices Affecting Aquatic Ecosystems, May 1-4, 1996, Calgary, AB. Trout Unlimited Canada.

7 Frissell, Christopher A. and Richard K. Nawa. 1992. Incidence and causes of physical failure of artificial habitat structures in streams of western Oregon and Washington. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12: 182-197.

8 Beschta, R.L. , W.S. Platts, J.B. Kauffman and M.R. Hill. In Press. Artificial stream restoration - money well spent or an expensive failure? Jn Proceedings of 10th International Stream Habitat Improvement Workshop, August 19-22, 1996 Corvallis Or. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. pp. 21-49.

9 Parry, B.L., C.M. Rozen and G.A. Seaman. 1993 . Restoration and enhancement of aquatic habitats in Alaska - project inventory, case study selection, and bibliography. Technical Report No. 93-8. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, AK.

10 Parry, B.L. and G .A. Seaman. 1994. Restoration and enhancement of aquatic habitats in Alaska - case study reports, policy guidance, and recommendations. Technical report No. 94-3. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, AK.

11 Hartman, G.F. and M. Miles. 1995. Evaluation of fish habitat projects in British Columbia and recommendations on the development of guidelines for future work. Unpublished report pn;pared for Fisheries Branch, BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC,

12 Miles, M.J. In Press. On the difficulty in restoring fisheries habitat in impacted gravel-bed rivers - case studies from the Coquihalla Highway and other areas of northwestern North America. Jn Proceedings Gravel-Bed Rivers IV, Gravel-Bed Rivers in the Environment, August 20-26, I 995, Gold Bar, WA.



13 Kellerhals, R. and M.J . Miles . 1996. Fluvial geomorphology and fish habitat: implications f or river restoration. In Proceedings of the Second JAHR Symposium on Habitat Hydraulics, Ecohydraulics 2000, June 1996, Quebec City, PQ. pp. A261-279.

14 Doyle, J.E. 199 l. A report on large woody debris management - Mt. Baker - Snoqualmie National Forest. Mt. Baker - Snoqualmie National Forest, Pacific Northwest Region, Forest Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

15 Uthank, A. 1994. Summmy of initial results of tabulations for stream proj ect structures placed on the Willamette National Forest between 1986 and 1993. Unpublished draft document, Mt. Willamette NF. Pacific Northwest Region, Forest Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture . WA.

16 Hartman, G .F. and M. Miles . 1997. Jones Creek spawning/rearing channel proj ect: post failure analysis and management recommendations. Prepared for Fraser River Action Plan, DFO, Vancouver, B.C.

Discussion

Q: Ministry of Highways wanted a design manual for building structures out of the Coquihalla Project. Was it done ? A: It was never done. This report (the Miles Report) was to be in four phases: Phase I was to find out where the projects were and roughly how well people the people who did them thought they were working; Phase 2 was to go out in the field and do some assessment; Phase 3 was to look at the data and do statistical, failure analysis. The results from the first phase were so negative that the final three phases were never completed. We currently do not have enough quantitative engineering information to come up with such a design manual.

Q: Subsequent to putting in structures in the Coquihalla, how were flood events to be monitored? A: Our flood frequency analyses do not work due to climate and land use changes resulting in bigger floods. We are dealing with a different population of events.

Q: Are there any merits to waiting for a flood before putting in structures? A: We do not know when floods will occur. Some structures are needed. In some areas, we cannot get back in after the highway is constructed. Also, we cannot get bigger rocks than we used .

Q: Is No Net Loss achievable on the Coquihalla Highway Project? A: No, it is not achievable in most instances on other streams either. There is a perception with fish biologists that we can always build more; but there is a physical limitation to what you can build and make work.

Comment: NNL is even more difficult in the urban environment because we do not have the space or flexibility to do anything A: That is true. Urbanization will increase flood flows by 8 to 9 times. It is very difficult, especially if there is no riparian area. The wetlands in the Fraser River are on a one way trip to becoming terrestrial vegetation. Someone will have to go in and excavate, but no one wants to pay for it. The point is that there are some things that can be achieved with structures, but there are limitations.

Q: Is there any data on the success of providing access to rivers in natural situations? A: It was attempted on the Coldwater River. Sometimes there is no dissolved oxygen in there and poor water quality exists. The problem is that you must go back and excavate periodically. You have to give room for the river to move. We tried to connect back channels, but there were problems after the change. The ideal is to allow the river to retain its natural channels.



No Net Loss and the Coquihalla Highway: Along the Coldwater River

Brent Lister, D.B. Lister & Associates Ltd.

The Coquihalla Highway was constructed through the Coldwater River valley in 1985-1986. The highway closely paralleled a 39 km section of the upper river, requiring channelization at six bridge sites, river diversion at three sites, several river and wetland encroachments, and alteration of two tributaries. All affected sites were armoured extensively with rip rap on one or both banks. Nineteen hundred meters of stream were altered and 240 m ofmainstem length, totalling 2100 m2 in area at low flow, were lost.

The Coldwater River supports significant populations of chinook and coho salmon and steelhead trout. Based on pre-project assessment, fisheries agencies required the B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Highways (MOTH) to mitigate anticipated highway construction impacts on juvenile salmonid rearing habitat. As a result, 60 habitat enhancement structures were installed in altered sections of the river mainstem, and groundwater fed rearing and ~verwintering channels, totalling 12,600 m2 in area, were developed at six off-channel sites. The latter mitigation strategy was directed primarily at juvenile coho which were known to prefer off-channel habitat.

A three-year post-construction monitoring program was initiated in 1986 to determine the overall effect of highway construction on juvenile salmonid rearing, and to evaluate performance and adequacy of mitigation measures.56 The Coldwater mainstem was studied at six altered sites--three bridges and three diversions--and six control sites selected to provide physical habitat similar to pre-project conditions at the altered sites. Mainstem study sites totalled 1900 m long and 22, 700 m2 in area. Thirty-two mainstem enhancement structures were also studied. Assessment of off-channel habitats included the six compensatory habitat sites and two natural sites for comparison.

· The monitoring program assessed changes in habitat and juvenile salmonid use of the Coldwater mainstem relative to the positive contribution of the off-channel compensatory habitat. Under high flow conditions in early summer, a significant unmitigated loss of side channel habitat was indicated for all species. At low flow, in late summer and winter, project impacts differed between species. In late summer, the net effects of the highway project were positive for juvenile chinook, wild coho and steelhead, but slightly negative for hatchery coho (despite a substantial contribution from off-channel compensatory habitat). In winter, negative impacts were indicated for juvenile chinook and steelhead underyearlings. Losses in mainstem coho habitat were more than compensated by the off-channel habitat that had been created.

In summary, the three-year study suggested unmitigated impacts on habitat of:

(1) all species at two river diversions at high flow;

(2) hatchery coho at low flow in late summer; and

(3) chinook and steelhead O+ under late winter conditions.

Post-construction biological monitoring studies were conducted in the Coldwater River mainstem over three annual cycles, from July 1986 to March, 1989. Mainstem mitigation features, including rock spurs, . boulder groups, and single boulders, contributed positively and significantly to rearing habitat suitability at altered sites under late summer conditions. The mitigation features were estimated to increase habitat suitability by + 13-21 % for chinook, + 11-26% for coho, + 1-10% for steelhead parr, and -1 to + 1 % for steelhead underyearlings . Over the biological monitoring period, there was little measurable change in physical character of the Coldwater mainstem study sites, including the mitigation features. In two



winters immediately following that period, however, relatively large flood events caused substantial changes to the physical character of most study sites. Installed mitigation features were also radically altered by the high flows. 7 Aside from photographic documentation, reported in this Workshop by M. Miles, there has been no follow-up assessment of habitat suitability and fish utilization of Coldwater River mainstem or off-channel study sites since 1989.

The Coldwater River monitoring experience illustrates the limitations of short duration post-project studies for assessing the success of impact mitigation/compensation measures in meeting "no net loss" of fish habitat.

Discussion

Q: What has happened in the river since the work was done and since the 1995 flood? A: Unfortunately, we haven't been asked to go and look. Mike Miles showed a photo of a diversion in the early stages of the project, then later with lots of wood debris lodged in and a lot more complexity. That kind of situation is not necessarily bad from a fish habitat point of view. Half of such situations are likely negative and half positive. There are gains and losses. Weirs unravelling is not necessarily bad.

Q: Why were the studies not completed? A: Ministry of Transportation and Highways just lost all interest in measurements concerning these projects so a great deal of information was lost by not going back to them for a longer post-construction period. They have slipped back to where they were 20 years ago.

Q: What do you attribute to the difference in success between steelhead and salmon? A: They look for different things. Steelhead have no aversion to large rocks, and they like deep habitat. There is a great deal of rip rap out there, so this is causing a larger length of somewhat suitable habitat for steelhead. It is similar for chinook. The altered areas may not have been prime steelhead habitat.

Q: Jn comparing natural habitat vs. rip rap habitat, what is the best? A: Natural habitat with abundant cover is the best. Areas with sparse cover are the worst. Improvement of sparse areas improves habitat. The altered and the reference sites could have no great differences during the summer. Sites where there is abundant natural cover are much more preferred during winter than an average rip rap bank. Fish are more discriminating in their search for winter habitat.

Q: One of the major impacts of the highway is its affect on the river's process. Do you have any thoughts on where we go from here in the future? A: I agree with Mike Miles - off channel habitat development (or any development of habitat) could be beneficial if it is viewed as "here today - perhaps gone tomorrow". Off-channel work is okay, as long as there is not a great deal invested in the protection of it.

Q: But the highway itself is permanent- this was not addressed from a No Net Loss perspective. A: Geomorphologists were supposed to do it. One of the benefits of the Coquihalla Monitoring project was to set up long term monitoring. It is a real deficiency that the long term assessment was never done.



Figure 2. Coldwater River - Coquihalla Highway off channel habitat compensation .

Construction of off-channel habitat to replace loss of beaver dam rearing habitat for juvenile salmon ids on the Coldwater River, due to construction of the Coquihalla Highway. Top photo (1986) : Off channel habitat, one year after construction . Bottom photo (1990) : Off channel habitat, three years after planting of woody vegetation .



Vancouver Island Natural Gas Pipeline Project

Rick Higgins, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Nanaimo

Speaking Notes:

1. A review under National Policy

2. Map of area from Coquitlam to Victoria and Campbell River, including laterals to mills

3. Introduction, description of project

4. Timing a) Mainland - Feb. to Nov.; resume again in May b) Van. Isl. - May 1990 to Oct. 1991

5. Construction Intensity (No. of machine days per week) a) Mainland - machine days per km. ranged from 78 near Sechelt to 182 near

Woodfibre. b) Van. Isl - machine days per km . ranged from 39-68

6. Identification of Streams

a) Region 1 - Coquitlam/Hixon Creek to Dakota/Wi lson Creek - steep mountain grades and side slopes in mountain valleys; mostly shallow, coarse, well drained soils; high precipitation; numerous crossings of creeks and long parallel sections

b) Region 2 - Dakota Creek/Wilson Creek to Secret Cove, plus Texada Island - thicker soils, generally more gentle slopes and low to moderate precipitation (less snow?); few stream crossings and none parallel.

Vancouver Island: c) Region 3 - Comox to French Creek plus Campbell River lateral and section of Port Alberni lateral in

Hunts Creek area; relatively level ROW but with many deeply incised stream approaches; deep, fine soils and moderate precipitation.

d) Region 4 - French Creek to Victoria and the Harmac and Crofton laterals; soils shallower, coarser and better drained than northern sections; numerous steep stream approaches and less level terrain between than Region 3; moderate precipitation .

7. Types of "Incidents"

erosion:

mass wasting:

Day 1 - Presentations

persistent silty runoff during rainy periods, not necessarily attributable to construction activity

slumps occurred in four areas of Vancouver Island between km . 44-54 approx. Rosewall to Qualicum River (Whiskey Creek, a tributary to Big Q. are examples)

20

instream sedimentation:

dewatering:

fill/ditch water disposal:

Discussion


installation or removal of flumes, pumps, culverts.

dams installed prior to pumping or diversion installed pnor to fish salvaging

backfill resulted in water being squeezed into creek; disposal of ditch water was a frequent concern.

Q: Are there any plans for future maintenance access? A: Yes. The proponent fixed several problems right away and did an excellent job. All roads, etc. were deactivated. All access is by "shoeflys" (by helicopter).

Q: Were there any charges? A: There were no successful prosecutions of the three charges laid. Two were lost because proponents proved due diligence; the other was lost because of the statute of limitations.

Q: What was the cause of losing the cases because of due diligence? A: They thought the inspectors advised otherwise.

Q: Were the problems associated with the company or the contractor? A: West Coast Energy used a contractor. They lost seven slopes - fine soils came into the creek. WCE's

. operating company did it right on its own (use of French drains, etc.). Comment: The Alberta engineers had never encountered BC terrain, conditions or regulations before.

Q: Is the process any better now? A: BC Utilities Commission (BCUC) is too restrictive. At BCUC there are more lawyers and the issues do not get discussed. The process would be better if there were more dialogue. The CEAA process is better because it is a "free-for-all". One recommendation would be to avoid building during winter. DFO was going to shut down the contractors. As a big player, West Coast Energy was able to influence the process. If requirements for shutting down were put into the energy certificate, the price (of gas) would increase because of the costs of rnobilizing and demobilizing the construction crews. A big problem is that Alberta companies have not been exposed to west coast rains. In Alberta, pipelines are built like a train. In BC, there are 30 different locations being worked on at once. At the (BCUC) hearings, they said that they would stop in October and start in May.



The Vancouver Island Highway Project: Striving for No Net Loss

Brent Lister, O.B. Lister & Associates Ltd.

The Vancouver Island Highway along the east coast of the Island is a major undertaking which will take over 10 years from planning to completion. This $1.2 billion project involves 300 km of highway, including 160 km of new road construction and 140 km of highway upgrading to improve safety and capacity. The highway crosses more than 100 fish-bearing streams and intercepts numerous minor drainages flowing into those streams. Potential impacts on water quality and fish habitat are the most widespread and significant of the environmental concerns. In selecting new highway routes, major consideration is given to avoiding wetlands and to crossing streams at locations where potential for fish habitat impact is low. Bridge designs endeavour to preserve riparian vegetation. At culvert sites, bottomless arch designs are used in may cases to maintain the natural stream bottom.

To facilitate environmental input to the project, the Vancouver Island Highway Project (VIHP) employs full-time environmental coordinators and an environmental manager who are members of the Project Management Team. VIHP also funds two environmental agency representatives, who report to Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and BC Environment staff, and provide agency surveillance of construction, input to project design, and a continuing point of contact for VIHP environmental staff. Specialist consultants are engaged to advise project designers on fish habitat values and impact mitigation, and environmental monitors provide inspection of construction projects.

Highway crossings of fish-bearing streams involve bridges at 40% of the sites, and oversized culverts with a natural stream substrate in the remaining cases. To determine compliance with the "no net loss" objective, VIHP conducts pre-construction monitoring of fish and habitat at most crossings of fish bearing streams. Post-construction monitoring is confined mainly to sites such as culvert crossings, where fish habitat has been directly affected by construction. Effectiveness of culvert designs for mitigating habitat impacts is a major focus of the monitoring program. As part of habitat compensation agreements with DFO, post-construction monitoring programs (six year duration) are being implemented at two streams where major channel relocations had to be undertaken.

Erosion and sediment control, which are major concerns during construction, are addressed through design plans, special construction procedures, and the use of sediment settling ponds at fish-bearing streams. Habitat remediation measures are being undertaken at two streams that have suffered demonstrable impact from sedimentation. There is obvious room for improvement in sediment control, through better designs and construction practices for dealing with erodable materials. Another feature of the VIHP, unique in British Columbia highway design, is the post-construction conversion of sediment ponds into engineered wetlands, to provide for ongoing treatment of highway runoff before it enters sensitive streams.

Discussion

Q: Do you believe there will be No Net Loss in this project? A: We do not know. It is being treated as mitigation, not compensation.

Q: Has there been any damage to the ginseng cover used to create shade? A: There could be some young people in the area, but the cover is only used for 3 months of the year. Damage is not really a concern.



Q: Ten to twenty years in the future, will there be sufficient vegetation the.re when the piles rot out? A: Those structures for the cover are permanent, steel piles with reinforced concrete. Comment: These structures were very controversial, because they were expensive. But if we need to use structures to maintain habitat, they have to be "forever".

Q: What is the design life of the culverts? A: Fifty years.

Q: What are the enforcement issues on a highway project? I have a sense that enforceable situations were "let slide". A: Six charges were contemplated by the Crown, but did not go forward because of due diligence. One charge did go forward - re: Hamilton Creek. The charge was for putting sediment into the creek. The project was not charged, just the individual contractor at that site. At Big Qualicum River, the charge was dropped because of due diligence - the agencies had approved the work. The project accepted responsibility for some problems and is paying DFO for cleanup and habitat improvements there. At Chef Creek, there was sand put into the stream. They will be taking remedial measures and supporting river clean-up to improve habitat there. The charges at Campbell River may be pursued.



Prince Rupert Harbour Projects

Uriah Orr, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Prince Rupert

A Brief Update on Port of Prince Rupert Eel Grass Compensation Project -Philips Point Digby Island

By agreement with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Port of Prince Rupert undertook a 4140m2 eel grass compensation project in return for 2760 m2 of eel grass consumed by a 1989 expansion of the Port ' s Fairview Terminal facility. The site chosen for compensation is located approximately 2.6 kms to the south of the Fairview Terminal facility on the northeast side of Digby Island near Philips Point.

The compensation site consisted of a cobble/boulder armoured beach (H.W.L. elevation 7.5 m - L.W.L. 0.0 m) located between two existing natural eel grass beds . The cobble/boulder cover was dredged from the site April 8 - 12, 1989. Fine substrate dredged from the Fairview expansion site was relocated to the compensation site to a depth of 1.0 - 1.5 metres above zero tide datum. One year later on April 28, 1990, eel grass shoots harvested from a nearby location were transplanted to the compensation site.

The compensation site was first monitored in the summber of 1992. This survey of the receptor site measured significant erosion ofthe fine substrate with net losses of fill ranging between 100 mm and 200 mm in depth. The 1992 survey also determined the original receptor site excavation was halted 1.5 metres above the specified elevation of 0.5 m. Eel grass coverage was reported as varying from 0 to 50% for an overall site average of 13%. The monitor concluded that the sparse coverage resulted from micro site instability within the receptor site where fines had washed out of the planted substrate.

On August 9, 1993, the Port of Prince Rupert engineers re-excavated the centre of the compensation site closer to the elevation originally specified. Cobble material from the re-excavation site was added to the previously built rock berms surrounding the site. Sand dredged from a nearby subtidal site was placed in the re-excavation. The replacement sand was not replanted.

Visual observation of the compensation site in August of 1996 shows sparse eel grass growth well below the 40 shoots/m2 specified in the April 1990 agreement. By comparison, the natural site immediately south of the compensation site shows a high shoot density. If 40 shoots/m2 average eel grass density at the compensation site is the minimum density for achievement of "No Net Loss" then this standard, as of August 1996, has not been achieved.

Discussion

Q: You said "things just go ahead" what do you mean? What was at the compensation site prior to the eel grass? A: We do not have much documentation on what was on the site before. This is often the case in marine environments - there is no information on the natural state of the receptor site. We do not know how valuable the site was.



Q: What was the "net loss" from this compensation? A: We gained only a third of the needed eel grass replacement at best. The eel grass is eroding.

Q: Is it turning back into a cobble beach? A: Yes.

Q: Who did the eel grass transplants? Had they ever done it before? Did DFO have any say in their qua! ifications? A: Consultants hired by Prince Rupert Port Corporation did the planting work. There was a big rush on this from PR Port Corp., so the focus was on just trying to get it done, and less time was spent on the biology.

Q: Did you follow up with the agreement? Was there a monitoring agreement? A: We were hoping to get an agreement, but they are off the hook now. Remedial action was part of the agreement, but only if it could be shown that a storm had wiped out the site.



Figure 3. Prince Rupert eel grass bed compensation.

Top photo: An eel grass compensation site was built at Digby Island in 1989, and planted in 1990, to replace loss of similar habitat at Fairview Terminals (Prince Ruper Harbour). Eel grass growth was sparse and well below the 40 shoots/m2 specified in the original agreement. Bottom photo: Natural reference site site immediately south of the compensation site (showing high shoot density). (Both sites photographed August, 1996.)

Day 1 - Presentations 26 c


Railway Construction and No Net Loss: Examples from the North Thompson and Thompson River Systems

Brent Lister, D.B. Lister & Associates Ltd . . This presentation deals with selected construction projects of CN Rail and CP Rail, and the application of "no net loss" to the fish habitat impact of those projects.8 In each case, there was post-construction monitoring of impact mitigation/compensation measures immediately following construction, and subsequent follow-up study 5-12 years later to assess the continuing effectiveness of the mitigatory measures.

As part of its Twin Track Project, CN Rail constructed in 1984-85 approximately 30 km of additional track along the North Thompson River and associated wetlands in the Blue River area north of Kam loops. The project involved several river encroachments and loss of wetland habitat, mainly at the Cook Creek and Peddie Creek tributaries. Chinook and coho salmon rearing occurred in the river mainstem, and wetland habitat supported coho rearing. Compensatory stream and wetland habitat, constructed at the tributaries, was the subject of post-construction monitoring of fish use and habitat quality 1-2 years after construction. The performance of a single rock spur, a mitigatory measure installed at one of the North Thompson River encroachments, was also included in post-construction monitoring. In the absence of adequate quantitative pre-project data on fish use of the affected areas, post-construction assessments utilized adjacent unaffected wetland or mainstem areas as reference sites for comparison.

Initial post-construction monitoring of wetland sites in 1985 and 1987 indicated that the Cook Creek compensatory habitat was functioning well , and appeared to be meeting the "no net loss" requirement. Compensatory wetland habitat at Peddie Creek was well utilized by rearing coho juveniles, but due to the shallow nature of the pond (< 1.2 m deep), neither the compensatory habitat nor the adjacent natural wetland provided significant overwintering habitat for coho. The North Thompson River spur created backeddy habitat which was well utilized by juvenile chinook, but virtually unused by coho juveniles. Sand deposition downstream of the spur appeared to have a negative effect on habitat suitability for coho.

In early 1991, CP Rail undertook bank stabilization measures at two sites on the Thompson River approximately 6 km upstream of Ashcroft. Slope stabilization included rip rap encroachment at the toe of slope, and re-creation of existing backeddies by addition of rock spurs. The associated monitoring program involved one year of pre-construction study (1989-90) at the sites to be altered and at reference sites, and one year of post-construction study ( 1991) at the same sites. The pre-project study revealed juvenile chinook salmon and steelhead trout rearing, and limited pink salmon spawning, in large backeddies at the 2 sites to be altered. Post-construction study indicated that rearing habitat values had been maintained, and that replacement spawning habitat had compensated for any loss of spawning area.

In 1996, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans funded follow-up monitoring of the habitat mitigation and compensation measures implemented by CN Rail and CP Rail. That study included assessment of physical habitat changes plus limited fish sampling at North Thompson study sites. The 1996 monitoring indicated that physical habitat had been maintained at all study sites. Rock spurs were all intact, and wetland habitats had experienced no negative changes in suitability for juvenile salmonid rearing. Changes in flow patterns at Cook Creek wetland, due to beaver activity, had resulted in improved water depth and water quality in the some parts of the compensatory habitat. The CP Rail project near Aschroft is an example of a well designed monitoring program which included the use of reference sites for both the pre- and post-project assessments.



Figure 4. Coquihalla River - Coquihalla Highway habitat compensation (riprap, boulder placement).

Coarse riprap and large boulder placement in the Coq uiha lla River in 1984 to create holding/reari ng habitat lost due to Coquihalla Highway construction on a high energy stream. (Photo: 1985.)

Figure 5. Thompson River - CN Rail habitat compensation (rock spurs).

•

Construction of small rock spurs in the Thompson River, to create backeddies for juvenile salmond holding and rearing to replace habitat filled in by railway construction (CN Rail bridge in background). (Photo: October, 1996.)


------- - ---- ------ --- -------------- - - - ------...


Skeena River Highway Upgrade Project: Khyex -Tyee

Tom Pendray, Habitat Biologist, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, North Coast Region

INTRODUCTION

Points to consider when reviewing this project:

1. Compensation works focussed only on upper intertidal sedge vegetation. Is this the correct approach? Should creation of mudflat also be considered?

2. "Hard" constructed compensation works vs. using natural processes to recreate the habitat. Timing considerations. What is a reasonable time frame to expect NNL to be achieved??

3. Uncertainty in developing compensation works in very dynamic and unpredictable environments ·

such as large river systems.

THE PROJECT

The Project involved widening a 10 km section of Highway 16 from Khyex R. Bridge to Tyee Bank approximately 30 km east of Prince Rupert. This project was originally planned in the early 1980s and was mainly for safety purposes. Over half of this road section is immediately adjacent to the Skeena River near the tidal fishing boundary of the river - i.e. estuarine conditions. Much of this section has rock cliffs with a narrow fringe of mudflat and sedge along the river. Moving further in against the rock was impossible due to the presence of the railway line. Therefore the widening project required fill out onto the intertidal mudflats and areas vegetated with sedge and salt-tolerant grasses dominated by Carex lyngbyeii.

Construction was estimated to involve the direct destruction of 1.65 ha of sedge · habitat and a total intertidal fill area of 2.6 ha (i .e. the remainder was unvegetated mudflat). In addition, the work would involve the encroachment and alteration of small, fish-bearing stream channels in five places within very low gradient, intertidal sections. The only compensation required for the intertidal river in-fill was for the loss of the sedge vegetation - this was how all compensation works would be measured. The smaller stream encroachments were to involve simply recreating the approximate channel dimensions adjacent to the fill.

As a result of a hydraulic assessment, it was agreed that the compensation scheme would involve the construction of a total of eight rock spurs jutting out into the river at various angles. The rock spurs were intended to trap river sediments and protect sedge transplant areas. After construction of the spurs, the overall compensation plan was altered somewhat to involve transplanting at only one large site rather than at all the spur sites. The final plan involved the preparation and planting of three "habitat pads" within an approximately 3 ha area between two of the largest spurs. It was expected that the vegetation would expand from these original transplants to fill an area of at least 2.6 ha. - this would be the "measure" of habitat compensation success. Chronology of the project - assessments were carried out in 1990, 1991, 1994, and 1996 (NB. based on a draft monitoring report by Eric White - 1996):

• Spring-summer.1988 - road construction carried out. • Sept-Jan 1989 - compensation works constructed - rock spurs and habitat pads. • April 1989 - 1st transplant done on the 1st habitat pad. • July 1989 - survey of 1st transplant. Although transplants were initially surviving well, this survey

also shows that losses from road construction have increased to 2 .15 ha due to erosion and sedimentation in initially unaffected areas.

• April 1990 - transplants carried out on last 2 habitat pads.



• July 1990 - surface elevations in compensation area (and adjacent areas) rising. Survivals of previous year ' s transplants only 57% due to burial of vegetation by sediment.

• July 1991 - sedimentation of transplant sites continuing- survival less than 50%. • July 1994 - surface elevations have continued to rise and intertidal vegetation losses have continued.

Survival rates of 46.7% and 35% from 1989 and 1990 plantings .

CURRENT SITUATION - 1996 Assessment

• Total intertidal vegetation still in a deficit of 2.2 ha from pre-construction estimates. • Total vegetation has increased since 1994, largely from expansion of natural sedge areas, however,

and there are indications that it will increase further - possibly at a rapid rate. • The total area of intertidal mudflat above 0 m chart datum (i.e. the area available for intertidal

vegetation growth) has increased very substantially - at least doubled in the vicinity of the project -due to rapid sedimentation following spur construction. Assessment of the topographic survey data by M. Miles (in the draft White report - 1996) indicates that sedimentation is slowing down - i.e. the area is gradually stabilizing - but that significant sedimentation will continue.

• The consultants project that NNL objectives will be achieved by 1999 ( 11 years after construction).

This is an example of working with the process to recreate habitat rather than "hard construction" of the habitat. The time frames may be much longer, but the end result may be more enduring?? NB. Total cost of compensation for this project is estimated at $500,000.

Discussion Q: When the new mudflat was created, was an assessment done on the habitat function of the area covered? A: No fisheries assessment was conducted. The covered area was likely a subtidal mudflat.

Q: Was there no provision to do remedial work for the significant die-off during the initial years? A: There was no written agreement. It did not make sense to keep transplanting without raising the area and until the area stabilizes.

Comment: Mike Miles - Discussion of the effect of process on this site: This project is an excellent example of the river process. The problem was the need to raise the surficial level enough to allow a marsh to develop. Spurs were planned. We expected it would take decades. When such sites are exposed, there is a daily deposition of sediment. The surface erodes and deposits sediment, so it is difficult for carex to get established. We did not expect carex to do very well. The constructed spurs have forced the high velocity area away from shore. A massive accumulation of sediment occurred upstream. We raised the elevation, so we expected maturity of vegetation. The vegetation establishment will really take hold and will continue to expand. Areas where carex can grow is rapidly expanding.

Q: Are you expecting to change the island with the spur? A: The end of the spur is in the lee. Also, offshore, the long vegetated island protects the site from wave erosion. Ice action is also important and difficult to predict. Ministry of Transportation and Highways no longer has money for this kind of situation. Hopefully, though, there will be money from somewhere. We can learn a great deal from this site. If it is within the five-figure area, there should be money within the discretion of the region for monitoring of this site.



Discussion and Review of Day 1 The points below were raised by participants following the background presentations. The points are generally grouped by discussion topic .

• The jury is still out on achievement of No Net Loss. • There is a variety of processes used to achieve No Net Loss. • We need to take a long term view. How long do we wait to determine whether we have achieved

NNL? Over what time period do we measure our losses and gains?

• Most of the projects presented today were large projects, with a great deal of money involved. Many projects we deal with daily are small and involve incremental loss of habitat. How do we get compensation for incremental loss?

• We have tried to develop a formula for determining compensation, but some people think that we should not even allow these losses.

• How do you assess NNL? We need a process to assess what a loss is and how we can compensate for it.

• This has been a real eye-opener, especially the report on non-compliance in urban areas. We need to focus on audits and enforcement.

• We should go to municipalities and ask them how many impassable culverts exist in their area. If we could address those issues then perhaps we would begin to address the problem. This would not be · "like for like" compensation.

• Alteration of habitat in urban areas is different than in a forestry setting. The Fisheries Act is more geared to point sources. It is difficult to monitor and address non-point sources. We have a staff and a strategy problem. We need more effort in planning and enforcement.

• Let's get more competent consultants who will do the job for us.

• Linear facilities will always cause damage. We cannot avoid compensation.

• We need to know when to get worried to let proponents know that as soon as sediment gets to a certain level, Fisheries Officers will be there.

• We need to let politicians know that there is going to be a Net Loss, and they should not blame the technical people to attain otherwise, with the present resources and will.

• We do not have adequate information about specific sites and the functioning of systems. We are doing very little monitoring due to lack of resources and priorities.

• The constraints that we impose on developers must relate to timelines that are politically and resource realistic. Considering our work load, we do not have the resources to ensure that a project has met all the hurdles and has met our requirements. ·

• Information is usually gathered over a one-year period. We have to look at geological and biological processes. We need to look more at "process" (system) information rather than at point source information.

31 Day 1 - Discussion and Review


DAY 2 - DISCUSSION GROUPS

Introduction The goal of the workshop was to assess the experience with applying the No Net Loss principle over the past I 0 years. To facilitate such an assessment, the workshop attendees were divided into four work groups. The work groups were established based on various classes of projects to which No Net Loss has been applied . The four groups were :

1. Major Linear Projects 2. Major Site Specific Projects 3. Urban Development 4. Rural Setting

Each group examined the key issues, and made recommendations on the following aspects of No Net Loss, as they apply to the theme or class of projects .

1. Identifying Habitat • How do we identify fish habitat for this class of project? Examples: fisheries stream inventories,

ESA study, EIA, consultant studies, integrated resource management plans.

2. Assessing Options • How do we assess projects that might affect fish habitat adversely for this class of project? • How are cumulative impacts, ecosystem impacts and uncertainty considered? • What are some of the issues surrounding decisions on avoidance, development conditions, mitigation

and compensation requirements? • Are decisions and/or requirements consistent among regions, etc.?

3. Implementation • How are guarantees of performance secured from proponents for this class of project? Examples:

agreements, approval conditions, bonding. • How is compliance supposed to be ensured? Examples: monitoring, surveillance, inspections,

enforcement.

4. Evaluation • How are long term impacts of this class of project evaluated? • How is effectiveness determined? What is considered? • Examples: long term monitoring, evaluation studies, state-of-the-environment reports.

5. Education, Communications, and Partnerships • How is the public involved in decisions for this class of project? • Are potential partners involved; e.g. Streamkeepers, municipalities, other agencies? • Are awareness and information programs available/helpful?

The discussion points and recommendations of each of the four groups are presented below. The discussion of issues and recommendations generally follows the five discussion points listed above. The Major Issues were presented at midday, to bring each of the groups together to "check in" and see where there were similarities and unique qualities among the classes of projects. The Key Conclusions and Recommendations were also presented in a final plenary session, and represent each group's key recommendations resulting from the discussions of the day.

Discussion Groups - Major Questions 32

c

c

-

Group 1: Major Linear Projects Facilitator: Janine Robinson


The group identified issues and recommendations for each of the five topics. Examples of major linear projects include: pipelines; transmission lines; highways; and forestry roads.

1. Identifying Habitat

Issues • Productive Capacity. • Inventories - fish use of an area vs. quantification of use. • What is (or is not) habitat? • Limiting factors

like for like vs. watershed approach spawning habitat critical habitat

• Role of managers vs. research - there is a need to bring these together to priorize work. • Expansion of inventory. Managers play a key role in this. · • Lack of resources - need to priorize protection levels. • Level of information depends on industry activity (e.g. pipeline vs. forestry road) and profile of the

project. Inconsistencies between sectors results in inconsistent levels of protection. • Other agencies have control of the informat.ion. • We are not using Sec. 37 to its potential. • There is a requirement for expediency to authorize many projects. • Many monitors are restricted and are not able to meet DFO's concerns.

Recommendations • Pre-project information is key in determining whether NNL was achieved. We can identify habitat

and have information for post construction monitoring. Information is often not quantitative or specific enough to provide base for post-construction monitoring. We need detailed preliminary environmental assessments.

• Detailed biological information is important. Need sufficient biological information to make a decision.

need a physical description need inventory and use

• Money needs to be available for environmental studies. Need to improve our database This provides a basis for monitoring

• Need consistency between sectors to ensure consistent levels of protection. • Forest Practices Code has the potential to increase inventory information and tools available (in

theory). • Use environmental committees. • Use independent monitors.

33 Discussion Group 1 - Major Linear Projects


2. Assessing Options

Issues • Lack of consistency in the specific guidelines we provide related to the elements we could be losing

(riparian, footprint, etc.) for different types of projects. We give responsibility away without guidance.

• There is a lack of consistency in DFO's commitment to guidelines. • Avoidance by DFO to issue authorizations, which provide greater certainty and accountability. • Mitigation vs. compensation - when to apply each? Need consistency. • Is NNL possible? • Proponents are treated differently. • Cumulative impacts

a consistent approach to addressing cumulative impacts is needed who is responsible? when do we say "NO"?

• Economics can we put a value on habitat? the monetary argument does not always work - we do not have the proper economic tools to properly value habitat

Recommendations • Cumulative impacts

try to anticipate in advance have a public review of the plan need a consistent approach use a watershed planning approach

• Common interpretation of guidelines is needed to improve consistency. • Need greater use of authorizations to improve certainty and accountability.

3. Implementation

Issues • Letter of advice vs. authorization

advice is difficult to enforce must be accompanied by a charge? ticketing undermines the importance of what we do - it is not enough there is no middle ground between doing nothing and going to court is there any evidence of the effectiveness of letters of advice? The Trip report noted that there was good compliance where the letter was specific. giving advice does not invoke "officially induced error" we cannot give results-oriented advice to people without extensive expertise, but we can do this for large, experienced companies. We identify our objectives and they carry them out. for major projects, plans are provided by the companies.

• Compliance monitoring and auditing are key need follow-through on all terms and conditions

Discussion Group 1 - Major Linear Projects 34

-No Net Loss Workshop

Recommendations • Need more exposure of offences. • Need prosecution of a few offenders to make an example of them. • Use authorizations for everything to improve consistency.

but we need all tools available (e.g. a letter of mitigation is also appropriate) • DFO should see itself as the only agency to prosecute provincial crown agencies for Fisheries Act

violations • We should prioritize monitoring regularly.

need flexibility consider efficacy of conditions/prescriptions

• Need communication with the proponent - to clarify DFO' s objectives so the proponent implements them.

4. Evaluation

Issues and Recommendations • DFO is responsible to ensure the effectiveness of DFO requirements. • There is a gap between DFO's responsibilities and what DFO can do. • There is agreement with the principle of DFO's responsibilities, but it is not practical.

this is a resource issue must prioritize look at hot spots to see how you are doing

• Monitoring we must rely on the proponent to monitor require monitoring in the authorization where necessary communicate to proponents and let them know when they have done well

• large projects have more success

5. Education, Communications and Partnerships

Issues • Large projects are often broken up into many small projects and therefore do not invoke CEAA or

BCEAA, avoiding any of the formal public involvement requirements in a structured setting. • We do not make use of partnerships for monitoring.

but partnership means there is choice involved in participation; it is not a requirement -proponents could choose not to be partners

• Much of DFO's responsibility is delegated to contractors ("Environmental Agency Rep.") The EA Rep cannot inspect and enforce, so their power is limited.

• We are not out there in the field (DFO) - this erodes our ability to enforce NNL. We do not have enough people, especially field staff.

• There is too much staff turnover - lack of continuity. • DFO underestimates the experience and requirements needed to do the Habitat Technician position. • Delegation of authority (upcoming Bill C62?) could erode DFO's ability to control habitat

destruction.

35 Discussion Group 1 - Major Linear Projects


Recommendations • Project Review Committees (e.g. through BCEAA) work well. • Much of DFO's responsibility is delegated to contractors ("Environmental Agency Rep.").

DFO and agency chooses the representative this is effective because there is someone at the front line all the time to achieve the objectives that DFO has lost control of (i.e. getting into the field) effective for large proponents/projects addresses the resource issue ($) but: should be DFO staff; we should develop capacity in DFO

• DFO needs more people, especially field staff. work sharing with the Province?

• Need commitment for training opportunities to work with experienced people. • Need continuity of staff.

KEY ISSUES

1. Consistency 2. Cumulative effects 3. Inventory gaps 4. Not using Fisheries Act to its full potential (i.e. Sec. 35c, Sec. 37 and Sec. 38) 5. Lack of DFO resources 6. Slow net loss - undefinable impacts 7. Watershed level approach

· 8. Are certain habitat losses acceptable? How do we relate to productive capacity? 9. Risk of compensation failure 10. Skilled, experienced people are needed to administer NNL

MAJOR CONCLUSION

• We are not achieving no net loss. Major linear developments are a senes of point sources of pollution, sediment and habitat loss, therefore are difficult to manage.

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Need to increase DFO' s capability to: • provide in-house expertise - and need new, young people • monitor compliance (are things being done?) and efficacy (are things working?) • collect inventory information (pre- and post-construction); need to use advantages of new

technology • increase our field presence; we are losing our expertise and authority

2. Full and balanced use of the Fisheries Act and other tools, such as guidelines, letters, etc. 3. Prioritize workload by referral type and risk - need flexibility for field staff - it is better to do less,

but do it well. 4. We must communicate (to ministers and public) our commitment to protection and conservation of

fish. • If the public is aware of our NNL policy, that gets through to the minister, the decision makers,

and it gets through to industry as well

Discussion Group 1 - Major Linear Projects 36

Group 2: Major Site-Specific Projects Facilitator: Patricia Howie


The group began by defining major, site-specific projects and then identified issues surrounding the No Net Loss principle for major projects. Once the issues were identified, a list of key issues was generated. The group focussed their attention on strategies for overcoming these issues and developed recommendations. They concluded by making overall comments on the effectiveness of the policy in the context of major projects and summarizing key recommendations.

Examples of Major Projects: . . • maJor mannas

• mmes

• Roberts Bank Port

• Hydro upgrades

• BC Ferries terminal

• bridge/tunnel


Situations where the No Net Loss Policy is applied are identified through: • proponent information • prospectus • BC referral • existing resource information

proponent funded DFO direction

• Official Community Plans • First Nations knowledge • start with proposal, then look at footprint - varies depending on DFO involvement

Issues • Design or site alternatives - not enough emphasis early in the design and planning process. • Difficulties negotiating with other agencies, e.g. BC Ferries, DIAND, DND, BC MoTH, Small Craft

Harbours, etc. • Lack of understanding of what harms fish. • Many actors at the table, e.g. municipal, recreation interests

all want to put in their tWo cents some of their interests are already addressed by the time DFO is at the table - options become limited

• Timelines of other agencies not enough time for DFO limited data

• Hardball tactics by others (agencies and proponents) ignore DFO advice

• Uncertainty over approval process (by proponents), i.e. "may be subject to ... " . • Proponents start with other agencies first (e.g. BC Hydro pre-application studies) • Confusion over site ownership (don't know who to talk to)

37 Discussion Group 2 - Major Site Specific Projects


• Confusion over who is the proponent


Issues • With major projects, you know they will go forward in some form (projects with clear benefits, e.g.

infrastructure). The question is how, not if they should be developed. • Uncertainty over change/impact leads to risk management, contingency. Nothing is simple or clear

cut. • Uncertainty over compensation projects .

inadequate scientific backup biology related to compensation habitats

• No clear direction from science (e.g. Colin Levings ' report) . • Not enough consistency between regions. No record of past impacts. This 1s related to de

centralization. We do not get together enough. • Information is not available to do cumulative impacts - problem with CEAA.

- not defensible - e.g. urban development site by site

• It is difficult to oppose a project on the basis of cumulative impacts. The science is not rigorous. • It helps if you have a specific stock or water quality guideline or temperature that can be measured.

need guidance on how to conduct cumulative impacts • CEAA compensation studies require a statement about cumulative impacts . • CEAA also requires us to look at the whole ecosystem - what is it? what drives it? etc.

DFO is only responsible for one aspect of the ecosystem. This is a narrow focus. Others look to DFO to stop projects on the basis of "ecosystem impacts" or legislation. We need to appreciate the linkages, but it is difficult to manage.

• Consultants are doing most of the field work and assessment; they are the experts, not DFO. we are losing touch by being out of the field

• We have to think of the long term impacts. It is very difficult to put projects in context. • It is difficult to assess the impacts of designs, and sometimes the designs change dramatically once

construction begins (engineering reality). unknown affect on permits, approvals huge investment of time and effort is put into reviewing designs that completely change have to consider how much time to put in before the detailed information is available

• The cost of compensation is not always considered by proponents up front. • There is a big difference in dealing with proponents (they vary).

3. Implementation

Issues • Bonding can be strongly opposed due to cost (on top of compensation costs). • The more involved DFO is, the better. We get better educated and understand how we can get

results. DFO should get involved in technical support and more into applied science. This is a technical I bureaucratic process.

• Adaptive management vs. up front work Industry needs to plan for the long term (e.g. Vancouver Port Corp. 20 year plan horizon) Proponents don ' t like open-ended agreements to monitor/maintain There is uncertainty as to who is responsible for enforcement. Fisheries Officers enforce the Fisheries Act only; they do not enforce compliance agreements.

Discussion Group 2 - Major Site Specific Projects 38

------------------------- ---------- --- ----- ------~---~---~--~-===..,,

No Net Loss Workshop ·

• We need monitoring up front - screening to make sure plans are acceptable and have authority. It needs to be clear and simple when activities can be halted.

• On major projects, the implementation process appears to work well. • Involvement makes enforcement difficult (proponents fall back on due diligence). We must weigh

risks. • Monitoring does not always take place - reports are not filed - we may not know if agreements are

followed. We need continuity of staff involvement (need proper documentation). Expectations should be clear.

• Quality of monitors DFO should build into bond consider liability to DFO

• Monitoring is needed during project and after construction.

4. Evaluation

Issues • (re: Otto ' s report - How do you define success in NNL?) - Applied 2:1 replacement in marsh (based

on risk and down time - production issue) • Q - if you have 1000 m2 marsh impacted and build 2000 m2 and 1700 m2 is functional, is NNL

achieved? - The report says this is a loss of 300 m2, not a gain of 700 m2

• We are not evaluating on the basis of production; it is done on the basis of m2.

• We need an accurate baseline. • Wrong message that unless 2: 1 is achieved, you have not met NNL. • Issue of: what habitat is more valuable than others? • How to measure NNL?

productive capacity vs. area measurement consistency from one area to another consistency of ratios for habitats different interpretations of success - confusion over goal

• Big loss ofriparian habitat loss in function/process marine foreshore no consistent approach to marine areas 1: 1 is never achieved


Issues • In the past, we have not been good at involving municipalities, but now we are doing better in that

area. • In the Fraser, the municipalities want less involvement than before. They are getting comfortable. • The Public wants greater involvement. • Access to information requires a great deal of staff time to provide information to the public. • In the Yukon, the education of new governments (Umbrella Agreement) and· finding a process that

works takes up a lot of resources. • Education of the proponent is critical. • Education of Enhancement/Habitat internally is not adequate. • No clear understanding of the goal of the NNL policy.


- - ~~----------------------------------


• We do not trumpet our accomplishments. • We are not recognized for gains and the value to the resource (with and without policy).

KEY ISSUES

1. Defining when NNL is achieved 2. Lack of Understanding of Fish Habitat 3. Technical work vs. bureaucratic system 4. Harmonization 5. Accountability 6. Consistency

Recommendations (and What is Working Well)

1. Defining when NNL is achieved • In (marsh) 2: 1 compensation situations NNL is achieved at 1: 1 when:

parameters identified in the monitoring program are met (timing is incorporated into monitoring) 100% function is achieved

• Always reach for 2: 1 • Anything greater than 1: 1 is a net gain • Anything greater than 1 is cost of doing business in the estuary

Recommendation: Establish a Technical Committee to develop and adopt a common approach to calculating NNL/replacement ratios for all habitats (e.g. in estuary 1: 1 replacement to loss equals NNL).

2. Lack of Understanding of Fish Habitat • Accountability in science. • Lack of research to understand fish habitat. • Need design specifications for compensation sites. • Need to apply fresh water information to marine and estuary. • Adopt risk averse management - be precautionary in the absence of information. • Enlist the help of Habitat Scientists. • Require proponents to fund research ... or say NO. • Need sharp questions. • Need definitive statements. • Research does not help habitat.

Recommendation: Ensure that applied research is done to meet the needs of HEB operational staff.

3&4. Technical work vs. bureaucratic - we are losing the technical ability to assess fish habitat

• More development, more consultants, less equipment, less staff, less funding. • Keep the technical emphasis in DFO. • Maintain field attendance. • Need resources and staff. • Need training. • Need to certify staff. • Need to recruit staff into DFO. • Need to pass information - mentoring (loss in transition).


-· • Look into use of authorization forms to require proponents to fund DFO.

problem with conflict development charge


Recommendation: Explore mechanisms to acquire funding from proponents for DFO to carry out technical work (in and outside authorizations).

5. Harmonization • BCEA,CEAA • Legislated time frames leads to low quality for review response (e.g. BC 75 day review - information

changes; 30 day turnaround). • Write a letter if you do not have adequate information. • Identify gaps as soon as possible. • Get rid of timelines - follow FREMP approach.

Recommendations: • Long term - eliminate timelines for review. • Short term - allow reasonable time to identify information gaps, fill the gaps and then review

rev1s10ns.

6. Accountability

Recommendation: Ensure that proponents are responsible for repair and maintenance of compensatory works for as long as their impact exists. This should be transferable with site ownership.

7. Consistency • Industry complains about lack of consistency • DFO people move around from region-region - lose history • need stronger role of regional headquarters in maintaining consistency • "friendly audits"

Recommendation: Hold series of regional focus (e.g. water use) groups to look at issues together. Develop a manual on application of NNL and replacement ratios. Involve SEP people in workshops and develop additional discussion papers on technical/operational issues.

MAJOR CONCLUSION

IS NNL Being Achieved on Major Site-specific Projects? • Yes (at least better than dispersed projects)

Why? • there is money to do the work • there are defined boundaries (i.e. one site) • area of disturbance is fairly small • more defined and comprehensive review process • more focused public concern • proponents expect demands for habitat compensation and mitigation



KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Establish/identify milestones and approaches to achieving NNL in all fish habitats. 2. Support habitat management decision-making through applied research to meet operational

requirements. 3. Maintain technical ability of DFO staff through mechanisms to ensure information is collected and

returned (i.e. money for DFO-directed monitor/study). 4. Acknowledge legislative timelines but address resource needs and information requirements (long

term= no timelines). 5. Consistency can be achieved through direction and a series of focus groups and discussion papers. 6. To ensure true NNL, proponents have a "life sentence", i.e. repair and maintenance for as long as

impact exists.


-

Group 3: Urban Development Facilitator: Larry Wolfe


The group identified issues and recommendations for each of the five topics. Examples of urban development projects include: subdivision development, commercial and industrial development, and recreational development including facilities and trails.

1. Identifying habitat.

Issues • Urban streams support one half of the Fraser coho - a species that is at risk. Creeks and ditches have

tremendous value and there is ignorance about them. • Is the interest in urban streams lower? Urban issues are intangible. Has Georgia Basin habitat been

written off [by the agencies]? We are nuking the coho streams. Funding submissions for inventory have been turned down by Treasury Board.

• What is habitat? Roadside ditches are habitat. Scale needs to be addressed. 1 :20000 does not work for urban streams. We need 1 :2500 mapping. Inventory information needs to be usable at the operational scale.

• Agencies use different scales and systems, and have different information. Mapping systems of agencies must be integrated. Federal and provincial inventories need to focus on developing urban level [scale] information.

• Stream classifications must be developed that are municipally-based and that MELP can sign off on. • We must understand limiting factors in culturally-altered streams. • Surrey's inventory - a tool both levels can use. Includes a ranking of streams. Mapped on GIS. Surrey

has mapping showing small streams - the map is densely covered with identified streams. There needs to be standards for consultant reports for mapping streams.

• There are many data sources, e.g. Streamkeepers, ESA studies, NGOs. There are no central repositories. Municipalities are not willing to take responsibility for managing database.

• Who is responsible for baseline information and standards? Senior governments need to take responsibility.

• If we go through municipalities, we need their cooperation. Municipalities are afraid of the implications.

• A lot of money can go into inventory. Inventory information has many uses, e.g. planning. We still need field checks for authorizations, etc.

• We need inventory information at several levels, e.g. strategic level to field level. Different levels are needed for various purposes.

• Measurement of productive capacity not included in calculations. We use area and lineal measures. 'Productive capacity' relates to habitat, not fish.

• Condition of watershed is important- a small area of a trashed watershed is very important. • Surrey in the Bear Creek study - there are new initiatives - Surrey is doing a master drainage study.

There is a new Serpentine River initiative that may help. [Bear Creek flows into the Serpentine.] Strategic planning initiatives are important.

• With fewer dollars and people, the issue is where we should focus our efforts. • What should the strategies be in different areas, e.g. the delta vs. the Fraser valley. • Washington State studies suggest that if you increase the Effective Impervious Area (EIA) of a

watershed by a small percentage, you decrease productivity very significantly. Are these streams lost? Are our efforts wasted on them? Or are they urban canaries?

43 Discussion Group 3 - Urban Development


Recommendations • Partnering should be a priority.

we must learn about our partners, e.g. municipal processes stewardship groups need to begin using the political system, in addition to stream work. Groups do not want to be 'used'. They need to own the issues themselves

• Developing capabilities. we need to develop expertise on staff and in municipalities urban environmental coordinators - positions in nine municipalities now some are not useful. The programs should be evaluated and standards established

• Identified habitat has to go into operational plans, e.g. drainage plans, neighbourhood concept plans, working plans.

how do we get inventory information into plans? province considering requiring definition of ESAs in the Municipal Act. not all departments in a city hall may use inventory information

2. Assessment

Issues • Assessment is a very important function - staff are needed to do assessment. • DFO often gets presented with situations that have become non-negotiable, such as plans with

approved building envelopes. • Field staff may focus on individual projects, not ecosystems. Low flow, for example, would be

considered on a case-by-case basis. • Assessment tools - flooding once every five years. • You need a 'bastard' on the ground to say 'no!' Reviewing development proposals is frustrating work

- it is hard to win. It is a negotiation game. But it is one required role. Negotiation vs. 'no' - we seldom say 'no' .

• We need strategic criteria for the watershed, e.g. the maximum EIA to allow. How likely is this to be accepted? Can we I should we have different criteria for different watersheds? We need both strategic and case-by-case perspectives.

• Department has to decide on which functions it will devote its staff to. • We need improved technology and creative options to address cumulative effects such as ways to

reduce impervious surfaces in drainage system plans.

Recommendations • Be more willing to say 'no'. Be creative I aggressive in getting concessions over the area of habitat. • Strengthen operational plans and make them enforceable. • Establish clearer provisions in the Land Development Guidelines (LDGs) for redevelopment

situations for re-establishment of habitat. • Ensure everyone clearly understands what the policy is, including the public .

We need to include risk aversion. Support with Department on appeals over field decisions. Stakeholders wanted zero tolerance.

Discussion Group 3 - Urban Development 44


3. Implementation

Issues • The urban audit shows compliance is low - if there is no compliance, does anything matter? • We must work in cooperation with local government - they have power to withhold approvals, use

bonding, etc. • Municipalities have considerable power during the development stage, but less once property is sold

to the homeowner. Much happens in the occupancy phase. This can be addressed by education, owner contact, and stewardship groups.

• Restrictive covenants are not effective - how can we enforce them? • DFO and MELP need clout with municipalities. Should we have balance with municipalities or

confrontation to push them to action. Perhaps we need different strategies for municipalities depending on whether they are cooperating.

• Bonding? Current practice is trending toward issuing letters of authorization with terms and conditions. Bonding is a big administrative task. Can municipalities do it?

Recommendations • Implement concentrated enforcement in a watershed or two - using a swat team approach to make an

example in selected areas.

• Develop municipality specific policies, including lay charges on non-cooperative municipalities and emphasize cooperation with those municipalities that are cooperative. support of stewardship groups and encouraging them to take on advocacy roles.

• Develop cooperation with municipalities. Establish DFO-Municipal Memorandums of Agreement (MOU) Provide full support for enforcement actions of municipal staff to buttress each other. Consider shared funding for enforcement staff between DFO and municipalities. Continue Environmental Review Committees with municipalities (staffing cuts are a problem).

• Review options for delegating Fisheries Act powers to provincial and municipal enforcement staff. should include certification before delegation. a national protocol exists for designation of inspectors, especially related to inland provinces.

• Consider cost recovery and revenue generation options, such as charging for authorizations and using money from bonding to do monitoring where it is not being done.

• Develop additional /improved tools for enforcement: consider ticketing and meaningful fines. strengthen restrictive covenants by reviewing wording, exammmg incentives and penalties, including step-in privileges (allowing government to step-in and restore habitat at owner's cost)

4. Evaluation

Issues • Evaluation work, such as the FRAP initiatives like the compliance study, should be continued. • We need to recognize recent progress and see that some things are working. • As we pull out of referrals processes, we need to monitor and audit what effect this has.



Recommendations • Continue evaluation work to identify what works . • Evaluate the effectiveness of policies of not continuing some staff functions , e.g. referrals,

environmental review committees.

5. Education, Communications, and Partnerships

Issues • Stewardship groups need to become involved in advocacy. • Stewardship groups can be awkward when involved in environmental review committees.

Recommendations • Continue with presentations to and dialogue with Municipal Councils. • Share the compliance study results with the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) and develop a joint

strategy and partnership to address problems. • Support and cooperate with initiatives of stewardship groups.

MAJOR CONCLUSION

Present approach for review of urban development is not ensuring no net loss of fish habitat, as indicated by the urban compliance audit. While there has been some progress, things have to change if habitat is to be protected.

KEY ISSUES

1. Address lack of resources. We must address the lack of resources for protecting urban streams, including staff, material, and 'powers' (e.g. ticketing). More staff and funding resources are needed for agencies because resources are too low already for minimal performance, e.g. attending environmental review committees.

2. Improve inventory information. Inventory information needs to be better organized and coordinated, and developed at an appropriate range of scales and detail.

3. Expand partnerships. 4. More watershed planning. More watershed planning is needed, including the development and use of

operational plans for watershed areas. 5. More enforcement. Enforcement needs to have high priority (given extreme non-compliance levels). 6. Improve ways of addressing cumulative effects. Improved technology is needed to address

cumulative effects of impermeable surfaces in urban areas . 7. Review and improve referrals processes. Ways must be found to make workloads manageable.

Priorities must be established as to what efforts should be devoted to. 8. Certified Habitat Monitors - are they effective? accountable? Should there be certification? 9. Evaluate No Net Loss in the urban context - can we achieve no net loss in urban areas? We need

restoration and re-establishment of habitat. 10. Use results of urban audit study to strengthen Municipal Act. How can the urban compliance

auditing study be used? For awareness. For strengthening implementation and compliance. Action should be joint with province and feds.


KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Build support for policy implementation through: communications and education initiatives concerning no net loss policy support for stewardship groups working for no net loss continued presentations to and dialogue with municipal councils participation in municipal planning processes

2. Effective partnership should be developed with municipalities, including: learning more about our partners, e.g. municipal processes use of Memorandums of Understanding participation in Environmental Review Committees evaluate and improve urban environmental coordinator positions shared funding for enforcement staff between DFO and municipalities


review options for delegation of Fisheries Act powers to municipal and provincial enforcement staff supporting municipal staff enforcement actions municipality-specific strategy for enforcement or cooperation, depending on the situation encouragement of advocacy role for stewardship groups

3. Improve enforcement through: an initiative of concentrated enforcement focused on a few watersheds to improve compliance and demonstrate intent to enforce (swat team approach) development of new enforcement tools, including ticketing, partnerships among enforcement staff, being willing to say 'no' strengthen restrictive covenants with stronger wording, incentives and penalties, and step-in restoration powers

4. Develop additional revenue sources, including cost recovery (charging for authorizations) revenue generation bonding approaches

5. Improve habitat identification through: joint federal-provincial-municipal databases identification of habitat in operational plans of municipalities use of GIS systems

6. Continue evaluation initiatives including: studies such as the urban compliance study and similar FRAP - PP ARR and MELP initiatives evaluation of the effectiveness of policies of not continuing some staff functions, e.g. referrals, environmental review committees

7. Refinement of Land Development Guidelines to address re-establishment of habitat in redevelopment situations.

8. Development of new technologies to address cumulative effects of impervious surfaces and increased effective impervious area (EIA).



Discussion

Q: Are there any things that you would not do? A: We cannot work on the referral process. We need to do the back end monitoring and auditing and get involved in planning (e.g. local area plans, water management plans, etc.).

Comment: There is no such thing as referrals. We cannot plan our way into the future . We can look at our resources and do works haring between the province and DFO. A: Many referrals can be streamlined. We have been worksharing for years.

Comment: We cannot get away from authorizations, and we cannot eliminate referrals. Cost recovery may allow us to do more (i.e. chargingfor authorizations).

Q: Was there any discussion of promotion in your group? A: Yes, along with the Stream Stewardship Guide.


Group 4: Rural Setting (Agriculture and Forestry) Facilitator: Mike McPhee


The group identified issues and recommendations for each of the five topics. Examples of projects in a Rural Setting include those in the areas of forestry and agriculture.


Issues • The existing stream inventory (FISS) is all we have in many cases. This needs updating and made

easily accessible to district and field staff. • There is a lot of local knowledge out there with habitat protection, community advisors, fisheries

officers, but this is being lost as senior people retire or leave. • There is very little marine resource inventory. We should develop our own DFO data management

system for the marine system. • We need proponents to update inventories and then make them available. This works better with

larger proponents and projects than smaller ones. • FIAT pilot - may offer some hope to inventory. • Proponent collected information is not being held in the public domain; we need to obtain this

information on a consistent basis for all project proposals. • The provincial government is really in the driver's seat regarding data collection and management.

For example, FRBC data that is collected needs to be deposited with DFO within two years. • Higher level plans, ESA studies, etc. are not really filling data gaps. Some of these studies may be

helping in urban areas, but these governments are coming to DFO for data, which we often cannot provide. In many instances, consultants and proponents have better habitat data than we do.

Recommendations • Keep and fund stream inventory database (FISS).

update regularly maintain on a watershed basis

• Develop a data sharing protocol with BC Government. • Improve the current DFO data management system.

improve coordination between HQ, regions, districts and field offices • Require developers to provide information (studies, reportsi data collected) as part of the project

authorization process. must feed into data management system

• Develop a strategic approach to inventory information. habitat management plans should be developed on a watershed basis develop a common classification approach based on DFO methodology


Issues • NNL is set up for site-specific projects, not for non-point type development. The challenge is to

apply NNL at the watershed level for non-point developments. We should be involved in landscapelevel plans and Watershed Assessment Process (W AP) (multi-disciplinary teams). The WAP has potential for addressing cumulative impacts.

49 Discussion Group 4 - Rural Setting


• Restoration - there is a need to advance biological input along with the physical side. No one is doing this; it is going in the opposite direction. Is there no money for this?

• Need to look at sections of the Forest Practices Code (FPC) and Agricultural Land Reserve to see how NNL is being achieved.

• Ongoing issue of rip rap along streams on private farmland. How do we get away from this emphasis on individual, case-by-case site assessments? We have to take a multi-faceted approach to farmers :

peer pressure (carrot approach; recognition where a good job has been done) working with individual landowners to educate them about the need for maintaining riparian areas for streambank protection

• In the marine environment there are differences in how we value habitat and ask for compensation, e.g. focus, salt marsh, sedge, mudflats. There is a lack of consistency.

Recommendations • Participate in landscape/watershed level plans.

multi-disciplinary approach · need to advance science and biology processes in these assessment/planning processes

• Watershed Assessment Process potential here to address cumulative impacts through watershed restoration bring in biology the process should be able to measure NNL effectiveness need to protect pristine headwaters

• Review how Forest Practices Code/Agricultural Land Reserve, etc. is meeting NNL. • Need better networking within DFO to advise on projects. How to do this? Subject specific teams or

resource people? - e.g. forestry , mining, energy, highways . • Need stream protection measures in existing legislation, i.e. Municipal Act, Agriculture Act, Land

Act, etc. better aquatic protection legislation higher level plans get our DFO tool box together and look for the best fit set long term priorities and be strategic

• Take a multi-faceted approach to dealing with farmers/landowners. peer pressure carrots sticks (use Fisheries Act) land use plans stewardship how to get compliance

• We need a consistent approach in how we value marine habitat and ask for compensation, e.g. focus, salt marsh, sedge, mudflats.

3. Implementation

Issues • How long is long term monitoring? Why is it just five years? • Proponents of smaller operations should be more involved m monitoring and design projects to

reduce the need for monitoring. • Put more effort into interacting with those who are looking after forestry and agricultural sectors and

make sure they are doing their job effectively. • Very little authorization, bonding, etc. is going on in the rural sectors.

Discussion Group 4 - Rural Setting 50


• Yukon is bringing territorial staff in for training. if we are going to enter into partnerships, we need to train them (MOF, MOE, MAFF, etc.)

• How to get Fisheries officers involved in a strategic way? There is a need for team work. • Bonding is potentially an expensive administrative nightmare. • The best way to ensure implementation is having staff who understand land, forests, water, fish (they

know the land). · • Green Plan funds did contribute to some implementation successes. • Mitigate through authorizations; in other landscape level areas use:

partnerships planning carrot/stick public awareness

Recommendations • Get the Provincial Government to educate our partners (agriculture, foresters, certification of RPFs).

DFO should do the trafriing. • Increase our enforcement and follow-up (lay more charges; do more auditing) • Become more strategic (focus on priority areas)

involve Fisheries Officers in this (e.g. agricultural inspections) downside - more workload for habitat managers

• Create a HQ Audit Team (multi-disciplinary) use Habitat Technicians, biologists, Fisheries Officers, hydrologists

4. Evaluation

Issues and Recommendations • Need to take more of an ecosystem approach and to examine functional processes. • Need process-oriented people - physical and biological. Need to broaden and re-tool existing staff.

We need generalists with input from specialists as required. Create multi-disciplinary teams who can provide advice and get involved in certain projects as required.

• Need equal opportunity training throughout Pacific & Yukon Region. • There are opportunities through FRBC initiatives to plug in (i.e. Watershed Assessment, water/water

quality regional assessments).


Issues and Recommendations • Better communication within DFO (e.g. compliance audit study; M.Miles' work - important for all

staff to learn about). We need to share and utilize existing expertise and capacity within the system to better effect.

• We need to both promote and evaluate our stewardship efforts. Are they working? What will happen when FRAP funding disappears? What are the mechanisms to make them work? We should be looking at establishing stream or watershed guardians.

• Within DFO establish a speakers list; we have many knowledgeable people with different expertise, need to make this known to everyone.

• DFO needs an interpretation biologist to assist with public education. • A habitat communications person is needed, focusing primarily on habitat issues, not corporate

communications.



• We need to get a tie in from professional associations (e.g. engineers, foresters) which would make them accountable for proper monitoring and auditing of projects.

• We need to follow through on enforcement efforts (e.g. staying BC Crown prosecutions). • Partnerships can be very expensive - time and money (e.g. Placer Mining Industry). • Bring Community Advisors, SEP engineers, Fisheries Officers, etc. into habitat management

activities. re-tooling will be required need buy-in and integration

• Need to bring DFO people together in specialty technical areas (e.g. foreshore). • It is very difficult to get involved in new initiatives without new resources (i.e. FRBC inventory).

KEY ISSUES

1. Landscape impact (project approach vs. watershed approach) 2. NNL on a watershed basis (cumulative) 3. Comprehensive mapping and inventory - translating the information into useable products 4. Strategic - private and crown land

protection plans must differ accordingly lost streams vs. semi-lost, etc.

5. Strategic - planning (priority) multi-disciplinary process oriented

6. Private land flexibility stewardship; balance of carrots and sticks

7. Fisheries Act is not the best tool for achieving No Net Loss need to use provincial legislation

8. DFO Communications bring together expertise in the field and at headquarters consistent approach

9. Hold higher level responsible for non-compliance, e.g. municipality, Forest Service, etc. 10. Control the agenda (from inventory to planning)

we are bystanders

MAJOR CONCLUSIONS

• There is still a NNL in the rural agricultural and forestry sectors. • We have to address NNL on a basin-wide basis, not on a project basis; planning is important and can

influence NNL.

Discussion Group 4 - Rural Setting 52

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

1. More strategic priorities, inventory mapping and class

2. Influence the Province land use plans legislation inventory

3. Evaluate NNL on an ecosystem basis - process-oriented approach 4. Education

internal and partners (e.g. professional associations) 5. Stewardship on private land

carrot and stick 6. C&P and HEB need to get a unified act together 7. Retool staff (e.g. Community Advisors, Restoration Biologists) 8. Communications (internal and external) 9. Get the public on-side

awareness privatized informants privatized guardians

10. Consistency


11. We must all make a strategic shift in the way we protect the environment. More effort must go into up front planning, education and stewardship and back end monitoring and enforcement.



Final Discussion

Q: Re: Ecosystem approach vs. project approach. A: We don't refer a lot in the rural sector, but this may change with the Forest Practices Code. There is a lot we can do in this sector on a project by project basis, but if we review NNL on a project by project basis, we will "miss the boat". We need to look at it over the long term. We need to determine, on a trend basis, is the river improving or not, over 5, 10 or 15 years? That will tell us a lot more.

Q: Are there any tangible examples of where stewardship has changed anything for DFO? And what is the nature of that change? A: We have about 20 letters to Chretien that public groups have written, because they equated Fraser River stewardship with FRAP and the dollars we had to do it. We think we have accomplished a lot. It has created a lot of awareness and interest, and many groups have gotten involved - they ' re pressuring provincial agencies, they're getting after farmers. In the Lower Fraser there have been significant breakthroughs in shifting the priority of the environment. FRAP has set much of the groundwork for the province ' s Urban Salmon Habitat Program (USHP). There are now people working in city halls full time on urban streams. There are many good things, but we ' re still losing habitat.

Q: In areas where there is no Official Community Plan (OCP), how does stewardship fit in? A: In Prince George, for example, they were sti ll bull-dozing streams and putting subdivisions on top of them four years ago. They didn 't know that the Land Development Guidelines existed. We helped them re-do their OCP and some trails plans. The community "jumped on the bandwagon". Without stewardship, much of that probably would not have happened . It does, however, take some money to entice people, do studies, and get people going.

Final Discussion 54


Summary of Key Issues, Conclusions and Recommendations

Key Issues

CONSISTENCY • Industry complains about lack of consistency in DFO's approach to NNL. • DFO people move around from region-region and the history of a site can be lost. • There is a lack of consistency in the approach by field staff and headquarters. • There is a lack of consistency in DFO's commitment to guidelines. • Proponents are treated differently. • There is not enough consistency between regions. No record of past impacts. This is related to de

centralization. We do not get together enough. • Interpretations of success vary - this creates confusion over our goal of NNL. • In the marine environment there are differences in how we value habitat and ask for compensation,

e.g. focus, salt marsh, sedge, mudflats. There is a lack of consistency

WAiJ"ERSHED APPROACH AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS • The impact on the landscape is often neglected. We take a project approach vs. a watershed

approach. • NNL is set up for site-specific projects, not for non-point type development. • We do not take an ecosystem approach. • Cumulative effects are not addressed. • Are we achieving NNL on a watershed basis (cumulative)?

INFORMATION • Inventory gaps exist. • Inventory information needs to be better organized and coordinated, and developed at an appropriate

range of scales and detail. • We do not have comprehensive mapping and inventory. We need to translate the information into

useable products. • There is a lack of understanding and research of fish habitat. • Research does not help habitat. • There is a lack of accountability in science. • Proponents should be required to update inventories. This works better with larger proponents and

projects than smaller ones.

LEG IS LA TION/PROCESS • .We are not using the Fisheries Act to its full potential (i.e. Sec. 35c, Sec. 37 and Sec. 38). • The Fisheries Act is not the best tool for achieving NNL. We need to use provincial legislation. • Legislated time frames leads to low quality for review response (e.g. BC 75 day review - information

changes; 30 day turnaround). • Need to get rid of time lines - follow FREMP approach. • Referrals processes create unmanageable workloads. Priorities must be established. • We need to work together more in multi-disciplinary teams. • Protection plans must differ accordingly for private and crown land, lost streams vs. semi-lost, etc. • We are bystanders. We need to control the agenda (from inventory to planning). • Expand partnerships.

55 Summary of Key Issues, Conclusions and Recommendations


• Partnerships can be very expensive - time and money (e.g. Placer Mining Industry).

RESOURCES ($ AND PEOPLE) • There is a lack of DFO resources. We need resources and staff. We need to priorize protection levels. • We must address the lack of resources, including staff, material, and 'powers' (e.g. ticketing). More

staff and funding resources are needed for agencies because resources are too low already for minimal performance, e.g. attending environmental review committees.

• More development, more consultants, less equipment, less staff, less funding. • Skilled, experienced people are needed to administer NNL. • We are losing the technical ability to assess fish habitat. Keep the technical emphasis in DFO. • We are not out there in the field (DFO) - this erodes our ability to enforce NNL. We do not have

enough people, especially field staff. • Certified Habitat Monitors - are they effective? accountable? Should there be certification? • There is a loss of information in the transition of people . Need to recruit staff into DFO. There is a

need to pass information on. • Role of managers vs. research - there is a need to bring these together to priorize work.

ACCOUNTABILITY • Hold higher level agency responsible for non-compliance, e.g. municipality, Forest Service, etc. • Enforcement needs to have high priority (given extreme non-compliance levels). • Proponents are not required to be responsible for repair and maintenance of compensatory works for

as long as their impact exists . • Flexibility and promotion of stewardship is needed to protect habitat on private land. We need to use

a balance of carrots and sticks. • Monitoring and auditing are key to ensuring compliance. • Very little authorization, bonding, etc. is going on in the rural sectors. • There is a lack of follow through on enforcement efforts (e.g. staying BC Crown prosecutions).

ACHIEVING NNL • Are certain habitat losses acceptable? How do we relate to productive capacity? • Slow net loss - there are undefinable impacts. • Evaluate No Net Loss in the urban context - can we achieve no net loss in urban areas? We need

restoration and re-establishment of habitat. • There is a risk of compensation failure. • In (marsh) 2: 1 compensation situations NNL is achieved at I: I when:

parameters identified in the monitoring program are met (timing is incorporated into monitoring) I 00% function is achieved

• Always reach for 2: 1. • Anything greater than I: I is a net gain. • Anything greater than I is cost of doing business in the estuary.

Major Conclusions

Major Linear Projects: • We are not achieving No Net Loss. • Major linear developments are a series of non-point sources of pollution, sediment and habitat loss,

therefore are difficult to manage .


56

Major Site-specific Projects: • We are achieving No Net Loss (at least better than dispersed projects). Why? • there is money to do the work • there are defined boundaries (i.e. one site) • area of disturbance is fairly small • more defined and comprehensive review process • more focused public concern • proponents expect demands for habitat compensation and mitigation

Urban Development:


• The present approach for review of urban development is not ensuring no net loss of fish habitat, as indicated by the urban compliance audit. While there has been some progress, things have to change if habitat is to be protected.

Rural Setting: • There is still a net loss of habitat in the rural sectors. • We have to address NNL on a basin-wide basis, not on a project basis; planning is important and can

influence NNL.

Key Recommendations

CONSISTENCY • Consistency can be achieved through direction and a series of focus groups and discussion papers. • There is a need to bring together expertise in the field and at headquarters. Regional headquarters

could play a stronger role in maintaining consistency.

WATERSHED APPROACH AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS • We should be involved in landscape-level plans and Watershed Assessment Process (WAP) (multi

disciplinary teams). The WAP has potential for addressing cumulative impacts. Protect headwaters. • We need to improve ways of addressing cumulative effects. Improved technology is needed to

address cumulative effects of impermeable surfaces in urban. areas. • More watershed planning is needed, including the development and use of operational plans for

watershed areas. • There is a need to take an ecosystem approach and to examine functional processes.

INFORMATION • Support habitat management decision-making through applied research to meet operational

requirements. • Maintain technical ability of DFO staff through mechanisms to ensure information is collected and

returned (i.e. money for DFO-directed monitor/study). • Improve habitat identification through:

joint federal-provincial-municipal databases identification of habitat in operational plans of municipalities use of GIS systems



• Comprehensive mapping and inventory is needed. We need to translate the information into useable products.

• Develop a data sharing protocol with BC Government. • Improve the current DFO data management system. • Influence the province regarding inventory information. • Accountability in science is needed. • Need design specifications for compensation sites. • Adopt risk averse management - be precautionary in the absence of information. • We need proponents to update inventories and then make them available. • Improve coordination between headquarters, regions, districts and field offices.

LEG IS LA TION/PROCESS • Full and balanced use of the Fisheries Act and other tools, such as guidelines, letters, etc. • Acknowledge legislative timelines but address resource needs and information requirements (long

term= no timelines). • Effective partnership should be developed with municipalities, including:

learning more about our partners, e.g. municipal processes use of Memorandums of Understanding participation in Environmental Review Committees evaluate and improve urban environmental coordinator positions shared funding for enforcement staff between DFO and municipalities review options for delegation of Fisheries Act powers to municipal and provincial enforcement staff supporting municipal staff enforcement actions municipality-specific strategy for enforcement or cooperation, depending on the situation. encouragement of advocacy role for stewardship groups

• Refinement of Land Development Guidelines to address re-establishment of habitat m redevelopment situations.

• Need stream protection measures in existing legislation, i.e. Municipal Act, Agriculture Act, Land Act, etc.

better aquatic protection legislation higher level plans get our DFO tool box together and look for the best fit set long term priorities and be strategic

• Use results of urban audit study to strengthen Municipal Act. How can the urban compliance auditing study be used? For awareness. For strengthening implementation and compliance. Action should be joint with province and feds.

• Evaluate. and promote stewardship on private land. Use carrots and sticks. • C&P and HEB need to get a unified act together • Review and improve referrals processes. Ways must be found to make workloads manageable.

Priorities must be established. • We need to set priorities, and work together in multi-disciplinary teams.


58

RESOURCES ($ AND PEOPLE) • Look into use of authorization forms to require proponents to fund DFO. • Develop additional revenue sources, including

cost recovery (charging for authorizations) revenue generation bonding approaches

• Require proponents to fund research ... or say NO. • Need to increase DFO's capability to:

provide in-house expertise - and need new, young people


monitor compliance (are things being done?) and efficacy (are things working?) collect inventory information (pre- and post-construction); need to use advantages of new technology increase our field presence; we are losing our expertise and authority

• Prioritize workload by referral type and risk - need flexibility for field staff - it is better to do less, but do it well.

• Evaluate the effectiveness of policies of not continuing some staff functions, e.g. referrals, environmental review committees.

• Retool staff (e.g. Community Advisors, Restoration Biologists) • Need process-oriented people - physical and biological. Need to broaden and re-tool existing staff.

We need generalists with input from specialists as required. Create multi-disciplinary teams who can provide advice and get involved in certain projects as required

• Need training. • Need to certify staff. • Need to recruit staff into DFO. There is a need to pass information on -there is a loss in transition of

people.

ACCOUNTABILITY • Ensure that proponents are responsible for repair and maintenance of compensatory works for as

long as their impact exists. This should be transferable with site ownership. • Improve enforcement through:

an initiative of concentrated enforcement focused on a few watersheds to improve compliance and demonstrate intent to enforce (swat team approach) development of new enforcement tools, including ticketing, partnerships among enforcement staff, being willing to say 'no' strengthening of restrictive covenants with stronger wording, incentives and penalties, and stepin restoration powers

• Continue evaluation initiatives such as the urban compliance study and similar FRAP - PPARR and MELP initiatives.

• We need to get a tie in from professional associations (e.g. engineers, foresters) which would make them accountable for proper monitoring and auditing of projects.

• We need to follow through on enforcement efforts (e.g. staying BC Crown prosecutions). • Monitoring and auditing are key to ensuring compliance.

ACHIEVING NO NET LOSS • Establish/identify milestones and approaches to achieving NNL in all fish habitats. • Evaluate NNL on an ecosystem basis - process-oriented approach. • The Watershed Assessment Process should be able to measure NNL effectiveness.



COMMUNICATION/AWARENESS • We must communicate (to ministers and public) our commitment to protection and conservation of

fish • Make the public aware of our NNL policy, so that the message of our commitment gets through to

the minister, the decision makers, and it gets through to industry as well. • Build support for policy implementation through:

communications and education initiatives concerning no net loss policy support for stewardship groups working for no net loss continued presentations to and dialogue with municipal councils participation in municipal planning processes

• Increase internal and external (e.g. professional associations) education • Get the public on-side through awareness, privatized informants, privatized guardians • Improve communication within DFO. We need to share and utilize existing expertise and capacity

within the system to better effect habitat protection. • We need to promote and evaluate our stewardship efforts. • A habitat communications person is needed, focusing primarily on habitat issues, not corporate

communications. • DFO should hire an interpretation biologist to assist with public education. • Within DFO establish a speakers list; we have many knowledgeable people with different expertise,

need to make this known to everyone. • Create subject specific . teams or resource people to advise on projects. - (e.g. forestry, mining,

energy, highways) and to improve networking within DFO.


60

~ l


APPENDIX A: AGENDA NO NET LOSS OF HABITAT:

Assessing Achievement

WORKSHOP

Sponsored by Fraser River Action Plan

February 26 -27, 1997 Room 2250

Kwantlen University College 8771 Landsdowne Road

Richmond, BC

AGENDA

Day 1, February 26, 1997

8:30 am

8:40

9:10

9:40

10: 10

10:30

11 :30

12:00 pm

1:00

1 :30

Welcome and Introduction Otto Langer, FRAP

Overview of the National Habitat Policy, Otto Langer et. al.

No Net Loss in the Fraser River Estuary: Assessment of Methodology Colin Levings and Otto Langer

Compliance Audit of Urban Streams Melody Farrell, FRAP

Coffee Break

An Assessment of Instream Works in B.C. and Alberta A Case History of Jones Creek - Lessons Learned Mike Miles, M. Miles and Associates

No Net Loss and the Coquihalla Highway Brent Lister, D.B. Lister and Associates

Hosted Lunch

Vancouver Island Natural Gas Pipeline Project Rick Higgins, DFO, Nanaimo

·Vancouver Island Highway Construction Brent Lister

61 Appendix A


2:00

2:30

3:00

3:30

4:00

4:30

Prince Rupert Harbour Projects Uriah Orr, DFO, Prince Rupert

Coffee

No Net Loss - CN and CP Rail Construction Brent Lister

Skeena River Projects Tom Pendray, DFO, Prince Rupert

Discussion

Adjournment

Day 2, February 27, 1997

9:00

9: 10

Welcome and Review of Day 2 process Mike McPhee, Quadra Planning

Break into 4 facilitated Work Groups around specific projects or issues:

1. Major Linear Projects 2 . Major Site Specific Projects 3. Urban Development 4. Rural Setting - forest harvesting and agriculture

Questions/issues to be addressed in each group:

• What was defined as mitigation vs. compensation? • Was No Net Loss achieved? • Has there been follow-up monitoring? Was bonding required? • Should we be considering remediation in perpetuity? • What are the lessons learned? How should we change the way we assess projects and implement the

No Net Loss principle? • Recommendations for changes to the National Habitat Policy

Coffee and Lunch will be provided on Day 2.

We envisage reconvening a plenary session early in the afternoon where the work groups present results and a final wrap up discussion period where we attempt to identify some key recommendations that can be taken forward to the national review.

Appendix A 62

APPENDIX B: SPEAKER BIOGRAPHIES

Melody Farrell Melody Farrell is a habitat biologist with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Since joining the Department in 1983 she has worked in both Pacific Region and headquarters as a water quality biologist, a restoration biologist, major projects manager, policy and program advisor and most recently as an urban habitat planner. Prior to joining the Department she taught biology at North Island College, and worked as an environmental consultant. In her present capacity she liaises with community groups, local governments and provincial agencies to change and improve development planning processes in order to better protect fish habitat in settlement areas. She has collaborated on and written several publications that focus on urban habitat protection mechanisms, issues and approaches.

Rick Higgins Rick Higgins is a biologist currently working as Chief of Habitat Management for DFO 's South Coast Division. He manages the environmental protection aspects of the Fisheries Act to modify private and industrial development activities in South Coastal British Columbia. Rick has worked on northern fisheries habitat issues with DFO Central and Arctic Region and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Working for industry, Rick managed environmental requirements for the Alaska Highway Gas Pipeline project and other pipeline projects in Western Canada.

Otto E. Langer Otto has worked as a habitat protection and water quality biologist with Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada for 28 years. Much of his time has been spent on contaminants control, sediment impacts on salmonid streams and general fish habitat protection. As part of this work, he has been involved in many enforcement actions related to pollution and habitat destruction charges. During the past 6 years he has led a Fraser River Action Plan unit which has taken a lead to promote stewardship of urban streams in the Lower Fraser River Valley. He has a Masters degree in fisheries biology and has been president of the Association of Professional Biologists of B. C.

Colin Levings Colin Levings is a research scientist with DFO 's Pacific Science Branch, Marine Environment and Habitat Science Division. He has been working on estuarine fish habitat problems in support of managers for about two decades. In 1980, Levings and colleagues conducted the first experimental estuarine marsh restoration project in the Pacific region. He is currently based at the Pacific Environmental Science Centre in North Vancouver.

Brent Lister Brent is a consulting fishery biologist based in Chilliwack. He initially worked for DFO on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. More recently, Brent has been working as a consultant, with his primary focus on impact assessment related to fish habitat issues in B. C. In the last few years he has been deeply involved in environmental aspects of the Vancouver Island Highway Project.

Mike Miles Mike Miles is a consulting fluvial geomorphologist working out of Victoria, BC He has 20 years experience undertaking fisheries mitigation, enhancement or restoration projects in western Canada.

63 Appendix B

APPENDIX B: SPEAKER BIOGRAPHIES

Melody Farrell Melody Farrell is a habitat biologist with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Since joining the Department in 1983 she has worked in both Pacific Region and headquarters as a water quality biologist, a restoration biologist, major projects manager, policy and program advisor and most recently as an urban habitat planner. Prior to joining the Department she taught biology at North Island College, and worked as an environmental consultant. Jn her present capacity she liaises with community groups, local governments and provincial agencies to change and improve development planning processes in order to better protect fish habitat in settlement areas. She has collaborated on and written several publications that focus on urban habitat protection mechanisms, issues and approaches.

Rick Higgins Rick Higgins is a biologist currently working as Chief of Habitat Management for DFO 's South Coast Division. He manages the environmental protection aspects of the Fisheries Act to modify private and industrial development activities in South Coastal British Columbia. Rick has worked on northern fisheries habitat issues with DFO Central and Arctic Region and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Working for industry, Rick managed environmental requirements for the Alaska Highway Gas Pipeline project and other pipeline projects in Western Canada.

Otto E. Langer Otto has worked as a habitat protection and water quality biologist with Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada for 28 years. Much of his time has been spent on contaminants control, sediment impacts on salmonid streams and general fish habitat protection. As part of this work, he has been involved in many enforcement actions related to pollution and habitat destruction charges. During the past 6 years he has led a Fraser River Action Plan unit which has taken a lead to promote stewardship of urban streams in the Lower Fraser River Valley. He has a Masters degree in fisheries biology and has been president of the Association of Professional Biologists of B. C.

Colin Levings Colin Levings is a research scientist with DFO 's Pacific Science Branch, Marine Environment and Habitat Science Division. He has been working on estuarine fish habitat problems in support of managers for about two decades. In 1980, Levings and colleagues conducted the first experimental estuarine marsh restoration project in the Pacific region. He is currently based at the Pacific Environmental Science Centre in North Vancouver.

Brent Lister Brent is a consulting fishery biologist based in Chilliwack. He initially worked for DFO on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. More recently, Brent has been working as a consultant, with his primary focus on impact assessment related to fish habitat issues in B. C. Jn the last few years he has been deeply involved in environmental aspects of the Vancouver Island Highway Project.

Mike Miles Mike Miles is a consulting jluvial geomorphologist working out of Victoria, BC He has 20 years experience undertaking fisheries mitigation, enhancement or restoration projects in western Canada.

63 Appendix B


Mike has recently reviewed the physical success of a variety of instream enhancement projects in south western Alberta and BC. He will be discussing the results of these studies and providing some insights into the implications of this work for urban stream restoration programs.

Uriah Orr Uriah has been a Habitat Technician with DFO since 1983. He has been based in Prince Rupert since 1991. His main area of responsibility is Prince Rupert Harbour.

TomPendray Tom is a Habitat Biologist for the North Coastal Area of DFO (including the Lower Skeena River) and the Queen Charlottes. He has been based in Prince Rupert since 1984. Prior to this position he worked as a Habitat Inventory Biologist in the Yukon and with the BC Government.

Appendix B 64

APPENDIX C: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

First Last Organization Bra.nch .·. Telephone Bonnie Antcliffe Fisheries and Oceans Regional 604-666-2210

Canada Headquarters Steve Burgess Fisheries and Oceans Policy Program and 613-990-0186

Canada Development

Karen Calla Fisheries and Oceans Fraser River 604-666-631 0 Canada Division

Glen Carlson Ministry of Environment, Habitat Protection 604-582-5216 Lands and Parks

Barry Chilibeck Fisheries and Oceans Regional 604-666-3765 Canada Headquarters

Geoff Chislett Ministry of Environment, Resource 250-387-9579 Lands and Parks Stewardship Branch

Bruce Clark Fisheries and Oceans Fraser River 604-666-6140 Canada Division

John Clark Department of Justice Vancouver 604-666-8276

Michael Crowe Fisheries and Oceans Kamloops Area 250-851-4950 Canada Office

Peter Delaney Fisheries and Oceans Regional 604-666-2410 Canada Headquarters

Lee Dutta Fisheries and Oceans Fraser River 604-666-3491 Canada Division

Jim Elliott Fisheries and Oceans Mission Area Office 604-820-2522 Canada

Melody Farrell Fisheries and Oceans Fraser River Action 604-666-4609 Canada Plan

Gail Faulkner Fisheries and Oceans Yukon/NBC Division 403-393-6730 Canada

Bob Harding Fisheries and Oceans Salmon Arm Area 250-832-0174 Canada Office

Fern Hietkamp Fisheries and Oceans Fraser River Action 604-666-2044 Canada Plan

Rick Higgins Fisheries and Oceans South Coast 250-756-7284 Canada Division

Patricia Howie Praxis Pacific 604-980-2522

Fax Street City, Code 604-666-7907 Stn. 327, 555 W. Vancouver, BC V6B

Hastings St. 5G3 613-993-7 493 Centennial Towers, Ottawa, ON K1A OE6

Stn. 1182 - 200 Kent St.

604-666-6627 61 O Derwent Way, New Westminster, Annacis Island BC V3M 5P8

604-660-8724 10334 - 152A St. Surrey, BC V3R 7P8

604-666-7907 Stn 327, 555 W. · Vancouver, BC V6B Hastings St. 5G3

250-356-5104 1st Floor, 780 Victoria, BC V8V 1X4 Blanshard Street

604-666-6627 610 Derwent Way, New Westminster, Annacis Island BC V3M 5P8

604-666-1462 900-840 Howe St. Vancouver, BC V6Z 2S9

250-851-4951 1278 Dalhousie Kamloops, BC V2C Drive 6G3

604-666-7907 Stn. 327, 555 W. Vancouver, BC V6B Hastings St. 5G3

604-666-6627 610 Derwent Way, New Westminster, Annacis Island BC V3M 5P8

604-826-8593 32873 London Ave. Mission, BC V2V 6M7

604-666-0417 1220, 555 w. Vancouver, BC V6B Hastings St. 5G3

403-393-6738 200 Range Road Whitehorse , YT Y1A 3V1

250-832-9373 Box 1160, 1751- Salmon Arm, BC 10th Ave. V1E 4P3

604-666-0417 1220, 555 w. Vancouver, BC V6B Hastings St. 5G3

250-756-7162 3225 Stephenson Nanaimo, BC V9T Point Road 1K3

604-980-9992 3848 St. Georges North Vancouver, BC Ave. V7N 1W5

65

E-mail

[email protected]. be.ca [email protected]

[email protected] to.ca [email protected] .PBS.DFO.CA [email protected] c.ca

Appendix c

~ I I


First Last Organization Branch Telephone Fax Street City, Code E-mail Deb Hughes Fisheries and Oceans Squamish Area 604-892-2040 604-892-2378 Box 2360 Squamish ; BC VON

Canada Office 3GO Darryl Hussey Fisheries and Oceans Kamloops Area 250-851-4950 250-851-4951 1278 Dalhousie Kamloops, BC V2C

Canada Office Drive 6G3 Lidia Jaremovic Fisheries and Oceans Fraser River Action 604-666-0017 604-666-0417 1220, 555 w. Vancouver, BC V6B

Canada Plan Hastings St. 5G3 Jeff Johansen Fisheries and Oceans Eastern B.C. 604-666-2365 604-666-7907 555 W. Hastings St. Vancouver, BC V6B

Canada 5G3 Konrad Johnansen Fisheries and Oceans Fraser River 604-666-8191 250-666-6627 610 Derwent Way, New Westminster,

Canada Division Annacis Island BC V3M 5P8 Gord Kosakoski Fisheries and Oceans Kamloops Area 250-851-4950 250-851 -4951 1278 Dalhousie Kamloops, BC V2C

Canada Office Drive 6G3 Otto Langer Fisheries and Oceans Fraser River Action 604-666-8171 604-666-0417 1220, 555 w. Vancouver, BC V6B

Canada Plan Hastings St. 5G3 Pierre Lemieux Fisheries and Oceans Smithers 250-84 7-3916 250-847-4723 Box 578, 3177 Smithers, BC VOJ

Canada Tatlow Road 2NO Nick Leone Fisheries and Oceans Prince George Area 250-561-5366 250-561-5534 3690 Massey Drive Prince George, BC

Canada Office V2N 3N5 Colin Levings Fisheries and Oceans Pacific 604-924-2549 604-925-2555 2645 Dollarton Hwy. North Vancouver, BC

Canada Environmental V7H 1V2 Science Centre

Brent Lister D:B. Lister & Associates 604-858-331 0 604-858-3335 Box 2139 Chilliwack, BC V2R Ltd. 1A5 .

Bruce MacDonald Fisheries and Oceans Prince George Area 250-561-5367 250-561-5534 3690 Massey Drive Prince George, BC Canada Office V2N 3N5

Steve Macfarlane Fisheries and Oceans Fraser River 604-666-2409 604-666-6627 610 Derwent Way, New Westminster, Canada Division Annacis Island BC V3M 5P8

Bob Mcindoe Fisheries and Oceans Fraser River 604-666-3191 604-666-6627 610 Derwent Way, New Westminster, Canada Division Annacis Island BC V3M 5P8

Mike McPhee Quadra Planning 604-926-2080 604-944-6701 1030 Crestline Road West Vancouver, BC mcphee_quadra@compus V7S 2E2 erve.com

Mike Miles M. Miles & Associates 250-595-0653 250-595-7367 645 Island Road Victoria, BC V8S 2T7 [email protected]

Brian Naito Fisheries and Oceans Fraser River 604-666-8190 604-666c6627 610 Derwent Way , New Westminster, Canada Division Annacis Island BC V3M 5P8

Dave Nan son Fisheries and Oceans Fraser River 604-666-2719 604-666-6627 610 Derwent Way , New Westminster, Canada Division Annacis Island BC V3M 5P8

Lee Niki Fisheries and Oceans Fraser River 604-666-8990 604-666-6627 610 Derwent Way , New Westminster, Canada Division Annacis Island BC V3M 5P8

Uriah Orr Fisheries and Oceans North Coast 250-627-3450 250-627-3056 417 2nd Ave. West Prince Rupert, BC orru@vanncd-Canada Division V8J 1G8 am.pac.dfo.ca

Tim Panko Fisheries and Oceans Clearwater Area 250-674-2578 250-67 4-3553 Box 610 - 1121 East Clearwater, BC VOE Canada Office Yellowhead Hwy 1NO

Dale Paterson Fisheries and Oceans Fraser River 604-666-0315 604-666-6627 610 Derwent Way, New Westminster, Canada Division Annacis Island BC V3M 5P8

Appendix C 66

First Last Organization Branch Telephone Fax Street City, Code E-mail Tom Pend ray Fisheries and Oceans North Coast 250-627-3449 250-627-3056 417 2nd Ave. West Prince Rupert, BC

Canada Division V8J 1G8 John Pringle Fisheries and Oceans Institute of Ocean 250-363-6335 250-363-64 79 P.O. Box 6000, Sidney, BC V8L 4B2

Canada Sciences 9860 West Saanich Road

Bruce Reid Fisheries and Oceans Fraser River 604-666-0514 604-666-6627 610 Derwent Way , New Westminster, Canada Division Annacis Island B.C. V3M 5P8

Geoffrey Robins Auditor General of 604-666-7609 604-666-6162 250 - 757 w. Vancouver, BC V6C [email protected] Canada Hastings 1A1

Dave Robinson Fisheries and Oceans Chief, Western 613-990-0206 613-993-7493 Centennial Towers , Ottawa, ON K1A OE6 Canada Chemical Hazards Sin . 1182 - 200 Kent

St. Janine Robinson Quadra Planning 604-945-3622 604-945-5744 2-2880 Dacre Coquitlam, BC V3C [email protected]

Avenue 4H6 Doug Rowland Fisheries and Oceans Habitat 604-666-7 4 71 604-666-7987 555 W. Hastings St. Vancouver, BC V6B

Canada 5G3 Rob Russell Fisheries and Oceans South Coast 250-756-7291 250-756-7162 3225 Stephenson Nanaimo, BC V9T

Canada Division Point Road 1K3 Steve Sam is Fisheries and Oceans Regional 604-666-0209 604-666-7907 Sin . 327, 555 W. Vancouver, BC V6B

Canada Headquarters Hastings St. 5G3 Heather Sta Iberg Fisheries and Oceans Kamloops Area 250-851 -4950 250-851-4951 1278 Dalhousie Kamloops, BC V2C 1278 Dalhousie St.

Canada Office Drive 6G3 John Summers Ministry of Environment, Habitat Protection 604-582-5239 604-660-8927 10334 - 152A St. Surrey, BC V3R 7P8 [email protected]

Lands and Parks av.be.ca

Al van Finster Fisheries and Oceans Yukon/NBC Division 403-393-6721 403-393-6738 200 Range Rd . Whitehorse, YT Y1A Canada 3V1

Adrian Wall Fisheries and Oceans Lillooet Area Office 250-256-4503 250-256-4649 Box 315 - 879 Main Lillooet, BC VOK 1 VO Canada St.

Kim West Fisheries and Oceans Regional 604-666-1228 604-666-7907 Sin . 327, 555 W. Vancouver, BC V6B Canada Headquarters Hastings St. 5G3

Gary Williams G.L. Williams & Assoc. 604-941-7541 604-944-1544 2907 Silverlake Coquitlam, BC V3C Ltd . Place 6A2

Larry Wolfe Quadra Planning 604-926-2080 604-926-77 48 1030 Crestline Road West Vancouver, BC wolfe_quadra@compuserv V7S 2E2 e.com

67 Appendix C


Endnotes

1 Kistriz, R. . 1996. Habitat Compensation, Restoration and Creation in the Fraser River Estuary: Are We Achieving a No Net Loss of Fish Habitat? Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 2349. Fraser River Action Plan, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Vancouver, B.C.).

2 Levings, C.D. and D.J.H. Nishimura. 1997. Created and restored marshes in the lower Fraser River, British Columbia: a summary of their functioning as fish habitat. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada 32:599-618.

Levings, C.D. and D.J.H. Nishimura (Editors). 1996. Created and restored sedge marshes in the lower Fraser River and estuary: an evaluation of their functioning as fish habitat. Can. Tech. Report Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2126. 143 p.

3 Coast River Environmental Services. 1997. Urban Referral Evaluation: An Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Referal Process for Protecting Fish Habitat ( 1985-1995). Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (Resource Stewardship Branch) (Victoria, B.C.), and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Fraser River Action Plan) (Vancouver, B.C.).

4 Hartman, G.F. , and M. Miles. February, 1997. Jones Creek Spawning Channel: Post-Failure Analysis and Management Recommendations. Prepared for Fraser River Action Plan, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Vancouver, B.C.).

5 M. Miles and Associates Ltd. August, 1992. Coquihalla Highway: Stability Assessment of Coldwater River Fisheries Mitigation Structures. Prepared for Highway Environment Branch, B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Highways (Victoria, B.C.).

6 Beniston, R.J. and D.B. Lister. 1992. Effects of Highway Construction on Juvenile Salmonid Rearing Habitat in the Coldwater River, B.C. - Results of post-construction monitoring, 1986-1990. Unpublished report to B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Highways by D.B. Lister and Associates and R.J. Beniston and Associates.

7 M. Miles & Associates Ltd. January, 1996. Coquihalla Highway Fisheries Mitigation Structures PostNovember 1995 Flood Reconnaissance. Prepared for Fraser River Action Plan, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Vancouver, B.C.).

8 Lister, D.B., and W.E. Bengeyfield. 1998. A Follow-up Assessment of Compensatory Fish Habitat at Five Sites in the Thompson River System. In Press. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Prepared for Habitat and Enhancement Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Vancouver, B.C.).

Endnotes 68

no net loss of habitat - dfo-mpo.gc.ca · habitat report in 1978 and called for a no net loss of...

Documents