Avoid, minimize, and compensate:
Pitfalls of the common decision sequence to protect wetlands
Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme Webinar
August 3, 2016
Shari Clare, PhD, PBiol
Director, Sr. Biologist, Fiera Biological Consulting Ltd.
Adjunct Professor, University of Alberta
Environmental Offset Policies
Activities undertaken to counterbalance unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts with the objective of achieving a net
neutral or beneficial outcome
Carbon
Biodiversity
Wetlands
The Mitigation Hierarchy
“Biodiversity offsets only come into play
once rigorous steps have been taken first
to avoid and minimize impacts.”
Kerry ten Kate, BBOP Director
The Mitigation Hierarchy
• Avoidance and minimization are meant to
be the primary strategies for managing
impacts
• Avoidance and minimization reduce or
eliminate the need for offsets or habitat
replacement
 How well do we avoid wetlands as
part of this policy approach?
Wetland Management in Alberta, Canada
Population: 4.1 million
Area: 661,848 km²
Photo courtesy of Ducks Unlimited Canada
Managing Wetlands in Alberta
1993 Interim Wetland Policy (1993-2013):
•Area-based policy
•Guidelines outline a preference for 3:1 compensation, with an
increasing ratio as distance between impact and compensation site
increases
•An objective of the policy included “no net loss” of wetland area
Managing Wetlands in Alberta
Alberta Wetland Policy (2013):
• Function-based policy (A, B, C, D value wetlands)
• Compensation ratio based upon the function score of the impact
and replacement wetland
• Policy released September 2013 with phased implementation
that began in September 2014
• “Mitigation Directive” released 2015, which outlines principles
and guidelines for avoidance, minimization, and compensation
Avoidance Avoided
“I’ve never encountered somebody saying
‘no, don’t touch this wetland’… so I always
skip right to compensation.”
(Environmental Consultant, Alberta, 2009)
Avoidance Avoided
“What we found is that avoidance just
doesn’t seem to be an option for most
of [the permit applicants] out there.
They’ve already planned their project;
they know what they want to do. It’s
very difficult to work around that”
(Approval Writer, Alberta, 2009)
The Failure to Avoid
Key Factors:
1.Lack of agreement on what constitutes “avoidance”
2.Poor planning in advance of development
3.Economic undervaluation of wetlands
4.“Techno-arrogance” abounds in the view of wetland restoration
5.Inadequate enforcement and compliance
(Clare et al. 2011)
The Failure to Avoid
Key Factors:
1.Lack of agreement on what constitutes “avoidance”
2.Poor planning in advance of development
3.Economic undervaluation of wetlands
4.“Techno-arrogance” abounds in the view of wetland restoration
5.Inadequate enforcement and compliance
(Clare et al. 2011)
Defining Avoidance
“We don’t really have a good mechanism of saying, when
should we say no?”
(Approval Writer, Alberta, 2009)
• Language of “not practicable” or “not possible” is problematic
• Little or no guidance for how to assess whether avoidance can be
reasonably achieved, or when avoidance is the imperative
• Subjectivity leads to inconsistent decision making
New Mitigation Directive for Alberta:
“Avoidance is the highest priority for wetland mitigation;
Proponents must demonstrate they have made a concerted effort
to avoid wetland impacts in their application”
(Alberta Wetland Mitigation Directive, Page 4, emphasis added)
New Mitigation Directive for Alberta:
Avoidance may be required by the regulatory body under the following
circumstances:
• Where a wetland is designated as or managed as Public Land, or on lands
designated as Parks, protected areas, ecological reserves, etc.
• Where a wetland contains wetland-dependent species that are listed as
Endangered or Threatened species under the Wildlife Act, Wildlife
Regulation (Schedule 6), or the Species at Risk Act (Canada)
• Where wetland management objectives have been set out within
statutory plan or legislation, including Municipal plans and bylaws
• Where wetland loss results in an effects on the aquatic environment
under the Water Act, Section 38
(Alberta Wetland Mitigation Directive, Page 4)
New Mitigation Directive for Alberta:
Evidence of avoidance must include:
1. Options for relocating to activity
2. Alternative activities considered in the proposed area
3. Modifications considered to the proposed activity
4. Comparative analysis of alternative options to the proposed
activity
5. When there is a need to balance wetland avoidance with
achievement of the smallest footprint on the landscape, the
rationale for this balance must be documented
(Alberta Wetland Mitigation Directive, Page 4)
The Failure to Avoid
Key Factors:
1.Lack of agreement on what constitutes “avoidance”
2.Poor planning in advance of development
3.Economic undervaluation of wetlands
4.“Techno-arrogance” abounds in the view of wetland restoration
5.Inadequate enforcement and compliance
(Clare et al. 2011)
The Need for Improved Planning
“If there are areas of wetlands that are significant, well
then, if we know that up front, we wouldn't go & purchase
them & try to develop them.”
(Sr. Executive, Land Development Company, Alberta, 2009)
New ABWRET-Estimator Tool
• Identifies quarter sections that may
contain “A-value” wetlands
• Questions regarding the concordance
between GIS-derived and ground-based
scores
• Currently, spatial data is not widely (or
easily) accessible
• Many municipalities in Alberta have also
adopted wetland policies or land use
planning processes that identify high
priority wetlands
The Failure to Avoid
Key Factors:
1.Lack of agreement on what constitutes “avoidance”
2.Poor planning in advance of development
3.Economic undervaluation of wetlands
4.“Techno-arrogance” abounds in the view of wetland restoration
5.Inadequate enforcement and compliance
(Clare et al. 2011)
ILF Payments as Compensation
“I think for most people out there it’s simpler to write that cheque …
There’s no incentive for a developer to either conserve the wetland
or to create a new wetland as compensation.”
(Land Developer, Alberta, 2009)
Wetland Replacement In-Lieu Fee Rates (July 2016)
(Alberta Wetland Mitigation Directive, Pg 11)
Wetland Replacement In-Lieu Fee Rates (July 2016)
(Alberta Wetland Mitigation Directive, Pg 11)
(www.restoreourwetlands.ca)
Reverse Auction Preliminary Results – Costs
Per Acre
Per Hectare
Uniform Cost (Landowner Payment)
$5,200
$12,844
Estimated Restoration Costs
$3,000
$7,410
Estimated Transaction Costs
$5,874
$14,509
Total Cost for Wetland Restoration
$14,074
$34,763
Reverse Auction Preliminary Results – Costs
Per Acre
Per Hectare
Uniform Cost (Landowner Payment)
$5,200
$12,844
Estimated Restoration Costs
$3,000
$7,410
Estimated Transaction Costs
$5,874
$14,509
Total Cost for Wetland Restoration
$14,074
$34,763
• Current wetland compensation price in Nose Creek
watershed: $17,700/ha
In-Lieu Fee Compensation 1999-2010
Wetland Impact Sites
DUC Restoration Sites
80% of compensation occured outside the watershed of impact
(Clare and Krogman, 2013)
The Failure to Avoid
Key Factors:
1.Lack of agreement on what constitutes “avoidance”
2.Poor planning in advance of development
3.Economic undervaluation of wetlands
4.“Techno-arrogance” abounds in the view of wetland restoration
5.Inadequate enforcement and compliance
(Clare et al. 2011)
Inadequate Enforcement & Compliance
“I think we need to be more proactive … but it’s a matter of
resources ... it’s pretty obvious to me that we’re somewhat
understaffed in terms of our ability to deal with some of these
approval situations, and probably even more so in the enforcement
and compliance end of things.”
(Approval Writer, Alberta, 2009)
Wetland Loss: 1999-2009
Beaverhills
Subwatershed
• Wetland inventory for 1999 & 2009 using air photo
object-based classification corrected for climate
(Clare & Creed 2014)
Lack of Enforcement & Compliance
No. of Wetlands
Detected
Loss
Permitted
Loss
Illegal
Loss (%)
242
37
85
85% of losses were unpermitted
(Clare & Creed 2014)
Have We Made Any Progress?
→ Wetland compensation has become a routine practice in Alberta
→ The new wetland policy and mitigation directive provide stronger
direction for prioritizing avoidance
→ Whether this results in better outcomes remains to be seen:
• Develop a comprehensive information tracking system for approvals
• Periodically evaluate policy outcomes and decision-making practices
• Direct additional resources towards enforcement and compliance
activities
Contact Information:
Shari Clare
[email protected]
Alberta Government. 2016. Alberta Wetland Mitigation Directive. Water Policy Branch, Alberta Environment and Parks. Available:
http://aep.alberta.ca/water/programs-and-services/wetlands/documents/AlbertaWetlandMitigationDirective-Jul2016.pdf
Clare S. 2013. Wetland loss in Alberta: Identifying successes, barriers, and unintended outcomes of public policy. PhD
Dissertation. University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. Available:
https://era.library.ualberta.ca/public/view/item/uuid:098394e1-8e72-4ab1-8eed-f6e17956dd5a
Clare S, Creed IF. 2014. Tracking wetland loss to improve evidence-based wetland policy learning and decision making. Wetlands
Ecology and Management 22:235–245.
Clare S, Krogman N. 2013. Bureaucratic Slippage and Environmental Offset Policies: The Case of Wetland Management in
Alberta. Society & Natural Resources 26:672–687.
Clare S, Krogman N, Foote L, Lemphers N. 2011. Where is the avoidance in the implementation of wetland law and policy?
Wetlands Ecology and Management 19:165–182