Guidance: “Need for”, “Purpose of”, “Alternatives to” and “Alternative means”

This guidance is part ofthe Practitioner's Guide to Federal Impact Assessments under the Impact Assessment Act

January 23 2020

PDF version - 842 kb

Table of contents

• Disclaimer
• 1. Purpose
• 2. Process Overview
• 3. Planning Phase Requirements
  • 3.1 Initial Project Description
    • Key Deliverable #1
    • Key Deliverable #2
  • 3.2 Summary of Issues
    • Key Deliverable #3
  • 3.3 Detailed Project Description
    • Key Deliverable #4
    • Key Deliverable #5
    • Key Deliverable #6
  • 3.4 Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines
• 4. Impact Statement Phase Requirements
  • Key Deliverable #7
  • Key Deliverable #8
• 5. Conclusion

Disclaimer

This document is for information purposes only. This document is not intended to fetter decision-makers. It is not intended to suggest that the Government can regulate matters of provincial jurisdiction. It is not a substitute for the Impact Assessment Act (the Act) or its regulations. In the event of an inconsistency between this document and the Act or its regulations, the Act and its regulations would prevail.

For the most up-to-date versions of the Act and regulations, please consult the Department of Justice website.

1. Purpose

The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to proponents when assessing the following four factors: the "need for", "purpose of", "alternatives to" and "alternative means" for a project.

This document is intended, in conjunction with other Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (the Agency) documents, to support proponents of designated projects in the planning of their project, and in the preparation of their project descriptions and Impact Statements. Following the submission of the Detailed Project Description, the Agency may also provide additional direction to the proponent with regard to these four factors in the Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines.

Further information on these factors, including definitions of key terms, is provided in the Policy Context: "Need for", "Purpose of", "Alternatives to" and "Alternative means". Proponents are encouraged to review this document prior to reading this guidance.

2. Process Overview

The alternatives analysis begins at the start of the Planning phase with the proponent’s submission of the Initial Project Description. The proponent submits information on the "need for" and "purpose of" the project from its perspective, and provides a list of potential "alternatives to" the project that it is considering or has considered that are technically and economically feasible and directly related to the project. It also provides a list of potential "alternative means" that it is considering that are technically and economically feasible, including the use of best available technologies (BATs). This information provides the necessary context for meaningful engagement and participation on alternatives in the Planning phase.

The proponent provides an updated description of the "need for" and "purpose of" the project and describes the potential "alternatives to" and "alternative means" under consideration in the Detailed Project Description. This information will be used to inform the Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines (TISG) and will allow the Agency to scope the alternatives assessment, as appropriate.

If required by the Agency in the TISG, the proponent submits an assessment of the "alternative means" of carrying out the project and "alternatives to" the project. The alternatives assessments are scalable as qualitative information may be deemed sufficient by the Agency for some alternatives, whereas detailed analyses may be required for the alternatives that address key issues, or have the most potential for avoiding/reducing adverse effects or increasing positive effects, or in the case where there is no clearly preferred alternative.

Information on alternatives that was considered by a proponent before the Planning phase may be brought forward to support the alternatives analysis. It is recommended that previous work on alternatives be presented by the proponent along with the methods used to identify and assess the alternatives as well as the input of Indigenous peoples, the public and other participants.

The approach and level of effort applied to the assessment of "alternative means" is established on a project-by-project basis taking into account five key considerations:

1. the description of the project components and activities;
2. the anticipated positive and adverse effects associated with the potential alternative means, taking into account the potential for mitigation;
3. the current status or vulnerability of valued components (VCs) that may be impacted by the alternative means;
4. the potential for alternative means to increase the positive effects of the project; and
5. the preferences and views expressed by Indigenous groups and the public.

For more information on the process overview, see section 3 of the Policy Context: "Need for", "Purpose of", Alternatives to" and "Alternative means".

3. Planning Phase Requirements

3.1 Initial Project Description

Key Deliverable #1

The proponent must describe the "need for" and "purpose of" the designated project as part of the Initial Project Description.

The description of the "purpose of" a project should include any objectives a proponent has in carrying out the project. Proponents are encouraged to consider the perspectives of relevant participants (i.e. public, Indigenous groups, governments) in establishing objectives that relate to the intended effect of a project on society. This may help ensure that the process is guided from the outset towards finding mutually beneficial alternatives.

Key Deliverable #2

The proponent must list potential "alternatives to" the project that it is considering that are technically and economically feasible and are directly related to the project, and the potential "alternative means" of carrying out the project that it is considering that are technically and economically feasible, including through the use of best available technologies, as part of the Initial Project Description.

The Initial Project Description must include a list of potential "alternatives to" the project and "alternative means" of carrying out the project. "Alternatives to" the project are functionally different ways to meet the "need for" a project and achieve its purpose that are technically and economically feasible. "Alternative means" are the various technically and economically feasible ways, including through the use of BATs, of carrying out the project.

Further information on "alternatives to" and "alternative means" is provided in the Policy Context: "Need for", "Purpose of", "Alternatives to" and "Alternative means". Proponents must identify any known BATs for the alternative means under consideration. BATs are the most effective technologies or techniques for mitigating adverse effects on people and the environment that are economically feasible to implement. Proponents of projects that have the potential for high greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will be directed to conduct a formal Best Available Technology/Best Environmental Practice (BAT/BEP) Determination for reducing GHG emissions.

The information included in the Initial Project Description provides the necessary context for Indigenous peoples, the public and other participants to support meaningful early engagement on alternatives. Participants may comment on the Initial Project Description and provide input for the Summary of Issues.

"Alternative means" of carrying out a project such as a nuclear reactor can include consideration of various options in alternative reactor technologies, cooling water technologies, site location, etc.

For example, a proponent could evaluate the alternative means of carrying out a transmission line project by assessing the various transmission line routes. Criteria used to assess each alternative could include their technical and economic feasibility, and environmental considerations such as avoiding environmentally sensitive areas, reducing habitat fragmentation, or avoiding or minimizing routing through unstable terrain.

3.2 Summary of Issues

Key Deliverable #3

The proponent must provide a response to the Summary of Issues, which may include issues raised related to "need for", "purpose of", "alternatives to" and "alternative means".

Following engagement on the Initial Project Description, the Agency will prepare a Summary of Issues that it considers relevant to the assessment, informed by input from Indigenous peoples, the public, other participants, other jurisdictions and the expertise of federal departments. For integrated assessments with lifecycle regulators, the Summary of Issues will be prepared collaboratively with the relevant lifecycle regulator. The Summary of Issues may identify issues of concern relating to the "need for", "purpose of", "alternatives to" or "alternative means".

3.3 Detailed Project Description

Key Deliverable #4

The proponent submits updated information on the "purpose of" and "need for" the project, including any potential benefits, according to any new information and input it has received.

A Detailed Project Description of the designated project, which provides more detailed information about the designated project and updates the information provided in the Initial Project Description, must be submitted in response to issues raised by provincial, territorial and Indigenous jurisdictions, Indigenous groups, the public, federal authorities and other participants during consultations and engagement.

Key Deliverable #5

The proponent provides a description of potential "alternatives to" the project that it is considering that are technically and economically feasible and directly related to the project.

The Agency recommends that the proponent follow the three steps below in providing the information relating to "alternatives to" required for the Detailed Project Description.

Step 1: Describe "alternatives to" the project that meet the project’s need and achieve its purpose that are under consideration by the proponent

Taking into account the input from Indigenous peoples, the public and other participants, proponents must describe the "alternatives to" the project that are under consideration. It is recommended that the "alternatives to" be described in sufficient detail to determine their technical and economic feasibility as well as their major advantages and disadvantages and must be directly related to a designated project. If there are no alternatives to a project that meet the project’s need and achieves its purpose, this must be documented in the Detailed Project Description, and the proponent would not be required to follow steps 2 and 3 below.

Step 2: Screen the "alternatives to" for those that are technically and economically feasible

Key Deliverable #6

The proponent must provide a description of the potential "alternative means" of carrying out the project that it is considering that are technically and economically feasible including through the use of BATs.

The Agency recommends that proponents follow the steps below in providing the information relating to "alternatives means" required for the Detailed Project Description.

Step 1: Describe "alternative means" that are under consideration by the proponent

Taking into account the input from Indigenous peoples, the public and other participants, a proponent must describe the "alternative means" that it is considering. It is recommended that the "alternative means" be described in sufficient detail to determine their technical and economic feasibility as well as their major advantages/and disadvantages.

Any additional BATs associated with the various components of a project that have been identified must also be listed and described. Proponents should demonstrate what sources were considered in identifying BATs.

Step 2: Screen the "alternative means" for those that are technically and economically feasible

It is recommended that proponents establish criteria to determine the economic and technical feasibility of the "alternative means". These criteria are intended to screen out "alternative means" that are not viable. It is recommended that the criteria be relevant to the project component under consideration and make it possible to reasonably conclude whether the alternative is either technically or economically feasible. Examples of technical criteria include: availability of energy sources, mode of operation, performance metrics, requirement for supporting infrastructure, inherent risks (e.g. safety), use of proven technology, and distance to main project site. Examples of economic criteria include: estimated costs (capital and operating), revenue, profit, and production forecasts.

Initially, a qualitative approach may be used to establish how the "alternative means" relates to the criteria, based on estimates and professional judgment. Thresholds or other quantitative decision-making tools may also be used, when available and relevant for specific criteria.A rationale is to be provided for alternatives that are screened out as not being either technically or economically feasible.

For example, a proponent proposing a mine identifies two alternative means for disposing of mine wastes as a result of field investigations: one west of the deposit and the other south of the deposit.

The proponent would describe each of these alternatives and then apply the previously established criteria to determine their technical and economic feasibility as shown in Table 1.

Table 1 – Example – Screening alternative waste rock and tailing management facility locations for technical and economic feasibility

Criteria	Alternative Means A – West of Deposit	Alternative Means B – South of Deposit
Ability to implement in study area	Sufficient area within project site. Entails the drainage of a waterbody occasionally used for fishing by community members.	Sufficient area within project site. Minimal overlap with aquatic habitat, which is not frequented by fish.
Ability to manage waste rock and tailings	The waste rock and tailings management facilities would use proven technologies for placement of waste rock and tailings in water bodies.	The waste rock and tailings management facilities would use proven technologies for dry land disposal of waste rock and tailings.
Technically Feasible?	Yes	Yes
Capital costs	Higher costs due to compensation for fish habitat loss.	Slightly lower costs since it does not require compensation, but requires engineering of tall, steep slopes within given space on dry land.
Operating costs	Lower costs due to shorter transportation distance.	Greater costs due to longer transportation distance.
Economically Feasible?	Yes	Yes

3.4 Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines

The Agency will use the information provided by the proponent, as well as other information gathered during the Planning phase, to inform the TISG. The TISG may provide additional direction to the proponent regarding requirements for describing the "need for", "purpose of", "alternatives to" and "alternative means" in the Impact Statement.

4. Impact Statement Phase Requirements

Key Deliverable #7

If required, the proponent must provide statements on the "purpose of" and "need for" the project as well as collect the necessary information and conduct the "alternatives to" assessment according to the Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines.

The proponent may be requested to provide information on the "purpose of" and "need for" the project in the Impact Statement.

If there are no "alternatives to" that meet the need for the project and achieve its purpose, or if "alternatives to" is not an issue of concern and the information provided in the Planning phase is deemed sufficient, the "alternatives to" factor may not be included in the TISG.

When further consideration of "alternatives to" is required in the TISG, the proponent will be directed to follow the following steps in assessing the alternatives to the project in the Impact Statement:

Step 1: Describe the no-action alternative

The no-action (null) alternative may serve as a benchmark for the assessment and comparison of a designated project and any alternatives to a project. It may also highlight the underlying need (or lack thereof) for a project as well as the advantages of carrying out a project. If required by the TISG, the description of the no-action alternative should note the baseline conditions of the VCs associated with the project, as well as changes to these baseline conditions that are likely to occur in the future if a project was not carried out (e.g. changes in result of other projects already planned for the region, changes to the socio-economic conditions, increased resource demand, etc.) In some cases, the description of the no-action alternative will entirely satisfy the requirement of assessing "alternatives to".

Step 2: Comparatively assess the potential effects of the technically and economically feasible "alternatives to" on VCs and other relevant parameters

The Agency may direct a proponent to include the adverse and positive environmental, health, social and economic effects on VCs and the technical and economic parameters of the alternatives when comparatively assessing the alternatives to a project. In addition, the Agency may direct proponents to include other parameters, such as community preference and impacts on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

Step 3: Identify the proponent’s preferred alternative to be the focus of the alternative means assessment

Key Deliverable #8

During the Impact Statement phase, proponents can consider new (or reconsider previously rejected) alternative means in response to newly obtained information. When conducting the alternative means assessment, the Agency may direct a proponent to follow the steps below.

Step 1: Comparatively assess the potential effects of the technically and economically feasible "alternative means" on VCs or any other relevant parameter

For each set of alternative means:

• identify potential adverse or positive effects that the alternative means have on VCs;
• develop explicit parameters to comparatively evaluate the alternative means based on adverse and positive effects and any other relevant factors (e.g. community preference, impacts on the rights of Indigenous peoples, etc.); and
• gather the necessary information and comparatively assess the alternative means.

Proponents may also be required to consider the views or information provided by Indigenous peoples, the public and other participants in establishing parameters to compare the alternative means. Depending on the context of each project, the TISG may require the proponent to apply Gender Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) to the analysis to describe the effects on diverse or vulnerable subgroups.

There are many valid approaches for comparatively evaluating alternative means. Qualitative analyses can often be applied to several project components without considerable commitments of resources. These types of analyses are most suitable when alternate means are well understood, differences in effects are clear, and one alternative outperforms the other. Proponents may base the analysis on information from baseline studies, professional judgement, reasoned argumentation, collaboration and consultation with stakeholders, or, ideally, a combination of these.

For example, in the environmental assessment for the Victor Diamond Mine Project, the proponent considered work scheduling alternatives. Four evaluation parameters were used to comparatively evaluate the alternative means using a qualitative approach:

Table 2 – Example – Evaluating work scheduling alternatives using a qualitative approach

Work Scheduling Alternatives	Assessment Parameters
	Cost-Effectiveness	Ability to Service the Site Effectively	Adverse effects to Environmental Conditions	Effects to the Socio-Economic Conditions
Three weeks at site, one week off site	Lowest flight frequency	Rest intervals not suited to long-term operation	Least disturbance	Difficult for workers and families
Two weeks at site, two weeks off site (preferred)	Lowest flight frequency	Balances change-overs and family life	Least disturbance	Increased family time
One week at site, one week off site	Not financially supportable	Change-overs disruptive to operations	No appreciable effect	Increased family time
Four days at site, three days off site	Not financially supportable	Change-overs disruptive to operations	No appreciable effect	Increased family time

Proponents may be directed to justify the selected approach to the comparative analysis and clearly document methods and results of the assessment. This may include a table comparing the alternative means, outlining the key VCs, the parameters used to measure the effects on the VCs, and qualitative or quantitative descriptions of the effects associated with each alternative.

Step 2: Identify the proponent’s preferred alternative to be the focus of the effects assessment

During the earlier stages of the Impact Statement phase, a proponent would select one or multiple preferred "alternatives to" that become the focus of the impact assessment. Multiple "alternative means" may be brought forward if a proponent remains undecided on its preferred alternative, or if a more detailed assessment of the alternatives is warranted.

In selecting preferred alternatives, a proponent provides a rationale for its selection of its preferred alternatives that describes how the positive and adverse environmental, health, social, and economic effects on VCs, as well as any of the other parameters used to compare the alternatives, including the project’s contributions to sustainability, were considered.

5. Conclusion

The key deliverables described in this document outline how to address the "need for", "purpose of", "alternatives to" and "alternative means" in the impact assessment process. The Agency or review panel, federal authorities, other jurisdictions, and other participants, as required, review the proponent’s Impact Statement to determine if the information received meet the requirements of the TISG. During the Impact Statement phase, additional information related to the "need for", "purpose of" and alternatives may be requested by the Agency. The resulting information provided is brought forward into the Impact Assessment phase. For more information, see the Policy Context: "Need for", "Purpose of", "Alternatives to", and "Alternative means".