An Ecological Accounting System for Integrated Aquatic Planning and Habitat Banking with Case Study on the Toronto Waterfront, Ontario, Canada

Abstract

A key aspect of contemporary fish habitat management is the need to account for losses and gains associated with development and offsetting measures while protecting high quality features. We propose an ecological accounting framework for aquatic ecosystems using habitat equivalents scaled to aquatic productivity, and using fish-to-habitat associations by life stage, based on local fish community needs. The framework uses both landscape-scale and site-level evaluations of pre- and post-project habitat changes to assign and track habitat parcels, using ecological baselines and fish-habitat target setting. Concepts of natural capital reserves and productivity-based ecotypes are used for trading losses and gains between impacts from development projects and offsets, including restoration actions, while maintaining ecologically important areas intact. Traditional accounting terms such as deposits, withdrawals, and transfers are defined using scaled habitat-equivalents as the currency. Other key features of the framework include setting a service area that is ecologically meaningful, and conducting habitat transactions guided by habitat conservation, protection, and restoration (habitat CPR) principles. The nearshore area of the Toronto and Region is used as a case study to illustrate the eco-accounting framework and how habitat banking could be incorporated along with planned restoration to remediate this degraded but continually developed area. The framework represents significant advances in managing cumulative habitat effects in an integrated way, moving away from a focus on only project- or site-level assessments. We feel this approach could be adapted to other ecosystem types in addition to the lake, nearshore area example provided here.

Mitigation bank applications for freshwater systems: Control mechanisms, project complexity, and caveats

“…These banks establish the goal of restoring crucial habitat features such as hydrology or connectivity, creating new aquatic habitat areas, increasing habitat function and complexity, and benefiting aquatic-dependent wildlife or specific target species. HCS banks often consider other land-use aspects such as agriculture and logging, aiming to restore sites to pre-impact conditions on a landscape level, exceeding individual impacts [ 12 , 13 , 16 , 18 , 32 , 53 , 61 ].…”

“…Habitat banking, such as mitigation banking, is a specialized form of traditional offsetting that has gained significant traction in the conservation of freshwater systems and species over the past few decades. While initially spearheaded and utilized mainly in the United States and Australia, habitat banking is increasingly being developed and implemented in other countries [ 1 , 10 , 12 , 13 ]. Habitat banking follows the same mitigation methods and hierarchy as regular offsetting practices dictate, with some key differences.…”

What makes a bank a bank? Differences and commonalities in credit calculation, application, and risks in mitigation banks targeting freshwater systems

“…4). Habitat analyses consider more and more diverse metrics to capture communities better ranging from habitat requirements to guild and life-stage dependent considerations (Chin et al, 2022;Doka et al, 2022;Hallett et al, 2012). Our results show that HC banks already include a wide variety of species and habitat metrics and aspects hence the true challenge will be to develop and adjust these metrics further in the future.…”

“…Especially newer innovative frameworks like integrated habitat planning or national inventories allow better prioritization and identi cation for banking opportunities while increasing transparency and stakeholder involvement will play an important role when advancing the current banking approaches (Doka et al, 2022;Franklin et al, 2022).…”

A multi‐metric index for assessing two decades of community responses to broad‐scale shoreline enhancement and restoration along the Toronto waterfront

“…Goals in the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan include preserving significant species, protecting environmentally significant areas, enhancing aquatic and terrestrial habitats and enhancing public and recreational opportunities (MTRCA, 1992; Tommy Thompson Park, 2023). To achieve these objectives, extensive aquatic habitat restoration and consequent enhancement has been conducted at TTP in the context of the Toronto Waterfront Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy, which covers various other smaller restoration and enhancement projects along the waterfront, and with the goal of delisting (Barnes et al, 2020; Doka et al, 2022; Hoyle et al, 2018; TRCA—Environmental Monitoring and Data Management, 2020; TRCA, 2022; Figure 2; Table S1). Here, TTP can be divided into distinct habitat areas covering mostly embayment and coastal wetland ecosystem types (ecotype), each with individual goals and targets pertaining to fish community and ecosystem health (Figure 1c; Table 1).…”