a guideline to prepare best management practices to ... · a guideline to prepare best management...

A GUIDELINE TO PREPARE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES TO STREAMLINE DFO’S APPROVAL PROCESS

October 2006VERSION 1.0

A GUIDELINE TO PREPARE BEST MANAGEMENTPRACTICES TO STREAMLINE DFO’S APPROVAL PROCESS


Prepared by: Fisheries and Oceans CanadaNational Resource Industry Association

Graphic design by: Apogée DesignPhoto credits: Corel Photos© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (Fisheries and Oceans Canada) 2006

SUMMARYThe purpose of this guide is to outline a process to provide DFO withinformation necessary to determine if a best management practice andassociated mitigation will avoid harm to fish and the harmful alteration,disruption and destruction of fish habitat and thereby streamline DFO’sregulatory decisions under the Fisheries Act.

1A GUIDELINE TO PREPARE BEST MANAGEMENTPRACTICES TO STREAMLINE DFO’S APPROVAL PROCESS

TABLE OF CONTENTS1 INTRODUCTION 2

1.1 Background 21.2 Purpose 2

2 RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK 42.1 Aquatic Effects Assessment 4

2.1.1 Pathways of Effects 42.2 Risk Assessment 6

2.2.1 Scale of Negative Effects 72.2.2 Sensitivity of Fish and Fish Habitat 7

2.3 Risk Management 82.3.1 Operational Statements 8

3 REVIEW OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 93.1 Describing the Best Management Practice 93.2 Developing a custom PoE Diagram 93.3 Identifying the Mitigation Measures 10

3.3.1 Selection of Mitigation 103.4 DFO Approval of Work Practice 12

LIST OF TABLESTable 1 Available PoE Diagrams 4Table 2 Sample Summary Table 14

LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1 Process to prepare Industry best management practices (BMPs) for review and 3

approval by Fisheries and Oceans CanadaFigure 2 Risk Management Framework in Regulatory Decision-making 5Figure 3 Pathways of Effects Diagram – Vegetation Clearing 6Figure 4 Risk Assessment Matrix 7Figure 5 Livestock Grazing – Breaking the link at the beginning of the Path 11Figure 6 Preventing Increases In Sediment Concentrations by Re-design 12Figure 7 PoE Use of Industrial Equipment – Pathway 1b 13Figure 8 PoE Use of Industrial Equipment – Pathway 1a and 1b 13

LIST OF APPENDICESAppendix I Glossary of Terms 15


1 INTRODUCTION

1 . 1 B A C K G R O U N D

Improved predictability and timeliness in regulatorydecision-making has long been a goal soughtby regulatory agencies and industry. TheEnvironmental Process Modernization Plan (EPMP)recently introduced by Fisheries and Oceans Canada(DFO) represents a major step forward in achievingthis goal. The EPMP sets out a number of initiativesthat will enable regulatory decisions within theHabitat Management Program (HMP) to bemade more effectively in terms of conserving andprotecting fish and fish habitat and in a timelier,consistent and transparent manner.

One of the main initiatives of the EPMP isintroducing an element of risk assessment into theregulatory review and decision-making aspect of theHMP by applying a Risk Management Framework(RMF). The RMF provides a systematic, science-based approach that enables the HMP to categorizethe risks to fish and fish habitat associated withdevelopment proposals and to identify the appropriatemanagement and regulatory options to deal withthem.

The RMF consists of two fundamental components:Pathways of Effects (PoEs) and a Risk AssessmentMatrix. PoEs are used to establish a cause-and-effectrelationship between a specific activity or set ofactivities and their effects on fish and fish habitat.The Risk Assessment Matrix is used to determinethe risk to fish and fish habitat by considering themagnitude of residual negative effects within thecontext of sensitivities of fish species and of thereceiving aquatic ecosystem.

The regulatory decision-making process is moreefficient when the risks to fish and fish habitatfrom proposed development proposals are wellunderstood. Activities associated with adevelopment proposal that can avoid negativeeffects altogether, either by relocation or redesignor the use of mitigation measures, are justifiablyable to proceed with minimal regulatory review.Detailed review and intervention is thereforereserved for those proposals having a moderateto high risk of negative effects.

Recognizing the specific pathway through whicha negative effect can occur and knowing themitigation measures to apply are key to identifyinglow risk activities associated with a givendevelopment proposal.

1 . 2 P U R P O S E

DFO and the National Resource IndustryAssociation (NRIA) have agreed that industry andregulators should work together to streamline theregulatory review process. Identifying standard bestmanagement practices (BMPs) that pose a low risk tofish and fish habitat and agreeing that these practicesare unlikely to harm fish or result in the harmfulalteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of fishhabitat will provide clear guidance and regulatorycertainty to industry and maintain the productionof fish and the integrity of fish habitat.

Industry is most familiar with the BMPs thatrepresent the industry standard for typicaldevelopment proposals. As such, industry is able todescribe the BMPs that are used at each stage ofdevelopment (construction, operation, maintenanceand abandonment) and identify the mitigationmeasures that are commonly applied to avoid orprevent harm to fish and the HADD of fish habitat.

DFO is the federal government departmentultimately responsible for administering the habitatprotection provisions of the Fisheries Act. As such,it is in the best position to review the BMPs andassociated mitigation measures to determine effectson fish and fish habitat. Once DFO is satisfied thata specific set of BMPs and accompanying mitigationmeasures will likely avoid the HADD of fish andfish habitat, given work activities that followthe accepted BMPs can proceed without formalapproval, similar to the process of using anOperational Statement. Other regulatory toolssuch as letters of advice, class authorizations orother streamlining mechanisms would be appliedin instances where there is less certainty about thesuccess of the proposed BMP and mitigation.



Terms in italics are defined in theGlossary section of the document(Appendix I).


It is important that industry adopt a commonapproach be to evaluate their BMPs. This approachshould also be compatible with DFO’s RiskManagement Framework. This guideline outlines aprocess for industry to follow to provide DFO withsufficient information to determine if the proposed

set of BMPs and associated mitigation will avoidharm to fish and the HADD of fish habitat. Thisprocess is outlined below in Figure 1 and illustratesthe link to DFO’s internal review process ofIndustry developed BMPs.


Industry BMP Guide

Operational Statement

filter

Identify applicable

Pathways ofEffects diagrams

Identify relevant cause-and-effect

relationships

Identify tactic to break*

cause-and-effect relationships*

Select mitigation, identify any residual negative effects and present summary

to DFO for approval

DFO receives Industry BMP and verifies

Pathways of Effects analysis to verify

effectiveness of BMP (refer to Figure 2 for DFO’s

internal review process)

* Breaking cause-and-effect relationships can be done by relocating, redesigning or applying mitigation to eliminate sources of negative effects on fish and fish habitat. The higher up the pathway that the links are broken, the higher probability that the mitigation will be successful.

Aqu

atic

Eff

ects

Ass

essm

ent

Figure 1 Process to prepare Industry best management practices (BMPs) for review andapproval by Fisheries and Oceans Canada

OperationalStatement

Insufficient information

Proposal will not affect

Fish habitat

OperationalStatement?

Sufficient information?

Fish habitatpresent?

Discuss mitigation with

proponent

Pathways ofEffects analysis

Assess mitigation

Residual negative effects

Scale of negative effects

Sensitivityof fish andfish habitat

Categorizationof risk

Low risk?

Medium risk?

HADD likely.Streamlined authorization

process

HADD likely.Site-specific authorization

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Request to relocateor

redesign

High risk?

Significanteffects?

Developmentproposal received

by DFO

No HADD likely to additional mitigation. Site specific letter of advice or standard-ized advice through BMPs or approved

work practices

Aquatic Effects Assessment

RiskAssessment

Risk Management

Risk C

omm

un

ication

Rel

oca

te /

Red

esig

n

Sensitivity of Fish and Fish HabitatScale ofNegatitve

Effect

High

Medium

Low

N No Fisheries Act requirements

Highly Sensitive Moderately Sensitive Low Sensitivity Not FishHabitatR

ATE

MEDIU

M RIS

K

HIGH R

ISKSIG

NIFICA

NT

NEGAT

IVE

EFFE

CTS

LOW

RIS

K

Risk Assessment Matrix

2 RISK MANAGEMENTFRAMEWORK

The Risk Management Framework (RMF) isintended to provide a structured approach todecision-making that takes into account theconcepts of risk, uncertainty and precaution inorder to: • analyze activities associated with development

proposals and apply mitigation measures toavoid, reduce or minimize negative effectson fish and fish habitat;

• determine residual negative effects and assesstheir risk to fish and fish habitat;

• use the risk assessment process to supportregulatory decisions; and

• communicate the rationale for the decisions.

The RMF provides a structure to make routinedecisions regarding such factors as the sensitivityof fish and fish habitats and the effectivenessof mitigation measures during the review ofdevelopment proposals. Formalizing the stepsinvolved through the RMF renders the regulatorydecisions more nationally consistent, reproducibleand transparent.

The RMF is comprised of three phases: • Aquatic Effects Assessment; • Risk Assessment; and• Risk Management

The three RMF phases are a series of discrete stepsin the process of reviewing activities associated witha development proposal (Figure 2). This processis based on a Pathways of Effects (PoEs) analysis,which is part of the Aquatic Effects Assessmentphase of the RMF. However, the Risk Assessmentand Risk Management phases are also discussedbriefly for background information.

2 . 1 A Q U A T I C E F F E C T SA S S E S S M E N T

2.1.1 Pathways of EffectsThe potential effects that the activities associatedwith a development proposal may have on fish andfish habitat are identified in the Aquatic EffectsAssessment phase using Pathways of Effects(PoE) diagrams. This phase of the process isinitiated after it is found Operational Statementscannot be applied to alleviate all negative effects tofish and fish habitat.

The PoE diagrams describe a work or undertakingin terms of the: • activities involved, • the type of cause-and-effect relationships known

to exist; and• the mechanisms by which stressors ultimately

lead to effects in the aquatic environment.

PoE diagrams have been developed for typical in-water and land based activities (see Table 1 for acomplete listing).



Table 1 Available PoE Diagrams

I N - W A T E R L A N D - B A S E D1. Industrial Equipment 1. Vegetation Clearing2. Placement of Material 2. Excavation3. Flow Management 3. Industrial Equipment4. Fish Passage 4. Riparian Planting5. Seismic 5. Grading6. Water Extraction 6. Explosives7. Aquatic Vegetation Management 7. Cleaning or Maintenance8. Structure Removal 8. Livestock Grazing

9. Explosives10. Dredging11. Debris Management12. Wastewater13. Aquaculture

*Note: PoE diagrams may be found at http://www.nria-dfo.ca/index_e.htm



OperationalStatement

Insufficient information

Proposal will not affect

Fish habitat

OperationalStatement?

Sufficient information?

Fish habitatpresent?

Discuss mitigation with

proponent

Pathways ofEffects analysis

Assess mitigation

Residual negative effects

Scale of negative effects

Sensitivityof fish andfish habitat

Categorizationof risk

Low risk?

Medium risk?

HADD likely.Streamlined authorization

process

HADD likely.Site-specific authorization

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Request to relocateor

redesign

High risk?

Significanteffects?

Developmentproposal received

by DFO

No HADD likely to additional mitigation. Site specific letter of advice or standard-ized advice through BMPs or approved

work practices

Aquatic Effects Assessment

RiskAssessment

Risk Management

Risk C

omm

un

ication

Rel

oca

te /

Red

esig

n

Figure 2 Risk Management Framework in Regulatory Decision-making


Effect

High

Medium

Low

None No Fisheries Act requirements


ATE

MEDIU

M RIS

K

HIGH R

ISKSIG

NIFICA

NT

NEGAT

IVE

EFFE

CTS

LOW

RIS

K

Risk Assessment Matrix

A PoE diagram for Vegetation Clearing is shownin Figure 3. Each cause-and-effect relationshipis represented as a line, known as a pathway,connecting the activity to a potential stressor, anda stressor to some ultimate effect on fish and fishhabitat. This is a useful tool for reviewing negativeeffects of development proposals, evaluatingalternative siting and design options anddetermining appropriate mitigation measures.

The Vegetation Clearing PoE diagram provides aclear picture of the overall potential effects of thisactivity on fish and fish habitat, as well as directionto assess and apply mitigation measures. Eachpathway represents a cause-and effect relationshipwhere mitigation measures may be needed. Wheremitigation can be applied to avoid, minimize orreduce a potential source of negative effects toacceptable levels, the link in the pathway is broken.When all sources of negative effects are eliminatedthrough mitigation, it can be concluded that theactivity will not result in harm to fish and theHADD of fish habitat. When mitigation measures

cannot be applied, or cannot fully address a stressor,the remaining effect is referred to as a residualnegative effect. The Aquatic Effects Assessmentphase of the RMF is concluded when all applicablePoEs have been analyzed, adequate mitigationmeasures have been identified and any residualnegative effects have also been identified. Applyingthe PoEs during the review and evaluation ofspecific best management practices is discussedfurther in Section 3.

2 . 2 R I S K A S S E S S M E N T

The Risk Assessment phase focuses on categorizingthe level of risk of the residual negative effectsthat remain after all relevant pathways have beenanalyzed and relocation, redesign and mitigationoptions have all been explored. Determining thelevel of risk that residual negative effects pose to fishand fish habitat will DFO rationalize a decision toauthorize or not or apply a streamlining tool, any



Activity

VegetationClearing

Addition orremoval of in

stream organicstructure

Bank stability

and exposedsoils

Increased erosion potential

Changein habitatstructureand cover

Change inwater

temperature

Change incontaminant

concentrations

Changein foodsupply

Changein sediment

concentrations

Solarinputs

AllocthanousInputs

Use of herbacides

Stressors

Effects

Figure 3 Pathways of Effects Diagram – Vegetation Clearing


combination of Operational Statement, letter ofadvice, class authorization, etc.

Assessing the level of risk of residual negative effectsis accomplished using a Risk Assessment Matrix(Figure 4). The outcome (residual negative effects)of the Aquatic Effects Assessment is consideredin the context of the magnitude of the residualnegative effect (i.e. Scale of Negative Effect) andthe affected fish and fish habitat (i.e. Sensitivity ofFish and Fish Habitat). The rationale used to locatethe residual negative effects on the matrix forms thebasis for regulatory decision-making.

2.2.1 Scale of Negative EffectsThe attributes typically considered in evaluating themagnitude of residual negative effects are:• geographic extent (site, reach, catchment):

the direct footprint of the development proposal,including areas indirectly affected such asdownstream and down-current areas.

• duration (days, weeks, months years): the amount of time that a residual effect willpersist

• intensity (degree of change in habitat): the expected amount of change from baselinecondition. Intensity describes the degree ofchanges such as water temperature, salinity, flow,suspended sediment, etc.

2.2.2 Sensitivity of Fish and Fish HabitatThe attributes typically considered in evaluatingthe sensitivity of fish and fish habitats potentiallyaffected by the development proposal are:• species sensitivity (ability of the fish

species to respond to change): sensitivity of the species to changes inenvironmental conditions, such as suspendedsediments, water temperature or salinity

• species’ dependence on habitat (habitatserves unique for specific life stage or lifehistory function): use of habitat by fish species. Some species maybe able to spawn in a wide range of habitats,while others may have very specific habitatrequirements

• rarity (strength of fish population and/or supplyof specific habitat type):the relative strength of a fish population orprevalence of a particular habitat type

• habitat resiliency (ability of habitat to recoverfrom acute and chronic perturbations): ability of an aquatic ecosystem to recover fromchanges in the environmental conditions


Refer to the Practitioners Guide to theRisk Management Framework on theCanadian Waters Internet site (insertupdated link here) for more informationon the risk assessment process.


Effect

High

Medium

Low

None No Fisheries Act requirements


ATE

MEDIU

M RIS

K

HIGH R

ISKSIG

NIFICA

NT

NEGAT

IVE

EFFE

CTS

LOW

RIS

K

Figure 4 Risk Assessment Matrix

The Risk Assessment phase of the RMF iscompleted when the extent of residual negativeeffects of the activities associated with thedevelopment proposal has been considered inthe context of the sensitivity of both the fishand the habitat potentially affected and thedegree of risk, ranging from no risk to high risk,has been estimated.

2 . 3 R I S K M A N A G E M E N T

Risk Management is the final phase of the RMF.Various management options are implementedin this phase depending on the degree of riskdetermined in the Risk Assessment phase. Theextent of DFO’s requirements and its involvementin review of development proposals is driven bytheir assessment of the degree of risk. Where the riskof residual negative effects is high, DFO will beinvolved in a detailed site-specific review of thedevelopment proposal and the effects may requirea Fisheries Act authorization. A higher level of riskis placed on those development proposals whereuncertainties are greater, the residual negative effectsare numerous or the proposed mitigation is new orhas not been extensively field-tested. In these cases,authorizing the killing of fish and the harmfulalteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat(HADD) may be issued however with severalconditions to compensate for the loss of habitat, tomonitor and report and, where required, providefinancial security. Where risks of residual negativeeffects are low, the development proposal mayproceed with less regulatory involvement fromDFO. In such cases, a development proposal mayproceed subject to specific mitigation measuresoutlined in Operational Statements, Letters ofAdvice, class authorization or in industry guidelines,Best Management Practices, etc.

2.3.1 Operational StatementsAn Operational Statement (OS) is a regulatory RiskManagement tool used to streamline the regulatoryreview of low risk activities. The application of anOperational Statement is decided very early in thedecision-making process (refer back to Figure 2).Proponents are encouraged to incorporateOperational Statements into their developmentproposal before submitting them to DFO toexpedite the review.

An OS is based on two tenets:1. activities that are undertaken according to

standard conditions and incorporate appropriatemitigation that pose a low risk to fish and fishhabitat and;

2. activities that pose less risk to fish and fishhabitat require less rigorous regulatory review.

Each OS describes the low-risk nature of the activityand sets out the conditions and mitigation thatwill avoid the HADD of fish habitat that mightresult from the activity. By carrying out the activityaccording to the OS, the proponent avoids theHADD of fish habitat and therefore is incompliance with subsection 35(1) of the FisheriesAct. DFO does not need to review a developmentproposal if the proponent follows the conditionsand measures in OS, although the proponent isasked to notify DFO prior to starting work todetermine the compliance and effectiveness ofthe conditions and mitigation of the OS.

Eighteen national Operational Statements arecurrently available for use across the country andthese include:1. Aquatic Vegetation Removal 2. Beach Creation 3. Beach Maintenance4. Beaver Dam Removal 5. Bridge Maintenance 6. Clear-Span Bridge 7. Culvert Maintenance 8. Directional Drilling 9. Dock Construction 10. Ice Bridges 11. Isolated Pond Construction 12. Log Salvage13. Maintenance of Riparian Vegetation in Existing

Rights-of-Way14. Moorings15. Overhead Line Construction 16. Punch and Bore Crossings17. Routine Maintenance Dredging 18. Underwater Cables

These national OS have been slightly adaptedfor use in each province and territory to accountfor diverse aquatic ecosystems, fish speciesand regulatory requirements that vary acrossprovincial and territorial boundaries. To respectthese differences, some OSs have not been released




in effect in every province or territory. Although theprinciple conditions and mitigation of the nationalOSs remain the same in the ‘adapted’ versions,these versions are not transferable between provincesand territories. DFO’s national Canadian Watersinternet site (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/canwaters-eauxcan/epmp-pmpe/operational_e.asp) outlineswhich OSs to use in each provincial and territorialjurisdiction. The OSs can also be downloaded fromthis site.

Additional OSs can be developed for developmentproposals undertaken by various industry sectorsand DFO is committed to working with the NRIAtowards this end.

3 REVIEW OF BESTMANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Streamlining the regulatory review of routinebest management practices (BMP) will benefitboth Industry and DFO. The developmentof streamlining tools such as OSs hinges onconfirming that a given BMP avoids harm to fishand the HADD of fish habitat. Both DFO andindustry play a role. Industry’s role is to provideDFO with the information about the BMP andmitigation necessary to determine the risk of thedevelopment proposal to fish habitat; and DFO’srole is to review the information provided and,in consultation with industry, determine if the BMPwill avoid harm to fish the HADD of fish habitatand if that HADD is acceptable. In fulfilling itsrole, industry must provide DFO with thefollowing:1. A description of the best management practice

(BMP)2. A modified PoE diagram showing all applicable

pathways that reflect the BMP3. A listing of mitigation measures to effectively

break all or most cause-and-effect linkages ineach applicable PoE

3 . 1 D E S C R I B I N G T H E B E S TM A N A G E M E N T P R A C T I C E

The best management practice (BMP) needs tobe clearly understood. This step therefore involvesdocumenting, in detail, a description of all standardprocedures and methods and practices associatedwith the BMP. This should include the following:• Narrative description of the BMP

• What are the activities being carried out inassociation with the development proposal?

• Why is the development proposal being done• Where and when is the development proposal

being done• How is the work being done

• Sequential description and the duration of eachstep required to complete the developmentproposal

• Any possible constraints that will impede thecompletion of the development proposal

The level of detail should be such that a person whois unfamiliar with the industry and associated BMPclearly understand the nature of the developmentproposal, the various activities and steps associatedwith it and any constraints that dictate whystandard practices could not otherwise be followed.Very often, not understanding the true nature of theBMP or the supporting rationale becomes a sourceof conflict between regulators and proponents. Toavoid such miscommunication, it is important todocument all actions, even those typically taken forgranted, when describing the BMP. This initiallymay be challenging to some industry practitionerswho, after years of experience, do thingsautomatically. Every effort should be made todescribe the BMP in precise language; avoidingterms such as ‘where practical’, ‘where appropriate’,‘where possible’, etc. Instead use conditionswhere certain actions are deemed impractical,inappropriate or not possible. The importanceof explaining the BMP in clear and precise terms,free of industry jargon, cannot be overstated.

3 . 2 D E V E L O P I N G A C U S T O MP o E D I A G R A M

The Pathways of Effects (PoEs) analysis is a criticalstep when evaluating BMPs. The PoE diagramsestablish cause and effect links between the activitiesrelated to the development proposal and fish and


fish habitat. Typically, BMPs include one or acombination of several in-water and land-based PoEdiagrams (see Appendix I for list of all PoEdiagrams). All relevant in-water and land-based PoEdiagrams are selected based on the range of activitiesthat are associated with the development proposal(see Section 3.1 Describing the Best ManagementPractice). For instance, if the BMP is constructing aclear span bridge outside the channel, the followingactivities and relevant PoE diagrams would beselected and considered:

In-water Activities Land-based Activities• Debris management

• Vegetation Clearing• Excavation• Industrial Equipment• Riparian Planting• Grading• Explosives

Alternatively, if the BMP was installing a pipelinecrossing via an isolation method, the followingactivities and relevant PoE diagrams would beselected and considered:

In-water Activities Land-based Activities• Industrial Equipment • Vegetation Clearing• Placement of Material • Excavation• Flow Management • Industrial Equipment• Fish Passage • Riparian Planting• Water Extraction • Grading• Structure Removal • Explosives• Explosives• Dredging• Debris Management• Wastewater

The PoE diagrams corresponding to each of theactivities are generic and inclusive. They aresufficiently broad to address all potential cause-and-effect linkages. It is important to review eachpathway to see if it is relevant to the BMP and if so,create a “custom” PoE diagram that includes onlythose PoE diagrams that reflect each aspect of thedevelopment proposal. Remove all PoE diagramsand cause-and-effect linkages within a PoE that arenot relevant to the BMP.

The “customized” PoE diagram illustrates a uniqueset of cause-effect relationships that describe howthe BMP will likely affect fish and fish habitat.

3 . 3 I D E N T I F Y I N G T H EM I T I G A T I O N M E A S U R E S

Each pathway shown in the “customized” PoEdiagram indicates where mitigation is needed tobreak the cause-and-effect linkage. “Breaking” anyone link in the cause-and-effect relationship,essentially eliminates that source of negative effecton fish and fish habitat. The higher up the “path”the links are broken, the higher the probability isthat the mitigation will work to avoid the effect. Forinstance, preventing cattle from access to riparianvegetation is more effective as mitigating negativeeffects to fish and fish habitat than stabilizing theexposed soils after the banks have been eroded fromcattle accessing riparian vegetation (Figure 5).Breaking all of the cause-and-effect links in allrelevant PoE diagrams for the activities associatedwith the development proposal demonstrates thatthe BMP has avoided all negative effects on fish andfish habitat and the BMP could be developed intoan Operational Statement.

There are several ways to break the cause-and-effectlinks. These can include modifying the BMPs sothat the potential pathways are no longer relevantby redesigning, relocating or other specific actionsor interventions. For instance, redesigning anexisting bridge deck maintenance BMP to preventaccumulated road grit from being swept into thedeck surface drains that drain to a watercourse,breaks the link to avoid changing sedimentconcentration (Figure 6). BMPs that promoteselecting routes that avoid water bodies are waysin which relocation can break links in pathways.Although relocation and redesign are the mosteffective strategies, they are not often feasible givennumerous operational constraints that make themimpractical to implement.

Erosion and sediment control measures are examplesof specific interventions that aim to prevent erosionat the site and intercept sediment laden surfacerunoff before it reaches receiving waters.

3.3.1 Selection of MitigationSelecting the appropriate mitigation is a four-stepprocess. 1. Determine the mechanism (i.e., pathway)

through which a given activity affects fish andfish habitat




• The pathway should be stated as a simplecause and effects statement• For example, the Use of Industrial

Equipment Pathway 1b (Figure 7):• Vegetation clearing will expose soil to

erosion. The eroded material will becarried into the receiving stream bysurface runoff and increase theconcentration of suspended sedimentin water.

2. Identify the objective • State what the mitigation should try to

achieve • For example, the Use of Industrial

Equipment Pathway 1b (Figure 7):• Prevent sediment from eroded soils

from entering the watercourse

3. Determine the strategy to use to meet theobjective• Describe the overall approach that will be used

to prevent sediment from reaching surfacewaters

• For example, the Use of IndustrialEquipment Pathway 1b (Figure 7):• Control erosion at the site and

intercept surface runoff

4. Select appropriate tactic(s) to meet therequirements of the strategy • Describe how the strategy will be

implemented. There are many ways(techniques) to control erosion such asgeotextile fabric, fiber mats, silt fences, re-seeding etc.; however, not all of these aresuitable in all situations. Therefore thiscomponent of the selection process identifiesthe technique(s) and geographic locationmost applicable to the BMPs along with arational explaining why they were chosen. • For example, the Use of Industrial

Equipment Pathway 1b (Figure 7):• Exposed soils will be stabilized

immediately and re-seeded with localseed mix within the first plantingseason.


Figure 5 Livestock Grazing – Breaking the link at the beginning of the Path

Potential mortality Change in watertemperature

Change in organicinputs/nutrient concentrations

Change inexternal

nutrient inputs

of fish eggs/ovadeposited insubstrate

Resuspensionand

entrainment of sediment

Change in sedimentconcentrations

Loss/damageof riparianvegetation

Change innutrient

concentrations

Direct input offaeces

Change inpathogens/

bacterial levels

Change in sedimentconcentrations

Change inShade

Alteration of instream organic

structure

Change in habitat structure

and coverChemical barrierto fish passage

Trampling ofchannel

substrates

Direct or indirect

mortality of fish

Streamsidelivestockgrazing

Increasederosionpotential

Bank stabilityand exposed

soils

Land-based activities

• Planting late in the season may notprovide sufficient time for seeds togerminate in which case moredurable slope protection measuressuch as mulch, erosion controlblankets or rock will be used.

• Cross ditches and silt fences will beinstalled at the foot of the slope. • Cross ditches spaced in accordance

with the steepness of the slope willintercept flow on the slopes andchannel runoff to vegetated areaswhere it can be filtered beforeentering receiving waters

The information is best presented in a summarytable (see Table 2) for the given example: Use ofIndustrial Equipment Paths 1a and 1b (Figure 8follows Table 2).

3 . 4 D F O A P P R O V A L O F W O R KP R A C T I C E

Following the process outlined in the precedingsections will provide the necessary information forDFO to review the BMPs and to determine whetheradhering to them will avoid harm to fish and theHADD of fish habitat. Bear in mind that DFO

must confirm that the mitigation measures outlinedin the BMP are effective before they endorse it. It isimportant to provide adequate information aboutthe proposed mitigation to help DFO determine ifit is feasible, accurate, it has been proven to functioncorrectly and will not result in harm to fish andthe HADD of fish habitat. Industry may considersubmitting a brief report to facilitate DFO’ review,which includes a description of the work, a“customized” PoE diagram that has been adjustedto reflect the nature of the BMPs and annotated listof mitigations as summarized in Table 2. Reports,research studies, etc can also be sent to DFOto confirm the effectiveness of the BMP andmitigation. Where there remains a high level ofuncertainty about the effectiveness about new orunproven methods, DFO may request that industrymonitor the implementation of the BMP andmitigation and implement contingency plans,if needed.

Once DFO is satisfied that the BMP avoids allnegative effects, they will formally endorse theBMPs. Another potential outcome is the DFO-approved BMP is developed into an OperationalStatement (OS). Industry would be encouraged todevelop the OS and would work collaborativelywith DFO to expand the application of the OS toother industries.



Figure 6 Preventing Increases In Sediment Concentrations by Re-design

Land-based activities

Change insediment

concentrations


concentrations

Washing, cleaning,sweeping,

sandblasting etc.

Washwater

See: Use of industrial equipment pathway

Cleaning ormaintenance ofbridges or other

structures



Figure 7 PoE Use of Industrial Equipment – Pathway 1b

Land-based and in-water activities

Resuspensionand entrainment

of sediment

Change in sediment concentrations

Use of mobileindustrialequipment

Use of industrialequipment

Use of immobileindustrial

equipment

Oil, grease andfuel leaks from

equipment


concentrations

Potential mortality offish/eggs/ova from

equipment

Increased erosionpotential

Bank stabilityand exposed

soils

1d

1c1b

1a

2

Figure 8 PoE Use of Industrial Equipment – Pathway 1a and 1b

Land-based and in-water activities

Resuspensionand entrainment

of sediment

Change in sediment concentrations

Use of mobileindustrial

equipment

Use of industrialequipment

Use of immobileindustrial

equipment

Oil, grease andfuel leaks from

equipment


concentrations

Potential mortality offish/eggs/ova from

equipment

Increased erosionpotential

Bank stability andexposed soils

1a

1b1d

1c 2



LINKAGE NUMBER1a

1b

DESCRIPTIONOF PATHWAYIndustrialmachinerydriven throughthe wettedchannel candamageincubating eggsand newlyemerged fry.

Vegetationclearing willexpose soil toerosion. Theeroded materialwill be carriedinto thereceiving streamby surfacerunoff andincrease theconcentration ofsuspendedsediment.

MITIGATIONOBJECTIVEAvoid affectingincubating eggsand fry.

Preventsediment fromeroded soilsfrom enteringthe watercourse.

MITIGATIONSTRATEGYLimit in wateruse ofmachinery.

Control erosionat the site andintercept surfacerunoff.

MITIGATIONTACTICLimit in wateractivity tofording.

Single entrypoint into waterbody for fording.

Adhere to timingwindows (e.g.,conduct workwhen eggs havehatched andemergent frycan disperse).

Stabilize andreseed.

Install crossditches and siltfences.

DESCRIPTION

Single entrypoint bedprotected withclean gravel andpad.

Exposed soilswill be stabilizedwith fibred matsimmediatelyafter work iscompleted andre-seeded withlocal seed mixwithin the firstplanting season.

Ditches will beinstalled acrossthe slope tomove runofffrom slope tovegetated area.

Silt fences willbe installed atthe foot of theslope.

RATIONALE

Limit in wateractivity tofording andaccess to singlepoint minimizerisk of damagingeggs and fry.

Planting late inthe season maynot providesufficient timefor seeds togerminate.

Cross ditcheswill interceptflow on theslopes andchannel runoffto vegetatedareas where itcan be filteredbefore enterreceiving waters.

Table 2 Sample Summary Table


APPENDIX I GLOSSARY OFTERMS

Activity: Within the context of the Pathways ofEffects diagrams, activities represent the componentparts or building blocks of development proposals.

Aquatic Effects Assessment: In the context ofthe Pathways of Effects diagrams, is a means ofidentifying all of the potential effects (eithernegative, positive or neutral) a developmentproposal may have on fish and fish habitat.

Best Management Practices (BMPs): A generalterm that encompasses any document (guideline,code of practice, work practice, standard, fact sheets,etc.) that is used to outline specific and technicaladvice to proponents.

Cause-and-effect relationships: In the context ofthe Pathways of Effects diagrams, a cause-and-effectrelationship is represented graphically by a lineconnecting the activity to a potential stressor(s) andthen from the stressor to an ultimate effect on fishor fish habitat.

Contingency Planning: Management planningutilizing alternative methods or strategies thatenable the project to continue if known potentialeffects increase the risk of the project beyond thatwhich was originally estimated.

Development Proposal(s): A description of a workor undertaking that is submitted to DFO for review.Numerous activities (PoE diagrams) are related to aproposed development.

Duration: The amount of time that a residualeffect will persist.

Effect: A change brought about by a cause oragent. In the context of the Pathways of Effectsdiagrams, effects reflect a change in fish and fishhabitat which has the potential to influence theproductive capacity of fish habitat.

Environmental Process Modernization Plan(EPMP): Consistent with the Government ofCanada’s Smart Regulation agenda, Fisheries andOceans Canada (DFO) is renewing its HabitatManagement Program (HMP) through itsEnvironmental Process Modernization Plan. ThisPlan, approved by the Minister in February 2004,is among the top priorities of DFO and is part of abroader effort to ensure DFO programs reflect thecurrent priorities of Canadians.

Geographic Extent: Refers to the footprint of thedevelopment proposal, as well as areas indirectlyaffected, such as down-stream or down-currentareas.

Habitat Resiliency: Ability of an aquatic ecosystemto recover from changes in environmentalconditions. The flow and thermal regimes of thesystem as well as its physical characteristics areimportant considerations in describing freshwaterecosystems.

Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destructionof Fish Habitat (HADD): Any change in fishhabitat that reduces its capacity to support one ormore life processes of fish.

Intensity: The expected amount of change from thebaseline condition. Intensity is a way of describingthe degree of change, such as changes in watertemperature, salinity, flow, suspended sediment, etc.The timing of the works may have a major influenceon intensity. Effects such as sediment releaseoccurring during critical spawning periods willhave higher intensity.

Operational Statement: Documents developedby DFO for proponents that provide nationallyconsistent advice on standard measures to apply toselected activities that are low risk to fish habitat.

Pathway: A line on a Pathways of Effects diagramused to represent a cause and effect relationshipexisting between activities, stressors and effects.


Pathways of Effects: Diagrams that describedevelopment proposals in terms of the activitiesthat are involved, the type of cause-and-effectrelationship that are known to exist for that activity,and the mechanisms by which stressors ultimatelylead to effects in the aquatic environment.

Precautionary Principle: Also referred to as theprecautionary approach, recognizes that the absenceof full scientific certainty shall not be used as areason for postponing decisions where there is arisk of serious or irreversible harm.

Proponent: A person, company or corporation thathas submitted, or plans to submit, a developmentproposal.

Rarity: The relative strength of a fish population orprevalence of a particular type of habitat.

Review Process: The process followed by HabitatManagement practitioners to ensure proposeddevelopments are in compliance with the habitatprotection provisions of the Fisheries Act.

Productive Capacity: The maximum naturalcapability of habitats to produce healthy fish, safefor human consumption, or to support or produceaquatic organisms upon which fish depend.

Risk: For the purposes of this framework, risk isa term used to represent the expected impact of adevelopment proposal on the productive capacityof fish habitat.

Risk Assessment: The process of identifying,measuring and predicting the likelihood of anunwanted event from occurring. Risk Assessmenttakes into account the probability of the eventoccurring, the consequences of the event, and thedegree of uncertainty involved.

Risk Assessment Matrix: A two dimensionalmatrix which uses Scale of Negative Effect andSensitivity of Fish and Fish Habitat to characterizethe risk residual effects pose to the productivecapacity of fish habitat.

Risk Management: The identification andimplementation of management options foraddressing unwanted events in order to achievean overall objective.

Risk Management Framework: A systematicapproach to gathering, evaluating, recordingand disseminating information leading torecommendations for a position or action inresponse to an identified event. A frameworkenables Habitat Management practitioners andproponents to better understand the nature of risk,and to manage it more systematically.

Species Dependence: Use of habitat by fishspecies. Some species may be able to spawn in awide range of habitats, while others may have veryspecific habitat requirements.

Species Sensitivity: Sensitivity of species tochanges in environmental conditions, such assuspended sediments, water temperature or salinity.

Stressors: An agent, condition, or other stimulusthat causes stress to an organism.

Uncertainty: The amount that a predicted effectmay differ from the true effect.

