1. Introduction

• 1.1 Background Context
• 1.2 What are "Ecological Benchmarks"?
• 1.3 How can Ecological Benchmarks Contribute to Environmental Assessment Practice?
  • 1.3.1 Practical Clarification of the Concept of "Significance"
  • 1.3.2 Benefits to the Practice of Environmental Assessment
• 1.4 Objectives of the Project

1.1 Background Context

Federal projects assessed under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) frequently have the potential to cause adverse effects on wetlands. ¹ For example:

• A private developer requires an authorization under the Fisheries Act before initiating construction of a housing development and stormwater management pond adjacent to a wetland containing regionally significant plants and two bird species listed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada;
• A corporation applies for a permit under the Navigable Waters Protection Act to expand a dock facility on the Great Lakes Shoreline, where construction and quarrying activities for the project may impact a provincially significant wetland that provides habitat for migratory birds; or
• The proposed route of an interprovincial highway, partially funded by the Government of Canada, crosses a marsh that provides habitat for thousands of migrating waterfowl, and is a project site of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.

Which of these proposed projects is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects? Against what benchmarks can environmental assessment (EA) practitioners judge whether the adverse effects of proposed projects are significant? In what circumstances should the loss of wetlands or wetland functions be deemed unacceptable?

AReference Guide for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act: Determining Whether a Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects (the Reference Guide) (Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Office 1994) provides criteria and methods for "Deciding Whether the Adverse Environmental Effects are Significant." The Guide identifies the most common method for determining significance as one that applies the use of science-based environmental standards, guidelines, or objectives:

"If the level of an adverse environmental effect is less than the standard, guideline or objective, it may be insignificant. If, on the other hand, it exceeds the standard, guideline or objective, it may be significant. Environmental standards, guidelines and objectives have been established by federal, provincial, and in some cases municipal departments, ministries, and agencies."

EAs in Canada commonly reference environmental standards for the discharge of specific chemical agents into the environment. In contrast, ecological standards, guidelines and objectives - based on scientific knowledge about the functional role of an ecosystem or ecosystem components in a landscape - have not been used extensively in the practise of determining significance in environmental assessment (Kingsley et al 1999; Cox and Grose 2000). Yet ecological standards, guidelines and objectives - also referred to as "benchmarks" in this report - are increasingly employed to assist decisions about sustainable development, protected areas, ecological restoration and development permits.

1 - For the purposes of this project, wetland is defined as "land that is saturated with water long enough to promote wetland or aquatic processes as indicated by poorly drained soils, hydrophytic vegetation and various kinds of biological activity which are adapted to a wet environment." This definition was developed by Canada's National Wetland Working Group (National Wetlands Working Group 1988), and is the one adopted by the Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation (Government of Canada 1991a).

1.2 What Are "Ecological Benchmarks"?

A benchmark is a point of reference from which measurements can be made. An ecological benchmark for determining significance in environmental assessment is a point of reference based on the importance of ecosystems in general - or specific sites, types, attributes or functions - to the surrounding environment or landscape. Ecological benchmarks recognize the contribution of certain ecosystem types or sites to functions such as the provision of habitat, maintenance of water quality, regulation of hydrologic flows, the cycling of nutrients or moderation of climate. They attempt to establish practical limits or guideposts for sustainability based on sound science that will improve the capacity of all resource managers to make better decisions.

The Reference Guide (Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Office 1994) recognizes at least three types of ecological benchmarks. This project offers the following definitions:

• Standard: A threshold, limit, or value that identifies a type or level of environmental change that is not acceptable or defines when an ecosystem or ecosystem component requires protection. Standards are prescriptive and as such are often used in a regulatory fashion. For example, the proposed Species at Risk Act (Government of Canada 2001) would make it illegal to destroy any part of the critical habitat of an endangered or threatened species on federal lands. They may also reflect an ecological threshold beyond which functions decline or cease. For example, A Framework for Guiding Habitat Rehabilitation in Great Lakes Areas of Concern (Environment Canada et al 1998) recommends that forest patches be conserved within two kilometres of one another to support the habitat requirements of forest interior birds.
• Objective: A target, related to ecosystems or ecosystem components, to be affected by an action or development; a goal to be achieved. Objectives are often diagnostic by nature, reflecting the signs and symptoms of a larger problem and assisting in the assessment of performance in addressing that problem. For example, due to the consequences of wetland loss to habitat and water across Canada, AFederal Policy on Wetland Conservation (Government of Canada 1991a) calls for no net loss of wetland functions on federal lands and waters, in areas affected by federal programs where wetland loss is already critical, or where federal activities affect wetlands designated as important.
• Guideline: A recommended course of action such as a strategy or best management practice; usually not prescriptive or diagnostic. For example, British Columbia's Sensitive Ecosystems Inventory: Conservation Manual (Environment Canada and Province of British Columbia 2000) recommends that impacts to Inventory sites be avoided or minimized.

It is important to note that, for this project, the category "guidelines" also includes principles, background information and other "context statements" that describe the magnitude, geographic extent, duration and frequency, reversibility or ecological context for adverse effects. For example, the Sensitive Ecosystems Inventory: Conservation Manual (Environment Canada and Province of British Columbia 2000) notes that "Ecologically significant lands and important wildlife habitats are fast disappearing from this 4,000 square kilometre study area. Inventory results showed that less than 8% of the area remained relatively undisturbed by development." While this might not be considered a "benchmark" in the common understanding of the word, the statement relates directly to the Reference Guide (Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Office 1994) significance criterion of "ecological context" (as described in the next section) and therefore is considered within the context of this project to be a "benchmark."

As noted in the Reference Guide (Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Office 1994), standards, objectives and guidelines may be established by federal, provincial and municipal agencies. They may be found in laws or policy documents and associated implementation guides. They may also be found in planning or ecological restoration documents, or in science-based reports that recommend criteria for establishing protected areas.

Standards, objectives and guidelines play complementary roles in natural resources management. Where ecological thresholds can be identified, such as the amount of wetland in a watershed required to reduce flood peaks on main tributaries, legal or scientific standards can define unacceptable losses. For other functions or values such as carbon sequestration where scientific thresholds are less well understood, objectives and guidelines may be more effective than a prescriptive standards approach.

1.3 How Can Ecological Benchmarks Contribute to Environmental Assessment Practice?

Ecological benchmarks provide a more straightforward means for leveraging scientific knowledge and public policy into significance decisions. If the potential effects of a proposed project result in an environment that meets established ecological standards, contributes to objectives and is consistent with guidelines for sustainability or good practice, the adverse effects should not be judged significant. ² If the opposite is true, or if there is uncertainty regarding the likelihood of significant adverse effects, then the project proposal should be turned back to the project proponent, or referred to public review.

2 - Combining standards, objectives and guidelines often defines a better range of ecological values for designing mitigation and judging significant effects. When considered all together, several types of benchmarks may provide clearer direction to practitioners than a single standard. For example, if the total suspended sediment (TSS) concentration was predicted to be just under the standard of 25 milligrams per litre, other guidelines and objectives related to aquatic habitat might provide guidance on minimizing the adverse effects of the project on the aquatic environment.

1.3.1 Practical Clarification of the Concept of "Significance"

The environmental assessment process hinges on one key decision: whether a project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. But what does "significant" mean?

The Reference Guide (Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Office 1994) provides a framework to guide responsible authorities (RAs) in answering this question, consisting of three general steps:

• Step 1: Deciding Whether the Environmental Effects are Adverse
• Step 2: Deciding Whether the Adverse Environmental Effects are Significant
• Step 3: Deciding Whether the Significant Adverse Environmental Effects are Likely

This project concentrates on providing benchmarks for Step 2: Deciding Whether the Adverse Environmental Effects are Significant.

A Reference Guide (Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Office 1994) provides two sets of criteria that are helpful in guiding the investigation of benchmarks for determining significance: ³

1. Factors in determining adverse environmental effects (Table 1):
   
   These factors can be helpful because they provide the types of criteria for which standards, objectives and guidelines for defining significance are sought. Key questions for any of the factors listed in Table 1 are:
   • Under what circumstances are these adverse effects not acceptable? What are the values or thresholds for each of these factors that identify an ecosystem or ecosystem component as requiring protection? What are the thresholds or "critical levels" of ecosystems or ecological attributes below which ecological functions such as maintenance of populations or flood suppression will not occur? At what point does the change in the environment, such as a loss of habitat, removal of peat, or reduction in species diversity, or its related effects on people become significant?
   • To what do people aspire regarding each of these factors: what are our objectives for natural landscapes, habitat, species diversity, water quality? What are the targets established by federal, provincial and local authorities that define a desired environment or sustainable development?
   • What particular actions or best practices can help avoid these adverse effects?

   Essentially, for each of the Factors in Table 1, are there benchmarks that would indicate to the RA that the project should not proceed as currently proposed, or should be referred to public review by a mediator or panel?

2. Criteria that should be taken into account in deciding whether the adverse environmental effects are significant (Table 2)
   
   This project will attempt to find science-based statements that will inform practitioner's understanding of each of the criteria listed in Table 2 as it applies to ecosystems such as wetlands. For example, in determining the significance of adverse effects on wetlands, consider the following:
   • Wetland loss or degradation can contribute to major or catastrophic events - Considering the role of wetlands in reducing flood crests and augmenting river flow at other times, projects that effect hydrological functions could contribute to major or catastrophic flooding events.
   • Wetland loss or degradation has the potential for widespread effects - Due to the important role of wetlands in the hydrology and water quality of a watershed, or the extensive migration routes of some wetland species, adverse environmental effects may occur in areas far removed from the wetland site.
   • Wetland loss or degradation may be irreversible - While restoration of wetland functions has been successful for some types of wetlands in certain landscape positions and for particular functions, restoration is difficult if not impossible for other wetlands, particularly for bogs and fens that have evolved to their current ecology over thousands of years.
   • Wetland loss or degradation may be more serious in some geographic areas than others - As identified by The Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation Implementation Guide, some regions have suffered so much wetland loss that no additional degradation of the resource is acceptable, and conservation strategies are aimed at restoring wetlands and wetland functions.
   Policy or science-based statements that comment on each of these significance criteria with respect to various adverse effects on particular ecosystems would be useful benchmarks in determining significance.

   The preamble of the CEAA (Government of Canada 1992) provides an additional criterion that may be helpful in guiding the investigation of benchmarks for determining significance:

3. Whereas the Government of Canada seeks to achieve sustainable development…environmental assessment provides an effective means of integrating environmental factors into planning and decision-making processes in a manner that promotes sustainable development. If one of the ultimate goals of the Act is sustainable development, then it follows that individual project decisions under CEAA should support/promote sustainable development. Therefore, if a project's adverse effects will move Canada further away, rather than closer to, sustainable development objectives, standards and guidelines, should those project effects not be considered significant? This project will seek standards, objectives and guidelines that define or describe sustainable development and so provide a reference for making decisions about whether an adverse effect is significant or not.

This project will contribute to expanding and operationalizing the methods for deciding significance that are introduced by the Reference Guide (Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Office 1994). EA practitioners could use ecological benchmarks to practically apply the factors and criteria contained in Tables 1 and 2 to determining the significance of adverse effects of proposed projects, and thereby reduce the subjectivity in significance decisions.

3 - Table 1 provides a more traditional definition of factors determining significance, referring primarily to ecosystem structure and composition. While it is recognized that Table 1 does not reflect current thinking on the ecological approach to identifying and measuring adverse effects on functions, the tables are drawn directly from the Reference Guide for Determining Whether a Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects (Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Office 1994) as the best guidance available from the Agency on determining significance.

1.3.2 Benefits to the Practice of Environmental Assessment

Ecological benchmarks could help EA practitioners to address the common issues regarding the determination of significance. The case studies in Appendix 1 illustrate some of these common issues related to adverse effects on wetlands:

• Do the functions of this wetland have a significant role in the ecosystem? What level of protection or mitigation is appropriate? Should development be considered on this site?
• Will on-site development and conversion of part of the wetland adversely affect the functions ⁴ or attributes of the site? To what degree? Is this effect significant?
• Will off-site development adversely affect these functions? To what degree? Is it significant?
• How should uncertainty in the prediction of adverse effects (for example, on groundwater levels, and the effect of groundwater level changes on species composition) affect the determination of significance?
• How much change can occur in physical, chemical and biological attributes before the functions of a wetland become impaired (for example, how much wetland area and what vegetation types are required to remove contaminants from the water column?) At what point is this impairment "significant"?
• Considering the cumulative effects of other disturbances in the region: How much more change can occur in this natural area before effects become "significant" (for example, until the loss of effective wildlife corridors results in the decline in large mammal populations, and perhaps risks their survival?) What are the physical, biological and chemical thresholds beyond which ecosystems cannot perform functions such as provision of habitat, regulation of hydrology, purification of water?

It should be emphasized that "ecological functions" are the clear link between benchmarks and the project assessment. To understand the relevance of benchmarks to project assessment, an ecological approach must be taken to describing the environment, identifying project-environment interactions and determining adverse effects. In short, this approach focuses on the functions being performed by the site, and on the physical, chemical and biological attributes critical to maintain these functions. Assessments predict how the project will alter those attributes, and what the impact will be on ecological functions. More detailed descriptions of the ecological approach may be found in Beanlands and Duinker (1983), and Smith et al (1995).

Overall benefits of application of the ecological benchmarks method to the practice of environmental assessment include:

• Reduced uncertainty and delay for proponents by improved guidance in gathering the most pertinent information to inform the significance decision;
• Delivery of more efficient, consistent and defensible EA decisions across Canada about the significance of adverse effects, based on current scientific understanding;
• Enhanced intergovernmental cooperation on joint project assessments, using the common ground established by a comprehensive set of ecological benchmarks;
• Identification of gaps in applied ecology where more work is required to guide the determination of significance; and
• Improved guidance on the appropriate application of the precautionary approach to decision-making, by better defining serious or irreversible harm.

Most importantly, this project is aimed at placing EA under CEAA more soundly in the context of ecological frameworks for sustainable development. Use of accepted, authoritative ecological benchmarks will promote consistency among the myriad of resource management decisions - including protected areas, restoration priorities and sites for development - that are being made about any one landscape at any one time. It will ensure that all the players involved in the fate of a landscape are working in a coordinated manner toward the same results. For example, it will ensure that A Framework for Guiding Habitat Rehabilitation in Great Lakes Areas of Concern (Environment Canada et al 1998) is influencing decisions not only for restoration efforts, but also for development decisions that involve the federal government and are assessed under CEAA. This ensures that one agency or level of government is not working at cross-purposes to another.

4 - Wetland functions refer to the natural properties or processes associated with wetland ecosystems. Functions are distinct from values or benefits, which refer to the worth or importance of these natural functions to people, and can be aesthetic/recreational, cultural/psychological, or related to subsistence or commercial production.

1.4 Objectives of the Project

This project constitutes the first phase of work (Phase 1) that is aimed at encouraging the application of ecological benchmarks in deciding whether the adverse environmental effects are significant in EAs under CEAA.

Phase 1 focuses on ecological standards, guidelines, and objectives - at the federal and provincial level ⁵ - related to wetlands. Phase 1 is designed to examine their potential for improving the determination of the significance of adverse effects in projects involving wetlands and has four objectives:

1. Identify existing ecological benchmarks - including standards, guidelines and objectives - for wetland conservation.
2. Determine the utility and validity of these standards, guidelines and objectives for wetland conservation, in deciding whether adverse environmental effects are significant under CEAA.
3. Determine how information about existing ecological standards, guidelines and objectives for wetland conservation might best be communicated to EA practitioners.
4. Infer the relevance of (1) and (2) above for using ecological standards, guidelines and objectives related to a broad range of ecosystems, including grasslands, forests, freshwater ecosystems, marine ecosystems and Arctic ecosystems, for determining the significance of adverse environmental effects under CEAA.

Contingent on the results of this phase, subsequent phases are envisioned to identify, evaluate and format ecological benchmarks for ecosystems other than wetlands, such as other freshwater and marine ecosystems, forests, grasslands, Arctic ecosystems, etc.

5 - The author acknowledges the important contribution made by municipal governments to the establishment of ecological standards, guidelines and objectives that protect wetlands. An examination of sources of benchmarks at the municipal level in Canada is beyond the scope of this preliminary research, but is included in the recommendations for next steps.

Source: FEARO 1994

Table 2: Criteria for Deciding Whether Adverse Environmental Effects are Significant

Magnitude of the adverse environmental effect

Magnitude refers to the severity of the adverse environmental effects. Minor or inconsequential effects maynot be significant. On the other hand, if the effects are major or catastrophic, the adverse environmentaleffects will be significant. When using this criterion, it is important to consider the extent to which the projectcould trigger or contribute to any cumulative environmental effects.

Geographic extent of the adverse environmental effects

Localized adverse environmental effects may not be significant. Alternatively, widespread effects may besignificant. When considering this criterion, it will be important to take into account the extent to whichadverse environmental effects caused by the project may occur in areas far removed from it (e.g. acid rainand the long-range transportation of atmospheric pollutants), as well as contribute to any cumulative environmental effects.

Duration and frequency of the adverse environmental effects

Long term and/or frequent adverse environmental effects may be significant. Future adverse environmentaleffects should also be taken into account. For example, many human cancers associated with exposure toionizing radiation have long latency periods of up to 30 years. Obviously, when considering future adverseenvironmental effects, the question of their likelihood becomes very important.

Degree to which the adverse environmental effects are reversible or irreversible

Reversible adverse environmental effects may be less significant than adverse environmental effects thatare irreversible. In practice, it can be difficult to know whether the adverse environmental effects of a projectwill be irreversible or not. It will be important to consider any planned decommissioning activities that mayinfluence the degree to which the adverse environmental effects are reversible or irreversible.

Ecological context

The adverse environmental effects of projects may be significant if they occur in areas or regions that:

• Have already been adversely affected by human activities; and/or
• Are ecologically fragile and have little resilience to imposed stresses.

Source: FEARO 1994