Policy Implementation in British Columbia, Canada Leslie Bol (ERM) IAIA Symposium November 14, 2017 The world s leading sustainability consultancy
Objectives of Research and Analysis Extent of provincial policy incorporation into environmental assessments Steps of the mitigation hierarchy prioritized for species at risk Avoidance type for species at risk
Mitigation Hierarchy Avoid Location Means Timing Minimize Restore On-Site Offset
Species at Risk in Canada Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) Species added to Schedule 1 of Species at Risk Act (SARA) Critical habitat identified for Threatened and Endangered species
Best Case Scenario Mitigation Hierarchy Avoidance Minimization On-Site Restoration Offsetting 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent
Best Case Scenario Avoidance Location Means Timing 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent
Methods Policy Integration Reviewed publically available projects from BC Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) Determined percentage of EAO documents with policy citation Reviewed proponent documents for species at risk Determined percentage of proponent documents with policy citation
Methods Adherence to Mitigation Hierarchy Did not further consider species without project interaction or residual effect Categorized mitigation according to hierarchy for: Species specific mitigation (e.g. olive-sided flycatcher) Group specific mitigation (e.g. migratory birds) Generic mitigation (e.g. restoration on-site through reclamation) Determined percentage of application of each mitigation step
Sample Sizes 60 EAO documents (28 projects) 54 proponent documents (17 projects) 24 threatened and endangered species (1 amphibian, 2 plants, 5 fish, 7 mammals, 9 birds)
Percent of Documents with Policy Citation Percent 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100 57 41 42 37 35 33 33 33 0 Total 2014 2015 2016 2017 EAO Documents (n = 60) Proponent Documents (n = 17)
Percent of EAO Documents with Citations 100 90 80 70 Percent 60 50 40 44 43 30 26 20 10 0 Application Information Requirements (n=16) Assessment Report (n=21) EAO Document Type Certificate Table of Conditions (n=23)
Percent of Proponent Chapters with Citations 100 90 80 70 Percent 60 50 40 41 30 20 30 22 10 10 0 Vegetation (n=10) 0 Fish (n=7) Wildlife (n=37) Total Chapters (n=54) Species at Risk Group Overall Application (n=17)
Best Case Scenario Mitigation Hierarchy Avoidance Minimization On-Site Restoration Offsetting 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent
Adherence to Mitigation Hierarchy AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION RESTORATION ON-SITE OFFSETTING 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent Application of Mitigation per Species at Risk Generic Species/Group Specific
Best Case Scenario Avoidance Location Means Timing 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent
Prevalence of Avoidance Types LOCATION DESIGN MEANS TIMING 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent Application of Avoidance Mitigation per Species at Risk Generic Species/Group Specific
Mitigation Hierarchy According to Group Avoidance Minimization On-site Restoration Offsetting 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent Application of Mitigation Raptors (n=5) Migratory Birds (n=20) Mammals (n=18) Fish (n=3)
Avoidance According to Group Location Means Timing 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent Application of Avoidance Raptors (n=5) Migratory Birds (n=20) Mammals (n=18) Fish (n=3)
Mitigation Hierarchy According to Status Avoidance Minimization On-site Restoration Offsetting 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent Application of Mitigation Endangered (Schedule 1) Threatened (Schedule 1) Endangered (COSEWIC)
Avoidance According to Status Location Means Timing 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent Application of Avoidance Endangered (Schedule 1) Threatened (Schedule 1) Endangered (COSEWIC)
Conclusions Policy incorporation <50% Minimization prioritized over avoidance Avoidance is primarily timing and not spatial Increasing expectation of spatial avoidance as priority would benefit species at risk