Oil Spills and First Nations: Exploring Environmental and ... · xi) Very Large Crude Carrier...

Relevant • Independent • Objective

Canadian Energy Research Institute

Oil Spills and First Nations: Exploring Environmental and Land Issues Surrounding the Northern Gateway Pipeline

Zoey Walden Jon Rozhon

February 2012

Oil Spills and First Nations: Exploring Environmental and iii Land Issues Surrounding the Northern Gateway Pipeline

February 2012

Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1

General Environmental Concerns ............................................................................................ 1

Ecology and Disturbance.................................................................................................... 3

Oil Spills .............................................................................................................................. 5

Effects ................................................................................................................................ 8

Enbridge Remediation Strategies ...................................................................................... 14

Other Critiques ................................................................................................................... 20

Response to Environmental Concerns Addressed Previously ........................................... 21

Conclusions on the Environment ............................................................................................. 22

First Nations Issues .................................................................................................................. 23

The Joint Review Panel and the Review Process ............................................................... 24

Aboriginal Land Claims ....................................................................................................... 26

Powers of the Crown and Industry to Infringe on Aboriginal Rights ................................. 27

Conclusions on First Nations Issues ......................................................................................... 29

Appendix A: Background Information .................................................................................... 31

Glossary ................................................................................................................................ 37

References ............................................................................................................................... 39

iv Canadian Energy Research Institute

February 2012

Oil Spills and First Nations: Exploring Environmental and v Land Issues Surrounding the Northern Gateway Pipeline

February 2012

List of Tables and Figures Table 1 Average Annual Contribution of Petroleum Sources into the Marine Waters from the Years 1990-1999 ............................................................ 6

Table 2 Dispersion of Different Oil Fractions from their Point of Pollution ....................... 7

Table 3 Mitigation Measures Proposed by Enbridge ......................................................... 15

Table 4 Marine Mitigation Procedures ............................................................................... 16

Table 5 Cleanup Methods for Surface Land Spills .............................................................. 19

Table A1 Summary of Species Found in the PNCIMA Area .................................................. 32

Table A2 Ecosystem Services and Functions as Defined by Constant et al. 2003 ................ 34

Figure 1 Example of a Containment Boom Failure .............................................................. 18

Figure 2 Example of Part of an Emergency Response Tactics Sheet for First Responders of an Oil Spill .............................................................................. 18

Figure 3 British Columbia First Nations Territories.............................................................. 24

Figure 4 Aboriginal Rights Spectrum ................................................................................... 26

vi Canadian Energy Research Institute

February 2012

Oil Spills and First Nations: Exploring Environmental and 1 Land Issues Surrounding the Northern Gateway Pipeline

February 2012

Introduction Economic development and population growth have put stress on British Columbia’s and Alberta’s natural ecosystems with concerns including, but not limited to, the following: timber resources, watershed protection, fish habitat preservation, wildlife ranges, and protection of sensitive species. This has often resulted in conflicting arguments regarding ecosystem protection, job creation/development, and stakeholders’ rights (B.C. Ministry of Forests, Mines and Lands, 2010). Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline is the latest in a number of industrial projects that highlight the dilemma between economic growth and natural conservation in Canada. Consequently, the proposed pipeline has become a magnet of controversy; the economic logic for market diversification – especially in light of Keystone XL

delays – is consequential, but so is environmental, cultural, and political logic for opposition to the pipeline. At the center of opposition are First Nations, as the bulk of risk to rivers and costs from potential oil spills falls largely to the regions the pipeline passes through. Moreover, land claims have not been resolved amongst the various First Nation communities, and the question of development on potential ancestral lands has generated ambiguity over the rights of the Crown versus the rights of the aboriginals. However, it has been stated by some that even if First Nations prove their title in court the government could enact “justifiable infringement” to advance the project forward. Whether they should do this, and can prove “justifiable infringement” amidst adamant opposition, adds to the above-mentioned controversy. This report is divided into two main sections: one section guides readers through the environmental

concerns that arise with pipeline construction, oil spills, and tanker traffic; the other section reviews the controversy surrounding aboriginal land-claims, concerns and historical legal rulings.

General Environmental Concerns The construction of this pipeline not only raises the traditional question of whether the pipeline is economically beneficial to Canada, but also whether environmentally sensitive areas should be exposed to the risk of contamination from a major oil spill. If one navigates through the many activist stakeholder websites – from the Pembina Institute, to Dogwood Initiative, to the

Carrier Sekeni Tribe to name a few – one finds numerous statements on the irrevocable

damage an oil spill could inflict: an oil spill during the operational lifetime is almost inevitable, considering the track record of pipelines and tankers, say the Pembina Institute;1 bitumen is an extremely hazardous substance to transport, reports the Sierra Club;2 and the risks of any oil spill are unacceptable given the biodiversity, cultural sensitivity, and current economic status of the region through which the oil pipeline and tankers are likely to pass, claim some First Nations.3 Furthermore, Aboriginal groups feel they should have a right to determine regulations for their ancestral lands. Given that there is at least an element of truth in these statements, Canadian law requires of Enbridge consideration and stakeholder consultation before pipeline construction is permitted.

1Lemphers, Nathan et al. “Pipeline and Tanker Trouble”. November 29, 2011. http://www.pembina.org/pub/2289

2http://www.sierraclub.bc.ca/our-work/gbr/spotlights/the-trouble-with-tankers-and-pipelines

3Hoekstra, Gordon and Trish Audette. “BC First Nations fear disastrous spill is inevitable”. January 7, 2012.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/First+Nations+fear+disastrous+spill+inevitable/5962644/story.html

2 Canadian Energy Research Institute

February 2012

The proposed pipeline route traverses through salmon rich spawning grounds, crosses 181 streams in Alberta and 592 streams in BC, and slices through numerous wildlife corridors and various archaeological sites of the First Nations people. Transport through this region holds challenges and risks. Spill probability is considered significant due to the complexity of the landscape (i.e., increased risk of avalanches, landslides, flooding, etc.). All of these factors combine with opponents questioning Enbridge’s record in dealing with pipeline construction, maintenance, and spills on less challenging and populous landscapes; ultimately, can Enbridge deal with pipeline emergency situations in a timely manner when so many sections of the pipeline wind through remote areas (Skuce, 2010)?

By far the largest concern is for marine safety. The shipping lane within the Douglas Channel is marked by frequent bad weather and other hazards, a formidable route for tanker pilots to navigate. Today there is limited oil tanker traffic on BC’s west coast because of the voluntary Tanker Exclusion Zone.4 If the pipeline goes through, as many as 225 crude oil tankers a year will call at Kitimat; this has come as a shock to opponents of the pipeline and residents of the region. Complete safety in BC’s northern waters can only be achieved if no traffic is allowed (i.e., no tankers, no risk) following the argument that “No matter how safe the ship, the most mundane human error can sink it...the potential damage from those oil tankers is x to the 100th power.” (Lemphers, 2010)(Skuce, 2010). To opponents, an oil spill is inevitable, either through a natural disaster or through an error in human judgement, and the cost of that tanker spill will

be on par with the ecological disaster that occurred further up the coast when the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska. As the West Coast Port Oil inquiry stated in 1978, a major oil spill is possible and apprehension over such a spill cannot be dismissed (Thompson, 1978).

Some general transportation concerns are as follows:5

i) Pipeline construction leads to loss of organic matter within the soil and thus increases erosion and water run-off rates.

ii) Due to the pine beetle infestation, forest fires are more likely to occur. iii) Temperature changes in the water from vegetation clearing have adverse impacts on

salmon and other fisheries. iv) There may be pipeline leaks and ruptures due to the instability of the terrain (i.e.,

seismic activity). v) Fish species are highly sensitive to sediment release from construction. vi) Fish species are highly sensitive to oil spills.

4The Port of Vancouver provides statistics on the outbound traffic of crude petroleum as well as the Pacific North

Coast Integrated Management Areas (PNCIMA) site http://www.pncima.org. It should be noted that the maps generated by PNCIMA do not differentiate between crude petroleum movement and all other types of tanker movement. The tanker exclusion zone was created to protect shorelines in the event of a tanker running aground or becoming disabled while in transit. 5CERI is not commenting on the validity of these concerns but is merely addressing issues of note that have arisen

from a review of the activists’ websites (i.e., a common concern raised is that bitumen is more corrosive than conventional crude; in reality, bitumen may or may not cause increased pipeline failure rates and a pipeline risk assessment for corrosively would need to be conducted).

http://www.pncima.org/


February 2012

vii) Caribou and other larger mammals are sensitive to noise construction and such activities that result in habitat fragmentation may result in decline of these species.

viii) Birds and other wildlife may suffer from habitat fragmentation. ix) Release of oil has long-term effects on aquatic wildlife due to the sedimentation of

Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). x) Pipelines are prone to minor spills which ultimately result in a decrease of ecosystem

functionality. xi) Very Large Crude Carrier (VLCC) tankers, with capacities in excess of 200,000 Dead

Weight Tons (The Exxon Valdez, for example had a tonnage of 209,000 DWT) will call at Kitimat and could spill significant quantities of oil in the event of an accident.

xii) Jobs are not sustained for aboriginal people due to the boom/bust nature of constructing pipelines.

xiii) Diminishment of ecosystem service values exceed the value of the pipeline. xiv) Revegetation of the pipeline right of way will ultimately result in a loss of genetic

biodiversity, especially within old growth forests. xv) Archaeological sites may be destroyed, resulting in a loss of culture due to construction

of the right-of-way. xvi) Aboriginal land claims should take precedent. xvii) Bitumen is more corrosive than conventional crudes and consequently is the culprit of

increased pipeline failure rates (resulting in more spills). xviii) Spills in marine lands, both major and minor, could place into jeopardy the entire

marine environment. Furthermore, even a single spill would cause irreparable damage. xix) Overall, the development of this pipeline will lead to increased development in what is a

largely pristine area of British Columbia.

The reader is cautioned that “environmental catastrophe”, and other similar terms, is subjective and that any release of pollutants into the environment would have varying degrees of acceptable manageability, impact, effects, etc. Only some of the above-mentioned concerns will be addressed in this report. The following provides a general impression of ecological response to disturbances and the fates of oil into the environment.

Ecology and Disturbance6 Ecology is the study of the interaction of organisms between themselves (biotic interactions) and the non-living (abiotic) physical surroundings. Some variables that are frequently measured are the changes in biomass, the composition of the system, the distribution of organisms, the hierarchal nature of those organisms, and changes in states between organisms and ecosystems. Ecology plays an important role in conservation biology and city planning, since the basis of “sustainable” development involves preserving a system that is harmonious and renewable. With increasing emphasis on environmental integrity, governments and organizations face more stringent standards in how they develop projects while preserving the system for future use. In the case of the Northern Gateway pipeline, Aboriginals frequently

6Ecosystem Services and Environmental Security definitions might also be considered applicable and may be found

in Appendix A.


February 2012

emphasize the importance of preserving the land, not just for themselves but for all future generations.

However, the theory and the application of an ecologically sound system are vastly set apart since it is extraordinarily difficult to characterize all the ecological interactions within a given system. Frequently, proxies of one section of the system are used to estimate one or more levels of interaction within the system. Laboratories can only isolate a given organism for study of toxicological effects, while in nature that organism would live with several others in a biotic community. Within each system, organisms make up special niches which provide certain roles to the entire community. Some of these species play more crucial roles than others and are

generally termed “keystone” species. The activities of these keystone species significantly alter and govern the way the ecosystem functions. Lastly, the interactions of the ecosystem will govern the flow of materials and pollutants (Kingston, Smith, Harrison, & Holmes, 1998).

Natural and anthropogenic factors may generate a variety of disturbances on ecosystems. Disturbances are considered events that alter the structure of the ecosystem. Disturbances may vary in duration, frequency, and intensity, resulting in a range of the severity of impacts. A pulse disturbance is one that has a short period of disruption; a press disturbance arises from continuous, long-term, perturbation of the system. Press disturbances may arise because of short continuous pulse disturbances that do not allow enough time for recovery of the system. Acute disturbances are usually severe pulse disturbances that have great intensity, resulting in

severe impact to the community. A major oil spill is considered an acute disturbance. Chronic disturbances are the result of continuous low intensity events over a longer period of time (Kingston et al., 1998).

While it is not entirely clear how communities withstand disturbances, their stability comes from their ability to resist and be resilient to change. Communities dominated by long-lived species tend to be capable of resisting change but are not as resilient and tend to recover slowly if the disturbance is severe. Conversely, short-lived species tend to be less resistive but more capable of rebounding following a severe environmental disturbance and therefore, are more resilient. Acute oil spills tend to promote the survival of resilient species while chronic

disturbances promote the survival of resistive species. However, chronic contamination will more profoundly affect the organisms’ ability to survive, reproduce and grow than non-impacted counterparts (Kingston et al., 1998).

Construction of Watercourse Crossing Disturbances A primary concern for the Northern Gateway project is the effect on sensitive fish habitat due to the construction of the pipeline across watercourses. Watercourse constructions are known to disturb aquatic ecosystems by altering the biological, physical and, in some cases, chemical composition of the watercourse. Construction activities increase the total sediment load, which directly and indirectly affects fish habitat. Reid & Anderson conducted a review of 27

watercourse pipelines for open-cut crossings and determined that most of the effects are to


February 2012

benthic communities7 (as much as 70% reduction) and the longest rates of recoveries tend to be a couple of years. Most communities are capable of re-establishing themselves after a few months and this is largely attributable to fast flushing-out rates as well as re-colonization by upstream communities. Complete removal of sediments generally occurs within a few weeks to a couple of years.8 Sensitivity of downstream habitats is dependent on the timing of natural sediment deposition (i.e., seasonal, hydrological conditions) and when the organisms are utilizing the habitat (e.g. spawning, etc.). Impacts from open-cut crossings are generally short-term and temporary (S. M. Reid & Anderson, 1999). These impacts are considered minimal when compared to sediment loading from urbanization and other forestry, agricultural, and mining practises (S. M. Reid & Anderson, 1999).

Furthermore, other techniques have developed that decrease total sediment loadings. These include horizontal directional drilling, dam and pump, and flumed or partial diversion. Horizontal drilling still has the potential for damage if an unexpected release of drilling mud occurs. Reid et al. have determined that sediment release is minimal for isolated crossing methods on small to medium water crossings (S. M. Reid, Ade, & Metikosh, 2004). Used in combination with improvements for habitat conditions, such as placement of gravel over backfilled trenches, water crossings have lessened their environmental impact over time (S. M. Reid & Anderson, 1999).

Oil Spills

The following section centres on the sources of oil spills into marine – not fresh water – environments. This is to address questions that surround oil spills resulting from tankers.

General Oil Spill Concerns Oil pollution (into the sea, land, etc.) is a problem whether or not the oil contamination is highly visible (i.e., tar balls on beaches, oil-slicked birds, etc.). Major general concerns of oil contamination include (Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP), 1993):

1) effects on fisheries 2) loss or changes of habitat 3) economic consequences (i.e., closure of fisheries, oiled fishing gear, tainting of seafood,

etc.) 4) effects of the use of water in industrial processes 5) effects on wildlife, and marine parks 6) chronic long-term accumulation of hydrocarbons (primarily coastal and estuarine

environments) and their long-term effects on ecosystems.

7Benthic communities are those that live at the bottom layer of a body of water near the sediments. They tend to

be primarily composed of organisms that rely on dead and decaying matter and are typically oysters, clams, etc. 8Depends on factors such as flow rate, turbidity, etc.


February 2012

Sources and Fates of Oil into the Ocean

Sources of Oil into the Ocean Major oil spills tend to receive the most amount of attention due to the obvious environmental effects following them (i.e., oiled birds, dead/moribund mammals, etc.). Beyond major oil spills there are several chronic exposures: natural seepage, leaking pipelines, tanker harbour spills, tanker discharges from cleaning, and aerial contamination from internal combustion engines (Ocean Studies Board and Marine Board, 2003). According to GESAMP, oil contamination of the marine environment has decreased over time; in 1981 there were 3.2 million tonnes of oil released into the ocean while 1990 exhibited 2.35 million tonnes. Although there have been

variations from year to year of oil inputs into the sea (i.e., wars, blow outs, etc.), the ANNEX I document from MARPOL, implemented in 1983, has had a substantial positive effect of reducing oil inputs from transportation activities (1.47 million tonnes in 1980 to 0.54 million tonnes). Tanker spills comprise only 8% of the total oil input into the sea. Land-based sources are considered a growing area for inputs into the sea but are not well understood and are considered to be underestimated (GESAMP, 1993). A more recent study by the National Research Council (NRC) updated some of these numbers and Table 1 summarizes the results (Burgher, 2007):9

Table 1: Average Annual Contribution of Petroleum Sources into the Marine Waters from the Years 1990-1999

Source kt/a %

Natural Seeps 600 47

Extraction of Petroleum 38 3

Transportation of Petroleum

Pipeline Spills 12 1

Tank Vessel Spills 100 8

Others 41 3

Consumption of Petroleum

Land-Based (River and Runoff) 140 11

Operational Discharges (Vessels > 1000 GT) 270 21

Others 67 6

Total 1,268 100

The most common anthropogenic pollution inputs are from terminals when oil is being loaded or discharged; however, in terms of total tonnage, these types of accidents only make up a small amount of total oil discharged (GESAMP, 1993).

9It should be noted that some of the decrease in these numbers over time is not because there was significant

improvement in the amount of spills, but that the estimations became more accurate over time.


February 2012

Fates While oil may be retained in reservoirs for millennia in an unaltered state, its composition changes once it has become exposed to water, air and sunlight. Initial changes occur rapidly but tend to become stabilized as a thermodynamic equilibrium with the environment is reached. The fate of spills is largely determined by the viscosity, density and solubility of the compound. Lighter fractions tend to evaporate quickly (the rate depends on the vapour pressure and mass-transfer conditions) and heavier ones tend to disperse, persist and form “tar balls” on shorelines if the wax/heavy portion is high enough (Ocean Studies Board and Marine Board, 2003). The type of oil also determines its environmental fate, part of its dispersion characteristics (others being wind, water flow rates, etc.), and rate of decomposition.

Soil Heavier hydrocarbons sink down and spread out laterally due to capillary action. Impermeable structures halt downward movement, and the oil spreads out laterally. Eventually, hydrocarbons stop moving but may still continue to lose mass from evaporation and bioremediation. Oil that comes into contact with ground water may become a long-term source of contamination.

Water Most oil will float on fresh water and seawater given that most oil densities are below 1 g/cm3 (density of water at 15°C) and salt water is roughly 1.3 g/cm3. However, emulsions may become

heavier than water and sink (see Table 2)(Ocean Studies Board and Marine Board, 2003).

Table 2: Dispersion of Different Oil Fractions from their Point of Pollution

Input Persistence Evaporation Emulsification Dissolution Oxidation Horizontal Transport

Vertical Transport

Sed. Shoreline

Seeps Years High Med. Med. Med. High Med. Med.

Spills

Gasoline Days High Not Relevant Med. Low Low Low Not Rel.

Light Distillates

Days Med. Low High Low Med. High Low

Crudes Months Med. Med. Med. Med. Med. Med. Med.

Heavy Distillates

Years Low Med. Low Low High Low High

Source: Adapted from the Oceans Studies and Marine Boards of the National Research Council (Ocean Studies Board and Marine Board, 2003)

A Case Study: The Arrow Incident10 The world learned a lesson on the behaviour of oil on icy, rugged marine environments in the Arrow spill of 1970; approximately 16,000 tonnes (approximately 116,800 bbls) of bunker C oil was discharged in Chedabucto Bay, Nova Scotia during that incident. While there would be less

10

The Arrow incident has been broken up into two sections in this report. The first segment covers the fate of the oil in a rocky, cold-water marine environment. The second segment covers how this type of environment affected remediation efforts. This particular spill was chosen because of the similarities between the shorelines (i.e., both have an abundance of rocky/sandy/gravel shorelines), abundance of bird species, and temperate-to-cold year-round temperatures.


February 2012

cold water and ice to deal with in any British Columbia spill, the shorelines and inland-ice-covered landscapes would be similar. Chedabucto Bay demonstrated that cold temperatures make oil very viscous and access to steam/hot water is required to make it pumpable. Furthermore, oil became trapped within the ice if it was not recovered immediately. This created serious problems in Chedabucto Bay for clean-up and recovery even though the oil was trapped within the ice. Emulsifications also formed because of the high viscosity of the oil. Also, even though the oil was highly viscous, much seeped from boulders down into the pools and crevices of the rocks; then, in the summer months, the preferential radiative absorption of oil caused the re-emergence of the spilled oil onto the beach again. Sand and gravel beaches exposed to oil tended to clean themselves when vigorous surf was present, but rocky beaches

tended to remain oily. Oil left on rocks tends to form a protective coating that prevents further weathering and degradation of the oil underneath.

Effects Accidental oil spills are considered major environmental disasters. The extent of an impact is controlled by a diverse set of factors, including but not limited to: the amount, rate and type of oil, the location,11 vicinity to sensitive sources, and the choice and effectiveness of the clean-up techniques. While natural seeps comprise a large portion of the discharge, ecological impacts tend to be less visible due to the slow, steady rate of exposure (Burgher, 2007). Tanker traffic is viewed with trepidation, even though it is not a major source of oil pollution in the world today,

because of the obvious regional effects seen as well as the complex nature of dealing with major oil spills (Burgher, 2007).

To put some of this into perspective, in 1998, the Nestucca barge collision, which occurred to the west of the Washington coast, spilled 770 tonnes (approximately 5,621 bbls) of oil and caused the deaths of an estimated 56,000 birds (Burger, 1993). Beaches were closed due to the wash-up of tar balls on 150 km of shoreline on Vancouver Island; several fish sites were contaminated and otter colony sites were affected. However, the total amount of this spill was far less than the total annual discharge into the Strait of Georgia, which totals 8,600 tonnes (approximately 62,780 bbls) (GESAMP, 1993). Two points are shown in this example: one is that an acute sudden disposal can be a major disruption; the other is that marine beings can

exist with discharges of oil annually and that these constant discharges do not affect the overall integrity of the marine system (it is, however, possible that it creates an increase in the amount of stress for the system that a non-oiled environment would not do).

Regional Sensitivity Temperate and tropical zones tend to biodegrade oil faster than arctic or cold-water zones (GESAMP, 1976). This suggests that spills in tropical zones (i.e., Gulf of Mexico BP) tend to recover more quickly than spills in cold (Arrow incident) or Arctic waters (Exxon Valdez).

11

The location not only has ecological significance but political factors such as jurisdiction and legal issues may impede a clean-up process.


February 2012

Effects on Organisms Effects on living organisms can be summarized as follows (McAllister, Meyer, Romaine, Schaefer, & Schouwenberg, 1978)(Moore & Dwyer, 1974):

i) Lethal toxicity ii) Sublethal physiological disruption or disruption of behavioural activities (i.e., feeding,

reproduction, etc.) iii) Mechanical interference, or effects of direct coating of oil onto animals (i.e.,

interference with movement, loss of insulative properties, etc.) iv) Biomagnification (i.e., accumulation of PAH’s in the food chain) v) Drastic changes in habitat

Recovery of shoreline ecosystems is dependent on the persistence of the oil and the histories of the organisms affected. The time-scales of these recoveries vary drastically, depending on the availability of additional populations and sensitivities to remaining hydrocarbons. Biological effects are a function of several factors, including but not limited to, bioavailability, an organisms’ ability to metabolize the hydrocarbons, and how much contaminants interfere with physiological responses. GESAMP states that it takes about 10 years for marine systems to recover from a major oil spill but that this number is subject to variables such as temperature and energy of the water (i.e., low-energy cold systems will take longer to recover than high-energy cold systems, etc.) (GESAMP, 1993).

Aquatic Environments

Fisheries Sensitivity

Estuaries and near-shore waters are most susceptible to oil spills because of the importance of these areas for spawning, rearing, and feeding of fish. The effects of lighter components, plus reduction in total oxygen availability, can result in a marked decrease of species in oil spill zones. Also, salmon may become affected in their ability to return to their “home” rivers when exposed to hydrocarbons. In general, areas most affected are those in the intertidal zones since oil may be deposited on surfaces in the receding tide. Shellfish may become tainted in such circumstances and for flora, such as seaweed, an initial accumulation may not have an

observable effect but repeated accumulations of a thin film of oil will result in a distinct decrease (GESAMP, 1976).

Adult fish generally do not suffer from acute toxic effects but larval stages are generally decimated (GESAMP, 1993). Deformations in larval stages can be noted after hours to days following exposure with concentrations exceeding 1 µg/L or more. There tends not to be a difference in effects between marine and freshwater environments (GESAMP, 1993).

Tainting of Fish by Oil GESAMP reports a tainting range of 0.01-0.1 mg/L. Little is known about what types of

compounds cause the tainting and what purification processes are in place (GESAMP, 1993).


February 2012

Marine-Associated Birds Oil affects sea-diving birds and other sea-birds; most sea-birds tend to become washed up on the shore in an oily condition. Birds are often the most conspicuous and most vulnerable to marine spills as a result of their heavy reliance on several areas of the marine ecosystem. Following a spill, birds die as a result of their inability to thermoregulate, a decrease in buoyancy, and ingestion of oil compounds by preening their feathers(GESAMP, 1993)(Clark, 1984).

Flora Effects

Aquatic

Oil is transported by various means of dispersion in water environments until it becomes either entrained within a physical structure, or metabolized by various organisms. Within aquatic environments it tends to be macrophytes that are the species of most concern. Spilled oil affects macrophytes by smothering stomata and uptake into tissues of the plant. It also affects new tissues that emerge from the water through an oil residue. Oil spills in tidal zones may create erosion due to where plants have died, or been removed as contaminated, or trampled upon. Oil spills are also thought to have more impact in fresh water environments than marine due to the greater diversity of plants in fresh water systems. Remediation may cause more damage to flora to recover in some cases where removal and trampling affects the community more than the oil spill itself (Wernick, deBruyn, Patterson, & Chapman, 2009).

Toxicity Concerns Out of all the effects observed on marine organisms it is primarily the hydrocarbon fraction, and of that the lower boiling, higher soluble, aromatics that generate the most toxic responses. This is because the higher soluble compounds are considered more bioavailable and thus more likely to interfere in biochemical pathways causing mortality in the organism. Moreover, in addition to the responses to the compounds themselves, different species exhibit varying sensitivities to exposure to oil (Moore & Dwyer, 1974). An example of variability amongst organisms is that marine plants are susceptible to the lower molecular weight (MW) compounds while microcreustaceans are susceptible to the higher MW compounds (GESAMP, 1993).

Furthermore, there can be variance in the toxicities between different oil types, and between fresh and weathered oils. The transformation process may generate less harmful or more harmful toxins as well.

While there are several toxic compounds present within crude oil, a listing and detailed discussion of these compounds is beyond the scope of this report. If the reader is interested, Enbridge’s Application in Volume 7B, provides a list of the chemical composition of diluted bitumen, synthetic crude oil (SCO) and condensate. Toxicology data may be found at the Agency of Toxic Substances and Diseases (ATSDR). Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) through the ATSDR also release a priority list of

hazardous substances by rank. Lastly, the NRC has a 1994 publication of the most frequently detected groundwater contaminants at hazardous waste sites.


February 2012

It is difficult to summarize the ecological impacts of oil spills due to crude oils varying characteristics and its effects on living organisms. Furthermore, various constituents of oil weather at different rates, changing the composition and biological effects as time goes on (Moore & Dwyer, 1974). The impacts of oil spills will depend on the type of ecosystem, species present and type/extent of oil that spilled. The assemblage of the community may change if keystone species12 are affected. For structurally important species, such as coral reefs, the loss of such habitats will affect the species that depend on that structure. The loss of structurally important species is more significant than the loss of one or two keystone species (Kingston et al., 1998).

In general, predicting the environmental response to a release of a known quantity of oil requires knowledge about the specific petroleum compounds present, the nature of the receiving body of water and the types of species most susceptible to toxic effects. Complex modelling is needed to interpret petroleum release rates into the environment, and even then, it is difficult to determine the magnitude and duration of any environmental effects (Ocean Studies Board and Marine Board, 2003). Moreover, while organisms near the point of the source could suffer from sub-lethal to lethal effects, there exists a certain amount of environmental resilience and resistance to oil spills as well.

Remediation Strategies

Marine Spill Remediation Strategies Marine spills receive attention around the world due to the perception of the longevity of oil in the environment, the highly publicized manpower efforts required, and the extent of environmental damage caused by large oil spills. Furthermore, there is no universally accepted concentration of residual contaminants from a remediation event; acceptable concentrations are loosely defined by the end-state of health and ecological functioning post-spill remediation.

Clean-up operations generate a variety of solid and liquid waste (dead fauna, colloidal mixtures of oil/water/sand, etc.). The volume of waste is dependent on the type and volume of oil, oil

weathering processes, environmental conditions (weather), shoreline type (rocky, mangroves,

etc.), and clean-up strategies utilized (Massoura & Sommerville, 2009). Most remedial techniques are utilized based on their ability to generate an acceptable level of post-spill functioning in a cost-effective and timely manner (Massoura & Sommerville, 2009). The broad categories of remediation techniques are: physico-chemical (use of chemical dispersants, solidification, etc.), biological (bacterial detoxification, etc.), and thermal (burning). Application of these techniques is dictated by what materials are available and appropriate to process the spilled oil and combinations of techniques are frequently employed in the clean up of a contaminated environment (Massoura & Sommerville, 2009).

12

A keystone species is one that has a large “presence” in the ecosystem. These species play a critical role in the integrity of the ecosystem and should they be removed there is a dramatic shift in the functioning of the ecosystem. It is largely analogous to taking the keystone out of the arch, which causes the arch to collapse if removed.


February 2012

Remediation Techniques Physico-Chemical: These techniques use air, water, and solutions to extract the contaminant. Air is utilized only when there is a large concentration of volatile compounds present. Washing/flushing processes are utilized where a variety of reagents (surfactants, chelating agents, etc.) separate the waste from the aqueous solution. Lastly, reagents may be added to solidify or stabilize oily residues. Typically, clays and organo-sorbents are used to immobilize the oil to be cleaned up as a separate layer(Massoura & Sommerville, 2009).

Thermal: Thermal techniques involve the heating of the contaminated substance to increase volatility of the materials for extraction. Due to the probability of increased toxic air emissions,

this technique has been viewed with some inhibition. Incineration is the primary means of dealing with solid waste generated from the process(Massoura & Sommerville, 2009).

Biological: These techniques use organisms (i.e., microbes, plants), to take-up the oil and bio-remediate it through various metabolic functions. A number of factors affect the rate of bioremediate including but not limited to: temperature, oxygen, availability of nutrients, salinity, pH, weathering of oil, and prior exposure to hydrocarbons. While this technique is cheaper than most conventional oil recovery techniques, it is frequently disregarded due to the longer time to completion than other active remediation techniques(Massoura & Sommerville, 2009).

Oil Recovery Generally a combination of physical, biological and chemical will be utilized to clean-up and recover oil.

Contingency Plans The contingency plan for the northern gateway pipeline can be found in Volume 7B of Enbridge’s Regulatory Application.

Containment Containment is exactly what the name implies; it is a process of confining the oil either to prevent it from spreading to a sensitive area or to divert it to an area for recovery.

Containment Boom: A containment boom is the most commonly deployed equipment for containment of oil on water. It usually consists of 4 sections: a means of flotation, a freeboard section to prevent oil from flowing over top, a skirt to prevent underwater spreading, and a tension member to support the boom. A boom’s performance is affected by water currents, waves and wind (Containment on water, 2000).

Skimmers: Devices that skim the surface of the water and suck up the oil contaminated portions.

Chemicals: Agents that may disperse the oil or cause it to sediment out.


February 2012

A more complete description of all of the above remediation strategies may be found in “The Basics of Oil Spill Clean-up” (see Containment on water, 2000 ref). This report does not cover the effectiveness of certain remediation strategies in different environments.

Ice and Rocky Shores and the Arrow Incident The Arrow incident demonstrated the effectiveness of different types of remediation on ice and on rocky shores. Remediation from these types of environments is difficult because of the emulsifications that happen between oil and cold water/ice. Consequently, burns do not work well even with the aid of sintering beads. Laboratory tests of the Arrow spill indicate that temperatures of 900°F were needed before combustion could occur (McLean, 1972). Peat moss

was found to be the most effective absorbent for freshly spilled oils; however, the performance was not as effective once the oil weathered. For onshore recovery the high viscosity resulted in very little penetration of the oil onto beach and contaminated material could be removed. Skimmers were able to remove oil from the water at about 1 barrel per minute. Steaming also proved to be successful on rocky shores with booms catching the run-off and peat-moss absorbing the oil amounts. Certain areas of the rocky shores were not accessible and therefore no clean-up was done. The tendency of rocky beaches to have oil pools in crevasses results in rocky beaches being a continuous source of contamination. As the sun heats up this oil it rises out of the crevasses and becomes mini-slicks towards the shoreline(McLean, 1972). This tendency has been noted with the Exxon Valdez incident as well.

Lessons learned from that incident included the following:

a) Choice of appropriate clean-up equipment is needed in regards to the type of oil, the environmental conditions, and most importantly, the temperature under which the oil spill has taken place.

b) Speedy action is of paramount importance, since some techniques may lose their effectiveness (i.e. peat moss) as the oil weathers.

c) Stable oil-in-water emulsifications are also extremely difficult to clean-up. d) Oil encapsulated in ice is only a temporary containment. e) Vigorous surf poundings also aid in clean-up and bioremediation (McLean, 1972).

Should Remediation Occur? Remediation may cause more damage than natural recovery. In some cases there is controversy over whether chemicals should be used due to the unknown toxicological properties. There have been other cases where volunteers and paid remediators have caused extensive damage by tramping on vegetation. An example of this occurred after the Wabamum lake spill of 2005.13 Clean-up techniques for this spill included cutting vegetation and vacuum removal of submerged tar balls(Wernick et al., 2009). Wernick et al. determined in this case the re-emergence of species from the lake was not hindered by the oil spill – in fact, some plant species, such as Sagittarria lancifolia (bulltongue arrowhead) were able to withstand oiling because of stores of carbohydrates. Instead, the delay in re-emergence was, in large part, due

13

The Wabumum Lake, Alberta spill occurred August 3, 2005 by a train derailment, which released 4,500 bbl of Bunker C oil and 500 bbl of Imperial Oil pole oil. About 900 bbls made it into the lake.


February 2012

to trampling and other disturbances that affected these carbohydrate stores. Remedial efforts had a larger effect on vegetation productivity than the oil itself (Wernick et al., 2009). These findings run contrary to the usual clean-up concerns that deal primarily with “deoiling” the environment as a top priority. The reader is cautioned that not all plants are likely to be this susceptible and that a vegetation sensitivity map should be conducted to determine highly sensitive regions from moderate ones.

Another example is whether or not contaminated sediments should be dredged up. As oil becomes entrenched in the sediment, it also loses its ability to affect organisms by becoming less bioavailable (Warrington, 1987). Dredging up these sediments may in fact release more oil,

resulting in a greater effect than simply leaving the oil entrenched in the ground. Also, dredging can affect the biological and chemical properties within the oil, causing further unintended effects (Swanson, 2011).

Enbridge Remediation Strategies

Construction Watercourses As mentioned previously, constructed watercourses tend to exhibit minimal long-term environmental impacts. Enbridge has conducted studies to determine least-sensitive times of the year, in terms of fish reproduction cycles, in order to determine optimal, low-impact periods for construction. In some instances there is no such “least sensitive” time-frame but

Enbridge’s use of open-cut methods for highly sensitive streams is limited; consequently, long-term effects from the construction phase are considered to be minimal. In conclusion, what can be done to limit environmental effects is being done through the use of constructing alternative watercourses, and techniques such as horizontal drilling under the watercourse.


February 2012

Mitigation Procedures Inland Table 3 summarizes mitigation measures proposed from Enbridge (mostly found in Volume 7B of their regulatory application:

Type Mitigation Strategy

Soils In situ Bioremediation14

Ex-situ treatment of mineral soils

15

Isolated burning Phytoremediation

16

Wetlands Natural attenuation may be allowed if treatment causes more disturbance Isolated Burning Removal of Ex-Situ treatment Skimmers for Surface water Sorbents Place planks on organic and wet soils to minimize disturbance from heavy machinery Use nutrient and inorganic amendments to restore soil quality and promote bio/phyto/myco remediation

Groundwater Enhanced Bioremediation In-Situ Remediation Pump-and-Treat Technology

Surface Water Containment Booms Exclusion Booms Flush mobile oil portions into collection areas Skimmers Use pumps to recover oil at source Sorbents

Vegetation Rare plant and plant communities would be protected by snow fencing Plants would be removed if affected Determine site access and egress strategy to limit effects of trampling

Wildlife Endangered/At Risk/Sensitive species get priority for oil clean-up

Fish Habitat Short-term – contaminant, recovery and clean-up Long-term – closures of angling, stocking fish, habitat compensation

14

The use of microorganisms for onsite clean-up. 15

The washing of soils “ex situ” (outside) to remove contaminants. 16

Remediation by plants.


February 2012

Mitigation Procedures Marine Table 4 summarizes the Marine Mitigation Procedures. A more detailed explanation is provided in Section 7C of Enbridge’s Application.

Type Mitigation Strategy

Water Boom sensitive areas Additional containment boom to localize source Open-water skimming with vessels Evaluate time sensitive technologies (dispersants, burning) Sorbents Vacuum systems/washing

Onshore/Sensitive Areas Exclusion booms around sensitive areas Absorbent pads in some areas where vegetation is not amenable to other treatments Removal of oiled vegetation and oily debris Flushing and recovery on rocky areas

Fish Try to boom sensitive areas

Birds Hazing of Non-oiled birds Cleaning of oiled birds

Marine Mammals Acoustic deterrence Boat traffic Helicopters Fire hoses May be cleaned and reintroduced into the environment

Terrestrial Animals Hazing plan Trapping and relocating wild life

Effectiveness of Enbridge’s Environmental Impact Assessment Enbridge has created a vast environmental impact assessment of the pipeline and associated marine terminal. There is a heavy emphasis on characterization of valued ecosystem components (i.e., grizzly bears, caribou) and on standards of engineering in the pipeline/terminal operations to decrease the probability of a spill. Of note from these design features are high-quality steel, epoxy protective coatings,17 cathodic protection,18 SCADA monitoring,19 x-ray inspection of welds, etc., which generally may not be present in pipelines of older construction. These measures certainly improve detection and shut down operations,

which ultimately should result in decreased numbers and volumes of spills. Also, the marine terminal has been provided with appropriate equipment to ensure automatic shutdown in the event of a release. All procedures within the marine response plan meet TERMPOL requirements.20 In addition, the nature and depth of Kitimat harbour and the Douglas Channel allow for the safe passage of ships (including the shallower portion near the Browning

17

Also known as fusion-bond exposy coating (FBE) and is a substance applied to protect steel pipelines from corrosion. 18

A technique used to protect pipelines from corrosion by connecting the pipe to a piece of metal that acts as the anode. The anode metal is more likely to become corroded thus preventing the corrosion of the steel pipe. 19

Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA), is a remote sensing system that converts sensor signals to digital data allowing for monitoring of flow within the pipeline. 20

If the reader is interested in a more in-depth examination of the requirements they may refer to http://www.tc.gc.ca/publications/EN/TP743/PDF/HR/TP743E.PDF

http://www.tc.gc.ca/publications/EN/TP743/PDF/HR/TP743E.PDF


February 2012

Entrance). The Masters of these vessels would have extensive experience and would also have a qualified pilot and tugboats guiding them into and out of the harbour (Hanson, 2011). While guarantee of no spill is impossible, there are significant technological and safety responses in place to help minimize the extent and duration of a spill.

CERI recognizes that the Enbridge application provides a high-level overview of the General Oil Spill Response Plan (GORSP) and that the GORSP will act as a framework for a more detailed site-specific response plan. Enbridge also acknowledges that a more comprehensive assessment prior to commissioning will be generated (Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines, 2011). This document will also have Geographic Response Plans (GRP) that will describe environmentally

sensitive areas, priorities for emergency responses, and type of deployment and equipment. Enbridge will engage stakeholders to help determine the best location for the GRPs and aid in the creation of an effective spill management plan. This appears to be a good start as it combines the expertise of the residents of significant and sensitive areas and also engages them in a process towards the best solution for their interests. However, because high consequence areas have not been identified within the EIA, and effectiveness of remediation measures has not been compiled, CERI can make no comment on the reasonableness and acceptableness of such high-level overviews. Detailed documentation of these areas, assessment of priorities, along with effectiveness of remediation of these techniques and management of waste is needed to compliment the technological and safety preventative

measures. Despite the above mentioned comments, Enbridge has begun some work on determining high consequence areas and sites for oil spill response. These can be found in the following technical data reports: “Coastal Operations and Sensitivity Mapping for the Confined Channel Assessment Area”, “River Control Points for Oil Spill Response”, “Properties and Fate of Hydrocarbons Associated with Hypothetical Spills at the Marine Terminal and in the Confined Channel Assessment Area” and “Risk Assessment of Hypothetical Spill Examples at the Kitimat Terminal and in Wright Sound”. With the aforementioned limitations and reports addressed, CERI draws the reader’s attention to the following characteristics of some of the proposed remediation techniques:

i) Containment booms: Containment works best if the speed at which the boom is moving against the current of the water does not exceed the critical velocity of the boom’s ability to contain the oil, the critical velocity typically being 0.5 m/s at the apex of a U-shaped boom (Containment on water, 2000). For areas where the current does exceed 0.5 m/s, booms can be placed at deflection angles to prevent spillage, or in the case of a wide and fast-flowing river, have multiple booms cascading (Containment on water, 2000). Figure 1 is an example of the current of a river flowing too fast to allow containment by booms.


February 2012

Figure 1: Example of a Containment Boom Failure

Source: Containment on water, 2000

Enbridge has generated a document that identifies “river control points” for identifying spill response plans. These plans include “tactics sheets” for detailed information of first responders. An example of the tactic sheet is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Example of Part of an Emergency Response Tactics Sheet for First Responders of an Oil Spill

Source: (Enbridge Northern Gateway Technical Data Reports) Note: Enbridge has shown the appropriate cascading containment boom as is recommended for oil spill clean-up of fast-flowing wide rivers


February 2012

ii) Spills on Land: The Basics of Oil Spills book (Oil Spills on Land, 2000) provides a table of acceptable clean-up methods as shown in the following Table. All of Enbridge’s proposed methods are acceptable and appropriateness would need to be determined by a more in-depth analysis.

iii) Wetlands: Allowing natural recovery is an acceptable method for sensitive habitats such as wetlands after excess oil has been removed from the sites. As mentioned previously, sometimes remediation can create more damage than mitigation. This is especially true for wetlands, where root systems are highly interconnected. Dredging and vehicular traffic can result in recovery periods of several years to decades (Oil Spills on Land, 2000). Enbridge’s use of planks will help alleviate this.

Finally, as stated above, while most of the mitigation techniques appear reasonable, a more comprehensive assessment of risk and of effectiveness of mitigation and remediation is

required.

There are several high-risk areas, including the Kitimat estuary and channel, tributaries of Gosnell Creek, areas around Waskahigan, and possibly the roadless section around the Alberta-BC border. Of these areas, the Kitimat estuary and Gosnell Creek are considered important on several levels: one reason is the important recreational/ecotourism value; another is the presence of species whose disappearance may not necessarily be filled in by other species within the watershed – in the case of the Kitimat estuary/Douglas channel, there are numerous threatened species of birds and plants (some of which are red-listed).21 Waskahigan and the roadless section are identified because of the resident caribou and grizzly bear populations.

Near the Waskahigan River is the Little Smoky Caribou Herd, which is at risk of extirpation since

21

Species which are usually considered to be extirpated, or endangered.


February 2012

habitat fragmentation is a serious factor contributing to the decline of woodland caribou. Moreover, the area is already fragmented, and although the pipeline plans to follow an existing right-of-way, it is possible that at this stage even minor alterations (such as a pipeline ROW) may result in the demise of this herd.

Case studies such as the Arrow spill of 1970 show the importance of a quick spill response that immediately contains the oil and removes it before significant weathering occurs. This is even more important in the winter, when highly viscous oil creates even more clean-up difficulty. Containment booms are an effective means of controlling the oil, but if waters are turbulent, they may not be effective at all. However, because Kitimat is well inland of open-seas, no

serious waves or winds should be expected in this area. This should aid in clean-up processes and should not create emulsification/spreading which would seriously hinder any burning or skimming attempts. Enbridge has also stated that it has a marine recovery capacity of 36,000 m3 (Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines, 2011). Despite all of this, the Kitimat estuary, Douglas Channel, and Queen Charlotte Islands are highly biodiverse, so the setting up of exclusion zones for all sensitive areas may be challenging. Furthermore, the rocky-shoreline along much of the western coast may cause oil to seep into cracks and become a long-term problem that will require a long-term follow up procedure. Enbridge has identified high consequence areas in their “Coastal Operations and Sensitivity Mapping for the Confined Channel Assessment Area”. The conclusions of this report show that there are areas that map

retain oil for months to years due to the nature of the shoreline. The “Risk Assessment of Spills” report expects the chronic effects of condensate to be minor and short-lived due to the non-persistent nature of condensate, which is consistent with above mentioned properties of lighter hydrocarbons. The intertidal zone is expected recover within 2 years of a condensate spill. Bitumen is expected to have more of an impact due to the heavy and tarry residues that may become stranded on shorelines (as shown by Arrow). While the report says that expected recovery would be approximately two years for intertidal regions (pp. 51), CERI is unable to confirm the 2 year interval and the true recovery time may be longer or shorter due to the fact that the recurrent nature of oil on rocky short-lines may prevent re-colonization of damaged

habitat. Again depending on the dispersion characteristics of the system (i.e. exposed turbulent

action versus sheltered), recovery may be rapid or long-term (decades)22.

Lastly, due to the remoteness of some areas of the pipe, it is possible that inland response spills will be difficult to clean up and remediate before serious complications (i.e., emulsifications, entrapment in ice, etc.) begin to arise.

Other Critiques Stella Swanson critiqued the whole process of cumulative impacts assessment (CIA) and risk assessment through a letter released by the Dogwood Initiative to the Joint Review Panel. For CIA, she argues of the inadequacy of reviewing the impacts one key indicator at a time (i.e., 22

For further examples of recovery after oil spills and effectiveness of spill remediation techniques, the reader is encouraged to look at Harwell & Gentile (2006) “Ecological Significant of Residual Exposures and Effects from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill” Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 2: 204-246; and Kingston (2002) “Long-term environmental impact of oil spills” Spill Science and Technology Bulletin 7: 53-61.


February 2012

incremental), rather than an integrated approach to the effects of all activity on a valued ecosystem component (VEC). Consequently, Swanson believes the assessment does not look comprehensively at indirect and induced effects of activity as a result of this pipeline (i.e., increased vehicle traffic resulting in increased mortality risks and induced activity effects such as increased access for hunters and off-road activity).

In general, Swanson argues that while Enbridge talks of numerous mitigation strategies, “the confidence intervals of such cooperation” are moderate. Furthermore, she maintains that the report inadequately addresses the importance of certain features (i.e., wetlands) to the overall integrity of the system (i.e., wetlands’ role in hydrology, etc.) and claims that a minor

disturbance in some of these features may result in a drastic change to the environment. As a result, disturbances to significantly altered landscapes (beyond what she terms an acceptable threshold) may be reported as minor when in fact they could be significant (i.e., the incremental disturbance results in extirpation of a species). Swanson expresses low confidence in mitigation efforts to reduce “mortality” and “fragmentation effects”; moreover, part of these cumulative effects would need to be expanded beyond local/regional aspects to consider national and global aspects (e.g., increases in oil sands production or use of the oil in Asia).

For the RA evaluation section, Swanson views it as inadequate for the inland assessment and basic for the marine assessment. The report states that there should be more research and discussion devoted towards the effectiveness of mitigation strategies and to the development

of a feedback system to further improve these strategies. In general, Swanson believes that risk has been confused with probability and that a more rigorous assessment of the presence of sensitive habitats, vulnerable species, and presence of stressors needs to be undertaken. Also, there is insufficient toxicity data on the compounds as well as characterization of naphthenic acids. In general, Swanson believes a more comprehensive strategy needs to be employed to determine the higher risk areas and that effective risk management plans need to be well established(Swanson, 2011).

Response to Environmental Concerns Addressed Previously All development will result in environmental alterations; to preserve naturally undeveloped

sites is in conflict with the need to provide jobs and extract resources for further processing. Without a strong background case developed with highlights of the environmentally sensitive areas, including landscape, freshwater indices, etc., it is difficult to assess whether this pipeline development will have temporary and manageable effects or unalterable effects (such as the extirpation of Caribou herds). However, to expect that no development should go forward is unreasonable. Nonetheless, all stakeholders must respect the regions’ stakeholder role in resource development since spills and unintended consequences are experienced in the region.

In terms of alteration to wildlife habitat, undoubtedly the construction of a 1,172 km pipeline will have an impact. Furthermore, spills will affect the quality of habitat nearby. However, there

is also a certain degree of resiliency and adaptability of species to co-exist to a certain degree with their environment. The only time a construction or oil spill will extinguish a species is if there exist no replenishment populations, or ability to reproduce that species. Otherwise, given


February 2012

enough time, species will recover so long as disturbances aren’t frequent and massive. Even so, it is always preferable to prevent spills and to institute very diligent planning to ensure minimization of habitat destruction as well as protection of all services provided by the ecosystems in question.

A major oil spill in the Kitimat estuary region may cause a high number of sea bird mortalities as well as marine mammal and fish deaths due to the abundance of species living there and the diversity of the habitat. However, there are controls in place to reduce the likelihood of widespread and catastrophic spillage of an oil tanker or within the oil pipeline. Even if such an event should occur, the habitat range of most species23 is vast enough that populations should

be able to recover in time. However, this recovery is likely to be slow given the nature of the climate and the difficulties in remediating rocky shore lines.

Concerns over the larger implications of the project (i.e., increased development, increased oil sands production, the appropriateness of Asian environmental standards and climate change) are not covered in this report.

Conclusions on the Environment Climate change and the pine beetle in certain areas are influencing the area traversed by the pipeline. This may increase the likelihood of forest fires but in comparison to the widespread regional effects of these events, the pipeline is unlikely to cause significant damage to the

environment. Construction activities will cause a deterioration of habitat, but this deterioration is short-lived and species will be able to recover. More work is needed to determine the most effective oil spill remediation strategy and to identify highly sensitive areas of the pipeline. CERI recognizes the various environmental concerns and does not hold a position for or against the pipeline. This is a matter for the Joint Review Panel that is now collecting the information required to render an informed decision.

23

There are exceptions with some endangered species and, as stated previously, no spill is preferable.


February 2012

First Nations Issues On December 1, 2011, BC First Nations declared in a press release that they have signed a declaration of opposition to any further pipeline expansion or tanker traffic within the province and along the coastline, “expanding First Nations opposition in western Canada to more than 130 Nations. These First Nations form an unbroken wall of opposition from the U.S. border to the Arctic Ocean...”24 The very next day, a Hereditary Chief of the Gitxsan nation, Elmer Derrick, announced he had reached an agreement with Enbridge Pipelines to allow the Northern Gateway pipeline to pass through Gitxsan traditional lands: “Over time we have established a relationship of trust with

Enbridge, we have examined and assessed the project, and we believe it can be built and operated safely.”25 Enbridge had also promised the Gitxsan a stake in the pipeline worth in excess of $7 million. Nevertheless, Derrick’s statement resulted in furious protest among the Gitxsan people; within days Derrick was fired as a negotiator. Another of the hereditary chiefs told the media, "It brings great embarrassment to us as Gitxsan to have Elmer Derrick ... along with Enbridge announce that they are in support of the pipeline."26 This controversy may well be a harbinger of things to come as Enbridge, the National Energy Board (NEB), and various Aboriginal groups along the proposed pipeline route consult and negotiate. Aboriginal law is not cast in stone, with much depending on the nation involved and

the context: “The interplay of legislation, custom and culture, the status of hereditary chiefs and tribal councils, and ongoing treaty negotiations all fold into the mix for determining who is the legal representative and has the right to enter into agreements on behalf of an Aboriginal people.”27 As Elmer Derrick was both an appointed negotiator and a Hereditary Chief, he may have believed he had the authority to act on this matter; other Hereditary Chiefs and members of the Gitxsan community felt differently. Enbridge also may have believed they had forged a deal with a legitimate community leader, but at the time of this writing, the leader seems to have lost his mandate and the deal appears to have evaporated. The Joint Review Panel for the Northern Gateway Pipeline, struck by the NEB and the Federal Minister of the Environment, has received more than 4,000 applicants to participate in the review. The Elmer Derrick

controversy can be considered the difficult beginning of a process that promises to be complex and lengthy.

24

“Oil Sands Export Ban: BC First Nations Unite to Declare Province-Wide Opposition to Crude Oil Pipeline and Tanker Expansion.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45510746/ns/business-press_releases/t/oil-sands-export-ban-bc-first-nations-unite-declare-province-wide-opposition-crude-oil-pipeline-tanker-expansion/ Canoils. 25

“Gitxsan Hereditary Chiefs Announce Support for Enbridge Northern Gateway Project: Derrick announces Gitxsan partnership with Enbridge” www.cftktv.com/News/Story.aspx?ID=1580819 26

“Enbridge deal causes dissent among Gitxsan.” www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/12/06/ bc-enbridge-pipeline-gitxsan.html 27

Fogarassy, T. and KayLynn Litton. “Consultation with Aboriginal Peoples: Impacts on the Petroleum Industry.” A presentation to the Annual Seminar of the Canadian Petroleum Law Foundation, 2003.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45510746/ns/business-press_releases/t/oil-sands-export-ban-bc-first-nations-unite-declare-province-wide-opposition-crude-oil-pipeline-tanker-expansion/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45510746/ns/business-press_releases/t/oil-sands-export-ban-bc-first-nations-unite-declare-province-wide-opposition-crude-oil-pipeline-tanker-expansion/

http://www.cftktv.com/News/Story.aspx?ID=1580819

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/12/06/%20bc-enbridge-pipeline-gitxsan.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/12/06/%20bc-enbridge-pipeline-gitxsan.html


February 2012

Figure 3: British Columbia First Nations Territories

Source: Globe & Mail

The Joint Review Panel and the Review Process The Joint Review Panel consists of three appointees: Sheila Leggat, the Panel Chair, who has been a member of the NEB since 2006; Hans Matthews, a professional Geologist and member of the Wahnapitae First Nation; Kenneth Bateman, a lawyer and member of the NEB since 2006.28 The process is required because of an act of legislation: “the Board, pursuant to the NEB Act, must hold a public hearing to consider *Enbridge’s+ application for the project and conduct an environmental assessment of the project”. Though much of the process is centred on the environment, as the previous section has demonstrated, there is also significant weight

placed on socio-economic issues, with specific attention paid to Aboriginal peoples’ concerns. Throughout the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s (CEAA) summary document concerning the joint review, emphasis is placed on Aboriginal consultation.29 That one of the three Joint Review Panel members is a member of a First Nations group further underscores the importance of Aboriginal involvement in the process. Following are the essential steps of the Joint Review Panel:

1. To review Enbridge’s application and determine if there is enough information to start the Joint Review Process. This was no formality. In January 2011, the panel told Enbridge to return to the drawing board and improve their application. The company complied and refiled in March.

2. Issue a Hearing Order which establishes the procedures for the review. This step was completed in May 2011.

3. Conduct public information sessions, explaining the process. These sessions were held at 11 locations throughout Alberta and British Columbia in June 2011.

4. Hold hearings. People may participate by filing a letter, providing oral statements, or becoming an intervenor. Intervenors are able to attend hearings, ask questions, and cross-examine witnesses. The first sets of hearings are scheduled for January through March 2012. Oral statements will be taken between November 2012 to March 2013.30

28

See the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s “Backgrounder” and related documents for more information. www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/document-eng.cfm?document=40561 29

“Agreement between the National Energy Board and the Minister of the Environment concerning the Joint Review of the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project” www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/documents/40851/40851E.pdf 30

http://vancouver.mediacoop.ca/story/northern-gateway-panel-releases-hearing-dates/9336

http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/document-eng.cfm?document=40561

http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/documents/40851/40851E.pdf

http://vancouver.mediacoop.ca/story/northern-gateway-panel-releases-hearing-dates/9336


February 2012

5. Deliver a report to the Minister of the Environment after the conclusion of the hearings. This report will provide “rationale, conclusions, and recommendations...including any mitigation measures and follow-up programs and a summary of any comments received from the public and Aboriginal peoples...”31 The Joint Review Panel expects to render its decision by the end of 2013.

The situation in Northern British Columbia today resembles in many ways the situation in the Yukon and Northwest Territories over 30 years ago when the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline project was first under consideration. Justice Thomas Berger was commissioned by the Federal Government to conduct a feasibility study of gas pipelines running through two corridors in

Canada’s far north. The first corridor was proposed to begin at Prudhoe Bay in Alaska and cross the northern Yukon to the MacKenzie Delta. From there, Canadian gas would enter the system and be shipped south through a corridor following the Mackenzie River valley to Northern Alberta. At the time, Justice Berger realized that this would only be the start of things, that further oil and gas pipelines would also be built along those corridors, and this industrial activity would be a force to open up the north.32 Indeed, as oil sands production expands over the years, there will be pressure to build more pipelines to the west coast and elsewhere; with the pipelines will come roads and other infrastructure. Inevitably, a development corridor from Edmonton to Kitimat will result. The Enbridge Gateway, if approved, will be the first project in a new era of development in Northern BC.

The Berger Commission served as a model for later energy infrastructure project studies. Justice Berger, as a figure, was respected by all involved in the process: an established lawyer and judge, he had been involved in human rights issues throughout his career. He was a former leader of the BC provincial NDP, appointed to head the commission by a Liberal Federal Government; he therefore had support from two of Canada’s three main political parties. He also earned quickly the respect of Aboriginal communities by deciding to hold hearings in 35 different northern towns, something that had never been done before. He ensured federal funding was available to all environmental groups and Aboriginal people that wished to participate in the hearings but could not afford to attend; this was also a first. Through these efforts, Justice Berger succeeded in establishing an air of impartiality around the proceedings.

It is clear that much of what worked for the Berger Commission is being adapted for the Northern Gateway review: to mitigate the possibility of a certain point of view dominating proceedings, the panel is comprised of the two civil servants and the Aboriginal representative. There is a “Regular Funding Envelope” that enables the public and NGOs to participate in the review process and a separate “Aboriginal Funding Envelope” to facilitate First Nations input. And public hearings will be held in various communities that will be affected by the pipeline.

31

“Agreement” p. 7. 32

Berger, Thomas R. Northern Frontier Northern Homeland. The Report of the MacKenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry: Volume One. ix. 1977. http://caid.ca/BergerV1let.pdf

http://caid.ca/BergerV1let.pdf


February 2012

Aboriginal Land Claims There is one contentious matter, however, that will need to be dealt with in one way or another: Aboriginal land claims. Justice Berger states that up to the time of his commission, Aboriginal land claims were often not dealt with by the courts as seriously as they should have been; Aboriginal law itself was a very small part of the Canadian legal system a generation ago.33 However, Berger’s experience led him to conclude Dene land claims in the MacKenzie Valley needed to be settled before the start of pipeline construction.34 Today, in British Columbia along the proposed pipeline route, there are many conflicting, unresolved land claims. A well-defined settlement, or a series of well-defined settlements, would be in the best long-term interests of all parties.

Figure 4: Aboriginal Rights Spectrum

Source: Adapted from Fogarassy & Litton

The laws on Aboriginal rights in Canada have evolved from a basic acknowledgement that First Nations hold the right to hunt, fish, and trap. Now, cultural and social rights are recognized. Figure 4 above illustrates the spectrum of Aboriginal rights that are today identified by Canadian law; it is notable that land and degree of relationship to land forms the basis of

Aboriginal rights. On the one side of the spectrum are rights unrelated to land; in the middle

are rights specific to a certain area of land, and on the opposite side are Aboriginal title rights, which are a kind of unique form of ownership. Where land in most jurisdictions, especially Commonwealth nations, is based on the Torrens system of title – i.e., land title that is formally registered and recognized by the state – Aboriginal title “arises from pre-sovereignty occupation of lands and not from Crown grant.”35 In essence, Aboriginal title is recognition that the First Nations have held the land since time immemorial. Does this recognition grant to

33

"Mr. Justice Berger". Ideas. CBC Radio 1. December 8, 2011. www.cbc.ca/video/news/audioplayer.html?clipid=1621217574 34

To date, land claim settlements have been made with three of the four communities in the Mackenzie Valley area – the Sahtu, Gwich’in, and Inuvialuit. There is still one group, the Dehcho, that has not settled, indicating how complicated and lengthy settlement negotiation can be. 35

Fogarassy et al. 9.

http://www.cbc.ca/video/news/audioplayer.html?clipid=1621217574


February 2012

Aboriginal peoples absolute control over the land? Recent Supreme Court decisions indicate that final say on these matters rests with the Crown.

Powers of the Crown and Industry to Infringe on Aboriginal Rights The Supreme Court has made several important rulings over the past 20 years concerning aboriginal rights and title. In the 1990 Sparrow case, the Court ruled that the government must show discretion in encroaching on aboriginal rights.

[Aboriginal] Rights that are recognized and affirmed are not absolute. Federal legislative powers continue, including, of course, the right to legislate with respect to Indians pursuant to s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. These powers must,

however, now be read together with s. 35(1). [Section 35 of the 1982 Canadian Constitution applies to aboriginal rights] In other words, federal power must be reconciled with federal duty and the best way to achieve that reconciliation is to demand the justification of any government regulation that infringes upon or denies aboriginal rights.36

In the past, consultation with Aboriginal peoples on energy and other major projects was the sole responsibility of the Crown, but several legal decisions over the past two decades have shifted much of the responsibility. Now corporations like Enbridge that wish to develop large energy infrastructure projects on Aboriginal lands are granted a far greater role in the

consultation process, and they may even hold discretion to infringe on Aboriginal rights:37 “Sparrow fashioned a “justificatory scheme” for Crown infringement of Aboriginal rights and title... the Crown (and now industry with the Haida decisions), depending on the size and scope of an interest granted or the impact of an activity, are [sic] permitted to infringe Aboriginal rights and title...”38 In the Delgamuukw case (1997) that followed Sparrow by several years, the Court more clearly stated that all Aboriginal rights exist “at the pleasure of the Crown, and could be extinguished by unilateral act”.39 Therefore, in certain circumstances, Aboriginal rights may also exist at the pleasure of a corporation.

Enbridge has a legal obligation to engage sincerely with the more than 50 communities that are

almost uniformly opposed to the construction and operation of the pipeline and port facilities. But, as noted above, the company may also be well within its legal right to push through with the project. An outcome of the Joint Review Panel favourable to Enbridge would further buttress the corporation’s position. Enbridge states on its website that it recognizes “aboriginal rights and title”.40 This is an important statement to make considering all that is at stake, and the large responsibility the company holds in the consultation process.

36

R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075 http://scc.lexum.org/en/1990/1990scr1-1075/1990scr1-1075.html 37

Fogarassy, Tony and KayLynn Litton. “Consultation with Aboriginal Peoples: Impacts on the Petroleum Industry”. A presentation to the Annual Seminar of the Canadian Petroleum Law Foundation. June 2003. 38

Fogarassy et al. 11-12. 39

Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010 http://scc.lexum.org/en/1997/1997scr3-1010/1997scr3-1010.html 40

http://www.northerngateway.ca/aboriginal-partnerships

http://scc.lexum.org/en/1990/1990scr1-1075/1990scr1-1075.html



http://www.northerngateway.ca/aboriginal-partnerships


February 2012

As the Joint Review Panel was being established, the Gitxaala nation (a community of 1,700 on Dolphin Island) notified the NEB of its intention “to raise a constitutional question in the JRP hearing process as to whether the issuance of a certificate under Section 52 of the National Energy Board Act for this proposed Project could be an unjustified infringement of Gitxaala’s constitutionally-protected Aboriginal rights”.41 In October 2010, the Chiefs of the British Columbia First Nations Summit emphasized in a communiqué that lack of appropriate consultation was taking place:

Last year, the First Nations Summit called on the federal government to negotiate with affected First Nations to create a decision-making process for the

Enbridge project that would respect their constitutionally-protected rights and title. The federal government ignored the demands of First Nations, and unilaterally designed and established its review process and Aboriginal consultation process for the pipeline. The “joint review panel” process that the government selected is not designed to respect First Nations’ rights or decision-making authority over their territories.42

Over the long-term, the First Nations are concerned about outcomes, but over the near term, they are more worried about the process; if First Nations establish control over their aboriginal rights, everything else will, presumably, fall into place.

Because the Chiefs felt that proper consultation was not occurring, they called “on the federal government not to proceed further or to approve the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline project without the free, prior and informed consent of the affected First Nations”. This idea of “free, prior, and informed consent“ is a central concept in the United Nations’ Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a document which the Government of Canada has signed. However, the Declaration is simply that, a declaration, and is not legally binding. In 2010, Enbridge CEO Pat Daniel informed shareholders that the company does not wish to acknowledge “free and prior consent” as a basis for negotiation because this would for all intents and purposes provide veto power to First Nations: “Providing a right of veto to an

individual or to a group that overrides a National Energy Board or federal government decision is something at this point that we can't support. If the conclusion of this country is that we are to grant that, then obviously Enbridge will follow that process”.43

41

Letter to the National Energy Board. Janes Freedman Kyle Law Corporation. August 10, 2010. 42

“First Nations Leadership says Ottawa must not Approve Enbridge Pipelines and Tankers.” http://www.fns.bc.ca/info/pr.htm 43

May 5, 2010 Annual Meeting of Enbridge Inc. Shareholders. http://www.enbridge.com/investorrelations/~/media/Site%20Documents/Investor%20Relations/Enbridge_2010AGM_transcript.ashx Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline: Community Opposition and Investment Risk. Forest Ethics, October 2010. http://www.forestethics.org/downloads/Enbr_investor_brief_oct2010_Final.pdf

http://www.fns.bc.ca/info/pr.htm

http://www.enbridge.com/investorrelations/~/media/Site%20Documents/Investor%20Relations/Enbridge_2010AGM_transcript.ashx

http://www.enbridge.com/investorrelations/~/media/Site%20Documents/Investor%20Relations/Enbridge_2010AGM_transcript.ashx

http://www.forestethics.org/downloads/Enbr_investor_brief_oct2010_Final.pdf


February 2012

Conclusions on First Nations Issues Famously, testifying before the Berger commission, a Dene chief said to a pipeline company president: “You have come to destroy the Dene nation... you are coming to destroy a people that have a history of thirty thousand years. Why? For twenty years of gas?” He then asked: “Are you really that insane?”44 This striking statement summarizes the passion with which many First Nations regard their culture and their tradition of being custodians of the land. Some communities have signed protocol agreements to negotiate with Enbridge, but with the exception of Elmer Derrick of the Gitxsan, none has yet agreed to support the project. The promises of equity in the pipeline have not been enough, nor have assurances from Enbridge that they will construct and operate the pipeline according to the highest safety and

environmental standards. Not even a Joint Review Panel with First Nations representation has allayed aboriginal concerns. When considered over the long course of Aboriginal history, a crude oil pipeline built for 21st century societal benefit appears to be a short-term financial windfall with potentially long-term ill effects on the landscape, flora, fauna, and First Nations communities. First Nations require their Aboriginal rights to be clarified and strengthened if they are to have a greater say in the Enbridge Gateway Pipeline project and other similar undertakings. As things stand today, they are in a precarious legal position. That explains why First Nations across the province, not just those communities directly affected by the pipeline or tanker traffic, are

uniting in opposition. The Joint Review Panel may not be the ideal process for many Aboriginal representatives, but with 4,000 people preparing to testify before the Panel, this is the forum through which voices will be heard and hopefully some clarity about the project can be discovered. The Panel will not conclude its work until 2013 at the earliest; solutions satisfying all stakeholders in the project will hopefully follow.

44

Cizek, Petr. “Northern Pipe Dreams, Northern Nightmares: The Second Coming of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline”, Canadian Dimension. March 3, 2005. http://canadiandimension.com/articles/1930

http://canadiandimension.com/articles/1930


February 2012


February 2012

Appendix A: Background Information Enbridge background information and the pipeline description may be found at their website, http://www.northerngateway.ca.

Background on British Columbia’s Ecology and History:

Biogeoclimatic Zones The major biogeoclimatic zones that the Gateway pipeline passes through are the Engleman spruce – Sub-alpine fir, Sub-boreal spruce, Sub-boreal pine – spruce, mountain hemlock,

coastal-western hemlock(Meidinger & Pojar, 1991).

For a more complete description of these zones please see Ecosystems of British Columbia(Meidinger & Pojar, 1991). For biodiversity the reader is encouraged to look at Wildlife Diversity in British Columbia: Distribution and Habitat Use of Amphibians, Birds and Mammals in Biogeoclimatic Zones by the B.C. Ministry of Forests.

Forests Approximately 55 million hectares of B.C.’s 95 million hectares are forested. Within these forests is a diverse range of flora and fauna. Most of B.C.’s trees are conifers (lodgepole pine, spruce, true fir, hemlock and douglas fir). Of the forested land approximately 23 million

hectares is old-growth forest45 over 140 years of age. Most of these forests have not been converted to non-forest use and B.C. has a low annual rate of forest land conversion. Areas of conservation concern tend to be primarily centered in the warmer ecological zones in the southern part of the province where there has been a larger proportion of land converted to human uses (agriculture, reservoirs, urban expansion).

Approximately 1,345 species utilize these forests during some stage of their life cycle. Recently, the pine beetle has decimated unprecedented amounts within the interior of B.C. and the amount of forest fire incidents has increased. Both of these factors are thought to be due to climate change, as well these factors have recently made B.C.’s forest a source of GHG

emissions (40-60 Mt); however, it is expected that by 2020 B.C. will once again be a sink for carbon as revegetation efforts take hold (B.C. Ministry of Forests, Mines and Lands, 2010).

Coastal and Kitimat Water/Environmental Quality

Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA) The PNCIMA area is sparely populated accounting for only 3.3% of B.C.’s population in 2001. The coastline is predominantly fjords with shores that tend to be rocky and steep with beaches restricted to sheltered areas within estuaries. The straits and channels along the coast provide a variety of habitat. Estuarine circulation is a significant factor and results in the movement of

45

Old-growth forests tend to be important ecologically as they tend to have a large amount of biodiversity and are more capable of supporting several species due to the abundance of specialized habitats not found in young forests.

http://www.northerngateway.ca/


February 2012

warm brackish water away from the coast replaced by the upwelling cool, deep, and nutrient rich waters. There is wind and tidal mixing where the waters are shallow. Fisheries and Oceans Canada has identified 15 ecologically and biologically significant areas totalling 44.3% of the PNCIMA area.46 The variety of habitat as well as the consistent upwellings and tidal mixings allow the PNCIMA area to support a large diversity of marine life. Table A1 summarizes some of the species found in this area as reported by the DFO(Johannessen, Macdonald, Harris, & Ross, 2007).

Type Species Present

Rocky, Sandy Habitat Species Rockfish

Sculpins Lingcod Wolf Eel Prawns Crab Sole Many others

Fish Species Herring 7 Types of Salmonids Pollock

Marine Mammal Species Pacific white sided dolphin Dall’s porpoise Harbour seals Stellar sea lions Sea otters Transient Killer whale populations

Bird Species Ancient Murrelets Black Footed Albatross Black Footed Oystercatchers Puffins

Many many others

The area supports commercial fishing for salmon, invertebrates and groundfish, and recreational fishing for salmon, halibut, rockfish and lingcod. Recreational value is high in this area for boating, scuba diving, wildlife viewing, camping, fishing and hunting opportunities. There are also numerous fish and shellfish farms along the coast (Johannessen et al., 2007).

Numerous ships pass through with the majority of them being passenger ships. A more complete reference of the total ship passage and type may be found at the B.C. Ministry of the Environment, the Canadian Coast Guard and the Department of Oceans and Fisheries.

46

Based on five dimensions (uniqueness, aggregation, fitness consequences, naturalness, and resilience) and three physical categories (oceanographic features, bottleneck areas, sponge biotherms).


February 2012

Contaminants There are largely 3 sources of contamination: elevated concentrations of heavy metals from mining, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from smelting, and the global environmental problem of persistent organic pollutants (POPs). Of note is the use of persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBTs) compounds, Hg, and non-PBT pesticides, which while not favoured in many industrial countries continues to bioaccumulate and affect the health of organisms such as killer whales. PBT usage may be becoming restricted in Canada and the US but PBTs are still widely utilized in Asia and the prevailing winds ensure that contaminants released in Asia reach the PNICMA coastline in 5-8 days(Johannessen et al., 2007). So even though PNICMA is sparsely populated, POPs will probably continue to be a long-term, yet

largely unknown toxicological problem. Lastly, aquaculture may be of some pollutant concern due to the release of organic materials (fecal matter, waste-feed particles, etc.), and chemotherapeutics (antibiotics) (Johannessen et al., 2007).

Kitimat Kitimat river has an extensive fish migration and supports much primary and secondary recreation. Kitimat so far has a privately owned port serving the ALCAN aluminum smelter, the Eurocan paper mill, and the Methanex methanol plant (which may reopen but the ammonia plant remains closed). The aluminum smelter is the main source of PAH’s currently into the harbour and the Douglas Channel but impacts from contamination are not known (Johannessen

et al., 2007). Water in Kitimat is naturally turbulent and most discharges may be effectively diluted. The remaining pollutants may end up in the sediments where they are not bioavailable (Warrington, 1987).

Ecosystem Services and Environmental Security

Ecosystem Services Ecosystem services are goods and services from natural ecosystems that sustain and fulfil human life. They produce goods such as seafood, timber, biomass fuels, pharmaceuticals, etc, which may be harvested and traded as part of the economy. Furthermore, they produce services such as cleansing, recycling, and renewal that support and sustain life (Costanza et al.,

1997; Daily, 2003). Conventionally, ecosystem service valuation does not enter into mainstream policy or economic decision making as there is no universal methodology for defining the range and value of these services. Theoretically, because ecosystem services sustain all of earth’s life, and are the backbone of all primary resource extraction and land management, their value is infinite within the economy (Costanza et al., 1997). Constanza et al. have defined some of the global ecosystem services and their contribution (1997), which is summarized in Table A2.


February 2012

Table A2: Ecosystem Services and Functions as Defined by Constant et al. 2003

Ecosystem Service

Ecosystem Function Examples

Gas Regulation Regulation of the atmospheric chemical composition

Ozone for UVA/UVB protection. CO2 and O2 management.

Climate Regulation

Regulation of global precipitation, temperature and other biologically linked regional and local climate processes

Amazon rainforest generating moisture that affects global precipitation events. Dimethyl sulphide (DMS) production by ecosystems that affect temperature and cloud formation.

Disturbance Regulation

Integrity of ecosystem response to environmental fluctuations

Storm protection, flood control, drought protection and other responses due to control by vegetation.

Water regulation Regulation of hydrological flows Provisioning of water for agricultural or industrial processes

Water supply Storage and retention of water Provisioning of water by water sheds, reservoirs and aquifers

Erosion control and sediment retention

Retention of soil within the ecosystem

Prevention of loss of soil by wind or runoff. Storage of silt in lakes

Soil formation Soil formation processes Weathering of rocks, accumulation of organic content within the soil.

Nutrient recycling Storage, internal cycling and processing of nutrients

Nitrogen and phosphorous cycles.

Waste treatment Recovery of mobile nutrients, and removal of breakdown of excess compounds or nutrients.

Waste treatment, detoxification.

Pollination Movement of floral gametes Reproduction of plant populations

Biological Control Trophic-dynamic regulation of populations

Keystone predator control prey species. Control of the vast majority of agricultural pests.

Refugia Habitat for resident or transient populations

Nurseries, habitat for migratory species, regional habitats for locally harvested species, or overwintering grounds

Food Production Portion of gross primary production extractable for food

Production of fish, nuts, other dietary staples.

Raw Materials Portion of gross primary production extractable as raw materials.

Production of lumber

Genetic Resources Sources of unique biological materials and products

Medicines, products for material sciences, ornamental species

Recreation Opportunities for recreational activities

Eco-tourism, sport fishing

Cultural Non-commercial uses Aesthetic, artistic, educational, spiritual or scientific

Source: (Costanza et al., 1997)

Generally, ecosystem services are not recognized until there is a loss or disturbance to the system. For example: deforestation has elucidated the role of forests in the hydrological cycle, particularly in flood mitigation and erosion control; micro-organisms within the system often break down hazardous materials; depletion of the ozone layer increased awareness about the

value of its screening out harmful ultraviolet radiation. Lastly, substitute technology for


February 2012

ecosystem services tends to be quite costly (i.e., hydroponic systems to replace naturally fertile soils)(Daily, 2003).

B.C.’s forests in the future would be considered valuable for ecosystem services. As glaciers recede, forests will be considered higher value due to their ability to purify water, regulate and reserve water(B.C. Ministry of Forests, Mines and Lands, 2010).

Environmental Security Environmental security refers to a range of concerns and actions towards any adverse impacts of environmental change on mankind. It was borne out of the movement for sustainable development and environmental protection, in order to protect against adverse responses to a

scarcity of natural resources. In general environmental security can be defined as “protecting people from the short-term and long-term negative effects of nature, man-made threats in nature, and deterioration of the natural environment” pp. 6 (Barbu, Sand, & Oprean, 2006). This largely arises from the following (Barbu et al., 2006):

1) Concern about the adverse impact of uncontrolled development on the environment, of which the environment is seen as the most necessary asset to be inherited by future generations.

2) Concern about the direct and indirect effects of environmental change and its impacts on scarcity and degeneration, which in turn leads to national or regional conflict of resources.

3) Concern about the insecurity individuals may experience due to environmental changes such as water scarcity, climate change, and other natural disasters.

Ideally, environmental security provides individuals with access to high quality environmental goods and has mechanisms to diffuse potential conflicts amongst parties interested in the resource(Barbu et al., 2006).


February 2012


February 2012

Glossary Aromatics: Include at least one benzene ring. More volatile aromatics include toluene, and

xylene.

Benthic Species: Benthic communities are those that live at the bottom layer of a body of water near the sediments. They tend to be primarily composed of organisms that rely on dead and decaying matter and are typically oysters, clams, etc.

Bioavailability: The ability of a compound to become accessible to the organisms physiological

pathways.

Bioconcentration: Accumulation of a compound within an organism by any means.

Biomagnification: Dietary accumulation of a compound in a predator through the presence of that chemical in the prey.

Cycloalkanes: Part of the saturated group of hydrocarbons but each carbon is linked to each other in the form of a ring.

Keystone Species: A keystone species is one that has a large “presence” in the ecosystem.

These species play a critical role in the integrity of the ecosystem and should they be removed there is a dramatic shift in the functioning of the ecosystem. It is largely analogous to taking the keystone out of the arch, which causes the arch to collapse if removed.

Lethal Toxicity: Interference of toxic compounds to the cellular and sub-cellular process of organisms, especially membrane activities, which results directly to the organisms’ demise

Macrophytes: An aquatic plant that grows in or near water and is either submergent or floating

and provides oxygen and cover for various species.

Olefins (unsaturated hydrocarbons): Contains fewer than the maximum amount of hydrocarbons as defined in saturated hydrocarbons. They have at least one carbon-to-carbon double bond which displaces two hydrogen atoms. Typically these do not exist in abundance in nature and are primarily found in refineries and petrochemical plants.

Polar Compounds: Compounds that have a polar charge due to the bonding of such elements like sulphur, nitrogen and oxygen. Smaller polar compounds are resins and larger ones may be asphaltenes.

Polycyclic Aromatics: Compounds that have at least 2 benzene rings.


February 2012

Saturated Hydrocarbons: Consist primarily of alkanes, which are composed of hydrogen and carbon and have the maximum amount of hydrogens surrounding each carbon. Higher molecular weight compounds are primarily waxes.

Stomata (botony): Pores usually found in the on-leaf surfaces or the outer (epidermis) layer of a plant where gas exchange occurs.

Sub-Lethal Toxicity: Interference of the cellular and physiological processes of an organism and does not result in the direct/immediate death of the organism.

Unsaturated hydrocarbons: See Olefins.


February 2012

References

B.C. Ministry of Forests, Mines and Lands. (2010). The state of british columbia's forests. Victoria, B.C.: Forest Practices and Investment Branch.

Barbu, C., Sand, C., & Oprean, L. (2006). Introduction to environmental security. In R. N. Hull, C. Barbu & N. Goncharova (Eds.), Strategies to enhance environmental security in transition countries (pp. 3-12). Dordrecht: Springer.

Burger, A. E. (1993). Estimating the mortality of seabirds following oil spills: Effects of spill volume. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 26(3)

Burgher, P. (2007). In-depth analysis of accidental oil spills from tankers in the context of global spill trends from all sources. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 140(245), 256.

Carrier Sekani Tribal Council. (2006). Carrier sekani tribal council aboriginal interests & use study on the enbridge gateway pipeline: An assessment of the impacts of the proposed enbridge gateway pipeline on the carrier sekani first nations.

Clark, R. B. (1984). Impact of oil pollution on seabirds. Environmental Pollution (Series A), 33, 1-22.

(2000). Containment on water. In The basics of oil spill cleanup, second edition () CRC Press. doi:doi:10.1201/9781420032598.ch6

Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., . . . van den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world's ecosystem services and value capital. Nature, 387, 253-260.

Daily, G. C. (2003). What are ecosystem services? In D. E. Lorey (Ed.), Global environmental

challenges of the twnety-first century: Resources, consumption, and sustainable solutions (pp. 227-232). Wilmington: Scholarly Resources Inc.

Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines. (2011). Northern gateway pipeline inquiry

GESAMP. (1976). Review of harmful substances. No. No. 2). New York: United Nations.

GESAMP. (1993). Impact of oil and related chemicals on the marine environment. No. No. 50). London, UK: United Nations (International Maritime Organization).

Hanson, C. (2011). E-inquiry - RDIMS #6950657 - prairie and northern region - termpol guidelines inquiry


February 2012

Johannessen, D. I., Macdonald, J. S., Harris, K. A., & Ross, P. S. (2007). Marine environmental quality in the pacific north coast integrated management area (PNCIMA), british columbia, canada: A summary of contaminant sources, types, and risks. No. 2716). Sidney, B.C.: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Institute of Ocean Sciences.

Kingston, E., Smith, R., Harrison, P., & Holmes, N. (1998). The effects of chronic oil inputs to marine ecosystems. No. SPE 46708). Caracas, Venezuela: Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE).

Lemphers, N. (2010). Pipeline to nowhere? uncertainty and unanswered questions about the enbridge northern gateway pipeline. Drayton Valley, AB: The Pembina Institute.

Massoura, S. T., & Sommerville, M. (2009). Realities of spill response: Waste remediation strategies. No. SPE 123570). Jakarta, Indonesia: Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE).

McAllister, C., Meyer, P., Romaine, M., Schaefer, G., & Schouwenberg, B. (1978). Potential pacific coast oil ports: A comparative environmental risk analysis volume I. Vancouver, B.C.: Fisheries and Environment Canada.

McLean, A. Y. (1972). The behavior of oil spilled in a cold water environment. Houston, Texas. , Paper No. OTC 1522

Meidinger, D., & Pojar, J. (1991). Ecosystems of british columbia. Victoria, B.C.: B.C. Ministry of Forests.

Moore, S. F., & Dwyer, R. L. (1974). Effects of oil on marine organisms: A critical assessment of published data. Water Research, 8(10), 819-827. doi:DOI: 10.1016/0043-1354(74)90028-1

Ocean Studies Board and Marine Board. (2003). Oil in the sea III: Inputs, fates and effects. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council of the National Academics Press.

(2000). Oil Spills on Land. In The basics of oil spill cleanup, second edition () CRC Press. doi:doi:10.1201/9781420032598.ch12

Reid, S. M., Ade, F., & Metikosh, S. (2004). Sediment entrainment during pipeline water crossing construction: Predictive models and crossing method comparison. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science, 3(2), 81-88.

Reid, S. M., & Anderson, P. G. (1999). Effects of sediments released during open cut pipeline water crossings. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 24(3), 235-251.

Skuce, N. (2010). Enbridge northern gateway pipelines: Community opportunity and investment risk. Retrieved Aug/30, 2011, from http://www.forestethics.org/downloads/Enbr_investor_brief_oct2010_Final.pdf

http://www.forestethics.org/downloads/Enbr_investor_brief_oct2010_Final.pdf


February 2012

Swanson, S. (2011). Review of the cumulative effects assessment of the northern enbridge gateway.Dogwood Initiative/Swanson Environmental Strategies.

Thompson, A. R. (1978). West coast oil ports inquiry: Statement of proceedings. Vancouver, B.C.: West Coast Oil Ports Inquiry.

Warrington, P. D. (1987). Skeena-nass area lower kitimat river and kitimat arm: Water quality assessment and objectives technical appendix. Victoria, B.C.: B.C. Ministry of Environment and Parks.

Wernick, B. G., deBruyn, A. M. H., Patterson, L., & Chapman, P. M. (2009). Effects of an oil spill on the regrowth of emergent vegetation in a northern alberta lake. Archives of Environmental Toxicology, 57, 697-706.

Oil Spills and First Nations: Exploring Environmental and ... · xi) Very Large Crude Carrier...

Documents

Transcript of Oil Spills and First Nations: Exploring Environmental and ... · xi) Very Large Crude Carrier...