Considerations for Offsetting

Dave Poulton Biodiversity Offsets University of Ottawa February 14, 2014

Landscape and ecosystem of oilsands region Nature of disturbance Issues for implementing offsets Poulton’s prescriptions

Landscape and Ecosystems

“Vast expanses of upland forests and wetlands on level to gently undulating plains, short, warm summers and long, cold winters”

Natural Regions and Subregions of Alberta

Photo: Archie Landals, Government of Alberta

• Mosaic of aspen, mixedwoood and spruce forests

• Treed (black spruce) fens • Jackpines in the east

“Undulating plains, aspen-dominated forests and fens”

Natural Regions and Subregions of Alberta

Photo: Archie Landals, Government of Alberta

• Aspen stands with scattered white spruce interspersed with fens

• Warmest of subregions of

boreal region • Subject to conversion to

agriculture

Photo: Archie Landals, Government of Alberta

Photo: Wendy Everett

No single form

• Overburden less than 75 metres

• Oilsands deposits typically 40-60 metres thick

• Loss of intactness: 90.6% (Habib et al, 2013, citing ABMI)

Photo from Energy Insiders: Oilsands and the Environment citing World Wildlife Fund

In Situ - SAGD

• Lighter footprint

• Heavy linear

footprint

• Loss of intactness: 23.8% (Habib et al/ABMI)

From oilsands development From other sources

Forestry Conversion to

agriculture Peat mining

Are same offset rules to apply to these and other sources?

Carbon emissions Air quality Water quality and use Tailings How will we handle conflicts between remedial measures? Stacking and bundling issues

Lower Athabasca Regional Plan 2012-2022

“ . . . to maintain an acceptable level of air, water, land, and biodiversity integrity, while enabling long-term economic benefits of the region and the province.” (p. 23)

Targets and thresholds to be set by: • Biodiversity

management framework

• Regional landscape

management plan

. . . to be developed by the end of 2013.

Points to Ponder

What is our objective? ◦ No net loss? Probably not. ◦ Strategic objectives? (per Habib et al.)

Caribou Central mixedwood

Are we taking measures for ecological or reputational objectives?

Scope of impacts to be offset? ◦ Water, air, carbon?

Timing issues ◦ Are oilsand impacts temporary? ◦ Perpetual vs temporary offsets ◦ Relationship to reclamation obligations

Allow banking? Establish a credit exchange?

Lack of tools on private land • No legally secure instruments • No “rights of non-use” • Split title and unco-ordinated dispositions

Focus on nature of disturbance, not on source

Focus on linear disturbance ◦ Net reduction

Treat oilsands impacts as permanent and require perpetual offsets

Develop conservation rights on public land Allow banking Defer exchange