Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Caribou Habitat Offsets:
A Regulatory Perspective,
the National Energy Board
Alberta Association for Conservation Offsets
9 February 2017
Marcus Eyre, NEB
2
• NEB background
o Who is the NEB
o Regulatory Tribunals
• Issue background
o SARs & cumulative effects
o NEB regulated pipelines in caribou habitat
o Linear disturbances
• NEB Caribou Habitat Conditions suite
• Offsets
Outline
3
NEB regulated pipelines
4
• Evidentiary Record
• Weighing o partial or incomplete evidence
o conflicting evidence
• Reasons
• Policy
NEB as a Regulatory Tribunal
5
• S.79 - if a project is likely to affect a listed species project EAs require:
o Notifying the competent Minister; and
o Identifying adverse project effects and ensuring measures are taken to avoid or lessen those effects.
• S.77 - project authorizations that may destroy critical habitat require:
o Consultation with competent minister;
o Consideration of the impacts;
o Consideration of alternatives to reduce impacts and adoption of the best solution; and,
o Taking all feasible measures to minimize impacts.
Species at Risk Act (SARA)
6
TCPL - 5% loss threshold adapted from Alberta Native
Plant Council’s Guidelines for Rare Plant Surveys
Hearing Panel –
inappropriate to apply this standard to other
activities such as this Project
repeated 5% losses of rare species, already
significantly impacted, are potentially significant
imperative that a proponent provide … effective
mitigation to achieve no loss, or offsets to
compensate any loss
“The NEB notes that rare plants are identified and listed as
such precisely because they are already significantly
impacted and need specific protection. Consequently, any
further loss would leave the species no less significantly
impacted, regardless of whether losses from any particular
project are minor.
Keystone XL (2010)
7
“Many rare species (e.g., endangered or
threatened species under the SARA) are at
risk in large part as a result of the past
cumulative effects on their population or
habitat. Their inclusion on official lists reflects
their status as having crossed a threshold
requiring special actions for their protection
and recovery. Any additional residual effects
have the potential to further contribute to this
existing situation. Consequently, proposed
projects must preferably avoid, or fully
mitigate or compensate for any residual
project contribution to cumulative effects.”
NEB Filing Manual
8
9
10
NEB regulated pipelines in caribou ranges
11
Linear Developments
12
• Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) and Caribou
Protection Plan (CPP: prov req’mt)
• Caribou Habitat Restoration Plan (CHRP)
• Offsets Measures Plan (OMP)
• Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offsets Measures
Monitoring Plan (CHROMMP)
Caribou Habitat Conditions Suite
13
• Effectiveness
o Targeting relevant attributes
o Assumptions & basis for
assumptions
o Monitoring (& validity of) &
corrective actions
• Sufficiency
o Appropriateness
o Calculations of residual effects
• Certainty
o Implementation
o Jurisdiction oversight
Regulatory interests
Temporal aspects
When implemented –
delays, seasonal
Duration
Spatial aspects
Scale
Locations
Adjacent disturbances
Buffers
14
𝑦𝑖𝑗𝑘 = 𝜇 + 𝛼𝑖 + 𝜏𝑖𝑘 + 𝛽𝑗 + (𝛼𝛽)𝑖𝑗 + 𝜀𝑖𝑗𝑘
15
• Opportunities:
o Internalizes externalities on public commons
o Incentives
o Potential for enhancing recovery of Critical Habitat
o Also about broader cumulative effects
o Applicable to VECs that can be quantified
• Challenges:
o Complex; need caution…
o Need provincial range plans
o Need a coherent regulatory and policy framework
Concluding Remarks
16
17
18
19
20
Eyre, M., S. Kerkhof, Z. Pfeiffer and S. Titman. 2015.
Cumulative Effects, woodland caribou and NEB
regulated pipelines – a regulatory perspective.
Proceedings of the 11th Symposium on Environmental
Concerns in RoW Management
Available at:
http://www.rights-of-way.org/past-proceedings/
Questions?
