Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An analysis of the environmental assessment and review process : the case of the Alaska Highway gas pipeline McKee, Gillian Amy Stuart 1984

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1984_A6_7 M39.pdf [ 4.26MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0096126.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0096126-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0096126-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0096126-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0096126-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0096126-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0096126-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0096126-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0096126.ris

Full Text

AN ANALYSIS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW PROCESS: THE CASE OF THE ALASKA HIGHWAY GAS PIPELINE By GILLIAN AMY STUART MCKEE B . S c , The U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto, 1978 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (School of Community and Regional P lann ing) We accept t h i s t he s i s as conforming to the jtfe^tTOi-~stafl4ard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l 1984 © G i l l i a n Amy S tua r t McKee, 1984 In presenting t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree th a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t permission f o r extensive copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by h i s or her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n permission. School of Community and Regional Planning The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main M a l l Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 A p r i l 18, 1984 J i i ABSTRACT Thi s t h e s i s eva luates the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP) as a mechanism to assess the e f f e c t s of resource development p r o j e c t s on the environment and to communicate t h i s assessment to d e c i s i o n makers. The EARP review of the A laska Highway Gas P i p e l i n e P r o j e c t (AHGP) serves as a case study. C r i t e r i a based on l i b e r a l democratic p r i n c i p l e s were used to eva luate EARP's procedural c a p a b i l i t y to sample p u b l i c op i n i on s , to ob ta in i n fo rmat ion about the p r o j e c t ' s impacts, and to communicate these op in ions and t h i s i n f o rmat i on to government d e c i s i o n makers. EARP has the p o t e n t i a l to assess the e f f e c t s of a p r o j e c t and to communicate t h i s i n fo rmat ion to d e c i s i o n makers. However, r e a l i z a t i o n of t h i s p o t e n t i a l r e l i e s t o t a l l y on the vo luntary co -ope ra t i on of the p r o j e c t proponent, the EARP pane l , and the p u b l i c i n te r veno r s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n a rev iew. P a r t i c i p a n t s i n the AHGP review cou ld not, or were not compelled t o , co-operate f u l l y because of procedural weaknesses. Incons i s tency in the r u l e s o f conduct of the p u b l i c involvement procedures was apparent throughout the th ree phases of the AHGP rev iew. The panel prov ided the p u b l i c i n te rvenor s w i t h the oppor tun i ty only to r eac t t o , r a the r than to comment be fo re , the proponent ' s i n i t i a l assessment. The panel scheduled pub l i c meetings before the i n te rveno r s had time to review a l l the proponent ' s i n f o rma t i on . EARP d id not prov ide funding f o r i n te r veno r s to ob ta in an independent assessment, or to a t tend the p u b l i c meetings. The generat ion of r e l e van t i n fo rmat ion r e l i e d on the pane l ' s i n c l i n a t i o n and a b i l i t y to pursue i s sues . The panel cou ld not compel the proponent to respond adequately. i i i As a r e s u l t of these procedural weaknesses, some members of the p u b l i c were u n w i l l i n g and unable to p a r t i c i p a t e . The q u a l i t y of i n t e r v e n t i o n s of those who p a r t i c i p a t e d s u f f e r e d . The panel d id not r i g o r o u s l y pursue a l l r e l e v a n t i s sues i n t h e i r requests to the proponent. The proponent ' s responses d i d not f u l f i l l the p a n e l ' s request s . The i n fo rmat ion communicated by the panel to the M i n i s t e r of the Environment was p r i m a r i l y an ana l y s i s of the mer i t s and the f e a s i b i l i t y of the proponent ' s p r e f e r r ed p r o j e c t s t r a t egy . P u b l i c concerns were inadequate ly represented i n the a n a l y s i s . I t was not a thorough assessment comparing the impacts of the p re fe r r ed s t ra tegy wi th those o f a l t e r n a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s . The extens ion of the review to three phases o f f s e t some of the procedural problems. I t enabled the panel to narrow t h e i r requests to the most c r i t i c a l i s s ue s . The proponent had the oppor tun i ty to generate a d d i t i o n a l i n fo rmat ion i n response to panel requests . A l l p a r t i c i p a n t s l ea rned , over the course of the rev iew, to co-operate and to p a r t i c i p a t e more e f f e c t i v e l y . Other ana l y s t s have observed i n prev ious EARP reviews procedural weaknesses s i m i l a r to those of the AHGP rev iew. These weaknesses are a t t r i b u t a b l e to EARP's d i s c r e t i o n a r y nature, i t s lack of l ega l power, i t s one-shot and p r o j e c t - s p e c i f i c approach, and to the lack of a p o l i c y which would prov ide a context f o r EARP. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT v i 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 THE PROBLEM 1 1.2 THE APPROACH 2 1.3 THE FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSEMENT AND REVIEW PROCESS 3 1.4 HISTORY OF PLANNING FOR A NORTHERN PIPELINE 7 1.4.1 Government P r i o r i t i e s are P i p e l i n e s 7 1.4.2 The Mackenzie V a l l e y P i p e l i n e 8 1.4.3 P i p e l i n e P lann ing and the Environment 10 1.4.4 The Momentum of P i p e l i n e P lann ing Slows 11 1.4.5 The A laska Highway Gas P i p e l i n e P r o j e c t Proposal 12 1.4.6 The Environmental Watershed 13 1.4.7 The A la ska Highway Gas P i p e l i n e P r o j e c t 14 2.0 FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS 16 2.1 DEMOCRATIC DECISION-MAKING 16 2.1.1 L i b e r a l Democratic P r i n c i p l e s 16 2.1.2 The R e a l i t y of " A c c o u n t a b i l i t y " 18 2.1.3 A Role f o r EARP 20 2.2 INFORMATION FOR DECISION-MAKING 21 2.2.1 Techn ica l In format ion 21 2.2.2 Normative Informat ion 25 2.3 FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATION 26 2.3.1 Sampling P u b l i c Opinions 27 2.3.2 Obta in ing Techn ica l In formt ion 27 2.3.3 Report ing to Dec i s ion Makers 28 3.0 EVALUATION OF EARP AS DESCRIBED BY FEARO 29 3.1 SAMPLING PUBLIC OPINIONS 30 3.2 OBTAINING TECHNICAL INFORMATION 33 3.3 REPORTING TO DECISION MAKERS 36 3.4 CONCLUSIONS 38 4.0 EARP AND THE ALASKA HIGHWAY GAS PIPELINE PROJECT 39 4.1 HILL INQUIRY 39 4.1.1 P u b l i c Meetings 40 4.1.2 I n te r im Report 44 4.2 THE DECISION TO PROCEED 45 4.3 FORMAL REVIEW 45 4.3.1 Environmental Impact Statement Gu ide l i ne s 46 4.3.2 The Northern P i p e l i n e Agency 47 4.3.3 Environmental Impact Statement 48 4.3.4 EIS Review and P u b l i c Meetings 50 4.3.5 Panel Report to the M i n i s t e r of the Environment 55 4.4 THE IBEX REVIEW: THE FINAL ROUND? 57 4.4.1 EARP and the NPA—Who Is In Charge? 57 4.4.2 NPA and F o o t h i l l s Set the Ground Rules 59 4.4.3 The Ibex Issue--The Test Case of the New EARP 61 4.5 EPILOGUE 63 V 5.0 EVALUATION OF EARP APPLIED TO AHGP 64 5.1 SAMPLING PUBLIC OPINIONS 64 5.2 OBTAINING TECHICAL INFORMATION 67 5.3 REPORTING TO DECISION MAKERS 75 5.4 CONCLUSIONS 77 6.0 DISCUSSION 79 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 84 7.1 CONDUCT OF FORMAL REVIEWS 84 7.2 CHANGES IN CABINET MEMORANDUM 85 7.3 A PHASED APPROACH 87 7.4 POLICY CONTEXT 88 7.5 EARP AND PLANNING 89 BIBLIOGRAPHY 90 v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would l i k e to acknowledge the great e f f o r t and support of my two a d v i s o r s , who have each c on t r i bu ted so much time and thought to t h i s t h e s i s . I would l i k e to thank Tony Dorcey f o r h i s enthusiasm and encouragement and f o r h i s ex t r ao rd i na r y a b i l i t y to make sense out of chaos, w i thout which I would have been unable to complete the paper. I would a l so l i k e to thank my p r i n c i p a l adv i s o r , B i l l Rees, who cont inuous l y i n s p i r e d me to seek new depths o f understanding and thus, con s ide rab l y broadened the exper ience of l e a r n i n g . - 1 -1.0 INTRODUCTION Th i s t h e s i s eva luates the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP) as a mechanism to assess the e f f e c t s of resource development p r o j e c t s on the environment and to communicate t h i s assessment to government d e c i s i o n makers. The EARP review of the A laska Highway Gas P i p e l i n e P r o j e c t (AHGP) serves as a case study. 1.1 THE PROBLEM Dec i s ions about resource development r equ i re t r a d e o f f s among the competing uses of the resources . Development can d r a s t i c a l l y a l t e r cu r r en t s o c i a l , economic, and environmental c o n d i t i o n s . In southern Canada, many opt ions f o r the use of resources have been f o r e c l o s e d , whereas i n northern Canada, t h e i r use i s s t i l l a t an e a r l y enough stage of development tha t opt ions remain. Dec i s i on makers s t i l l have the f l e x i b i l i t y to thoroughly examine these consequences of resource use before committ ing the North to any p a r t i c u l a r development s t r a tegy . Government d e c i s i o n makers should be f u l l y aware of the consequences of a proposed a c t i o n , i n c l u d i n g i t s e f f e c t s on t h e i r c o n s t i t u e n t s . EARP has the p o t e n t i a l to ob ta i n and convey i n fo rmat ion about these consequences to d e c i s i o n makers. By ana l yz ing t h i s c a p a b i l i t y I propose to c o n t r i b u t e to the understanding of both the s t rengths and the weaknesses of EARP. Th i s a na l y s i s can a s s i s t those concerned w i th EARP's performance and prov ide suggest ions f o r i t s e v o l u t i o n . - 2 -1.2 THE APPROACH The eva l ua t i on compares EARP w i th c r i t e r i a der ived from common sense and l i b e r a l democratic p r i n c i p l e s . The c r i t e r i a e s t a b l i s h procedures necessary to ob t a i n and to communicate to d e c i s i o n makers i n fo rmat ion de s c r i b i n g environmental e f f e c t s and p u b l i c concerns about t h e i r e f f e c t s . The ana l y s i s proceeds i n two stages: the f i r s t s e c t i on e s t a b l i s h e s a contex t f o r the case study by determining whether the formal pub l i c review l e v e l of EARP would meet the c r i t e r i a i f i t were app l i ed p r e c i s e l y as de sc r i bed i n the gu i de l i ne s i s sued by the Federal Environmental Assessment Review O f f i c e (FEARO 1979) and an o u t l i n e of the Cab inet memorandum e s t a b l i s h i n g EARP (FEARO 1978); the second s ec t i on eva luates the actua l performance of EARP i n the case of the AHGP formal p u b l i c review from t r a n s c r i p t s of p u b l i c meetings, the proponent ' s impact statements, and EARP Panel repor t s prepared as pa r t of the EARP review of the AHGP. EARP has evolved cont inuous ly s ince i t was f i r s t e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1973. However, the d e s c r i p t i o n and e va l ua t i on attempt to r e f l e c t EARP as i t e x i s t e d over the per iod between 1977 and 1981 when i t was app l i ed to the AHGP. This represents a s i g n i f i c a n t pe r i od i n EARP's development s ince only one formal review had been completed when the AHGP was f i r s t subjected to EARP. By 1981, four teen more EARP formal reviews had been completed. The major sources of re fe rence were the FEARO Guide to EARP (FEARO 1979), numerous c r i t i c a l analyses of EARP (CEAC 1979, DOE 1979, Emond 1978, FEARO 1980a, Rees 1979, 1980, 1981), and t r a n s c r i p t s , r epo r t s , and correspondance prepared dur ing the AHGP rev iew. Informal i n te r v i ews were undertaken and correspondence exchanged wi th the proponent, FEARO, and the EARP Panel to acqu i re a g reate r understanding of the P roces s . - 3 -1.3 THE FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW PROCESS The Un i ted S ta te s Nat iona l Environmental P o l i c y Act (NEPA) i s cons idered to be the precur sor of processes intended to review the environmental consequences of major development p roposa l s . I t was the f i r s t comprehensive environmental l e g i s l a t i o n of i t s k i nd when i t came i n t o f o r ce on January 1, 1970 and the f i r s t to use o f f i c i a l l y the terms "environmental impact assessment" (EIA) and environmental impact statement 1 (E IS) . However, the a p p l i c a t i o n of NEPA has meant lengthy l i t i g a t i o n proceedings as env i r onmenta l i s t s and i ndus t r y argue over d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the law. An a l t e r n a t i v e approach i s a pure ly a d m i n i s t r a t i v e process, and i t i s on such a po l i c y -ba sed model t ha t the Canadian f ede ra l Environmental Assessment and Review Process operates . EARP was e s t a b l i s h e d by Cabinet Memorandum on December 20, 1973 and r e v i s e d i n February 1977. The government j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r a t he r than l e g i s l a t e d process i s to prov ide the f l e x i b i l i t y to i n co rpo ra te m o d i f i c a t i o n s and r e v i s i o n s i n t o the process as exper ience i s gained through implementation (FEARO 1980a). An a l t e r n a t i v e pe r spec t i ve i s t h a t a more powerful process would have v i o l a t e d Canada's t r a d i t i o n of M i n i s t e r i a l a c c o u n t a b i l i t y and was t he re fo re r e s i s t e d by Cab inet . As Rees (1979) po in ted out, i f EARP had more than a pure ly adv i sory r o l e , i t would run the r i s k of t h rea ten i ng the dec i s ion-making autonomy of e s t a b l i s h e d departments. The Federal Environmental Assessment Review O f f i c e (FEARO) i s r e spon s i b l e f o r and admin i s te r s EARP on beha l f of the M i n i s t e r of the Environment. I t i s an ad hoc bureau r epo r t i n g to the M i n i s t e r of Environment. - 4 -EARP's success as an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e process depends heav i l y on good government. EARP operates on the p r i n c i p l e s of cooperat i ve vo lunta r i sm and s e l f assessment. Federal departments or agencies are re spons i b l e f o r a s se s s ing the impacts of p r o j e c t s they i n i t i a t e , i n compliance w i th EARP. F u l f i l l m e n t of EARP's mandate r e s t s on the i m p l i c i t assumption t ha t e l e c t e d r ep re sen t a t i v e s and c i v i l servants can be counted on to ensure t h a t the process f unc t i on s a p p r o p r i a t e l y . In the present framework then, success i n the implementation of EARP i s based more on "moral suas ion than l ega l c l o u t " (Rees 1979, p. 5 ) . The s t a ted purpose of EARP i s " t o ensure t ha t ( f e d e r a l ) departments and agencies take environmental matters i n t o account throughout the planning and implementation of ( f e d e r a l ) p r o j e c t s , programs and a c t i v i t i e s . . . " (FEARO 1978, p. 1 ) . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , EARP i s " t o ensure t h a t the environmental e f f e c t s of federa l p r o j e c t s , programs and a c t i v i t i e s are assessed e a r l y i n t h e i r p lanning before commitments or i r r e v o c a b l e dec i s i on s are made" (FEARO 1979, p. 1 ) . Based on t h i s assessment, " d e c i s i o n s can then be made as to how the p r o j e c t should proceed or i f i t should proceed at a l l " (FEARO 1979, p. 1 ) . The r e s u l t s of the environmental assessments are supposed to be i nco rpora ted i n t o the des i gn , c o n s t r u c t i o n , implementation and operat ion of the p r o j e c t (FEARO 1978). "The u l t i m a t e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r dec i s i on s r e s u l t i n g from the Process r e s t s w i th the M i n i s t e r of the Environment and h i s Cabinet co l l eague s " (FEARO 1979, p. 1 ) . - 5 -EARP i s d i v i ded i n t o two phases: the f i r s t i s the i n i t i a l screening phase, i n which i n d i v i d u a l departments are supposed to review t h e i r own p r o j e c t s to decide whether environmental impacts are s i g n i f i c a n t enough to warrant review under the second, the formal review phase. P r o j e c t s that are found to have no s i g n i f i c a n t impacts have no f u r t h e r re fe rence to EARP. Those l i k e l y to have s i g n i f i c a n t environmental consequences are " r e f e r r e d " f o r formal review. This t h e s i s analyses only the formal review phase. The formal review phase c o n s i s t s of the f o l l o w i n g procedures. 1) The i n i t i a t i n g department r e f e r s a p r o j e c t to the M i n i s t e r of Environment f o r formal rev iew. (The i n i t i a t o r i s a " f e d e r a l department or agency which intends to undertake or sponsor a p r o j e c t having p o t e n t i a l environmental e f f e c t s and which i s thus requ i red to take appropr i a te a c t i o n accord ing to federa l environmental p o l i c y " ) (FEARO 1979, p.11). FEARO c a r r i e s out the formal review on beha l f of the M i n i s t e r of the Environment. 2) The Execut i ve Chairman of FEARO i s r e spons i b l e f o r appointment of an Environmental Assessment Panel to review the p r o j e c t . Members are chosen f o r t h e i r " s p e c i a l knowledge and e xpe r t i s e r e l e van t to the a n t i c i p a t e d t e c h n i c a l , environmental and s o c i a l e f f e c t s of the p ropo sa l " (FEARO 1979, p. 5 ) . 3) The panel i s sues g u i de l i n e s f o r the p repara t ion of an EIS which are intended " t o ensure t ha t the EIS conta in s the i n fo rmat ion t ha t the P a n e l , t e c h n i c a l rev iewers and the pub l i c need to eva luate the p r opo s a l ' s environmental and r e l a t e d s o c i a l i m p l i c a t i o n s " (FEARO 1979, p. 5 ) . 4) The proponent prepares the EIS, which i s the bas i s of the formal review. (The proponent i s a company, prov ince or other o r gan i z a t i on which intends - 6 -to undertake a p r o j e c t i n v o l v i n g federa l funds or property) (FEARO 1979). The panel mainta ins an a rm ' s - l eng th r e l a t i o n s h i p w i th the proponent to put the onus on the proponent to prove the need f o r and environmental a c c e p t a b i l i t y of the p r o j e c t . Th is s t ra tegy encourages 'env i ronmental t h i n k i n g ' e a r l y i n p r o j e c t p l ann ing . 5) Once the EIS i s submitted to the pane l , i t i s d i s t r i b u t e d f o r review to the pub l i c and government departments. Any d e f i c i e n c i e s i d e n t i f i e d by the rev iewers are forwarded by the panel to the proponent. The proponent ' s responses to these d e f i c i e n c y statements are then c i r c u l a t e d among rev iewers . 6) " A f t e r a l l ow ing a c e r t a i n time f o r pub l i c and t e chn i ca l rev iew" of the EIS and d e f i c i e n c y statements p u b l i c meetings are he ld (FEARO 1979, p. 6 ) . P u b l i c meetings are conducted i n f o r m a l l y and are not l e ga l proceedings. The pub l i c comment rece i ved i s intended to have a r o l e i n determin ing the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the environmental e f f e c t s a s soc ia ted wi th the p r o j e c t . 7) The panel d e l i b e r a t e s over the EIS, responses to d e f i c i e n c y statements, t e c h n i c a l rev iews, b r i e f s submitted dur ing p u b l i c meetings, and t r a n s c r i p t s of the meetings. The panel prepares a r epo r t f o r the M i n i s t e r of the Environment, d e s c r i b i n g the p r o j e c t and i t s environmental and r e l a t e d s o c i a l impacts and present ing conc lu s ions and recommendations concern ing p r o j e c t implementat ion. The panel can recommend " t h a t a p r o j e c t not proceed; t ha t i t proceed as proposed; or t ha t i t proceed wi th m o d i f i c a t i o n s or i n accordance w i th cond i t i on s s p e c i f i e d by the Pane l " (FEARO 1979, p. 7 ) . 8) The M i n i s t e r of Environment and the M i n i s t e r of the i n i t i a t i n g department make dec i s i on s about whether to accept panel recommendations. Any disagreements are probably r e f e r r e d to Cabinet f o r r e s o l u t i o n . "A p r o j e c t - 7 -submitted f o r review cannot be c a r r i e d out u n t i l a dec i s i o n has been reached on the recommendations submitted to the M i n i s t e r by the P a n e l " (FEARO 1979, p. 5 ) . A number of c r i t i c a l reviews of EARP over the past ten years reveal t ha t EARP has not always l i v e d up to e a r l y expecta t ions (CEAC 1979; DOE 1979; Emond 1978; FEARO 1983; Rees 1979, 1981). The problems these ana l y s t s have i d e n t i f i e d are d i scussed i n more d e t a i l i n l a t e r chapte r s . They reveal t ha t the procedures desc r ibed i n the FEARO Guide are only the bare bones of EARP. Once app l i ed to a p a r t i c u l a r case, EARP takes on qu i t e a d i f f e r e n t appearance. 1.4 HISTORY OF PLANNING FOR A NORTHERN PIPELINE 1.4.1 Government P r i o r i t i e s are P i p e l i n e s The d i scovery of massive reserves of o i l and gas i n Prudhoe Bay o f f the north coast of A laska i n February 1968 focused the a t t e n t i o n of i ndus t ry and government on the p o s s i b i l i t y of t r a n s p o r t i n g o i l and gas by p i p e l i n e through A la ska and Canada to the southern Un i ted S t a t e s . The f ede ra l government was caught unawares w i thout a co -o rd i na ted p o l i c y or p lann ing program i n p lace to guide the North i n t o a new decade of economic development. However, these d i s c o v e r i e s and those cons idered to be i n e v i t a b l e i n the Mackenzie De l t a and the Canadian A r c t i c i s l a nd s were hera lded by government o f f i c i a l s as the beginning of secure economic development f o r the North (Dosman 1975). The Nat iona l Energy Board (NEB) began to sound out i ndu s t r y regarding the p o s s i b i l i t y of c o n s t r u c t i n g an o i l p i p e l i n e down the Mackenzie V a l l e y as an a l t e r n a t i v e to a t r an s -A l a s ka route . Then, to s t reaml ine the bureaucracy dea l i n g w i th northern i s s ue s , the Task Force on Northern O i l Development - 8 -(TFNOD) was e s t a b l i s h e d i n December 1968. Between 1968 and 1972 TFNOD was the c e n t r a l agency of the federa l government determin ing the shape of northern development (Dosman 1975). I t s mandate i n c l uded : " . . . ( t o ) assess the t e c h n i c a l and economic f e a s i b i l i t y of an o i l p i p e l i n e from Prudhoe Bay to the Un i ted S ta tes markets through Canada. . . " (Dosman 1975, p. 20 ) . However, as Dosman s t a t e d : "The Task F o r c e ' s c h i e f purpose from the f i r s t was the succes s fu l promotoion of a Mackenzie p i p e l i n e c o r r i d o r r a t he r than the two most probable t r a n s p o r t a t i o n a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r A laskan o i l and gas . . . ( i t ) was pure ly and e n t i r e l y development o r i e n t e d . . . i t set about immediately to convince the o i l i ndus t r y of the mer i t s of a Mackenzie p i p e l i n e system" (Dosman 1975, p. 24,25). 1.4.2 The MacKenzie V a l l e y P i p e l i n e Industry reacted q u i c k l y to the o p p o r t u n i t i e s a f f o rded by the Prudhoe Bay d i s c o v e r i e s and, i n May 1969, a consort ium of companies e s t a b l i s h e d the Mackenzie V a l l e y P i p e l i n e Research Co. L im i ted to i n v e s t i g a t e the f e a s i b i l i t y of an o i l p i p e l i n e route us ing the Mackenzie V a l l e y . When U.S. i ndus t r y showed support f o r a t r an s -A l a s ka o i l p i p e l i n e , Canadian i n t e r e s t s began to con s i de r the p o s s i b i l i t y of a Mackenzie V a l l e y gas p i p e l i n e . By June 1969, th ree c o n s o r t i a of companies had announced they were con s i de r i n g plans f o r A r c t i c gas p i p e l i n e s . The TFNOD f e l t t ha t a gas p i p e l i n e would be equal i n s i g n i f i c a n c e to an o i l p i p e l i n e i n terms of i t s b e n e f i c i a l e f f e c t on Canadian and American r e l a t i o n s and northern development. - 9 -Throughout the summer and f a l l of 1969, pressures from w i t h i n indus t ry and government were i n c r e a s i n g f o r Cabinet to endorse i n p r i n c i p l e a northern p i p e l i n e . However, the lack of i n fo rmat ion on cos t s and b e n e f i t s of a Mackenzie V a l l e y p i p e l i n e l e d the Task Force to recommend, i n an A p r i l 1970 Memo to Cab inet , a s t ra tegy of "pa s s i ve p r o m o t i o n . . . , ( i . e . ) , to avo id commitments pending a Government d e c i s i o n regard ing g u i de l i n e s f o r northern p i p e l i n e s " (Dosman 1975, p. 38) . These gu i de l i ne s would i n d i c a t e to i ndus t r y the c ond i t i o n s under which p i p e l i n e c o n s t r u c t i o n would be a l lowed i n the North. The dec i s i o n was made i n May 1970 by a small group of s en i o r o f f i c i a l s at the Deputy M i n i s t e r l e v e l to go ahead w i th having the Northern P i p e l i n e Gu ide l i ne s d r a f t e d . Dosman (1975, p. 66) i n d i c a t e d the s i g n i f i c a n c e of these g u i d e l i n e s : "The Task Force recommended Cab inet a p p r o v a l - i n - p r i n c i p i e on the understanding shared w i th i ndu s t r y t ha t i t imp l i ed a f a r - r e a c h i n g commitment to the Mackenzie C o r r i d o r " . The cont inued lack of i n fo rmat ion as to the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the p i p e l i n e to the Canadian economy and to r e l a t i o n s between business and government meant t h a t t h i s commitment was based on severa l key premises i n c l u d i n g one tha t dec i s i on s made i n the p r i v a t e sec to r r e f l e c t e d na t iona l p r i o r i t i e s . Cab inet , i n pass ing the gu i de l i n e s i n August 1970, conf i rmed undeniably t ha t the northern p i p e l i n e was cons idered to be i n the " n a t i ona l i n t e r e s t " (Dosman 1975). In response to the g u i d e l i n e s , two major c o n s o r t i a i n i t i a t e d plans f o r A r c t i c gas p i p e l i n e s . These amalgamated i n June 1972 t o form Canadian A r c t i c Gas Study Group L t d . (CAGSL). I t was t h e i r plan f o r the Mackenzie Va l l e y p i p e l i n e , which was f i l e d w i th the NEB i n March 1974, tha t f i n a l l y prov ided government wi th a focus f o r i t s v i s i o n of northern development. -10-1.4.3 P i p e l i n e P lann ing and the Environment Estab l i shment of the Gu ide l i ne s hadn ' t i nc luded any research i n t o p o s s i b l e environmental problems a s soc ia ted w i th a northern p i p e l i n e . This t r a d i t i o n a l s t r a i g h t - f o r w a r d approach to p i p e l i n e p lann ing i n the past was evidenced by the approach of the U.S. companies b u i l d i n g the Trans -A laska o i l p i p e l i n e , when they had " s imply submitted a general route map, three s o i l sample sheets , and a $10.00 cheque to support t h e i r June 1969 a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a r i gh t - o f -way permit from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez and had requested an answer before the end of J u l y " (NY Times j_n Dosman 1975, p. 65 ) . Less than one year l a t e r , t h i s p i p e l i n e was f a c i n g b i t t e r oppos i t i on from env i r onmenta l i s t s and na t i ve groups, which was to delay the p r o j e c t f o r f i v e y e a r s . I t was becoming ev ident t ha t cont inued p i p e l i n e p lann ing i n Canada might have to contend w i th growing p u b l i c concern i f the CAGSL proposal was to avo id a s i m i l a r f i a s c o . A Soc i a l and Environmental Committee of the TFNOD was e s t a b l i s h e d i n June 1971 w i t h a l a r ge budget f o r environmental research and w i th an Adv i sory Group t o prov ide a con tac t f o r p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The committee d r a f t ed the Expanded Northern G u i d e l i n e s , which were t ab led i n the House of Commons on June 18, 1972. These gu i de l i n e s were intended to e s t a b l i s h cond i t i on s f o r ensur ing environmental p r o t e c t i o n ; however, they were cons idered to be more of a "code of good behaviour than c l e a r d i r e c t i v e s . . . o f use to engineers i n the f i e l d " (Dosman 1975, p. 168). The general op in ion w i t h i n TFNOD was tha t environmental c on s i de r a t i on s might de lay , but not s top, p i p e l i n e development and tha t p i p e l i n e c o n s t r u c t i o n remained t h e i r top p r i o r i t y (Dosman 1975). Whi le TFNOD had been f a c i l i t a t i n g p i p e l i n e p lann ing , the Department of Indian A f f a i r s and Northern Development (DIAND) had been developing i t s own p o l i c i e s f o r northern development. These were presented i n "Canada 's North: - 1 1 -1970-1980" (Chret ien 1972) and seemed to a t tach p r i o r i t y to the needs of northern people and to the maintenance of e c o l o g i c a l ba lance. In s p i t e of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between p i p e l i n e p lann ing and northern development, the TFNOD Gu ide l i ne s were drawn up "be fo re and e n t i r e l y w i thout re fe rence t o " d i s cu s s i on s about northern development p r i o r i t i e s t ha t r e s u l t e d i n "Canada 's Nor th " (Dosman 1975). TFNOD cons idered i t s e l f to be the best judge of the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t and repor ted to Cabinet i n J u l y 1972 t h a t " the weight of p u b l i c op in ion i n Canada i s gene ra l l y i n favour of northern p i p e l i n e development" (TFNOD Progress Report j_n Dosman 1975, p. 114). Dosman be l i e ved t h a t the only r o l e f o r the Canada 's North document was to adv i se an increased s e n s i t i v i t y to s o c i a l and environmental concerns w i t h i n the framework of development e s t a b l i s h e d by TFNOD. 1.4.4 The Momentum of P i p e l i n e P lann ing Slows Fo l l ow ing 1972, severa l f a c t o r s slowed the momentum of p i p e l i n e p lann ing . The Canadian p u b l i c was beginning to quest ion i n c r e a s i n g l y the under l y ing assumptions of the b e l i e f t ha t the p i p e l i n e was i n the na t i ona l i n t e r e s t . As a r e s u l t of the U.S. energy c r i s i s i n l a t e 1972, a sour ing of Canadian and American r e l a t i o n s , and concerns over the economic e f f e c t of the p i p e l i n e , the Task Force began to examine more c l o s e l y the broad i m p l i c a t i o n s of the p i p e l i n e . There was a r e a l i z a t i o n w i t h i n the federa l government t ha t the NEB d i d not possess the e x p e r t i s e to assess adequately the socio-economic and environmental i s sues i n i t s upcoming hear ings to review p i p e l i n e a p p l i c a t i o n s . The m ino r i t y government f e l t p a r t i c u l a r l y vu lne rab le to c r i t i c i s m over i t s p i p e l i n e p o l i c y . The combinat ion of these f a c t o r s l ed Cabinet i n January 1973 to a d e c i s i o n t ha t DIAND would hold hear ings to assess the p i p e l i n e ' s environmental -12-and s o c i a l impact. The same day t ha t CAGSL f i l e d i t s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r the Mackenzie V a l l e y p i p e l i n e wi th the NEB i n March 1974, the Mackenzie V a l l e y P i p e l i n e Inqu i ry headed by J u s t i c e Thomas Berger was e s t a b l i s h e d . The Berger I nqu i ry was g iven a very broad mandate to " i n q u i r e i n t o and r epo r t upon" the terms and cond i t i o n s f o r a p i p e l i n e r i gh t - o f -way "having regard t o " s o c i a l , environmental and economic impacts and proposals to meet the environmental and s o c i a l concerns i n the Expanded Gu ide l i ne s ( P r i v y Counc i l 1974 vn Berger 1977, p. 205). The es tab l i shment of the i n q u i r y represented a s i g n i f i c a n t v i c t o r y f o r the northern people and environmental i n t e r e s t s whose concerns had p e r s i s t e n t l y been over looked i n the push f o r economic development. From the beginning Berger intended to prov ide an oppor tun i ty f o r those concerns to be heard to an ex tent never exper ienced before i n Canada. He embarked on an ex tens i ve tour of northern communities as we l l as major southern centres i n tend ing to l i s t e n to anyone who wished to have a say i n the f u t u r e of the North (Berger 1977). 1.4.5 The A la ska Highway Gas P i p e l i n e P r o j e c t Proposal In March 1975, i n the midst of t h i s r i s i n g environmental concern F o o t h i l l s P ipe L ines L t d . f i l e d i t s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r the Maple Leaf P i p e l i n e to t r an spo r t Mackenzie De l t a gas down the Mackenzie V a l l e y . NEB hear ings began i n March 1976 to address the supply, demand, f i n a n c i n g , socio-economic and environmental i s sues a s soc ia ted w i th the proposal by CAGSL and F o o t h i l l s . However, the rea l compet i t i on to CAGSL a r r i v e d i n August 1976 when F o o t h i l l s f i l e d i t s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a second p r o j e c t : the AHGP. The terms of re fe rence f o r the NEB hear ings were then expanded to i nc lude t h i s p r o j e c t . However, cou ld a p r o j e c t so h a s t i l y developed and submitted so l a t e - 13 -i n the process i n any way be a t h r ea t to CAGSL which was backed by s i x years and $50 m i l l i o n worth of study (Gamble 1978) and which had had TFNOD's b l e s s i n g s ince i t s concept ion? 1.4.6 The Environmental Watershed Spr ing 1977 marked the watershed f o r environmental concerns. R i s i n g oppo s i t i o n to a Mackenzie V a l l e y P i p e l i n e cu lminated w i th Be r ge r ' s r epo r t r e l ea sed on May 9, 1977 which f lew i n the face of a l l f ede ra l government and CAGSL expec ta t i on s . Berger recommended a complete moratorium on a p i p e l i n e across the northern Yukon and ten -year delay on any p i p e l i n e down the Mackenzie V a l l e y to a l l ow time f o r set t lement of na t i ve land c l a ims ; a delay t h a t would e f f e c t i v e l y e l i m i n a t e the CAGSL p ropo sa l . Be r ge r ' s recommendations were r e i n f o r c e d by the NEB r e p o r t , re lea sed on J u l y 4, 1977. I t r e j e c t e d the CAGSL and Maple Leaf proposals i n favour of the AHGP p ropo sa l . However, NEB's endorsement of the AHGP was based on scanty i n f o rma t i on . Berger had s i m i l a r l y a ided the AHGP cause by not ing t ha t "concerns which cause me to r e j e c t CAGSL do not appear to hold f o r the AHGP" (Berger 1977, p . ) . As Bregha (1979, p. 132) s t a t ed " t h i s was a quest ionnab le s i t u a t i o n : i f the A laska Highway l i n e looked r e l a t i v e l y more benign than a Mackenzie p i p e l i n e , the l e s s r i gorous examinat ion which the p r o j e c t had rece ived was at l e a s t as r e spon s i b l e as i t s n a t u r e " . Apparent ly the f ede ra l government had been so convinced of the value of the CAGSL p r o j e c t t ha t i t had given l i t t l e c o n s i d e r a t i o n to po s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s . The quest ion now was whether federa l government would merely s h i f t i t s a t t e n t i o n to f a c i l i t a t i n g the AHGP and r e b u i l d the p lann ing momentum t h a t had been l o s t w i th the Berger I nqu i r y ; or whether i t would i n i t i a t e a process t ha t would cont inue w i th the example set by the Berger I nqu i ry and prov ide a general forum f o r p u b l i c input to p i p e l i n e p l ann ing . -14-The l a s t th ing the federa l government wanted was another B e r g e r - s t y l e i n q u i r y , as i t was gene ra l l y f e l t t ha t Mr. J u s t i c e Berger had d r a s t i c a l l y overstepped h i s mandate of a s sess ing the impacts of a p i p e l i n e by l e t t i n g i t become "an i nqu i r y i n t o the f u tu re of the North and, f i n a l l y , an i n q u i r y i n t o the f u tu re i t s e l f " (Bregha 1979, p. 115). Cab inet chose i n s tead to sub jec t the p r o j e c t to two panel rev iews. The f i r s t was an appointed board of i n q u i r y under the chairmanship of Dean Kenneth Lysyk to review the socio-economic i s s ue s . The second was an Environmental Assessment Panel under Dr. Harry H i l l which marked the beginnings of the f ede ra l EARP as i t was app l i ed i n the case of the AHGP. I t remained to be seen whether EARP cou ld l i v e up to the promise of the Berger Inqu i ry or whether environmental input would cont inue to be d i c t a t e d by the same pressures f o r economic development tha t had had such great i n f l uence over p i p e l i n e p lanning i n the past . 1.4.7 The A la ska Highway Gas P i p e l i n e The AHGP was proposed by F o o t h i l l s P ipe L ines L t d . to t r an spo r t natura l gas from Prudhoe Bay, A l a s ka , through the Yukon, B r i t i s h Columbia, A l b e r t a and Saskatchewan to the mid-western Un i ted S ta tes ( F o o t h i l l s 1979a). The AHGP would t r ave r se the south-west corner of the Yukon f o r 818 km from Beaver Creek t o Watson Lake. Only t h i s p o r t i on was subjected to EARP because i t crossed f ede r a l l and . The proposed route p a r a l l e l s the A laska Highway f o r most of i t s l e n g t h . The f i r s t h i gh -p re s su re , wide-d iameter p i p e l i n e planned f o r north of 6 0 ° , would be 1219 mm in diameter (pressure of 8687 kPa) widening to 1422 mm (7445 kPa) a t the j unc tu re wi th a proposed l a t e r a l p i p e l i n e from the Beaufort Sea at Whitehorse. - 15 -F o o t h i l l s proposed to c h i l l the gas below 0°C i n the f i r s t s e c t i on where the route passes through cont inuous and d i scont inuous permafrost . The p i p e l i n e would be bu r ied along the e n t i r e route although areas of rock, muskeg and permafrost might r equ i re s p e c i a l i z e d design such as a r a i s e d berm. The p i p e l i n e would a l so be bur ied at a l l water c ros s ings except Kluane Lake where i t would l i e on the bottom. During c o n s t r u c t i o n , there would be work camps to house a maximum of about 900 people, storage s i t e s , and temporary access roads to the r i gh t - o f -way and to these f a c i l i t i e s . The r i gh t -o f -way width f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n w i l l be 40 m. Con s t ruc t i on would occur s e q u e n t i a l l y w i th people and equipment moving from spread to spread, both i n w in te r and i n summer. The r i gh t -o f -way would be graded and revegetated where necessary f o l l o w i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n . The proposed route crosses the boreal f o r e s t reg ion and i s c l o se to mountainous areas t ha t support hea l thy popu la t ions of g r i z z l y bear, moose, beaver, muskrat, woodland c a r i b o u , Dal 1 1 s sheep, ba ld and golden eagles and wa te r f ow l . Twenty-one spec ies of f i s h have been i d e n t i f i e d i n the upper Yukon drainage system i n c l u d i n g Chinook salmon, A r c t i c g r a y l i n g , Lake w h i t e f i s h , and Do l l y Varden char . -16-2.0 FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS The normative c r i t e r i a used to eva luate the s t r u c t u r e and a p p l i c a t i o n of EARP are der i ved from common sense and the l i b e r a l democrat ic p r i n c i p l e s on which Canada's f ede ra l governmental d e c i s i o n - making process i s based. 2.1 DEMOCRATIC DECISION-MAKING  2.1.1 L i b e r a l Democratic P r i n c i p l e s Democratic s o c i e t y i s based i n pa r t on the view t ha t a l l s i g n i f i c a n t groups or " i n t e r e s t s " to be a f f e c t e d by a dec i s i o n should have the oppor tun i ty to a f f e c t the cho i ce to be made. The market system prov ides one oppor tun i ty f o r each i n d i v i d u a l to make cho ices about how to achieve maximum b e n e f i t s from h i s or her po i n t of view. However, c e r t a i n a c t i o n s , such as the use of p u b l i c l y owned resources , impose cos t s and b e n e f i t s on s oc i e t y tha t are ou t s i de the usual market c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . The p o l i t i c a l process can be adapted t o prov ide the oppor tun i t y to make these pub l i c dec i s i on s openly and i n the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . Mayo noted t h a t the process f o r making democratic dec i s i on s i s t h e o r e t i c a l l y based on the f o l l o w i n g four l i b e r a l democrat ic p r i n c i p l e s : 1) popular c o n t r o l of p o l i c y makers i s i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d through the e l e c t i o n of r ep re sen ta t i v e s who are assumed to represent the preferences of t h e i r c o n s t i t u e n t s i n the dec i s ion-mak ing process ; 2) p o l i t i c a l e q u a l i t y i s i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d by g i v i n g a l l adu l t c i t i z e n s e q u a l i t y i n v o t i n g ; 3) p o l i t i c a l freedoms, i n c l u d i n g freedom of cho ice by vo te r s , and freedom to run f o r o f f i c e , enables the e f f e c t i v e cho ice of r ep re sen ta t i ve s to take p l a ce , i . e . , " t o ensure popular con t ro l of d e c i s i o n makers at e l e c t i o n - 17 -t ime and to keep the channels open to l e g i t i m a t e i n f l u e n c e at a l l t imes " (Mayo 1960, p.66); 4) ma jo r i t y r u l e ; i n a s i t u a t i o n where the r ep re sen ta t i ve s are d i v i d e d , the d e c i s i o n of the ma jo r i t y p r e v a i l s . W i th in the democrat ic dec i s ion-mak ing process , e l e c t e d r ep re sen ta t i ve s are assumed to represent t h e i r c o n s t i t u e n t s . The i n t e r e s t s of the c o n s t i t u e n t s of an e l e c t e d r ep re sen ta t i ve i n t oday ' s p l u r a l i s t i c s o c i e t y are l i k e l y to be d i v e r s e . Some may favour an a c t i o n t h a t a f f e c t s them p o s i t i v e l y , whereas others may disapprove of the same a c t i o n i f they are nega t i ve l y a f f e c t e d . As Haefe le (1973) i n d i c a t e d , under the p r i n c i p l e of r ep re sen ta t i ve government, the e l e c t e d r ep re sen ta t i v e i s , t h e o r e t i c a l l y , i n the best p o s i t i o n f o r we ight ing and making t r a d e o f f s among these d i ve r se i n t e r e s t s when dec id ing what i s i n t h e i r best i n t e r e s t s . Cabinet m i n i s t e r s , as e l e c t e d members i n the l e g i s l a t u r e , are accountable not only to the e l e c t o r a t e , but a l so to the l e g i s l a t u r e . The p r i n c i p l e of r e spon s i b l e government re s t s on ma in ta in ing t h i s a c c o u n t a b i l i t y whereby Cab inet m i n i s t e r s are r e spon s i b l e f o r a c t i on s emanating from t h e i r departments. By t h i s mechanism, the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n i s supposedly responsive t o pub l i c demands and pub l i c op in ions (Wilson 1981). The purpose of t h i s p r i n c i p l e i s to " d e f i n e and c i r cumsc r i be governmental power to prevent a r b i t r a r y excesses i n the use of such powers" (Wilson 1981 p.129). However, the a c c o u n t a b i l i t y of Cabinet m i n i s t e r s does not always meet the democrat ic i dea l i n day-to-day workings of government. The p o l i t i c a l process of dec i s ion-mak ing does not conform p r e c i s e l y to the democrat ic p r i n c i p l e s of r ep re sen ta t i on and r e s p o n s b i l i t y . -18 -2.1.2 The R e a l i t y of " A c c o u n t a b i l i t y " I t i s i n c r e a s i n g l y d i f f i c u l t f o r e l e c t e d r ep re sen ta t i ve s to be aware of , and to represent , the m u l t i p l e c o n f l i c t i n g values of the e l e c t o r a t e . Some of the e l e c t o r a t e are ne i t he r informed about environmental i s sues nor make t h e i r concerns known because of the lack of c l e a r channels of communication wi th governmental d e c i s i o n makers. The most vocal and w e l l - o r g a n i z e d groups wi th the resources necessary to r ece i ve media exposure make t h e i r i n t e r e s t s known but they may not be r ep re sen ta t i ve of the p u b l i c a t l a r g e . 01 sen (1971) contended t ha t o r gan i za t i on s are only r ep re sen ta t i ve of small groups of s p e c i a l i z e d i n t e r e s t s and suggested t ha t a group w i l l organize to achieve some c o l l e c t i v e good t ha t r e f l e c t s a common concern among group members. I n d i v i dua l s only j o i n the group i f the b e n e f i t s each rece i ve s as being pa r t of the group, i s g rea te r than t h a t which they cou ld rece i ve on t h e i r own. However, the l a r g e r the group, the l e s s the l i k e l i h o o d that c o l l e c t i v e agreements can be reached because of the d i v e r s i t y of op in ions w i t h i n the group, even over a common concern. A l s o , the l a r g e r the group, the sma l l e r the f r a c t i o n of the c o l l e c t i v e good each w i l l r e c e i v e . There fo re , l a r ge groups of people w i th common i n t e r e s t s tend to be l e s s motivated to organ ize than sma l l e r groups, and as a r e s u l t , t h e i r views are not communicated as r e a d i l y to d e s c i s i o n makers and are thus underepresented i n the p o l i t i c a l p rocess . Although e l e c t e d r ep re sen ta t i v e s may not be we l l informed through organ ized groups of the i n t e r e s t s of these l a r g e r groups i n s o c i e t y , a c c o u n t a b i l i t y may s t i l l be sub jec t to the i n t e r e s t s of the m a j o r i t y . There fo re , a c c o u n t a b i l i t y of an e l e c t e d r ep re sen ta t i v e to h i s or her cons t i tuency may have l i t t l e i n f l u e n c e on dec i s i on s taken i f the ma jo r i t y of -19 -the e l e c t o r a t e has d i f f e r e n t p re fe rences , i s d i s i n t e r e s t e d , or i s unorganized. Th i s b ia s toward the i n t e r e s t s of the ma jo r i t y i s p a r t i c u l a r l y a problem wi th dec i s i on s about resource development, which tend to con fe r b e n e f i t s upon a d i f f e r e n t and broader group than those who rece i ve the disadvantages (o f ten the l o c a l r e s i d e n t s ) . Cab inet m i n i s t e r s r e l y heav i l y on the p u b l i c s e r v i c e f o r i n fo rmat i on about the d i f f e r e n t i n t e r e s t s and the i s sues w i t h i n t h e i r mandates. The p r i n c i p l e of r e spon s i b l e government i s based on the assumption t ha t the p u b l i c s e r v i c e f unc t i on s only to implement dec i s i on s and acts n e u t r a l l y wh i l e doing so. In f a c t , the p u b l i c s e r v i c e has a great deal of i n f l u e n c e over implemented ac t i on s (Wilson 1981). B iases are i nherent i n a l l i n d i v i d u a l s and o r g a n i z a t i o n s , and thus prevent the p u b l i c s e r v i c e from a c t i n g n e u t r a l l y . Such b iases are r e f l e c t e d i n the i n fo rmat ion passed on to d e c i s i o n makers, i n c l u d i n g Cab inet m i n i s t e r s . These b iases are i n e v i t a b l e i n s i t u a t i o n s where i n d i v i d u a l s , a c t i n g i n a r a t i o n a l and s e l f - i n t e r e s t e d manner, seek to maximize t h e i r own i n t e r e s t s (Fox 1978). The p u b l i c servant tends to prov ide favourab le i n fo rmat ion and suppress unfavourable i n fo rmat ion i n an attempt to p lease super io r s and achieve career advancement. A l s o , p u b l i c servants n a t u r a l l y tend to i n f l a t e t h e i r own importance by proposing measures w i t h i n t h e i r e x p e r t i s e tha t w i l l j u s t i f y inc reased budgets and s t a f f (Fox 1978) and these i n t e r e s t s then are r e f l e c t e d i n t h e i r department ' s o b j e c t i v e s r a the r than those tha t would best serve s o c i e t y . Federa l government departments are a l so b iased toward organized i n t e r e s t s t h a t support the departmental f u n c t i o n s . Such i n t e r e s t groups ma inta in c l o se contac t w i th the department to vo i ce t h e i r concerns and i n f l u e n c e d e c i s i o n s . -20 -The department i n turn i s mot ivated to get along w i th these i n t e r e s t s and adapt i t s program to s u i t them because a support ive cons t i tuency enhances i t s power (Fox 1978). In format ion passed on to d e c i s i o n makers r e f l e c t s the preferences of the s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t groups. The ex tent of p r e f e r e n t i a l treatment toward these groups i s i n p ropo r t i on to t h e i r perce ived i n f l uence over the department. The natura l tendancy of d e c i s i o n makers i s to ac t i n a r a t i o n a l , s e l f -i n t e r e s t e d manner t ha t f u r t h e r b iases the d e c i s i o n . 2.1.3 A Role f o r EARP To o f f s e t the b iases and underepresentat ion i nherent i n the regu la r system of government and to improve the dec i s ion-making process , open, f a i r and a c c e s s i b l e procedures helps ensure t ha t i n t e r e s t groups have an oppor tun i t y to convey t h e i r concerns, and tha t d e c i s i o n makers are f u l l y informed wi th the best i n f o rma t i on . An open, a c c e s s i b l e system would g ive p u b l i c servants l e s s oppor tun i ty to d i s t o r t , a l t e r or b ias i n fo rmat ion conveyed to the p o l i t i c i a n s . E l e c ted r ep re sen ta t i ve s would know tha t the e l e c t o r a t e was expect ing them to act f a i r l y and to j u s t i f y t h e i r ac t i on s on the bas i s of the a v a i l a b l e i n f o rma t i on . To avoid b iases toward i n t e r e s t of the m a j o r i t y , these procedures should a l s o provide the oppor tun i ty f o r a r r i v i n g a t consensus among the p a r t i c i p a t i n g p u b l i c i n t e r e s t groups and competing government agenc ies . By p r o v i d i n g open, a c c e s s i b l e , sys temat ic and f a i r procedures f o r in fo rming d e c i s i o n makers and the p u b l i c , EARP would act to b r i ng the governmental dec i s ion-making process c l o s e r to the p r i n c i p l e s of r ep re sen t a t i v e and re spons i b l e government. - 2 1 -2.2 INFORMATION FOR DECISION-MAKING Informat ion f o r d e c i s i o n makers about the environmental e f f e c t s of resource development has two elements. F i r s t , the o b j e c t i v e t e c h n i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n of a l t e r n a t i v e p r o j e c t s t r a t e g i e s and t h e i r e f f e c t s on the environment, which requ i re s a p p l i c a t i o n of s c i e n t i f i c knowledge about the environment. Secondly, the normative element, which i n d i c a t e s the p u b l i c s ' s u b j e c t i v e judgement about which a l t e r n a t i v e s and environmental parameters are worthy of c o n s i d e r a t i o n by d e c i s i o n makers and the p u b l i c s ' op in ions of the importance of the p r o j e c t ' s e f f e c t s . The normative i n fo rmat ion r e f l e c t s the range of va lues present i n s o c i e t y . 2.2.1 Technica l In format ion Dec i s i on makers should have the oppor tun i ty to choose between a l t e r n a t i v e p r o j e c t designs and s t r a t e g i e s , which might i nc lude a l t e r n a t i v e uses of resources to f u l f i l l d i f f e r e n t goals and a l t e r n a t i v e techno log ie s f o r meeting the same goa l . For example, a l t e r n a t i v e s a s soc i a ted w i th a s p e c i f i c p r o j e c t might i nc lude the 'no go' op t i on and c on s i de r a t i on of a l t e r n a t i v e goa l s , a l t e r n a t i v e p r o j e c t s to meet the same goa l , or a l t e r n a t i v e schedules , l o c a t i o n s , and c o n s t r u c t i o n techniques f o r the same p r o j e c t . The a l t e r n a t i v e s a v a i l a b l e f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n depend on the goals f o r which the a c t i o n i s intended and the opt ions t h a t have a l ready been f o r e c l o s e d by prev ious d e c i s i o n s . Dec i s i ons about a p r o j e c t evolve from very broad con s i de r a t i on s about the needs of the p r o j e c t , to more s p e c i f i c c on s i de r a t i on s about l o c a t i o n and schedu l ing and, f i n a l l y , to d e t a i l e d dec i s i on s about des ign . A l t e r n a t i v e s -22 -cons idered a t each of these po in t s i n p r o j e c t p lann ing should be descr ibed to the extent necessary to enable comparison and the j u s t i f i c a t i o n of a p re fe r red c ho i c e . For example, i f the d e c i s i o n i s to choose the best l o c a t i o n f o r a p r o j e c t , enough i n fo rmat ion should be prov ided on reasonable a l t e r n a t i v e s to show c l e a r l y why a p a r t i c u l a r l o c a t i o n i s p r e f e r r ed on s o c i a l , environmental and economic grounds, over s e l e c t ed a l t e r n a t i v e s . Hoi l i n g (1978) suggested t ha t an ecosystem e x h i b i t s " pa t te rn s of connect ions r e s u l t i n g i n subassemblies t ha t are t i g h t l y connected w i t h i n themselves, but l o o s e l y connected to o the r s " (p. 27 ) . Ma i n ta i n i ng these pa t te rn s i s c r i t i c a l to the long-term v i a b i l i t y of an ecosystem and t h e r e f o r e , to the pe r s i s t ence of i t s component resources . There fo re , a p r o j e c t can have an e f f e c t on a resource e i t h e r by a f f e c t i n g i t d i r e c t l y or by a f f e c t i n g the components and processes tha t make up the pat terns of which the resource i s a p a r t . P r e d i c t i n g e f f e c t s on the resources r equ i re s knowledge of these p a t t e r n s . Such f u n c t i o n a l knowledge (Dorcey and H a l l 1981) s p e c i f i e s the cause and e f f e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h i n the ecosystem. With t h i s knowledge, the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the environment and p r o j e c t a c t i v i t i e s can be p r e d i c t e d . Funct iona l knowledge can be cont ra s ted wi th d e s c r i p t i v e knowledge, s imply d e s c r i b i n g the a t t r i b u t e s of the components of an ecosystem, such as the s i z e and d i s t r i b u t i o n of w i l d l i f e popu l a t i on s , but not d e s c r i b i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the components. H o l l i n g (1978) d i f f e r e n t i a t e s between the use of d e s c r i p t i v e and f u n c t i o n a l knowledge i n impact p r e d i c t i o n by s t a t i n g t h a t i t i s not as important to know 'what i s where' as to know "who i s connected to whom and how" (p. 28 ) . P r e d i c t i o n s of e f f e c t s reported to dec i s i o n makers should be accompanied by an exp l ana t i on of the f un c t i o na l a n a l y s i s on which they were based. - 23 -However, both f u n c t i o n a l and d e s c r i p t i v e knowledge about the ecosystem i s l i m i t e d , and the r e s u l t a n t unce r t a i n t y has major i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r impact p r e d i c t i o n s . Three types of u n c e r t a i n t y — p r a c t i c a l , s t o c h a s t i c and r ea l - -we re de f i ned by Hoi l i n g (1978). 1) P r a c t i c a l Unce r ta i n t y P r a c t i c a l unce r t a i n t y e x i s t s i f c o n s t r a i n t s of t ime, money or other resources i n h i b i t the amount of i n fo rmat ion t ha t can be c o l l e c t e d . Th i s unce r t a i n t y can be a l l e v i a t e d w i t h inc reased investments of resources . I t i s common f o r p r a c t i c a l unce r t a i n t y to l i m i t f u n c t i o n a l knowledge. The type of s tud ie s requ i red to i d e n t i f y e c o l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s and f o l l o w t h e i r changes over time requ i re a l a rge investment of resources . The s tud ie s r equ i r ed may we l l extend beyond the temporal and s p a t i a l terms of re fe rence of the dec i s ion-making process f o r which the i n fo rmat ion i s r e q u i r e d . 2) S t o c h a s t i c Unce r ta i n t y S t o cha s t i c unce r t a i n t y r e f e r s to f a m i l i a r events such as earthquakes, t h a t have known p r o b a b i l i t i e s of occurrence. Th is unce r t a i n t y i s a l l e v i a t e d w i t h repeated occurrences of the event. The l i k e l i h o o d of occurrence of these events can then be b e t t e r p r e d i c t e d . However, t h e i r occurrence can never be p r e d i c t e d wi th complete c e r t i t u d e . 3) Real Unce r ta i n t y Real unce r t a i n t y i s d i v i ded i n t o unce r t a i n t y a s soc i a ted w i th events t ha t are imaginable but f o r which the p r o b a b i l i t y of occurrence i s unknown, and those which are s imply unknown because they have never p rev i ou s l y occurred or t h e i r occurrence has been f o r g o t t e n . These l a t t e r events cannot be known before the f a c t . A recent example i s the t h i n egg s h e l l syndrome in predatory b i r d s as a r e s u l t of the use of DDT i n a g r i c u l t u r e . -24-Real unce r t a i n t y a r i s e s because the mind cannot f u l l y comprehend the complex i ty of the elements and i n t e r a c t i o n s i nvo l ved i n these events. 4) Imp l i c a t i on s of Unce r ta i n t y Hoi l i n g (1978) has c h a r a c t e r i z e d impact p r e d i c t i o n s of r e s u l t s as an endless and f r u i t l e s s search f o r c e r t i t u d e i n which the " u n c e r t a i n t i e s are i d e n t i f i e d , reduced and c o n t r o l l e d through the a p p l i c a t i o n of improved knowledge and p r e d i c t i o n " (p. 1 ) . He suggested t ha t impact p r e d i c t i o n s of r e s u l t s are i n e v i t a b l y based on "myths " , which are u l t i m a t e l y f a n t a s i e s about how the p r e d i c t o r sees the wo r l d . S i m i l a r l y , D i c k e r t (1974) suggested tha t p r e d i c t i o n s are o f ten l i t t l e more than con jec tu re based on p ro fe s s i ona l judgement and i n t u i t i v e reason ing. I f a l l p o s i b l e outcomes cannot be p r e d i c t e d , unexpected events can occur and an a c t i on may f a i l . Dec i s i on makers should be informed of the p r a c t i c a l and s t o c h a s t i c u n c e r t a i n t i e s and made aware of the p o s s i b i l i t y of rea l unce r t a i n t y undermining the p r e d i c t i o n s . I f the unce r t a i n t y i s exp la ined d e c i s i o n makers can determine whether the i n fo rmat ion i s 'good enough' t o make the d e c i s i o n or whether to postpone the d e c i s i o n and c o l l e c t a d d i t i o n a l i n f o rma t i on . Making the d e c i s i o n about the proposed a c t i on depends on the o p p o r t u n i t i e s a v a i l a b l e f o r dea l i ng w i th unce r t a i n t y once the dec i s i o n i s made, and the a t t i t u d e of the d e c i s i o n makers toward u n c e r t a i n t y . S t r a t e g i e s f o r dea l i ng w i th unce r t a i n t y and unexpected events i nc lude implementing conse rva t i ve m i t i g a t i v e measures, f u r t h e r study of f unc t i ona l r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and moni tor ing of p r o j e c t implementat ion. A conse rva t i ve program of m i t i g a t i o n can be developed based on worst -case impact s cenar i o s . A d d i t i o n a l i n fo rmat ion on cause and e f f e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p s can lead to r e -e va l ua t i on and m o d i f i c a t i o n of dec i s i on s i f necessary. Once the a c t i o n i s - 25 -implemented, mon i to r ing i d e n t i f i e s any unexpected e f f e t s so tha t appropr i a te responses can be taken. The s t r a t e g i e s prov ide some f l e x i b i l i t y f o r dea l i ng w i th the consequences o f u n c e r t a i n t y . Dec i s i on makers can weigh the oppor tun i ty these s t r a t e g i e s prov ide f o r dea l i ng w i th unce r t a i n t y and unexpected events aga in s t the unce r t a i n t y of p r ed i c t ed impacts to determine the r i s k of implementing the a c t i o n . 2.2.2 Normative In format ion In d i s cu s s i ng which a l t e r n a t i v e s and e f f e c t s and whose op in ions dec i s i o n makers should con s i de r , the bas i c p r i n c i p l e s of j u s t i c e (Rawls 1971) gene ra l l y l ead to the conc lu s i on t ha t governmental dec i s i o n makers should take i n t o account the i n t e r e s t s of those a f f e c t e d by an a c t i o n . " A f f e c t e d i n t e r e s t s " a re def ined as those whose l i f e s t y l e s , values or property are e f f e c t e d p o s i t i v e l y or nega t i ve l y by the p r o j e c t . In the case of resource development p r o j e c t s , t h i s o f t en i nc ludes both l o c a l i n t e r e s t s , which may be adverse ly a f f e c t e d , as we l l as those out s ide the reg ion who o f ten rece i ve the b e n e f i t s of the resource i t s e l f . I t i s the values of those whose i n t e r e s t s are a f f e c t e d t ha t should determine which a l t e r n a t i v e s and e f f e c t s are r e l e van t to dec i s i o n s about an a c t i o n . Although those a f f e c t e d may not have the e x p e r t i s e to i d e n t i f y a l t e r n a t i v e s , by i n d i c a t i n g t h e i r concerns about how the p r o j e c t cou ld a f f e c t t h e i r l i f e s t y l e s , va lues or p roper ty , t e c h n i c a l expert s can then develop a l t e r n a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s f o r dea l i ng w i th t h e i r concerns. S i m i l a r l y , p r e d i c t i o n s of impacts should cover the environmental f ea tu re s va lued by those a f f e c t e d , i n c l u d i n g the resources valued d i r e c t l y by those a f f e c t e d as we l l as the environmental parameters c r i t i c a l to the long-term -26-pe r s i s t ence of these valued resources , i . e . , the components and processes t ha t make up the pat te rns of which the valued resources are a pa r t . Choosing the course of a c t i on t ha t best meets the goal f o r which i t was intended requ i re s t ha t the importance or s i g n i f i c a n c e of the impacts of the va r ious a l t e r n a t i v e s be eva luated by those a f f e c t e d from the pe r spec t i ve of t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l value frameworks. The same people should a l so eva luate the s i g n i f i c a n c e of unce r t a i n t y i n p r ed i c t ed impacts, t ak i ng i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n the a v a i l a b l e responses. By e va l ua t i n g s i g n i f i c a n c e , those a f f e c t e d i n d i c a t e t h e i r r e l a t i v e preferences f o r the a l t e r n a t i v e s . Dec i s i on makers can then make the necessary t r a d e o f f s among t h i s range of preferences to choose the a l t e r n a t i v e t h a t best meets the i n t e r e s t s of those a f f e c t e d and the goals f o r which i t was in tended. 2.3 FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATION The prev ious d i s cu s s i on has i l l u s t r a t e d tha t i n fo rmat ion conveyed through the regu la r channels i n the c i v i l s e r v i c e and l e g i s l a t u r e tends to be b iased towards the i n t e r e s t s of c i v i l servants and la rge organized groups and under - represents p u b l i c i n t e r e s t s . EARP cou ld o f f s e t these inadequacies by p u b l i c l y and openly o b t a i n i n g , and conveying to d e c i s i o n makers, i n fo rmat ion about the environmental consequences and pub l i c op in ions of a p r o j e c t . I use the f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a to eva luate the procedural c a p a b i l i t y of EARP to perform t h i s f unc t i on and b e l i e v e t ha t these three should be inc luded i n the s t a t ed o b j e c t i v e s of EARP. -27 -2.3.1 Sampling P u b l i c Opinions EARP should have procedures capable of i d e n t i f y i n g the concerns and op in ions of those a f f e c t e d by an a c t i o n so tha t they can be r e f l e c t e d i n the impact assessment. The e va l ua t i on of EARP's procedural c a p a b i l i t y examines the t im ing of p u b l i c involvement, whether EARP f a c i l i t a t e s involvement by those a f f e c t e d , and whether EARP prov ides those a f f e c t e d with the best a v a i l a b l e and r e l e van t i n fo rmat ion so they can present informed op in i on s . 2.3.2 Obta in ing Techn ica l In format ion EARP should have procedures capable of ob ta i n i ng the best a v a i l a b l e and r e l e v a n t p r e d i c t i o n s of the e f f e c t s of the proposed p r o j e c t and a l t e r n a t i v e p r o j e c t s t r a t e g i e s . These p r e d i c t i o n s should be accompanied by an e x p l i c i t statement of the f u n c t i o n a l a na l y s i s used to p r e d i c t the impacts and t h e i r u n c e r t a i n t i e s . P r a c t i c a l and s t o c h a s t i c unce r t a i n t y should be made e x p l i c i t and rea l unce r t a i n t y should be acknowledged. A l t e r n a t i v e means f o r reducing unce r t a i n t y and responding to unexpected events , such as a d d i t i o n a l s t u d i e s , m i t i g a t i v e measures, and mon i t o r i n g , should be i d e n t i f i e d . The concerns and op in ions of those a f f e c t e d determine which resources and a l t e r n a t i v e s are r e l e van t f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n the d e c i s i o n making process. P r e d i c t i o n s should cover e f f e c t s on environmental resources valued by those a f f e c t e d . A l t e r n a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s f o r responding to the concerns of those a f f e c t e d should be proposed. EARP's procedural c a p a b i l i t y i s eva luated by examining f a c t o r s t ha t i n f l u e n c e a p a n e l ' s attempts to and pe r s i s t ence i n ob ta i n i n g i n f o rmat i on . - 28 -2.3.3 Report ing to Dec i s i on Makers EARP should have procedures capable of r epo r t i n g a ccu ra te l y and f a i r l y t o dec i s i o n makers. The a n a l y s i s examines whether a panel has the t e c h n i c a l c a p a b i l i t y to pursue r e l e van t i s sues and to synthes i ze i n fo rmat ion from the review i n t o i t s r epo r t to the M i n i s t e r of Environment. -29 -3.0 EVALUATION OF EARP AS DESCRIBED BY FEARO The FEARO Guide to EARP i n c l ude s statements tha t suggest tha t the three c r i t e r i a are general o b j e c t i v e s of EARP. I t s t a te s t ha t the EIS should i n c l ude a d e s c r i p t i o n of "any a l t e r n a t i v e means of ach iev ing the p r o j e c t other than the one p roposed . . . , and the p o t e n t i a l e f f e c t of the proposal on the a r e a ' s env i ronment . . . " (FEARO 1979, p.6). The Guide does not s pec i f y t ha t the a l t e r n a t i v e s and p r e d i c t i o n s should address p u b l i c concerns; however, t h i s i s a reasonable i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s i nce the pub l i c are given the oppor tun i ty to review the EIS and any d e f i c i e n c i e s they i d e n t i f y are supposed to be r e c t i f i e d . The Guide s t a te s t h a t " p u b l i c comment on a proposal has an important r o l e i n determin ing i t s environmental s i g n i f i c a n c e . " and tha t "any person or o r g an i z a t i on w i th an i n t e r e s t i n the p r o j e c t i s prov ided wi th an oppor tun i t y to present v iewpo int s to the P a n e l . . . " (p .7 ) . These statements i n d i c a t e tha t ob ta i n i n g p u b l i c op in ion i s an EARP o b j e c t i v e . The Guide conta in s no e x p l i c i t requirements concerning unce r t a i n t y or a l t e r n a t i v e means of reducing unce r t a i n t y and responding to unexpected events . The FEARO Guide s t a te s t ha t the EIS should " con ta i n the in fo rmat ion t ha t the Pane l , t e c h n i c a l rev iewers and the p u b l i c need to eva luate the p ropo sa l ' s environmental and r e l a t e d s o c i a l i m p l i c a t i o n s . " (FEARO 1979, p.5) and t h a t the Panel decides "whether the EIS conta in s s u f f i c i e n t i n fo rmat ion on which to base i t s review and recommendations." ( p .6 ) . The Guide focuses on the p a n e l ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to seek out s u f f i c i e n t i n f o rmat i on . Uncer ta in ty per se i s not recogn ized. Other statements suggest t ha t i n fo rmat ion d e f i c i e n c i e s are cons idered on ly i n the sense of "omis s ions " of i n f o rmat i on : " i f . . . t h e i n i t i a t o r omits - 30 -i information or f a c t o r s i d e n t i f i e d i n the Gu ide l i ne s the reason f o r the omiss ion should be s p e c i f i e d . " (p .5 ) ; " i n the case of major d e f i c i e n c i e s , the panel review may be extended u n t i l they are r e c t i f i e d . " (p .6 ) . These statements imply tha t FEARO cons ide r s the i n fo rmat ion to be out there and t ha t i t cou ld be obta ined. Th i s a t t i t u d e over looks the i n e v i t a b i l i t y of rea l unce r t a i n t y and the resource c o n s t r a i n t s on a l l e v i a t i n g p r a c t i c a l and s t o c h a s t i c u n c e r t a i n t y . In keeping w i th the Gu ide ' s f a i l u r e to r e f e r e x p l i c i t l y to unce r t a i n t y i s the lack of e x p l i c i t mention of responses to u n c e r t a i n t y . The proponent i s requested to i d e n t i f y a d d i t i o n a l s tud ie s r equ i r ed , m i t i g a t i v e measures, and mon i to r ing programs. However, the purpose of t h i s i s unc lea r . C e r t a i n l y i t i s not l i n k e d e x p l i c i t l y to any concept of u n c e r t a i n t y . The f o l l o w i n g s e c t i on s examine whether EARP meets these c r i t e r i a . 3.1 SAMPLING PUBLIC OPINIONS Does EARP have the procedures capable of i d e n t i f y i n g the concerns and op in ions of those a f f e c t e d by an a c t i o n so they can be r e f l e c t e d i n the impact assessment? 1) Does EARP prov ide the oppor tun i ty f o r those a f f e c t e d to express t h e i r concerns and op in ions before the proponent proposes a l t e r n a t i v e s and p r e d i c t s impacts? P u b l i c comment on the EIS g u i d e l i n e s "may be requested before they are submitted to the i n i t i a t o r " (FEARO 1979, p.6). There fo re , the concerns of those a f f e c t e d cou ld i n f l u e n c e the g u i d e l i n e s , the purpose of which i s " t o ensure t ha t the EIS conta in s i n fo rmat ion t ha t the pane l , t e c h n i c a l reviewers and p u b l i c need to eva luate the p r opo s a l ' s environmental and r e l a t e d s o c i a l - 3 1 -i m p l i c a t i o n s " (FEARO, 1979 p.5). The gu i de l i ne s cou ld i n s t r u c t the proponent t h e r e f o r e , e i t h e r to address i n the EIS the concerns expressed by the p u b l i c to the panel or even to s o l i c i t d i r e c t l y pub l i c op in ion and values p r i o r to advancing a l t e r n a t i v e s and p r e d i c t i n g impacts. S o l i c i t i n g p u b l i c comment on the gu i de l i n e s has not been a standard p r a c t i c e i n past EARP reviews and i s l a r g e l y at the d i s c r e t i o n of the panel chairman. Most p u b l i c involvement tends to be r e a c t i v e . The p u b l i c has had l i t t l e oppor tun i ty f o r p r i o r involvement to i n f l uence the agenda of i s sues i n the EIS. Th is commenting on the gu i de l i n e s i s the only oppor tun i ty f o r the pub l i c t o comment p r i o r to the proponent ' s i n i t i a l a n a l y s i s i n the EIS. However, a f t e r rev iewing the EIS, those a f f e c t e d can inform the panel of any concerns they f e l t the EIS d i d not address. The panel "may prepare a l i s t of d e f i c i e n c i e s and c l a r i f i c a t i o n s requ i red and forward t h i s to the proponent f o r r e c t i f i c a t i o n " (FEARO, 1979, p.6). There fo re , p u b l i c comments can i n f l u e n c e the l i s t of d e f i c i e n c i e s and hence, i n s t r u c t i o n s to the proponent. The pub l i c meetings are the most important oppor tun i ty f o r the panel to r e ce i ve p u b l i c comment. These meetings are he ld "as a matter of course" (FEARO 1979, p.7). FEARO " recogn i ze s t ha t p u b l i c comment on a proposal has an important r o l e i n determin ing i t s environmental s i g n i f i c a n c e . . .Pane l s hold p u b l i c meetings to r ece i ve such comment" (FEARO 1979, p.7). L i ke d e f i c i e n c y statements, meetings prov ide the oppor tun i ty f o r those a f f e c t e d only to r eac t t o , r a the r than i n f l u e n c e , the EIS. However, they do a l l ow those a f f e c t e d to comment d i r e c t l y to the pane l . EARP has l acked a c o n s i s t e n t , en forceab le set of r u l e s of conduct f o r p u b l i c meetings, which has l ed to changes i n p u b l i c meeting schedules and -32-agendas without warning or c o n s u l t a t i o n (Rees 1981). Th is v a r i a b i l i t y i n procedures a t the panel cha i rman ' s d i s c r e t i o n can i n h i b i t those a f f e c t e d from adequately prepar ing an i n t e r v e n t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , i t can c on t r i bu t e to p u b l i c s cep t i c i sm about the e f f i c a c y of EARP. This s cep t i c i sm leads the p u b l i c to quest ion whether t h e i r involvement i s worthwhi le and c o n t r i b u t e s to an unw i l l i ngnes s to be i nvo l ved (DOE 1979, FEARO 1980a). 2) Does EARP prov ide funding to those a f f e c t e d to a s s i s t i n r ep re sen ta t i on o f the f u l l range of i n t e r e s t s ? Although funds have been a v a i l a b l e i n one recent EARP rev iew, p rov id i ng i n t e r e s t s groups w i th funds to at tend p u b l i c meetings has not been standard p r a c t i c e . FEARO's usual p r a c t i c e f o r f a c i l i t a t i n g access to p u b l i c meetings i s to ho ld them in " the immediate area of the p r o j e c t " (FEARO 1979, p.7). The time and resources a v a i l a b l e to i n t e r e s t groups w i l l i n f l u e n c e t h e i r a b i l i t y t o i n te rvene e f f e c t i v e l y at the meetings. 3) Does the panel c i r c u l a t e the best a v a i l a b l e and r e l e van t i n fo rmat ion to those a f f e c t e d p r i o r to t h e i r involvement so they can make wel l informed comments? The Guide s ta te s that "as a general r u l e , a l l i n fo rmat ion submitted to the panel i s r e lea sed to the p u b l i c " (FEARO 1979, p .7) , although cond i t i o n s under which i n fo rmat ion i s not re leased are not s p e c i f i e d . Procedures f o r c i r c u l a t i n g i n fo rmat ion before and dur ing p u b l i c meetings are not c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d i n the FEARO Guide and are l a r g e l y at the d i s c r e t i o n of the panel chairman. The time a v a i l a b l e f o r the pub l i c review of i n f o rmat i on i s not s p e c i f i e d . The Guide only s t a te s t ha t " a f t e r a l l ow ing a c e r t a i n time f o r pub l i c and t e chn i c a l rev iew, pub l i c meetings are he l d " ( p . 6 ) . -33 -The q u a l i t y of the i n fo rmat ion as we l l as the time and e x p e r t i s e i n t e r e s t groups have to review the i n fo rmat ion w i l l a f f e c t t h e i r w i l l i n g n e s s to be i n vo l ved as we l l as the q u a l i t y of t h e i r i n t e r v e n t i o n . Rees (1981) has observed tha t the lack of a c o n s i s t e n t , en forceab le set of r u l e s f o r pub l i c meetings has l e d to r e s t r i c t e d a v a i l a b i l i t y of i n fo rmat ion f o r p repara t ion of b r i e f s by p u b l i c i n t e r e s t groups. Th i s v a r i a b i l i t y i n procedures f o r c i r c u l a t i o n of i n f o rma t i on , t im ing of involvement, and p r o v i s i o n of fund ing , i s due to EARP's d i s c r e t i o n a r y nature. None of the procedures are requ i red by law and are app l i ed a t the panel cha i rman ' s d i s c r e t i o n . The Cab inet Memorandum on EARP and the FEARO Guide to EARP do not p r e c i s e l y de f i ne procedures and t h e r e f o r e , do not guide the chairmen to implement c o n s i s t e n t procedures. 3.2 OBTAINING TECHNICAL INFORMATION Does EARP have procedures capable of ob ta in i ng the best a v a i l a b l e and r e l e v a n t p r e d i c t i o n s of impacts of the proposed p r o j e c t and a l t e r n a t i v e p r o j e c t s t r a t e g i e s ? Can the panel r equ i r e the proponent and other sources to propose r e l e van t a l t e r n a t i v e s and p r e d i c t impacts, making unce r ta i n t y and the f unc t i ona l a n a l y s i s e x p l i c i t ? The panel can request i n the gu i de l i ne s to the EIS t ha t the proponent propose a l t e r n a t i v e s and p r e d i c t impacts , making unce r t a i n t y and the f u n c t i o n a l a na l y s i s e x p l i c i t . I f those a f f e c t e d have had a chance to comment p r e v i o u s l y on the g u i d e l i n e s , the panel can i n d i c a t e to the proponent the p u b l i c s ' s p e c i f i c concerns t ha t should be covered. -34-The panel can a l so request i n the d e f i c i e n c y statements and dur ing p u b l i c meetings t ha t the proponent prov ide a d d i t i o n a l i n fo rmat ion i f the EIS i s inadequate. The panel i s r e spons i b l e f o r making r e l e van t and r e a l i s t i c requests and may base t h e i r requests on p u b l i c comments rece i ved dur ing pub l i c rev iew of the EIS. The panel can request an independent assessment of impacts from other sources , i n c l u d i n g federa l and p r o v i n c i a l agencies and non governmental o r gan i z a t i on s w i th e x p e r t i s e r e l e van t to the p r o j e c t . The nature of the p a n e l ' s requests may a f f e c t the proponent ' s and other respondents ' w i l l i n g n e s s and a b i l i t y to prov ide the best a v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n . EARP's one-shot approach to impact assessment may a f f e c t how the panel pursues an e x p l i c i t statement of u n c e r t a i n t y . EARP i s a s t a t i c process t h a t reviews p r o j e c t impacts foreseen at only one stage of p r o j e c t p lanning and documented i n the EIS. The process doesn ' t a l low f o r ongoing and more d e t a i l e d assessment of impacts as p lann ing progresses. The pane l ' s a b i l i t y and i n c l i n a t i o n to d i s c e r n and to pursue c r i t i c a l i s sues i n the time a v a i l a b l e determines whether i t uses the one-shot review to advantage. In p a r t i c u l a r , the unce r ta i n t y i n impact p r e d i c t i o n s may be addressed v a r i a b l y by panels . A p a n e l ' s r e c o g n i t i o n of and a t t i t u d e toward the r i s k a s soc i a ted w i th proceeding w i t h a p r o j e c t f o r which impacts are unce r ta in w i l l i n f l u e n c e how the panel addresses u n c e r t a i n t y . For example, the panel may attempt i n the EIS Gu ide l i ne s and p u b l i c meetings e i t h e r to have the proponent make unce r ta i n t y e x p l i c i t or prov ide a d d i t i o n a l i n fo rmat ion to reduce u n c e r t a i n t y . Panels haven ' t any powers to subpoena witnesses or documents or to cross examine, such as those granted under the Enqu i r i e s Ac t . In the absence of l e ga l power, the panel must pursue i s sues wi th the proponent and other sources - 35 -i n the open p u b l i c forum to ob ta in adequate i n f o rma t i on . As Rees (1979) s t a t e d , EARP r e l i e s heav i l y on " coope ra t i ve vo l un t a r i sm " f o r ob ta in i ng i n f o rmat i on about p r o j e c t s . " I t s a u t ho r i t y i s based more on moral suasion than l ega l c l o u t " (Rees 1979, p.5). Under EARP's p r i n c i p l e of se l f - a s se s sment , the onus i s on the proponent to respond adequately to panel requests f o r i n f o rma t i on . However, panel members a l so must be w i l l i n g and ab le to pursue c r i t i c a l l i n e s of ques t i onn ing . I f proponents and i n te r veno r s re fu se to respond to r e l e van t ques t i on s , a l l r e l e van t i n fo rmat ion and op in ions may not be brought forward (Rees 1981, CEAC 1979). This threatens the depth and r i gou r of EARP rev iews. In add i t i o n to the nature and r i gou r of panel request s , EARP's i nherent b i a s toward the proponent ' s i n t e r e s t s a f f e c t s the q u a l i t y of i n fo rmat ion generated. Although the FEARO Guide s ta te s t ha t the environmental e f f e c t s of " f e d e r a l p r o j e c t s , programmes and a c t i v i t i e s " are assessed (FEARO 1979 p . l ) , EARP has p r i m a r i l y been app l i ed to d i s c r e t e p r o j e c t s (CEAC 1979). A l t e r n a t i v e s to the p r o j e c t , p r o j e c t need, and the "no go" opt ion gene ra l l y are not examined as thoroughly as the proponent ' s p r e fe r r ed p r o j e c t s t r a tegy . Most of the i n fo rmat ion on the p r o j e c t and i t s impacts comes from the proponent. Independent sources r a r e l y have the resources necessary to generate i n fo rmat ion on a l t e r n a t i v e s or impacts comparable i n scope and d e t a i l t o the p roponent ' s . There fo re , the review i s con f ined p r i m a r i l y to the proponent ' s p r e f e r r ed a l t e r n a t i v e s and an assessment of impacts the proponent cons ide r s important. L i m i t i n g the assessment to p r o j e c t s p e c i f i c i s sues may avoid r e l e van t broader i s sues such as reg iona l and cumulat ive impacts (Rees 1981). -36 -3.3 REPORTING TO DECISION MAKERS Does EARP have procedures capable of r epo r t i n g a ccu ra te l y and f a i r l y i n fo rmat ion on p u b l i c op in ions and impacts of a proposed a c t i o n to dec i s i o n makers? The p a n e l ' s f i n a l r epo r t to the M i n i s t e r of the Environment i s the v e h i c l e f o r conveying to d e c i s i o n makers the i n fo rmat ion obta ined throughout the review. I t supposedly represents the pane l ' s s yn thes i s of the i s sues and op in ions and "normal ly conta ins d e t a i l s on: the h i s t o r y of events r e l a t e d to t h e . . . p r o j e c t , the p r o j e c t , the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the a r e a . . , the environmental and r e l a t e d s o c i a l impacts of the p r o j e c t as determined from the reviews and p u b l i c meetings, and conc lu s ions and recommendations... " (FEARO 1979, p.7) The FEARO Guide s t a te s t h a t the panel may make recommendations as to whether the p r o j e c t should proceed and i f so, the cond i t i on s under which the p r o j e c t proceeds. However, the Guide does not suggest the source of environmental goals or o b j e c t i v e s t ha t the panel should apply to weigh the i s sues and p u b l i c op in ions when fo rmu la t i ng i t s recommendations. Nor does the Guide s p e c i f i c a l l y request the panel to make e x p l i c i t the a n a l y s i s of impacts or to j u s t i f y the recommendations. These omiss ions are not s u r p r i s i n g s i nce Canada l a c k s p o l i c y on a wide range of environmental or development i s sues (Rees 1981). Only " f ragmented" and " s c h i z o p h r e n i c " energy and northern development p o l i c i e s are a v a i l a b l e to d i r e c t the panel i n t h e i r d e l i b e r a t i o n s (Rees 1981). The r e l a t i v e p r i o r i t i e s of the var ious p u b l i c concerns t ha t might a r i s e dur ing an EARP review are not r e a d i l y apparent from e x i s t i n g government p o l i c y . Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , no - 37 -sy s temat ic approach to p lanning i n the north e x i s t s to prov ide a p lanning framework f o r EARP's p r o j e c t s p e c i f i c rev iews. Consequently, when p a r t i c i p a t i n g in " the only show in town" (Rees 1979), EARP panels are fo rced t o analyse i s sues and make recommendations i n a p o l i c y vacuum us ing some ad  hoc e v a l u a t i v e framework. An accurate and f a i r r epo r t to the M i n i s t e r depends on the p a n e l ' s t e c h n i c a l c a p a b i l i t y and w i l l i n g n e s s to analyse and synthes ize the complex i s sues examined dur ing the rev iew. The panel i s chosen " p r i m a r i l y on the ba s i s of t h e i r s pec i a l knowledge and exper ience r e l e van t to the a n t i c i p a t e d t e c h n i c a l , environmental and s o c i a l e f f e c t s of the p r opo s a l . " (FEARO 1979, p.5) . The pane l ' s quest ions dur ing the review and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the i n f o rmat i on w i l l r e f l e c t each member's e x p e r t i s e (DOE 1979, CEAC 1979). P rev ious ana l y s t s of the Process have observed tha t the s k i l l , pe rcept ion and r u l i n g s of the chairman and the t e chn i c a l e xpe r t i s e of the panel members have i n f l u e n c e d the p a n e l ' s performance (CEAC 1979). The performance of panels i n prev ious reviews have r a i s ed doubts as to the t e chn i c a l a b i l i t y of a panel c o l l e c t i v e l y to examine the complex i s sues of an EARP review (DOE 1979). I nd i v i dua l b iases of panel members a l so w i l l i n f l u ence how accu ra te l y and f a i r l y the pane l ' s r epo r t r e f l e c t s the i s sues and op in ions r a i s ed dur ing the rev iew. Once the panel has prepared i t s r epo r t , EARP prov ides no f u r t h e r oppor tun i t y f o r the p u b l i c to i n d i c a t e d i r e c t l y to the M i n i s t e r whether the r epo r t a c cu r a te l y and f a i r l y r e f l e c t s t h e i r v iews. The only recourse a v a i l a b l e to the p u b l i c i s to w r i t e the M i n i s t e r . -38 -3.4 CONCLUSIONS Prev ious ana l y s t s have i n d i c a t e d tha t EARP r e l i e s on the t o t a l c o - ope ra t i on of a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s to operate e f f e c t i v e l y . However, t h e i r performance i s i n f l uenced by EARP's d i s c r e t i o n a r y nature, lack of l e ga l power, r e l i a n c e on the panel to r i gou rou s l y pursue i s s ue s , p r o j e c t s p e c i f i c and one-shot approach, and lack of p o l i c y framework. These ana l y s t s have observed t h a t the pane l , proponent and i n te rveno r s cannot, or are not compelled t o , co -operate f u l l y . On the other hand, EARP has the p o t e n t i a l to assess the e f f e c t s of a p r o j e c t and to communicate t h i s i n fo rmat ion to d e c i s i o n makers. However, t h i s p o t e n t i a l r e l i e s e n t i r e l y on the t o t a l co -opera t i on of a l l the p a r t i c i p a n t s . I t s procedural c a p a b i l i t y to sample pub l i c op in ion about the p r o j e c t , to ob t a i n r e l e van t p r e d i c t i o n s of r e s u l t s , and to convey these to dec i s i o n makers depends on the w i l l i n g n e s s and a b i l i t y of those a f f e c t e d to be i n v o l v e d , as w e l l as on the q u a l i t y of t h e i r i n t e r v e n t i o n , the q u a l i t y of panel request s , and the i n c l i n a t i o n and a b i l i t y of the proponent and other sources to respond. -39-4.0 EARP AND THE ALASKA HIGHWAY GAS PIPELINE PROJECT The var ious stages of EARP as i t was app l i ed to the AHGP are desc r ibed i n f ou r major s e c t i o n s , each of which desc r ibes i n ch rono l og i ca l order a major stage of the rev iew: the H i l l I nqu i r y , the dec i s i o n to proceed w i th the AHGP, the formal rev iew, and the Ibex Pass rev iew. To prov ide the background f o r the e va l ua t i on i n the next chapte r , t h i s case study focuses on i s sues r e l e van t t o the c r i t e r i a used i n the e v a l u a t i o n , i . e . , the procedures f o r sampling p u b l i c op i n i on , ob ta i n i n g t e c h n i c a l i n fo rmat ion and r e p o r t i n g these op in ions and t h i s i n fo rmat ion to d e c i s i o n makers. 4.1 HILL INQUIRY When i t became apparent t ha t the AHGP was to be a l e g i t i m a t e contender as a northern p i p e l i n e , the Yukon p o r t i o n of the p r o j e c t was r e f e r r e d to EARP f o r review on March 21, 1977. Cab inet requ i red the EARP panel repor t by the September 1, 1977 dead l i ne se t by the Un i ted S ta te s f o r a dec i s i o n on the p r e f e r r ed means of t r a n s p o r t i n g A laskan gas. Th is dead l ine l a r g e l y d i c t a t e d the nature of the rev iew. As the panel s t a ted (EA Panel 1977a, p. 3) " the s ho r t l ead time made a normal environmental assessment of the p r o j e c t imposs ib le a t t h i s t i m e " . Ins tead, the panel was to ob ta in a l l a v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n ; to seek p ro fe s s i ona l o p i n i o n ; to hold hearings to i d e n t i f y pub l i c concerns; and to submit a r epo r t by August 1 to the M i n i s t e r of the Environment. I t was agreed t ha t a formal review of the p r o j e c t would occur i f i t was s t i l l a contender a f t e r t h i s d e c i s i o n . The panel r e s p o n s i b i l i t y was subsequently broadened to i nc lude c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the p o t e n t i a l e f f e c t s of a l t e r n a t i v e routes to the Alaska - 40 -Highway rou te , and to compare the AHGP to the Canadian A r c t i c Gas P i p e l i n e down the MacKenzie V a l l e y (CAGSL). The amount of i n fo rmat ion regard ing the p r o j e c t and environment tha t was a v a i l a b l e at t h i s stage was l i m i t e d and very genera l . The panel obta ined the i n f o rmat i on F o o t h i l l s had submitted w i th i t s a p p l i c a t i o n to the NEB and some a d d i t i o n a l s tud ie s F o o t h i l l s had i n i t i a t e d s i nce t ha t t ime. The panel sought out pub l i shed and unpubl ished i n fo rmat ion on northern p i p e l i n e s and v i s i t e d s e l e c ted s i t e s along the route . A s t a f f of expert s was e s t a b l i s h e d to adv i se the panel on t e chn i ca l i s s ue s . The panel commissioned a con su l t an t to eva luate the a l t e r n a t i v e routes and asked DIAND to f i nance a comparative study of CAGSL and the AHGP. Although they s t a ted t ha t they were not aware of a l l the p u b l i c or p r i v a t e research occu r r i ng (EA Panel 1977b, p. 510) they asked government departments " t o s t r u c t u r e t h e i r f i e l d programs i n such a way as to adv i se (them) on t h e i r f i n d i n g s " (EA Panel 1977b, p. 511). A f t e r the Panel had reviewed a l l a v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n , they i s sued d e f i c i e n c y statements i n d i c a t i n g i s sues r e q u i r i n g c l a r i f i c a t i o n to which F o o t h i l l s was expected to respond. 4.1.1 Pub ! i c Meetings The primary forum used by the panel to rece i ve t e c h n i c a l i n fo rmat ion and to sample p u b l i c op in ion were three sets of pub l i c meetings he ld along the route from May 30 to J u l y 24, 1977. The f i r s t s e t , he ld i n small communities along the route , was intended to a l l ow informal d i s cu s s i on of any concerns the p u b l i c i n te r vene r s r a i s e d . The other two sets were he ld i n Whitehorse; the f i r s t to prov ide the oppor tun i ty f o r the p u b l i c to present w r i t t e n or o ra l - 4 1 -b r i e f s i n d i c a t i n g t h e i r concerns; the second, to d i scus s the t e c h n i c a l d e t a i l s of the p r o j e c t . 1) Procedures P u b l i c access to the meetings was f a c i l i t a t e d by ho ld ing them i n communities along the route and schedu l ing both day-time and evening se s s i ons . However, meetings were p r i m a r i l y attended by r ep re sen ta t i ve s of government agenc ies , p u b l i c i n t e r e s t groups and communities, r a the r than those p resent ing i n d i v i d u a l and personal concerns. The meetings were boycotted by the Counci l f o r Yukon Indians f o r reasons r e l a t i n g to the set t lement of l and c l a i m s . The only na t i ve r ep re sen ta t i v e was the c h i e f of the Old Crow Band. The f i r s t set of meetings was p r i m a r i l y informal d i s cu s s i on s between the panel and members of the community. No F o o t h i l l s r ep r e sen t a t i v e was present and no t r a n s c r i p t s of the meetings were made. The other two sets of meetings gene ra l l y fo l l owed a format whereby an i n t e r veno r presented a b r i e f , which was fo l l owed by comments from F o o t h i l l s and quest ions by the panel to c l a r i f y i s s ue s . There was l i t t l e d i s cu s s i on between the i n te r veno r s and F o o t h i l l s . The format was f a i r l y in formal a t a l l meetings, although a f a i r l y t i g h t schedule was mainta ined f o r the t e c h n i c a l meetings. Intervenors were not r equ i r ed to submit w r i t t e n b r i e f s , nor to p r e - r e g i s t e r . The degree and format of quest ionn ing was a t the d i s c r e t i o n of the panel chairman and v a r i e d between hear ings . Schedules were rearranged to accomodate l a t e a r r i v a l s and other s pec i a l cases (EA Panel 1977b, p. 83, 1067, 1467). -42 -2) Issues Discussed Intervenors cou ld present whatever concerns they wished. The type and degree of quest ionn ing by the panel i n response to the b r i e f s v a r i ed between i n t e r v e n o r s . For example, the panel spent a l o t of time quest ionn ing one i n t e r veno r i n depth about the j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r i t s concerns (EA Panel 1977b, p.288), whereas others were asked very few quest ions (EA Panel 1977b, p.43). F o l l ow i n g c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the b r i e f , the panel asked F o o t h i l l s to c l a r i f y or comment on how they would respond to the concerns. Other i n t e r veno r s , the panel s t a f f , and members of the audience were a l so asked f o r t h e i r op i n i on . The apparent goal of the p a n e l ' s quest ionn ing was to obta in as much i n fo rmat i on as p o s s i b l e about a l l i s sues r a i s e d r a the r than focus on any i s sue s they cons idered p a r t i c u l a r l y important. There fo re , the depth to which i s sue s were pursued l a r g e l y r e f l e c t e d the amount of i n fo rmat i on a v a i l a b l e from F o o t h i l l s and i n t e r v e n o r s . The hear ings p r i m a r i l y dea l t w i th the Alaska Highway c o r r i d o r f o r which the l a r g e s t amount of i n fo rmat ion was a v a i l a b l e . The panel l i s t e n e d to a l l concerns and comments expressed by i n te rvenor s and F o o t h i l l s but d id not attempt to re so l ve the i s sues r a i s e d . On one occas i on , the panel i n t e r r u p t e d a d i s cu s s i on between F o o t h i l l s and an i n te r veno r when they were attempt ing to agree on a s u i t a b l e r ou t i ng (EA Panel 1977b, p. 1240). The t o p i c most commonly d i scussed was the d e f i c i e n c i e s i n i n fo rmat ion about the p r o j e c t , the environment, and e f f e c t s on the environment. Some i n te r veno r s f e l t t ha t these d e f i c i e n c i e s precluded p r e d i c t i o n of r e s u l t s . They recommended t ha t the government postpone the September 1 d e c i s i o n (EA Panel 1977b, p. 535, 562, 830, 898, 1284). F o o t h i l l s f e l t t ha t there was enough i n fo rmat ion to judge the environmental a c c e p t a b i l i t y of the p r o j e c t (EA Panel 1977b, p. 262, 270, 1194). -43 -The d e f i c i e n c i e s o f ten r e s u l t e d i n unresolved quest ions or d i f f e r e n c e s of op i n i on between F o o t h i l l s and other experts over e f f e c t s on the environment (EA Panel 1977b, p. 534, 687, 1211, 1215). There were some adve r s a r i a l exchanges u n t i l the Chairman requested t ha t a l l comments should be d i r e c t e d as adv i ce to the panel (EA Panel 1977b, p. 1336). I n te rvenor s ' b r i e f s p r i m a r i l y l i s t e d concerns and d e f i c i e n c i e s i n i n f o r m a t i o n . The d e t a i l of the a v a i l a b l e i n fo rmat ion enabled the i n te rveno r s to i d e n t i f y general concerns such as "m ig ra t i ng f i s h " or " s i t e s s u s cep t i b l e to f r o s t heave". More d e t a i l e d i n fo rmat ion on s p e c i f i c areas and po s s i b l e e f f e c t s was cons idered p a r t i c u l a r l y d e f i c i e n t (EA Panel 1977b, p. 141, 160, 409, 455, 564, 586, 687, 690, 719, 830, 1254, 1242, 1403, 1417, 1466). F o o t h i l l s a t t r i b u t e d the lack of d e t a i l e d i n fo rmat ion about s p e c i f i c i s sues to the p re l im ina r y s ta tu s of i t s p r o j e c t des ign. In some s i t u a t i o n s the panel i n d i c a t e d tha t i t had not had time to f a m i l i a r i z e themselves w i th b r i e f s or F o o t h i l l s ' responses to d e f i c i e n c i e s t h a t had been submitted immediately p r i o r t o , or du r i ng , the hearings (EA Panel 1977b, pp. 43, 278, 332, 498). Th i s a l so i n h i b i t e d t h e i r a b i l i t y , and t h a t of the i n te r veno r s and F o o t h i l l s , to examine the i s sues i n d e t a i l . The panel and i n te r veno r s responded to t h i s unce r t a i n t y wi th requests f o r a d d i t i o n a l i n fo rmat ion (EA Panel 1977b, pp. 253, 586, 875, 1068, 1254, 1238, 1284, 1417). F o o t h i l l s f r equen t l y responded w i th reassurances tha t the i n f o rmat i on would be obta ined and concerns d e a l t w i th throughout p r o j e c t des i gn . For example, F o o t h i l l s s ta ted t ha t i t " i s a very s i g n i f i c a n t concern and eve ry th ing w i l l be done to avoid the p o t e n t i a l f o r t ha t type of i n t e r a c t i o n . " (EA Panel 1977b, p. 1150). -44 -4.1.2 In ter im Report The panel re leased i t s i n t e r i m repo r t to the M i n i s t e r of the Environment on J u l y 27, 1977, soon a f t e r the re l ea se of the Berger r epo r t on May 9, 1977, and the NEB r epo r t on J u l y 4, 1977, and two days before the Lysyk r epo r t , a l l o f which supported the AHGP over CAGSL. The i n t e r i m repo r t concluded t h a t " the proposed p i p e l i n e can be con s t ruc ted and operated i n an env i ronmenta l l y acceptab le manner sub jec t to the f o l l o w i n g c o n d i t i o n s . . . " (EA Panel 1977a, p. 51) c a r r y i n g out proper environmental p l ann ing , f i n d i n g s o l u t i o n s f o r unique and s e n s i t i v e areas, and overcoming problems of i c e - r i c h permafrost . The repo r t i n d i c a t e d tha t a thorough review of a l t e r n a t i v e s to the A laska Highway c o r r i d o r , or c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the Dempster L a t e r a l had not been po s s i b l e and concluded l i t t l e more than: ' t h e p r o j e c t i s a ccep tab le , i f a l l problems are a l l e v i a t e d ' . The repo r t d id not i n d i c a t e whether, or how, the cond i t i on s were de r i ved from the s p e c i f i c concerns r a i s ed dur ing the meetings, nor d id i t address the l i k e l i h o o d tha t these cond i t i on s cou ld be met. The repo r t d id l i t t l e to inform d e c i s i o n makers of the i n t e r v e n o r s ' s p e c i f i c concerns, the r e l i a b i l i t y of i n fo rmat ion on e f f e c t s on the environment or the i m p l i c a t i o n s of proceeding w i th the p r o j e c t when i t s impacts were so u n c e r t a i n . The recommendations i n the i n t e r i m repor t p r i m a r i l y i n d i c a t e d tha t a d d i t i o n a l i n fo rmat ion was needed. Th is was the P a n e l ' s way of dea l i ng wi th the i n fo rmat ion d e f i c i e n c i e s t ha t had been i d e n t i f i e d dur ing the meetings. The r epo r t a l so recommended the es tab l i shment of a c on t r o l mechanism to c o - o r d i n a t e the design process. As w i th the conc lu s i on s however, no j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r these recommendations was p rov ided , and no l i n k i n d i c a t i n g how the a d d i t i o n a l - 45 -i n f o rmat i on cou ld be expected to a l l e v i a t e the d e f i c i e n c i e s . There was a l so no d i s cu s s i on of how the recommendations app l i ed to the c o n d i t i o n s attached to the conc l u s i on s ; f o r example, there was no recommendation t ha t e x p l i c i t l y i n d i c a t e d how the c o n d i t i o n of "proper environmental p l ann ing " should be f u l f i l l e d . 4.2 THE DECISION TO PROCEED The dec i s i o n to proceed w i th the AHGP was made by Cabinet on August 8, 1977. "The Agreement between Canada and the U.S. on P r i n c i p l e s A p p l i c a b l e to a Northern Natura l Gas P i p e l i n e " was s igned by Prime M i n i s t e r Trudeau and P r e s i den t Ca r te r on September 2, 1977. Th i s dec i s i o n was the cu lm ina t i on of the momentum tha t had been b u i l d i n g w i t h i n government and i ndus t r y toward approval of a northern p i p e l i n e s ince the e a r l y 1970s. There i s no doubt t ha t t h i s was cons idered the long-awai ted commitment to a p i p e l i n e . Now tha t the dec i s i o n to ' g o 1 had been made, the ques t ion EARP would have to address i n i t s subsequent stages was 'how to g o ' . Input i n t o t h i s d e c i s i o n was s t i l l w i t h i n the s ta ted mandate of EARP; however, the H i l l I nqu i r y , rushed as i t was by fo rces beyond i t s c o n t r o l , represented EARP's only e f f o r t a t f u l f i l l i n g i t s s ta ted purpose " t o ensure tha t the environmental e f f e c t s . . . a r e assessed e a r l y i n ( p r o j e c t ) p l ann i ng , before any  commitments or i r r e v o c a b l e dec i s i on s are made" (FEARO 1979, p. 1, emphasis added). 4.3 FORMAL REVIEW In accordance w i th the P a n e l ' s 1977 i n t e r i m r epo r t , a formal review was i n i t i a t e d f o l l o w i n g the d e c i s i o n to proceed. The panel recognized the commitment to proceed w i th the p r o j e c t that was represented by the 1977 -46 -d e c i s i o n (EA Panel 1979a, p. 79 ) . However, t h e i r s t a ted mandate, to " rev iew p o t e n t i a l environmental impacts of the AHGP and to adv i se the M i n i s t e r of the Environment on p o t e n t i a l impacts and m i t i g a t i v e measures" (EA Panel 1979a, p. 3 ) , makes no re ference to i n d i c a t e the d e c i s i o n to which the review would prov ide i npu t , nor to i n d i c a t e the i n f l u e n c e of the 1977 review on t h i s next review phase. The p a n e l ' s mandate g ives the impress ion tha t the review would be s t a r t i n g over aga in , de sp i t e the cons ide rab le amount of i n fo rmat ion c o l l e c t e d dur ing 1977. 4.3.1 Environmental Impact Statement Gu ide l i ne s The "Gu i de l i ne s f o r the P repa ra t i on of the EIS" were prepared by the panel and re leased December 1977. The Gu i de l i ne s do not s p e c i f i c a l l y r e f e r to the i n fo rmat ion requirements i d e n t i f i e d by the panel i n i t s 1977 i n t e r i m r e p o r t . The requests are general and a l l -encompass ing . There was no ev ident purpose f o r the many over lapp ing request s . For example, requests are made f o r the " l o c a t i o n , proposed schedu l ing and d e t a i l of a l l stream c ro s s i n g s " (EA panel 1977, p. 3) and " the design and proposed schedul ing of stream and lake c r o s s i n g s " (p. 4) i n two d i f f e r e n t s e c t i o n s . Requests are f r equen t l y vaguely worded such as " d e t a i l of a l l stream c ro s s i n g s " (p. 3) and "data on w i l d l i f e popu la t ions i n s u f f i c i e n t d e t a i l to permit an e s t ima t i on of impact" (p. 10). The repor t l a ck s p a r a l l e l s t r u c t u r e . For example, one s e c t i on requests i n f o rmat i on on "abundance and seasonal d i s t r i b u t i o n of f i s h " (p. 9) whereas the next s imply s t a te s " r a r e or endangered spec ie s " w i thout s p e c i f y i n g the type of i n fo rmat ion r e q u i r e d . Although gu i de l i ne s s t a te the intended purpose of each major s e c t i o n , they do not prov ide any r a t i o n a l e as to how the i n fo rmat i on requested would f u l f i l l the purpose. Reference to the d e f i c i e n c i e s i d e n t i f i e d dur ing the 1977 phase might have j u s t i f i e d the - 47 -requests and prov ided more guidance to the proponents, f o r example. Requests such as i n fo rmat ion on " a l t e r n a t i v e s out s ide of the chosen c o r r i d o r " (p. 6) and p r o j e c t need seem i r r e l e v a n t i n l i g h t of the 1977 d e c i s i o n to proceed w i th the A l a ska Highway c o r r i d o r . One meeting was he ld between F o o t h i l l s and the panel to c l a r i f y what was r equ i red of F o o t h i l l s a t which the panel s t re s sed tha t the cho i ce of i n f o rmat i on f o r the EIS was F o o t h i l l s ' r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . 4.3.2 The Northern P i p e l i n e Agency At t h i s stage i n the formal rev iew, the Northern P i p e l i n e Agency (NPA) was e s t a b l i s h e d , which was to have a great deal of i n f l u e n c e over the way i n which EARP proceeded. The Northern P i p e l i n e Act was passed by Canadian Par l i ament i n A p r i l 1978 a u t h o r i z i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n of the AHGP and e s t a b l i s h i n g the NPA. The NPA's mandate (NPA 1980a) was to f a c i l i t a t e the e f f i c i e n t and exped i t i ou s p lanning and c o n s t r u c t i o n of the p i p e l i n e ; to minimize any adverse s o c i a l and environmental impacts on the areas most d i r e c t l y a f f e c t e d by the p i p e l i n e ; and to maximize the s o c i a l and economic b e n e f i t s of the p r o j e c t f o r the people o f the area. Under the Act F o o t h i l l s was compelled to comply wi th the socio-economic and environmental terms and c o n d i t i o n s (T&C) t h a t governed how the p i p e l i n e was to be b u i l t . The f i r s t d r a f t of these T&C was re leased f o r p u b l i c comment i n May 1978. The NPA took over the r o l e of i n i t i a t i n g department f o r the p r o j e c t from DIAND i n l a t e 1978. - 48 -To comply w i th these T&C, F o o t h i l l s was requ i red to submit design and management plans to the NPA f o r approva l . The p o t e n t i a l e x i s t e d f o r over lap between t h i s ' p r o t e c t i o n p lann ing p roces s ' and the EARP rev iew. 4 .3 .3 . Environmental Impact Statement The i n fo rmat ion presented i n the EIS submitted by F o o t h i l l s i n January 1979, r e f l e c t e d F o o t h i l l s ' approach to environmental p r o t e c t i o n . The i n f o rmat i on was intended to enable the management o f , r a the r than the assessment of the environmental e f f e c t s , and i t had been generated as much to f u l f i l l NPA's design requirements as to f u l f i l l EARP's requirements f o r p r e d i c t i o n of impacts. F o o t h i l l s ' approach to environmental management i nvo l ved a l l e v i a t i n g the p o t e n t i a l f o r negat ive e f f e c t s by i n c o r p o r a t i n g m i t i g a t i v e measures i n t o the design of the p r o j e c t . Design was i n c rementa l , and f i n a l i z e d only when the l e v e l of f i n a n c i n g or other commitment warranted. F a i r l y general measures would be developed at the p r e l im i na r y design stage to m i t i g a t e the more obvious environmental e f f e c t s . As i n c r e a s i n g l y s i t e - s p e c i f i c i n fo rmat ion about the p r o j e c t and the environment was obta ined, the measures would be mod i f i ed and r e f i n e d . Design was only cons idered to be f i n a l once i t i nco rpora ted a l l the measures requ i red to m i t i g a t e a l l p o t e n t i a l e f f e c t s . F o o t h i l l s ' approach was a pragmatic attempt to i n t e g r a t e environmental p r o t e c t i o n and p r o j e c t p lann ing . Th is i t e r a t i v e , sequent ia l approach was the t r a d i t i o n a l method of p i p e l i n e p lann ing . F o o t h i l l s s imply f i t t e d environmental p r o t e c t i o n i n t o ongoing p r o j e c t p lann ing so t ha t both evolved toge the r . There was no d i s c r e t e po i n t a t which p lann ing stopped wh i l e the proposed design was subjected to an environmental impact assessment. By f i n a l -49-des i gn , m i t i g a t i v e measures would have been inco rpora ted i n t o the plans to comply w i th the NPA T&C. In f a c t , the momentum of p i p e l i n e p lanning seemed more c l o s e l y attuned to the NPA's process than to the p a n e l ' s requests f o r i n f o r m a t i o n . P i p e l i n e p lann ing had t r a d i t i o n a l l y played by the NEB r u l e s and F o o t h i l l s hadn ' t any exper ience i n t h i s new game of EARP. Whi le F o o t h i l l s " p r o t e c t i o n p lann ing process " may have been pragmat ic, i t d i d not supply the d e t a i l e d impact p r e d i c t i o n s the panel requested. The p a n e l ' s attempts i n the EIS g u i d e l i n e s and i n the 1977 meetings to obta in a comprehensive d e s c r i p t i o n of a l l p o t e n t i a l impacts was t y p i c a l of EIA at that t ime . The panel wanted s p e c i f i c impacts p red i c ted dur ing p r e l im i na r y design so tha t m i t i g a t i v e measures cou ld then be i nco rpora ted i n t o f i n a l des ign. F o o t h i l l s argued t ha t the e f f e c t s on the s p e c i f i c s i t e s and resources and the s p e c i f i c m i t i g a t i v e measures cou ld not be i d e n t i f i e d unless the p r o j e c t proceeded to f i n a l des ign . The EIS r e f l e c t s the p r e l im i na r y design stage s i nce i t prov ides only an overview of the p r o j e c t and environment. F o o t h i l l s ' s e q u e n t i a l , i t e r a t i v e p r o t e c t i o n p lann ing process seems a more r e a l i s t i c approach than the p a n e l ' s comprehensive one, con s i de r i ng the u n c e r t a i n t i e s a t the p r e l im i na r y design stage. However, F o o t h i l l s should have desc r ibed i t s approach more e x p l i c i t l y , broadly desc r ibed the f un c t i o na l l i n kage s between the p r o j e c t and environment, and desc r ibed how and what a d d i t i o n a l i n fo rmat ion would be c o l l e c t e d dur ing d e t a i l e d des ign. F o o t h i l l s d id not desc r ibe the f u n c t i o n a l l i nkages because i t s " t e c h n i c a l f i x " approach to environmental p r o t e c t i o n d id not i n vo l ve p r e d i c t i o n of cause and e f f e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Any p o t e n t i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s would be avoided or m i t i g a t e d through some t e c h n i c a l measure such as r e r o u t i n g , re schedu l ing or through some c o n s t r u c t i o n p r a c t i c e . The only value judgements app l i ed were to - 50 -determine which s e n s i t i v e resources might be d i s t u r bed . The EIS r e f l e c t e d t h i s approach and d id not prov ide the panel w i th the impact p r e d i c t i o n s i t requested. The "Assessment of Impacts" only d i scussed the e f f e c t s t ha t types of p r o j e c t s cou ld h y p o t h e t i c a l l y have on the resources and d id not d i s cus s cause and e f f e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p s between actua l s i t e s and a c t i v i t i e s . The "Environmental S e t t i n g " s e c t i o n presented an inventory of the " c r i t i c a l h a b i t a t s of s e n s i t i v e s p e c i e s " , but d i d n ' t e xp l a i n why these are c r i t i c a l or s e n s i t i v e . The c r i t e r i a used to i d e n t i f y " c r i t i c a l and s e n s i t i v e " were not s p e c i f i e d . The s t r u c t u r e of the EIS does not make i t any e a s i e r to determine the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the p r o j e c t and environment. The Environmental S e t t i n g and P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n s ec t i on s conformed to the s t r u c t u r e of the EIS g u i d e l i n e s . However, the Assessment of Impacts s ec t i on was intended to cover the i s sues r a i s e d dur ing the 1977 meetings and i n the panel r e p o r t s . There fo re , the d i s cu s s i on of p o t e n t i a l e f f e c t s does not f low l o g i c a l l y from the d i s cu s s i on of the p r o j e c t and environmental s e t t i n g . 4.3.4 EIS Review and P u b l i c Meetings The EIS and i t s 29 annexes of t e c h n i c a l background i n fo rmat ion were c i r c u l a t e d by the panel f o r review by federa l and t e r r i t o r i a l governments and were made a v a i l a b l e to the p u b l i c through d i s t r i b u t i o n cent re s and d i r e c t m a i l i n g s . The panel a l so asked s e l e c ted adv i so r s w i t h i n u n i v e r s i t i e s , government and c o n s u l t i n g f i rms to review p a r t i c u l a r s e c t i o n s . The panel gave the f i r s t se t of i n fo rmat ion d e f i c i e n c i e s to F o o t h i l l s on March 6 and 11. F o o t h i l l s ' responses to some of these d e f i c i e n c i e s were - 5 1 -submitted only i n time to be forwarded to t e c h n i c a l rev iewers i n the government, the adv i so r s and the NPA before the p u b l i c meetings (EA Panel 1979a, p. 1275). 1) Purpose of Meetings Informal meetings were he ld i n seven communities on the route and two o f f route from March 19 to A p r i l 5, and t e c h n i c a l meetings were he ld i n Whitehorse from A p r i l 23 to 28. The purpose of the meetings was " t o r ece i ve comments from i n d i v i d u a l s and o r gan i z a t i on s on the E IS . . . and on other p i p e l i n e r e l a t e d mat te r s " (EA Panel 1979b, p. 8 ) . Because the second d r a f t of the NPA's T&C a l so had to be reviewed p u b l i c l y , the meetings were cha i r ed j o i n t l y by the EARP panel chairman and a r ep re sen ta t i v e of the NPA. 2) P u b l i c Representat ion As i n 1977, the l o c a t i o n s and schedules of the meetings were intended to f a c i l i t a t e p u b l i c access. However, two prominent p u b l i c i n t e r e s t groups (Canadian A r c t i c Resources Committee and Yukon Conservat ion Soc ie ty ) s t a ted t h a t the expense of prepar ing a major t e chn i c a l b r i e f wasn ' t j u s t i f i e d because the re was no evidence t ha t t h e i r recommendations from prev ious i n t e r v e n t i o n s had been acted upon (EA Panel 1979a, p. 28, 29, 189). Nat ive groups cont inued to boycott the meetings. At the community meetings, a l l but two i n te rvenor s presented b r i e f s on socio-economic i s sues p e r t a i n i n g to the T&C. The ma jo r i t y of i n te r veno r s at a l l the hear ings were r ep re sen ta t i v e s of government agenc ies , pub l i c i n t e r e s t groups, communities and commercial gu id ing ope ra t i on s . -52 -3) Procedures The procedures of the meetings and the format of the quest ionn ing were s i m i l a r to those of 1977, although they were somewhat more t i g h t l y s t r uc tu red and b e t t e r o rgan ized. For example, a schedule was posted, i n te r veno r s were encouraged to p r e r e g i s t e r , and t e chn i c a l b r i e f s were l i m i t e d to twenty minutes. A l s o , the chairman in t roduced each sess ion w i th a d e s c r i p t i o n of the p a n e l ' s mandate, questionned i n te r veno r s more s y s t e m a t i c a l l y , and requested t h a t a l l comments be d i r e c t e d through the c h a i r . The procedures were f l e x i b l e enough to accomodate necessary changes i n schedule (EA Panel 1979a, p. 1266, 1446, 2246). 4) Issues Discussed The pane l , i n t e r v e n o r s , and F o o t h i l l s were much b e t t e r informed about the p r o j e c t and environmental i s sues than they had been i n 1977. The t e c h n i c a l b r i e f s were p a r t i c u l a r l y d e t a i l e d and the panel r e l i e d p r i m a r i l y on i t s expert adv i so r s to pursue these t e c h n i c a l i s sue s . A l l p a r t i e s seemed much more aware of the c o n s t r a i n t s and oppo r t un i t i e s presented by the meetings f o r r a i s i n g t h e i r concerns and had developed a s t r a tegy f o r us ing the meetings e f f e c t i v e l y . A g rea te r exchange ,of i n fo rmat i on occurred between i n t e r v e n o r s , F o o t h i l l s , and the panel than i n the 1977 meetings. For example, by r e l y i n g on i t s t e c h n i c a l adv i s o r s , the panel was ab le to analyse i n g reate r depth F o o t h i l l l s ' t e c h n i c a l i n f o rma t i on . In 1977 there had been l e s s d i s c u s s i o n of i s sues once F o o t h i l l s had presented i t s t e c h n i c a l i n fo rmat i on because the panel had not had technn i ca l adv i so r s and t h e i r quest ions had o f ten become bogged down i n d e t a i l s . - 53 -A t the 1977 meetings, F o o t h i l l s p r i m a r i l y had defended the p r o j e c t . They had prov ided vague reassurances t ha t the concerns would be dea l t w i t h . By 1979, they seemed prepared to make much more e x p l i c i t the reasons why they f e l t t ha t the p r o j e c t would be acceptab le . They may have r e a l i z e d tha t to r e ce i ve p u b l i c support f o r the p r o j e c t they would have to i n d i c a t e more e x p l i c i t l y how they would address pub l i c concerns. F o o t h i l l s exp la i ned why i n f o rmat i on d e f i c i e n c i e s were s t i l l present and t h e i r s t ra tegy f o r responding to concerns. They made commitments to undertake a d d i t i o n a l s tud ie s and other remedial ac t i on s when s p e c i f i c a l l y requested by the pane l . F o o t h i l l s cont inued to be l i e ve t ha t t h e i r in-house t e c h n i c a l s o l u t i on s would most e f f e c t i v e l y so lve problems r a i s ed by the p u b l i c . F o o t h i l l s used the meetings to become b e t t e r informed about the p u b l i c concerns, but only reassured the p u b l i c and panel t ha t s o l u t i o n s would be i nco rpo ra ted i n t o p r o j e c t des ign. F o o t h i l l s d id not attempt to work out w i th the pub l i c and panel the p r i o r i t i e s and s t r a t e g i e s f o r r e s o l v i n g the i s sue s . Intervenors tended to s t r e s s some key i s sues r a the r than present long l i s t s of concerns as they had done i n 1977. For example, government w i l d l i f e agencies c o n s i s t e n t l y s t re s sed the need f o r a w i l d l i f e management program as a means f o r dea l i ng w i th w i l d l i f e problems (EA Panel 1979a, p. 1106, 2050, 2550). A l l three p a r t i e s again focussed on i n fo rmat ion d e f i c i e n c i e s . As i n 1977, they i d e n t i f i e d d e f i c i e n c i e s i n the d e s c r i p t i o n of the p r o j e c t and environment. Aga in , F o o t h i l l s ' a t t r i b u t e d these d e f i c i e n c i e s to i t s p r e l im i na r y des ign . F o o t h i l l s a l so a t t r i b u t e d d e f i c i e n c i e s i n the EIS to the p a n e l ' s i n s i s t e n c e at ma in ta in ing an "arm's l e ng t h " r e l a t i o n s h i p . F o o t h i l l s s a i d t h i s prevented them from c l a r i f y i n g e x a c t l y what the Panel wanted (EA -54 -panel 1979a, p. 2494). Because of problems w i th c i r c u l a t i n g b r i e f s and F o o t h i l l s ' responses to d e f i c i e n c i e s before the meetings, i n t e r veno r s , F o o t h i l l s , and the panel were not always we l l informed on the i s sues before the meetings. F o o t h i l l s d id not f ee l i t should a c c e l e r a t e i t s design to produce the d e t a i l e d s i t e s s p e c i f i c i n fo rmat i on requested by the pane l . I t c la imed tha t the f l e x i b i l i t y of the p r e l im i na r y design enabled m i t i g a t i v e measures to be i n co rpo ra ted to address p u b l i c concerns i d e n t i f i e d dur ing the review (EA panel 1979a, p. 815, 1118). However, many i n te rvenor s and the Panel f e l t t ha t the d e f i c i e n c i e s prec luded a thorough impact assessment (EA Panel 1979a, p. 483, 599, 1105, 1219, 1282, 1398, 1426, 1627, 1633, 1725). Although they cont inued to i d e n t i f y the i n fo rmat ion needed to r e c t i f y the d e f i c i e n c i e s , many i n te r veno r s a l so emphasized the need f o r s t rong T&C. Intervenors were concerned t ha t i f review of the p r o j e c t were to end w i th EARP, f i n a l design would not be examined (EA Panel 1979a, p. 1418, 1424, 1640). They asked the NPA r e p r e s e n t a t i v e to c l a r i f y the environmental T&C and to e x p l a i n how the NPA would monitor compliance of p r o j e c t p lanning w i th the T&C (EA Panel 1979a, p. 1106, 1159, 1175, 1337, 1436, 1479, 1637, 1639). F o o t h i l l s r e f e r r e d f r equen t l y to t h e i r i n t e n t i o n to develop p r o j e c t plans i n compliance wi th the T&C. F u l f i l l i n g these J&C seemed to take precedence i n F o o t h i l l s p lann ing s t ra tegy over meeting the i n fo rmat ion d e f i c i e n c i e s i d e n t i f i e d by the EARP Pane l . F o o t h i l l s s t a ted tha t the d e f i c i e n c i e s would be a l l e v i a t e d , but i t was apparent tha t t h i s would occur w i t h i n the framework of the NPA requ i rements . -55 -4.3.5 Panel Report to the M i n i s t e r of the Environment The panel chairman concluded the meetings w i th the statement tha t " the Panel has come to the conc lu s i on t ha t F o o t h i l l s has not prov ided s u f f i c i e n t i n f o rmat i on on c e r t a i n important aspects of the p r o j e c t to complete the environmental review at t h i s t ime" (EA Panel 1979a, pg. 2611). Rather than conc lud ing t h e i r review and l e a v i n g the NPA wi th the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to develop T&C t h a t addressed the d e f i c i e n c i e s , the panel postponed i t s f i n a l recommendations. I t f e l t t ha t i t cou ld not complete the review u n t i l F o o t h i l l s had a l l e v i a t e d the i n fo rmat ion d e f i c i e n c i e s i n p r e d i c t i n g environmental e f f e c t s . As i n the 1977 i n t e r i m r e p o r t , the 1979 r epo r t l i s t e d i n fo rmat ion d e f i c i e n c i e s and descr ibed i n general the concerns r a i s e d dur ing the meetings. However, i t d id not i n d i c a t e the reasoning t ha t l i n k e d these to the c onc l u s i on s , and thus, i t i s not c l e a r why the a v a i l a b l e i n fo rmat ion e i t h e r d i d not cover the concerns or was i n s u f f i c i e n t to make f i n a l conc lu s ions about the p r o j e c t . The repor t recommended the p repara t i on of a new EIS and i n d i c a t e d the i n fo rmat ion r e q u i r e d . However, as i n the 1977 i n t e r i m r epo r t , the requests were not l i n k e d e x p l i c i t l y to the i n fo rmat ion d e f i c i e n c i e s . There fo re , no j u s t i f i c a t i o n was prov ided f o r the requests f o r a d d i t i o n a l i n f o rma t i on , nor d i d the recommendations g ive any impress ion as to how much more i n fo rmat ion would be requ i red before the panel cou ld make i t s f i n a l recommendations. The r epo r t g ives the impress ion t h a t the panel j u s t wanted more i n fo rmat ion and had not cons idered how to best use the a v a i l a b l e i n fo rmat ion and which i n fo rmat i on was e s s e n t i a l f o r i t s f i n a l recommendations. -56-The panel d id not seem to recognize the c o n s t r a i n t s on ob ta i n i ng i n f o r m a t i o n . Many of t h e i r requests would have a l ready been inc luded i n the a l l -encompass ing requirements i n the EIS g u i d e l i n e s , and there was no reason to expect t ha t another request would compel F o o t h i l l s to generate the i n f o r m a t i o n . The panel d id not attempt to c l a r i f y i t s requests by i d e n t i f y i n g the d i s c repanc i e s between what i t had requested i n the q u i d e l i n e s and what i t had rece i ved from F o o t h i l l s . The panel recognized i n some cases t ha t the i n f o rmat i on would not be a v a i l a b l e immediately. For example, they recognized t h a t " s o l u t i o n s to ( geo techn i ca l ) problems may take severa l years to o b t a i n " (p. 18) . However, they a l so requested " d e t a i l s of a c t i v i t i e s . . . t o a s s i s t the.. .government.. .agency i n the p r o t e c t i o n of ( w i l d l i f e ) r e s o u r c e s . . . " (EA Panel 1979b, p. 38) w i thout any r e c o g n i t i o n of the l a r ge amount of time and e f f o r t t ha t f u l f i l l i n g t h i s request would e n t a i l . The r epo r t e x h i b i t e d the same ove r l ap s , vague wording and i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s t h a t were ev ident i n the 1977 i n t e r i m repor t and EIS g u i d e l i n e s . For example, requests was made f o r "measures to minimize w i l d l i f e d i s tu rbance due to no i se " whereas another requested " the i m p l i c a t i o n s of new access on w i l d l i f e . . . " (p. 40 ) . Why was there not a request f o r the means to r e s t r i c t access or the i m p l i c a t i o n s of noise? Such requests would prov ide very l i t t l e guidance to F o o t h i l l s f o r the c o l l e c t i o n of i n f o rmat i on . The repo r t d id recognize tha t d e f i c i e n c i e s about the p r o j e c t might p e r s i s t even a f t e r complet ion of the new EIS. However, there i s l i t t l e r e fe rence to i n t e r v e n o r s 1 concerns about the r o l e of the NPA i n ongoing review of the p r o j e c t and the need to develop good T&C. Only one s p e c i f i c re ference to the NPA's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s i n c l uded : the need f o r the NPA to review the geotechn ica l i n f o rma t i on . Th i s i s sue probably was recognized because the - 57 -panel recognized t ha t i t would take ' s e v e r a l years to o b t a i n ' . The only re fe rence to the i n t e r a c t i o n between the p a n e l ' s review and the NPA process i s t h a t " the complet ion of the assessment i s a p r e r e q u i s i t e to the d e t a i l e d environmental p lann ing tha t w i l l be requ i red at a l a t e r date as the p r o j e c t p roceeds . " (EA pane l , 1979b, p. 14). There was no r e cogn i t i o n of the two d r a f t s of the T&C t ha t had been completed by t h i s t ime, i n s p i t e of t h e i r re levance to the f u tu re design of the p r o j e c t . The only re fe rence to s t r a t e g i e s f o r environmental p r o t e c t i o n dur ing implementat ion i s a request f o r i n fo rmat ion on m i t i g a t i v e measures. However, the panel wanted F o o t h i l l s to de sc r i be these measures so t ha t F o o t h i l l s cou ld p r e d i c t r e s i dua l impacts. Appa ren t l y , the panel was not as i n t e r e s t e d i n the m i t i g a t i o n measures as an environmental p r o t e c t i o n s t ra tegy i n themselves, as i t was i n t h e i r r o l e i n impact assessment. 4.4 THE IBEX REVIEW: THE FINAL ROUND? 4.4.1 EARP and the NPA - Who i s i n Charge? The p a n e l ' s d e c i s i o n not to end the review l i k e l y came as qu i t e a s u r p r i s e to F o o t h i l l s , the i n t e r veno r s , and the NPA. Why had the panel not bowed out when they had the chance as the comments of i n te r veno r s and F o o t h i l l s dur ing the 1979 meetings suggest was expected? Th i s would have been an oppor tun i ty to end t h i s review t ha t was i n c r e a s i n g l y over lapp ing NPA's mandate. I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t the panel saw an ongoing EARP review as an oppor tun i t y to prove t ha t EARP was not i n e f f e c t u a l as the i n te rveno r s had i m p l i e d . In l i g h t of the r egu l a to r y and f i n a n c i n g delays i n the p r o j e c t at the t ime, the panel might have thought they had nothing to l o se by s lowing down the review process . The p o l i t i c a l heat f o r a d e c i s i o n was not being - 58 -a p p l i e d as i t had been i n 1977. Although p r o j e c t p lann ing was proceeding, the panel might even show the NPA t ha t EARP cou ld not be pushed a s i de . However, both NPA and F o o t h i l l s met these new recommendations w i th what might be cons idered angry i n d i g n a t i o n . The NPA's op in ion of the p a n e l ' s plans was t h a t a " s i g n i f i c a n t m i sunde r s t and ing . . . i s the assumption t ha t f i l i n g of the ( F o o t h i l l s ' ) environmental submissions and plans ( to the NPA) i s cont ingent upon the P a n e l ' s r e c e i p t of a r ev i sed EIS - t h i s i s not the case" (NPA 1980b, p. 2 ) . Furthermore, " t he Agency f i r m l y be l i e v (ed ) t h a t to r e v i s e the EIS i n i s o l a t i o n , as a separate document, at t h i s stage i n the p r o j e c t would be i r r e l e v a n t . . . ( a n d ) t h a t another round of pub l i c hear ings i n the Yukon would be e n t i r e l y redundant" (NPA 1980b, p. 4 ) . F o o t h i l l s was s i m i l a r l y unen thu s i a s t i c : most i f not a l l of the i n fo rmat ion requ i red by the EA Panel w i l l be f i l e d w i th the NPA. . . I t seems unfortunate t ha t t h i s redundancy i s b u i l t i n t o the system...When agencies of government are performing i d e n t i c a l f u n c t i o n s , i t cou ld be assumed tha t one agency does not complete ly t r u s t the other and a d d i t i o n a l co s t s accrue to the p r o j e c t as a r e s u l t " ( F o o t h i l l s 1979a). Th i s s cep t i c i sm l i k e l y r e f l e c t e d t ha t of the i n te rveno r s who had a l so watched the p a r a l l e l review between EARP and the NPA w i th c on s t e r na t i on , i f f o r d i f f e r e n t reasons. The pane l ' s r epo r t had p r e c i p i t a t e d the c o l l i s i o n between the EARP review and the NPA process t ha t had been i n e v i t a b l e . A smooth t r a n s i t i o n from the EARP to the NPA review no longer seemed p o s s i b l e . Some ad hoc process would have to be developed to re l ea se EARP's tenac ious g r i p on the p r o j e c t . -59-4.4.2 NPA and F o o t h i l l s Set the Ground Rules A s e r i e s of meetings was he ld between January 17, 1980 and December 1980 between NPA and FEARO to d i scus s what a c t i o n to take. F o o t h i l l s became i nvo l ved only a f t e r the i n i t i a l meetings, i n which NPA had acted as i t s l i a i s o n , because i t was u n w i l l i n g to become invo l ved i n f u r t h e r meetings u n t i l f i n a n c i n g of the p r e b u i l d s e c t i on was a v a i l a b l e (NPA 1980c). The panel was no longer the only one c a l l i n g the shots f o r the AHGP rev iew. A frame of r e fe rence f o r the ongoing review was developed between the NPA and FEARO which s t a t ed tha t the panel was " t o complete i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n a t ime l y way w i thout imposing a s i g n i f i c a n t a d d i t i o n a l burden on F o o t h i l l s or d u p l i c a t i n g unduly the work of the Agency" (NPA 1980c). One of the f i r s t tasks undertaken by the NPA and the panel was to " c a t e g o r i z e EA panel recommendations ( i n the 1979 repo r t ) as to p r e l im i na r y or f i n a l des ign " ( F o o t h i l l s 1980a). The panel i n s i s t e d i t had requested only p r e l i m i n a r y design i n fo rmat ion (NPA 1980c), but F o o t h i l l s had f e l t they had requested f i n a l design i n f o r m a t i o n , which was unava i l ab l e ( F o o t h i l l s 1979b). A c on t i nu i n g war iness on F o o t h i l l s ' p a r t of the p a n e l ' s r eque s t ' s and an acceptance of the NPA's approach was ev ident i n f u r t h e r d i s cu s s i on s over i n fo rmat i on requirements, when the NPA and F o o t h i l l s c o n s i s t e n t l y s ided together when disagreements arose w i th FEARO over what i n fo rmat ion was r equ i r ed (FEARO 1980b, 1980c). The minutes of these meetings re leased to the p u b l i c g ive no i n d i c a t i o n of the d i f f e r e n c e s of op in ion i n d i c a t e d i n the o r i g i n a l minutes and only i n d i c a t e po in t s on which agreement had been reached (FEARO 1980d, 1980e). -60 -The meetings over t h i s pe r i od were marked w i th haggl ing i n c i d e n t s between NPA and FEARO (NPA 1980d). While t h i s r e s i s t a n c e may have given the appearance t ha t EARP perhaps was not a pushover, unquest ionnably, the p r o j e c t was evo l v i ng toward c o n s t r u c t i o n . The survey permit f o r the Ibex Pass was i s sued dur ing these d i s c u s s i on s . The panel refused to comment on the permit s t a t i n g t ha t they had "not y e t rece i ved a l l the i n fo rmat i on needed f o r review by p u b l i c and t e chn i c a l agenc ies " (EA Panel 1980a). The p a n e l ' s a t t i t u d e toward t h i s i s sue made EARP appear i r r e l e v a n t . The panel p e r s i s t e d i n at tempt ing to a l l e v i a t e d e f i c i e n c i e s about environmental impacts, even though p r o j e c t p lann ing had evolved to the survey s tage, r a the r than making recommendations about survey ing us ing the ex tens i ve i n fo rmat ion obta ined through four years of rev iew. Th i s pe r i od of s t rugg le between the EARP and NPA reviews ended w i th the panel chairman s p e l l i n g out the r o l e of those i n vo l ved : The I n i t i a t i n g Department i n the Process , NPA, takes r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r submission of the EIS and i s the sponsor of the p r o j e c t w i t h i n government. The NPA's r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s a l so i nc lude matters d i r e c t l y r e l a t i n g to f i n a l design i n accordance w i th l i c e n s i n g and pe rm i t t i n g requ i rements . " The Panel "conducts a p u b l i c review of the EIS prepared by the Proponent and repor t s to the M i n i s t e r of the Environment on the adequacy of the p r e l im i na r y environmental p lanning of the p r o j e c t . . . T h e r a t i o n a l e f o r the environmental assessment and review by the EA Panel i s to examine i n pub l i c the p re l im ina r y design and p o t e n t i a l environmental impacts and m i t i g a t i v e measures and then r epo r t to the M i n i s t e r of the Environment" (EA Panel 1980b, p. 1, 2 ) . Th i s statement e s s e n t i a l l y c l a r i f i e d the usual r o l e of an i n i t i a t i n g department and EARP panel i n any EARP rev iew. I t over looked the apparent i r r e l e v a n c y of a panel f o l l o w i n g i t s usual r o l e of rev iewing " p r e l i m i n a r y environmental p l ann ing " i n the AHGP rev iew. The panel had a l ready reviewed the p r o j e c t t w i c e , and the NPA had a l ready developed the T&C f o r f i n a l des ign, - 6 1 -even though F o o t h i l l s argued t ha t the p r o j e c t was only a t the p re l im ina r y design stage. Three d r a f t s of the J&C had been prepared and only the pane l ' s 1977 r epo r t had been a v a i l a b l e before the f i r s t two d r a f t s . The p a n e l ' s 1979 r epo r t came out one month before the second d r a f t T&C. The t h i r d and f i n a l d r a f t was re leased before the p a n e l ' s Ibex repo r t was completed. There fo re , the panel repor t s d id l i t t l e to inform the T&C. How e f f e c t i v e cou ld y e t another EARP review of p r e l im i na r y design be when p i p e l i n e p lann ing had a l ready evolved apparent ly qu i t e independently of EARP? The p a n e l ' s f i n a l r epo r t to the M i n i s t e r would have l i t t l e e f f e c t on a l l the dec i s i on s a l ready r e f l e c t e d i n the T&C about how the p r o j e c t would proceed. NPA, F o o t h i l l s , and the panel reached an agreement t ha t F o o t h i l l s would submit s e q u e n t i a l l y a s e r i e s of packages of i n f o rma t i on , which, taken as a whole, would " form a comprehensive and rev iewable document" (EA Panel 1980b). Th i s agreement was a compromise between F o o t h i l l s ' and the NPA's oppo s i t i on to another EIS, and the P a n e l ' s commitment i n t h e i r 1979 r epo r t to review another EIS. 4.4.3 The Ibex I s sue—The Test Case of the New EARP F o o t h i l l s submitted the f i r s t package of i n fo rmat ion on a l t e r n a t i v e rou t i ng s through the Ibex Pass to the panel i n March 1981. The panel announced tha t i t would hold p u b l i c meetings a f t e r a 60-day review pe r i od . The s t r u c t u r e and content of the meetings i n d i c a t e t h a t a l l p a r t i e s i n vo l ved had learned some lessons over the previous four years of EARP rev iew. The procedures were much more t i g h t l y s t r u c t u r e d . For example, the panel would not accept b r i e f s a f t e r a s p e c i f i e d time pe r i od ; i n te r veno r s had to p r e r e g i s t e r ; d i s cu s s i on s were he ld to a schedule and d e a l t only w i th the Ibex - 62 -i s s ue . F o o t h i l l s had prepared d e t a i l e d w r i t t e n responses to b r i e f s and re fused to comment on any t o p i c they f e l t would be addressed at o ther se s s i on s . F o o t h i l l s would only respond to d i r e c t quest ions and not to vague comments from in te rveno r s (EA Panel 1981a, p. 222, 312). C l e a r l y , F o o t h i l l s f e l t i t cou ld plan the p r o j e c t i n an env i ronmenta l l y acceptab le way and was us ing the meetings as a chance to show everyone e l s e t h e i r reasons. F o o t h i l l s even pursued i s sues a f t e r the Panel had f i n i s h e d to ensure t h a t i t s p o s i t i o n was understood (EA Panel 1981a, p. 137). Th i r t een i n te r veno r s a t tended; fewer than i n 1977 and 1979. They were p r i m a r i l y government agency r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . They s t a ted t h e i r concerns much more p r e c i s e l y than p r e v i o u s l y . The ub iqu i tous i n fo rmat ion d e f i c i e n c i e s were d i s cu s sed ; however, the panel focussed on drawing conc lu s ions from the a v a i l a b l e i n f o rma t i on . The panel asked about how design cou ld be mod i f ied a f t e r a d d i t i o n a l i n fo rmat ion was c o l l e c t e d , r a the r than ask ing f o r the a d d i t i o n a l i n fo rmat ion (EA Panel 1981a, p. 114, 210, 279, 285). The NPA's review of F o o t h i l l s ' p r o j e c t plans was a l so d i scussed i n depth (EA Panel 1981a, p. 158, 173, 192, 189, 206, 214). The panel r epo r t on the Ibex was submitted to the M i n i s t e r i n J u l y 1981. The repo r t s t re s sed t ha t F o o t h i l l s had presented a rou t i ng repo r t r a the r than an EIS t ha t thoroughly reviewed a l l a l t e r n a t i v e s . The repo r t d i f f e r e d from prev ious repor t s because i t made e x p l i c i t what i n fo rmat ion the panel had requested, why i n fo rmat ion was d e f i c i e n t , and the P a n e l ' s assumptions i n drawing the conc l u s i on s . I t a l so s t re s sed to a much g rea te r ex tent than i n prev ious r e p o r t s , how the NPA's ongoing review of p r o j e c t p lann ing would deal w i t h environmental concerns. - 63 -The r epo r t s t a ted t h a t F o o t h i l l s would undertake a d d i t i o n a l m i t i g a t i v e measures i f requested by the NPA and t ha t the panel "assumes t ha t the proposed schedu l ing plans of the Proponent and the commitment to meet the environmental T&C e s t a b l i s h e d by the NPA w i l l prov ide adequate environmental c on t r o l dur ing c o n s t r u c t i o n of the p r o j e c t " (EA Panel 1981b, p. 27 ) . The repor t recommended t ha t the Ibex route be r e j e c t e d . The other recommendation s t a ted t ha t "government agencies take e a r l y and p o s i t i v e a c t i o n to preserve the present w i l d l i f e and environmental values i n the Ibex Pass area and to preserve f u tu re opt ions f o r t h i s unique a rea " (pg. 31) . This recogn ized the need f o r s t r a t e g i e s other than an EARP review as a means of environmental p r o t e c t i o n . 4.5 EPILOGUE EARP managed to p e r s i s t throughout f i v e years of p r o j e c t rev iew. However, even as the Panel f i n a l l y reached i t s conc lu s ions as to how the p r o j e c t should proceed, a c e r t a i n i rony a r i s e s due to the l a t e s t t w i s t i n the schedule of p r o j e c t p lann ing : the p r o j e c t has once again been postponed as i n ve s t o r s recons ide r whether i t s 43 b i l l i o n d o l l a r p r i c e tag might j u s t be too high (CARC 1982). One has to wonder j u s t what r o l e the EARP review has played i n t h i s p r o j e c t which seems to move along to some independent rythym of i t s own. -64-5.0 EVALUATION OF EARP APPLIED TO AHGP 5.1 SAMPLING PUBLIC OPINIONS Did EARP i d e n t i f y the concerns and op in ions of those a f f e c t e d by the p r o j e c t so they cou ld be r e f l e c t e d i n the impact assessment? 1) Did EARP prov ide the oppor tun i t y f o r those a f f e c t e d to express t h e i r concerns and op in ions before the proponent proposed a l t e r n a t i v e p r o j e c t s t r a t e g i e s and p r ed i c t ed impacts? In the 1977 phase of the EARP review those a f f e c t e d were not i nvo l ved before government agenc ies , c o n s u l t a n t s , and F o o t h i l l s proposed a l t e r n a t i v e s and p red i c t ed impacts. In the 1979 phase the panel d id not prov ide those a f f e c t e d w i th the oppor tun i t y to comment on the EIS g u i d e l i n e s before they were presented to F o o t h i l l s . There fo re , F o o t h i l l s proposed a l t e r n a t i v e r ou t i n g s , schedules , and designs and assessed impacts i n the EIS before those a f f e c t e d had a chance to comment dur ing t h i s phase. The panel cou ld have i nco rpo ra ted the comments expressed dur ing the 1977 meetings i n t o the EIS g u i d e l i n e s and hence, i n t o the i n s t r u c t i o n s to the proponent. However, the op in ions r a i s e d dur ing the 1977 phase were not n e c e s s a r i l y p e r t i n e n t to the 1979 i s s ue s . For example, the 1977 phase examined general i s sues a s soc i a ted wi th a l t e r n a t i v e c o r r i d o r s , wh i l e the 1979 phase examined these i s sues i n more d e t a i l f o r the A laska Highway c o r r i d o r . The e a r l i e r comments were not n e c e s s a r i l y the most e f f e c t i v e guide to c r i t i c a l i s sues f o r the 1979 rev iew. As i n the 1977 phase, p u b l i c involvement dur ing the 1979 phase was p r i m a r i l y r e a c t i v e . Those a f f e c t e d were i nvo l ved dur ing p u b l i c meetings held a f t e r the EIS was r e l ea sed . - 65 -Although t h i s r e a c t i v e involvement prec luded those a f f e c t e d from i n f l u e n c i n g the i s sues i n i t i a l l y cons idered by the proponent, the panel attempted to ensure t ha t t h e i r concerns were even tua l l y covered. The panel informed F o o t h i l l s of any d e f i c i e n c i e s i n i t s impact a n a l y s i s t ha t pub l i c rev iewers had i d e n t i f i e d . F o o t h i l l s was expected to a l l e v i a t e these d e f i c i e n c i e s and thus , address the concerns of those a f f e c t e d . However, t h i s procedure f o r i n c o r p o r a t i n g p u b l i c concerns i n t o the impact assessment was i n e f f e c t i v e s i nce the panel cou ld not ensure t ha t F o o t h i l l s responded adequate ly. Not a l l d e f i c i e n c i e s were f u l l y a l l e v i a t e d . F o o t h i l l s provided piecemeal responses which were never f u l l y i n t e g r a t ed i n t o the o r i g i n a l impact assessment. Th i s s i t u a t i o n cont inued i n t o the post-1979 phase. Involvement dur ing the post-1979 phase was r e a c t i v e s ince those a f f e c t e d hadn ' t any oppor tun i ty dur ing tha t p a r t i c u l a r phase to i n f l u e n c e the i n i t i a l i n s t r u c t i o n s to the proponent. Only the concerns expressed dur ing the two prev ious phases cou ld have i n f l uenced the p a n e l ' s request s . Once the p u b l i c had reviewed F o o t h i l l s ' a n a l y s i s and i d e n t i f i e d d e f i c i e n c i e s , the panel requested F o o t h i l l s to respond t o unresolved concerns. However, once aga in , the panel cou ld not ensure tha t F o o t h i l l s addressed p u b l i c concerns i n i t s subsequent a n a l y s i s . 2) Did EARP prov ide funding to those a f f e c t e d to enable r ep re sen ta t i on of the f u l l range of i n t e r e s t s ? EARP d id not prov ide funding to groups i n t e r e s t e d i n p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the AHGP rev iew. Some in te rveno r s mentioned the d i f f i c u l t y of having inadequate resources to prepare b r i e f s and at tend meetings. Th i s d i f f i c u l t y was -66-magn i f ied by the three sets of p u b l i c meetings. This d i f f i c u l t y might have accounted i n pa r t f o r the d im in i s h i n g numbers of i n te rvenor s as the review progressed. Two prominent p u b l i c i n t e r e s t groups s t a ted they would no longer present b r i e f s a f t e r the 1979 phase s ince t h e i r commitment of resources d i d n ' t appear j u s t i f i e d . They f e l t t h a t there was i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence of the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of e i t h e r t h e i r involvement or of the EARP review i n gene ra l , i n d e c i s i o n making. To f a c i l i t a t e involvement of l o c a l i n t e r e s t s the panel he ld i t s meetings i n communities along the route l i k e l y to be a f f e c t e d and i n major urban cent re s i n the Yukon. However, these l o c a t i o n s d i d not f a c i l i t a t e involvement by concerned southern Canadians. During the p u b l i c meetings i n 1977, when the panel was con s i de r i n g a l t e r n a t i v e c o r r i d o r s , the panel d i d not v i s i t communities ou t s ide the A la ska Highway c o r r i d o r . One member of the EARP panel t r a v e l l e d to communities ou t s ide t h i s c o r r i d o r w i th the Lysyk I nqu i r y , but t h i s Inqu i ry focused on socio-economic impacts. I t cou ld not be expected to address thoroughly the environmental concerns of these communities. The lack of funding c o n t r i b u t e d to an i n a b i l i t y and unw i l l i n gne s s among those a f f e c t e d to be i nvo l ved so t h e i r f u l l range of i n t e r e s t s were not represented. 3) Did the panel d i s t r i b u t e the best a v a i l a b l e and r e l e van t i n fo rmat ion to those a f f e c t e d p r i o r to t h e i r involvement so tha t they cou ld make we l l informed comments? ( Sec t i on 5.2 d i scus ses the i n f o r m a t i o n ' s re levance. Th i s s e c t i o n deals w i th i t s a v a i l a b i l i t y and d i s t r i b u t i o n . ) -67 -Those a f f e c t e d gene ra l l y hadn ' t the resources necessary to generate t h e i r own independent assessment of impacts. The panel made a v a i l a b l e to those a f f e c t e d a l l of F o o t h i l l s i n fo rmat ion and whatever i n fo rmat ion other sources had generated. However, i n fo rmat i on from the other sources was not comparable i n scope or d e t a i l to F o o t h i l l s ' i n f o rmat i on so i n te rvenor s had to r e l y mostly on F o o t h i l l s ' i n f o r m a t i o n . The panel proceeded w i th p u b l i c meetings w i thout r e c e i v i n g adequate responses to a l l d e f i c i e n c y statements from F o o t h i l l s . On severa l occas ions , the panel d id not r ece i ve F o o t h i l l s ' responses to d e f i c i e n c i e s i n time to d i s t r i b u t e them before the meetings began. For example, dur ing the 1979 phase, F o o t h i l l s submitted some responses only i n time f o r c i r c u l a t i o n to the t e c h n i c a l rev iewers . Both F o o t h i l l s and i n te rveno r s complained about the d i f f i c u l t y of commenting on responses or b r i e f s submitted immediately p r i o r t o , or du r ing , the meetings. Intervenors tended to i d e n t i f y d e f i c i e n c i e s i n the i n fo rmat ion about impacts r a the r than s t a t e op in ions about the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of the p r o j e c t ' s impacts. During the post-1979 phase the panel attempted to obta in b r i e f s e a r l i e r by request ing i n te rveno r s to submit any w r i t t e n b r i e f s 24 hours i n advance of the meetings. 5.2 OBTAINING TECHNICAL INFORMATION Was EARP capable of ob ta i n i n g the best a v a i l a b l e and r e l e van t p r e d i c t i o n s o f impacts of the proposed p r o j e c t and i t s a l t e r n a t i v e s ? 1) Did the panel request F o o t h i l l s to propose a l t e r n a t i v e s that r e f l e c t e d the concerns of those a f fec ted ? Did i t request F o o t h i l l s to p r e d i c t impacts on resources valued by those a f f e c t e d , making unce r ta i n t y and the f unc t i ona l a n a l y s i s e x p l i c i t ? -68-Throughout the review the panel requests to F o o t h i l l s f o r i n fo rmat ion about a l t e r n a t i v e s and impacts d id not cover a l l r e l e van t i s sues and d id not i d e n t i f y s p e c i f i c p u b l i c concerns to be addressed. During the 1977 meetings the panel d id not cover r e l e van t a l t e r n a t i v e s such as the 'no go' opt ion or a l t e r n a t i v e techno log ie s f o r t r a n s p o r t i n g gas from A l a s ka . In the 1979 phase the p a n e l ' s EIS g u i de l i n e s requested F o o t h i l l s to desc r ibe a l t e r n a t i v e s " w i t h i n and out s ide the chosen c o r r i d o r " (EA panel 1977c, p.6). The request f o r a l t e r n a t i v e s out s ide the c o r r i d o r does not seem re l e van t con s i de r i ng the A la ska Highway c o r r i d o r p r e v i ou s l y had rece i ved a p p r o v a l - i n - p r i n c i p l e . During the 1979 meetings and post-1979 meetings the p a n e l ' s requests were p r i m a r i l y con f i ned to a l t e r n a t i v e rout ings t h a t had been proposed by F o o t h i l l s . The 1979, EIS g u i de l i n e s requested F o o t h i l l s to " de s c r i be expected environmental impacts of the p ropo sa l , w i th emphasis on impacts which are l i k e l y to cause major environmental d i s r u p t i o n s . " (EA panel 1977c, p. 11). The g u i d e l i n e s d i d not i n d i c a t e whether the c r i t e r i a to de f i ne "major environmental d i s r u p t i o n s " were der i ved from p u b l i c concerns. The gu i de l i ne s cou ld have focused on the concerns and d e f i c i e n c i e s i d e n t i f i e d dur ing the 1977 phase. The gu i de l i ne s s t a te t h a t " the p lann ing of study programs to assess p o t e n t i a l impacts must take i n t o account the d e f i c i e n c i e s i n environmental data i d e n t i f i e d dur ing the i n i t i a l hearings . . . " (EA panel 1977c, p. 12). However, s p e c i f i c l o c a t i o n s , w i l d l i f e popu la t i on s , and hab i t a t s along the route mentioned by i n te rvenor s were not i d e n t i f i e d . Because the c r i t e r i a , as w e l l as the r e s t of the g u i d e l i n e s , were so gene ra l , they would l i k e l y encompass any p u b l i c concerns. However, they would prov ide inadequate d i r e c t i o n to F o o t h i l l s on r e l e v a n t i s sues because they were so vague and a l l -encompass ing . They g ive the impress ion tha t the panel was attempt ing to -69 -ob ta in as much i n fo rmat ion as p o s s i b l e , w i th l i t t l e attempt to focus on the most c r i t i c a l , r e l e van t i s sues and gaps. Because the gu i de l i ne s were open to i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , F o o t h i l l s cou ld decide f o r themselves which a l t e r n a t i v e s and impacts were r e l e v a n t . Throughout the 1979 meetings and on i n t o the post-1979 phase, the panel g r adua l l y made i n c r e a s i n g l y s p e c i f i c requests about impacts and a l t e r n a t i v e s . Although these requests prov ided more d i r e c t i o n as to r e l e van t concerns, they were inadequate f o r persuading F o o t h i l l s to b r i ng forward r e l e van t i n f o r m a t i o n . F o o t h i l l s was not prepared to p r e d i c t impacts on s p e c i f i c s i t e s and resources s ince p r o j e c t d e t a i l s were not known at the p re l im ina r y design s tage. The c r i t e r i o n d e f i n i n g an important impact as one t ha t a f f e c t s "processes i n the natura l environment" (EA panel 1977c, p. 11) suggests t ha t the panel recognized the importance of f unc t i ona l l i nkages w i t h i n the ecosystem. However, the s e c t i on i n the g u i de l i n e s on d e s c r i p t i o n and assessment of impacts d id not request F o o t h i l l s to make e x p l i c i t the f un c t i o na l a na l y s i s used to p r e d i c t impacts. The panel might have intended the references and t e c h n i c a l s tud ie s " a s s oc i a ted w i t h " the impact assessment (EA panel 1977c, p. 13) , requested in another s e c t i o n , to prov ide some j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the impact p r e d i c t i o n s . However, the two separate requests gave no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t the impact p r e d i c t i o n s should be supported by an e x p l i c i t statement of the f un c t i o na l a na l y s i s on which they were based. Occa s i ona l l y dur ing the 1979 meetings the panel asked F o o t h i l l s to j u s t i f y and c l a r i f y the p r e d i c t i o n s , which cou ld be cons idered an attempt to have F o o t h i l l s make i t s f u n c t i o n a l a n a l y s i s e x p l i c i t . However, such requests were i n f r equen t . -70 -The gu i de l i n e s d id not request s p e c i f i c a l l y t ha t F o o t h i l l s make e x p l i c i t the unce r t a i n t y i n impact p r e d i c t i o n s and ways of reducing unce r t a i n t y and responding to unexpected events . The gu i de l i ne s s t a ted t ha t "where f a c t ua l data are unava i l ab l e or are of ques t ionab le q u a l i t y , the EIS should c l e a r l y s t a t e t h a t the p r ed i c t ed impact i s based on s ub j e c t i v e judgement and tha t knowledge gaps e x i s t " (EA panel 1977c, p.12). Th is statement suggests tha t the panel expected data cou ld be made a v a i l a b l e or improved. I t does not recogn ize the c o n s t r a i n t s on ob t a i n i n g data imposed by p r a c t i c a l , s t o c h a s t i c , and rea l u n c e r t a i n t i e s . The gu i de l i n e s d id not request F o o t h i l l s to make these c o n s t r a i n t s e x p l i c i t . The panel requested tha t " shou ld f u r t h e r i n fo rmat ion be requ i red to f u l l y  assess a p a r t i c u l a r impact and to prov ide f o r i t s m i t i g a t i o n , the proponent should propose s tud ie s to ob ta in i n fo rmat ion necessary f o r complet ing the  assessment." (emphasis added, EA panel 1977c, p.13). The emphasized words suggest tha t the panel assumed tha t a d d i t i o n a l s tud ie s would lead to p e r f e c t knowledge about impacts by the complet ion of the EARP rev iew. Obv ious ly , rea l unce r t a i n t y would undermine t h i s assumption. During the 1979 meetings, the panel d id not acknowledge the c o n s t r a i n t s imposed by F o o t h i l l s ' p lann ing schedule on ob ta i n i n g the s p e c i f i c i n fo rmat ion i t requested. I t d id not ask F o o t h i l l s to make e x p l i c i t the unce r t a i n t y i n p r e d i c t i o n s , which occured because of these c o n s t r a i n t s . Nor d id the panel examine the NPA's r o l e i n reducing unce r ta i n t y dur ing i t s ongoing review of the p r o j e c t . Perhaps t h i s suggests some interagency compet i t i on , but a l so suggests tha t the panel f e l t t h a t i n fo rmat ion d e f i c i e n c i e s would not p e r s i s t beyong the EARP rev iew. - 7 1 -By the post-1979 phase the panel s h i f t e d from t r y i n g to i d e n t i f y i n f o rmat i on d e f i c i e n c i e s to e s t a b l i s h i n g how F o o t h i l l s would obta in a d d i t i o n a l i n f o rmat i on and submit i t to the NPA f o r review. F o o t h i l l s ' responses would i n d i c a t e the extent of p r a c t i c a l u n c e r t a i n t y , although the panel never r e f e r r e d e x p l i c i t l y to such a concept. Several comments suggest t ha t some panel members f e l t the NPA review would a l l e v i a t e any remaining i n fo rmat ion d e f i c i e n c i e s . Th i s a t t i t u d e over looked the rea l and s t o c h a s t i c u n c e r t a i n t i e s about impacts t ha t would p e r s i s t even beyond the NPA's rev iew. 2) Did the panel request an independent assessment of impacts from sources other than the proponent? The panel requested i n fo rmat ion from government and p r i v a t e sources i n a d d i t i o n to F o o t h i l l s . Requests were p r i m a r i l y l i m i t e d to i n fo rmat ion on impacts r a the r than a l t e r n a t i v e s . Although these sources prov ided a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n , i t s scope was not comparable to tha t of F o o t h i l l s . The sources tended to assess impacts only on t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r concerns and d id not attempt an i n t e g r a t ed assessment of the f u l l range of i s s ue s , which would have been beyond t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r e s t s . The l i m i t e d scope of these analyses i n h i b i t e d t h e i r comparison w i th F o o t h i l l s ' a n a l y s i s . The panel drew ex t en s i v e l y on the t e c h n i c a l e x p e r t i s e of t h e i r adv i so r s dur ing the 1979 and post-1979 meetings f o r an independent p r e d i c t i o n of impacts. 3) In the absence of l e ga l power, was the panel p e r s i s t e n t i n p u r s u i t of r e l e v a n t i n fo rmat ion from the proponent and other sources? -72 -The panel was p e r s i s t e n t to the extent t ha t i t repeatedly requested the same in fo rmat ion from the proponent. However, as d i scussed under sec t i on 5 .2 (1 ) , the requests d id not cover a l l the r e l e van t i s s ue s . In a d d i t i o n , the requests f r equen t l y were vague and a l l -encompass ing . For example, the EIS g u i d e l i n e s requested F o o t h i l l s to cons ider major impacts t ha t " a f f e c t the l i v e l i h o o d or hea l th of segments of the p o p u l a t i o n . . . " (EA panel 1977c. p.12) and requested " b i o l o g i c a l data on w i l d l i f e popu la t ions i n s u f f i c i e n t d e t a i l to permit an e s t ima t i on of the impact of the p r o j e c t and design of m i t i g a t i n g measures" (EA panel 1977c, p.10). The ambiguity of such requests made them l e s s e f f e c t i v e i n drawing adequate i n fo rmat ion out of F o o t h i l l s . The EIS g u i d e l i n e s were so broadly s t a ted t ha t they would have encompassed many of the subsequent requests i n the p a n e l ' s 1979 r epo r t and dur ing the post-1979 phase. Yet the i n fo rmat ion d e f i c i e n c i e s p e r s i s t e d throughout the rev iew, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the repeated requests were i n e f f e c t i v e . The p a n e l ' s repeated requests were i n e f f e c t i v e not only because they were not a r igourous p u r s u i t of the i s s ue s , but a l so because they were requests to which F o o t h i l l s wou ldn ' t or c o u l d n ' t respond. F o o t h i l l s s ta ted i t would not generate the d e t a i l e d and s i t e s p e c i f i c i n fo rmat ion dur ing t h e i r " p r e l i m i n a r y p l ann i ng " stage of des ign, which was the sub jec t of the EARP rev iew. F o o t h i l l ' s sequent ia l p r o t e c t i o n p lann ing process would not normally y i e l d the s i t e s p e c i f i c i n fo rmat ion requested by the panel u n t i l f i n a l des ign. The panel requests appeared to be out of tune w i th F o o t h i l l s ' p lann ing process and F o o t h i l l s was not prepared to a c c e l e r a t e the process to meet the p a n e l ' s request s . F o o t h i l l s d id not want to commit funds to f u r t h e r p r o j e c t design u n t i l the p r o j e c t ' s f u tu re was c e r t a i n . - 73 -The i n fo rmat ion generated dur ing the review should not have been d i c t a t e d by F o o t h i l l s ' p lann ing schedule. On the other hand, the panel should have focused more on the i s sues F o o t h i l l s cou ld address and on having the unce r t a i n t y about the others made e x p l i c i t . In s tead, the panel attempted to ob ta i n d e t a i l e d impact p r e d i c t i o n s and d id not seem to recognize t ha t some i n fo rmat i on was unava i l ab l e because of p r a c t i c a l , s t o c h a s t i c , and rea l u n c e r t a i n t y . The panel i n s i s t e d t ha t i t was only concerned wi th p r e l im i na r y des i gn , but d id not i n d i c a t e why or how F o o t h i l l s might be expected to generate t h i s d e t a i l e d i n fo rmat ion wi thout advancing to more d e t a i l e d des ign. For i t s p a r t , F o o t h i l l s ' i t e r a t i v e , sequent ia l approach to p r o j e c t p lann ing was a more p r a c t i c a l means of as sess ing environmental impacts s ince i t recognized the unce r t a i n t y of p r e l im ina r y des igns. I f the panel had recognized the v a l i d i t y of t h i s approach, and t a i l o r e d i t s requests to obta in the best a v a i l a b l e i n f o rma t i on , i t s requests would have been more e f f e c t i v e . The panel cou ld have pressed F o o t h i l l s to p r e d i c t general impacts w i th an e x p l i c i t statement of the unce r t a i n t y about s p e c i f i c impacts. As i t was, F o o t h i l l s ' w i l l i n g n e s s and a b i l i t y to generate i n f o rma t i on , r a t he r than the pane l ' s repeated request s , l a r g e l y d i c t a t e d the extent of i n fo rmat ion a v a i l a b l e f o r rev iew. While the pane l ' s requests vaguely s teered F o o t h i l l s toward c e r t a i n i s s ue s , F o o t h i l l s ' design schedule determined the d e t a i l to which these i s sues were addressed. While F o o t h i l l s prov ided vague reassurances t ha t i t would e ven tua l l y generate the d e t a i l e d i n fo rmat ion requested by the pane l , the panel d id not even press F o o t h i l l s to desc r ibe how and when i t would do so. -74 -By the post-1979 phase the panel seemed to have learned to focus i t s requests on s p e c i f i c , important i s sues r a the r than attempt to cover e ve r y t h i n g . I t appeared to recognize at l e a s t the p r a c t i c a l l i m i t a t i o n s to a l l e v i a t i n g a l l i n fo rmat ion d e f i c i e n c i e s . They asked F o o t h i l l s about how i t would generate the a d d i t i o n a l i n fo rmat ion and not as much about the i n fo rmat i on i t s e l f . A l so by the post-1979 phase, c e r t a i n advantages of F o o t h i l l s ' s equent ia l p lann ing process had become apparent. F o o t h i l l s ' design had progressed to the po i n t where F o o t h i l l s cou ld prov ide more d e t a i l e d i n fo rmat ion about the p r o j e c t and the environment. When i t c o u l d n ' t prov ide the actua l i n f o rma t i on , F o o t h i l l s was more openly respons iveness about i t s plans f o r a d d i t i o n a l s t ud i e s and i t s ongoing submissions to the NPA. The panel seemed to have ad jus ted t h e i r expecta t ions to b e t t e r a l i g n them w i th F o o t h i l l s ' c a p a b i l i t y to prov ide i n f o rma t i on . The mutual adjustment over the three phases of the p a n e l ' s expecta t ions and F o o t h i l l s ' s t r a t e g i e s f o r p rov i d i ng i n fo rmat ion made the pane l ' s requests more e f f e c t i v e i n ob ta i n i ng adequate i n fo rmat ion from F o o t h i l l s . Even wi th the improvement i n the p a n e l ' s p u r s u i t of r e l e van t i s sues and i n F o o t h i l l s ' w i l l i n g n e s s and i n c l i n a t i o n to respond to panel request s , the EARP review was not a thorough a n a l y s i s of impacts of the AHGP. The review analysed the AHGP p r i m a r i l y on the bas i s of i t s own mer i t s r a the r than by comparing i t s impacts to those of r e l e van t a l t e r n a t i v e s . The AHGP was not judged f o r the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of i t s p o t e n t i a l impacts, but f o r the f e a s i b i l i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y of i t s m i t i g a t i v e measures. The a n a l y s i s was skewed p r i m a r i l y because most of the i n fo rmat ion came from F o o t h i l l s and r e f l e c t e d t h e i r i n t e r e s t s , p re fe rences , and t e c h - f i x approach to environmental p r o t e c t i o n . - 75 -Independent sources cou ld not generate comparable i n fo rmat ion and the panel cou ld not compel F o o t h i l l s to cons ider a wider range of impacts and a l t e r n a t i v e s . 5.3 REPORTING TO DECISION MAKERS Was the panel capable of r epo r t i n g a ccu ra te l y and f a i r l y t h i s i n f o rmat i on on the impacts and p u b l i c op in ions of the p r o j e c t to d e c i s i o n makers? The panel broadened i t s e x p e r t i s e by us ing a team of t e chn i c a l adv i s o r s . During the p u b l i c meetings these adv i so r s were c a l l e d on f r equen t l y to ques t ion F o o t h i l l s and to comment on F o o t h i l l s ' a n a l y s i s . They appeared to expand s i g n i f i c a n t l y the r e v i ew ' s c a p a b i l i t y to examine the complex t e chn i c a l i s sues a t s take . The b r i e f and response format of the pub l i c meetings d id not s i m p l i f y the p a n e l ' s task of s yn the s i z i n g the wide range of i s sues and op in ions presented f o r i t s f i n a l r e p o r t s . Th is format d id not prov ide the oppor tun i ty f o r the pane l , F o o t h i l l s , and i n te r veno r s to d i scuss and to re so l ve the complex, t e c h n i c a l i s sue s . On one occas ion the panel stopped a d i s cu s s i on between F o o t h i l l s and an i n t e r veno r when they were at tempt ing to reach a compromise. On another occas ion d i f f e r e n c e s of op in ion were reso lved dur ing the break between ses s ions . A f t e r the meetings the panel had to synthes i ze and draw conc lu s i on s from a wide range of i n f o rma t i on , w i th l i t t l e consensus or compromise e s t a b l i s h e d dur ing the rev iew. -76 -The panel had r a r e l y asked f o r i n t e r v e n o r s ' op in ions about the importance o f impacts, the s i g n i f i c a n c e of i n fo rmat ion gaps, and the pros and cons of the va r ious a l t e r n a t i v e s . Some i n te rveno r s had vo lunteered these op in ions but, l i k e the pane l , most had tended to i d e n t i f y i n fo rmat ion d e f i c i e n c i e s . The panel sought out op in ions to a g rea te r extent dur ing the post-1979 phase. P u b l i c op in ion about the o v e r a l l a c c e p t a b i l i t y of the p r o j e c t would have been a useful bas i s f o r the p a n e l ' s recommendations. In i t s 1977 and 1979 f i n a l r epor t s to the M i n i s t e r , the panel i d e n t i f i e d the general impacts and range of p u b l i c concerns, but d id not i n d i c a t e whether o r how these were taken i n t o account i n the recommendations. The p u b l i c would not know from the repo r t t ha t t h e i r involvement had been wor thwh i le , s ince the r epo r t d id not demonstrate e x p l i c i t l y how t h e i r concerns i n f l uenced the recommendations. Nor would d e c i s i o n makers be ab le to independently assess the v a l i d i t y of the recommendations. The p a n e l ' s r epor t a f t e r the post-1979 meetings i d e n t i f i e d more e x p l i c i t l y which i s sues and op in ions presented dur ing the meetings were app l i ed i n developing the recommendations. However, i t s t i l l d id not make e x p l i c i t how these were ranked and weighed to determine the p r e f e r r ed r o u t i n g . The re levancy of any i n fo rmat ion i n the panel repor t s to the d e c i s i o n -making process f o r the p i p e l i n e i s ques t ionnab le , which undermines the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the e n t i r e rev iew. The 1977 phase o s t e n s i b l y was to prov ide i n f o rmat i on on a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r c on s i de r a t i on i n the September 1977 d e c i s i o n about a p p r o v a l - i n - p r i n c i p i e f o r a northern p i p e l i n e . However, the monentum to proceed wi th the AHGP had been b u i l d i n g throughout the e a r l y 1970 ' s . The AHGP had been favoured over CAGSL by both the Berger and NEB r e p o r t s , both of which were re leased before the EARP p a n e l ' s r epor t was submitted to the M i n i s t e r . -77 -Subsequent dec i s i on s about how to b u i l d the p i p e l i n e were e f f e c t i v e l y made i nc rementa l l y w i th each new d r a f t of the NPA's terms and c o n d i t i o n s . L a t e r d r a f t s do not d i f f e r much from e a r l i e r d r a f t s so d id not seem to be i n f l u e n c e d much by the p a n e l ' s r epo r t s . The Ibex r epo r t to the M i n i s t e r was r e l ea sed a f t e r the f i n a l d r a f t terms and c o n d i t i o n s . Some compet i t i veness and h o s t i l i t y between the NPA and FEARO had been ev ident such tha t the NPA even commented e a r l y i n the post-1979 phase t ha t i t s review of the p r o j e c t was c e r t a i n l y not cont ingent on the p a n e l ' s r e c e i p t of a r e v i s ed EIS reviewed by the panel (NPA 1980b). The re levancy of the EARP mate r i a l has improved somewhat now tha t the AHGP has been postoned. This prov ides the lead time to i nco rpo ra te the EARP mate r i a l i n t o another set of terms and c o n d i t i o n s . Even i f another d r a f t i s not prepared, the mate r i a l cou ld be used to i n t e r p r e t the f a i r l y general terms and cond i t i on s once they are a p p l i e d i n the f i e l d . Although the NPA acknowleged tha t the two reviews overlapped (NPA 1982), both the NPA and i n te rveno r s recogn ized tha t the EARP review prov ided the oppor tun i t y f o r a p u b l i c review of the i s sues (NPA 1982, EA panel 1981a). 5.4 CONCLUSIONS EARP a p p l i e d to the AHGP was i n e f f e c t i v e as a mechanism f o r assess ing impacts and communicating t h i s assessment to decison makers. More s p e c i f i c a l l y : 1) p u b l i c concerns and op in ions were not adequately r e f l e c t e d i n the impact assessment s i nce p u b l i c involvement was r e a c t i v e ; not a l l a f f e c t e d i n t e r e s t s cou ld be i n v o l v e d , and i n te r veno r s were poor ly informed. These drawbacks were due i n par t to the lack of funding and the pub l i c involvement procedures, which were app l i ed a t the panel cha i rman ' s d i s c r e t i o n ; - 78 -2) the panel requests f o r i n fo rmat ion from F o o t h i l l s d id not cover or r i g o r o u s l y pursue a l l r e l e van t i s s ue s . Repeated requests by i n te rveno r s and the panel were i n s u f f i c i e n t to pressure F o o t h i l l s i n t o responding wi th an impact assessment t ha t addressed t h e i r requests and made unce r ta i n t y expl i c i t ; 3) although the panel was capable of summarizing the range of op in ions and impacts i d e n t i f i e d dur ing the review i n i t s r epo r t to d e c i s i o n makers, the panel d id not i n d i c a t e whether or how these i n f l uenced t h e i r recommendations to the M i n i s t e r on the f u tu re of the p r o j e c t . 4) extending the review to three phases r e s u l t e d i n some improvements to the rev iew: p u b l i c involvement procedures were t i gh tened up and i n fo rmat ion b e t t e r d i s t r i b u t e d ; the panel had adjusted t h e i r requests to obta in the best i n f o rmat i on a v a i l a b l e from F o o t h i l l s ' s equent ia l p lann ing process ; and design had progressed to the po i n t where F o o t h i l l s cou ld prov ide a d d i t i o n a l i n fo rmat i on to meet panel request s . -79 -6.0 DISCUSSION S i g n i f i c a n t weaknesses i n EARP's procedures to assess impacts and communicate t h i s assessment to d e c i s i o n makers were ev ident i n the AHGP rev iew. A major f a c t o r i s EARP's t o t a l r e l i a n c e on the vo lunta ry co -ope ra t i on of a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s . EARP's one-shot and p r o j e c t s p e c i f i c approach and lack of p o l i c y context h inder p a r t i c i p a n t s ' f u l l c o - ope r a t i o n . Unco-operat ive p a r t i c i p a n t s cannot be compelled to p a r t i c i p a t e f u l l y . These procedural weaknesses e x p l a i n the p u b l i c s ' u nw i l l i n gne s s and i n a b i l i t y to be i n vo l v ed ; the poor q u a l i t y of the p a n e l ' s reques t s ; and F o o t h i l l s ' inadequate responses t o panel requests . Because p u b l i c involvement procedures are at the panel cha i rman ' s d i s c r e t i o n , the t im ing of involvement, c i r c u l a t i o n of b r i e f s , schedul ing and format of p u b l i c meetings, and p r o v i s i o n of funds were i n c o n s i s t e n t i n the AHGP review between phases of the review and w i th other EARP rev iews. In t h i s p a r t i c u l a r rev iew, p u b l i c involvement was r e a c t i v e , i n fo rmat ion was poor ly c i r c u l a t e d , funds were u n a v a i l a b l e , and the v a r i a b i l i t y i n procedures h indered those a f f e c t e d i n p lann ing an e f f e c t i v e i n t e r v e n t i o n . These weaknesses i n p u b l i c involvement procedures r e s t r a i n e d express ion of p u b l i c op in ions and t h e i r subsequent a p p l i c a t i o n i n the impact assessment. Dec i s i on makers cou ld not be informed of the f u l l range of i n t e r e s t s a f f e c t e d by the p r o j e c t . There was an i nherent b i a s i n EARP toward the proponent ' s i n t e r e s t s because of the p r o j e c t - s p e c i f i c focus . Panel requests were l i m i t e d to an a n a l y s i s of F o o t h i l l s ' p r e f e r r e d design on the bas i s of i t s own mer i t s because F o o t h i l l s was not i n c l i n e d , and other sources were unable, to generate - 80 -i n f o rmat i on on a range of a l t e r n a t i v e s . Dec i s i on makers cou ld t h e r e f o r e , not be informed of the f u l l range of a l t e r n a t i v e s and e f f e c t s r e l e van t to those a f f e c t e d . The p a n e l ' s f a i l u r e to address unce r ta i n t y i n the p r e d i c t i o n s of impacts i s understandable because the concept of unce r t a i n t y was not we l l understood a t the time of the AHGP rev iew. Instead, because of EARP's one-shot approach to impacts, the panel entered a lengthy search f o r c e r t i t u d e i n p r e d i c t i o n s , not recogn i z ing the f u t i l i t y i n t h i s u n t i l the t h i r d phase, when i t began to request i n fo rmat ion on f o l l ow-up s tud ie s and mon i to r i ng . Dec i s i on makers were t h e r e f o r e , not informed adequately of unce r t a i n t y i n p r e d i c t i o n s of e f f e c t s . The vague and a l l -encompass ing nature of the p a n e l ' s requests r e f l e c t the l ack of a p o l i c y context to prov ide d i r e c t i o n to panels about the r e l a t i v e importance of va r ious i s s ue s . In the AHGP rev iew, F o o t h i l l s had cons ide rab le freedom to i n t e r p r e t such vague request s . As a r e s u l t the a n a l y s i s and i n fo rmat ion conveyed to d e c i s i o n makers r e f l e c t e d i t s own i n t e r e s t s and p re fe rences . In the absence of l e ga l power such as cross examination or subpoena, the AHGP panel cou ld not ensure t ha t F o o t h i l l s and other sources provided r e l e van t i n fo rmat i on i n response to the p a n e l ' s requests . Under these cond i t i on s the p u r s u i t of i s sues i s c r i t i c a l to ob ta i n i ng i n f o rma t i on . However, the AHGP panel expended t h e i r e f f o r t s on requests to which F o o t h i l l s cou ld not, or would not, respond. The i n c a p a b i l i t y of EARP's a d m i n i s t r a t i v e mandate to ensure reviews have meaningful i nput to dec i s i on s revea led i t s e l f i n the ambiguity of EARP's r o l e i n dec i s i o n making about the AHGP. In 1977, the i n t e r i m review was rushed to accommodate the September dead l ine of a p p r o v a l - i n - p r i n c i p i e . This prevented - 8 1 -the panel from conduct ing a r i go rous rev iew. Because of i t s subsequent over lap wi th the NPA review EARP was cons idered by some in te rvenor s and F o o t h i l l s to be redundant or i r r e l e v a n t . These s i t u a t i o n s c on t r i bu ted to i n t e r v e n o r s ' s c ep t i c i sm about the e f f i c a c y of EARP and to the under-r ep re sen ta t i on of p u b l i c i n t e r e s t s . A f u r t h e r source of s c ep t i c i sm was the p a n e l ' s f a i l u r e to i n d i c a t e whether, or how, p u b l i c op in ions were app l i ed when f o rmu la t i ng recommendations. The panel had no e x p l i c i t p o l i c y context with which to weigh op in ions and to j u s t i f y t h e i r recommendations. S ince the panel d id not make e x p l i c i t the bas i s on which the recommendations were made, d e c i s i o n makers and the pub l i c cou ld not judge the v a l i d i t y of the recommendations. EARP's procedural weaknesses can be summarized as i t s d i s c r e t i o n a r y na tu re , p r o j e c t - s p e c i f i c and one-shot approach, lack of p o l i c y context and lack of l ega l power. Prev ious ana l y s t s have observed weaknesses i n other EARP reviews s i m i l a r to those of the AHGP review (CEAC 1979, DOE 1979, Emond 1978, Davidson 1981, FEARO 1980a, Rees 1979, 1981). However, the more sharp ly de f i ned focus , inc reased r i g o u r , and gene ra l l y improved conduct of the AHGP review tha t occurred g radua l l y over the four years r e f l e c t e d an improvement i n EARP reviews i n general over t h i s pe r i od . The e vo l u t i o n i n EARP's procedures was most ev ident i n the recent Beaufor t Sea Hydrocarbon Development rev iew. This p r o j e c t was r e f e r r e d f o r a panel review i n J u l y 1980 j u s t as the AHGP was en te r i ng i t s f i n a l post-1979 phase. As one of the f i r s t steps of the rev iew, the M i n i s t e r of the Environment i s sued Terms of Reference to the pane l . These de l i nea ted " the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the pane l , the review process i t was to f o l l o w and the expec ta t i on s tha t the federa l government (had) f o r the rev iew" (Beaufort Sea -82 -EA panel 1982, p. 9 ) . In compliance w i th these Terms of Reference, the panel i s sued an o u t l i n e of opera t i ona l procedures de s c r i b i n g " the procedures the Panel w i l l f o l l o w general review p r i n c i p l e s , use of t e chn i c a l s p e c i a l i s t s , the conduct of p u b l i c meetings, review of d r a f t EIS g u i d e l i n e s , and the review of the EIS" (Beaufort Sea EA Panel 1982, p. 2 ) . The panel a l so he ld p u b l i c meetings to r ece i ve comments on the Terms of Reference, Operat iona l Procedures, and EIS Gu ide l i ne s as we l l as ho ld ing meetings to review the EIS. A program f o r funding i n te rvenor s was e s t a b l i s h e d . Whi le p a r t i c i p a n t s have expressed some concerns about the review ( p r i m a r i l y over i t s scope and context and the i n te r veno r funding) (Beaufort Sea EA Panel 1982, Beaufort Sea Research C o a l i t i o n 1981, Beaufort Sea A l l i a n c e 1983, CARC 1982b), the procedural i nnovat ions apparent ly address some of the c r i t i c i s m s l e v e l e d at prev ious rev iews. In f a c t , FEARO has p u b l i c l y i d e n t i f i e d some of these procedural i nnovat ions as cu r r en t p r a c t i c e or adopted p o l i c y and i s i n v e s t i g a t i n g the f e a s i b i l i t y of some others (Robinson 1983). For example, "Terms of Reference, which are normal ly very e x p l i c i t , are now d i scussed i n d e t a i l between FEARO and the departments request ing rev iews" (Robinson 1983, p. 5 ) ; and FEARO has "adopted the p o l i c y tha t panels should seek to scope the i s sues they are to assess before the EIS i s w r i t t e n " (Robinson 1983, p. 5 ) . FEARO purpor t s to be making an e f f o r t to develop "core procedures . . . aimed at ensur ing a g rea te r cons i s tency of p r a c t i c e among rev iews, and at making the process more p r e d i c t a b l e f o r p a r t i c i p a n t s " as a means of improving the management of reviews (Robinson 1983, p. 7 ) . FEARO i s examining the i s sue of review schedules w i th deadl ines and i n te r veno r funding (Robinson 1983). - 83 -Such a c t i o n s , i f implemented c o n s i s t e n t l y and e f f e c t i v e l y , would a l l e v i a t e several of EARP's weaknesses t ha t were observed i n the AHGP rev iew. FEARO i s c u r r e n t l y i nvo l ved i n an in terdepartmenta l review of EARP t h a t w i l l r e s u l t i n a Cabinet d i s cu s s i on paper (Robinson 1982, FEARO 1980a). As y e t however, no procedures have been f o rma l l y r ev i sed through changes i n the o r i g i n a l Cab inet Memorandum on EARP. The recommendations i n the f o l l o w i n g s ec t i on address themselves to the procedural weaknesses of the AHGP rev iew. While recogn i z i ng tha t cu r r en t p r a c t i c e and FEARO's s ta ted p o l i c y might a l ready conform to some of these recommendations, they are intended to suggest improvements tha t should be f o rma l l y adopted through changes i n the o r i g i n a l Cab inet Memorandum on EARP. -84-7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations f o l l o w i n g from t h i s a na l y s i s of EARP address the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EARP shown to impa i r i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s as a mechanism f o r a s se s s ing impacts and conveying t h i s assessment to d e c i s i o n makers: namely, i t s d i s c r e t i o n a r y nature, lack of l ega r power, one-shot approach, lack of p o l i c y con tex t , and p r o j e c t - s p e c i f i c focus . 7.1 CONDUCT OF FORMAL REVIEWS The panel should e s t a b l i s h a schedule tha t a l lows s u f f i c i e n t time f o r p u b l i c d i s t r i b u t i o n and review of the EIS g u i d e l i n e s , repor t s by t e chn i ca l adv i so r s to the pane l , the EIS, and responses to d e f i c i e n c y statements. For example, the AHGP panel a l lowed 60 days f o r review of the proponent ' s Ibex Pass i n f o rmat i on . P u b l i c meetings should attempt to f o l l o w an agenda developed by the pane l . The panel should encourage i n te rvenor s to p r e - r e g i s t e r f o r appropr i a te ses s ions and to submit any w r i t t e n b r i e f s i n advance. The AHGP panel requ i red w r i t t e n b r i e f s 24 hours i n advance of the Ibex Pass meetings. The panel should d i s t r i b u t e a proposed schedule and agenda f o r review and comment by i n t e r e s t e d members of the p u b l i c and the proponent before being f i n a l i z e d . The schedule and agenda should be f l e x i b l e enough to accommodate delays w h i l e s i g n i f i c a n t i n fo rmat ion d e f i c i e n c i e s are addressed and to i nco rpo ra te any a d d i t i o n a l r e l e van t t o p i c s . - 85 -Having s u f f i c i e n t time to review the a v a i l a b l e i n fo rmat ion would enable those a f f e c t e d to prepare more e f f e c t i v e i n t e r v e n t i o n s . Fo l l ow ing a schedule and agenda would help to t i g h t e n up the proceedings and keep them focused on r e l e v a n t i s sue s . Funding should be a v a i l a b l e to a s s i s t those a f f e c t e d to in tervene i n formal rev iews. Having funds a v a i l a b l e f o r attendance at meetings and f o r p repa ra t i on of b r i e f s would make the p u b l i c meetings a c c e s s i b l e to a wider range of pub l i c i n t e r e s t s . I t would a l so enable i n te rvenor s to become more informed about the p r o j e c t and i t s p o t e n t i a l impacts and as a r e s u l t to c o n t r i b u t e r e l e van t and supor tab le analyses to the p u b l i c meetings. These i n t e r v e n t i o n s would prov ide panels w i th a d d i t i o n a l and independent sources of i n f o rmat i on about the p r o j e c t . P o s s i b l e sources of funding cou ld be FEARO, the i n i t i a t i n g department, and the proponent. The p u b l i c meetings should remain informal r a the r than become q u a s i - j u d i c i a l hear ings . Informal procedures l i k e l y are l e s s i n t i m i d a t i n g and as a r e s u l t , encourage wider p a r t i c i p a t i o n by those a f f e c t e d . They are a l so more i n keeping wi th EARP's c o - ope ra t i ve s p i r i t , f o s te red over the past ten y e a r s . These var ious procedural improvements would encourage and f a c i l i t a t e p a r t i c i p a t i o n and co -ope ra t i on i n a rev iew. 7.2 CHANGES IN CABINET MEMORANDUM The a p p l i c a t i o n of EARP to a l l f edera l p r o j e c t s should be requ i red by law. The law cou ld e s t a b l i s h the p r i n c i p l e s of EARP wi th which federa l p r o j e c t s would be requ i red to comply. However, f u l f i l l m e n t of EARP's s p e c i f i c -86 -requirements should remain an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to respect present M i n i s t e r i a l d i s c r e t i o n and d i v i s i o n of powers. The e x i s t i n g Cab inet Memorandum on EARP should be amended through Cabinet d e c i s i o n to s pec i f y the r u l e s of conduct of formal reviews as desc r ibed above. I t should a l so s pec i f y t ha t a panel conducts a pub l i c review of the EIS g u i d e l i n e s and t ha t the M i n i s t e r of Environment i s sues panel terms of r e f e r ence , i n accordance w i th cu r r en t p r a c t i c e . A c l e a r statement i n the Cab inet Memorandum s p e c i f y i n g the requirements f o r pub l i c reviews would remove some of the panel cha i rmen ' s d i s c r e t i o n a r y con t r o l over procedures and would improve the cons i s tency in procedures between rev iews. The panel terms of re fe rence would be i s sued at the beginning of each review s p e c i f y i n g the review procedures and r o l e s of p a r t i c i p a n t s . The terms of re ference should s t a te the purpose of p u b l i c involvement and i n d i c a t e at which po int s i n the review the p u b l i c would have an oppor tun i ty to comment. The terms of re ference should r equ i r e the panel chairman to e s t a b l i s h a review schedule and agenda as we l l as the procedures f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n and review of i n fo rmat i on before the meetings. The terms of re fe rence should a l so s pec i f y the c r i t e r i a f o r p r o v i s i o n of funding to i n t e r veno r s . S p e c i f y i n g EARP procedures and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s more p r e c i s e l y i n the terms of re fe rence would improve the p a r t i c i p a n t s ' a b i l i t y to f unc t i on e f f e c t i v e l y , knowing what to expect. I t would a l so help persuade p a r t i c i p a n t s to p a r t i c i p a t e s e r i o u s l y because the other p a r t i c i p a n t s would know what was expected of them. With a l e g i s l a t e d requirement to apply EARP and wi th procedures more c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d i n the Cab inet Memorandum EARP's c r e d i b i l i t y and pub l i c p r o f i l e would improve. A wider range of pub l i c i n t e r e s t s would be encouraged to co-operate and to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the rev iews. - 87 -7.3 A PHASED APPROACH The EARP formal review should be r e s t r u c t u r e d from i t s cu r r en t one-shot approach to one tha t i n t e g r a t e s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of environmental matters i n phases throughout p r o j e c t p l ann ing . Th is phased environmental assessment should be l i n k e d to mon i tor ing of p r o j e c t implementation and ope ra t i on . In the i n i t i a l stage of a phased review a panel would have the oppor tun i t y to determine the scope of i s sues to be addressed dur ing the d e t a i l e d review of a p r o j e c t . The panel would seek out op in ions from the p u b l i c and t e chn i c a l rev iewers to determine which i s sues were cons idered important and what i n fo rmat ion was needed to review these i s sue s . Panels cou ld then focus t h e i r EIS Gu ide l i ne s on these important i s sues and i n fo rmat ion needs. A f t e r t h i s scoping e x e r c i s e , the panel would undertake a more d e t a i l e d assessment of the p re l im ina r y design of the p r o j e c t . The p u b l i c would have the oppor tun i ty to comment on the EIS g u i d e l i n e s , then to review and comment on the EIS, as they do c u r r e n t l y . EARP should prov ide an a d d i t i o n a l oppor tun i t y f o r pub l i c review and comment at the more d e t a i l e d design stage of the p r o j e c t . As the EARP rev iew of the AHGP demonstrated, t h i s a d d i t i o n a l stage of review would prov ide an oppor tun i ty f o r the pub l i c to see and comment on how t h e i r concerns were accommodated i n the proponent ' s plans and i n the p a n e l ' s recommendations; f o r the panel to narrow t h e i r ana l y s i s to a few c r i t i c a l i s s ue s ; and f o r the proponent to b e t t e r i n t e g r a t e environmental assessment w i th i t s ongoing p r o j e c t p lann ing . The phased approach would a l l ow EARP panels to analyse impacts i n more d e t a i l and to recommend more s p e c i f i c m i t i g a t i v e measures us ing the a d d i t i o n a l i n fo rmat i on generated as design progressed. The phased review would be -88-completed before the f i n a l d e t a i l e d design stage of p r o j e c t p lann ing . Once the panel had submitted i t s f i n a l repor t to the M i n i s t e r , ongoing c o n s i d e r a t i o n of environmental i m p l i c a t i o n s of the p r o j e c t would be d e a l t with through a mon i tor ing program. C u r r e n t l y , EARP i s not we l l l i n k e d to p r o j e c t implementation s ince there i s no e s t a b l i s h e d process to monitor the p r o j e c t once the panel submits i t s r e p o r t to the M i n i s t e r . The M i n i s t e r of Environment and M i n i s t e r of the i n i t i a t i n g department should be requ i red to r epo r t p u b l i c l y whether they accept the panel recommendations and how the recommendations are to be implemented. The i n i t i a t i n g department should be re spons i b l e f o r implementing a mon i to r ing program to determine whether f i n a l design and p r o j e c t implementat ion and operat ion comply w i th panel recommendations and to t e s t the accuracy of impact p r e d i c t i o n s . Resu l t s of the mon i tor ing should be p u b l i c l y reported to i n d i c a t e to both panels and p a r t i c i p a n t s how t h e i r e f f o r t s i n the EARP review had i n f l uenced the f i n a l r e s u l t . The r e s u l t s should a l so be recorded f o r use i n improving the p r e d i c t i v e c a p a b i l i t y i n f u t u r e impact assessments. EARP panels should i d e n t i f y the p r o j e c t and environmental components r e q u i r i n g mon i to r i ng . With a mon i tor ing program to i d e n t i f y and respond to unexpected impacts, panels would not be compelled to search f o r c e r t i t u d e i n impact assessment. 7.4 POLICY CONTEXT Th i s recommendation does not r equ i re changes to EARP per se but i s e s s e n t i a l because i t e s t a b l i s h e s the re levance of the e n t i r e process. An - 89 -i n t e g r a t e d p o l i c y on environmental i s sues of northern resource development should be developed. This p o l i c y should e s t a b l i s h the r e l a t i v e p r i o r i t i e s of environmental p r o t e c t i o n , energy s e l f s u f f i c i e n c y , resource development, and o the r i s sues r e l a t e d to resource use i n the no r th . Th i s p o l i c y would prov ide a context f o r EARP. I t would i n d i c a t e to panels the most r e l e v a n t , high p r i o r i t y i s sues to which t h e i r requests f o r i n fo rmat i on and op in ions should be d i r e c t e d . They cou ld more r i g o r o u s l y pursue op in ions on these i s sues and formulate t h e i r recommendations using the p o l i c y as a e v a l u a t i v e framework. The panel cou ld use the p o l i c y to j u s t i f y to i n te rveno r s whether and how t h e i r concerns were cons idered. 7.5 EARP AND PLANNING Th i s i n t e g r a t ed p o l i c y would e s t a b l i s h environmental goals f o r a northern resource development s t r a tegy . The p o l i c y should be implemented through a r eg i ona l p lann ing program tha t i n v e s t i g a t e s a l t e r n a t i v e development s t r a t e g i e s to achieve these goa l s . The program would examine a l t e r n a t i v e uses of resources and a l t e r n a t i v e types of resource development p r o j e c t s . Once the need f o r c e r t a i n types of p r o j e c t s had been e s t a b l i s h e d , EARP would examine t h e i r environmental impacts i n d e t a i l . As such, the p lanning program would prov ide a framework w i th which to conduct EARP's p r o j e c t - s p e c i f i c rev iews. -90 -BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Beaufor t Sea A l l i a n c e . 1983. The Beaufort Sea Environmental assessment: o f pane l s , a l l i a n c e s and hear ings . Northern Pe r s pec t i v e s , _11 (3) :4. 2. Beaufor t Sea EA Pane l . 1982. Beaufort Sea Hydrocarbon Product ion P r opo sa l . In ter im Report of the Environmental Assessment P a n e l . A p r i l . 3. Beaufor t Sea Research C o a l i t i o n . 1981. Comments on the d r a f t g u i de l i ne s f o r the Beaufort Sea Hydrocarbon P roduct ion p roposa l . November. 4. Berger, J u s t i c e , T. 1977. Northern F r o n t i e r , Northern Homeland. The Report of the Mackenzie V a l l e y P i p e l i n e I nqu i r y . V o l . I. 5. Bregha, F. 1979. Bob B l a i r ' s P i p e l i n e . Toronto: J . Lor imer. 6. CARC. 1982. The A laska Highway p i p e l i n e : three years l a t e r . Northern P e r s p e c t i v e s . 10 (3):12. 7. CARC. 1982b. A quest ion of p r i n c i p l e . Beaufort Sea Research C o a l i t i o n d i sbands. 10 (4) :12. 8. CEAC. 1979. Environmental Assessment and Review Process . Observat ions and Recommendations. Rpt. to M i n i s t e r of Environment Canada. Canadian Environmental Adv i so ry C o u n c i l . 9. C h r e t i e n , J . 1972. Canada's North: 1970-1980. Department of Indian A f f a i r s and Northern Development. 10. Davidson, M. A. 1981. P o l i c y and dec i s ion-making i n the no r th : the case o f Lancaster Sound. Masters Thes i s . School of Community and Regional P l ann i ng , Univ. of B r i t i s h Columbia. 11. D i c k e r t , T. C. 1974. Methods f o r environmental impact assessment: a comparison. Pp. 127-143 i_n D i c k e r t , T. G. and K. R. Domeny ( ed s . ) . Environmental Impact Assessment: Gu ide l i ne s and Commentary.) Be rke l y : Univ. Ex tens ion , Univ. of C a l i f o r n i a . 12. DOE. 1979. Notes r e spec t i n g a workshop to d i scuss the federa l EARP. Vancouver, B.C. December 17. 13. Dorcey, A .H . J , and K . J . H a l l . 1981. S e t t i n g E c o l o g i c a l Research  P r i o r i t i e s : the A r t of the Imposs ible i n th"e~Fraser E s tuary . Westwater Research Centre, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. 14. Dosman, E . J . 1975. The Nat iona l I n t e r e s t : The P o l i t i c s of Northern  Devel opment.) Toronto"! McLe l land and Stewart L t d . 15. EA Pane l . 1977a. In ter im repo r t of the Environmental Assessment Panel to the Honourable Romeo Leb lanc , M i n i s t e r of F i s h e r i e s and the Environment. J u l y 27. - 9 1 -16. EA Pane l . 1977b. T r a n s c r i p t s of pub l i c hear ings , AHGP. May 30 - Ju l y 14. V o l s . 17. EA Pane l . 1977c. Gu ide l i ne s f o r the p repara t ion of an environmental impact statement f o r the F o o t h i l l s (Yukon) L i m i t e d gas p i p e l i n e - Yukon T e r r i t o r y - Canada. December. 18. EA Pane l . 1979a. T r a n s c r i p t s of pub l i c hear ings , AHGP. March 19 -Ap r i l 28. Vo l s . 19. EA Pane l . 1979b. A laska Highway Gas P i p e l i n e . Yukon Hearings (March-A p r i l 1979). Rpt. to the M i n i s t e r of the Environment. August. 20. EA Pane l . 1980a. L e t t e r to J . K. Naysmith, A s s t . A d m i n i s t r a t o r , NPA from J . S. K l e n a v i c , Chairman, EA Pane l . August 1, 1980. 21. EA Pane l . 1980b. L e t t e r to A.B. Yates , Deputy A d m i n i s t r a t o r , NPA from E.R. C o t t e r i l l , Chairman, EA Pane l . December 18, 1980. 22. EA Pane l . 1981a. T r a n s c r i p t s of pub l i c hear ings , AHGP. June 16-18. V o l s . I- I I I. 23. EA Pane l . 1981b. A laska Highway Gas P i p e l i n e P r o j e c t . Routing A l t e r n a t i v e s . Whitehorse/Ibex Region. Report of the EA Pane l . J u l y . 24. Emond, P. 1978. Environmental Assessment Law i n Canada. Toronto: Emond-Montgomery L t d . 25. FEARO. 1978. De t a i l ed o u t l i n e of contents of the Cabinet Memorandum e s t a b l i s h i n g the federa l Environmental Assessment and Review Process . A p r i l 1, 1978. 26. FEARO. 1979. Revised guide to the federa l Environmental Assessment and Review Process . May. 27. FEARO. 1980a. Background paper. The federa l Environmental Assessment and Review Proces s . Interdepartmental D i s c . Pap. September. 28. FEARO. 1980b. Minutes of a meeting between the NPA, F o o t h i l l s P i p e l i n e L im i t ed and the AHGP Environmental Assessment P a n e l , he ld i n Calgary on August 7, 1980. 29. FEARO. 1980c. Minutes of September 11 meeting of Environmental Assessment P a n e l , NPA and F o o t h i l l s P i p e l i n e L im i t ed at NPA, Calgary a t 10:00 a.m. September 11, 1980. 30. FEARO. 1980d. Record of a t r i l a t e r a l meeting between the NPA, F o o t h i l l s P i p e l i n e L im i t ed and the AHGP Environmental Assessment Panel held i n Calgary on August 7, 1980 f o r the purpose of c l a r i f y i n g po int s i n the Panel r epo r t of September, 1979. 31. FEARO. 1980e. Record of a t r i l a t e r a l meeting September 11. Meeting of Environmental Assessment P a n e l , NPA and F o o t h i l l s P i p e l i n e L im i t ed at NPA, Ca lgary at 10:00 a.m., September 11, 1980. -92-32. FEARO. 1982. Beaufort Sea Hydrocarbon P roduct ion P ropo sa l . In ter im Rpt. o f the Environmental Assessment P a n e l . 33. F o o t h i l l s P ipe L ines (Yukon) L t d . 1979a. S t rategy f o r responding to the EA Panel on the A la ska Highway Gas P i p e l i n e . September 27, 1979. 34. F o o t h i l l s P ipe L ines (Yukon) L t d . 1979b. Environmental Impact Statement f o r the A laska Highway Gas P i p e l i n e . January. 35. F o o t h i l l s P ipe L ines (Yukon) L t d . 1980a. Minutes of E.A.P. meeting -F r i day March 7, 1980. 36. Fox, I.K. 1978. Background mate r i a l f o r workshop on pub l i c involvement i n p i p e l i n e impact management. A laska Highway P i p e l i n e Pane l . 37. Gamble, D.J. 1978. The Berger i n q u i r y : an impact assessment process. Sc ience . 199 (3):946-952. 38. Haefe le , E. T. 1973. Representat i ve Government and Environmental  Management. Ba l t imo re : Pub l i shed f o r Resources f o r the Future by Johns Hopkins Univ. P re s s . B a l t imo re : The Johns Hopkins Univ. P re s s . 39. Ho l i s k o , G. 1980. The environmental assessment and review process: an a n a l y s i s of the screen ing process. Master The s i s . School of Community and Regional P l ann ing , Univ. of B r i t i s h Columbia. 40. H o l l i n g , C.S. ( e d . ) . 1978. Adapt ive Environmental Assessment and  Management. Oxford: John Wiley and Sons. 41. Mayo, H.B. 1960. An I n t r oduc t i on to Democratic Theory. New York: Harvard Univ. P res s . 42. NPA. 1979. Yukon environmental terms and cond i t i on s and r e l a t e d g u i d e l i n e s . A la ska Highway Gas P i p e l i n e . D r a f t I I . February 1, 1979. 43. NPA. 1980a. Northern p i p e l i n e socio-economic and environmental terms and c o n d i t i o n s f o r the Yukon T e r r i t o r y i n c l u d i n g environmental g u i d e l i n e s . D r a f t I I I . September. 44. NPA. 1980b. Memo to M. Sharp, Commissioner, NPA e t . a l . from J . K . Naysmith, A s s i s t a n t A d m i n i s t r a t o r , NPA. B r i e f i n g note Re: Environmental Assessment and Review Process f o r meeting January 17, 1980. January 16, 1980. 45. NPA. 1980c. L e t t e r to M.E. Stewart , Execut ive V i ce P r e s i d e n t , F o o t h i l l s P ipe L ines (Yukon) L t d . from A.B. Yates , Deputy A d m i n i s t r a t o r , NPA. March 21, 1980. 46. NPA. 1980d. Memo from J . K . Naysmith, A s s i s t a n t A d m i n i s t r a t o r , NPA to f i l e . Summary of events r e l a t e d to F o o t h i l l s (South Yukon) EIS and the EARP. December 12, 1980. 47. NPA. 1982. L e t t e r to G. McKee from A.B. Yates, Deputy A d m i n i s t r a t o r , NPA. February 23, 1982. - 93 -48. Rawls, J . 1971. A Theory of J u s t i c e . Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P res s . 49. Rees, W.E. 1979. R e f l e c t i o n s on the Environmental Assessment and Review Proces s . CARC Working Pap. No. 1. 50. Rees, W.E. 1980. Government a t sea i n the Beaufor t . Northern P e r s p e c t i v e s . VI I I (2 ) : 1-12. 51. Rees, W.E. 1981. Environmental assessment and the p lann ing process i n Canada. Workshop on Environmental Assessment. Univ. of Melbourne, A u s t r a l i a . 17-20 February. 52. Robinson, R.M. 1982. L e t t e r to G. Mckee from R.M. Robinson, Execut ive Chairman, FEARO. December 6, 1982. 53. Robinson, R.M. 1983. Notes f o r an address by R.M. Robinson, Execut ive Chairman, FEARO, wh i l e p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n a panel on The Future of Environmental Impact Assessment i n Canada. U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto. October 27, 1983. 54. Wi l son, V.S. 1981. Canadian P u b l i c P o l i c y and A d m i n i s t r a t i o n : Theory and  Environment. McGraw-Hi l l Ryerson L i m i t e d . 

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.831.1-0096126/manifest

Comment

Related Items