Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal

ISSN: 1461-5517 (Print) 1471-5465 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tiap20

Evaluation of the assessment process for major

projects: a case study of oil and gas pipelines in
Canada

Tim Van Hinte , Thomas I. Gunton & J. C. Day

To cite this article: Tim Van Hinte , Thomas I. Gunton & J. C. Day (2007) Evaluation of the
assessment process for major projects: a case study of oil and gas pipelines in Canada, Impact
Assessment and Project Appraisal, 25:2, 123-137, DOI: 10.3152/146155107X204491

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.3152/146155107X204491

Published online: 20 Feb 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 9243

View related articles

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tiap20
 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 25(2), June 2007, pages 123–137
DOI: 10.3152/146155107X204491; http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/beech/iapa

Evaluation of the assessment process for

major projects: a case study of oil and gas
pipelines in Canada

Tim Van Hinte, Thomas I Gunton and J C Day

Over the next several decades, oil and gas production in Canada is expected to increase to meet
growing demand in the United States and the Asia Pacific Region. Currently, eight major pipeline
projects are being proposed in Canada to transport increased oil and gas production to market. This
paper reviews potential impacts of the pipeline projects and develops a methodology for evaluating the
current regime for assessing and managing project impacts based on best practices criteria. The results
of the evaluation show that only three of 14 best practices criteria are met. The most significant
deficiencies are: lack of clear decision-making criteria and methods; absence of decision-making
processes that contain a legal obligation to provide compensation to those negatively affected by a
project and ensure project benefits are equitably distributed; and no provision for comparative
evaluation of competing projects. This paper identifies improvements required in environmental
assessment and planning processes.

Keywords: oil and gas development, oil and gas pipelines, First Nations, environmental impact
assessment, policy evaluation, project evaluation

O
VER THE NEXT SEVERAL decades, oil
and gas production in Canada is expected to
increase to meet growing demand in the
United States and the Asia Pacific region. Currently,
eight major pipeline projects are being proposed in
Canada to transport increased oil and gas production
to market. Construction of these mega pipeline pro-
jects will have significant impacts on the environ-
ment. Consequently, it is essential that these
proposed pipeline projects be carefully assessed and
managed to mitigate undesirable impacts.
The purpose of this paper is to use best practices
criteria to evaluate the current regime for assessing
and managing project impacts. The paper begins
with an overview of the proposed pipeline projects
and their potential impacts. Next, a methodology is
developed based on best practices criteria for evalu-
ating the current impact assessment regime. The
paper concludes with recommendations for address-
ing deficiencies in impact assessment and planning
processes.

Tim Van Hinte has a master’s degree in Resource Management
from the School of Resource and Environmental Management at
Simon Fraser University; Email: tvanhint@sfu.ca. Dr Thomas I
Gunton (corresponding author) is Professor and Director of the
Resource and Environmental Planning Program, School of Re-
source and Environmental Management (REM), Simon Fraser
University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6;
Email: tgunton@shaw.ca. Dr J C (Chad) Day is founding Direc-
tor of the School of Resource and Environmental Management
(REM) at Simon Fraser University and past director of the Inter-
national Association for Impact Assessment; Email: jday@sfu.ca.
Current pipeline proposals in Canada
Eight new major pipeline projects with a combined
capital cost of about Can$25 billion are proposed for
Canada (Figure 1 and Table 1). These projects can
be classified into three categories based on the geo-
graphic location of the pipelines. The first category
is comprised of three proposed projects (Enbridge
Gateway, Terasen, and Pembina) that are designed
to transport petroleum products between Alberta and

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2007 1461-5517/07/020123-15 US$08.00 © IAIA 2007 123
Evaluation of assessment of major projects

Figure 1. Proposed major Canadian pipeline projects

the British Columbia (BC) west coast. The compo-
nents of the three west coast projects include pipe-
lines between Alberta and the British Columbia west
coast, a west coast oil port, and tanker traffic from
the oil port to markets in Asia and the United States.
The second category is comprised of four projects
(Keystone, Altex, Enbridge Clipper, and Enbridge 2)
that are designed to transport product between
Alberta and the United States using overland pipe-
line routes that do not require oil ports or oil tankers.
The third category includes only one project
(Mackenzie Valley), involving construction of a
pipeline from the Northwest Territories to northern
Alberta along the Mackenzie Valley, and develop-
ment of gas fields in the Northwest Territories.
An important consideration in assessing these

Table 1. Comparison of major new pipeline projects in Canada

Project Location Facilities Timing Pipeline Cost Capacity

length (km) (billion Can$) (1000s of
barrels/day)

Enbridge Gateway Alberta to Kitimat BC Oil pipeline, marine 2006–2010 1100–1300 4 400/150
terminal, tanker operations,
condensate pipeline
Enbridge Clipper Alberta to Chicago Oil pipeline 2007–2011 1000 1.8 400
Enbridge 2 Alberta to Houston Oil pipeline na 3,300 3.6 400
Terasen Trans Edmonton, Alberta to Oil pipeline, marine terminal, 2006–2009 1000-1100 2.3–2.6 400
Mountain southern Vancouver (southern tanker operations
option and northern option), or Edmonton to BC
option north coast (northern option)
Keystone Northern Alberta to Oil pipeline 2007–2011 3,000 2.1 400
southern Illinois (1,700 new)
Mackenzie Gas Mackenzie Delta, Onshore natural gas fields, 2005–2010 1,696 7
Northwest Territories to wells, gas pipeline, and
northern Alberta associated facilities
Altex Alberta to Midwest USA Oil pipeline na na 3 250
Pembina North coast BC to Alberta Condensate pipeline 2006–2009 1100 na 100

Note: na = not available

Sources: Aboriginal Pipeline Group et al, 2004; Enbridge Pipelines Inc (undated; 2003); Gateway Pipelines Inc. 2005; Terasen Pipelines
2005; TransCanada Pipelines Limited 2005; Canada NEB 2006a; Globe and Mail July 7, 2006: B1.

124 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2007


pipeline proposals is the overall supply/demand bal-
ance, which will determine how many pipelines will
be constructed. A recent review by the National En-
ergy Board (Canada NEB, 2006a) estimates that new
projects summarized in Table 1, and upgrades of
existing pipelines, will add about 4,264,000 barrels
per day (BPD) of new capacity. The forecasted in-
creased demand is 1,500,000 BPD by 2015.
Balancing pipeline capacity with demand is a
complex undertaking involving technical and market
issues such as market destination, market fluctua-
tions, future increases in demand, economies of
scale, contractual restrictions, and operational risks.
Given these considerations, some surplus capacity is
desirable and normal. However, the supply/demand
balance indicates that, if all projects were built,
capacity utilization would be only about 35%, well
below economic levels. This indicates that some of
the proposed projects will not be required. The im-
plications of this for project evaluation are discussed
below.
Environmental impacts
Pipeline, port, and tanker projects can have signifi-
cant short- and long-term environmental impacts
(Table 2). Pipeline construction and operation can
cause damage to soils, surface and groundwater, air
quality, vegetation, wildlife, and fish populations.
Another significant impact of pipelines is leakage
of product. Pipeline rupture data summarized in
Table 3 show that ruptures are a relatively common
occurrence. Oil spills, which occur on average close
to once per year, are the most damaging. The aver-
age spill from the eight incidents from 1992 to 2002
was 9,814 barrels and the largest spill was over
25,000 barrels. Pipeline spills can lead to direct loss
of various species as a result of contaminated food
intake, reduced respiratory functions, or ingestion of
oily water.
Port operations have potential to create adverse
impacts on regional air quality as a result of ship and
port- related vehicle emissions, vessel painting and
cleaning, and other activities (AAPA 1998, 2000;
Bailey and Solomon 2004; US DOI 1972, 2002). In
addition, discharge of contaminated effluent from
ports into the environment can result in a number of
negative impacts on environmental resources, in-
cluding direct and indirect loss of marine biodiver-
sity and fishery resources because of eutrophication
of the water column, depletion of oxygen supplies,
introduction of heavy metals into the environment,
and increased levels of nutrients in water (AAPA
2000; US DOI 2002).
During port-dredging activities, heavy metals,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polyaromatic hy-
drocarbons (PAHs), dioxins, and other substances
can contaminate suspended particles in the ocean
(AAPA, 1998; 2000). Furthermore, an oil spill at the
marine terminal could generate negative effects on
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2007
Evaluation of assessment of major projects
shoreline and riparian vegetation, fish communities
and their habitat, marine birds and mammals, ben-
thic communities, and other aquatic organisms (US
DOI, 2002).
A recent environmental impact statement for the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline System provides important
insight into risks and probabilities of spills at ocean
ports (US DOI, 2002). Key findings of the analysis
for the Valdez Marine Terminal in Alaska are sum-
marized in Table 4. The report concluded that catas-
trophic rupture or failure of crude-oil storage tanks
is an extremely rare occurrence, as only “eight cases
of crude oil tank rupture are known from around the
world — three caused by foundation failure, one
caused by weld failure, one caused by impact of a
rail truck, and three caused by flooding” (US DOI,
2002: 4.4-20). However, small spills are a frequent
occurrence.
Tanker spill frequency is another important factor
and has been extensively studied in the literature.
Anderson and Labelle (2000) found that there were
278 crude-oil spills greater than, or equal to, 1,000
barrels in the world between 1974 and 1999 (Table
5). There were 46 crude-oil spills of at least 1,000
barrels from tankers in US waters, including 11
spills associated with Alaska North Slope crude-oil
transportation. Based on these spill rates, the
Enbridge Gateway project alone would be expected
to experience seven spills from tankers and the port
operation over 1,000 barrels during its 30-year life
(Gunton et al, 2005).
Oil spills from tankers can have numerous ad-
verse effects including shoreline contamination,
catastrophic species loss, ocean sediment contamina-
tion, water quality deterioration, commercial fishing
industry closures, and impacts on tourism and tradi-
tional Aboriginal culture (Canada, 1978; OOGRG,
2004; Thompson, 1978; US DOI, 1972; 2002;
WCEL, 2003; Westwater Research Centre, 1977). A
review of research on the consequences of the Exxon
Valdez tanker spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska
showed that the impact of a major oil spill would be
catastrophic. Following the Exxon Valdez tanker
spill, an estimated 2,800 sea otters, 250,000 birds,
1.9 million salmon, and 12.9 million herring were
killed (Brown et al, 1996; Geiger et al, 1996; Piatt
and Ford, 1996). Furthermore, severe impacts were
observed in many other marine species inhabiting
the area. Linkages within ecosystems also compound
immediate effects of spills on marine life, as impacts
on one species can lead to effects on others
(OOGRG, 2004).
Recent studies have also indicated that oil-spill
impacts can endure for longer than previously an-
ticipated, causing delayed population reductions and
postponed recovery in many species for decades
(OOGRG, 2004; Peterson et al, 2003). For example,
a recent report concluded that several marine species
were still experiencing adverse effects almost 20
years after the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska (Peterson
et al, 2003).
125
Evaluation of assessment of major projects

Table 2. Potential environmental impacts of pipeline, port, and tanker projects

Project component Impact category Potential impacts

Pipeline Physiography and - Loss of soil capability

construction and soils - Soil compaction, pulverization, rutting, and reduced percolation rate
operation - Erosion and increased sediment load
- Decreased terrain stability
- Direct topsoil and subsoil loss
Surface and - Changes in groundwater recharge and discharge rates and flow obstruction
groundwater - Decreased water quality and quantity
- Contamination from solid, industrial, and liquid wastes
Air quality - Increased emissions resulting from burning of slash and debris, construction and operation
of pump stations, and vehicle use
- Increased dust from construction and maintenance vehicles
Noise - Negative effects on nearby residents, hunters, recreational users, and indigenous wildlife
Vegetation - Direct loss and alteration of vegetation
- Changes to physical site conditions because of introduction of nonnative and invasive
species
- Disturbance of rare plants and traditional collecting sites
Wildlife - Direct habitat loss, alteration, or fragmentation leading to species loss
- Disturbances on feeding, nesting, denning, or breeding patterns
- Alteration of seasonal and daily movements of wildlife
- Increased mortality because of greater human access to wildlife areas
Fish and fish habitat - Direct species loss resulting from increased sedimentation, turbidity, flow disruption,
trenching, or dredging in watercourses
- Indirect species loss resulting from increased water use and access to fishing areas
Oil spills and - Detrimental impacts on soils, water, and vegetation
accidents - Destruction of bird nests and feather contamination in waterfowl
- Direct loss of wildlife resulting from contaminated food intake, reduced respiratory
functions, or ingestion of oily water
- Direct loss of water birds, livestock, fish, fish eggs, and larvae
Port construction Air pollution - Negative human health effects
and operation - Destruction of upper-atmosphere ozone
- Generation of acid rain
- Increased global warming
- Destruction of agricultural resources, forest, and plant communities
Water and - Direct and indirect loss of marine biodiversity and fishery resources
contaminant - Ocean floor contamination and loss of benthic organisms
discharges
Dredged material - Negative effects on plant and animal communities
and contaminated - Decreased water quality
sediment disposal - Contamination of ocean sediments leading to species loss
- Disturbance of existing contaminated sediments in harbors can make contaminants
bioavailable
Ship- and port- - Direct loss of marine mammals, sea turtles, seabirds, and fish resulting from entanglement
generated solid or ingestion of marine debris
waste - Reduced capacity of animals to forage, digest food, and absorb nutrients
Oil spills and - Direct loss of vegetation communities, bird and mammal populations, threatened and
accidents endangered species, fish populations, and benthic communities
Tanker operations Air pollution - Detrimental human health effects
- Destruction of upper-atmosphere ozone
- Increased acid rain
- Increased global warming
- Destruction of agricultural resources, forest, and plant communities
Ballast water - Introduction of alien species
discharge - Increase mortality in marine birds
- Generation of beach tar
Accidents and oil- - Direct loss of marine and terrestrial mammals, birds, and other species
spill risks - Direct loss and/or decreased survival capacity in fish and fish larvae
- Decreased water quality by chronic toxicity levels
- Contamination of shorelines
- Other negative effects due to oil-spill clean-up techniques

Source: Aboriginal Pipeline Group et al (2004); AAPA (1998; 2000); Bailey and Solomon (2004); BC Gas Utility Ltd (1998); Canada
(1978); Canada NEB (1996; 1998; 2003a); Encana Ekwan Pipeline Inc (2003); Environment Canada and US EPA (2004);
Foothills Pipe Lines (South Yukon) Ltd (1979); OOGRG (2004); Salmo Consulting Inc (1999); Taggart and McCracken (2002);
Thompson (1978); US DOI (1972; 2002); WCEL (2003); Westwater Research Centre (1977).

Environmental impacts of port-development and
tanker traffic suggest that the Enbridge Gateway,
Pembina, and Terasen Northern Option proposals
will have more significant impacts than the mainland
proposals that do not entail port and tanker activities.
Potential impacts of the tanker-based proposals
is even more significant considering that the pro-
posed tanker routes are along the inside passage
British Columbia, which is currently designated a
no-tanker zone because of the risk of tanker acci-
dents and vulnerability of the environment (Gunton
et al, 2005).

126 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2007

 Evaluation of assessment of major projects

Table 3. Spill rates for NEB regulated pipelines, 1992–2003 communities (Table 6). Large-scale resource pro-
jects create community impacts through significant
Product Size Incidents Frequency short-term increases in employment and population,
(barrels) (1992–2002) (per year) economic and business development, and inflation
effects. The most obvious regional economic effects
Oil <1000 2 .2 include potential to increase direct and indirect busi-
Oil >1000 6 .6
Natural gas na 18 1.8 ness opportunities and regional incomes, diversifica-
tion or expansion of the local economic base, and
Note: na = not available generation of taxes and royalties for government
Source: Computed from Canada NEB (2006b)
(Cocklin and Kelly, 1992; Detomasi, 1997; Dixon,
1978; Hua, 1985; Yamaguchi and Kuczek, 1984).
Table 4 Spill scenarios and frequencies at the Valdez marine Economic impacts of pipelines are highly cyclic-
terminal
al, with significant short-term employment during
construction phases that disappears once the project
Scenario Spill product Estimated Spill volume is operational. For example, Enbridge estimates that
description frequency (barrels) average annual construction employment for the
(per year)
Gateway Project would be approximately 1,043 per-
Small leak Crude oil 0.5 0.5-13 son years over the three-year construction period
Diesel fuel 0.5 0.02-15 (Gunton et al, 2005). At its peak in July 2009, con-
Moderate leak Crude oil 0.03 1,700-3,200 struction employment for the Gateway Project
Diesel fuel 0.03 0.7-300
Catastrophic rupture Crude oil 1.8 x 10
-6
50,350- would be approximately 2,924. Employment would
of storage tank 143,450 drop to only 75 permanent operational jobs once the
-6
Diesel fuel 2.2 x 10 40,000 project is built (Enbridge Pipelines Inc, 2003; 2005).
-5
Aircraft crash into Crude oil 2.1 x 10 382,500
tank
This cyclical trend in employment is commonly re-
Source: US DOI (2002) ferred to in the literature as the boom-town phenome-
non where an existing community “experiences a
Table 5. International, US, and Alaska north slope crude-oil
period of extraordinary growth and expects a period of
and tanker spill rates rapid decline as the project is phased out” (Hua, 1985:
216). During boom periods, population increases are
driven by an influx of migrants looking for project-
Location Period Spill size Number Volume Spill related employment. This rapid growth can cause
(barrels) of spills transported rate*
(BBBL) numerous negative effects on local communities, such
as inflation, social upheaval, unrealistic expectations
International 1974– >1,000 278 239.67 1.16 for future growth, excess investment in project expan-
waters 1999 sion, and housing shortages (Cocklin and Kelly, 1992;
>10,000 143 0.59
>100,000 58 0.24 Detomasi, 1997; Hua, 1985; OOGRG, 2004; Yama-
1985– >1,000 113 138.31 0.82 guchi and Kuczek, 1984). Other potential impacts of
1999 pipeline, port, and tanker projects include demo-
>10,000 51 0.37
>100,000 16 0.12
graphic change, increased infrastructure demands,
US coastal 1974– >1,000 46 44.50 1.03 community wellness effects, loss of traditional
and offshore 1999 Aboriginal harvesting areas and culture, impacts on
waters
>10,000 19 0.43
other economic sectors, and loss or damage to heritage
1985– >1,000 20 27.57 0.72 and archaeological resources (Table 6).
1999
>10,000 7 0.25
Shipments 1974– >1,000 11 12.60 0.88
from Valdez, 1999 Project assessment system
Alaska
>10,000 3 0.23 Three key regulatory and approval processes exist at
1985– >1,000 8 8.72 0.92
1999 the federal level for pipeline, port, and tanker pro-
>10,000 3 0.34 jects: National Energy Board (NEB) approval,
Note: * Spill rate calculated as spills per billion barrels (BBBL) TERMPOL (see below) approval for port and tanker
transported proposals, and Canadian Environmental Assessment
Source: Anderson and Labelle (2000)
Act (CEAO, 2003)) approval. Various approvals are
also required at the provincial level, including pro-
vincial environmental impact assessment.
Socioeconomic impacts
National Energy Board
In addition to environmental impacts, development
and operation of pipeline, port, and tanker projects The NEB is an independent federal tribunal that has
have potential to generate a variety of socioeco- jurisdiction to regulate international and interprovin-
nomic effects on local, regional, and First Nations cial aspects of the oil, gas, and electricity industries

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2007 127

Evaluation of assessment of major projects

Table 6. Potential socioeconomic effects of pipeline, port, and tanker projects

Impact category Potential impacts

Employment and economic - Short-term direct employment generation

development - Limited regional economic multiplier impacts as equipment and materials are produced in other
regions
- Increase in local business opportunities and regional incomes
- Diversification of the local economic base
- Generation of taxes and royalties for government
- Boom-town phenomenon can lead to inflation, social problems, unrealistic expectations for future
growth, and housing and other infrastructure shortages
- Increased unemployment in some cases because prospective in-migrants may be unsuccessful at
finding jobs
Demography - Population increases as in-migrants seek project employment, which in turn can have adverse
effects on community infrastructure and services
Infrastructure - Increased demands are placed on highways, railways, and air transportation
- Population increases may lead to increased demand for water treatment, sewage, and solid-waste
treatment and disposal, power supplies, and housing
- Increased demand for recreation complexes and other facilities
Individual, family and community - Greater consumption of alcohol and related substance abuse may place increased demands on
wellness social, police, and ambulance services
- Increased income levels may lead to improved diets, clothing, and housing
- Social tension between project workers and local residents
- Exposure to contagious diseases and sexually transmitted infections
- Adverse effects on education attainment levels
Traditional aboriginal use and - Negative impacts on retention of traditional language and identification with traditional culture
culture - Oil spills can negatively affect wildlife and fishery resources
- Decreased childhood education in traditional harvesting methods
- Increased costs of harvesting
Other economic sectors - Decreased land available for timber harvesting and disruption of existing forest industry practices
- Negative effects on commercial fishing resulting from oil spills and tanker traffic
- Negative effects on the tourism industry resulting from oil spills, environmental degradation, and
decreases in the available land base
- Labor shortages in other economic sectors
Heritage and archaeological - Negative impact on culturally or spiritually sensitive areas, culturally modified tress, historic sites
resources and cabins, heritage trails, and burial sites because of construction disturbances and operational
activities in marine and terrestrial environments

Source: Aboriginal Pipeline Group et al (2003; 2004); BC Gas Utility Ltd (1998); Canada (1978); Canada NEB (1996; 1998; 2003a);
Cocklin and Kelly (1992); Detomasi (1997); Dixon (1978); EnCana Ekwan Pipeline Inc (2003); Hua (1985); MVPI (1977);
OOGRG (2004); Salmo Consulting Inc (1999); Thompson (1978); US DOI (1972; 2002); Yamaguchi and Kuczek (1984); Yukon
Department of Energy, Mines and Resources (2002)

in Canada (Canada NEB, 2003b). The National En-
ergy Board Act (NEB Act) sets out the regulatory
framework and powers of the NEB as they relate to oil
and gas activities (CIRL, 2004). In accordance with
the NEB Act, the NEB reviews applications for inter-
national and inter-provincial pipelines and issues
Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity for
approved projects (CIRL, 2004). The NEB has power
“to consider the environmental impacts of proposed
projects under its jurisdiction and to attach appropriate
terms and conditions to project certificates” (CIRL,
2004: 93). In addition, the NEB is required to conduct
environment assessments (EAs) for projects under its
jurisdiction, pursuant to the CEAA (CIRL, 2004).
The approval process for a Certificate for Public
Convenience and Necessity includes the following
information: purpose of the pipeline; pipeline de-
sign; potential environmental and socioeconomic
impacts of the project; existing or proposed public
consultation programs in relation to the project; need
for any land rights; adequacy of supply, demand,
and other market factors; economic considerations
of the pipeline; proposed corridor route; and any
other factors that the board requires to make a decision
(Canada NEB, 2003b).
The NEB reviews applications for compliance
with a variety of legislative and regulatory docu-
ments, including, the NEB Act, the CEAA, the
NEB’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (Can-
ada NEB, 1995), and the NEB’s Filing Manual
(Canada NEB, 2006c). In assessing applications, the
NEB states: “it is the responsibility of the NEB to
consider all aspects of the project in order to deter-
mine if the pipeline project is in the public interest”
(Canada NEB, 2003b: 21).
Once an application is submitted, the NEB is re-
quired to conduct public hearings for pipelines more
than 40 kilometers in length. At certificate hearings,
all relevant matters pertaining to pipeline applica-
tions are reviewed. Prior to detailed route hearings,
the NEB may offer to facilitate a mediation process
between parties to determine whether objections can
be resolved without the use of a hearing. Mediation
processes are voluntary, informal, and confidential,
where NEB staff trained in mediation techniques act
as facilitators (Canada NEB, 2003b).

128 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2007


If the NEB issues a certificate for a pipeline
project, the board is involved in the inspection of
construction activities and pipeline operations. Typi-
cally, NEB inspection officers carry out field inspec-
tions to ensure that project conditions are adhered to.
Certificates for public convenience and necessity
may be revoked by the board, in circumstances of
repeated violations by proponents (Canada NEB,
2003b).
TERMPOL review process
TERMPOL is a joint review process administered by
DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans) and
Transport Canada Marine Safety (TCMS), commonly
referred to as the technical review process (TRP) of
marine terminal systems and transhipment sites
(Transport Canada, 2001). The purpose of TRP is to
assess environmental, operational, safety, and man-
agement issues associated with tanker routes and ma-
rine terminal siting, construction, and operation.
TRP begins when a proponent submits a written
request for review to TCMS (Transport Canada,
2001). Following a formal request, the proponent
and representatives from relevant federal depart-
ments informally meet to discuss submission re-
quirements and the director general of TCMS
appoints a chairperson for the TERMPOL Review
Committee (TRC). The chairperson then forms the
TRC by including representatives from federal de-
partments with expertise or responsibilities associ-
ated with the project. While TRP is a useful process
for addressing a variety of issues with respect to
proposed tanker routes and marine terminal systems,
it is not mandatory.
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
The CEAA establishes specific objectives, duties,
and powers of the agency, which consist of adminis-
tering the EA process and procedures established by
the act or its regulations (CEAO, 2003). The CEAA
was first passed in 1992, but legislation was updated
most recently in 2003 (Boyd, 2003).
EAs may be carried out in several ways (Boyd,
2003). Screenings provide a brief analysis of envi-
ronmental and cumulative effects of a project and
are typically used for simple or routine projects.
Comprehensive studies are more detailed than
screenings, since environmental and cumulative ef-
fects are considered in conjunction with project al-
ternatives, monitoring systems, and other project
characteristics. Federal EAs may also be carried out
through mediation or a panel review. These two
methods are used if a comprehensive study deter-
mines that a project may cause significant adverse
environmental effects. Large-scale pipelines would
be likely to be subject to a full panel review because
of their potential impacts.
Comprehensive studies must consider the follow-
ing factors (CEAO, 2003: s.16):
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2007
Evaluation of assessment of major projects
• environmental effects of the project, including
cumulative effects;
• technically and economically feasible measures
that would mitigate adverse environmental
effects;
• alternative means of carrying out the project that
are technically and economically feasible and the
environmental effects of these alternatives;
• the need for, and requirements of, a follow-up
program in respect of the project;
• impact of the project on sustainability of renewable
resources;
• comments from the public;
• any other factors that the Minister of the
Environment requires to be considered.
Provincial approval processes
The provinces also have their own separate review
processes for pipelines that include full environ-
mental assessments (BC EAO 2003). The federal
Government has signed harmonization agreements
with the provinces to coordinate approvals and pro-
vide a unified assessment to avoid duplication
(Boyd, 2003; Canada and British Columbia, 2004).
First Nations’ rights and titles
An increasingly important consideration in project
approvals is First Nations’ rights and title. Where
First Nations have negotiated treaties, treaty provi-
sions regarding use of land and resources must be
respected in any pipeline approval. Even when there
are no treaties, such as in most of British Columbia,
First Nations’ rights and title confer a duty to consult
and accommodate First Nations’ interests in any pro-
ject that impacts their Aboriginal rights (Donovan
and Griffith, 2003).
This requirement has a significant impact on the
approval of pipeline projects in British Columbia,
where Aboriginal rights exist and treaties have not
been signed. However, case law dealing with Abo-
riginal rights and title and the duty to consult and
accommodate Aboriginal people is unclear and con-
tinues to evolve, as demonstrated by recent decisions
by the Supreme Court of Canada (Haida Nation vs
British Columbia (Ministry of Forests), 2004; Taku
River Tlinglit First Nation vs British Columbia (Pro-
ject Assessment Director), 2004).
Impact and benefits agreements (IBAs)
Impact and benefits agreements (IBAs) are an im-
portant mitigation tool used by project proponents,
governments, and First Nations to establish formal
long-term relationships with respect to large-scale
resource development projects (Keeping, 1998;
1999; Kennett, 1999; NRTEE, 2001; O’Reilly and
Eacott, 1998; Sosa and Keenan, 2001). Typically,
IBAs are divided into seven broad categories: intro-
ductory provisions; employment and training;
129
Evaluation of assessment of major projects
economic development and business opportunities;
social, cultural and community support; financial
and equity provisions; environmental and cultural
resources; and other substantive and procedural pro-
visions. The negotiation of IBAs is contingent on
voluntary participation by stakeholders and project
developers. In most circumstances, participation by
project developers is motivated by the desire to ap-
pease stakeholders who have legal rights to block or
impede project development.
Unfortunately, research on evaluation of IBAs
is limited (Kennett, 1999; O’Reilly and Eacott,
1998; Sosa and Keenan, 2001). Sosa and Keenan
(2001) conclude that, despite widespread use of
IBAs in Canada, there is little research on their
effectiveness.
Evaluation of impact assessment
To assess the effectiveness of impact assessment and
approval processes for pipeline, port, and tanker pro-
jects, a methodology was developed based on; best
practices’ criteria (Table 7). Best practices evalua-
tive criteria were formulated based on a review of
the following literature: Baker and McLelland
(2003); Bardach (2000); British Columbia (2002);
Calbick (2003); Council of the Haida et al v. Minis-
ter of Forests et al (2000); Doyle and Sadler (1996);
Elliott (1997); Gilpin (1995); Gunton (1991); Hanna
(2005); Innes and Booher (1999); IAIA (1999);
Laswell (1971); Mazmanian and Sabatier (1989);
Noble (2005); OOGRG (2004); Sadar (1996); Taku
River Tlinglit First Nation v. Ringstad et al (2002);
Weimer and Vining (1998); Wood (1995).
Each criterion was assessed using the following
scale:
• Fully met no deficiencies
• Largely met no major deficiencies
• Partially met at least one major deficiency
• Not met two or more major deficiencies
Roles and responsibilities
Principle: Roles and responsibilities should be
clearly defined. Administrative structures and policy
should provide clear guidance and clearly outline
levels of authority and responsibilities, including
those relationships that require multijurisdictional
collaboration, such as EA processes. Clear definition
of roles and responsibilities is necessary to ensure
efficiency and accountability.
Evaluation: Jurisdiction over pipeline, port, and
tanker projects has for the most part been clearly de-
fined. The NEB regulates construction and operation
of interprovincial pipelines. Approval of proposed
marine terminals and tanker routes is likely to in-
volve a TERMPOL review under the jurisdiction of
DFO and Transport Canada.
130
A potential area for confusion is the overlapping
jurisdictions of provincial governments, which have
authority for approving many aspects of pipeline
projects. This overlap is largely clarified by
harmonization agreements on environmental ass-
essment between the federal and provincial govern-
ments that specify roles and responsibilities to
reduce overlap and uncertainty (Boyd, 2003). How-
ever, agreements such as the Canada–British Co-
lumbia Agreement on Environmental Assessment
Cooperation are ambiguously worded and do not
adequately outline the level of EA collaboration
between the two governments (Canada and British
Columbia, 2004). Federal and provincial EA co-
operation agreements also fail to define clearly cir-
cumstances that determine which government
assumes the lead agency role when both parties have
an EA responsibility.
There may also be confusion in the roles of DFO
and Transport Canada on port and tanker assess-
ments relative to the role of the NEB on pipeline as-
sessments, even though the tanker, port, and pipeline
are all part of the same project requiring assessment.
Furthermore, First Nations also have a legal role in
decision-making processes, based on Aboriginal
rights and title claims, but this role has not been
clearly defined. Therefore, most roles and responsi-
bilities have been clearly defined or are likely to be
clearly defined by agreements among the parties.
However, because some roles, particularly the role
of First Nations, are not clearly defined or are sub-
ject to negotiation, this criterion is only largely met.
Legislative base
Principle: The structure of the management regime
should be formally structured through legislation
and regulations. A formal structure outlined in legis-
lation gives decision-makers the authority to carry
out their roles, as well as explicitly outlining their
level of authority, roles, and responsibilities. This
ensures that the responsibilities, timelines, pro-
cesses, information requirements, and authority are
transparent and accountable.
Evaluation: Regulatory structures for pipeline, port,
and tanker projects have been formally structured in
legislation and regulations. However, key aspects of
the regulatory system including decision-making cri-
teria, type and scope of assessments, support for
stakeholders’ involvement, compensation and miti-
gation, and project approval are all at the discretion
of federal and provincial officials and are not clearly
prescribed in legislations. Therefore, this criterion is
only largely met.
Decision-making criteria and methods
Principle: The decision-making process should be
based on clear criteria and methods for assessing
options. The decision-making process should be
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2007

transparent using clear decision-making criteria,
sound methods of analysis, and rules that clarify
how decisions will be made to ensure accountability,
transparency, and consistency in decision-making.
Evaluation: Many jurisdictions specify the criteria
and types of analytical methods, such as multiple ac-
counts evaluation or cost–benefit analysis, that must
be used in assessing options and formulating rec-
ommendations (OOGRG, 2004). With respect to
pipeline, port, and tanker projects, decision-making
criteria and evaluation methods used in approval
processes are not explicitly outlined.
For example, the NEB simply states “it is the re-
sponsibility of the NEB to consider all aspects of the
project in order to determine if the pipeline project is
in the public interest” (Canada NEB, 2003b: 21).
TERMPOL review and EA processes are equally
vague with respect to decision-making criteria. In
the end, the responsible authority can make any de-
cision regardless of the assessment without provid-
ing a clear rationale. Therefore, this criterion is not
met.
Efficiency
Principle: Decisions should be reached in a timely
manner at a reasonable cost. The decision-making
process should not be constrained by lengthy appeal
processes, or delays because of the lack of a clear
decision-making framework or blurred roles and re-
sponsibilities. The process should be effective in the
sense that outcomes should be consistent with goals
and objectives, implementable, and in the public
interest.
Evaluation: Decision-making processes for pipeline,
port, and tanker projects may be both lengthy and
costly because of overlapping regulatory and ap-
proval processes, inadequate policy frameworks, and
uncertainty with respect to Aboriginal rights and title
claims. If such issues are not adequately addressed at
the outset of decision-making processes, potential
projects may be significantly delayed by litigation.
However, decisions on many recently completed
pipeline projects, such as the Alliance Pipeline in
western Canada, Express Pipeline in Alberta, and
Southern Crossing Pipeline in BC, have been
reached in a timely manner (BC Gas Utility Ltd,
1998; Canada NEB, 1996; 1998). These results indi-
cate that there is potential for efficient decision-
making processes. Therefore, this criterion is largely
met.
Stakeholder involvement
Principle: A legal framework should be in place to
ensure that stakeholders are collaboratively en-
gaged in the decision-making process through
shared decision-making. Sound decisions must be
based on the values, objectives, and risk assessments
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2007
Evaluation of assessment of major projects
of those stakeholders affected by the decision.
Therefore, stakeholders need the opportunity to par-
ticipate in decision-making by having sufficient
resources, access to information, and opportunities
for engagement with other stakeholders and deci-
sion-makers.
The preferred means of stakeholder involvement
is a collaborative process that delegates responsibil-
ity for assessing options and developing recommend-
ations to stakeholder tables that engage in
consensus-based negotiations to reach agreement.
Collaborative processes, which have been used ex-
tensively in land-use planning in British Columbia,
result in decisions that are more likely to be in the
public’s best interest by addressing the concerns of
all affected parties (Frame et al, 2004).
Evaluation: CEAA and the NEB review processes
provide opportunities for stakeholder involvement
through a quasi-judicial hearing process that allows
presentation of testimony, access to information, and
the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. CEAA
and the NEB also provide financial resources to
stakeholders to participate in the processes (CEAO,
2003: 28).
The primary deficiencies of the stakeholder
involvement process are that it is adversarial, not
collaborative and the decision-makers have no obli-
gation to accommodate the interests of stakeholders.
There are also significant inequities in resources
among stakeholders, such as the large pipeline com-
panies and nongovernmental organizations.
CEAA does provide the option for a collaborative
mediated solution, but this has never been used.
IBAs provide an opportunity for consensus-based
negotiated settlement among the parties, but the
motivation to negotiate by project proponents is con-
tingent on other stakeholders having legal rights that
must be accommodated. The legal pressure to nego-
tiate IBAs exists in only a limited number of cases.
Therefore, the process only partially meets this
criterion.
Cumulative assessment
Principle: The evaluation process should cumula-
tively assess project impacts in the context of
impacts of all other potential projects.
Evaluation: Section 16(1) (a) of CEAA requires
cumulative assessment analysis. Therefore, this cri-
terion is fully met.
Project rationale
Principle: The evaluation process should assess the
rationale for the project and evaluate alternatives to
the project to identify the best option.
Evaluation: Capacity of current pipeline proposals
exceeds demand by almost three times. Therefore,
131
Evaluation of assessment of major projects
the pipeline proposals involve competing projects
that will not all be built. Consequently, it is import-
ant to conduct a comprehensive comparative evalua-
tion of all proposals thus ranking them in terms of
overall social benefits, to identify which projects
achieve the greatest public interest. Section 16(2) of
CEAA requires consideration of the purpose of pro-
jects and alternative means of carrying them out for
all comprehensive reviews. However, this section
does not require comparative evaluation of alterna-
tive projects.
The NEB review process requires consideration of
the purpose of a pipeline, adequacy of supply, de-
mand, and other market factors. Pipelines are, how-
ever, normally evaluated as a single project, not in
comparison with alternative projects. Market factors
are assessed based on evidence of shipper’s interest,
not all cost and benefits. There is no provision in the
review process to ensure that there is a comprehen-
sive comparative evaluation of competing projects to
identify the project or combination of projects that
maximize the public interest. Therefore, this cri-
terion is not met.
First Nations
Principle: Legal and fiduciary obligations, such as
the duty to consult and address First Nations’ inter-
ests, should be fully met.
Evaluation: Case law indicates that First Nations
have a legal right to be involved in land-use
decisions with respect to areas subject to Aboriginal
title claims. The NEB encourages public participa-
tion in review processes, but has stated “imposing on
the Board a fiduciary duty towards Aboriginal
peoples as part of its decision-making … process is
inconsistent with its function as an independent
quasi-judicial tribunal” (Canada NEB, 2002: 1).
TRP also has limited opportunities for First Nations
consultation and involvement.
Federal and provincial EA processes stress the
need for consultation with affected parties, but the
extent of such consultation is both ambiguous and
unclear. Section 40 of CEAA provides for the ap-
pointment of a joint review panel that includes First
Nations representatives when a First Nations body
has been established pursuant to a land-claims
agreement referred to in section 35 of the Constitu-
tion Act. For example, a joint review panel that in-
cludes First Nations representatives has been set up
to review the Mackenzie Valley pipeline proposals
(NPEIARCC, 2002).
However, this provision is limited to only those
cases where a land-claims agreement has been con-
cluded and is not therefore relevant to most of Brit-
ish Columbia. While the courts provide a means
of enforcing obligations to First Nations, such
processes pose significant obstacles in terms of cost
and time. Therefore, this criterion is only partially
met.
132
Monitoring and enforcement
Principle: The regulatory framework should clearly
outline monitoring and enforcement processes,
infractions, and penalties. An effective monitoring
and enforcement strategy, based on principles of
adaptive management, ensures environmental, eco-
nomic, and social goals are achieved during all pro-
ject phases. Compliance-monitoring processes and
penalties for noncompliance should be clearly out-
lined and results made available to all interested
parties, including the public.
Evaluation: Monitoring and enforcement for pipeline,
port, and tanker projects are required by various gov-
ernment agencies. The NEB requires that pipeline
companies develop monitoring programs to include
provisions for regular patrols and inspections during
construction and operations, ongoing communication
with stakeholders, emergency procedures, and other
safety concerns (Canada NEB, 2003b). The NEB also
monitors pipeline performance through field inspec-
tions and by requesting that companies submit Assur-
ance of Voluntary Compliance (AVC) reports
(Canada NEB, 2003b). In terms of enforcement, the
NEB may revoke or suspend a company’s certificate
for public convenience and necessity or issue sanc-
tions for noncompliance (Canada NEB 2003b).
Similarly, through TRP, Transport Canada and
DFO require that project proponents submit inform-
ation with respect to proposed monitoring pro-
grams, contingency plans, mitigation measures, and
emergency procedures (Transport Canada, 2001).
The mandate for Transport Canada also includes re-
sponsibilities with respect to vessel inspection and
enforcement of marine safety programs (Transport
Canada, 2003). Accordingly, this criterion is met.
Equity
Principle: The decision-making process and out-
comes should contain a legal obligation to provide
compensation to those negatively affected by the
project and ensure project benefits are equitably
distributed.
Evaluation: Regulatory and approvals processes for
pipeline, port, and tanker projects do not adequately
address issues of equity and compensation. The
NEB clearly states that it does not have jurisdiction
over compensational matters, since land-use com-
pensation is typically negotiated between landown-
ers and pipeline companies (Canada NEB, 2003b).
Similarly, EA, Transport Canada, and DFO pro-
cesses do not include provisions for compensating
stakeholders who are negatively affected as a result
of a project.
Projects may include negotiation of IBAs between
proponents and First Nations to address employment,
training, economic development, business opportuni-
ties, and community support issues. However, such
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2007

agreements are not required by regulatory agencies
and are at the discretion of project proponents.
CEAA contains no provisions for compensation or
distributional equity. Therefore, this criterion is not
met.
Resources
Principle: Decision-making bodies should have
sufficient resources in place to ensure an effective
and efficient decision-making process. Sufficient
resources include adequate financial and human
resources to carry out project evaluation and
monitoring.
Evaluation: Regulatory agencies have been provided
with resources to evaluate and monitor pipeline,
port, and tanker projects. Based on past experience
and contemporary examples, such as the Mackenzie
Gas Project in northwestern Canada, adequate re-
sources are likely to be provided to relevant authori-
ties to carry out decision-making responsibilities
with respect to pipeline projects. Accordingly, this
criterion is met.
Appeal process
Principle: The decision-making process should in-
clude a mechanism to allow stakeholders to appeal a
decision. If decisions breach procedural require-
ments, prescribed guidelines, or goals and objec-
tives, then stakeholders should be afforded the right
to challenge such decisions. The appeal process
should be efficient and narrowly defined to eliminate
delays to the decision-making process. Moreover,
the appeal board or tribunal should have sufficient
expertise to render such decisions.
Evaluation: While regulatory decisions can be ap-
pealed to the courts in certain instances, court ap-
peals are costly, lengthy, and based on unclear
decision-making criteria. EA processes and TRP do
not provide mechanisms enabling stakeholders to
appeal tribunal decisions. However, if stakeholders
do not agree with a decision made by the NEB, the
board permits stakeholders to request a review of the
board’s decision on the application. Therefore, this
criterion is partially met.
Adequate and objective information
Principle: Decisions should be based on adequate
information supplied by objective parties. Adequate
scientific and technical information regarding poten-
tial environmental and socioeconomic impacts of
projects must be available and supplied by objective
parties to ensure that decisions are based on the best
available information.
Evaluation: Information on all aspects of proposed
projects is required as part of CEAA and the NEB
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2007
Evaluation of assessment of major projects
approval processes. However, project proponents,
who have a bias in favor of project approval, provide
most information. Other stakeholders have the op-
portunity to submit their own information and evalu-
ate project proponent information. However,
information is not supplied by an objective party.
Therefore, this criterion is only partially met.
Impartiality and democratic accountability
Principle: The management regime should be man-
aged by impartial, expert decision-makers who rep-
resent the publics’ interests, and are directly, or
indirectly, accountable through the democratic
process to those affected by the decision.
Evaluation: NEB and CEAA review panels are
comprised of impartial experts who make recom-
mendations to government. Final decisions are made
by elected officials who are accountable to the pub-
lic through an electoral process.
There are several deficiencies with this structure.
First, expert review panels are not obligated to incor-
porate stakeholders’ interests in their recommend-
ations. Therefore, there is no direct accountability
to the public. Direct accountability to stakeholders
requires more collaborative decision-making that
relies on consensus-based stakeholder negotiation.
Secondly, elected officials can unilaterally make
whatever decision they wish regardless of a project
assessment and without providing clear justification.
Although elected officials are ultimately accountable
through elections, elections do not ensure effective
accountability (Weimer and Vining, 1998). There-
fore, this criterion is only partially met.
Conclusions
Eight major pipelines that could have significant det-
rimental environmental impacts are currently under
consideration in Canada. A methodology was devel-
oped for evaluating impact assessment processes
based on 14 best-practice criteria. The evaluation of
regulatory and approval processes for pipeline pro-
jects reveals serious deficiencies. Of the 14 criteria,
three have been fully met, three largely met, five
partially met, and three have not been met (Table 7).
The most significant deficiencies are: lack of clear
decision-making criteria and methods; inadequate
stakeholder involvement; no provision for compara-
tive evaluation of competing projects; inadequate
consideration of legal and fiduciary obligations to
First Nations; lack of compensation provisions; reli-
ance on project proponents for information; and
weak provisions for impartial and democratically
accountability decision-making.
To address these issues, proponents, First Nations,
and regulatory bodies at the federal and provincial
levels of government should establish collaborative
decision-making processes in order to review project
133
Evaluation of assessment of major projects
Table 7. Regulatory and approval processes evaluation criteria
Best-practice principle
Roles and responsibilities
Roles should be clearly defined
Legislative base
The structure of the management regime should be
formally structured through legislation or regulation
Decision-making criteria and methods
The decision-making process should be based on clear
criteria and methods for assessing options
Efficiency
Decisions should be reached in a timely manner at a
reasonable cost
Stakeholder involvement
A framework should be in place to ensure that
stakeholders are fully engaged in the decision-making
process through collaborative decision making
Cumulative assessment
The evaluation process should cumulatively assess
project impacts in the context of impacts of all other
potential projects
Project rationale
The evaluation process should assess the rationale for
the project and complete a comparative evaluation of
alternatives to the project
First Nations
Legal and fiduciary obligations, such as to consult and
address First Nations interests, should be fully met
Monitoring and enforcement
The regulatory framework should clearly outline
monitoring and enforcement processes, infractions, and
penalties
Equity
The decision-making process should contain a legal
obligation to provide compensation to those negatively
affected by a project and ensure project benefits are
equitably distributed
Resources
Decision-making bodies should have sufficient resources resources
in place to ensure effective and efficient decision-making
processes
Appeal process
The decision-making process should include a
mechanism to allow stakeholders to appeal a decision.
Adequate and objective information
Decisions should be based on adequate information
Impartiality and democratic accountability
The management regime should be structured such
that impartial decision-makers represent the publics’
interests, and are directly, or indirectly, accountable
through democratic processes to those affected by the
decision.
information and assess project options. Furthermore,
all parties should commit to an ongoing relationship
based on open communication, collaboration, and
trust to ensure effective and efficient project-review
processes. Clear decision-making criteria should be
established and compensation made obligatory. In-
formation should be provided by objective parties
instead of project proponents, and processes should
134
Discussion Assessment
Roles and responsibilities of parties are clearly defined, Largely met
although roles of First Nations remain unclear.
The regulatory system is formally structured in legislation, Largely met
but legislation provides extensive discretionary powers to
decision- makers
Decision-making criteria and evaluation methods are not Not met
explicitly outlined. Responsible authorities have the
discretion to make any decision on a project regardless of
the assessment findings
Decision-making processes may be costly and lengthy, Largely met
but recent pipeline projects have been approved in a
timely manner
Stakeholders are involved in regulatory and approvals Partially met
processes to some extent, but consultation methods are
not based on collaborative decision-making
CEAA requires cumulative impact assessment Met
CEAA and the NEB assess project rationale but do not Not met
require comparative evaluation of alternatives
Case law requires governments to consult and Partially met
accommodate concerns of First Nations, but court
processes are costly and lengthy, while outcomes are
uncertain
Monitoring and enforcement activities are carried out by Met
regulatory agencies
Equity and compensation issues are not adequately Not met
addressed
Regulatory agencies are provided with adequate Met
Regulatory decisions can be appealed to the courts in Partially met
limited circumstances, but such processes are costly and
lengthy
Information on all aspects of proposed projects is required Partially met
as part of approval processes: however, project
proponents, not objective parties, provide most
information
The decision is made by either the project proponents or Partially met
elected officials depending on the impacts of the project;
decisions are not made by impartial experts; however,
decisions are ultimately accountable to democratically
elected officials
be mandated for comparative evaluation of compet-
ing projects. Without these changes, the regulatory
regime will not be able to ensure that major pipeline
projects are in the public interest.
As a final observation, it should be noted that
major pipeline companies are increasingly commit-
ted to social and environmental sustainability.
Enbridge and TransCanada Pipelines, for example,
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2007

publish comprehensive annual corporate responsibil-
ity reports and covet their participation in the Dow
Jones Sustainability Index, which is based on
achieving social, environmental, and economic
standards. Therefore, the major pipeline com-
panies, along with other stakeholder groups, should
References
Aboriginal Pipeline Group, Imperial Oil Resources Venture
Limited, Conoco Phillips Canada (North) Limited, Shell Can-
ada Limited, and Exxon Mobil Canada Properties 2003.
Mackenzie Gas Project Preliminary Information Package
Volume 1: Project Description. Available at <http://www.
mackenziegasproject.com/theProject/regulatoryProcess/
pipSubmission/PIPfulldetails/PIPFullDetails.htmlvolume#1>,
last accessed 22 September 2004.
Aboriginal Pipeline Group, Imperial Oil Resources Venture
Limited, Conoco Phillips Canada (North) Limited, Shell
Canada Limited, and Exxon Mobil Canada Properties 2004.
Environmental Impact Statement for the Mackenzie Gas Pro-
ject, Volume 1: Overview and Impact Assessment Summary.
Available at <http://www.mackenziegasproject.com/theProject/
regulatoryProcess/applicationSubmission/Applicationscope/
EIS.html>, last accessed 14 October 2004.
AAPA, American Association of Port Authorities 1998. Environ-
mental Management Handbook. Available at <http://www.
aapa-ports.org/govrelations/env_mgmt_hb.htm>, last accessed
24 October 2004.
AAPA, American Association of Port Authorities 2000. Green
Ports: Environmental Management and Technology at US
Ports. Available at < http://www.aapa-ports.org/govrelations/
greenports.htm>, last accessed 24 October 2004.
Anderson, C M and R P LaBelle 2000. Update of comparative
occurrence rates for offshore oil spills. Spill Science and
Technology Bulletin, 6(5/6), 303–321.
BC EAO, British Columbia. Environmental Assessment Office
2003. Guide to the British Columbia Environmental Assess-
ment Process. Available at <http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/
publicat/guide-2003/final-guide1-2003.pdf>, last accessed 27
March 2004.
BC Gas Utility Ltd 1998. The Southern Crossing Pipeline Project,
B.C. Gas Utility Ltd.: Application for a Project Approval Certifi-
cate. Available at <http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/epic/output/documents/
p47/1036601869141_88b6a5bcf3034c6e9f288b69dad3d2da.pdf>,
last accessed 6 October 2004.
Bailey, D and G Solomon 2004. Pollution prevention at ports:
clearing the air. Environmental Impact Assessment Review,
24, 749–774.
Baker, D C and J N McLelland 2003. Evaluating the effectiveness
of British Columbia’s environmental assessment process for
First Nations’ participation in mining development. Environ-
mental Impact Assessment Review, 23, 581–603.
Bardach, E 2000. A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: the Eight-
fold Path to more Effective Problem Solving. New York:
Chatham House Publishers of Seven Bridges Press LLC.
Boyd, D R 2003. Unnatural Law: Rethinking Canadian Environ-
mental Law and Policy. Vancouver: UBC Press.
British Columbia 2002. Provincial Policy for Consultation with First
Nations. Available at <http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/clrg/alrb/
cabinet/ConsultationPolicyFN.pdf>, last accessed 25 February
2004.
Brown, E D, T T Baker, J E Hose, R M Kocan, G D Marty, M D
McGurk, B L Norcross and J Short 1996. Injury to the early life
history stages of Pacific Herring in Prince William Sound after
the Exxon Valdez oil spill. In Proceedings of the Exxon Valdez
Oil Spill Symposium, eds. S D Rice, R B Spies, D A Wolfe and
B A Wright, pp. 448–462. American Fisheries Society Sympo-
sium 18. Bethesda Md: American Fisheries Society.
Calbick, K S 2003. The Use of Program Theory for Identifying and
Evaluating 'Best Practices' for Implementing Land-Use Poli-
cies. Masters of Resource Management, School of Resource
and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University,
Burnaby, BC.
Canada 1978. Potential Pacific Coast Oil Ports: a Comparative
Environmental Risk Analysis, Volume 1. Vancouver BC:
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2007
Evaluation of assessment of major projects
actively support and welcome efforts to mitigate the
deficiencies in the regulatory regime. With strong
stakeholder support, improvements in the regulatory
regime for pipelines to improve social, environ-
mental, and economic performance should be
achievable.
Fisheries and Environment Canada Working Group on West
Coast Deepwater Oil Ports.
Canada and British Columbia 2004. Canada–British Columbia
Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation.
Available at <http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/publicat/canada-bc-
agreement/can-bc-agree-mar1104.pdf>, last accessed 27
March 2004.
Canada NEB, Canada National Energy Board 1995. National En-
ergy Board Rules of Practice and Procedure, SOR/95-208.
Available at <http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/N-7/SOR-95-208/
index.html>, last accessed 29 September 2004. (This is a
regulation pursuant to the NEB Act.)
Canada NEB, Canada National Energy Board 1996. Express
Pipeline Project: Report of the Joint Review Panel. Ottawa,
ON: Queen’s Printer for Canada.
Canada NEB, Canada National Energy Board 1998. Comprehen-
sive Study Report: Alliance Pipeline Ltd. On behalf of the Alli-
ance Pipeline Limited Partnership, Alliance Pipeline Project.
Ottawa ON: Queen’s Printer for Canada.
Canada NEB, Canada National Energy Board 2002. Consultation
with Aboriginal Peoples. Available at < http://www.neb.gc.ca/
11-eng/livelink.exe/fetch/2000/90463/231144/142849/
Memorandum_Of_Guidance_(A0C8Q3.pdf?nodeid=142856&
vernum=0>, last accessed 29 September 2004.
Canada NEB, Canada National Energy Board 2003a. Joint Panel
Review: GSX Canada Pipeline Project. Ottawa ON: Queen’s
Printer for Canada.
Canada NEB, Canada National Energy Board 2003b. Pipeline
Regulation in Canada: a Guide for Landowners and the Public.
Ottawa ON: Queen’s Printer for Canada. Available at
<http://www.neb.gc.ca/safety/PipelineRegulationCanada_e.pdf>,
last accessed 27 August 2004.
Canada NEB, Canada National Energy Board 2006a. Canadian
Hydrocarbon Transportation System: Transportation Assess-
ment. Available at <http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/energy/
EnergyReports/index_e.htm#Transportation>, last accessed 5
July 2006.
Canada NEB, Canada National Energy Board 2006b. Canadian
Regulated Pipelines: Pipeline Ruptures. Available at
<http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/safety/PipelineRuptureData/index_
e.htm>, last accessed 30 June 2006.
Canada NEB, Canada National Energy Board 2006c. Filing
Manual. Available at <http://www.neb.gc.ca/ActsRegulations/
NEBAct/FilingManual/FMTOC_e.htm>, last accessed 29 Sep-
tember 2004.
CEAO, Canadian Environmental Assessment Office 2003. Cana-
dian Environmental Assessment Act: An Overview. Available
at <http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/012/002/CEAA-Overview_e.
pdf>, last accessed 27 March 2004.
CIRL, Canadian Institute of Resource Law 2004. The Legal and
Policy Framework for Managing Public Access to Oil and Gas
Corridors on Public Lands in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Brit-
ish Columbia. Calgary AB: Canadian Institute of Resource Law
and Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. Available
at <http://www.capp.ca/raw.asp?NOSTAT=YES&df=PDF&dn=
77025>, last accessed 2 October 2004.
Cocklin, C and B Kelly 1992. Large-scale energy projects in New
Zealand: whither social impact assessment? Geoforum, 23(1),
41–60.
Council of the Haida et al v. Minister of Forests et al 2000.
B.C.S.C. 1280.
Detomasi, D D 1997. Resource development: economic benefits
and settlement options. In Disposition of Natural Resources:
Options and Issues for Northern Lands, eds. Monique M Ross
and J Owen Saunders, pp 211–224. Calgary AB: Canadian In-
stitute of Resources Law.
Dixon, M 1978. What Happened to Fairbanks? The Effects of the
Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline on the Community of Fairbanks,
Alaska. Boulder CO: Westview Press Inc.
Donovan, A and J Griffith 2003. Duty of Business to Consult with
135
Evaluation of assessment of major projects
and Accommodate First Nations. Vancouver BC: The Continu-
ing Legal Education Society of British Columbia. Available at
<http://www.cle.bc.ca/Cle/Practice+Desk/Collection/02-app-
dutytoconsult>, last accessed 29 September 2004.
Doyle, D and B Sadler 1996. Environmental Assessment in
Canada: Frameworks, Procedures &Attributes of Effective-
ness: a Report in Support of the International Study of the
Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment. Ottawa ON:
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
Elliott, J 1997. Tourism Politics and Public Sector Management.
New York NY: Routledge.
Enbridge Pipelines Inc undated Preliminary Hydraulic Parame-
ters. Calgary Alberta: Enbridge Pipelines.
Enbridge Pipelines Inc 2003. Potential Socio-Economic Impacts:
British Columbia and Alberta — Project Gateway — Estimates
January 2003. Calgary Alberta: Enbridge Pipelines.
Enbridge Pipelines Inc 2005. Workforce for Gateway: 11 April
2005. Calgary Alberta: Enbridge Pipelines.
EnCana Ekwan Pipeline Inc 2003. Ekwan Pipeline: Application to
the National Energy Board Volumes I and 2. Available at
<https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/livelink.exe?func=ll&objId=
273295&objAction=browse&sort=name>, last accessed 24
August 2004.
Environment Canada and US EPA, United States. Environmental
Protection Agency 2004. Characterization of the Georgia
Basin/Puget Sound Airshed. Available at <http://www.pyr.
ec.gc.ca/air/gb_ps_airshed/report_e.pdf>, last accessed 8 No-
vember 2004.
Foothills Pipe Lines (South Yukon) Ltd 1979. Overview Summary
of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Alaska Highway
Gas Pipeline Project. Whitehorse YK: Foothills Pipe Lines
(South Yukon) Ltd.
Frame, T M, Thomas I Gunton and J C Day 2004. The role of col-
laboration in environmental management: an evaluation of
land and resource planning in British Columbia. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, 47(1), 59–82.
Gateway Pipelines Inc 2005. Preliminary Information Package:
Enbridge Gateway Project. <Online: http://www.enbridge.com/
pdf/2005-11-02-gatewayPIP.pdf; accessed 19 July 2006.>
Geiger, H J, B G Bue, S Sharr, A C Wertheimer and T M Willette
1996. A life history approach to estimating damage to Prince
William Sound pink salmon caused by the Exxon Valdez oil
spill. In Proceedings of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Symposium,
eds. S D Rice, R B Spies, D A Wolfe and B A Wright, pp. 487–
498. American Fisheries Society Symposium 18. Bethesda
Md: American Fisheries Society.
Gilpin, A 1995. Environmental Impact Assessment: Cutting Edge
for the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Gunton, Thomas I 1991. Crown-land planning in British Columbia:
managing for multiple Us. In Our Living Legacy: Proceedings
of a Symposium on Biological Diversity, ed. M A Fenger, E H
Miller, J A Johnson and E J R Williams, pp. 275–293. Victoria
B.C.: Royal British Columbia Museum.
Gunton, Thomas I, T Van Hinte and J C Day 2005. Managing Im-
pacts of Major Projects: an Analysis of the Enbridge Gateway
Pipeline Project. Burnaby BC: Simon Fraser University, School
of Resource and Environmental Management.
Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) 2004. SCC
73. Available at <http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/
rec/texte/2004scc073.wpd.txt>, last accessed 3 December
2004.
Hanna, K 2005. Environmental Impact Assessment: Practice and
Participation. Don Mills ON: Oxford University Press.
Hua, C 1985. Energy-related boom towns: problems, causes,
policies, and modeling. In Large-Scale Energy Projects: As-
sessment of Regional Consequences, ed. T R Lakshmanan
and B Johansson, pp. 215–232. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science
Publishers.
Innes, J E and David E Booher 1999. Consensus building and
complex adaptive systems. American Planning Journal, 65(4),
412–423.
IAIA, International Association for Impact Assessment 1999. Prin-
ciples of Environmental Impact Assessment Best Practice.
Fargo ND: International Association for Impact Assessment.
Keeping, J 1998. Thinking about benefits agreements: an analyti-
cal framework. Northern Minerals Program Working Paper no
4. Yellowknife NT: Canadian Arctic Resources Committee.
Keeping, J M 1999. Local Benefits from Mineral Development:
The Law Applicable in the Northwest Territories. Calgary AB:
Canadian Institute of Resources Law.
136
Kennett, S A 1999. A Guide to Impact and Benefits Agreements.
Calgary AB: Canadian Institute of Resources Law.
Laswell, H D 1971. A Pre-jView of Policy Sciences. New York NY:
Elsevier.
Mazmanian, D A and P A Sabatier 1989. Implementation and
Public Policy. Lanham MD: University Press of America.
MVPI, Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry 1977. Northern Frontier,
Northern Homeland: the Report of the Mackenzie Valley Pipe-
line Inquiry: Volume 1. Ottawa ON: Ministry of Supply and
Services Canada.
Noble, B 2005. Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment:
a Guide to Principles and Practice. Don Mills ON: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
NPEIARCC, Northern Pipeline Environmental Impact Assessment
and Regulatory Chairs Committee 2002. Cooperation Plan for
the Environmental Impact Assessment and Regulatory Review
of a Northern Gas Pipeline Project through the Northwest Ter-
ritories. Available at <http://www.acee-ceaa.gc.ca/010/0001/
0001/0020/coop-plandocuments_e.pdf>, last accessed 15 De-
cember 2005.
NRTEE, National Round Table on the Environment and the
Economy 2001. State of the Debate: Aboriginal Communities
and Non-Renewable Resource Development. Available at
<http://www.nrtee-trnee.ca/publications/PDF/SOD_Aboriginal_
E.pdf., last accessed 15 December 2004.
OOGRG, Offshore Oil and Gas Research Group 2004. A Review
of Offshore Oil and Gas Development in British Columbia.
Burnaby BC: Simon Fraser University, School of Resource
and Environmental Management.
O'Reilly, K and E Eacott 1998. Aboriginal peoples and impact
benefit agreements: report of a national workshop. Northern
Minerals Program Working Paper no 7. Yellowknife NT: Cana-
dian Arctic Resources Committee.
Peterson, C H, S D Rice, J W Short, D Esler, J L Bodkin, B E
Ballachey and D B Irons 2003. Long-term ecosystem response
to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Science, 302, 2082 –2086.
Piatt, J F and R G Ford 1996. How many seabirds were killed
by the Exxon Valdez oil spill? In Proceedings of the Exxon
Valdez Oil Spill Symposium, eds. S D Rice, R B Spies, D A
Wolfe and B A Wright, pp. 712–719. American Fisheries
Society Symposium 18. Bethesda Md: American Fisheries
Society.
Rice, S D, J W Short, RA Heintz, A Moles and R E Thomas 2000.
Oil and gas issues in Alaska: lessons learned about long-term
toxicity following the Exxon Valdez oil spill. In Exploring the
Future of Offshore Oil and Gas Development in B.C.: Lessons
from the Atlantic, ed. P Gallagher, pp. 103–190, Proceedings
of a Conference at Simon Fraser University, 17–18 May 2000.
Sadar, M H 1996. Environmental Impact Assessment, 2nd edn.
Ottawa ON: Carleton University Press.
Salmo Consulting Inc 1999. Maxhamish project application: appli-
cation for a project approval certificate. Available at <http://
www.eao.gov.bc.ca/epic/output/documents/p65/1036777297007_
07505034ba634131a16a95a13b071ccc.pdf>, last accessed 6
October 2004.
Sosa, I and K Keenan 2001. Impact Benefit Agreements between
Aboriginal Communities and Mining Companies: their use in
Canada. Canadian Environmental Law Association. Available
at <http://www.cela.ca/publications/cardfile.shtml?x=1021>,
last accessed 15 December 2004.
Taggart, M and M C McCracken 2002. Alaska Highway Pipeline
project and the environment. Working Paper no 7.2.8. Infor-
metrica Limited. Available at <http://www.emr.gov.yk.ca/
Pipeline/AHP_Economic_Effects/Environmental_Linkages.pdf>,
last accessed 30 August 2004.
Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project As-
sessment Director) 2004. SCC 74. Available at <http://www.
lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/texte/2004scc074.wpd.txt>,
last accessed 3 December 2004.
Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. Ringstad et al (Norm Ringstad, in
his capacity as Project Assessment Director for the Tulsequah
Chief Mine Project; Sheila Wynn, in her capacity as Executive
Director, Environmental Assessment Office, The Minister of
Environment, Lands, and Parks, The Minister of Energy and
Mines and Minister Responsible for Northern Development)
2002. B.C.C.A. 59.
Terasen Pipelines 2005. System Facts — Trans Mountain. Avail-
able at <http://pipelines.terasen.com/bins/nosidebar_page.
asp?cid=38-67-86>, last accessed 26 January 2005.
Thompson, A R 1978. West Coast Oil Ports Inquiry: Statement of
Proceedings. Vancouver: West Coast Oil Ports Inquiry.
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2007

TransCanada Pipelines Limited 2005. The Proposed TransCanada
Keystone Pipeline Project. Available at <http://www.
transcanada.com/keystone/KeystoneCanada_factsheet.pdf>,
last accessed 19 February 2005.
Transport Canada 2001. Termpol Review Process 2001. Avail-
able at <http://www.tc.gc.ca/MarineSafety/TP/Tp743/menu.
htm>, last accessed 17 November 2004.
Transport Canada 2003. The Next Wave: Marine Safety Strategic
Plan 2003–2010. Ottawa ON: Queen’s Printer for Canada.
US DOI, United States Department of the Interior 1972. Final En-
vironmental Impact Statement Proposed Trans-Alaska Pipe-
line, Volumes 1–6. Springfield VA: Interagency Task Force for
the Federal Task Force on Alaskan Oil Development.
US DOI, United States Department of the Interior 2002. Final En-
vironmental Impact Statement, Renewal of the Federal Grant
for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System Right-of-Way: Volumes
1–7. Available at <http://tapeis.anl.gov/documents/eis/index.
cfm., last accessed 14 October 2004.
Weimer, D and A Vining 1998. Policy Analysis: Concepts and
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2007
Evaluation of assessment of major projects
Practice, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall.
WCEL, West Coast Environmental Law 2003. Pump it out: the
Environmental Costs of BC’s Upstream Oil and Gas Industry.
Available at <http://www.wcel.org/wcelpub/2003/14028/pdf>,
last accessed 14 October 2004.
Westwater Research Centre 1977. A Digest of Evidence
Presented to the West Coast Oil Ports Inquiry. Vancouver:
Westwater Research Centre.
Wood, C 1995. Environmental Impact Assessment: a Compara-
tive Review. New York NY: Wiley.
Yamaguchi, S and E Kuczek 1984. The social and economic im-
pact of large-scale energy projects on the local community.
International Labour Review, 123(2), 149–165.
Yukon Department of Energy, Mines and Resources 2002. The
Alaska Highway Pipeline Project: Economic Effects on the
Yukon and Canada Final Report. Whitehorse Yukon: Infor-
metrica Limited. Available at <http://www.emr.gov.yk.
ca/Pipeline/AHP_Economic_Effects/AHP_Economic_Effects_
Report.pdf;>, last accessed 18 December 2004.
137