Terms of Reference

Science review of a standardized monitoring and success criteria report for Lake Creation; Channel Creation and Aquatic Habitat Works

Regional Peer Review – Ontario and Prairie Region

November 21-24, 2022
Virtual Meeting

Chairperson: Susan Doka

Context

In 2011, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Program (FFHPP) requested science advice on developing cost-effective and science-based monitoring programs as part of habitat offsetting plans, in order to determine the effectiveness of habitat offsetting projects. Three hierarchical levels of monitoring were briefly described (compliance, functional, and effectiveness monitoring), that are not discrete but are a continuum of monitoring intensity. The focus of the science advice (DFO 2012) was on effectiveness monitoring, applicable to projects with offsetting measures that warrant detailed monitoring (e.g., typically projects expected to have a large impact on fish and fish habitat). A technical report (Smokorowski et al. 2015) produced following the 2012 advice focused on developing the design and metrics for comprehensive effectiveness monitoring. In 2018, a follow-up science advisory process was held to focus on ‘functional monitoring’, recognizing that not all projects warrant full-fledged effectiveness monitoring, but that understanding the performance of the constructed habitats requires more than monitoring for compliance with design/construction standards. The resulting Science Advisory Report (DFO 2019) provided operational guidance on functional monitoring, exploring when it might be appropriate to implement, and providing monitoring design and indicator options to move towards standardization. The type of monitoring to be implemented (i.e., compliance, functional, effectiveness) and resulting level of effort depends on the goals/objectives of the monitoring, the scale of the potential impact, the level of relative understanding of the performance of specific constructed habitats, and corresponding indicators or surrogate metrics within the given scientific context. While science advice exists for the selection of monitoring approaches and design, none of the products from these past Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) processes were prescriptive enough to provide specific steps (i.e., step-by-step instructions) to implement a standardized monitoring program.

Currently, FFHPP does not have standardized monitoring requirements for their Regulatory Review activities and no standardized biota collection techniques. Recently, DFO FFHPP Ontario and Prairie region contracted the development of proposed standardized monitoring approaches for several types of offsets including lake construction, channel construction, aquatic habitat works, and supporting biota collection techniques. These contracts are a follow-up from previous monitoring-related CSAS processes to specifically produce standardized monitoring protocols for both proponent and DFO use. Prior to incorporating these protocols into operational activities, DFO FFHPP has requested DFO Science review and provide advice on the contractor-proposed, standardized monitoring programs/approaches to these offset activities. All of these proposed standardized monitoring programs/approaches are proposed for application in freshwaters, but inclusion of marine versions of similar protocols are considered for potential future work.

Objectives

The objective of this review is to assess whether the proposed standardized monitoring approaches for lake construction, channel construction, aquatic habitat works, and supporting biota collection techniques are scientifically sound, to help FFHPP build consistency in their monitoring and data requirements for their program and proponents. More specifically, the objectives are to:

1. Assess the quality and completeness of information presented so that it is in line with previous advice, and determine if any relevant information is missing in the approaches;
2. Determine if appropriate study design, indicators and metrics, methods, sampling intensity, and best scientific practices in monitoring were used;
3. Determine if the monitoring approaches, including study design, data collection, metrics, and data accessibility, are structured in a manner for DFO Science to conduct a meta-analysis of the results in the future to reassess the monitoring protocols and evaluate the success of constructed habitats, and;
4. If necessary, recommend additional or alternative monitoring measures and approaches.

Expected Publications

• Science Response

Expected Participation

• Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) (Science and Aquatic Ecosystems management sectors)
• Academia
• Contracted Report Authors (Five Smooth Stones Restoration Inc., Hatfield Consultants LLP, C. Portt and Associates)
• Other invited experts

References

• DFO. 2012. Assessing the Effectiveness of Fish Habitat Compensation Activities in Canada: Monitoring Design and Metrics. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2012/060.
• DFO. 2019. Science advice on operational guidance on functional monitoring: Surrogate metrics of fish productivity to assess the effectiveness of mitigation and offsetting measures. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2019/042.
• Smokorowski, K.E., Bradford, M.J., Clarke, K.D., Clément, M., Gregory, R.S., Randall, R.G. 2015. Assessing the effectiveness of habitat offset activities in Canada: Monitoring design and metrics. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 3132: vi + 48 p.