UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The environmental assessment and review process : an analysis of the screening phase Holisko, Gary John 1980

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1980_A8 H64_5.pdf [ 7.54MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094783.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094783-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094783-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094783-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094783-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094783-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094783-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094783-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094783.ris

Full Text

THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW PROCESS: AN ANALYSIS OF THE SCREENING PHASE by GARY JOHN HOLISKO B.A. (Honours) Simon Fraser U n i v e r s i t y , 1978 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES School of Community and Regional Planning We accept t h i s thesis as conforming William E. Rees, Associate Professor, School of Community and Regional Planning, and I n s t i t u t e of Animal Resource Ecology I r v i n g K. Fox, Professor, School of Community and Regional Planning, and Researcher, Westwater Research I n s t i t u t e THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA MASTER OF ARTS \ i n to the required standard October 1980 John Holisko, 1980 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Brit ish Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Sc\**J f j Cor^r^o^\¥^ *^*C l e y > ^ PU-wnm^ The University of Brit ish Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 i i ABSTRACT This thesis examines the procedures for screening of environmentally significant projects under the federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP). The EARP screening process refers to the procedures employed by individual departments and agencies to examine proposed activities within their control to determine whether they are likely to have significant en-vironmental effects. I define an "optimal" screening process based on several normative criteria, test the effectiveness of the existing procedures in four federal government departments against these criteria, and suggest means of improving the process. Because the government agencies and their Ministers are theo-retically accountable to Canadians, criteria for assessment are derived from both common sense and democratic principles. Methods used in the thesis follow the traditional social science mould: 1) literature review and background research into impact assessment including a review of the U.S. process, EARP, and the screening mechanism in particular. 2) brief review of literature to provide a rationale and theoretical framework for the evaluation criteria. 3) interviews and correspondence with persons associated with the screening process in order to get first-hand documentation of departmental operations in screening. 4) content analysis of eight case studies from the files of the four selected agencies. The results of the analysis of the screening phase of EARP indicate a number of deficiencies. The following summarizes my findings: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources (EMR) only instituted its screening process in mid-1979, six years after the implementation of EARP. I examined two projects selected for this purpose by EMR, and found i i i them to be non-systematic, with no formal decision c r i t e r i a or guarantee of public consultation. In the Department of Public Works (DPW) Marine Engineering Program ( P a c i f i c region) the so-called screening process was s i m i l a r l y judged i n -adequate i n the case of two projects selected by DPW for review by t h i s study. A t h i r d project was also examined because i t had a c t u a l l y been referred to the formal assessment phase of EARP. However, there was no f i l e documentation i n d i c a t i n g any screening of projects other than routine r e f e r r a l to environ-mental protection agencies for t h e i r comments. This lack of a formally documented screening process was s u r p r i s i n g given the d e t a i l e d guidelines for screening s p e c i f i e d by the Environmental Analysis D i v i s i o n at DPW headquarters i n Ottawa. The screening process i n the Department of Indian and Northern A f f a i r s (DINA) (Northern A f f a i r s Program) was p a r t i c u l a r l y d i f f i c u l t to ana-lyse. Only one example of screening was a v a i l a b l e with documentation and i t was found to be d e f i c i e n t i n almost every respect. Moreover, DINA allowed t h i s project to proceed against the recommendations of the two committees used for screening and i n the absence of any stated p o l i c y r a t i o n a l e . The screening process i n the M i n i s t r y of Transport (MOT) Canadian A i r Transportation Administration ( P a c i f i c Region) met more of the t h e s i s assessment c r i t e r i a than any of the other departments assessed. Five projects, of which two were examined i n d e t a i l , were selected for study i n consultation with MOT o f f i c i a l s i n Ottawa and Vancouver. There i s a formal systematic screening process with c r i t e r i a to i d e n t i f y p o t e n t i a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t projects. The process su f f e r s from several d e f i c i e n c i e s , the p r i n c i p a l one being the l i m i t e d standards for screening decisions. The p r i n c i p a l c r i t e r i o n for further environmental assessment i s public controversy, yet there i s no iv effective means of ensuring that the public has any involvement in the screen-ing process. Documentation of environmental effects in the Initial Environ-mental Evaluation was judged inadequate. The role of the Department of the Environment (DOE) (other than FEARO) in the EARP screening process was briefly examined. At present, DOE participation is passive, depending on other government agencies to voluntarily refer projects for DOE's comments and advice. There also appears to be some confusion over the role of DOE as an initiator or proponent in referring projects to the formal assessment phase. This analysis indicates that major changes to departmental screen-ing procedures are necessary. Recommendations for improving the screening process include: development and implementation of systematic screening pro-cedures with rigorous standards for application; development of practical decision criteria to determine project significance; ensuring opportunity for public participation; and making the process "open" by ensuring adequate information for making screening decisions and by providing f u l l access to al l relevant documentation to concerned parties. W. E. Rees, Thesis Supervisor V SOMMAIRE C e t t e t h e s e e t u d i e l e s p r o c e d u r e s d'examen p r e a l a b l e de p r o j e t s q u i ont un e f f e t s i g n i f i c a t i f s ur 1 1 e n v i r o n n e m e n t dans l e c a d r e du P r o c e s s u s f e d e r a l d ' E v a l u a t i o n e t d'Examen en m a t i e r e d 1 E n v i r o n n e m e n t (PEEE). Le p r o c e s s u s d'examen p r e a l a b l e du PEEE se r e f i n e aux p r o c e d u r e s u t i l i s i e r par l e s departements i n d i v i d u e l s e t agences qu' examinent l e s a c t i v i t e s proposes e t r e l e v a n t de l e u r c o n t r S l e a f i n de d e t e r m i n e r 1 ' e v e n t u a l i t e " de l e u r e f f e t s i g n i f i c a t i f sur 1'environnement. J e d e f i n i s un p r o c e s s u s " o p t i m a l " d'examen p r e a l a b l e s ur base de p l u s i e u r s c r i t e r e s n o r m a t i f s , j e t e s t e l ' e f f i c a c i t e des p r o c e d u r e s e x i s t a n t e s j e suggere l e s moyens d ' a m e l i o r e r c e p r o c e s s u s . C ' e s t p a r c e que l e s agences gouvernementales e t l e u r s M i n i s t r e s s o n t t h e o r i q u e m e n t r e s p o n s a b l e s e n v e r s l e p e u p l e Canadien que l e s c r i t e r e s d ' e v a l u a t i o n s o n t d e r i v e s a l a f o i s du sens commun e t des p r i n c i p e s d e m o c r a t i q u e s . Les methodes u t i l i s e e s dans c e t t e t h e s e s u i v e n t l e moule t r a d i t i o n n e l des s c i e n c e s s o c i a l e s : 1) Revue de l a l i t t e r a t u r e e t r e c h e r c h e de fond s ur 1 ' e v a l u a t i o n des im p a c t s , y compris une revue du p r o c e s s u s aux E t a t s - U n i s , du PEEE e t en p a r t i c u l i e r des mecanismes d'examen p r e a l a b l e . 2) Breve r e v u e de l a l i t t e r a t u r e en vue d ' e t a b l i r un c a d r e r a t i o n n e l e t t h e o r i q u e pour l e s c r i t e r e s d ' e v a l u a t i o n . 3) E n t r e t i e n s e t c o r r e s p o n d a n c e avec l e s personnes a s s o c i e e s au p r o c e s s u s d'examen p r e a l a b l e en vue d ' o b t e n i r une documentation de p r e m i e r e main sur l e s o p e r a t i o n s d e p a r t e m e n t a l e s d'examen p r g a l a b l e . 4) A n a l y s e de contenu de h u i t c as a p a r t i r des d o s s i e r s de q u a t r e agences s e l e c t i o n n e e s . Les r e s u l t a t s de 1 ' a n a l y s e de l a phase d'examen p r e a l a b l e du PEEE i n d i q u e n t un c e r t a i n nombre d ' i m p e r f e c t i o n s . Mes c o n c l u s i o n s s o n t rgsumees c i - a p r e s : vi Le Departement de T e n e r g i e . , des Mines e t Resources (DEMR) a i n s t i t u e son p r o c e s s u s d'examen p r e a l a b l e au c o u r s de 1'annee 1979 seulement, s o i t s i x ans a p r e s l a mise en oeuvre du PEEE. Ayant examine deux p r o j e t s s e l e c t i o n n e s a c e t t e i n t e n t i o n par l e DEMR, j e l e s a i t r o u v e s non-s y s t e m a t i q u e s , sans c r i t e r e de d e c i s i o n f o r m e l l e n i g a r a n t i e de c o n s u l t a t i o n pub!ique. Dans l e Departement des Travaux P u b l i c s (DTP), Programme de Genie M a r i t i m e (Region P a c i f i q u e ) , l e p r o c e s s u s d'examen p r e a l a b l e a egalement e t e j u g e i n a d e q u a t dans l e cas de deux p r o j e t s qui a v a i e n t e t e s e l e c t i o n n e s par l e DTP a 1 ' i n t e n t i o n de c e t t e etude. Un t r o i s i e m e p r o j e t a a u s s i e t e examine p a r c e q u ' i l a v a i t e t e en f a i t renvoye a l a phase d ' e v a l u a t i o n du PEEE. Cependant i l ne c o n t e n a i t , pour t o u t e documentation i n d i q u a n t un p r o c e s s u s d'examen p r e a l a b l e des p r o j e t s , qu'un r e n v o i de r o u t i n e pour commentaires aux agences de p r o t e c t i o n de 1'environnement. Ce manque de p r o c e s s u s d'examen p r e a l a b l e f o r m e l l e m e n t documents e t a i t s u r p r e n a n t , e t a n t donnees l e s d i r e c t i v e s d e t a i l l e e s c o n c e r n a n t l'examen p r e a l a b l e s p e c i f i e r s par l a D i v i s i o n d ' A n a l y s e de 1 1 E n v i r o n n e m e n t au S i e g e du DTP a Ottawa. Le p r o c e s s u s d'examen p r e a l a b l e dans l e Departement des A f f a i r e s Indiennes e t du Nord (DAIN) (Programme des A f f a i r e s du Nord) a e t e p a r t i c u l i e r e m e n t d i f f i c i l e a a n a l y s e r . Un s e u l exemple d'examen p r e a l a b l e e t a i t d i s p o n i b l e avec l a documentation e t i l a e t e j u g e i n a d e q u a t dans presque tous l e s domaines. De p l u s l e DAIN a permis a ce p r o j e t d ' a l l e r de l ' a v a n t , malgre l e s recommendations de deux c o m i t e s c h a r g e s de l'examen p r S a l a b l e e t en 1'absence de t o u t e p o l i t i q u e r a t i o n n e l l e e t a b l i e . Le p r o c e s s u s d'examen p r e a l a b l e dans l e M i n i s t S r e des T r a n s p o r t s (MDT) A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Canadienne des T r a n s p o r t s A e r i e n s (Region du Paci'fique) a r e n c o n t r e . p l u s . d e ' - c r i t e r e s d e - b a s e n d e . c e t t e t h e s e ^ u i v i i aucun a u t r e departement examine. C i n q p r o j e t s , d o n t deux examines en d e t a i l , o n t e t e s e l e c t i o n n e s pour examen en c o n s u l t a t i o n avec l e s r e s p o n s a b l e s du MDT a Ottawa e t Vancouver. II y a un p r o c e s s u s f o r m e l d'examen s y s t e m a t i q u e p r e a l a b l e c o n t e n a n t des c r i t e r e s pour i d e n t i f i e r l e s p r o j e t s p o t e n t i e l l e m e n t s i g n i f i c a t i f s . Le p r o c e s s u s s o u f f r e de p l u s i e u r s l a c u n e s , l a p r i n c i p a l e e t a n t l e manque de bases pour l e s d e c i s i o n s d'examen p r e a l a b l e . Le c r i t e r e p r i n c i p a l pour une E v a l u a t i o n u l t e r i e u r e de 1 1 e n v i r o n n e m e n t e s t l a polemique p u b l i q u e , e t p o u r t a n t i l n'y a aucun moyen e f f e c t i f de s ' a s s u r e r que l e p u b l i c s o i t i m p l i q u e dans l e p r o c e s s u s d'examen p r g a l a b l e . La documentation s u r l e s e f f e t s s u r 1'environnement dans 1 ' E v a l u a t i o n I n i t i a l e de 1'Environnement a e t e j u g e e i n a d e q u a t e . Le r61e du Departement de 1'Environnement (DDE) ( a u t r e que BFEEE) dans l e p r o c e s s u s d'examen p r g a l a b l e du PEEE a gte" brievement examine. Pour 1 ' i n s t a n t , l a p a r t i c i p a t i o n du DDE e s t p a s s i v e ; e l l e dgpend d ' a u t r e s agences gouvernementales pour r e n v o i v o l o n t a i r e de p r o j e t s au DDE dans l e but q u ' i l f a s s e ses commentaires e t donne son a v i s . II y a a u s s i c o n f u s i o n au s u j e t du r61e du DDE comme i n i t i a t e u r dans l e r e n v o i des p r o j e t s a l a phase d ' e v a l u a t i o n f o r m e l l e . C e t t e a n a l y s e i n d i q u e que des changements majeurs dans l e s p r o c e d u r e s d e p a r t e m e n t a l e s d'examen p r e a l a b l e s o n t n e c e s s a i r e s . Les recommendations pour a m e l i o r e r l e p r o c e s s u s d'examen p r e a l a b l e comprennent: l e developpement e t l a mise en oeuvre des p r o c e d u r e s s y s t e m a t i q u e s d'examen p r e a l a b l e avec des bases r i g o u r e u s e s d ' a p p l i c a t i o n ; l e developpement de c r i t e r e s p r a t i q u e s de d e c i s i o n pour d e t e r m i n e r l a s i g n i f i c a t i o n d'un p r o j e t ; a s s u r e r l a p o s s i b i l i t e d'une p a r t i c i p a t i o n p u b l i q u e ; r e n d r e l e p r o c e s s u s " o u v e r t " en a s s u r a n t une i n f o r m a t i o n adequate pour l e s p r i s e s de d e c i s i o n d'examen p r e a l a b l e e t en p e r m e t t a n t l e p l e i n a c c e s de t o u t e d o cumentation u t i l e aux p a r t i e s c o n c e r n e e s . v i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract i i Sommaire v L i s t of Tables i x L i s t of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x L i s t of Acronyms and Abbreviations Used i n the Text x l I. Introduction 1 A. The Problem 1 B. The Canadian Environmental Impact Assessment Process. . . . 1 C. Defence and C r i t i c i s m of EARP 5 II . Environmental Impact Assessment: Comparison of the United States and Canada 7 A. Environment Impact Assessment i n the U.S 7 1. Origins 7 2. NEPA Screening 7 B. Comparison of U.S. Environmental Assessment with the Canadian Screening Process - 11 C. Conclusions 12 II I . Methods of Evaluation 13 A. Evaluation Research 13 B. Objectives 16 C. Assumptions and Limitations • . 18 D. Methods Employed 18 E. Normative C r i t e r i a for Screening 20 F. Discussion of the Normative C r i t e r i a with regard to FEARO's Model for Screening 24 IV. Results and Discussion 28 A. Screening: The Process i n Practice 28 1. Department of Energy, Mines and Resources 29 2. Department of'.Public Works 40 3. Mi n i s t r y of Transport 58 4. Department of Indian and Northern A f f a i r s 70. 5. The r o l e of the Department of Environment 88 B. Discussion and Conclusions 93 T r. Recommendations for the E f f e c t i v e Implementation of an Optimal Screening Process 100 References Cited.-; 106 Appendices: I 113 II 114 III 116 IV 117 V 125 VI 139 VII 147 ix LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Summary of the Screening Procedures in Selected Government Departments 93 X LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 EARP: Screening to Review Phase 4 Figure 2 Schematic Diagram of the Study Process 17 Figure 3 Feasibility Study of DPW Project Delivery System ^ x i ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED IN TEXT AWAC A r c t i c Waters Advisory Committee CEQ Council on Environmental Quality (U.S.) DFO Department of F i s h e r i e s and Oceans DINA (or DIAND) Department of Indian and Northern A f f a i r s DOE Department of the Environment (or Environment Canada) DPW Department of Public Works (or Pu b l i c Works Canada) EARP (or EAR process) Environmental Assessment Review Process EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMR (Department of) Energy, Mines and Resources EMS Environmental Management Service EPS Environmental Protection Service FEARO Federal Environmental Assessment Review O f f i c e FMS Fi s h e r i e s and Marine Services IEE I n i t i a l Environmental Evaluation MOT Min i s t r y of Transport (or Transport Canada) NEPA National Environmental P o l i c y Act (U.S.) RODAC Regional Ocean Dumping Advisory Committee RSCC Regional Screening and Coordinating Committee x i i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis could not have been completed without the cooperation and assistance of a number of people. In particular, I would like to acknow-ledge the following persons: B i l l Rees, my principal advisor, for his numerous positive criticisms and helpful comments; Irving Fox for his comments and advice; the staff of the several federal government departments and agencies that provided me with the information that made this study possible, and Judy Poitras for being so helpful and accommodating in the typing of the manuscript(s). I also want to thank the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee (CARC) for providing the funding for this independent research. Thanks also to my parents for their advice and assistance over the years. Most of a l l , thanks Rosanne for putting up with me and my thesis. I INTRODUCTION A. The Problem This thesis examines procedures for the identification and screening of environmentally significant projects under the federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP or EAR process). I describe an "optimal" screening process based on several normative criteria, test the effectiveness of the screening process in four federal government departments,! and suggest means of improving the existing process. My research goal then, is to assess existing institutional arrangements to implement the EARP-related screening. Are screening procedures operating optimally or even effectively? I develop evaluation criteria based on democratic norms inherent to Canadian society, a review of the American process, and "common-sense" expectations;2compare and evaluate existing approaches against my normative framework, and recom-mend improvements to EARP-related screening procedures. B. The Canadian Environmental Impact Assessment Process The Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP) was estab-lished in 1973 by a federal government cabinet policy directive, and later amended in 1977. The process "embodies Canada's policy on environmental as-sessment as i t relates to the activities of the federal government." (FEARO, May 1979, p. 1). ^The four departments are: Department of Indian and Northern Affairs (DINA)-Northern Affairs Program Department of Energy, Mines and Resources (EMR) Department of Public Works (DPW) Ministry of Transport (MOT) - Canadian Air Transportation Administration (CATA) The departments were selected because they perform the most active roles as developers and facilitators of development within the federal government. (From discussions with FEARO officials and W.E. Rees). C^ommon-sense refers to sound practical judgment based on the natural intelli-gence or understanding of mankind in general (Webster's, 1971). 2 The process is designed to ensure that: (a) environmental effects are taken into account early in the planning of new federal projects, programs and activities; (b) an environmental assessment is carried out for a l l projects which may have an adverse effect on the environment before commitments or irrevocable decisions are made; projects with potentially significant environmental effects are submitted to the (Minister of the) Department of Environment for review; (c) the results of these assessments are used in planning, decision-making and implementation. (FEARO, Feb. 1977, pp. 1-2) The process applies to al l federal departments, a l l non-regulatory agencies, and a l l non-proprietary crown corporations. Regulatory agencies and pro-prietary crown corporations are "invited" to participate in the process. The process is applied to a l l projects "initiated by federal departments and agencies, those for which federal funds are solicited, and those involving federal property" (FEARO, May 1979, p. 1). The EAR process can be divided into two distinct phases: environ-mental screening and formal environmental assessment and review. The screening process refers to the procedures employed by individual departments and agencies to examine proposed activities within their control to determine whether they are likely to have significant environmental effects. FEARO defines two levels of screening. The first level of screening applies to a l l projects, programs and activities initiated by government agencies or using federal funds or lands. (See Appendix III for examples of the screening matrix recommended by FEARO in the Guide for Screening.) The second level of screening is for projects that may have potential adverse environmental effects, the extent of which are unclear. Under these circumstances the initiator must prepare or procure an Initial Environmental Evaluation (IEE). The IEE is a "documented assessment of the 3 environmental consequences of any intended activity having potential environ-mental effects . . . . Guidelines covering various project categories (e.g. pipelines) issued by FEARO are available to assist organizations in this task." (FEARO, May 1979, p. 11). If i t is found there are potentially significant environmental effects on the basis of the screening or the IEE, the project advances to the second phase. The formal environmental assessment and review phase is reserved for projects that are likely to have significant environmental impacts as identified at the screening level within the "initiating" department. The formal reviews are co-ordinated by the Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Office (FEARO), established within the Department of Environment (DOE) specifically for this purpose. The number of projects in the EAR process declines significantly as they are screened for environmental concerns. Only a few projects are referred to the formal assessment phase (see Figure 1). In the formal assessment phase a separate panel of experts is appointed to review each project. The panel first develops guidelines for a detailed environmental impact statement (EIS) to be prepared by the initiating or proponent agency. Once the EIS has been completed and reviewed for de-ficiencies a public review and evaluation of the proposed action is conducted. Finally, the panel report, with recommendations, goes to the Minister of Environment, who consults with the other minister(s) concerned prior to announcing a final decision. The final decision is announced by the Minister of the initiating department. If aware of EARP at a l l , most Canadians know only of the second phase, because formal assessment includes public hearings and attracts media attention. 4 Figure 1 Relationship between federal activities and phases of EARP. Proportions are estimates only. 5 C. Defence and Criticism of EARP A notable feature of this whole process is its informal, almost voluntary, format. FEARO officials put forth three principle arguments against a process that by legislation requires each department to establish specific procedures and criteria for environmental assessment. The first is that the tradition of parliamentary democracy does not permit government de-partments and agencies to be answerable to anyone except their minister, who is answerable to Parliament. According to FEARO, this accountability would be threatened i f other agencies (i.e. DOE or FEARO) intervened in decisions affecting a department's operations outside the control of the minister responsible (DOE, Dec. 17, 1979). Secondly, there is a concern that a process legislating procedures and criteria would duplicate the U.S. experience of f i l l i n g the courts with thousands of cases disputing screening and panel review decisions. Finally, FEARO perceives greater flexibility in EARP. A legislated formal process would be "etched in granite" and more rigid than EARP. This "would be resisted within departments as competing for limited funds, would greatly impede the learning process, and once established would take years to change" (FEARO officials as cited by Rees, Nov. 1979, p. 10). (Chapter II provides a detailed comparison of the U.S. and Canadian processes.) Emond (1978) identifies five common criticisms of the process. These relate to the limited application of EARP, the principle of self (as opposed to independent) environmental assessment, the composition of EARP panels, the non-legislated status of EARP, and the role of the public in the process. Emond is particularly concerned with the amount of discretion allow-ed the initiator. He points out the contradiction in this part of the process 6 when he states: If the various federal departments were as rational and environmentally conscientious as is implied by such discretion, then EARP is unnecessary. However, by creating EARP in the first place, the government is acknowledging a need to ensure that the various departments act in an environmentally responsible way. (Emond, 1978, p. 219) Rees (Nov. 1979) is equally critical of the advisory nature of EARP, stating the process "functions as l i t t l e more than the 'ecological conscience' of the federal government, its authority based more on moral suasion than legal clout" (p. 5). Rees looks at the issue of legislating EARP and acknow-ledges that the flexibility of the process has allowed it to evolve substan-tially away from its origins. He recommends that a legal framework should retain flexibility and provision for mandatory review to assist in the 'evolution' of the process. Up to March 1980 (FEARO) there have been a total of 31 projects referred (including 12 projects completing the review phase) to the formal assessment phase of EARP since 1974. Five of the twelve projects are located in the territories where the federal government controls virtually a l l resource activity. There were no new projects added to'FEARO's l i s t of formal review between December 1978 and December 1979 (see FEARO Registers Dec. 1978 to Dec. 1979). This would seem to indicate that the federal government has not participated in any activity that could be of significant environmental concern in over a year. It may also indicate that the self-assessing agencies which use their own criteria to determine the environmental significance of their activities are operating in a less than optimal fashion. 7 II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT: COMPARISON OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA A. Environmental Impact Assessment in the U.S. 1. Origins Environmental impact assessment, as a formally recognized procedure originated in the United States with the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on January 1, 1970. The goal of the legislation was to: . . . create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and f u l f i l l the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans. (Sec. 101(a), NEPA, 1969) The Act contains an "action forcing provision" [Sec. 102(2)(G)l which orders federal agencies to act in accordance with the goals of NEPA by preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) on any " . . . proposal for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of human environment" (CEQ 1978, p. 35). The EIS is a detailed statement which includes the potential impacts, unavoidable impacts and alternatives to the proposal. The NEPA legislation includes regulations for implementing the Act (CEQ, Nov. 1978). The regulations specify proce-dures for determining whether an EIS should be prepared, i.e., whether the proposed activities will create significant environmental impacts. 2. NEPA Screening The U.S., like Canada, divides its impact assessment process into two phases. In the first phase (environmental assessment) projects are screened for potentially significant impacts. There is virtually no similarity between the U.S. and Canadian screening phases. The U.S. process 8 follows rigorous and systematic procedures requiring a high degree of account-ability, the- NEPA^regulations 'define environmental assessment as follows: (a) Means a concise public document for which a Federal agency is reponsible which serves to: (1) Briefly provide... sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an EIS or a finding of no significant impact. (2) Aid an agency's compliance with the Act when no environmental impact statement is necessary. (3) Facilitate preparation of a statement when one is necessary. (b) Shall include brief discussions of the need for the proposal, of alternatives as required by Sec. 102(2)(E), of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, and a listing of agencies and persons consulted. (CEQ, 1978, p. 28) The preparation of the environmental assessment comes from the requirement that agencies must integrate the NEPA process with other planning "at the earliest possible time to insure that planning and decisions reflect environmental values, to avoid delays later in the process, and to head off potential conflicts" (CEQ, 1978, p. 5). The CEQ regulations stipulate that each federal agency must develop internal procedures that supplement the Council's regulations. The internal procedures of the individual agencies must be designed in consultation with the public, and must be approved by CEQ for conformity with NEPA before they are operative. The environmental assessment procedures must include: a) consultation with affected interests; b) designation of the major decision points in agency programs of possible environmental concern, and ensuring the NEPA process corresponds with them; c) relevant documentation as part of the decision-making record; 9 d) a range of a l t e r n a t i v e s , which are e x p l i c i t l y i d e n t i f i e d i n the process; e) monitoring of agency p o l i c i e s and procedures i n order to maintain compliance with NEPA; f) s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a to i d e n t i t y projects that: i ) are " c a t e g o r i c a l exclusions" ( i . e . an a c t i v i t y that does not normally have s i g n i f i c a n t impacts), i i ) require an environmental assessment, i i i ) require an EIS. (See sections 1501.2, 1501.3 and 1507.3, CEQ, 1978) When an agency undertakes a project i t must f i r s t determine whether the proposed a c t i o n i s l i s t e d as a c a t e g o r i c a l exclusion. If i t i s not, the agency must prepare an environmental assessment, unless i t i s immediately clear that an EIS should be preferred (Yost, Dec. 27, 1979). At the heart of the assessment process, and NEPA, i s the question of whether the proposed action " s i g n i f i c a n t l y " a f f e c t s the environment. Section 1508.27 of the CEQ regulations set f o r t h a d e t a i l e d d e f i n i t i o n of t h i s term, requiring consideration of both context and i n t e n s i t y : (a) Context. This means that the s i g n i f i c a n c e of an a c t i o n must be analyzed i n several contexts such as society as a whole (human, n a t i o n a l ) , the affected region, the affected i n t e r e s t s , and the l o c a l i t y . S i gnificance v a r i e s with the s e t t i n g of the proposed acti o n . For instance, i n the case of a s i t e - s p e c i f i c a c t i o n , s i g n i f i c a n c e would usually depend upon the e f f e c t s i n the l o c a l e rather than i n the world as a whole. Both short and long-term e f f e c t s are relevant. (b) Intensity. This r e f e r s to the severity of impact. Responsible o f f i c i a l s must bear i n mind that more than one agency may make decisions about p a r t i a l aspects of a major acti o n . The following should be considered i n evaluating i n t e n s i t y : (1) Impacts that may be both b e n e f i c i a l and adverse. A s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t may e x i s t even i f the Federal agency believes that on balance the e f f e c t w i l l be b e n e f i c i a l . (2) The degree to which the proposed action a f f e c t s public health or safety. (3) Unique c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the geographic area such as proximity to h i s t o r i c or c u l t u r a l resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic r i v e r s , or e c o l o g i c a l l y c r i t i c a l areas. 10 (4) The degree to which the e f f e c t s on the q u a l i t y of human environment are l i k e l y to be highly contro-v e r s i a l . (5) The degree to which the possible e f f e c t s on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown r i s k s . (6) The degree to which the action may e s t a b l i s h a precedent f o r future actions with s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s or represents a decision i n p r i n c i p l e about a future consideration. (7) Whether the action i s rel a t e d to other actions with i n d i v i d u a l l y i n s i g n i f i c a n t but cumulatively s i g n i -f i c a n t impacts. Si g n i f i c a n c e e x i s t s i f i t i s reasonable to a n t i c i p a t e impact on the environment. Sig n i f i c a n c e cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking i t down into, small component parts. (8) The degree to which the act i o n may adversely a f f e c t d i s t r i c t s , s i t e s , highways, structures, or objects l i s t e d i n or e l i g i b l e f o r l i s t i n g i n the National Register of H i s t o r i c Places or may cause loss or destruction of s i g n i f i c a n t s c i e n t i f i c , c u l t u r a l , or h i s t o r i c a l resources. (9) The degree to which the act i o n may adversely a f f e c t an endangered or threatened species or i t s habitat that has been determined to be c r i t i c a l under the Endangered Species Act i n 1973. (10) Whether the act i o n threatens a v i o l a t i o n of Federal, State, or l o c a l law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. Although the d e f i n i t i o n of " s i g n i f i c a n t " i s comprehensive determining " s i g n i -f icance" remains highly subjective or judgmental. There has consequently been a great deal of controversy i n the U.S. as to what constitutes a major or s i g n i f i c a n t impact. C o n f l i c t surrounds the d i f f e r i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of s i g n i f i c a n t impacts by government agencies and the pub l i c , and has placed a heavy burden on the j u d i c i a r y . Rodgers (1977) discusses the concept of " s i g n i f i c a n c e " i n NEPA including a l i s t i n g of actions that the courts have determined require an EIS. There are many subjective factors that can a f f e c t a d e c i s i o n such as "the s k i l l s of the lawyers involved, the c o n t r o v e r s i a l i t y of the issue, the judge and the equities of the case. Thus i t i s d i f f i c u l t to derive a precise r u l e of law regarding the 'measure of s i g n i f i c a n c e ' . " (Yost, Sept. 27, 1979). These decisions have been precedents for subsequent 11 projects on whether r e f e r r a l to the formal assessment phase i s necessary, and are another factor that agencies must consider i n t h e i r environmental assess-ment process. The U.S. impact assessment process was an important model for Canadian o f f i c i a l s i n designing EARP. B. Comparison of U.S. Environmental Assessment with the Canadian Screening Process.  There are several c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the two processes that are worth reviewing for comparative purposes: 1. EARP, unlike the American process, i s not l e g i s l a t e d . I t was established by cabinet d i r e c t i v e and i s an administrative function. EARP i s , therefore, not subject to the 'rules of natural j u s t i c e ' , and the Canadian public has no l e g a l means by which they can ensure the process i s f u l l y implemented. 2. S i m i l a r l y , while FEARO has an administrative r o l e , i t has no regulatory authority to ensure EARP i s being implemented. In the U.S., the CEQ has a l e g a l mandate to oversee and co-ordinate the implementation of NEPA. 3. Consequently Canadian screening procedures are at the d i s c r e t i o n of government departments and generally s u i t t h e i r own goals and objectives. In the U.S., on the other hand, environmental assessment regulations must meet s p e c i f i c CEQ requirements, and be approved by CEQ a f t e r adequate p r o v i s i o n for public consultation i n th e i r formulation. 4. The CEQ requires that departmental regulations include s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a to i d e n t i f y projects r e q u i r i n g an EIS, environmental assessment and c a t e g o r i c a l exclusion. In Canada, there i s no comparable requirement or guide-l i n e for determining s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a by each department. Instead, FEARO provides s i x general c r i t e r i a "that can be used when making a decision as to the environmental e f f e c t of an a c t i v i t y " (FEARO, 1978, p. 2). 12 5. The U.S. gives a d e t a i l e d d e f i n i t i o n of s i g n i f i c a n c e r e q u i r i n g consideration of context and i n t e n s i t y . There i s no d e f i n i t i o n of s i g n i f i -cance i n the Canadian process aside from possible "concern and controversy i n the pub l i c / p r o f e s s i o n a l community" (FEARO, 1978, p. 8). C. Conclusion The Canadian screening process has been applied i n a manner where there i s complete trus t i n a l l actors to conduct themselves i n a reasonable manner. Departments have been l e f t with the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y df producing t h e i r own screening guidelines with minimal guidance from FEARO. The U.S. process provides a l e g a l and more rigorous framework with formal procedures f o r environmental assessment that must be followed by a l l government departments. Whereas the Canadian process i s based on "good w i l l among reasonable men", the U.S. process takes the "big s t i c k " approach, forcing departments to follow s p e c i f i c procedures. Some aspects of the U.S. process such as systematic a p p l i c a t i o n and r i g o r would seem common sense from the points of view of consistency and fairness i n a p p l i c a t i o n . This thesis i s not intended to be a compara t i v e a n a l y s i s of the U.S. and Canadian approaches to preliminary environmental assessment procedures. It i s , however, useful to bear i n mind these differences i n approach as the Canadian process i s analyzed. 13 III METHODS OF EVALUATION A. Evaluation Research This thesis i s an example of evaluation research, a method of assess-ing the effectiveness of a process or program. The a p p l i c a t i o n of evaluation research i n a formal s c i e n t i f i c manner has only been practised since the 1930's within the s o c i a l sciences (Stephan, 1935). Interest i n evaluation research has accelerated i n recent years, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the public sector. The simple explanation for t h i s i s : a) s o c i a l p o l i c i e s have only been implemented on a large scale i n the post-World War II years i n Canada, and b) the effectiveness of many of these high cost, p u b l i c l y funded programs has been severely c r i t i c i z e d . Public agencies do not have the same clear i n d i c a t o r s of success as the private sector, i . e . , investment and p r o f i t s . Public agencies must have other means of measuring the r e l a t i v e success or f a i l u r e of t h e i r programs, p a r t i c u l a r l y when they must compete with other government agencies for funds. Measuring program success can become a very complex and confusing task i f the goals and objectives of the program and the means of measurement are not c l e a r l y de-fined . Writers i n the area of evaluation research have devised a number of d e f i n i t i o n s of the subject. (See for example F r a n k l i n and Thrasher (1976), 0 Kiresuk and Lund (1977), Fairweather and Tornatzky (1977), Rutman (1977) and Weiss (1972).) Kiresuk (1977) boi l e d several of these d e f i n i t i o n s down and found three basic components i n them: (1) formation of c r i t e r i a , (2) assessment of attainment of c r i t e r i a , and (3) u t i l i z a t i o n of the r e s u l t s . 14 C r i t e r i a ^ may be derived from the s p e c i f i c needs or values that a project i s designed to serve (Moroney, 1977). Indeed, i n most descriptions of evaluation research programs are measured against t h e i r own stated goals (Rutman, 1977). Inherent i n this approach i s the idea that there i s a goal with a value attached, and i t i s therefore the task of evaluative r e -search to f i r s t i d e n t i f y and then determine the program's success i n meeting that goal. This implies that evaluation i s l i m i t e d to the stated goals of the program and r e s t r i c t s the scope of the study. This may be s a t i s f a c t o r y for an in-house evaluation, but not for an external review of a program such as EARP. The problem with such a narrow approach i s that i t ignores l a t e n t goals ( i . e . goals not formally stated), unintended consequences, as well as other anticipated e f f e c t s (Rutman, 1977). The second step i n evaluation i s the use of systematic d i s c i p l i n e d inquiry to determine how well the c r i t e r i a have been met. Such inquiry may include experimental, quasi-experimental, case study, f i e l d study or ex post  facto designs, and may involve q u a l i t a t i v e as well as quantitative measure-ment schemes. An important component of evaluative research i s that a t t e n t i o n i s paid to the manner and extent to which s p e c i f i e d a c t i v i t i e s produce the measured r e s u l t s . This implies that the research must focus on the process as well as the outcomes. If evaluation research i s to shed l i g h t on f a ctors that f a i l or succeed to produce measured r e s u l t s , then a t t e n t i o n must be paid to the program components and processes and not s o l e l y to outcomes. A major task of planning the evaluation study requires the conceptualization of the program i n operational terms so that i t can be monitored, not only to provide 3 C r i t e r i o n i s defined as a standard by which a correct judgment can be made; a model or example; a t e s t , r u l e or measure for d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between the true or f a l s e , perfect or imperfect (Funk and Wagnall, 1960). 15 a d e s c r i p t i o n of the program's operation and thereby determine whether i t was implemented i n the intended manner, but also to make inferences about the outcomes on the basis of program a t t r i b u t e s (Rutman, 1977). This thesis follows the case study approach, looking at the process of screening and evaluating each case example to see i f i t met the assessment c r i t e r i a . F i n a l l y , there i s the u t i l i z a t i o n of r e s u l t s . "Feedback" i s not i n t r i n s i c to the process of evaluation, but unless a d i r e c t attempt i s made to l i n k evaluation data to the decision-making process, the impact of findings w i l l be minimal and delayed (NIMH, 1972). However, th i s does give r i s e to a dilemma on the part of the researcher. On the one hand, attempts should be made to i d e n t i f y the concerns of decision-makers for possible i n c l u s i o n i n the research. On the other hand, i t i s useful to pursue questions of a more t h e o r e t i c a l nature, shedding l i g h t on issues where i t i s u n l i k e l y that short term p o l i c y change w i l l be undertaken and to challenge fundamental assumptions underlying the program being evaluated. Although some data may not be of immediate importance or even wanted by decision-makers, t h i s should not pre-clude the p o s s i b i l i t y of pursuing i t i n evaluation, " p a r t i c u l a r l y i f the researcher takes a c r i t i c a l posture as a s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t v i s - a - v i s the program being evaluated rather than as a technician whose work i s t o t a l l y constrained by the wishes of the decision-makers" (Rutman, p. 18). C l e a r l y I am not i n a p o s i t i o n to u t i l i z e the r e s u l t s , but I hope the r e s u l t s of t h i s evaluative research are examined by decision-makers and can provide a basis for p o s i t i v e change. Good research has often been l e f t on the shelf because of the lack of a l l i a n c e between the "two s o l i t u d e s " of research and p r a c t i c e (Joly, 1967). With these factors i n mind, I sought to provide an evaluative frame-work for study. The primary purpose was to i n j e c t some rigour and o b j e c t i v e l y 16 into the study. The p o s s i b i l i t y of undue bias can be greatly reduced through the use of a systematic analysis that i s e x p l i c i t l y l a i d out for a l l observers to see. (See Figure 2.) B. Objectives To accomplish the research goal of the t h e s i s , I established several research objectives: 1. To examine the i n s t i t u t i o n a l framework and procedures for screening, i . e . : a) To describe the context for screening within the procedural framework for environmental assessment i n the f e d e r a l government. b) To propose an "optimal" screening process based on normative c r i t e r i a , a b r i e f review of the American process and reasonable performance re l a t e d expectations. c) To o u t l i n e the screening process as envisioned by FEARO (based on i t s screening guide) and analyze the process i n l i g h t of my c r i t e r i a . 2. To examine s p e c i f i c examples of screening from four government agencies, i . e . : a) To describe the procedures for screening within each department. b) To describe how the case study examples were selected. c) To describe the s p e c i f i c screening procedures applied to each case. 3. To evaluate the effectiveness of the screening process, i . e . : a) To compare the de_ facto screening process to the stated procedures and normative c r i t e r i a . b) To analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the e x i s t i n g process. c) To explain deviations from stated and normative procedures. 4. To develop p o l i c y and procedural recommendations on the process. Figure #2 -Schematic Diagram of Study Process Draft Interview] Schedules ILiterature Review) - EIA - Federal experience Initial Interview at Regional Level HQ's Interviews Derive Assessment Criteria Second round of Regional Interviews Follow up questions Request feedback on my assessmentf] Compile responses Assess process in light of criteria Documentation of case studies Conclusions and Recommendation! 18 C. Assumptions and Limitations 1. Assumptions The c r i t e r i a f o r evaluating the screening process are based on two assumptions: Assumption 1: Because screening i s so important i n EARP, the government, acting i n the public i n t e r e s t , wants to make i t work e f f e c t i v e l y . Assumption 2: If screening i s to be e f f e c t i v e i t must be structured yet adaptable. 2. Limitations Time and manpower considerations l i m i t e d the study to four govern-ment departments selected on the basis of t h e i r s i z e and a c t i v i t y i n EARP. Conclusions may not be v a l i d f or other departments. The selected departments were evaluated on the basis of a l i m i t e d number of projects. Four of the projects were selected by government agencies for me to review. The other four projects I chose i n consultation with the departments. A discussion of how the projects were selected i s included i n the project d e s c r i p t i o n s . D. Methods Employed S p e c i f i c a l l y , the study employed the following methods: 1. A l i t e r a t u r e review to gain some understanding of environmental impact assessment and i t s a p p l i c a t i o n by the federal government. L i t e r a t u r e on government p o l i c y formation, decision-making, and resource management was also reviewed. 2. On the basis of the readings and discussions with advisors, a tentative set of c r i t e r i a was established. 3. From the l i t e r a t u r e and the derived c r i t e r i a I developed an 19 .. an interview format (see Appendix I ) . The schedule was used i n i t i a l l y to interview l o c a l screening coordinators i n DPW and MOT. From these interviews and a d d i t i o n a l documents provided, the schedule was revised s l i g h t l y and used for interviewing screening coordinators for a l l four departments i n Ottawa. (DIAND-Northern Program and EMR do .not have regional o f f i c e s i n Vancouver.) Interviews were undertaken with regional and headquarters repre-sentatives of DOE and FEARO. Interviews were also conducted with DOE and DINA o f f i c i a l s i n Yellowknife. A second round of interviews with regional MOT and DPW representa-tives was arranged to coincide with content analysis of several case study examples of screening. Time and f i n a n c i a l constraints mitigated against a second round of interviews i n Yellowknife or Ottawa. Instead, correspondence and the telephone were used to c l a r i f y points and address further questions. 4. S p e c i f i c examples of screening i n each of the departments were selected for det a i l e d study. Two of the departments (MOT and DPW) were chosen p a r t l y because of the l o c a t i o n of t h e i r regional o f f i c e s i n Vancouver, which f a c i l i t a t e d access to s t a f f and f i l e information s u i t a b l e for the study. DIAND's Northern A f f a i r s Program was selected for study because of i t s major impact on northern development a c t i v i t y . The interviews were f l e x i b l e , using open-ended questions i n order to f a c i l i t a t e discussion. Respondents by and large were candid and open. There was some defensive posturing and requests for c e r t a i n comments to be either anonymous or "off the record". Interviewees are l i s t e d i n Appendix I I . Obtaining documented information proved to be more d i f f i c u l t . There were two p r i n c i p a l reasons which are somewhat r e l a t e d . F i r s t , some o f f i c i a l s were very reluctant to release information they considered to be " s e n s i t i v e " or "not a v a i l a b l e to the p u b l i c " . Secondly, i n several cases there simply was 20 no adequate documentation of screening. This has hampered evaluation, but i t i s also a c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i a b l e r e s u l t of current screening procedures. The f i n a l step of the analysis was to write an evaluation of the screening process for each department and obtain the comments of regional -and headquarters screening o f f i c i a l s . A l l o f f i c i a l s responded to my requests for comments except from the DINA r e g i o n a l o f f i c e i n Yellowknife. E. Normative C r i t e r i a For Screening Evaluation c r i t e r i a provide a rough i n d i c a t o r against which the screening apparatus and the q u a l i t y of i t s use can be measured. The simplest means of deriving t h i s "yardstick" i s to look at the basic p r i n c i p l e s of Canada as a p l u r a l i s t i c democratic society. A representative democracy i s based on two important premises. The f i r s t i s that government decisions should be made by popularly elected repre-sentatives who are expected to r e f l e c t the p r i o r i t i e s and values of the electo r a t e . In turn, the pu b l i c agencies administered by these o f f i c i a l s should also r e f l e c t these values. The second i s that decisions should be made on the basis of good and s u f f i c i e n t information about the choices and th e i r 0 consequences (Fox and Nowlan, 1978). The majority r u l e p r i n c i p l e i s tempered by other democratic values such as p o l i t i c a l freedom and equality. It i s important that there i s t o l e r -ance within a democratic society for d i f f e r i n g p o l i t i c a l viewpoints, and also that there are i n s t i t u t i o n s which operate to deter minority control of p o l i c y decisions (Eyre, 1980). The purpose of screening i s to i d e n t i f y projects that may have s i g n i f i c a n t environmental impacts. Some means of measuring s i g n i f i c a n c e i s necessary i n order to meet th i s objective. The U.S. d e f i n i t i o n of " s i g n i f i -cance" gives an i n d i c a t i o n of the kind of c r i t e r i a necessary to measure 21 impacts. One aspect of the U.S. d e f i n i t i o n i s the need for a v a r i e t y of i n t e r e s t s to be incorporated i n defining the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of impacts, which may vary by region and i n d i v i d u a l values. In the Canadian context there i s no requirement that screening be open to public inspection. The e f f e c t i s that departments determine on t h e i r own whether to involve "outside" i n t e r e s t s i n determining what i s s i g n i f i c a n t , and therefore what a c t i v i t i e s should be r e f e r r e d to the EAR panel process. I t can, therefore, be argued that bias i n favour of development i s p o s s i b l e , since the screening may be done exclusive-l y by the same i n d i v i d u a l ( s ) responsible for the recommendation or approval of a project. Downs (1966) i d e n t i f i e s four kinds of bias common to a l l o f f i c i a l s and suggests these biases are greater i n government agencies than private industry. In the business world p r o f i t s are used as an 'objective' measure of performance, whereas the measure of success i n a government bureaucracy i s more obscure. The four biases common to government o f f i c i a l s are: 1. Each o f f i c i a l tends to d i s t o r t the information he passes upward through the bureaucracy. S p e c i f i c a l l y , o f f i c i a l s tend to exaggerate data that r e f l e c t s favourably on themselves and to minimize those that reveal t h e i r shortcomings. 2. Each o f f i c i a l tends to exhibit biased a t t i t u d e s toward c e r t a i n of the s p e c i f i c p o l i c i e s and a l t e r n a t i v e actions that h i s p o s i t i o n normally requires him to deal with. In general he w i l l be biased i n favour of p o l i c i e s that advance his own i n t e r e s t s and against those that don't. 3. Each o f f i c i a l w i l l vary the degree to which he complies with d i r e c t i v e s from his superiors, depending on whether those d i r e c t i v e s favour or oppose h i s i n t e r e s t . 4. Each o f f i c i a l w i l l vary the degree to which he seeks out a d d i t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and accepts r i s k s i n the performance of h i s duties depending on h i s p a r t i c u l a r goals. (Downs, p. 78) 22 In short, i t is simply naive to assume that government employees are neutral and faithfully reflect the values of elected representatives (Fox and Nowlan, 1978). Accountability in decision-making is a related concern to the possibility of bias. Hehner (1965) discusses the evolution of the legislative role of government from one of giving definitive and precise policies and legislation to the current system of providing wide discretion 1 to bureaucrats, and delegating decision-making powers to administrators. The result of this move toward greater delegation of power is that the lines of communication between citizen and representative have become very complex and the latter less accessible, resulting in a lack of accountability in government decision-making . It is impossible to eliminate bias or to have direct accountability in a l l aspects of decision-making, as neither people nor the institutions they comprise are perfect. In order to ensure that these defects in human character are ameliorated, methods have been devised to introduce greater objectivity into decision-making, and to ensure that administrative decisions better reflect the values of elected representatives, and the public. The following criteria are based on this discussion. A first criterion for environmental screening is that for a planning  process within public policy to be legitimate, a l l affected interests have  the right to be represented. This criterion can be evaluated in light of several indicators of representation: a) Are there sufficient channels for these interests to communicate their concerns? b) Can these concerns be entered early in the planning process? c) Does this range of interests affect screening decisions 23 (or project design which may mitigate the impacts thus making further environmental assessment unnecessary)? The second c r i t e r i o n f or screening i s that the process should follow a rigorous and systematic procedure. Means of assessing t h i s c r i t e r i o n are: a) Is there a formal procedure with relevant and p r a c t i c a l d ecision c r i t e r i a ? b) Is' the process applied i n a systematic manner to a l l projects? c) Is there a comprehensive evaluation of the e f f e c t i v e -ness of the process to ensure i t i s meeting i t s objectives ( i . e . monitoring)? Related to the above i s the t h i r d c r i t e r i o n , namely that a l l screen- ing decisions should be based on adequate information. Success i n meeting th i s c r i t e r i o n can be judged by the following questions: a) Is there in-house expertise to make environmental screening decisions? b) Are a l t e r n a t i v e s considered? c) Are expert advisors from outside the department used ( i . e . routine r e f e r r a l s ) ? d) Is the public consulted? e) Is there s u f f i c i e n t information e i t h e r to make a deci s i o n or to i d e n t i f y the data gaps i n order to i d e n t i f y d e t a i l e d i n v e s t i g a t i o n needs? A fourth c r i t e r i o n i s that the process should be e f f e c t i v e i n achieving i t s objective. Since t h i s study i s not a comprehensive analysis of a l l environmental screening decisions within the fede r a l government, the a b i l i t y to measure effectiveness i n achieving i t s objectives i s constrained. Indicators of departmental effectiveness i n screening are based on: a) subjective views of the actors involved with the process b) evaluation of the projects screened i n th i s study. 24 F. Discussion of the Normative C r i t e r i a : FEARO's Model f o r Screening FEARO has v i r t u a l l y no involvement i n the screening procedures of operating agencies (P. Wolf, pers. comm.). This i s s u r p r i s i n g , because FEARO alleg e d l y i s "responsible for and administers the Environment Assessment and Review Process" (FEARO, May 1979, p. 9). According to FEARO, the EAR process "automatically ap p l i e s " whenever any f e d e r a l l y funded project, or one using fed e r a l lands i s "conceived" (FEARO, May 1979, p. 3). Nevertheless, the screening process i s based on self-assessment by i n i t i a t i n g agencies i n the feder a l government. FEARO, i n conjunction with the Federal A c t i v i t i e s Branch and the Environmental Protection Service, has published A Guide f o r Environmental  Screening i n 1978 (hereinafter i d e n t i f i e d as the 'screening guide' or 'guide'). The guide " i s designed to encourage departments and agencies to incorporate environmental considerations into the conceptual stage of development" (FEARO, 1978, p. 4) (Emphasis added). There i s no requirement that departments follow these screening procedures. They are only suggested. The objective of the guide i s to a s s i s t project managers and/or planners to make one of the following decisions on a proposed a c t i v i t y : a) No adverse e f f e c t s , no actions needed. b) E f f e c t s i d e n t i f i e d can be mitigated through environmental design, and conformance to the l e g i s l a t i o n / r e g u l a t i o n . c) Nature and scope of p o t e n t i a l adverse e f f e c t s are not f u l l y known; a more de t a i l e d assessment i s required to i d e n t i f y and assess t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e , which i s done by an I n i t i a l Environmental Evaluation (IEE). d) S i g n i f i c a n t environmental e f f e c t s . A formal review i s required by an Environmental Assessment Panel. (FEARO, 1978, p. 4) 25 The guide proposes the use of two matrices for screening. They are intended to balance comprehensiveness and brevity. The first matrix is in-tended as a broad screening evaluation, while the second focuses on more specific environmental impacts. (See Appendix III for a sample of a screening matrix.) The guide's value may be judged by the fact it is not used by any of the government agencies surveyed in this study. This contradicts the official view of DOE: "Environment Canada's (i.e. FEARO's) guidelines for environmental screening are, in many cases, used by the proponent to evaluate the environmental aspects of the proposal" (Smithers, Nov. 1979, p. 4). (Emphasis added). No empirical evidence is given to substantiate this claim. The guide outlines the following procedure for screening: 1. Ensure that the project meets a l l applicable federal, provincial and municipal requirements. (Nowhere is i t defined what is meant by these requirements.) 2. Identify a l l activities listed in the level 1 matrix which are likely to occur during project development. 3. Identify those areas in the physical, chemical, ecological, aesthetic and socioeconomic categories which are likely to be affected by the activities identified in 2. 4. If areas in the several categories are identified then proceed to the level 2 matrix. 5. The level 2 matrix is intended to screen specific activities and the areas which they may affect. For example, Activity A may have a significant effect in the area of water quality. (FEARO, May 1979, p. 8) The procedure acknowledges that value judgments must be made in screening. The following criteria are offered to assist in making screening decisions. 26 1 Magnitude: This i s defined as the probable severity of each p o t e n t i a l impact. W i l l the impact be i r r e v e r s i b l e ? If r e v e r s i b l e , what w i l l be the rate of recovery or a d a p t a b i l i t y of an impact area? W i l l the a c t i v i t y preclude the use of the impact area for other purposes? 2 Prevalence: This i s defined as the extent to which the impact may eventually extend as i n the cumulative e f f e c t s of a number of stream crossings. Each one taken separately might represent a l o c a l i z e d impact of small importance and magnitude but a number of such crossings could r e s u l t i n widespread e f f e c t . Coupled with the determination of cumulative e f f e c t s i s the remoteness of an e f f e c t from the a c t i v i t y causing i t . The d e t e r i o r a t i o n of f i s h production r e s u l t i n g from access roads could a f f e c t sport f i s h i n g i n an area many miles away and for months or years a f t e r project completion. 3 Duration and Frequency: The s i g n i f i c a n c e of duration and frequency can be explained as follows. W i l l the a c t i v i t y be long-term or short-term? If the a c t i v i t y i s intermittent, w i l l i t allow for recovery during i n a c t i v e periods? 4 Risks: This i s defined as the p r o b a b i l i t y of serious environmental e f f e c t s . The accuracy of assessing r i s k i s dependent upon the knowledge and understanding of the a c t i v i t i e s and the p o t e n t i a l impact areas. 5 Importance: This i s defined as the value that i s attached to a s p e c i f i c area i n i t s present state. For example, a l o c a l community may value a short stre t c h of beach for bathing or a small marsh for hunting. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , the impact area may be of a r e g i o n a l , p r o v i n c i a l , or even national importance. 6 M i t i g a t i o n : Are solutions to problems available? E x i s t -ing technology may provide a s o l u t i o n to a s i l t i n g problem expected during construction of an access road or of bank erosion r e s u l t i n g from a new stream con-f i g u r a t i o n . (FEARO, May 1979, p. 6) The c r i t e r i a have l i m i t e d value because they do not contain any measure of s i g n i f i c a n c e . What may be considered a high r i s k a c t i v i t y by one screening o f f i c e r may not be perceived to be s i g n i f i c a n t by another. Nowhere i n the screening procedures i s there reference to public input into screening decisions. One of the problems with the screening guide i s i t s alleged com-p l e x i t y . This d i f f i c u l t y was i d e n t i f i e d upon i t s introduction i n 1976. 27 The usefulness of the matrix method was f e l t to be l i m i t e d by i t s complexity and l e v e l of d e t a i l . However, i t was recognized "that something should be published, soon, on-the EAR process and t h i s might be more important than lengthy attempts to s i m p l i f y the matrix" ( P a c i f i c RSCC, August 18, 1976). I t appears the Guide was introduced because i t was better than nothing. The complexity of the DOE screening guide was c i t e d i n interviews with a l l the i n i t i a t i n g agencies (except EMR). I t i s not the purpose of t h i s thesis to examine i n d e t a i l the methods of matrix use or evaluate i t s effectiveness, since t h i s i s a study of the de facto processes, not the suggested technical procedures. 28 IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A. Screening: The Process in Practice From the previous discussion i t is clear that the screening guide is not an appropriate model for government agencies to follow, based on the criteria of representation of interests, rigor and adequacy of information. There are no guidelines for public consultation or referral to other govern-ment agencies. The process is advisory, voluntary and depends on the good will of a l l participating agencies. We have already established that the screening process in reality varies substantially from the model provided by FEARO. Each department follows its own procedures. The following is a description and analysis of the screening process as i t is applied by four federal government departments. These four departments were selected on the 'basis of consultation with FEARO officials and a brief examination of the register of EARP panel projects which indicated that most activity having significant effects on the environ-ment occur within these agencies. 29 1. Screening: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources The l e g a l basis for EMR i s the Energy Mines and Resources Act (R.S.C, 1970, C.E-6; 1970-71, c.42) and the Resources and Technical Surveys Act (R.S.C. 1970, C.R-7; 1970-71, c. 42). Under the provisions of these Acts the department i s responsible for the enhancement, discovery, development and use of Canada's mineral and energy resources, and for broadening the know-ledge of Canada's geography for the benefit of a l l Canadians. To carry out these r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s the department: a) develops national mineral and energy p o l i c i e s based on research and data c o l l e c t i o n i n the earth, mineral and metal sciences, and on related s o c i a l and economic analyses; b) conducts an earth sciences program directed toward the better knowledge, use and conservation of Canada's landmass; and c) disseminates s c i e n t i f i c and technical information rel a t e d to i t s program to interested users across Canada. (Due and Sunga, 1976) EMR has referred one project to FEARO for f u l l panel review, namely, the Lepreau Nuclear Station i n New Brunswick which was the f i r s t project selected for f u l l impact assessment under the EAR process. EMR's screening procedures were formulated i n 1979 (six years a f t e r the introduction of EARP). S p e c i f i c a l l y , the procedures are: a) The Branch or D i v i s i o n with l i n e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a p a r t i c u l a r project or program w i l l , i n consultation with the O f f i c e of Environmental A f f a i r s (OEA), ensure that the proponent receiving grants, loans or ap-provals produces a statement describing the l i k e l y environmental e f f e c t s of the project. The OEA w i l l a s s i s t by ensuring that the appropriate contacts i n other agencies are arranged and to e s t a b l i s h where required a standing review group for an a c t i v i t y or group of a c t i v i t i e s , (sic) b) Together with a project d e s c r i p t i o n or work statement, the environmental statement w i l l be revised by the responsible l i n e unit i n EMR with the assistance of 30 the OEA and environmental experts from other depart-ments. This review or SCREENING, expedited by the OEA, w i l l normally take no more than 20 working days. c) Depending on the nature of the reviewers' comments the proponent (province, u t i l i t y , company) may be required to produce supplementary information. I f there are no major gaps or d e f i c i e n c i e s the pro-ponent w i l l be advised to proceed where necessary according to environmental terms and conditions which could include the need for environmental monitoring. The terms and conditions are determined out of the consultative review with DOE, F i s h e r i e s , EMR's S&T Sector, p r o v i n c i a l experts and others. The judgement as to whether a project requires an IEE or r e f e r r a l to a panel i s based on the advice of outside departments, public concern, etc. The recommendation to elevate the screening process to an IEE or for r e f e r r a l to a Panel i s the responsi-b i l i t y of the l i n e manager i n consultation with the OEA. The recommendation i s made to a Steering Committee on Environmental Assessment i n EMR (ADM's) which w i l l meet as required to decide the future course of action under the EARP process. d) In cases where s i g n i f i c a n t environmental e f f e c t s are suspected or where there i s i n s u f f i c i e n t information a v a i l a b l e on some c r i t i c a l aspect, an I n i t i a l Environmental Evaluation w i l l be required. Guidelines for the preparation of IEE's are a v a i l -able from FEARO and w i l l be adopted by EMR f o r p a r t i c u l a r projects i n consultation with other departments. (EMR, June 4, 1979) Also, i n 1979 an environmental coordinator p o s i t i o n was established to adopt and oversee t h i s screening process (Skinner, July 25, 1979 and Stewart, August 23, 1979). In mid-1979 the O f f i c e of Environmental A f f a i r s (OEA) was established i n EMR " i n order to ensure that the departmental r e s -ponse to environmental concerns has a c l e a r l y established focus . . . ." (Stewart, August 23, 1979). Case Studies of Screening i n EMR Analysis of the screening process i n EMR i s l i m i t e d by several 31 f a c t o r s : a) The process has been implemented very recently with only seven projects screened (Skinner, Feb. 28, 1980); b) Many projects are c a r r i e d out i n conjunction with the provinces, some of whom have t h e i r own environmental assessment process; also there i s often l i t t l e patience at the p r o v i n c i a l working l e v e l for the f e d e r a l p o l i c y (Skinner, Feb. 4, 1980); c) A l l f i l e information i s held i n Ottawa. My access to f i l e s was l i m i t e d to correspondence and documentation selected by EMR. Descriptive project information and d e t a i l s of EMR's screening procedures i s therefore very l i m i t e d . This a n l y s i s of the screening process i n EMR i s based on an examina-t i o n of the EMR screening review documents made a v a i l a b l e to me and subsequent correspondence. The assessment c r i t e r i a are applied to each s p e c i f i c project. C r i t e r i a with a .more general a p p l i c a t i o n are discussed under the Effectiveness C r i t e r i o n (4). CASE 1. Annapolis T i d a l Power Demonstration Project The purpose of the t i d a l project i s to demonstrate the capacity of t i d a l power on a l i m i t e d scale. The project i s located i n the Annapolis Basin portion of the Bay of Fundy. The proponent agency i s the Nova Scotia T i d a l Power Corporation which commissioned the environmental screening document. (Guidelines were prepared by the p r o v i n c i a l M i n i s t r y of Environment i n consul-t a t i o n with the f e d e r a l DOE and DFO.) The federal i n i t i a t i n g agency i s the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources through federal f i n a n c i a l support for the p roject. The project i s financed under a j o i n t agreement between the federal government and the province of Nova Scotia. As a matter of course, 32 EMR inserted into the terms of the agreement the requirement f o r an environ-mental assessment that meets the requirements of EMR (Skinner, Feb. 4, 1980). In this case the province would not sign the agreement u n t i l the provisions of the environmental clause were f u l f i l l e d (Skinner, Jan. 24, 1980A). This placed pressure on the O f f i c e of Environmental A f f a i r s to screen the project as quickly as possi b l e . The EMR review of the proponent's screening s t a t e -ment was completed i n nine days. The purpose i n expediting the process "was to get the Agreement signed simply for f i n a n c i a l accounting reasons. The Premier of Nova Scotia and the Minister (of EMR) wanted to make an announce-ment" (Skinner, Feb. 28, 1980). Skinner (Feb. 4, 1980) states, "I do get the views of the fede r a l and p r o v i n c i a l environmental a u t h o r i t i e s before r e -commending to proceed or to wait pending further studies." In the case of Annapolis, Skinner recommended approval of project planning to proceed subject to meeting the approval of l o c a l farmers and f i s h e r i e s experts. He made th i s approval c o n d i t i o n a l because he had not received the opinion of DOE and DFO. The Department of F i s h e r i e s and Oceans (DFO) had not received a copy of the Environmental Assessment prepared by the proponent, apparently because the T i d a l Power Corp. had not d i s t r i b u t e d s u f f i c i e n t copies of the document (Skinner, Jan. 24, 1980A). (See Appendix IV for a copy of the screening r e - . view.) Public consultation was included i n the project planning process. This took the form of two public meetings, and several meetings with s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t groups (e.g. farmers, environmental groups and government depart-ments) . Cl e a r l y , there are a number of complications i n undertaking screen-ing within a department that i s i n a s e n s i t i v e p o s i t i o n v i s - a - v i s f e d e r a l -p r o v i n c i a l r e l a t i o n s and which must also s a t i s f y the guidelines of EARP. The 33 screening document i s prepared by the proponent outside of the department and the fe d e r a l government can only look at the project when the province brings forward a proposal. Skinner (Feb. 28, 1980) states, "There has to be some trust and f a i t h i n the system. You and I as taxpayers cannot afford to have three bureaucrats looking over one another's shoulder to see that screening i s done. This i s about as early as any one i n the fe d e r a l sys-tem can get a look at i t — i . e . , when the provinces come to us with a deal. Otherwise, i t i s theirs•§lone and we have no business 'screening' i t . Yet to then screen i t when they do come forward second guesses them to some extent, but we urge them to seek the views of the l o c a l f e d e r a l environmental experts." This comment summarizes Skinner's view of the problem. In terms of the normative c r i t e r i a the following points can be made: 1. In order for a process to be legitimate, a l l affected i n t e r e s t s should have the opportunity f o r representation. a) Were there s u f f i c i e n t channels f o r these i n t e r e s t s to communicate t h e i r concern? No. The EMR review did not include consultation with any affected i n t e r e s t s . The urgency of having the project approved did not make th i s possible. Even the fede r a l environmental agencies ( i . e . DOE and DFO) did not have an opportunity to comment since they had not even received copies of the EMR review by the time (conditional) approval was granted. Skinner apparently recognized the lack of consultation i n the screening review and placed the following conditions on EMR's approval: i ) Undertake i n concert with l o c a l and p r o v i n c i a l a u t h o r i t i e s to plan construction to minimize the s t r a i n on the l o c a l socio-economic i n f r a - s t r u c t u r e ; i i ) extend a planning r o l e to the e x i s t i n g l o c a l farmers committee to work with Nova Scotia T i d a l Power Corp. i i i ) ensure that construction a c t i v i t i e s are i n compliance with the F i s h e r i e s Act and the Ocean Dumping Control A r t (EMR, Jan. 24, 1980) b) Were these concerns entered early i n the project planning process? 34 Yes. Public p a r t i c i p a t i o n was required to be included i n the project planning and operation phases by the environmental screening review. Two meetings have been held as of May, 1980 (Carter, May 30, 1980). c) Did these range of i n t e r e s t s a f f e c t screening decisions? Unknown. The EMR screening review gave no reference to any con-s u l t a t i o n i n the screening statement. The conditions of the EMR screening review requiring co'nsulation were apparently met, but the r e s u l t s of these meetings were not" made a v a i l a b l e to me. 2. The screening procedures should be rigorous and systematic. a) Was there a rigorous and formal procedure for screening, with relevant and p r a c t i c a l d ecision c r i t e r i a applied i n t h i s case? No. EMR's screening of the T i d a l project was pressed by an urgent need to have the j o i n t agreement signed as quickly as possible. EMR states that the decision re. project s i g n i f i c a n c e i s based on the advice of outside departments and public concern. No s p e c i f i c examples of decision c r i t e r i a were evident from the available documents. b) Was t h i s proposal subjected to a rigorous and systematic screening review? No. The procedure for t h i s project was rushed by p r o v i n c i a l government concerns to have the environmental clause f u l f i l l e d . c) Was there an evaluation of the effectiveness of the process to ensure i t was accomplishing i t s objectives i n t h i s case? Yes. According to documents, the proponent i s undertaking environ-mental studies to monitor the outcome' of screening recommendations. 3. Screening decisions must be based on adequate information. a) Does the department have the expertise to make environmental screening decisions? No. See c r i t e r i o n 4, page 40. 35 b) Were a l t e r n a t i v e s considered? Not a p p l i c a b l e . The proposal was f o r a demonstration project that would show the use of t i d a l energy. I t i s an " a l t e r n a t i v e technology" and therefore the question i s not relevant. c) Were expert advisors used from outside the department, i . e . routine r e f e r r a l ? . No. No expert advisors from outside EMR were consulted i n the preparation of the EMR screening report. However, subsequent input from DFO and l o c a l organizations was i d e n t i f i e d " d u r i n g screening as a condition for project approval. d) Was the public consulted? No. Only af t e r the screening review were public meetings held. e) Was there s u f f i c i e n t information to: i ) make a f a i r or r a t i o n a l decision? Unknown. I n s u f f i c i e n t information was made a v a i l a b l e to assess t h i s question. Given the f a i l u r e to consult outside experts and the public during screening, i t i s u n l i k e l y that a l l relevant information was brought to bear on the screening recommendations. i i ) i d e n t i f y the data gaps i n order to proceed with a more de t a i l e d investigation? Unknown. I n s u f f i c i e n t information was made a v a i l a b l e for me to assess t h i s question. CASE 2. Newfoundland-Labrador Power Mini-Hydro The purpose of the project i s to i n s t a l l a mini-hydro generating f a c i l i t y (less than 2MW output) to serve the domestic energy requirements of Roddickton, a small community on the Great Northern Peninsula of Newfoundland. The proponent agency i s the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Corporation (NLH) which prepared an environmental evaluation of three p o s s i b l e s i t e s for the 36 project. As with the T i d a l project, EMR i s the i n i t i a t i n g agency because of a j o i n t agreement between the fede r a l and p r o v i n c i a l governments to finance the project. The agreement contained a clause s t a t i n g : The Corporation, before proceeding with the Project beyond Evaluation must prepare and submit to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources an assess-ment of the l i k e l y environmental e f f e c t i n a form and content acceptable to the said Department. (Skinner, Feb. 21, 1980 Attachment 1) Skinner (June 4, 1979) points out that no one had yet decided on "form and content" nor had standards for an "acceptable"statement been i d e n t i f i e d . The screening document was prepared by NLH by May 11, 1972. (I did not receive a copy of t h i s document.) The EMR review was completed on June 22, 1979. Thus the EMR review took 29 working days to complete. The reason given for the review time exceeding EMR1s own guidelines was delay i n getting a departmental opinion from DOE (Skinner, June 22, 1979). Of the three s i t e s , one was selected for further study by NLH. Environmental e f f e c t s were c i t e d as a p r i n c i p a l factor i n the choice based on discussions with p r o v i n c i a l and fede r a l environment agencies (Skinner, June 22, 1979). The evaluation c r i t e r i a area: 1. In order f o r a process to be legitimate, a l l affected i n t e r e s t s should have the opportunity to be represented. a) Were there s u f f i c i e n t channels f o r these i n t e r e s t s to communicate t h e i r concerns? No. While there was input from p r o v i n c i a l and federal environ-ment agencies, there was no opportunity f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n by non-governmental organizations or the pu b l i c . b) Were these concerns entered e a r l y i n the process? No. Obviously concerns not included i n screening could not 37 participate at a l l . However, the interests that were consulted were able to identify environmental concerns through referrals. d) Did these range of interests affect screening decisions? Yes. The environmental agencies did affect the choice of site for the hydro project. 2. The screening procedures should be rigorous and systematic. a) Was there a rigorous and formal procedure for screening with useful and applicable decision criteria? No. The procedure applied was new and had not been formalized. There was no evidence from available documents of any screening criteria. Skinner acknowledged that "form and content" and "acceptable" standards for assessment had not been identified. b) Was the procedure applied in a systematic manner to this project? Unknown. Insufficient information on the process was made available for me to assess this question. Available evidence indicated that the process was not firmly established to permit a systematic review by EMR. c) Was there an evaluation of the effectiveness of the process to ensure i t is accomplishing its objectives in this case? Unknown. There was no indication of any monitoring or evalua-tion from available documents. 3. Screening decisions must be based on adequate information. a) Does the department have the expertise to make environmental screening decisions? No. See Criterion 4. b) Were alternatives identified? Yes. Three sites were examined for the mini-hydro project. The mini-hydro scheme is also considered an "alternative" technology. 38 c) Were expert advisors used from outside the department, i.e. routine referral? Yes. The project proposal was referred to the Newfoundland Department of Consumer Affairs and Environment which established a review committee of Environmental department representatives. d) Was the public consulted? As previously noted, there was no public consultation. Local government officials were contacted regarding the town's water supply. e) Was there sufficient information to i) make a decision? No. The principal concern of EMR appears to be the loss of fish habitat. This was examined by Federal Department of Fisheries. Other values, (e.g. public 'concern,.effect on terrestial habitat, and other downstream effects) were not identified in the screening review. ii ) identify the data gaps in order to proceed with a more detailed investigation? No. Because other values were not considered in the screening review no other detailed investigations were required or recommended. However, there was a more general recommendation that the environmental implications of wide-scale deployment of mini-hydro technology be assessed. 4. Was the process effective in these two case studies? No. The process suffered from several inadequacies which limited its effectiveness. The process is not systematically applied and there are no formal decision criteria. Public consultation is not a requirement of EMR screening procedures. It did occur in the first example, but only after the decision to build the project had been made. There is no overall evaluation of the effectiveness of the process. EMR's departmental expertise in making screening decisions is limited to earth sciences and mineral and resource 39 technology. The department has no bio p h y s i c a l or s o c i a l impact experts. A major de f i c i e n c y i n the screening documents given to me to evaluate was the lack of de t a i l e d information on the process. Conclusions The screening process i n EMR has been i n operation f o r a l i t t l e more than one year. In that period, some form of environmental assessment has been done on seven projects, including the two projects reviewed. The r e s u l t has been a process that i s not systematic, does not have any formal decision c r i t e r i a or require that these be s p e c i f i e d i n each case and allows only l i m i t e d p u b l i c involvement. Documentation also seems to be l i m i t e d . The department recognizes the present d e f i c i e n c i e s i n i t s process and i s attempt-ing to allow for public comment on projects and to develop a more systematic process f o r screening (Skinner, Feb. 4, 1980). 40 2. Screening: Department of Public Works a. The Role of the Department The Public Works Act (R.S.C. 1970 c.P.38) gives the department r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f or the management and d i r e c t i o n of the public works of Canada, except as s p e c i f i c a l l y provided f o r i n other statutes. This includes the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the construction and maintenance of public b u i l d i n g s , acquiring leased accommodation for public use, construction and maintenance of wharves, p i e r s , roads, bridges, the Alcan and Trans Canada Highways and improvement of harbours and navigable channels. The operations are based on a highly decentralized d e l i v e r y system. Administration i s r e g i o n a l l y based i n Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and H a l i f a x . Within DPW there are four main program areas: Accommodation, Transportation and Other Engineering Services, Professional and Other Technical Services, and the Marine Engineering Program. In order to allow study of the screening process on projects that have gone through both phases of EARP, the Marine Engineering Program was reviewed because i t has had projects go through both phases. Only the Transportation and Marine Programs have referred pro-j e c t s to the formal review phase. The Transportation Program has very l i m i t e d a p p l i c a t i o n i n t o t a l numbers of projects, although i t has undertaken several major projects such as the Shakwak and Dempster Highways. b. The Screening Procedures The following d e s c r i p t i o n of the process i s based on the Operational Guidelines for the DPW Environmental Assessment Process (DPW, May, 1978), interviews with W. T r o t t e r , E. Johnson ( r e t i r e d ) , H. Wu and D. Copeland, and subsequent correspondence. DPW has divided screening into "pre-screening" and "screening" phases, with the IEE as a d i s t i n c t t h i r d phase. Although not mentioned i n the 41 documents, W. Trotter (pers. comm.) states that a l l projects valued at le s s than $25,000 or for operations and maintenance are automatically eliminated from further consideration under EARP. A l l three stages of screening occur at the f e a s i b i l i t y stage of the Project Delivery System (PDS).^ Pre-screening Pre-screening i s the gathering of p h y s i c a l , s o c i a l and b i o l o g i c a l data, described as A c t i v i t i e s 5, 6, 7 of the f e a s i b i l i t y stage (in f i g u r e 3). It i s a very broad examination of environmental c r i t e r i a (concerns)2 relevant to the project type and the p a r t i c u l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s i t e a l t e r n a t i v e s . The Environmental Pre-screening Report i s a compilation of only those environmental c r i t e r i a where s i g n i f i c a n t ^ detrimental e f f e c t s could occur or_ where there i s some doubt as to whether or not a negative impact may occur. (DPW, May 1978, p. 1) The Operational Guidelines suggest that a f u l l pre-screening report could avoid the second phase of screening and go to the IEE, where "out-of-house" expertise i s used. The PDS i s a f i v e stage process designed for the planning and management of c a p i t a l investment projects. F e a s i b i l i t y i s the second stage and forms the basis for departmental project approval or a p p r o v a l - i n - p r i n c i p l e which provides funding (see f i g u r e 3). 2 The authors of the DPW report seem to have mixed the term c r i t e r i a with concerns or v a r i a b l e s . C r i t e r i a i s c o n s i s t e n t l y used when r e f e r r i n g to p o t e n t i a l environmental concerns. See page 14 f o r d e f i n i t i o n of c r i t e r i o n . 3 DPW states that s i g n i f i c a n c e i s ultimately a value judgment. They state: "hopefully, i t w i l l take into account the p o t e n t i a l for concern and contro-versy that a project might create i n both the public and professional communities. Concern and controversy as related to s i g n i f i c a n c e r e f l e c t such things as the impact's importance, magnitude and duration." (DPW, May, 1978, p. 1) Figure 3 Schematic Diagram of DPW's f e a s i b i l i t y study i n project development showing screening a c t i v i t i e s . SUg>3 Pre-screenxng T H E PROJECT DELIVERY SYSTEM Source: DPW Planning and Coordination Branch (no date) 43 The pre-screening report i s meant to be a b r i e f document which i n -cludes the following f a c t o r s : 1. An Introduction - general d e s c r i p t i o n of project and s i t e ( s ) . (If report i s to be sent to Environment Canada a more complete:, project d e s c r i p t i o n i s required.) 2. L i s t i n g of Environmental C r i t e r i a - name of c r i t e r i a followed by a d e s c r i p t i o n of possible impacts for each s i t e . 3. Recommendations - may include mitigating measures. a l i s t of the s i t e a l t e r n a t i v e s classed: Excellent, Very Good, Good, F a i r , Poor. 4. Summary pinpoints possible s i g n i f i c a n t impacts - suggests which impacts require further d e t a i l e d study or no study. - suggests what i s required i n the Screening Stage for perhaps I n i t i a l Environmental Evaluation Stage). 5. Appendix (material not already available) photos - maps diagrams - regulations - other data (DPW, May, 1978, p. 2) DPW has the option of r e f e r r i n g the pre-screening report to Environ-ment Canada for t h e i r comments and advice. The project manager/project leader i s responsible for the gathering and analysis of p h y s i c a l , b i o l o g i c a l and s o c i a l data. Public p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s of p a r t i c u l a r concern i n cases where projects have been i d e n t i f i e d by DPW as having s i g n i f i c a n t environmental impacts. "In these cases, information must be provided to the public and public response obtained during the early planning stages',.' (DPW, May, 1978, p. 5). The guide-l i n e s stress that t h i s must occur for " s i g n i f i c a n t " projects based on the February, 1977 adjustments to the EARP guidelines (see FEARO, Feb., 1977). 44 ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING "The screening report is a compilation of only those environmental criteria where potential detrimental impacts have been indicated or where there has been some doubt as identified in the preliminary screening report" (DPW, May 1978, p. 6). The report is comprised of: 1. A brief introduction - statement that Pre-Screening was completed (give date). (If report is to be sent to Environment Canada, when pre-screening report has not been submitted, a more complete project description is required). 2. List of Environmental Criteria - information collected. - description of possible consequences, description of what further data is required in an I.E.E. i f necessary 3. Recommendations include mitigating measures. indicate where further study is required. 4. Summary - suggests which impacts require further study in the I.E.E. or states that no further studies required. 5. Appendix (material not already available) photos - maps diagrams regulations - other data (DPW, May, 1978, p. 7) The project manager/leader, with advice from the regional environ-mental coordinator, as required, will examine the environmental concerns out-lined by the pre-screening report as having possible significant effects. The responsibility for preparing the screening report and making the recommenda-tion to refer the project to the IEE stage rests with the project manager/ leader. Screening is the stage at which a l l the factors are identified and a weighting must be assigned to them. If further evaluation is required then they go on to the IEE stage to get a meeting (with outside agencies). ^ Copeland(b), pers. comm.) 45 The decision to refer the screening report to an outside agency (e.g. DOE) is at the discretion of the department. INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (IEE) Preparation of an IEE can also be required at the feasibility stage of the proposed activity. It is a more detailed assessment of the environ-mental criteria that have been listed as requiring further examination in the screening report. A consultant is contracted to complete this phase, using specific terms of reference based on the pre-screening and screening reports. The report should contain: 1. Inventory of Impact Variables - identify, classify and define potential impact variables. 2. Project Description - objectives on purpose. - physical description. - construction, operation and maintenance procedures. 3. Impact Identification and Analysis - study consequences that could occur. 4. Impact Evaluation - evaluate impact significance level. 5. Recommendations - mitigating measures. - alternatives available. - ways to enhance environment. 6. Summary - summarize important findings 7. Appendices - information important to understanding any of the above. When the study is complete i t must be examined to ensure that the terms of reference have been met. If there are significant impacts which cannot be resolved, the project must go through the Environmental Assessment Panel process^ (Activity 20). (DPW, May, 1978, pp. 9-10) 4See Appendix IV for a sample: sreening document used in the Maritime region. 46 The project manager/leader with advice from the regional environ-mental coordinator as required, "prepares the terms of reference for a consultant to carry out the IEE Study; decides whether or not to use Environment Canada assistance; reviews the study report; decides i f the impacts are of such significance that an EIS is required; or recommends preventative and mitigating measures for antici-pating environmental effects that have been identified and are amenable to such measures." (DPW May 1978, p. 10) DPW is the only department that has undertaken an internal evalu-ation of its participation in EARP. The document (Trotter, August, 1979) was prepared for review by senior officials of DPW. However, as of January, 1980 senior officials have not respondended to the concerns and recommendations of the report (Trotter, Jan. 3, 1980). Among the principal concerns in the report is a basic need to have full-time Regional Environmental Coordinators in a l l regions. Presently, there are six regional positions, one of which is full-time. The report estimates that the time devoted to screening related activities by environmental coordinators is between 1 and 50% in the other regions. In the Pacific region there was a full-time environ-mental coordinator until August, 1979. Since that time these responsibilities have been split between the Marine Engineering and Building Construction units. Within Marine Engineering the screening coordinator works on a part-time basis, his other role being deputy project manager. The Marine Screening Coordinator acknowledges that he is unable to devote the same amount of time to screening as his predecessor (Copeland(a) pers. commm.). A second recommendation of the evaluation report with regard to regional coordinators is that they should be environmental planners rather than project engineers. This view is not shared by the Pacific region screening coordinator who feels planners "need extensive project experience 47 to appreciate m i t i g a t i o n methods. (It i s ) easier to take someone from engin-eering and (project) management, and develop t h e i r environmental s k i l l s " than v i c e versa (Copeland(b), pers. comm.). Copeland's views r e f l e c t the headquarter-regional s p l i t i n r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , i . e . Ottawa provides the t h e o r e t i c a l framework for screening, and the regions must f i n d means of im-plementing screening that s u i t s t h e i r needs. The long-term goals of the D i v i s i o n are: 1. To ensure that a l l projects go through the EARP. i . e . Projects i n excess of $25,000 which does not include operations and mainten-ance projects or those projects already contracted for construction, number about 450 for the 1979-80 year. During the 1977-78 f i s c a l year only 32 projects, n a t i o n a l l y , were adequately assessed at the screening l e v e l . 2. To ensure that s i g n i f i c a n t environmental issues i n Departmental p o l i c i e s or programs are eventually delineated, appropriately evaluated and resolved. 3. To ensure the department 'plans environmentally' which i s the ultimate a l l - i n c l u s i v e goal of the Environmental Analysis D i v i s i o n and the basic reason for EARP. (Tro t t e r , August, 1979, p. 13) One conclusion of the report i s that i f f u l l - t i m e Regional Environ-mental Coordinators were used i n a l l regionsj and two more s t a f f at Headquarters ( b i o l o g i s t and human e c o l o g i s t ) , "and the appropriate executive support received, then both the l e t t e r and intent of the EARP could be s a t i s -f a c t o r i l y met" (p. 15). 5 %hen the Environmental Analysis D i v i s i o n was established i t was c a l l e d the Environmental Coordination Branch and had the support of the Deputy Minister, Mr. Williams. Since that time the Branch has been reduced i n status to a d i v i s i o n , and the present Deputy Min i s t e r , Mr. Mackay, has not given any written or verbal commitment to EARP (Trotter, Jan. 3, 1980). 48 Case Studies of Screening i n DPW Analysis of the screening process i s based on f i l e information provided by the P a c i f i c regional o f f i c e s of the Marine Engineering Program i n Public Works. The department allowed t h i s writer to review three f i l e s on s p e c i f i c p rojects. Two of the f i l e s were selected by DPW with the claim these were representative of DPW screening. The t h i r d f i l e was on a DPW project that had been referred to the formal assessment phase of EARP. The major constraint i n doing the research was i n f i n d i n g a time convenient for s t a f f to make the f i l e s a v a i l a b l e and to answer questions. The f i l e s con-tained a number of information gaps that were p a r t i a l l y f i l l e d by EPS f i l e information where there had been contact between the two agencies. I must stress that there i s a t o t a l lack of documentation of screening a c t i v i t i e s i n the f i l e s I was provided. CASE 1 Marine Dredging-Sumas to Hope on Fraser River The dredging program on t h i s section of the Fraser River dates back to before World War I I . The purpose of the dredging i s to keep the Fraser River open for tugboat operations which haul log booms down to sawmills i n the Lower Fraser V a l l e y . The dredging keeps the waterway open during the low water months from l a t e July to December. The dredging i s seen as a s i g n i f i c a n t benefit by the forest industry because i t keeps logging a c t i v i t y and m i l l production at a steady l e v e l . The Hope to Sumas section of the Fraser River i s heavily u t i l i z e d by pink salmon for spawning purposes i n the f a l l on odd numbered years. The Department of F i s h e r i e s and Oceans (DFO) has been con-cerned about the e f f e c t dredging could have on the spawning channels. The f i l e s for the program begin i n November, 1974 and continue u n t i l the present. There are seven separate f i l e f o l d e r s , each of which includes 49 one season or roughly one year. Over that period three letters referring the project to outside agencies for advice from E. Johnson, DPW Screening Officer, were included in the f i l e . There is no screening checklist or matrix as re-commended in the DPW guidelines. D. Copeland, temporary part-time screening coordinator, explained that the annual correspondence between DFO, DOE and DPW represented the screening process. He explained that no formally documented process exists except that a l l marine engineering projects are referred to the Environmental Protection Service. Exceptions are operations and maintenance and construction of new wharves unless there is a public conflict perceived by the project manager. Screening is done through the use of field investigation and con-sultation with the appropriate government agencies. Copeland stressed that it is not an ad hoc process, and the same procedures are followed in each project screened. There is no formal written screening document because this repre-sents "unnecessary paperwork" (Copeland(c), pers. comm.) Johnson (Sept. 2, 1975) wrote to the Department of Fisheries, identifying potential dredging sites that may be of concern to that department. No response from Fisheries was found in the files for that year. In subsequent years, there was corres-pondence from Fisheries stipulating certain dates for closure of dredging operations (e.g. Robertson, March and June, 1979). In 1979 Fisheries insisted that dredging cease between September 15, 1979 and May 31, 1980. The response of D. Dodge to the Head of the Fisheries Branch (Dodge, April 20, 1979) regard-ing the proposed closure was "to advise this office (DPW) will conduct the program as in the past in a manner where the needs of industry will be recog-nized and kept open for discussion beyond September 15th". These comments reflect the attitude of DPW that i t is "responsible for the maintenance of navigational channels" and "are concerned with this aspect and justification of i t . " (D. Dodge, pers. comm). Fisheries have acknowledged that in the past 50 i t s demand for a September 15 closure i s not p r a c t i c a l and had recommended the dredging occur only a f t e r s i t e s p e c i f i c evaluation (Sookachoff, June 1, 1977). The basis for the absolute closure i n 1979 was that the year's run of pink salmon was expected to reach record proportions and i t was p a r t i c u l a r l y important from F i s h e r i e s ' point of view that dredging a c t i v i t i e s cease. At no time was there any i n d i c a t i o n by DPW as the screening agency that they consid-ered contacting other users of the r i v e r (e.g. r e c r e a t i o n a l , commercial or native fishermen). On October 15, 1979, Dodge informed Rivtow S t r a i t s that i t was apparent F i s h e r i e s would not back away from th e i r closure and i n f a c t f i s c a l r e s t r a i n t under the Conservative government had precluded the p o s s i b i l i t y of any further funding of dredging a c t i v i t y f o r 1979. " A d d i t i o n a l l y . . . the Sumas to Hope dredging operation . . . i s to come under scrutiny with the very r e a l p o s s i b i l i t y i t w i l l be abandoned. An indepth benefit/cost analysis has been ordered and the matter of j u s t i f i c a t i o n i s to be thoroughly examined" (Dodge, October 15, 1979). At th i s point, the dredging issue was "r a i s e d " to the p o l i t i c a l l e v e l with a memo from Alex Patterson, MP for Fraser V a l l e y East to the Minister of Public Works (October 15, 1979) which expressed con-cern over the closure of dredging a c t i v i t i e s and requested an a d d i t i o n a l 25 days dredging. DPW regional s t a f f requested permission from F i s h e r i e s for an extension of dredging f o r three s p e c i f i c s i t e s that had been i d e n t i f i e d as problem areas by tugboat operators. After s i t e i n v e s t i g a t i o n by Fi s h e r i e s and DPW o f f i c i a l s the dredging period was extended by f i f t e e n working days, cover-ing one of three areas requested for dredging (Robertson, pers. comm.). The conclusion of the dredging issue was that dredging was extended but only i n one area. A f i n a l memo on the subject by D. Dodge of Marine and C i v i l Engineering, DPW (Dec. 5, 1979), noted the extension of the dredging season 51 cost the department $14,700. He concludes: In l i g h t of this expenditure, sustaining an a d d i t i o n a l production (of logging re l a t e d a c t i v i t y ) . . . worth $700,000 . . . we f e e l the undertaking was worthwhile. It appears from these comments that DPW o f f i c i a l s continue to perceive dredg-ing a c t i v i t y i n purely economic terms of d i r e c t costs and b e n e f i t s . The dredging program i s an ongoing a c t i v i t y and the i n t e r a c t i o n between DPW and other agencies seems to be a standard regulatory process that would occur i n the absence of any screening process. I t i s the view of regional s t a f f at DPW that the interagency discussion are EARP and do serve a useful function. However, these a c t i v i t i e s have v i r t u a l l y nothing to do with the process I previously described. CASE STUDY 2 Ladner Harbour Development The proposal to redevelop and expand marina f a c i l i t i e s at Ladner Harbour was apparently f i r s t i n i t i a t e d by the l o c a l member of Parliament i n 1972. Tom Goode, MP for Delta, suggested to the Minister of Public Works that the harbour be widened by dredging (Goode, June 15, 1972). No further a c t i -v i t y i s recorded on f i l e u n t i l 1975 when the p r o v i n c i a l F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch wrote to D. Dodge, DPW, s t a t i n g "your l e t t e r of October 30, 1975 has been re f e r r e d to t h i s o f f i c e from EPS for our review and comment." (West, 1975) No response was evident on f i l e . Subsequent documentation comes primarily from the EPS Project Status Record (June 17, 1976) because of information gaps i n DPW f i l e s . This i s ap-parently because DPW was not the proponent of the project. In A p r i l , 1976 there was a meeting held between Delta Municipality and DOE o f f i c i a l s to d i s -cuss the proposed marina. The proponent, according to the EPS f i l e s , i s the Mu n i c i p a l i t y of Delta, while the responsible fe d e r a l agency i s the Small Craft 52 Harbours Branch of F i s h e r i e s and Marine Service. The r o l e of DPW i s to dredge the s i t e and b u i l d the harbour f a c i l i t i e s which would require screening. In June, 1976, DPW referred the dredging proposal to the RSCC for review. Several conditions were attached to an approval of the project and i t was not u n t i l December, 1977, that Delta had the f i n a l d e t a i l s completed. On May 16, 1978, i n a l e t t e r from R. Wallace (DPW) to W. Parkinson of the Small Craft Harbours Branch, DOE, Wallace outlines a number of problems i n f i n d i n g s a t i s f a c t o r y s i t e s for dredging s p o i l disposal. His main concern i s to see that a l l o c a t e d funds are used: In view of the fact that Ladner Reach i s the only possible disposal s i t e within economical pumping distance of the proposed marina basin, we must conclude that t h i s project i s now i n jeopardy. As we are already very pressed for time, i f a favour-able decision on our proposal i s not obtained i n the very near future i t w i l l be impossible to spend the allocated FLIP funding by the end of September. (Wallace, May 16, 1978) Subsequently, on May 31, 1978, E. Johnson, DPW environmental coordinator requested the project be registered with the EPS. He also inform-ed EPS the project would be going out to tenders i n one month. In August, 1978 an a l t e r n a t i v e dredging proposal was accepted and the project was commenced. :There i s no recorded d e s c r i p t i o n of how t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e was selected or i f i t was screened. As i n the f i r s t case, there i s no i n d i c a t i o n of any i n t e r n a l screen- ing process, in c l u d i n g consultation with p o t e n t i a l l y affected i n t e r e s t s . V i r t u a l l y a l l the a c t i v i t y could have taken place i n the t o t a l absence of  EARP. This r e f l e c t s the lack of any documented screening information, analysis or recommendations. The f i l e information provided was incomplete. There i s some confusion as to the r o l e of DPW, since they are neither the i n i t i a t o r or 53 proponent of the project although they are responsible for construction. CASE STUDY 3 Lower Fraser River Channel Training Program . The purpose of the project i s to d i r e c t r i v e r flows and increase the transport of r i v e r borne sediments through the navigable channel of the south arm of the Fraser River. This would be accomplished through construction of a number of rock groins and timber p i l e t r a i n i n g walls. The project r a i s e s some environmental concerns because of the p o t e n t i a l and unknown impacts on the salmon f i s h e r y and the estuary which i s a valuable b i o t i c resource. The documentation of t h i s project at the pre-formal assessment stage i s quite sparse. This may be a r e s u l t of the project being i n i t i a t e d i n 1975 when screening procedures were i n th e i r early stages of implementation. The procedure DPW followed to screen the project was based l a r g e l y on discussion with other public agencies and an environmental overview study. In 1975 an "Environmental Overview Assessment and Guidelines" was prepared by Envirocon Consultants which documented e x i s t i n g environmental information and proposed guidelines f or a deta i l e d study of the project. In December, 1975 the report was r e f e r r e d by DPW to the F i s h e r i e s and Marine Services (FMS) of DOE. In January, 1976 copies of the overview assessment were ref e r r e d to the International P a c i f i c Salmon F i s h e r i e s Commission, Canadian W i l d l i f e Service and the p r o v i n c i a l F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch of DPW and FMS. The overview assessment was then referred to the RSCC by FMS one week l a t e r . In February the assessment was d i s t r i b u t e d to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Environmental Management Service•(EPS Project Status Record, Jan. 15, 1976). (There was no documentation of this process i n DPW's own f i l e s . ) On June 2, 1976 a l e t t e r was sent by DPW to the Chairman of the Environmental 54 Assessment Panel (FEARO) s t a t i n g , i n part: It i s evident to t h i s Department from the comments of these DOE agencies (R.S.C.C.) and the report i t s e l f , that t h i s project may have impacts of a major s i g n i f i c a n c e and should be covered by an Environmental Impact Statement. (Stevens, June 2, 1976) In July, 1976 a panel was formed to e s t a b l i s h guidelines for a f o r -mal impact assessment and to review the EIS i n addition to planning public hearings. A f t e r four years of study i t i s anticipated the public hearings w i l l take place i n l a t e 1980. The a p p l i c a t i o n of the c r i t e r i a w i l l be against a l l three projects because they follow s i m i l a r processes ( i . e . there was no screening process based on DPW's own d e s c r i p t i o n of screening), although the outputs d i f f e r . 1. In order for a process to be legitimate a l l af f e c t e d  i n t e r e s t s should be represented. a) Are there s u f f i c i e n t channels for those i n t e r e s t s to communicate t h e i r concerns? No. There i s no i n d i c a t i o n that attempts were made to get f u l l representation of i n t e r e s t s i n any of the projects. However," DPW does have a,well-established r e f e r r a l system with EPS and DFO. • The Fraser River Training Walls project was r e f e r r e d to provin-c i a l and other non-federal agencies for comment. The Ladner Harbour proposal was referred to the B.C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch by EPS not DPW. There was no p r o v i s i o n for consultation with the p o t e n t i a l l y affected public i n any of these projects except the "pro-development" forces (e.g. the logging and tugboat industry). b) Can these concerns be entered early i n the project planning process? No. Only the agencies that received r e f e r r a l s were contacted early i n the planning process. 55 c) Does this range of interest affect screening decisions? No. Obviously only those agencies that received referrals, especially EPS and DFO, can affect screening decisions. For example, DFO affected the timing and location of dredging activity in the first example. Those excluded obviously have no input. 2. The screening procedures should be rigorous and systematic. a) Is there a rigorous and formal procedure for screening with useful and applicable decision criteria? No. Screening in practice is a casual referral system which was in place prior to EARP. The screening procedures described on pages 40-45 were nowhere in evidence in the three projects reviewed. There is no documentation of the process, aside from correspondence with other agencies. The decision criteria for referring the project was based largely on the unsubstantiated judgment of the screening coordinator. b) Is the procedure applied in a systematic manner to a l l projects reviewed? No. The first two projects show no indication of undergoing any kind of systematic screening process. An environmental report was prepared in the third example and the project was referred to FEARO. The lack of documentary evidence makes i t difficult to assess what kind of screening process was followed, although i t was obviously not the one that is described on pages 40-45. c) Is there a comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of the process to ensure it is accomplishing its objectives? No. No evaluation of the screening process has been undertaken in Pacific region. 56 3. Screening decisions must be based on adequate information. a) Does the department have the expertise to make environmental screening decisions? No. At present there are no professional s t a f f with environ-mental expertise. This explains the strong r e l i a n c e on a r e f e r r a l system. b) Are expert advisors used from outside the department, i . e . routine r e f e r r a l ? Yes. Projects are p r i m a r i l y referred to EPS or DFO. c) Is the public consulted? No. There i s no public consultation at the screening stage. d) Is there s u f f i c i e n t information to i ) make a f a i r or r a t i o n a l decision? No. DOE and DFO provided some bi o p h y s i c a l information and advice that had a bearing on DPW screening decisions. However, no information on s o c i a l concerns were sought. i i ) i d e n t i f y the data gaps i n order to proceed with a more d e t a i l e d investigation? Only i n the case of Fraser River Training Wall were further studies required. This was achieved i n the formal assessment phase i n con-s u l t a t i o n with the FEARO panel p r i o r to commencement of the f i n a l impact statement. 4. Is the process e f f e c t i v e ? No. There i s l i t t l e documentation of an e x p l i c i t process for any of the case study examples, and consequently, no evidence that a "screening process" by r a t i o n a l standards e x i s t s . The r e f e r r a l system does provide a useful means of obtaining out-side expert advice on proposed a c t i v i t i e s . The lack of any p u b l i c input and the apparent lack of a systematic r e f e r r a l system to p r o v i n c i a l agencies must be viewed as a d d i t i o n a l drawbacks to the process based on the normative c r i t e r i a . The t h e o r e t i c a l screening process described on pages 40-45 s a t i s -f i e s several of my c r i t e r i a for assessment (e.g. formal and rigorous). I t i s not completely s a t i s f a c t o r y since i t ignores other factors such as public con-s u l t a t i o n and does not contain measurable assessment c r i t e r i a . However, t h i s t h e o r e t i c a l screening process appears (without any means of formal analysis) superior to the procedures a c t u a l l y employed i n the P a c i f i c region. Conclusions The Department of P u b l i c Works appears to have an i n t e r n a l c o n f l i c t between the goals and objectives of headquarters and regional s t a f f . Head-quarters issued guidelines and procedures for the implementation of screening. These are followed i n P a c i f i c region to the extent that: a) there i s an i n t e r n a l consultation process between project managers and the screening coordinator; b) there i s consultation with some outside experts; c) the concerns i d e n t i f i e d by these i n t e r e s t s have ei t h e r been incorporated i n project design and construction or resulted i n more intensive studies. However, these are routine a c t i v i t i e s that existed p r i o r to EARP. The screening process has been shown to be inadequate i n the examples used for t h i s study. Two of the examples were selected by DPW as being repre-sentative of t h e i r screening process. C l e a r l y , the screening a c t i v i t i e s do not meet even DPW's own standards for screening, as well as being inadequate based on the normative c r i t e r i a of t h i s study. 58 3. Screening: M i n i s t r y of Transport a. The r o l e of the department The f e d e r a l Department of Transport was established i n 1936, and reorganized into.the present ministry i n 1970. MOT's terms of reference are contained i n the Department of Transport Act (R.S.C. 1970, c.T-15). Currently, MOT's r o l e i s : (a) to ensure that national transportation p o l i c y influences and responds to the objectives and programs of the private and public sectors. (b) to provide, for any mode of transportation, such as way, terminal and vehicular services, support-able where appropriate by recoverable financing from the users or other b e n e f i c i a r i e s , that cannot or should not be offered by the private or other public sectors. (c) to balance economic, technical and s o c i a l con-sequences r e s u l t i n g from changes i n c a p a b i l i t y or use of transportation services and ensure that s o c i a l l y and economically v i a b l e standards of ve h i c l e , way, terminal and operator performance was established and adequately maintained. (d) development - to encourage and promote continuous improvement, innovation, growth or phase-out of modal and intermodal transportation. (Due and Sunga, 1976) Within MOT there are four, administration programs: a i r , marine, surface and the transportation development agency program. On the basis of expenditure estimates for 1976, a i r transportation administration (or CATA) i s the largest program i n MOT. The a i r administration program was examined i n d e t a i l on the recommendation of FEARO o f f i c i a l s and because i t i s the only program i n MOT that has had a project complete the formal review phase. Examples from the P a c i f i c region of CATA were used i n th i s study. Through-out the text the acronym MOT w i l l be used i n r e f e r r i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y to CATA's operations. 59 MQT's environmental p o l i c y and screening procedures The following d e s c r i p t i o n of screening procedures used by CATA are from MOT (1978), MOT COctober, 1979); interviews with Mr. W. Stachuk, MOT, Ottawa; Messrs G. Pettigrew and R. S i s l e r , MOT, Vancouver; and from correspondence with Ottawa. CATA's basic objective within i t s Environmental Protection P o l i c y i s stated as follo w s : On a cost recoverable basis to the maximum p r a c t i c a l extent to provide safe and e f f i c i e n t f a c i l i t i e s and services for the support of aeronautics consistent with the protection of the environment. (MOT, October, 1979) The purpose of CATA's p o l i c y i s to support and u t i l i z e the EAR process i n '!the continuing development of the a i r program". (MOT, October, 1979, p. 1) . The following are MOT's p r i n c i p l e s r e l a t e d to environmental protection: (a) Members of the public s h a l l be involved i n a consultative capacity i n the development and continuing operation of CATA a i r p o r t s . (b) The procedural aspects of EARP are integrated into the CATA planning and management systems. (c) Environmental assessment, an i n t e g r a l part of the ai r p o r t planning process, applies to both A i r Navigation A c t i v i t y Projects and Air p o r t A c t i v i t y Projects. (d) Projects on a i r p o r t s not owned by Transport : Canada, towards which the Department i s providing f i n a n c i a l contributions, are also subject to the f u l l Environmental Assessment and Review Process. (e) CATA o f f i c e r s who are responsible for the budgets of Planning Teams and Planning Groups should show, as separate items i n t h e i r budgets, the costs associated with public consultation and environ-mental studies. (MOT, October, 1979, p. 2) 60 Screening The screening process i s comprised of two phases: the I n i t i a l screening and the IEE. The i n i t i a l screening process i n MOT, by the environ-mental coordinators, i s a very b r i e f review of pro j e c t s . Each spring, they review a l l c a p i t a l projects i n the i r five-year plan, and update the l i s t of regional projects r e q u i r i n g an I n i t i a l Environmental Evaluation (IEE). These l i s t s are forwarded to CATA headquarters i n Ottawa and reviewed f o r approval. If headquarters accepts the l i s t , the regions prepare IEE's for the i d e n t i f i e d projects. The p r i n c i p a l c r i t e r i o n for determining which projects require an IEE i s as follows: A Project which i s l i k e l y to give r i s e to future public concern or to r a i s e public controversy because of r e a l or perceived environmental e f f e c t s . (MOT, October, 1979, p. 11) An a d d i t i o n a l screening c r i t e r i o n f o r req u i r i n g an IEE i s : Runway extensions, new or a d d i t i o n a l runways, whether gravel or paved, require an IEE. (MOT, 1978, p. 52) The decisions at the screening stage are based on these c r i t e r i a and on the judgment, knowledge and experience of CATA regional s t a f f and opinion requested from DOE (MOT, 1978, p. 45). DOE input at the i n i t i a l screening stage has been requested for only a small number of CATA projects ( S i s l e r ( b ) , pers comm.). The Technical Training Course document (MOT, 1978, pp. 49-50) gives the following examples of projects usually eliminated from further considera-t i o n under EARP: 1) equipment procurements, 2) on-site repair of paved surfaces, 3) on-site repair of bu i l d i n g s , 4) on-site construction of new buildings (not including a i r c r a f t maintenance or engine t e s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s ) , 61 5) on-site construction of paved surfaces (not including runways), 6) on-site i n s t a l l a t i o n of equipment and surface structures, 7) onesite i n s t a l l a t i o n and construction of equipment shelters ( i f unique environmental features are not present); and projects which are usually advanced for further environmental evaluation: 1) construction of new a i r p o r t s , 2) expansionary construction at e x i s t i n g a i r p o r t s where the environmental e f f e c t s go beyond the a i r p o r t boundary, 3) repair or modification work at e x i s t i n g a i r p o r t s where the environmental e f f e c t s go beyond the a i r p o r t boundary, 4) o f f - s i t e i n s t a l l a t i o n of equipment and construction or equipment shelters where unique environmental features are involved. U n t i l recently, there has been no documentation of projects screened out from further EARP involvement. Thus there i s no documented means of i d e n t i f y i n g how screening decisions are made. Under new guidelines issued from headquarters (MOT, October, 1979) a l l project documents with t o t a l estimated costs over $50,000 must include an "environmental considerations sheet". This sheet i d e n t i f i e s whether an IEE i s required, and, where not, i f costs for studies to develop m i t i g a t i o n a l measures are required. (See Appendix VI for example.) At the time of writing t h i s addition to the screen-ing process was i n the process of being implemented i n P a c i f i c region ( P e t t i -grew, pers. comm). The I n i t i a l Environmental Evaluation (IEE) The IEE i s supposed to be prepared as early as possible i n the planning stage of a project. The IEE i s prepared based on r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e information and a copy of the completed document i s sent to the RSCC request-ing t h e i r comments on: "(a) the appropriateness of the planned environmental study program; and (b) whether or not a formal review by a FEARO panel i s 62 required" (MOT, October, 1979, p. 15). A f t e r obtaining the comments and any environmental study guidelines from the RSCC, the regional o f f i c e forwards the IEE to Ottawa for information and/or approval. Once the IEE i s approved, the region prepares an a p p r o v a l - i n - p r i n c i p l e request, which i s a document that e x p l i c i t l y i n dicates the c a p i t a l costs, plus the cost of environmental studies and public consultation (where necessary). The IEE does not follow the format prescribed i n the Guidelines for preparing IEE's issued by FEARO. It i s a b r i e f one or two page document which has a c h e c k l i s t of b i o p h y s i c a l and s o c i a l impacts. A d d i t i o n a l information may be attached, as deemed necessary by regional MOT s t a f f f o r forwarding to the RSCC. The c h e c k l i s t i s used to i d e n t i f y plans f o r a d d i t i o n a l review or environmental studies. (See Appendix IV for examples of an MOT I n i t i a l Evaluation.) The studies are apparently done by f i e l d observation, although no formal reports are attached to the IEE i n P a c i f i c Region ( S i s l e r ( a ) and Pettigrew, pers. comm.). The IEE document for Kelowna a i r p o r t prepared i n early 1976 contains the subheading: "formerly c a l l e d preliminary environ-mental assessment." In f a c t , the IEE i s a preliminary environmental assess-ment, containing very l i m i t e d information. It i s a misnomer to c a l l t h i s b r i e f statement an IEE ( i n the sense intended) by FEARO (see page 8). The b r e v i t y of the f i r s t IEE Environment Canada received from MOT was commented on i n an i n t e r n a l DOE memorandum on the Boundary Bay Reactiva-t i o n . J. Herity, Chairman of the P a c i f i c RSCC commented, "Yes, i t ' s (the IEE) only one page long," followed by, "the IEE i s admittedly somewhat un-usual, but i n the circumstances, quite p r a c t i c a l " (Herity, June 21, 1976). Apparently, the department didn't r e a l i z e t h i s was MOT's standard procedure for preparing an IEE. A r e p e t i t i o n of t h i s format for proposed expansion of a i r p o r t runways at Port Hardy, Smithers and Campbell River brought t h i s comment 63 from EPS: The information provided on, and with the ( I n i t i a l Environmental) Evaluation forms i s r e a l l y not s u f f i c i e n t for us to comment i n any d e t a i l at t h i s time. (Scott, July 18, 1977) In summary, the screening process follows these steps: 1. Projects are reviewed annually to screen a c t i v i t i e s that may be of concern. In the P a c i f i c region, the screening i s c a r r i e d out by two CATA environmental o f f i c e r s . Occasionally projects may be referred to DOE to.determine what m i t i g a t i o n a l measures are required to allow the project to proceed. 2. An IEE i s prepared for those projects that may have some en-vironmental impacts. I t i s a b r i e f one-page document with no formal studies attached. A l l IEE's are referred to the RSCC for t h e i r comments. There were a t o t a l of 122 projects screened:as of August, 1978, i n P a c i f i c Region. (There was a t o t a l of 1073 projects screened n a t i o n a l l y . ) There i s no documentation of this f i r s t stage of screening on project f i l e s and MOT directed me to look at the IEE stage of screening. Of the 122 p r o j e c t s , 5 required further environmental evaluation (IEE). MOT provided me with the IEE's for a l l 5 projects. Two of the projects are described i n d e t a i l for this a n a l y s i s . The other three IEE examples were not analysed because they a l l followed exactly the same process and are included i n Appendix VI. The documentation comes from the P a c i f i c region o f f i c e s of MOT. This writer was not allowed d i r e c t access to f i l e s , but was provided with copies of information from these f i l e s . Departmental s t a f f provided the information they f e l t would be most useful for an examination of MOT's environmental assessment a c t i v i t i e s . They gave strong assurances that t h i s was a l l the information relevant to 64 screening. EPS f i l e s were examined to corroborate and supplement MOT informa-t i o n . In the Kelowna case, some information was found to be of relevance that MOT did not include. This again r e f l e c t s the problem of t r y i n g to undertake research-of government programs when fed e r a l o f f i c i a l s are very reluctant to allow open access to f i l e s . CASE STUDY 1. Proposed runway extension at Kelowna A i r p o r t The project's objective was to extend the runway 655 metres i n order to permit increased scheduling and payload of f l i g h t s into Kelowna. The f i r s t i n d i c a t i o n of the proposed a c t i v i t y on f i l e comes from the EPS Project Status Record (October 17, 1975). In a l e t t e r dated October 1, 1975, Transport Canada requested Treasury Board approval for the purchase of land required for the runway extension. (This would i n d i c a t e MOT had already made a decision to extend the runway.) At an RSCC meeting on October 17, 1975, i t was stated that MOT's request for funds bypassed DOE r e g i o n a l l y . Subsequent correspondence (McLaren, November 17, 1975) indicated t h i s was not accurate. Informal discussions had taken place but no formal r e f e r r a l had been made. Subsequently an IEE was prepared and referred to the RSCC for comment (see Appendix VI for the IEE). The RSCC reviewed the proposal and advised that i n i t s opinion only minor impacts would be associated with the project (Lacate, January 19, 1976). The RSCC recommended that MOT consult with the B.C. Land Commission, the Regional D i s t r i c t and the M u n i c i p a l i t y before making any major commitments. MOT did not provide me with any correspondence i n d i c a t i n g .this"had been done, although copies of correspondence with CMHC regarding noise were attached (CMHC, January 14, 1976). There was no i n d i c a t i o n of any attempt to obtain public input. 65 CASE STUDY 2. Boundary Bay A i r p o r t Reactivation The Boundary Bay a i r p o r t r e a c t i v a t i o n involves the reopening of a World War II A i r Force base for use as a general a v i a t i o n a i r p o r t by l i g h t non-jet powered a i r c r a f t . The a i r p o r t i s located south of Vancouver i n the Municipality of Delta on a 500 ha. s i t e adjacent to Boundary Bay. The purpose of the project i s to remove l i g h t a i r c r a f t from Vancouver International A i r -port where the mix with heavy commercial j e t s represents a safety hazard. The proponent and i n i t i a t o r i s MOT. An IEE was prepared which i d e n t i f i e d several physical and s o c i a l components that required further study. (See copy of IEE i n Appendix VI'.) The IEE also recommended that a formal environmental assess-ment -be required. • The IEE was forwarded to the RSCC, which agreed that an EIS be required for the project. Some public consultation took place before preparation of the IEE. This preliminary consultation was c a r r i e d out as part of the A i r p o r t Planning Consultative Committee for Vancouver. The recommendations of the Committee included references to the movement of general a v i a t i o n from Vancouver to an alternate s i t e , such as Abbotsford, Boundary Bay, etc. These recommendations were written up i n the "Airport Planning Committee Report" issued March, 1976. (Campbell, May, 1980) Both projects followed much the same procedures (although containing d i f f e r e n t outputs) and so w i l l be evaluated together i n terms of the normative c r i t e r i a . 1. In order for a process to be legitimate, a l l affected i n t e r e s t s should have the opportunity to be represented. a) Are there s u f f i c i e n t channels for these i n t e r e s t s to communicate t h e i r concerns? No. There i s no formal mechanism for including the p o t e n t i a l l y affected public i n the screening process. In the case of "major p r o j e c t s " MOT maintains there i s opportunity for public review. But the s e l e c t i o n of what 66 are major projects remains for MOT to decide. MOT does maintain a r e f e r r a l system with fe d e r a l Environment o f f i c i a l s at the IEE stage. b) Can these concerns be entered early i n the process? No. Since there i s no p r o v i s i o n for including a l l affected i n t e r e s t s i n screening they cannot be entered early on. Those i n t e r e s t s that are included do have input early i n the process. c) Do these range of i n t e r e s t s a f f e c t screening decisions? Unknown. There was i n s u f f i c i e n t information made a v a i l a b l e to me to f u l l y evaluate t h i s question. 2. The screening procedures should be rigorous and systematic. a) Is there a rigorous and formal procedure for screening with relevant and p r a c t i c a l d e c i s i o n c r i t e r i a ? No. Screening i s formalized to the extent that i t does follow a systematic procedure. However, there i s no documentation of projects that are removed from further consideration under EARP. The process i s not r i g o r -ous since the screening c r i t e r i a are vague and without any relevant s p e c i f i c environmental factors to evaluate against. b) Is the procedure applied i n a systematic manner to a l l proiects? •Yes, according to MOT o f f i c i a l s . Although there i s no docu-mentation, screening i s done on an annual basis by reviewing the f i v e year plan of the region. At t h i s stage projects requiring an IEE are i d e n t i f i e d and a one-page document i s prepared. 67 c) Is there a comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of the process to ensure i t i s accomplishing i t s objectives? No. One report prepared by MOT for FEARO (Stachuk, Sept. 18, 1978), l i s t s a l l the projects screened by MOT. Appendix A i s t i t l e d an "Evaluation of the A p p l i c a t i o n of EARP i n CATA" but i s simply an aggregation of national s t a t i s t i c s on screening with no i n t e r p r e t a t i o n or a n a l y s i s . 3. Screening decisions must be based on adequate information. a) Does the department have the expertise to make environmental screening decisions? No. The l e v e l of screening i s not adequate to suggest that the department has expertise i n environmental screening. The c r i t e r i a are en-vironmentally meaningless and they do not require any s p e c i f i c expertise to assess. Screening decisions are l a r g e l y l e f t to p r o f e s s i o n a l judgment and experience which can be a r b i t r a r y and inconsistent. b) Are a l t e r n a t i v e s considered? No. Only i n the case of the Boundary Bay study were a l t e r n a t i v e s i t e s considered. Kelowna and the other projects r e q u i r i n g an IEE were for expansion of e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s . c) Are expert advisors from outside the department used, i . e . routine r e f e r r a l ? Yes. At the IEE stage, a l l of the projects reviewed were r e f e r -red to the RSCC for t h e i r comments. Projects are not referred at the i n i t i a l screening stage. d) Is the public consulted? No. Although there i s provision for public consultation (MOT, October, 1979, p. 12), there was no opportunity for public p a r t i c i p a t i o n e v i -dent from a v a i l a b l e documents. 68 e) Is there s u f f i c i e n t information to i ) make a f a i r or r a t i o n a l decision? No. There i s no documentation i n d i c a t i n g what information i s provided. The Kelowna expansion was permitted, although there were no formal reviews or studies. MOT states that f i e l d i n v e s t i g a t i o n with DOE s t a f f s a t i s f i e s the need for information (Pettigrew, pers. comm.). i i ) i d e n t i f y the data gaps i n order to proceed with a more d e t a i l e d investigation? There i s no consistent means of ensuring t h i s (see C r i t e r i o n 2). However, the Boundary Bay TEE was -found to be inadequate and further study was recommended by the: RSCC. (See Appendix VI) 4. Is the screening process e f f e c t i v e ? No. The opinion of regional s t a f f i s that the process i s e f f e c t i v e because they have not received any complaints from the public or other govern-ment departments, including FEARO. It i s the opinion of the author that the public has not c r i t i c i z e d the process because v i r t u a l l y no one i s aware of i t s existence. MOT's screening a c t i v i t i e s , including the IEE, have very l i m i t e d input from the p u b l i c . MOT does s o l i c i t the advice of other government de-partments. On a project-by-project basis MOT claims to be e f f e c t i v e i n meeting i t s own l i m i t e d environmental objectives. It has evaluated the impacts of programs, p o l i c i e s and a c t i v i t i e s . Conclusions The screening and I n i t i a l Environmental Evaluation practices as employed by MOT are somewhat deceiving i n t h e i r nomenclature. I t would be more accurate to state that no IEE's are prepared since no information i s c o l l e c t e d . MOT uses FEARO nomenclature to s u i t i t s own purposes. 69 Recent changes in the screening process referred to in MOT (October, 1979) will increase accountability in screening, but i t remains to be seen if they provide for better evaluation at the IEE stage. A l l projects over $50,000 will require an environmental considerations sheet in accordance with MOT's October, 1979 Environmental Protection Planning document. Projects under $50,000 will not require environmental assessments unless otherwise specified. This appears to be similar to the U.S. "categorical exclusion" category referred to in Chapter 2. The major difference would be that in the U.S., other government agencies and the public would have some input into defining the exclusions, and the final l i s t of the exclusions would require the approval of the CEQ. Overall, the MOT screening process (including the IEE stage) is weak. Although the process is formal and systematic, the standards for screen-ing are very limited. The principal criterion for further environmental assessment is public controversy, yet there is no effective means of ensuring the public has any role in screening. On the basis of the criteria selected i t would appear that a project that may have major environmental impacts but creates no public controversy would not require any further environmental studies. There is a positive working relationship with the Department of Environment and joint field investigations of the proposed activities are common. Sisler(b) (pers. comm.) indicated that project managers and field staff are more environmentally aware than a few years ago because of liaison with MOT's own environmental staff and through joint DOE/MOT site inspections. 70 4. Screening: Department of Indian and Northern Affairs ".. DINA was first established in 1953 under the name the Department of Northern Affairs- and Natural Resources. Indian and Northern Affairs operates under the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Act (R.S.C. 1970-C.1-7). Under this Act the duties, powers, and functions of the Minister include the following: a) Indian Affairs; b) The Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory and their resources and affairs; c) Eskimo (Inuit) Affairs; d) Ordinance, Admiralty and Dominion lands. (National parks and related activities were transferred over to Environment Canada in 1979.) The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is also responsible for: a) coordinating the activities in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory of the several departments, branches and agencies of the federal government; b) undertaking, promoting and recommending policies and programs for further economic and political development of the territories; and c) fostering through scientific investigation and technology, knowledge of the Canadian north and of the means of dealing with conditions related to its further development. (Due and Sunga, 1976) The Department exercises "province-like" authority over lands and resources north of 60°. The federal crown owns 98% of the land in the territories and 71 it is managed by DINA under the Territorial Lands Act (1953). The management of water resources is also a federal concern. The Northern Inland Waters Act (1970) provides the legal framework for water management north of 60°. Other federal statutes such as the Arctic Waters  Pollution Prevention Act (1970) which applies to only Arctic Marine Waters, and the Canada Water Act (1970) which applies to inland waters on a national scale, provide the federal government additional means for water management. All of these Acts and accompanying regulations are administered by DINA in the territories. DINA obviously plays the major role in the north. It regulates most of the land-based activities (e.g. mining and petroleum exploration and development), and regulates some major water-related uses (e.g. off-shore drilling). In terms of budget expenditures the Indian and Eskimo Affairs pro-gram which operates throughout Canada, spends the largest part of its funds on education and community affairs. Community affairs includes support of community government, physical improvements and social welfare services. The Northern Affairs program has a smaller budget than Indian and Eskimo Affairs, but its emphasis is more on resource and economic development (DINA, 1978-79). The screening process in the Northern Affairs section of DINA will be studied in detail. Northern Affairs was chosen because of the overwhelming impact this section of the department has on the north. The following des-cription and analysis is based on a review of relevant documents, open-ended interviews with representatives of the department, and follow-up correspond-ence. 1. Procedures There are no formalized procedures for screening. Morrison(a) 72 (pers. comm.), Chief of the Environmental Assessment Division (Northern Environmental Protection Branch) cited three reasons for not having a formal screening process. The first was that "in a l l of the projects referred to FEARO by DIAND to date, a decision with respect to potential significance of impact was very easily made and no formal screening mechanism was necessary" (Morrision, March, 1980). The second was that DINA is a highly centralized department. Policy originates from headquarters while the regions administer and manage regulations. Environmental review is considered to be primarily a headquarters responsibility, i.e. especially the review of major projects that may require referral to FEARO. However, what constitutes a major project is undefined and arrangements between headquarters and the regions with respect to the screening of projects are now under review. (Morrison, March 1980) DINA feels that i t has the in-house expertise and legislative man-date to manage the environment without use of EARP. This view is reflected in the views of a senior official in DINA: People should recognize that even in the absence of the EARP hearings, there are a l l sorts of regulatory Acts and mechanisms to ensure orderly development in the North. For example, such bodies as the Arctic Waters Advisory Committee (AWAC) and the Land Use Advisory Committees (LUAC), have been set up speci-fically to advise the government on local environmental concerns, and the terms and conditions that should be applied to development permits and licences. When necessary these bodies can hold public hearings to sound out local opinion. Additional EARP-related formal reviews are largely unnecessary and should therefore be reserved for high profile projects and policies of national significance. (Ruel, cited in Rees, 1979) There are in fact, three possible routes for DINA "screening". Screening may be done at the regional or headquarters level. Headquarters 73 reviews the "higher p r o f i l e " projects, making recommendations for r e f e r r a l . 6 Screening at headquarters can follow two possible routes. The f i r s t i s simply an administrative decision made by the Director General. The decision to r e f e r a project to the formal assessment phase i s made on the advice of depart-ment s t a f f and the Director's perceptions of the magnitude of the project to be of concern to the p u b l i c . This process was followed f o r the Alaska Highway Gas P i p e l i n e and the Polar Gas P i p e l i n e proposals. The second route for screening i s through the Environment Assessment D i v i s i o n . The Environmental Assessment D i v i s i o n has experts from several environmental areas (e.g. water and land management, plant biology) to review projects (Morrison(b), pers. comm.). Staff from the D i v i s i o n meet to discuss projects and make recommenda-tions to the Director General on whether to r e f e r the project to the formal assessment phase. On occasion, they r e f e r the project proposal to DOE and '<•• DFO for comments p r i o r to decision, depending on the scale of the project and the scope of the p o t e n t i a l impacts (Morrison(b), pers. comm.). Examples are the Esso-Norman Wells and the Columbia Gas production and p i p e l i n e proposals. In no case i s a formal screening document or f o l i o prepared that would permit review and evaluation of these "routine" procedures. ^Recent correspondence between Don Gamble, of the Canadian A r c t i c Resources Committee and Paul T e l l i e r , Deputy Minister, of DINA, has done l i t t l e to c l a r i f y the d i v i s i o n between regional and headquarters screening a c t i v i t i e s . T e l l i e r writes: "Most project applications that may require r e f e r r a l to FEARO for review are for large projects and are f i l e d at our Ottawa headquarters." This implies a preliminary l e v e l of screening to determine "large p r o j e c t s " which i s not discussed. T e l l i e r states that headquarters screening " i s done b a s i c a l l y according to the screening guidelines issued by FEARO although no impact matrix i s used; the l i s t of possible impacts i s used more as a check l i s t . " However i n my interviews with R. Morrison (head of the Assessment Division) no reference to the FEARO guide was made. T e l l i e r again makes the point that "the assessment of the.significance of impacts are (sic) based on the p r o f e s s i o n a l judgements of the s t a f f . . . . " ( T e l l i e r , July 15, 1980). With no known a n a l y t i c framework,- external review, or assessment c r i t e r i a as a reference, professional judgment i s no more than undocumented opinion. 74 The Yellowknife office has only recently become involved in screen-ing. Projects screened have included proposed mines, and dredging activity in the Mackenzie Delta area. According to Morrison, environmental expertise within the regional office is limited so referral to the regionally based ad-visory committees forms the basis for input into the screening decisions (Morrison(b), pers. comm.). A. Redshaw, Chairman of AWAC (pers. comm.) stated that such advisory committees (when used) satisfied the screening requirements of FEARO. The roles of the regional office and headquarters are not explicitly laid out, so that there is an internal power struggle within DINA on how and by whom screening decisions should be made (Bryant, Morrison(b), Redshaw, pers. comm.). This seems to be the result of a process that has no clearly specified and structured mechanisms. It should be pointed out that this process applies only to the Northern Affairs Program of DINA. In the absence of any departmental policy, responsibility for screening has been left with the three separate programs of DINA. Several sources within DINA who asked not to be identified, stated, "the Northern Affairs people did not want to allow projects to pass out of their control because they were protecting their empire." Clearly this does not bode well for the concept of the public interest in the environment. I was able to document only one example of screening in DINA and much of this material is not directly related to the screening activity per se. As indicated above, there is no formal documentation of screening and related criteria. In most cases the final recommendations represent the unsubstan-tiated professional judgment of the relevant officials. The following is a brief summary of the 1979 proposal to dredge McKinley Bay and Tuktoyuktuk Harbour. 75 Case study of McKinley Bay dredging proposal The proposal to dredge McKinley Bay and Tuktoyuktuk Harbour was first registered with EPS on June 20, 1979 by Dome Petroleum's subsidiary, Canadian Marine Drilling Ltd. (Canmar). The purpose of dredging was to create a basin with a maximum depth of 10 metres to allow supply ships to travel safely through the Bay to Tuktoyuktuk and provide an alternative winter port for drillships. The total size of the area in McKinley Bay to be dredged is 14.2 km. width by 100 m. length by 10 m. depth. The total amount of spoil is 4.2 million cubic metres (Hoos, June 25, 1979). The project has been describ-ed as one of the largest dredging operations ever undertaken under the authority of the Ocean Dumping Control Act (ODCA). The effect of the dredging was to prepare "the two sites for major arctic harbour/port development in support of massive o i l and gas production" (Mar, July 10, 1979). The initiator was the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs because of its regulatory control over Arctic waters and land use. DOE might have been at least a co-initiator since i t has regulatory control of ocean dumping, although this did not occur. Permission for dredging and spoils disposal was requested under the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act (AWPPA) from DINA and ODCA from DOE. Proposals under AWPPA are considered by DINA through the Arctic Waters Advisory Committee (AWAC), chaired by A. Redshaw of DINA. The Regional Ocean Dumping Advisory Committee (RODAC), chaired by W. Bryant of EPS, reviews applications under the ODCA. In the case of Tuk Harbour/McKinley Bay i t was decided that a joint AWAC/RODAC committee review the dredging proposal and act as DIAND's designated screen mechanism. According to DINA: Some members of the Advisory Committees suggested referral to FEARO but on the advice, prepared jointly by the two chairmen, our ADM decided that such a review was not required. It was furthermore decided — again on the 76 advice of the two chairman — that approval in principle would be given subject to certain conditions, and i t was left to the 2 committees to complete the environmental review and to set terms and conditions for the dredging activity. (Loken, 1979) The following traces the actual events upon which this claim is based. Public hearings were set up by AWAC/RODAC to allow for public com-ment on the proposal. Two meetings were held, first in Inuvik and then Tuktoyuktuk. Attendance at the hearings was very poor. This was attributed to short notice given, poor advertising of the meetings and lack of environ-mental information on the proposal (Bryant, pers. comm.). The counter argument to this was simple lack of interest, particularly in Inuvik which is quite distant from the dredging site (A. Redshaw, pers. comm.). On July 6, the two committees met to discuss the dredging proposal and recommend appropriate action. In their discussions the committees noted that the federal government had previously stated that there would be no development in the McKinley Bay area because of negotiations with the Committee for Original Peoples Entitlement (COPE). (See Committee Recommenda-tion 44:4.8, AWAC/RODAC, July 1979). W. Bryant, Chairman of RODAC, transmitted the following recommenda-tions to J. Mar, Regional Director of EPS in Edmonton, based on the July 6 meeting: 1) Regional Environmental Assessment Required. It is now apparent that offshore development will continue to take place in the Beaufort, yet government and industry do not have the data base to deal effectively with the imminent offshore production activities. The RODAC recommends very strongly that a regional environmental assessment be planned and initiated immediately. 2) Approve Dredging Approach Channel to Tuk Harbour. RODAC supports the proposal for the dredging of the approach channel to Tuk and recommends that approval be given subject 77 to the company carrying out the required engineering studies and f i l i n g t h e i r f i n a l design plans. 3) Environmental Assessment Required for A c t i v i t i e s within Tuk Harbour. The RODAC recommends that because of the concerns of the people of Tuk for domestic f i s h i n g within the confines of the harbour, that an environmental assessment of the harbour and associated land areas be made p r i o r to any dredging and/or construction of a d d i t i o n a l shore f a c i l i t i e s . 4) Defer Dredging and Harbour development at McKinley Bay. RODAC recommends that u n t i l the IEE report has been f i l e d by the company and assessed by government, no ocean dumping or associated land use permits be issued. (W. Bryant, July 11, 1979) (E s s e n t i a l l y these same recommendations were sent by Redshaw to E. C o t t e r i l l , then ADM, DIAND.) Presumably, Bryant had communicated with Mar p r i o r to sending the memo of July 11 with the recommendations because on July 10, 1979, Mar made si m i l a r recommendations to Ottawa. Mar stated i n a July 10, 1979 memo to the Assistant Deputy Minister i n Ottawa that McKinley Bay " i n view of i t s magnitude of impact should be subjected to an environmental assessment and review process p r i o r to any decision being made to issue an ocean dumping permit." (Mar, July 10, 1979). Apparently, included with the memo was a "Minister's b r i e f i n g note" which c r i t i c i z e d DINA's actions i n northern devel-opment and Dome Petroleum's "ludicrous" time frame for environmental assess-ment. (Received by the author under separate cover. The tone and content of the document i s wholly compatible with the July 10 memo.) The b r i e f i n g note recommends that the Minister: . . . deny ap p l i c a t i o n and request DINA to formally submit the proposal and associated a c t i v i t i e s to Beaufort Sea hydro-carbon production to the FEAR O f f i c e for formal public review and assessment. The reasons given for t h i s recommendation are as follows: Dredging at t h i s time can be considered a major step towards f u l l scale o i l and gas production i n 78 the Beaufort Sea, that will have major and long term impacts (social and environmental) in the Mackenzie Delta region. Permission to proceed with this application will be a first and implicit approval by government to proceed towards production. This will defeat the spirit and intent of the federal EAR process and make it difficult, i f not impossible, to require sound planning and the consideration of environmental considerations at the front end of the decision making process. . . (emphasis added) This advice was rejected by senior DOE officials in Ottawa, who apparently imposed a very narrow interpretation to the mandate of ODCA. This interpretation was conveyed to Mar, who responded to the RODAC recommendation the next day. ODCA "is not the appropriate mechanism for use in initiating a general environmental assessment of a development undertaking" (Mar, July 12, 1979). Mar also stated that an IEE for harbour development should be a DINA responsibility and that dredging should not be deferred unless permitting conditions could not be met. He instructed Bryant "unless we can specifically identify unacceptable impact on marine mammals, etc., normal processing of the (McKinley Bay ODCA) permit should proceed" (Mar, July 12, 1979). Mar clearly had had a change of heart from his previous statements of July 10. Subsequent correspondence between L. Harding, EPS) Yellowknife (October 22, 1979) and G. V. Buxton, EPS, Ottawa (November 14, 1979) indicate obvious frustration on the part of Yellowknife staff over Ottawa's narrow interpretation of the ODCA. Harding was concerned that the narrow inter-pretation of the Act imposed by headquarters prevented RODAC from serving its mandate. He states: If an Ocean Dumping Permit cannot address items not directly related to dumping (for example, effects of associated activities on birds or marine mammals) then where is our one-window approach? As a case in point, in processing the permits for dredging at 79 McKinley Bay, we were given quite specific instructions  not to consider the broad environmental aspects . . . (Harding, October 22, 1979, emphasis added) Buxton's response is illuminating in its description of what he considers to be DOE's responsibilities vis-a-vis the environment and the EAR process. He recalls a meeting between the president or vice-president of Dome and senior DOE officials discussing "the need to proceed rapidly with the expansion of various harbour facilities (Tuk and McKinley) in order to further the Federal Government's stated priority objective of self-sufficiency (Buxton, 1979).^ The outcome of the alleged meeting was that the senior DOE officials "indicated their desire to ensure the provision of adequate environ-mental protection measures while, at the same time, avoiding any unnecessary and time-consuming administrative hindrances." He also states "the fundament-al concerns (assessing the overall impact of this major energy related activity) belonged to the EARP and the time frame for this consideration was unknown and, in fact, to a large degree, outside our sphere of influence . . . the appropriate department for initiating the DOE recommended EARP review was DINA." Accordingly: Our recommendations . . . were that i f we were forced to consider this activity . . . before a clear instruction on the overall environmental acceptability was provided, then we would respond clearly and solely in the context and spirit of ODCA. . . We would simply be addressing the 'standard' environmental concerns in relation to dredging in the usual manner. ' Thus you can ^G. R. Harrison, Dome's Senior Vice-President, and J. Gerin, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, DOE, have both denied such a meeting occurred (Harrison, Feb. 21, 1980 and Gerin, April 22, 1980). There are other government docu-ments which refer to a meeting between Dome and senior government representa-tives regarding McKinley Bay (see Boothroyd, 1979; Clarke, 1980; Hoos of Canmar also mentioned a meeting with senior officials in the AWAC/RODAC minutes, July 6, 1979). 80 appreciate our desire not to have the regional staff expand the RODAC process to try to take the place of EARP. (Buxton, November 14, 1979) This view, implemented through Mar's instructions of July 12, 1979, seems to exclude any possibility of RODAC being involved in the screening process or of the EARP review. Remarkably it conflicts with DINA's claim that the joint Committee was serving as the EARP screening mechanism: . . . far from displacing EARP, AWAC/RODAC were EARP at the screening level. As part of the designated screening mechanism i t was therefore RODAC's duty to recommend referral of McKinley Bay to FEARO for formal review i f justified by the facts, independent of any specific responsibilities  under the ODCA. (Rees, 1980) The subsequent decisions by DINA can also be questioned. E. Cotterill, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister in DINA, gave approval-in-principle (A.I.P.) to Dome on July 13, 1979, to dredge McKinley Bay subject to certain conditions, including the preparation of an IEE and obtaining approval under the ODCA. However, contrary to the recommendations of the AWAC/RODAC Committees there was no stipulation that the IEE be "assessed by government" prior to commencement of dredging. However, Cotterill did offer the following commitment to development in the region: No land use permit • or lease will be issued until your company has submitted a comprehensive plan for the future harbour facilities at McKinley Bay . . . (and in the Beaufort Sea area) . . . so that environmental assessment and planning can be carried out on a comprehensive regional rather than a site-specific basis. (Cotterill, July 13, 1979) The IEE for McKinley Bay was produced in early August. RODAC meetings were held August 16/17, 1979 to discuss the IEE. Joint AWAC/ There was f 81 general criticism regarding the deficiencies of the IEE and i t was recommended by a majority on the two committees that the project be delayed and that i t go through formal EARP review (AWAC/RODAC, August 16, 1979). This recommendation was restated by L. Harding (Acting Chairman, RODAC) in letters to A. Redshaw (Chairman, AWAC) and J. Mar (Regional Director, EPS) emphasizing the need for further environmental assessment (Harding, August 20, 1979 A and B). In his letter to Mar, Harding reported the strong reservations and recommendations of individual committee members. Harding then refers to Cotterill's condition that a comprehensive plan for harbour and support facilities in the Beaufort was required "prior to final approval". He also cited the COPE-Government of Canada agreement that the McKinley Bay land area "had been set aside as a reindeer grazing reserve where no develop-ment would be allowed". In light of these points, Harding states: Clearly dredging at McKinley Bay cannot proceed this year if a l l the above recommendations and conditions are to be met . . . . Since there are no other formal permits the consequences of issuing an Ocean Dumping Permit would be to allow dredging to proceed immediate-ly-In view of the strong opposition from some members on environmental grounds, i t may be wise to examine our (DOE) responsibility with respect to EARP, as the regu-latory authority, before issuing the permit. (Harding, August 20,1979B) Harding's letter reflects RODAC's reluctance to issue the ODCA permit. As well, i t indicates the possibility of DOE using the ODCA as a means of taking on the role of initiator in order to refer the project to a formal EARP review. No action was taken by Ottawa on the RODAC concerns and the ODCA permit was issued within three days of Harding's letter. DINA was now clearly left with the responsibility for referring the project to the formal assessment phase since the regulatory decision to dredge was made by EPS in issuing an Ocean Dumping Permit. DINA disregarded the 82 recommendations of its own AWAC committee and the EPS RODAC committee to refer the dredging proposal to FEARO. This sequence of events clearly reveals that contrary to DINA's original statement critical decisions taken by government respecting McKinley Bay were against the specific advice of the AWAC/RODAC Q and their chairmen. The role of DOE's RSCC is worth mentioning as a postscript. On September 7, 1979, two weeks after the issuance of permits and five days after the commencement of dredging, the RSCC met to discuss "procedural problems with McKinley Bay." They also agreed that "a review be conducted on the IEE's for McKinley Bay" (Boothroyd, October 9, 1979). In this case, the RSCC was clearly only a belated and passive advisor on environmental matters with projects referred to it at the discretion of initiating agencies, in this case DINA. It is useful to review the McKinley Bay decision-making process in light of the normative criteria derived in Chapter 2. 1. In order for a process to be legitimate a l l affected  interests must be represented. a) Were there sufficient channels for these interests to communicate their concerns? Potentially. The advisory committees provide a wide range of interests. (See Appendix VII for a l i s t of members on advisory committees.) ^L^ken has since argued that the decisions to proceed were based on DINA's perceptions of the dredging proposal as merely "to provide winter anchorage for drilling vessels" and not as "preparations for a major harbour facility." (L^ken, 1980). However as the available documentation shows "(DINA) is the only actor in the play to consider Beaufort harbour development merely as support for Dome's exploratory activities. It is precisely such "judgments" made in Ottawa that critics see leading to the incremental loss of control over development activity in the north by (DINA)" (Rees, May 29, 1980.) In any event, screening decisions should presumably be based on consider-ation of environmental impact not purpose of the project. 83 Hearings were held in Tuk and Inuvik to allow the public to comment. However, these were on short notice and poorly attended and no environmental informa-tion was presented. The proponent was apparently able to communicate its concerns at the regional and headquarters level. The RSCC could have made comments on the proposal but did not meet until after approval had been given. b) Could these concerns be entered early in the project planning process? Not in the case of McKinley Bay. The process was rushed a l l the way through. The environmental evaluation was clearly regarded as a separate process and potential impediment to the proposal by both Dome/Canmar and Ottawa. The hearings were held without sufficient notice being given to the public. Moreover, DOE's RSCC did not meet to review the project until after i t had gotten under way. The issuing of permits did not follow normal procedures: The urgency in getting these permits to you precluded the normal preliminary review of wording with your officials. (Mar, August 23, 1979) c) Did this range of interests affect screening decisions? Not substantially. In the case of McKinley Bay, Ottawa rejected many specific recommendations of the screening committees and Dome/Canmar apparently got precisely what i t wanted. Dome's Senior Vice-President commented: In my view, the response by the various government agencies and committees was most commendable and the project demonstrates that things can get done in Canada's north in both a prompt and responsible manner. (Harrison, November 22, 1979) In the end, the advisory committees were able merely to specify limited terms and conditions. DOE had, but did not use, a regulatory lever 84 through the ODCA to make issuance of an ODCA permit contingent on the outcome of a formal EARP review (Rees, February, 1980). DINA simply rejected the recommendations of the committees. F i n a l l y , the RSCC could not a f f e c t the project a f t e r the f a c t . 2. The screening procedures should be rigorous and systematic. a) Was there a rigorous and formal procedure for screening with relevant and p r a c t i c a l decision c r i t e r i a ? No. It i s clear that DOE and DINA did not even agree on the r o l e of AWAC/RODAC j o i n t committees. While DINA apparently considered i t to be the EARP screening mechanism, DOE (Ottawa) did not want RODAC's mandate to include environmental assessment i n the context of EARP. In any event, the advice of both committees was ignored by DINA. Beyond the lack of adequate information decision c r i t e r i a were not e x p l i c i t . However those of the ad-v i s o r y committees were obviously d i f f e r e n t from those of DINA and DOE. b) Was t h i s proposal subjected to a rigorous and systematic screening review? No. There was no i n d i c a t i o n that the project was subjected to a systematic review. c) Was there an evaluation of the effectiveness of the process to ensure i t i s accomplishing i t s objectives i n t h i s case? Not i n any formal sense (e.g. report/feedback). However, on-s i t e monitoring of the project i s required. The effectiveness of t h i s monitoring i s unknown although there have been apparent v i o l a t i o n s (Rees, pers. comm.). 3, Screening decisions must be based on adequate information. a) Does the department have the expertise to make environmental screening decisions? 85 No. The regional DINA office does not have this expertise, but makes use instead of multi-departmental advisory committees. b) Were alternatives considered? No. Dredging at McKinley Bay was the only alternative presented to the public at the meetings in Tuk and Inuvik. c) Were expert advisors used from outside the department, i.e. routine referral? Yes, in the form of the advisory committees. d) Was the public consulted? Only very ineffectively and even this was unusual. Public consultation is not usually used (Redshaw, pers. comm.). e) Was there sufficient information to i) make a fair or rational decision? No. The recommendations of the advisory committees indicate further studies were necessary (preferably through a formal EARP review) be-fore a decision on development could rationally be made. ii ) identify the data gaps in order to proceed with a more detailed investigation? Yes, but no further studies were actually stipulated prior to issuing the dredging permit. 4. Is the process effective? The process was not only ineffective, it is questionable whether a screening process was in place, given the inconsistency between DOE and DINA re the role of the advisory committees. The split in screening roles between Ottawa and Yellowknife also impedes the possibility of an effective screening process. 86 The overall conclusions from this project are quite clear: 1. The screening process was severely handicapped but did produce specific recommendations, reflecting caution in the absence of knowledge; 2. DIAND rejected this advice and initially attempted a "cover-up" by claiming that actions taken resulted from screening decisions. 3. No explicit policy basis was offered by DINA for permitting development to proceed on Dome's schedule. Internal documents reveal a strong belief among c i v i l servants that Dome's high level lobby effort was an important factor. 87 -5_i - Screening: , The Rbie of the Department of Environment:, A discussion of the EARP screening process would not be complete without a review of the ro l e of DOE as i t a f f e c t s the process. As previously mentioned, the screening process i s based on self-assessment by government agencies. It has also been mentioned that federal departments are d i r e c t l y accountable to t h e i r minister, who i n turn i s accountable to Cabinet and Parliament. These p o l i c i e s and t r a d i t i o n s mitigate against DOE having a strong and act i v e r o l e i n screening of pro j e c t s . Nevertheless, the department has been able to act i n an advisory capacity to most government departments. There are three points worth bearing i n mind when reviewing DOE's r o l e : 1) With regard to EARP, the department can only act as an advisor to departments who v o l u n t a r i l y .refer projects to DOE. That i s , DOE only receives the projects that other departments r e f e r to i t , and cannot require a project be ref e r r e d to the formal panel process, except through p o l i t i c a l suasion. 2) The department has l e g a l capacity to prosecute i n f r a c t i o n s against Acts under i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n (e.g. Canada Water Act, Canada W i l d l i f e Act, Clean A i r Act, Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Ocean Dumping Control A c t ) , as well as Section 33 of the F i s h e r i e s Act. 3) The department has an o b l i g a t i o n under the Cabinet P o l i c y D i r e c t i v e of 1973 e s t a b l i s h i n g EARP to screen i t s own projects, programs and a c t i v i t i e s . The Environmental Protection Service (EPS) i s the f o c a l point f o r contact by other government departments, industry, the public and the provinces on matters of environmental protection. EPS receives a l l r e f e r r a l s on matters 88 related to pollution, federal activities, and EARP (see memorandum from Fahlman to Heskin, July 17, 1979). EPS acts as an advisor on projects referred by government agencies. Projects that i t considers significant are registered with the Regional Screening and Coordinating Committee (RSCC) set up specifically for this pur-pose. The RSCC is composed of representatives of each of the different ser-vices within DOE (e.g. Canadian Wildlife Service, Atmospheric Environmental Service). The RSCC will set up a task force to review the project, and make recommendations on how the project ought to proceed, i.e. certain mitigating measures may be recommended to ensure the project meets legislative as well as EARP requirements. Although EPS has no specific regulations or guidelines requiring referral of projects, a l l of the government agencies studied use the referral system to some extent. MOT requires that a l l runway extensions or paving of runways be referred to EPS. DPW has a policy that a l l Marine Engineering projects (with certain exceptions) be referred to EPS. EMR refers a l l pro-jects reviewed for screening to EPS and the Department of Fisheries. DINA uses both the LUAC/AWAC committees which it chairs and the RODAC advisory committee and the RSCC to obtain advice from DOE. One might expect that with a l l this available environmental ex-pertise (albeit on a purely ad hoc and advisory basis) sound environmental decision-making would occur. The results as shown in DIAND and to a lesser extent in DPW indicate this is not always the case. DOE faces a number of problems in its involvement with EARP: 1. The use of departmental expertise is advisory only. 2. There is no specified procedure stating at what point in the EAR process DOE should be consulted. 89 3. There is no definite position or national perspective on DOE's involvement with EARP. 4. The RSCC can only respond to projects voluntarily referred to them by initiating agencies. 5. DOE is considered a "junior" department with the minister usually having a lower status in cabinet. DOE's role (or lack thereof) in Canada's northern environment was clearly demonstrated in the case study of McKinley Bay. This study indicated that DOE suffered from a l l of the above problems. The future role for DOE in EARP appears to be basically the same in principle, i.e. advisory in nature. There have been attempts to clarify the roles and responsibilities of DOE in the screening phase of EARP, the first being the "Operating Guidelines between FEARO, DOE and DFO" in 1978. Most recently, a draft discussion paper prepared by Dave Marshall of FEARO (March, 1980) based on bis previous employment at DOE, states the roles and responsi-bilities of DOE in EARP. The tone of the document is contradictory because it "requires" DOE to "offer" information and to "advise" other departments. In other words, DOE must offer environmental advice, but the other govern-ment departments are not required to request i t , accept i t or use i t . For example, "DOE shall offer to review the screening processes and decisions of federal agencies. . ." and, " i f DOE identifies a strong potential for signi-ficant effects, DOE shall remind the proponent of its obligations for formal referral under the terms of reference of EARP. This step in the process should be considered as an educational tool to assist the decision-making process rather than as an enforced requirement" (emphasis added) (Marshall, 1980, pp. 4-5). 90 On a positive note, the paper does set new and useful priorities for DOE. In terms of screening, the following are noteworthy: 1. More attention shall be focussed on carrying out follow-up studies to assess the effectiveness of DOE recommendations. This is one area where DOE shall devote a greater percentage of the resources used for EARP. Follow-up activity shall be carried out for a l l projects given a panel review, and for those projects not given panel review follow-up activity shall;be conducted on a case-by-case basis on the recommendations for mitigating the environmental affects of projects allowed to proceed. 2. DOE shall reorient its involvement in the screening stage of the EAR process. Emphasis shall be placed upon assisting other government departments in developing and assessing their screening processes rather than actually becoming involved in the screening projects. This activity should include the promotion of DOE codes, guidelines and policies. 3. A l l services within the Department shall prepare and implement effective internal screening procedures. 4. The Regional Screening and Coordinating Committees shall be re-named the Regional Committees on EARP and the activities of these committees shall con-centrate on DOE regional activities in EARP. (Marshall, p. 11) In order to implement the policy statement and directives in this document the Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, the Assistant Deputy Ministers, and the Regional Director Generals "shall" develop and implement "required" specific directives and procedures. Priority #4 refers to the lack of any consistent screening proeer dures in DOE. Screening is applied within different services of DOE (e.g. Parks Canada), but i t is not fully implemented in the department (Paul Scott, pers. comm.). Conclusions DOE's involvement in the screening activities of other departments 91 is largely dependent on the goodwill of other government departments. These departments have no legal obligation to seek the.advice of DOE. The most recent statement of DOE's role indicates no radical changes from past policy. The changes w i l l make DOE operations more effective in-ternally, but there is no indication that interaction with other government departments w i l l change. 92 B. Discussion and Conclusions The Environmental Assessment and Review Process su f f e r s from a number of d e f i c i e n c i e s . The process contains no s p e c i f i c guidelines or regu-l a t i o n s that departments and agencies are compelled to follow. There i s no d e f i n i t i o n of what constitutes s i g n i f i c a n t impacts i n DINA and EMR, while i n DPW and MOT i t i s based almost e n t i r e l y on public perception of s i g n i f i c a n c e and the department's "professional judgment". There are no c l e a r l y measurable c r i t e r i a for assessment used by DINA and EMR while the c r i t e r i a are inadequate i n MOT and DPW. The ro l e of the pub l i c i s not c l e a r l y defined i n any of the departments' procedures. A l l of these inadequacies are r e f l e c t e d to some extent i n the case studies I examined. The following i s a summary and review of the departments' screening i n l i g h t of my assessment c r i t e r i a : 1. In order for a pub l i c process to be legitimate, a l l affected  i n t e r e s t s should be given the opportunity to be represented. The f i r s t c r i t e r i o n used i n the assessment of the process ind i c a t e the following points (see Table 1 for summary): a) There were i n s u f f i c i e n t channels for the representation of in t e r e s t s i n a l l of the eight projects assessed. Two of the projects had the p o t e n t i a l to have s u f f i c i e n t representation, but because of timing and meeting format were not. b) There was i n d i c a t i o n i n seven of the projects that the concerns of only a few affected i n t e r e s t s were sought e a r l y i n the plan-ning process by the i n i t i a t o r s or proponents. R e f e r r a l was li m i t e d to a few government agencies. c) There was evidence that where external advice was sought these concerns affected screening decisions i n a l l projects to some extent. In the DINA example, the e f f e c t of external advice to •z. o to O m tc D re > c ID t-J re c re •< rj K rt U3 re P o re D rr 3 a P! O -c o n m D c P- O re b re & cr & c D r r % H-O rr H-re D " W n i-n H* O W re re 0; D £ = = _ = c D *< r- C tO LO ro r - o ro H P3 •z E 1, D Z ' C? S !> n O o re n n & c' & re re o C_ p. § 5: n HI O (_>. I_ (a H- H 1 a. c U3 C/5 p rt cw •< • OC1 ?3 = O r j a -1 o tc EC • J> H> s: < n re 2 n> rt H-"TJ O o c CJ n D H- 1 O > n K i-i re a -a c. H- a 0 M 00 o re o a) S u f f i c i e n t channels b) Early Application c) Affect Decisions a) Formal Procedure b) Systematic Application c) Evaluation a) In house Expertise b) Alternatives c) Referrals d) Public Consulted e) S u f f i c i e n t information: for decision further study 94 DOE was limited to the terms and conditions attached to the ODCA permit. The concerned interests tended almost exclusively to be the Department of Environment. DOE is a legitimate interested concern, however it is doubtful whether i t represents a l l the public interests. In general, the initiating agencies have obtained the comments and advice from other government departments, particularly the federal and pro-vincial levels. There is evidence that the opinions and comments of industry have been heard in DINA and DPW. However, the public has been under-represented in virtually a l l the cases studied. It can be concluded that none of the departmental screening procedures allow for fu l l representation of potentially affected interests. 2. The screening procedures should be rigorous and systematic. The following points were identified in the analysis of the second criterion: a) One of the four departments has a formal procedure for screening, but none have relevant or practical decision criteria. b) The process is systematically applied in only one of the four departments. Although i t has taken over six years to implement screening, EMR hopes to have a systematic process operating in the near future. DINA officials have talked in vague terms of implementing a systematic screening process, but no definite plans appear to be in place. c) No evaluation has been undertaken in any of the departments to determine i f screening is meeting departmental standards of effectiveness. Likewise, FEARO has no overall evaluation 95 of screening. The a p p l i c a t i o n of the process i n a rigorous and systematic manner was inadequate i n a l l the departments studied. Screening procedures should be f l e x i b l e and take departmental differences into account. However, there should be some i n t e r n a l consistency and r i g o r i n the a p p l i c a t i o n of the pro-cedures i n order to increase a c c o u n t a b i l i t y and reduce bi a s . DIAND's screening procedures as DINA o f f i c i a l s describe them are not rigorous or systematic. There i s no documentation of screening i n most cases. It i s doubtful i f the procedures described by DIAND for screening i n the case of McKinley Bay r e a l l y serve that purpose at a l l . The concept of r e f e r r i n g proposed a c t i v i t i e s to other government agencies through a committee structure has the p o t e n t i a l for being a very e f f e c t i v e means of inc l u d i n g the concerns of most affected i n t e r e s t s i n the screening process. However, u n t i l DIAND o f f e r s more than l i p service to these committees, t h e i r e ffectiveness i n the the EAR process i s minimal. Although i t has taken s i x years to do so, EMR's screening procedures are now i n t h e i r e a r l y stages of implementation. Because EMR works so c l o s e l y with p r o v i n c i a l governments and agencies the actual screening document i s usually prepared by the proponent with EMR reviewing the report. The depart-ment has no guidelines for the production of the report or s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a for review of the document. The examples used were selected by EMR and presumably would be t h e i r 'models' for screening and at least representative of EMR screening procedures. The P a c i f i c Region of DPW states that i t follows a systematic pro-cess of screening, but there i s no documentation of screening except i n pro-j e c t r e f e r r a l s to other government agencies for t h e i r advice and comments. There i s no environmental expertise within the P a c i f i c Region o f f i c e s at 96 present. One of the reasons for the department not having a formal docu-mented process i s because of the lack of commitment by senior o f f i c i a l s i n Ottawa. Since DPW selected the examples for me to study they should be considered models or at least representative of screening by DPW o f f i c i a l s in P a c i f i c region. The M i n i s t r y of Transport has developed a two-stage screening pro-cess. The f i r s t stage of screening contains no documentation and i s based on the c r i t e r i a and professional judgment of two screening coordinators. The second l e v e l ( c a l l e d the I n i t i a l Environmental Evaluation) i s a c h e c k - l i s t of p o t e n t i a l environmental concerns. The c h e c k - l i s t describes s p e c i f i c studies that should be carried out, yet there was no documented evidence t h i s was done. MOT s t a f f explained t h i s was done through j o i n t f i e l d i n v e s t i g a -tions with DOE s t a f f . However, i t i s evident from DOE correspondence that they do not view MOT's methods of preparing IEE's as being s a t i s f a c t o r y . MOT and DPW l a r g e l y assess projects they i n i t i a t e and t h i s may ex-p l a i n why they implemented systematic screening procedures far e a r l i e r than DINA or EMR. They control the a c t i v i t y much more c l o s e l y than DIAND or EMR and i t i s simpler to apply screening early i n project planning. EMR and DIAND are faced with the d i f f i c u l t y of reacting to project proposals by pro-v i n c i a l governments or p r i v a t e industry acting as a f a c i l i t a t o r , and also reviewing them to ensure they meet environmental screening c r i t e r i a . This could help to explain the reluctance these departments have had i n e s t a b l i s h -ing a formal screening process. The v a r i e t y of projects and proponents makes a systematic screening process more d i f f i c u l t to implement. MOT and DPW are able to forecast projects and thus have plenty of opportunity to include environmental screening along with other considerations. 3. Screening must be based on adequate information. 97 The following points were i d e n t i f i e d under c r i t e r i o n 3: a) None of the departments studied have the in-house expertise to handle a l l environmental questions. b) A l t e r n a t i v e s i t e s were considered for two of the eight projects. A l t e r n a t i v e solutions through other technologies were not con-sidered at the screening stage (except Annapolis which i s an al t e r n a t i v e technology). c) A l l of the departments r e f e r some of the projects they review to other government departments at the screening stage. For example, MOT re f e r s a l l IEE's to the RSCC for comments. d) The p u b l i c was consulted i n two of the eight p r o j e c t s . The public consultation at McKinley Bay was inadequate because of poor timing and i n s u f f i c i e n t information being made av a i l a b l e p r i o r to the public meetings. Public consultation on the Annapolis project was a f t e r the screening review by EMR and indicate public consultation had no e f f e c t on possible r e f e r r a l to FEARO. In other words, the decision to b u i l d the project had been made, and pub l i c consultation came a f t e r the f a c t . e) There was not s u f f i c i e n t information a v a i l a b l e i n any of the cases i n order to make an informed decision. Reasons for t h i s r e s u l t were the lack of any documented studies i n DPW and MOT, and the need for further studies recommended in EMR and DINA. The lack of public consultation i s another p o t e n t i a l informa-t i o n gap. In conclusion, a l l four departments made some attempt to ensure there was some information i n order to make screening decisions. The most commonly used methods were to use in-house experts to assess whether further 98 studies were required, and to r e f e r those projects f e l t to be of some possible concern to outside experts, usually Environment Canada. In most cases the advice of the outside experts was followed. The only clear example of outside advice not being followed was with DIAND. The view of DIAND was that the p o t e n t i a l environmental impacts were not consider-ed s i g n i f i c a n t . This i s a clear contradiction of the concerns expressed by the two advisory committees recommending the McKinley Bay dredging proposal be referred to the formal assessment phase of EARP. If the advisory com-mittees are DINA's screening process, then t h i s example c l e a r l y indicates that i t i s not operating i n an optimal fashion. Generally, a l l departments attempt to obtain s u f f i c i e n t b i o -ph y s i c a l information i n order to make an informed decision. The primary method of obtaining t h i s information was through DOE. There was no equiva-lent r e f e r r a l to determine s o c i a l and economic costs and benefits of the projects. 4. Is the process e f f e c t i v e ? The r e s u l t s of the case studies i n d i c a t e that screening processes implemented by the four government departments operate i n a l e s s than optimal fashion. The screening procedures i n EMR, MOT and DPW were found to be p a r t i a l l y e f f e c t i v e i n t h e i r implementation. The main l i m i t a t i o n s to e f -fe c t i v e screening are: a) i n s u f f i c i e n t representation of i n t e r e s t s ; b) lack of a rigorous and systematic process with no evaluation; c) inadequate s o c i a l and economic information on the project's possible impacts. The DINA case study indicates a t o t a l l y inadequate screening pro-cess. The actions of DINA o f f i c i a l s regarding McKinley Bay indicate the use 99 of advisory committees as a screening mechanism is ineffective as presently constituted except in recommending conditions for permits. Overall, the findings of this examination of the screening process suggest EARP is not being implemented effectively. The application of the process varies considerably between the departments which reflects the lack of any firm guidelines or standards for screening required by FEARO. The effectiveness of the process is directly related to the degree of commitment by senior departmental officials. This was most clearly demon-strated in DIAND and DPW through the lack of a formal documented process; and in EMR with its recent moves to establish and upgrade environmental concerns in project and program planning. DOE's lack of a clearly defined role in EARP is also a deficiency. The department does play an important role as advisor to other government agencies. They do not have any systematic method of ensuring that a l l pro-jects are screened effectively, because referral procedures are voluntary. Finally, the reluctance of some departments to provide information and the lack of documentation does not speak well for an environmental pro-cess that is intended to be of benefit to the Canadian public. It is d i f f i -cult to assess whether Canadian taxpayers are getting their money's worth, when there is insufficient information to draw conclusions from. 100 V. Recommendations for the Effective Implementation of an Optimal Screening Process. ............... .  The following recommendations are principally based on the analysis and conclusions of the previous chapters. 1. None of the departments reviewed provided adequate opportunity for representation of interests. In order for there to be ade-quate opportunity for representation of interests the individual departments and FEARO should implement the following: a) The public and other government agencies (at a l l levels) should have an opportunity to participate in the formulation of departmental screening procedures including the deriva-tion of decision criteria for assessment. b) There should be provision for representation of interests early in the planning process. This could be accomplished by the following means: i) All projects which are identified in pre-screening as hav-ing major impacts by specific criteria should be re-ferred as early as possible to other government agencies and the public in order to help identify potential con-cerns and to assist in a coordinated effort of identifying baseline data requirements for further studies. This would assist the initiator, environment-al agencies and possible intervenors to identify their concerns early in the process. ii ) Descriptions of projects costing more than $1 million that do not require a formal EARP hearing should be referred to FEARO, DOE, and a provincial environment ' agency if applicable. The project description should 101 also be posted in federal government buildings and public libraries in order to obtain public comment. The project description should include a l i s t of possible environmental consequences, and project justification. If there does not appear to be any concerns identified by these interests within a reason-able period (e.g. 30 days), construction may commence. i i i ) A l l projects greater than $50,000 but less than $1 9 million should be published in a register that is readily available to a l l potentially affected interests. The project description in the register should include project justification. 2. The screening procedures in most instances are not systematic or rigorous in their application. In order to formalized screen-ing, the following should occur: a) Initiating departments should establish (in consultation with possible affected interests) specific screening criteria that would categorize projects into those requiring: i) no further assessment, i.e., exclusions; i i ) advanced screening including preparation of an IEE; and III) formal environmental assessments requiring referral referral to FEARO. These criteria would be applied in a systematic manner to a l l projects. b) FEARO should give specific definitions for "initiating agency" and provide for co-initiators to reduce confusion 9 Admittedly, these figures are somewhat arbitrary. They were arrived at through discussions with the various actors in the screening process, and my own judgment. 102 which agency i s responsible for a project. c) The federal government should make pro v i s i o n for approvals and permits to be issued a f t e r or concurrently with screening decisions. d) The i n i t i a t i n g departments and DOE should e s t a b l i s h a moni-toring mechanism for projects, programs and a c t i v i t i e s screened. There should be an annual evaluation of the process to evaluate i t s success within the departments. Screening decisions were found to be made on the basis of i n -adequate information. In order f o r there to be s u f f i c i e n t information to make a reasonably well-informed d e c i s i o n the i n i t i a t i n g department's screening a c t i v i t i e s should include the following: a) Because screening decisions are made in-house, i t i s im^ portant for each department or agency to ensure that there i s an adequate r e f e r r a l system and to have departmental screening advisors competent i n the environmental.sciences who can l i a s e with the r e f e r r a l agencies. b) Screening should include an examination of a l t e r n a t i v e s which may include alternate routes, solutions to the need for the project, and j u s t i f i c a t i o n for the choice. c) Routine r e f e r r a l s to the RSCC should be provided for a l l projects meeting c e r t a i n c r i t e r i a (e.g. a l l projects r e -quiring an IEE or having a c e r t a i n magnitude of impact). d) The public should have a r o l e i n screening. This can be accomplished by allowing opportunity for public comment on projects screened. There could also be appointed members 103 from the public (or from p u b l i c i n t e r e s t groups) to screening. In general, f o r screening to be more e f f e c t i v e , some means must be implemented to ensure that departments w i l l implement screening processes i n a manner compatible with the goals and aspirations of the Canadian p u b l i c . In order to accomplish t h i s , the fed e r a l cabinet should consider the following recommendations: a) At present, screening and EARP are based on a Cabinet D i r e c t i v e having very l i m i t e d s p e c i f i c a t i o n of how agencies are to p a r t i c i p a t e T h e government must-decide' that i f the environment i s to receive the stated p r i o r i t y the p o l i c y document must be strengthened. This could be accomplished through a more precise statement of Cabinet p o l i c y on EARP or through a l e g i s l a t i v e mandate. b) My analysis has shown that the present screening process Is inadequate. One means of implementing a more rigorous screening process i s to have a regulatory body enforce the provisions of any new guidelines. FEARO could be given a stronger r o l e as the coordinator of EARP, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the screening phase. At present, FEARP has minimal i n -volvement i n screening. This r o l e could be strengthened by having FEARO evaluate departmental screening a c t i v i t i e s . The r o l e of the Department of Environment needs to be c l a r i f i e d i n i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p with EARP. Cabinet should consider giving DOE a more act i v e r o l e and a higher p r o f i l e i n the f e d e r a l bureau-cracy. The following suggestions would help accomplish t h i s objective 104 a) DOE should be a party to the proposed changes to the screen-ing procedures as previously outlined. b) The Regional Screening and Coordinating Committee (RSCC's) could be strengthened by making r e f e r r a l s mandatory for pro-j e c t s meeting c r i t e r i a that would be developed i n conjunction with i n i t i a t i n g agencies. c) The role of DOE north of 60° should be c l a r i f i e d and strengthened... Currently,""DINA-is^both- regulator and devel-oper. Although DOE's actions i n the McKinley Bay a f f a i r s were not exemplary, i t can s t i l l be argued that DINA's regulatory authority on environmental matters should be transferred to DOE. By giving DOE f u l l management of en-vironmental regulations i t may not be as w i l l i n g to abdicate i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y - t o DINA. 6. An informed p u b l i c i s e s s e n t i a l to the p o l i t i c a l process, and to e f f e c t i v e functioning of democracy i n our p l u r a l i s t i c society. The f e d e r a l government (i.e."cabinet)'should ensure f u l l and timely access to a l l relevant documents bearing on proposed government a c t i v i t i e s . A l l screening documents should be a v a i l a b l e for p u b l i c scrutiny. It i s my view af t e r examining the process i n some depth these r e -commendations are necessary to ensure that environmental assessment of projects take place i n a systematic and rigorous manner, taking into account the pub-l i c i n t e r e s t . The present approach has been found to f a l l f a r short of i t s objectives. EARP i s presently the subject of a great deal of c r i t i c i s m but l a r g e l y at the formal assessment l e v e l . Change may occur at t h i s l e v e l as a r e s u l t of p u b l i c opinion, but because of the low p r o f i l e screening occupies, any s i g n i f i c a n t change i s extremely doubtful. I t i s therefore impossible to expect the screening phase of EARP to achieve its goals without public knowledge of the process and involvement in its procedures. A more open process incorporating the recommendations of this thesis will move closer to the goal of achieving an optimal screening process that will embody "Canada's policy on environmental assessment." All of the above assumes the maintenance of some form of EARP. An alternative to these recommendations is dismantling the process. The results of this study indicate that EARP is weak and ineffective. Rather than attempting to "patch up" a failure, perhaps the federal government should examine other means of achieving more effective management of our resources. 106 REFERENCES CITED AWAC Meeting #44/RODAC Meeting #10. July 6, 1979. Minutes of Meeting. Joint meeting held by the two committees in Inuvik. AWAC Meeting #45/RODAC Meeting #11. August 16, 1979. Minutes of Meeting. Joint meeting held by the two committees in Yellowknife. Boothroyd, P. October 9, 1979. Analysis of the Processing, Decision-making  and the Application of EARP as it relates to Canmar's Beaufort Sea  Proposals. Ottawa: Canadian Wildlife Service. Bryant, W. July 11, 1979. District Manager, EPS, Yellowknife. Memo to J. Mar, Regional Director, EPS. Pers. comm. November 28, 1979. Interview with the author. Buxton, G.J. November 14, 1979. Chief Marine Division, EPS, Ottawa. Telex to L. Harding, Yellowknife. Campbell, R.B. May 1980. Chief Environmental Analysis Division, Airport Facilities Branch, MOT. Letter to the author. Carter, CD. May 30, 1980. Nova Scotia Department of the Environment. Letter to R. Skinner, EMR. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). January 14, 1976. Letter to Mr. C.R. Rhodes, MOT. Clarke. R. January 1980. Processing of Canmar's application for dredging at Tuk Harbour and McKinley Bay and for a fuel staging area at McKinley Bay (cited in Rees, 1980). Copeland, David, (a) Screening coordinator, DPW. Pers. comm. Interview February 6, 1980. . (b) Interview with the author. March 10, 1980. . (c) Interview. May 3, 1980. Cotterill, Ewan. July 13, 1979. Assistant Deputy Minister, DOE, Ottawa. Telex to W. Bryant, District Director, EPS, Yellowknife. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). November 29, 1978. Regulations for  Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental  Policy Act. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. Annual Report 1978-79. Ottawa. Department of Environment. March 6, 1979. Minutes of First Meeting. Headquarters Inter-Service Committee. Ottawa. December 17, 1979. Notes Respecting a workshop to discuss the  EAR process. Vancouver. 107 Department of Public Works. 1976. Environmental Impact Evaluation: An  Instrument of Planning and Design. Ottawa. . September,.1976. Project Brief System - Users Manual. Ottawa. . May, 1978. Operational Guidelines to the DPW Environmental Assessment Process. Ottawa: Environmental Analysis Division, DPW. . Pacific Region - Marine Dredging Sumas to Hope on the Fraser River. File #3900-F29-8. Pacific Region - Expansion of Ladner Harbour. File #6140-566. . No date given. The Project Delivery System. Planning and Coordination Branch. Dodge, D. April 20, 1979. Acting Manager, Marine and Civil Engineering, DPW. Letter to F. Boyd, Head, Habitat Protection Branch. October 15, 1979. Letter to N. Cosulitch, Rivtow Services. December 5, 1979. Memorandum. . pers. comm. May 13, 1980. Comments attached to author's review of DPW screening. Downs, A. 1966. Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown and Co. Due, G.A. and Sunga, P.S. March, 1976. Description of selected federal urban-relevant programs. Ottawa: Ministry of State for Urban Affairs. Emond, P.D. 1978. Environmental Assessment Law in Canada. Toronto: Emond Montgomery Ltd. (Department of) Energy, Mines & Resources. 1978. EMR and the EARP: A Review. Ottawa: Office of Environmental Affairs. . June 4, 1979. Principles and procedures for screening projects of EMR's responsibility for EARP. Ottawa. . July, 1979. Environmental Screening of EMR Projects. Ottawa: Office of Environmental Affairs. Environmental Protection Service. January 15, 1976. Project Status Record  P-74 (Lower Fraser River Channel Training Program). File #4365-2. • . June 17, 1976. Project Status Record (Ladner Harbour Develop-ment ) . October 17, 1975. Project Status Record P-68 (Extension of Kelowna runway). File #LD17237. 108 Eyre, P. 1979. Institutions for the Optimal.Planning/Policy Process: Application to British Columb ia. Thesis in the School of Community and Regional Planning^ UBC. Vancouver. Fahlman, R.A. July 17,• 1979. Memorandum to B.A. Heskin, Regional Director, EPS, Pacific and Yukon. Fairweather, G.W. and Tornatzky, L.G. 1977. Experimental Methods for Social  Research. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office. February 1977. A Guide to  the Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process. Ottawa. . 1978. Guide for Environmental Screening. Ottawa: Supply and Services. . May, 1979. Revised Guide to the Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process. Ottawa: Supply and Services. March, 1980. Register of Panel Projects and Bulletin. Series: 1-10. Ottawa: Supply and Services. Fox, I.K. and Nowlan, J.P. March, 1978. The Management of Estuarine  Resources in Canada. CEAC Report No. 6. Ottawa. Franklin, J.L. and Thrasher, J.H. 1976. An Introduction to Program Evaluation. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Funk and Wagnall. 1960 edition. New Practical Standard Dictionary. Chicago: J. G. Ferguson Publishing Co. Gerin, J. April 22, 1980. Letter to D. Gamble. Cited in Rees, 1980. Goode, T. June 15, 1972. Member of Parliament for Delta. Letter to the Minister of Public Works. Harding, L. August 20, 1979A. Acting Chairman, RODAC. Letter to A. Redshaw, Ch ai rman, AWAC. — . August 20, 1979B. Letter to J. Mar, Regional Director, EPS, NW region. . October 22, 1979. Memorandum to J. Karau, EPS, Ottawa. Harrison, G.R. November 22, 1979. Senior vice-president, Dome Petroleum. Letter to D. Gamble, CARC, Ottawa. . February 21, 1980. Letter to D. Gamble. Cited in Rees, 1980. Hehner, Eric. 1965. "Growth of Discretion - Decline of Accountability" in Kernaghan, W.D.K. ed. Bureaucracy in Canadian Government. Toronto: Metheun Publications, 1969. Herity, J.F. June 21, 1976. Chairman, Pacific RSCC. Memorandum to Mr. R.E. McLaren, Chairman, Pacific and Yukon Regional Board. 109 Hoos, R.A. June 25, 1979. Senior Ecologist., Dome Petroleum Ltd. Letter of application for Ocean Dumping Permit to Mr. W. Bryant, EPS, Yellowknife (includes attachments). Johnson, E. September 2, 1975. Environmental Coordinator, DPW. Letter to DOE Fisheries Services, Pacific Region. May 1978. Letter to P. Scott, Environmental Protection Service. Joly, Jean-Marie. 1967. "Research and Innovation: Two Solitudes?" Canadian Research and Education Digest (2). Kiresuk, T.J. and Lund, S.H. 1977. "Program Evaluation and Management of Organizations" in Anderson, Wayne F. ed. Managing Human Services. Washington: International City Management Association. Lacate, D.S. January 19, 1976. Chairman, RSCC. Letter to CR. Rhodes, MOT. L^ken, O.H. 1979. Director, Northern Environmental Protection Branch. Letter on behalf of M. Ruel to D. Gamble. . 1980. Letter to Dr. W.E. Rees. June 18, 1980. Mar, J. July 10, 1979. Regional Director, EPS, NW Region. Memorandum to Assistant Deputy Minister, EPS. . July 12, 1979. Memorandum to W. Bryant, Yellowknife. August 23, 1979. Letter accompanying ODCA permits to M. Todd, Canmar. Marshall, Dave. March 19, 1980. F.E.A.R.O. DOE Role in EARP (draft). McLaren, R.E. November 17, 1975. Regional Director, EPS. Letter to D.S. Lacate, Regional Director, Lands Directorate. . June 26, 1976. Letter to W. Neales, Pacific Regional Administrator, C.A.T.A. Ministry of Transport. 1979. Annual Report 1978-79. Ottawa. 1978. Environmental Protection During Planning. October 1979. Environmental Protection-Planning. AK-75-02. Moroney, R.M. 1977. "Needs Assessment for Human Services" in Anderson, Wayne F. ed. Managing Human Services. Washington: International City Manage-ment Association, pp. 128-154. Morrison, R.G. March 28, 1980. Chief, Environmental Assessment Division, DINA. Letter to the author. . (a) pers. comm. Interview August 29, 1979. (b) pers. comm. Interview May 8, 1980 with Dr. W.E. Rees in attendance. 110 The National Environmental P o l i c y Act (NEPA); 1969. Washington, D.C. National I n s t i t u t e of Mental Health (NIMH). 1972. Planning for creative  change i n mental health se r v i c e s : a manual on research u t i l i z a t i o n . Washington, U.S. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e . Cited i n Kiresuk and Lund (1977). P a c i f i c RSCC. August 18, 1976. Minutes of Meeting (held i n Vancouver). Patterson, A. October 15, 1979. Member of Parliament for Fraser V a l l e y East. Memorandum to E r i k Nielsen, Minister of Public Works. Pettigrew, G. pers. comm. Interview. March 18, 1980. Screening Coordinator, MOT, Vancouver. Redshaw, A. pers. comm. Interview. November 28, 1979. Rees, W.E. November 1979. "Reflections on the Environmental Assessment and Review Process". Working Paper #1. Canadian A r c t i c Resources Committee. Ottawa. . February, 1980. "The Environmental Assessment and Review Process North of 60°: the case of McKinley Bay". Northern Perspectives. 8:12:2-10. . May 29, 1980. Lett e r to 0. L«5ken. pers. comm. Discussion with author September 23, 1980. Robertson,. R~. A.-. March 23, 1979 and June 26, 1979. Acting Chief, Land Use D i v i s i o n , Habitat Protection, F i s h e r i e s and Marine Service. Letters to D. Dodge, Acting Manager, Marine and C i v i l Engineering, DPW. . October 22, 1979. Letter to D. Dodge, DPW. . pers. comm. Telephone interview A p r i l 15, 1980. Rodgers, W.H. 1977. Handbook on Environmental Law. St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Co. Ruel, M. Director General, Northern Environment Branch. Interview with W.E. Rees, c i t e d i n W.E. Rees, February, 1980. Rutman, L. 1977. Evaluation Research Methods: A Basic Guide. Beverly H i l l s , C a l i f : Sage Publications. Scott, P.F. July 18, 1977. Senior Engineer, EPS. Letter to Ken Johnson, Regional Manager, A i r p o r t s , Transport Canada. . May 15, 1980. pers. comm. Interview with the author. S i s l e r , R. (a) Screening Coordinator, MOT, Vancouver. Personal communication. Interview March 18, 1980. . (b) pers. comm. Interview May 9, 1980. I l l Skinner, R.G. June 4, 1979. Examples of Environmental Screening in EMR -Questions, problems and gaps. Ottawa. June 22, 1979. Memorandum to A. Scott re Newfoundland Labrador Mini-Hydro, Section 2-5 of Canada-Newfoundland Agreement (includes five attachments). . July 25, 1979. Memorandum to senior departmental staff re-questing a l i s t of EMR projects and their environmental status. . pers. comm. Interview August 31, 1979. . January 24, 1980A. Memorandum to A. Scott re Environmental Screening of Annapolis Tidal Power Demonstration Project. January 24, 1980B. Office of Environmental Affairs. Environment-al Screening Statement - Annapolis Straflow Tidal Power Demonstration. February 4, 1980. Letter to the author. February 21, 1980. Letter to the author. February 28, 1980. Reply to author's letter of February 15, 1980. April 30, 1980. Letter to the author. Smithers, L.A. November 1979. "Environmental Assessment and the Federal Role" from the proceedings of the Second Environmental Impact Assessment Conference, Centre for Continuing Education, UBC, pp. 39-50. Mr. Smithers is the Regional Director General, Environment Canada, Pacific and Yukon Region. Sookachoff, P. June 1, 1979. Engineering Technician, Habitat Protection, DOE. Memorandum to file re corrected minutes of meeting - dredging -Fraser River - Hope to Sumas. (Minutes attached.) Stachuk, W.S.. September 18, 1978. Letter of transmittal to F.G. Hurtubise, Chairman, F.E.A.R.O. Includes the following appendices: A-Summary B-List of projects "screened out" C-List of projects "screened in" D-3 projects in the formal review phase Stephan, Stephan A. 1935. "Prospects and Possibilities: The New Deal and Social Research," Social Forces 13. pp. 515-521. Stevens, J.N. June 2, 1976. Manager, Marine and Engineering (B.C.). Letter to R. Logie, Chairman, Environmental Assessment Panel. Stewart, I.A. August 23, 1979. Deputy Minister, EMR. Memorandum to senior EMR staff re the establishment of the Office of Environmental Affairs. Tellier, P.M. July 15, 1980. Assistant Deputy Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs. Letter to D. Gamble, Director, Canadian Arctic Resources Committee. 112 Trotter, W.T. August, 1979. Environmental Analysis Division - Past, Present  and Future. Ottawa: Department of Public Works. . pers. comm. Interview with the author August 29, 1979. . January 3, 1980. Letter to the author. Van Loon, R. 1971. The Canadian Political System. Toronto: McGraw Hi l l Co. Wallace, R. May 16, 1978. Project Manager, DPW. Letter to W. Parkinson, Manager, Small Craft Harbours Branch, DOE. Webster's. 1971. The Living Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English  Language. Chicago: The English-Language Institute of America. Weiss, Carol H. 1972. Evaluation Research: Methods of Assessing Program  Effectiveness. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall Inc. West, G.A. December 24, 1975. Regional Director, B.C. Fish and Wildlife Branch. Letter to D. Dodge, Project Manager, Marine Plant and Dredging, DPW. Wolfe, P. FEARO. pers. comm. Interview August 26, 1979. Yost, N.C. September 27, 1979. General Counsel for CEQ. Letter to the author. December 27, 1979. Letter to the author. 113 APPENDIX I 113^ INTERVIEW FORMAT These questions formed the basis for what was usually a wide range of discussions. 1. Describe the screening process as it is applied in your department. 2. Is the process formal? (For example, are minutes of meetings kept, reports, other recorded information?) 3. Are alternatives (eyg. use of site, location of use, means of accomplishing goal) given equal consideration? 4. What kind of liaison does the department have with other agencies during screening? 5. Is there any public consultation during screening? 6. Are projects that are not considered to have significant impacts monitored? 7. Are there specific guidelines for determining significance? What criteria are used? 8. Does the department maintain information ohathe numbers of projects screened? 114 APPENDIX II 114 a INTERVIEWS Bryant, W. District Manager, Environmental Protection Service, Yellowknife. November 28, 1979. Copeland, David. Screening Coordinator, Department of Public Works, Vancouver. February 6, March 10 and May 13, 1980. Dodge, D. Marine and Engineering Branch, DPW. Note attached to review of draft of author's review of DPW screening, May 13, 1980. Duncan, A. Environmental Protection Service, West Vancouver. On a number of occasions. Herity, John. Regional Manager, Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, Vancouver. July 17, 1979. Johnson, Erwin. Environmental Coordinator (now retired), Department of Public Works. July 24, 1979. Lacate, Doug. Lands Directorate, Vancouver. October 2, 1979. Morrison, R.G. Chief, Environmental Assessment Division of Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, Ottawa. August 29, 1979 and May 8, 1980. Pettigrew, Gordon. Screening Coordinator, Ministry of Transport, Vancouver. July 9, 1979 and March 18, 1980. Redhsaw, A. Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, Yellowknife. November 28, 1979. Robertson, Doug. Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, Ottawa. August 31, 1979. Robertson, R.A. Fisheries and Marine Services, Vancouver. April 15, 1980. (Telephone interview.) Scott, P. Assistant Manager, Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, Vancouver. May 5, 1980. Sisler, P. R. Screening Coordinator, Ministry of Transport, March 18,and May 9, 1980. Skinner, Robert. Coordinator, Office of Environmental Affairs, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Ottawa. August 31, 1979 and May 1. Telephone interview May 2. Comments attached to review of EMR screening. Stachuk, Walter. Ministry of Transport, Ottawa. August 30, 1979. (Telephone interview, May 2, 1980). Trotter, W.H.T. Acting Chief, Environment Analysis division, Department of Public Works, Ottawa. August 29, 1979. Wiebe, John. Department of Environment, Vancouver, February 18, 1980. 115 Wolf, Paul. Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, Ottawa. August 2, 1979 and telephone interview March 25, 1980. Wu, Henry. Deputy Project Manager, Marine Engineeering Division, Department of Public Works, Vancouver. February 6, 1980. 116 APPENDIX III Federal Environmental Assessment Review O f f i c e 117 APPENDIX IV Energy, Mines and Resources OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING STATEMENT ANNAPOLIS STRAPLOW TIDAL POWER DEMONSTRATION DOCUMENTATION: "Annapolis Tidal Power Project Environmental Assessment" by Martec Inc. for Nova Scotia Tidal Power Corporation Received by NSTPC January 14, 1980 Received by EMR OEA January 15, 1980. GUIDELINES: Guidelines prepared by Nova Scotia Ministry of Environment in collaboration with Federal Department of Environment and others. MAIN ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS 1) , I n c r e a s e i n w a t e r l e v e l and salinity in b a s i n beh i nd existing barrage. - p o t e n t i a l l y a f f e c t s 83 h e c t a r e s o f p r e s e n t p a s t u r e and c r o p l a n d (> 3M a . m . s . l ) , h a l f o f w h i c h b e l o n g t o one f a r m e r . .Va lue a t 3 ; head/ac re a t ' $ 1 , 5 0 0 / h e a d / y e a r = $927,000/year f o r t o t a l a r e a t h r e a t e n e d . P o t e n t i a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t but can be r e s o l v e d a t a co3t t o T i d a l Power Co rp . and no o r l i t t l e l o s s o f a g r i c u l t u r a l . l a n d . - affects striped bas3 spawning area (4 o f 9 km of present spawning bed) but eggs float downstream anyway where water exchange will be improved over present conditions, to contribute to larvae survival. Not potentially significant. potential for increased rate of erosion. Already a serious problem. Needs review by coastal geornorphologist. Perhaps control exists in nature itself - boulder lag3 develop, etc. Not potentially any more significant than at present. 2) Increase in suspended sediment during construction impact on benthic fauna. Relative to severe dislocation that must have t a k e n p l a c e i n I960 when t he barrage wa3 constructed, likely to be insignificant. Fauna have demonstrated ability t o recuperate and re-establish themselves. A l s o , more nutrients available could be n e t p o s i t i v e impact. Not s i g n i f i c a n t i m p a c t . 3) I n c r e a s e i n wa te r v e l o c i t i e s i n f i s h passage and d e c r e a s e i n available  t ime f o r pas sage p l u s c o n f u s i o n o f f e r e d by t u r b i n e s l u i c e . - l i k e l y t o f u r t h e r r educe t he amount o f anadromous f i s h a b l e t o ge t pa s t b a r r a g e . ' . . Not a s i g n i f i c a n t f i s h e r y a l t h o u g h i m p o r t a n t l o c a l s p o r t f i s h e r y and t o u r i s t a t t r a c t i o n . P o s s i b l e f i s h pas sage enhancement? 2 - 119 • *0 Social-economic impact during construction p o s s i b i l i t y of three major ( f o r Annapoli3 County) projects at same time: T i d a l Project, Highway 101 construction and the Heritage Development. This could "overheat" the l o c a l economy s t r a i n i n g c e r t a i n services and a v a i l a b l e f a c i l i t i e s . ' High po t e n t i a l for s i g n i f i c a n t impact can be avoided by e f f e c t i v e planning as proposed i n Environmental Assessment p. 4.13. I n i t i a l Screening Statement An estuary i s one of the most physical, chemical and therefore b i o l o g i c a l l y complicated environments i n which to place a c i v i l works. Hydroelectric projects i n s t a l l e d on r i v e r s many miles upstream from estuaries are known to cause s i g n i f i c a n t changes i n estuarine dynamics and biology. However, the estuary's d i v e r s i t y and fecundity i s also i t s strength in adapting to changes. Hydro dams have been b u i l t on the headwaters to the Annapolis basin, but c l e a r l y the greatest environmental i n s u l t to any estuary would be the construction of a barrage across i t . This was done at Annapolis in I960 with environmental and socio-economic negatives (e.g. salmon fishery and peach orchards) but with socio-economic benefits as (fanning, recreational i c e - f i s h i n g , e t c . ) . As to whether the negatives or positives were greater only the l o c a l people can t e l l , and even then disagreement would l i k e l y remain. In reviewing the Draft Environmental Assessment, one issue emerges above a l l the others and that i s the possible incursion of water more saline than present tp p o t e n t i a l l y a f f e c t the productivity of farmland. Yet t h i s can be resolved by wiers and closures and the proponent i s w i l l i n g to consider t h i s . I r o n i c a l l y , the a g r i c u l t u r a l sector i s presently the largest source of c o l l i f o r r a p o l l u t i o n to the water. The impact on f i s h from the T i d a l Power Project i s l i k e l y to be far less than has already been experienced from the barrage, in fact by more up-to-date management practices, the fishery, for 3port or otherwise, could l i k e l y be enhanced. Of possible concern i s the proposal, a l b e i t l o g i c a l , to raise the water l e v e l as an early test by opening the e x i s t i n g s l u i c e gates to approximate the eventual operating l e v e l at 2.29 meters. Without close monitoring and the c a r e f u l l y planned cooperation and c o l l a b o r a t i o n with the fanners and t h e i r water management committee, t h i s could lead to confusion and misunderstandings. Based on t h i s i n i t i a l review of the Environmental Assessment, no reason i s apparent why t h i s project should not proceed an Moot to: a) a33urances that the T i d a l Power Corp. w i l l incorporate reasonable measures to l i m i t the loss of presently productive a g r i c u l t u r a l land including losses due to potential increased bank erosion; b) undertake i n concert with l o c a l and p r o v i n c i a l a u t h o r i t i e s to plan construction to minimize the s t r a i n on the l o c a l socio-economic i n f r a s t r u c t u r e ; Goven «.ncnt Gouvernemont • ol Canada du Canada 1 ' Mr. A. Scott, EPS M E M O R A N D U M I O f f i c e of Environmental A f f a i r s J J 121 NOTE DE SERVICE stcuniry • CLASS I F ICAT ION • D E sEcunirt OUR FILE/NOTRE KEfEllENCE voun F I L E / V O W R E F E R E N C E 22 Juno, 1979 Newfoundland-Labrador Power Mini-hydro Section 2.5 of Canada-Newfoundland Agreement As a condition of the Canada-Newfoundland Agreement (Clause 2.5, Attachment 1) on conservation and renewable energy pro j e c t s , Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro (NLH) were requested to prepare and submit to EMR an assessment of the l i k e l y environmental e f f e c t of any projects contemplated for funding under the Agreement. The Environmental P o l i c y Department of NLH had an environmental evaluation (Attachment 2) prepared on three alternate s i t e s , and this was ' submitted to the Newfoundland Department of Consumer A f f a i r s and Environment for review. The l a t t e r establishes interagency, inter-governmental review committees for projects that could have environmental e f f e c t s . (A mini-hydro project of less than 2 MW would not, according to the Department of Consumer A f f a i r s and Environment, normally require such a review). The process here was s l i g h t l y i r r e g u l a r i n that, to meet a newly established, although not yet promulgated i n t e r n a l screening process i n EMR, I had to go back to the Regional Director General of DOE to seek his ' o f f i c i a l ' comments on something that had already been screened by members of a regional screening network which he coordinates. The delay was in getting a departmental opinion from DOE. Had I received the document d i r e c t l y from NLH at the same time that i t was sent to the Newfoundland Department of Consumer A f f a i r s and Environment, I could have "asked the question" e a r l i e r . On future projects under t h i s Agreement, perhaps NLH might wish to speed up this rather b u r e a u c r a t i c a l l y i n e r t i a - r i d d e n process by sending, as early as possible, t h e i r project plans, proposals, etc. to EMR. Concerning the Marble Brook s i t e , I have the following comments, based p a r t l y on comments from DOE, Fisheries and P r o v i n c i a l Environmental agencies. Project S p e c i f i c Concerns While a inini-hydl-o project would appear, by v i r t u e of i t s scale, -to have only minor environ/iental impact, there normally are concerns for f i s h passage, flooding, and water use c o n f l i c t s . Marble Brook, which was selected by NLH in t h e i r s i t e s e l e c t i o n process i n which environment was a p r i n c i p a l factor, was s u s p o c t o d by f o d o r n l Fisheries o f f i c o r s o f h a v i n g salmon and brook trout. Federal Fisheries requested that a b i o l o g i c a l survey be conducted (Attachment 3). Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro b i o l o g i s t s did a study u t i l i z i n g standard procedures and found no salmon and only a few brook trout. Moreover, i t i s the opinion of these Example of Environmental Screening in EMR - Questions, problems and gaps 123-To contribute funds for Mini-hydro in Newfoundland Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Energy, Mines and Resources, Energy Policy Sector Ele c t r i c a l , Coal, Uranium and Nuclear Energy Branch Electrical Group Contact officer: E.M. Warnes Under Newfoundland-Canada Agreement on Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Technology (September, 1978), consistent with EMR's responsibility to do or have done an environmental assessment of projects we fund, EMR insisted on the following clause (2.5) in the Agreement: "The Corporation, before proceeding with the Project beyond the Evaluation, must prepare and submit to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources ("Canada") an assessment of the likely environmental effect in a form and content* acceptable^ to the said Department." Q. ]. Who decides on horm and content? What format is used? Vidwe use the ,matrix, in the Glide ^on. Envin.onme.ntaZ. Screening? Q. 2. Who decides whether i t ts acceptable? On what basis, which standards, does he make that decision? Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro prepared a "Mini Environmental Impact Assessment of the Mini-hydro Project. They referred i t to the Newfoundland Department of Consumer Affairs and Environment. This Department, as they do for a l l projects in Newfoundland, established a review committee under the Chairmanship of David Barnes, Director of Environmental Assessments. The committee has representation from various provincial and federal departments with expertise or interest in the environment. Each provided his comments and the total package was sent to EMR as fulfillment of Clause 2.5 in the Agreement. The Electrical Group then sent the package to the ODEA for review and advice regarding the acceptability of the assessment in order to give Newfoundland Hydro clearance. ^ Noting that the same experts have reviewed i t as would have i f I had sent i t to DOE's Regional Screening and Coordinating Committee, noting that alternative sites for a mini-hydro were examined and the site selected was done so, partly on environmental grounds, noting further that mitigative measures w i l l be instituted to look after fish passage, etc., that environmental protection clauses have been prepared for inclusion in tender and contract specifications and/or instructions to managers, the ODEA is prepared to advise the electrical group that the impact assessment is acceptable without further reference to DOE or DFO. Project  Proponent Initiator 124 - 2 £. 3. The problem here is that DOE and/or VFO may heel that they have not had an adequate oppor-tunity to review the proposal; they w i l l most certainly declare that only they, not us, can give environmental clearance at the iederal level. O 4 June, 1979 f APPENDIX v Department of Public Works 127-P U B L I C W O R K S C A N A D A A T L A N T I C R E G I O N ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW PROCESS PRE-SCREENING REPORT PROJECT '  LOCATION DATE Format - November 1979 1 128 PUBLIC WORKS CANADA ATLANTIC REGION ENVIRONMENTAL PRE-SCREENING REPORT MARINE PROJECTS 1.1 PROJECT T i t l e Location Estimated Cost Project Number ( i f available) Project Manager 1.2 OGD FUNDED PROJECT 1.2.1 'SMALL CRAFT HARBOUR BRANCH - FOC Harbour Development Program T o u r i s t Wharf Program Marina P o l i c y Check a l l Applicable' Boxes 1.2.2 TRANSPORT CANADA Ferry Terminal Common User F a c i l i t y Coast Guard Wharf 1.2.3 WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT Part'of larger Federal/Provincial/Municipal Planning • 1.2.4 OTHER (Specify) 129 1.3 PWC FUNDED PROJECT 1 Dredging 2 Shore Protection 3 Transport Canada Structures Check a l l Applicable Bo.xe es 2. LEGISLATION This Project w i l l Comply with 2.1 FEDERAL Ocean Dumping Control Act (permit required) F i s h e r i e s Act Navigable Waters Protection Act Check a l l Applicable Boxes 2.2 PROVINCIAL/MUNICIPAL 3 ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Attached S i t e Plan) 3 130 PROJECT ACTIVITIES 4.1 *• STRUCTURES "TO BE CONSTRUCTED TABLE A Structure Type New Structures or Extension U) ; (2) (3)  Revetment Sea Wall Groyne Dy ke Causeway Training Wall Breakwater - Shore connected Breakwater - Offshore Breakwater - Wharf Marginal Wharf Wharf or Jetty "T" - Headed Wharf "L" - Headed Wharf Note: For each proposed structure indicate "Type" using applicable numbers from Table B. In column 3, use "N" for new structure of "E" for extension. 4 131 TABLE B Number Type of Structures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 Rock Mound Concrete blocks or slabs Concrete retaining walls Steel Sheet P i l i n g Soldier p i l e s and concrete panel; Timber Cribwork Concrete caissons Block and Span structure Open pilework Pilework with facewall(s) Gabions 4.2 DREDGING Channel i n open water Channel i n sheltered water Harbour Basin Quantity of s o i l Quantity of rock Type of s o i l ( s ) Disposal at Sea with ODCA permit Permit No. Disposal on Land On beach or shore Behind beach or shore Behind dykes or retainin g structures Open area - no containment Type of dredging proposed F l o a t i n g plant From Wharf Cutter suction with p i p e l i n e dipper clam backhoe dredge type w i l l not be s p e c i f i e d i n the contract Check A l l Applicable Boxes • 5 132 4.3 EARTHWORK (other than dredging spoil) Check All Applicable Boxes F i l l will be placed in water , F i l l will be placed on beach Rockfill Earthfill Confined during dumping Not confined during dumping Confined after construction Not confined after construction I Landfill or excavations within 100 metres of backshore or fish waterways Gravel, Crushed Rock or Sandy soils Silt or Silty Clay soils Excavations into coastal c l i f f s Excavations into sand dunes Drilling and blasting o ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA SOCIAL-ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 133 The c l i e n t depa r tmen t i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the s o c i a l - economic impact a s s e s s m e n t . A copy o f t h e i r a s se s sment s h o u l d be a t t a c h e d to t h i s p r e -s c r e e n i n g r e p o r t . The P r o j e c t Manager s h o u l d check w i t h the S e n i o r P r o p e r t y Development O f f i c e r (426-8081) t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h i s p r o j e c t has been r e v i e w e d under t h e F e d e r a l Land Management p o l i c y . E n q u i r e w h e t h e r o r not the s u b -m i s s i o n o r c ommi t t ee r e p o r t i n d i c a t e d and n e g a t i v e impac t s o r d e v e l o p -ment r e s t r i c t i o n s . I f t h e r e a r e any , o b t a i n the r e l e v a n t co r re sponder .ee and a t t a c h . A f t e r r e v i e w i n g the c l i e n t ' s s o c i a l - e conomic impact a s s e s s m e n t , the P r o j e c t Manager s h o u l d a d d r e s s the f o l l o w i n g c o n c e r n s . 1.1 W i l l t h e r e be s i g n i f i c a n t s o c i a l o r economic e f f e c t s on a community o r r e g i o n ? Communi ty Reg i on S i g n i f i c a n t P o s i t i v e E f f e c t , M i n o r P o s i t i v e E f f e c t S i g n i f i c a n t N e g a t i v e E f f e c t M i n o r N e g a t i v e E f f e c t Remarks 1.2 Any " t h i r d p a r t y " c o s t a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the u n d e r t a k i n g ? T h i s wou l d i n c l u d e such i tems as i n c r e a s e d sho re e r o s i o n , changes i n d r a i n a g e , l o s s of w a t e r l o t s , e t c . L i s t any impac t s be l ow. 1.3 Any i n v o l v e m e n t w i t h a d j a c e n t pe r son s o r p r o p e r t y ? L i s t any i m p a c t s , d u r a t i o n ( s h o r t o r long term) and m i t i g a t i o n mea su re s . ].k Any p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the p ropo sed u n d e r t a k i n g w i l l a r o u s e p u b l i c c o n c e r n o r c o n t r o v e r s y ? O u t l i n e the p r ob l em and the OGD and PWC r o l e s to m i t i g a t e the p r o b l e m . 7 134. 5 . 2 P H Y S I C A L I M P A C T A N A L Y S I S 5 . 2 . 1 S H O R E L I N E . 5 . 2 . 1 . 1 5 . 2 . 1 . 2 S i g n i f i c a n t Minor • S i g n i f i c a n t Minor E f f e c t s of e x i s t i n g structures on adjacent shoreline and/or beaches within the harbour Accretion Areas Erosion Areas If serious or s i g n i f i c a n t erosion areas are occurring, show areas of a c c r e t i o n and erosion on a s i t e plan or airphoto and attach recommendations for further action. Special emphasis should be placed on the shoreline adjacent to and estuary mouth protected by entrance pie r s . S i g n i f i c a n t erosion and accretion may be taking place, but i f these structures were not present, the estuary mouth might, migrate. If erosion i s a problem, does ground reconnaissance or airphoto analysis i n d i c a t e past entrance migrations? Yes • No • Anticipated e f f e c t of new structures or extensions on adjacent shoreline and /or beaches within the harbour. No change from e x i s t i n g conditions D e f i n i t e Changes w i l l occur Changes may occur Accretion Areas Erosion Areas S i g n i f i c a n t S i g n i f i c a n t Minor Minor W i l l s p e c i a l shore protection be required? No Possibly i n the future Yes If s p e c i a l shore protection i s required or could possibly be required in the future, show l o c a t i o n on the s i t e plan and give explanation below. 8 135 5.2.1.3 Anticipated effects of new seawalls, revetments, or groynes on adjacent areas up or down the coast. Accelerated Erosion Significant | [ Minor | j If the erosion rate of adjacent shoreline may be significantly increased, outline.any short or long terra mitigating measures that may be required. 5.2.1.4 Anticipated effects of deepening of entrance channels on shoreline within the harbour or along the estuary. Accelerated Erosion Significant [^] Minor f 1 Outline any mitigating measures that may be necessary to rectify this problem. 5.2.2 WETLANDS 5.2.2.1 Effects of existing facilities and their use on nearby wetlands Reduced by Landfill Drainage Alteration Wildlife Useage Pollution Significant Significant Significant Signif icant Significant Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor 5.2.2.2 5.2.3 Anticipated effects of new structures and their use on nearby vetlands No change from existing conditions | [ Further Landfill Drainage Alteration Wildlife Uscage Pollution 136 . : Significant Minor Significant Minor —— Significant Minor Significant Minor Significant Minor Note: If wetlands are to be filled, make sure the Biological Impact Analysis has covered the implications. LAND DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL Note: Disposal site to be cleared with Provincial Department of the Environment Check Applicable Box Disposal sites precleared by the Project Manager ( j Clearances left to the Contractor subject to approval of the Project Manager If permission denied for ocean dumping permit, give reasons and submit copy of laboratory analyses. • Outline and special precautions required to truck the spoil (i.e., street clean up, sealed containers, etc). 5.3 BIOLOGICAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Was land recently purchased or waterlot rights obtained for this . project or associated activities? Yes • No • 5.3.1 If yes, check with the Senior Property Development Officer, or the Regional Environmental Coordinator. The Federal Land Management Process normally results in experts from Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada assessing the potential effects of the project on fish, shellfish and animal lif e . These reports should be reviewed by the Project Manager and attached to this Pre-Screening Report. Any design or construction restrictions imposed by these agencies that will be included in this project 6hould be outlined below. Design & Construction Restrictions 10 5.3.2 If no, check with the OGD to determine t h e i r l e v e l of involvement with Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Fisheries and Oceans Canada w i l l be preparing a b i o l o g i c a l impact assessment for a l l t h e i r projects. Attach copies of a l l relevant communications and l i s t below any design or construction r e s t r i c t i o n s that w i l l be included i n the project. Design or Construction R e s t r i c t i o n s . Check the box below i f , (1) the OGD has had limited Involvement with Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada and (2) permits under the Ocean Dumping Control Act or Navigable Waters Protection Act are not required. The Regional Environmental Co-ordinator w i l l then forward t h i s Pre-Screening Report to Environment Canada f o r comments on potential b i o l o g i c a l impacts. RECOMMENDATIONS L i s t any measures required to mitigate i d e n t i f i e d impacts not covered i n 5.3. These would include any shoreline or erosion control measures. 7. SUMMARY 7.1 If no further environmental assessment appears necessary because a l l p o t e n t i a l impacts are understood and mitigating measures available -check the box below. Submit three copies of this report to the Regional Environmental Coordinator. One of these copies w i l l be reviewed and sent to the c l i e n t departments Environmental Co-ordinator fo r t h e i r review. 13S 7.2 I f t h e r e a r e s i g n i f i c a n t u n r e s o l v e d i m p a c t s , i n d i c a t e what f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n o r s t u d i e s a r e r e q u i r e d . . R e f e r t o " O p e r a t i o n a l G u i d e l i n e s t o the PWC E n v i r o n m e n t a l Assessment P r o c e s s " and c o n t a c t the R e g i o n a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l C o - o r d i n a t o r . R e p o r t Reviewed By R e p o r t P r e p a r e d B y R e g i o n a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l C o - o r d i n a t o r Date Date APPENDIX VI Mini s t r y of Transport 139 a AK-75-02 FIGURE 1 SAMPLE FORMAT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS SHEET Project No. Amendment No. Provide a response for each of the check list items below by checking the appropriate box and by providing a narrative where requested. PART A - ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING 1. Does project require Initial Environmental Evaluation (IEE)? 2. If no IEE is required: a) Have costs for studies to develop mitigational measures been included in Project Cost Summary? b) Have costs for any public consultation process been included in Project Cost Summary? PART B - INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 1. Does project require a DFE Assessment Panel? been 2. If Panel is required, has PADiprepared for funding the environmental studies and public consultation process in preparing the Environmental Impact Statement? 3. If Panel is not required: a) Have costs for studies to develop mitigational measures been included in Project Cost Summary? b) Have costs for any public consultation process been included in Project Cost Summary? | | Yes - Attach IEE and proceed to Part B Q] No - (See 2 below) ( j Not Required • Yes j | Not Required | ] Yes - See 2 below and proceed to Part C | | No - (See 3 below) • Yes | | Not applicable • Yes f~] Not Required • Yes j j Not Required 8 AK-75-02 FIGURE 1 SAMPLE FORMAT 140 L r » A A T A - O T T A W A K 1 A 0 N 8 P R A - V A N C O U V E R V 6 C 1 A 2 J -J S t C U R I T V - C L A S a . , . ^ , , , 010? FILE-N/REFERENCE 5 1 5 1 - P 5 6 2 ( P A O F P ) YOUR FILE- V/REFERENCE 7 J u l y 1 9 7 6 SUBJECT _ . . 0 B J E T - ^ t i a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l F v . i , ! • I n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e p r o c e d u r e s o u t l i n e d f o r t h e " E n v i r o n m e n t a l A s s e s s m e n t a n d R e v i e w P r o c e s s ( E A R P ) , " a t t a c h e d a r e t h e f o l l o w i n g : a ) A c o p y o f o u r s u b m i s s i o n t o t h e P a c i f i c R e g i o n S c r e e n i n g a n d C o - o r d i n a t i n g C o m m i t t e e ( S C C ) a n d A ~ 2. b) A c o p y o f t h e S C C ' s r e s p o n s e F o r y o u r a p p r o v a l a n d n e c e s s a r y p r o c e s s i n g W . H . S . N e a l e s ro i-PaCiJic R e g i o n * l A d m i n i s t r a t o r C a n a d i a n A i r T r a n s p o r t a t i o n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n A t t a c h m e n t s fOmULE NORUAt IStc ,,^r>r, .„ -I 146 SUMMARY The following brief summary of each of the three projects is intended to provide additional information not contained in the Initial Environmental Evaluations. Campbell River Airport (Municipal) Campbell River Airport serving the Town of Campbell River and surrounding areas is located on the east coast of Vancouver Island at approximately halfway from the southern tip of the island toward the north. This port is operated by the Municipality" of Campbell'Riv"er subsidized Varans port Canada. This project will extend the existing runway an additional 1000 feet to the northwest. There will be some nominal change in ground and surface water run off patterns. The existing flight way will require minimal clearing to eliminate those trees that exceed height limits. The above noted physical changes in land use do not involve the disturbance of a significant habitat for plants, animals, marine and aquatic l i fe. The extension of the flight path will increase the length of the noise envelope slightly but will be within the NEF criteria as it applies to residential areas. Smithers Airport This project will extend the existing runway an additional 1000* at the northwest end. It is intended to extend ground and surface run off water along the present design. The drainage system has been designed to divert water normally draining toward Lake Kathlyn to drain into the Bulkley River at some future date. The existing flight way will require some additional clearing in compliance with required standards. The land use changes as noted above will not significantly alter the ico system or general habitat of the adjacent areas. The project will in effect extend the noise envelope slightly but will be within NEF criteria as.it applies to residential areas. APPENDIX VII Department of Indian and Northern Affairs 147 a Members of the two advisory committees present at the first meeting to discuss the Tuk Harbour - McKinley Bay dredging proposal. Name Role Agency A. G. Redshaw Chairman, AWAC DINA W. Bryant Chairman, RODAC DOE (EPS) M. Hawkes Member, AWAC GNWT D. Karsiuk " DOE (CWS) S. Raddi " COPE D. Billing " GNWT D. Dowler Member, RODAC, alternate AWAC DFO D. Herlinveaux " ~ " DFO J. Donihee " GNWT W. Eberts " DINA A. Dion " MOT T. Bowyer Observer GNWT N. Cournoyea " COPE R. Fallis " DFO C. Cuddy _ " DINA P. Lewis " DINA L. Prather Dome/Canmar R. Hoos Dome/Canmar V. Beaubien Secretariat RODAC DOE N. Vincent " AWAC DINA 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094783/manifest

Comment

Related Items