5. Alternative Formats

• 5.1 Expanded Guideline
  • 5.1.1 Description
  • 5.1.2 Evaluation
• 5.2 Database of Ecological Benchmarks
  • 5.2.1 Description
  • 5.2.2 Evaluation
• 5.3 Decision Key for Determining Significance
  • 5.3.1 Description
  • 5.3.2 Evaluation

Given that Section 4 concludes that existing ecological standards, guidelines and objectives for wetland conservation could prove useful to deciding whether adverse environmental effects are significant under CEAA, how can this information best be communicated to EA practitioners? How can we best operationalize the conceptual model of ecological benchmarks?

This section proposes and evaluates three formats for delivering ecological benchmarks to practitioners:

1. Expanded guideline,
2. Database of ecological benchmarks, and
3. Decision key for determining significance.

5.1 Expanded Guideline

5.1.1 Description

A Reference Guide (Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Office 1994) provides a brief description of the method involving the use of science-based environmental standards, guidelines, or objectives for "Deciding Whether the Adverse Environmental Effects are Significant." This guidance could be elaborated to:

• Define and provide examples of what is meant by environmental standards, guidelines and objectives, expanding the concept to embrace "ecological" benchmarks (e.g. excerpts from Section 1.2);
• Provide criteria and rules for discerning acceptable ecological benchmarks for use in determining the significance of effects in EA (e.g. based on the Evaluation System described in Section 4.1) ; and
• Recommend sources, and provide references, by region, of ecological benchmarks (such as those provided in Section 3.0).

5.1.2 Evaluation

This format would expand and clarify the method of applying environmental standards, objectives and guidelines to significance decisions, introduced by the Responsible Authority's Guide (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 1994). It would be the most efficient approach to communicating the concept of ecological benchmarks to practitioners, and provide the guidance required to identify useful and valid benchmarks.

However, the expanded guideline probably would not result in the application of ecological benchmarks to EA, because of the enormous amount of work involved reviewing benchmark sources, identifying and evaluating candidate benchmarks, and organizing them in a meaningful and accessible way. It would be left to Environment Canada regional EA officers to build an ecological benchmarks resource, which would be difficult to accomplish given their limited resources and substantial workload in advising and reviewing assessments. This format also suggests an ad-hoc approach to operationalizing benchmarks, which would lead to duplication of effort to extract benchmarks from national-level sources, and inconsistency in the identification and evaluation of benchmarks. The expanded guideline format would also be limited in the direction it could provide to the interpretation and application of the benchmarks to individual significance decisions.

5.2 Database of Ecological Benchmarks

5.2.1 Description

This option picks up where the expanded guideline leaves off. The database option proposes the review of sources, and identification and organization of ecological benchmarks for determining significance. This format is envisioned as a central inventory of Canada's ecological standards, guidelines and objectives be developed and maintained in a database format, similar to Europe's STAR database (European Environment Agency 1999) on the Internet at http://star.eea.eu.int/asp/default.asp. Canada's database on ecological benchmarks could provide quick access to legal, policy and scientific targets, and reference values for sustainability. It could link to case studies of public reviews and court decisions that have referenced particular ecological benchmarks and thereby established precedents for significance decisions. It could also link to departmental guidelines on specific project types such as pipelines or aquaculture operations.

The database could organize ecological benchmarks and case studies by themes or categories, such as:

(Assessment-focused)

• Geographic region (Canada, Prairies, Great Lakes Basin, BC Lower Mainland)
• Jurisdictions (federal, including international commitments; provincial; municipal)
• Valued ecosystem component (wetland, species at risk, migratory birds, etc.)
• Environmental medium (air, water, soil, etc.)
• Ecological function (habitat, water quality, hydrology, etc.)
• Issue (climate change, biological diversity, invasive species, etc.)
• Sector (agriculture, forestry, transport, etc. - applies if policies or guidelines are directed to a specific sector)
• Keyword ("critical habitat," "Great Lakes Action Plan," "Fraser River Valley", etc.)

(Benchmark-focused)

• Applies where (geographic scope)
• Applies to what (substance, characteristic, or activity for which the standard, objective, guideline has been set ⁸)
• Applies to whom (group for whom benchmark was designed)
• Benchmark type (standard, objective, guideline)
• Source type (convention, agreement, law, policy, regulation, scientific report, best practices manual, ecosystem plan, etc.)
• Significance criteria (related to "factor" such as negative effects on biotic health, population decline, reduction in recreational opportunities; or "criteria" such as magnitude, geographic extent, duration and frequency; or "sustainable development reference")
• Organization (Ramsar Bureau, Government of Saskatchewan, International Joint Commission, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, etc.)
• Rating (based on explicit criteria for benchmark evaluation)
• Related benchmarks (connects guidelines to policies, laws to conventions, etc.)

Figure 2 illustrates the sample database design for wetland benchmarks.

8 - After the definition of the STAR database "determinand" variable (European Environment Agency 1999)

5.2.2 Evaluation

A search of the database using these "categories" or criteria would provide instant access to the ecological benchmarks of specific interest to a particular project or issue. For example, Case Study No. 2 in Appendix 1 describes a proposal for an industrial dock expansion on the Great Lakes shoreline, adjacent to a provincially significant wetland that provides habitat for migratory birds, two species at risk and a wide range of other fish and wildlife. Conducting a search of the ecological benchmark database using criteria related to the one function (migratory birds), the geographic area, and the relevant VEC (wetlands) would provide the following specific details on standards, objectives, and guidelines pertinent to the project site:

For migratory birds, the search results would include:

• A federal law, linked to an International Convention, prohibiting the deposit of any substance harmful to migratory birds in an area frequented by migratory birds; and
• Criteria based on population for determining whether the site was regionally, nationally, or internationally important for migratory birds.

For the Great Lakes, the search results would include:

• An international agreement committing to the rehabilitation of Great Lakes Areas of Concern, one of which covers the project site;
• A federal/provincial agreement committing to rehabilitation and protection of shoreline habitat in the Great Lakes Basin;
• A strategic plan with a goal "to protect the area and function of existing wetlands in the Great Lakes basin by the year 2020," and objectives of no loss of Great Lakes coastal wetlands and to protect important wetland areas and functions;
• An action plan for wetlands of the basin that identifies coastal marshes in the lower Great Lakes basin as priorities for securement and rehabilitation;
• Science-based targets for rehabilitation and protection that call for 10 percent of a watershed, and six percent of any sub-watershed to be comprised of wetlands, and for herbaceous or woody vegetation buffers of 240 m around wetlands (particularly marshes); and
• A scientific report that identifies areas of the Great Lakes shoreline that contain high quality faunal habitat as "biodiversity investment areas" to be protected, including the "eco-reach" within which the project is sited.

For wetlands, the search results would include:

• A provincial policy on wetlands that states that development and site alteration may be permitted on adjacent lands to significant wetlands south and east of the Canadian Shield and in the Canadian Shield if it has been demonstrated that there are no negative impacts on the natural features or on the ecological functions for which the area is identified; and
• A federal policy on wetlands that states a goal of no net loss of wetland functions where federal activities affect wetlands designated as ecologically important to a region.

These results would help practitioners in the four main steps of the EA process:

• Scoping - especially identifying the relative importance of the potential issue, and the appropriate level of effort to put into the assessment of effects;
• Assessing environmental effects - by identifying the key parameters requiring investigation so that the project environment and project-environment interactions can be compared against existing standards, objectives and guidelines;
• Mitigating environmental effects - by signalling appropriate mitigation options (and sometimes measures); and
• Determining the significance of adverse effects - by highlighting unacceptable impacts as defined by law, policy, practical guidelines and scientific reports.

The Internet could provide access to the searchable database by EA practitioners across the country. In addition, an Internet-based resource on ecological benchmarks could improve public access to information on public policy commitments on the environment, and thereby facilitate participation in a more open, transparent EA process.

This format would:

• Be flexible to accommodate changing knowledge and increases/ improvements in benchmarks;
• Recognize the interrelationships, or interconnectedness of benchmarks that provide mutual support;
• Specify benchmarks whose application is restricted to a limited geographic basis and cannot be transferred beyond that region; and
• Link the benchmarks to the project/environment interaction, by classifying benchmarks by the ecological function(s) that they address.

Finally, the compilation and maintenance of a set of useful, authoritative ecological benchmarks will help in the training of new EA practitioners and in transferring core capacity and corporate memory when experienced EA staff leave an organization.

While the database format would offer many advantages, it would require substantial resources for construction and for ongoing maintenance. Monitoring of the database would be required to ensure consistent, high-quality service. Monitoring of natural resources management literature would be necessary to ensure the database is updated with new benchmarks as they are developed. Although the database format would greatly improve the context within which to consider project proposals, there is still substantial work to be done to apply standards, objectives and guidelines to a particular project. The majority of the candidate benchmarks would require additional interpretation by federal experts as identified by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, to help a project proponent to understand the implications of the benchmark to the determination of significance.

5.3 Decision Key for Determining Significance

5.3.1 Description

The decision key format incorporates the database as described in Section 5.2, but features a user interface to systematically lead the EA practitioner to the benchmarks that are relevant to the project proposal at hand. The proposed user interface is based on the "Stage Two" questions contained in the Wetland Evaluation Guide (Bond et al 1995). These Guide questions are also recommended by the Wetlands Environmental Assessment Guideline (Milko 1998) as an aid to decisions in EA.

The questions would be linked to the database described in Section 5.2, enabling users instant access to the benchmarks most pertinent to the project at hand. The decision key format would also interpret the ecological benchmarks, recommending as far as possible mitigation options and results that were appropriate for the circumstances that the benchmark describes, and linking users with practical mitigation guides.

Figure 3 illustrates the sample decision key for wetland benchmarks.

5.3.2 Evaluation

The decision key is the most complex, detailed and directive of the proposed formats. More than a resource, the user interface of the decision key would provide a structured approach to scoping potential issues and appropriate level of effort, and more explicit guidance in the design of appropriate mitigation and the determination of significant effects.

For example, Case Study No. 1 in Appendix 1 describes a proposal for a federal project to construct a facility for scientific research and administration. Public concerns about the project focused on the considerable biodiversity of the site, the presence of species-at-risk, the potential loss of wetlands and the perceived contravention of the Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation. The EA practitioner responsible for preparing the assessment would answer "yes" to the following questions relating to habitat functions, which would result in instant access to the pertinent benchmarks as listed here:

For a positive response to "Does the wetland provide habitat for species that are designated at risk by relevant authorities?" the search results would include:

• (Proposed) Species at Risk Act, that prohibits the killing or harming of species at risk and destruction or damage of their habitat; and
• Provincial and territorial species at risk legislation, focusing on the prohibitions that each imposes. ⁹

For a positive response to "Does the wetland support animal or plant species that are regionally unique or in unusual abundance?" the search results would include:

• Criteria for identifying the relative importance of wetlands according to their value for supporting biological diversity;
• An international convention that states that wetland conservation is integral to maintaining biodiversity and commits signatories to introducing appropriate procedures requiring EA of its proposed projects that are likely to have significant adverse effects on biological diversity with a view to avoiding or minimizing such effects; and
• A federal strategy aimed at conserving biodiversity, with an aquatic areas strategy of enhancing efforts to conserve aquatic biodiversity by protecting species and ecosystems at risk, endemic species, vulnerable spawning areas and unique and representative ecosystems.

Guidance regarding mitigation might recommend:

• Interpretations of the meaning of the proposed Species At Risk Act for mitigating adverse effects under the CEAA; and
• Those levels of importance (internationally, nationally, regionally) with respect to biological diversity for which avoidance, or avoidance and minimization is prescribed and, conversely, where compensation cannot be used to reduce the significance of adverse effects.

The decision key format for ecological benchmarks would feature the advantages of the database format described in Section 5.2, plus it would:

• Help EA practitioners to structure their information gathering and assessments using a comprehensive set of queries that encourage a functional approach to describing the environment and assessing effects; and
• Associate benchmarks with the preferred mitigation alternative (avoidance, minimization, compensation).

The decision key format would require the resource commitment of the database, plus additional funds for building the user interface. Development of the interface would require extensive consultation with EA practitioners. Ongoing maintenance would be required to ensure consistent, high-quality service. This format would also require updating with new benchmarks as they are developed. Although the decision tree format would provide some interpretation of the benchmarks, experts would still be required to advise on the application of standards, objectives and guidelines to a particular project.

9 - These provincial and territorial acts for species at risk are beyond the scope of this preliminary report on the potential for ecological benchmarks, but would be included in any comprehensive database of ecological benchmarks for wetlands. More than one-third of nationally-listed species at risk reside in wetlands at some point in their life cycles.

Figure 2: Sample (simplified) Database Design

• HTML Version
• PDF Version (PDF, 112kb)

Figure 3: Sample Decision Key Design

• HTML Version
• PDF Version (PDF, 116kb)