Environmental Assessment Program

Environmental Assessment Program
Annual Report 1997-1998
June 1998

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary

Purpose

Assessments : Highlights

Ontario

• TransCanada PipeLines 1998 Facilities Application

Quebec

• Magnesium plant in Asbestos (Magnola Project)
• TQM proposal to construct a pipeline to connect with PNGTS

Pacific & Yukon

• The Keenleyside Project
• McNab Creek LNG Storage Facility

Atlantic

• Terra Nova
• Sable Gas

Prairie & Northern

• Cheviot Mine
• Little Bow Project/Highwood Diversion Plan
• Cumulative Effects Initiative — Oilsands
• Alliance Natural Gas Pipeline
• Uranium Mining Development

Harmonization

A Success Story

Projects / Activities

• Figure 1: RA Activity by Region
• Figure 2: FA / Expert referrals by Region
• Figure 3: FA / Expert Activities by Referring Group

Policy Assessment

• Envrionmental Assessment Science Committee (EASC)
• Chile-Canada Cooperation

EA Tools

• National Environmental Assessment System
• Infolane - Green Lane
• Close-Up on EA

Guidance Materials

• Guide pour l'évaluation des impacts sur les oiseaux
• Cumulative Environmental Assessment (CEA) Guide

Training

• !A!A 97 - New Orleans
• Practitioners Workshop November 1997

Auditor General

• EC's Relative Performance

Looking to the Future

Glossary

Abbreviations

Questions and enquiries regarding this report should be directed to:

Ruth Thoms
Environmental Assessment Branch
Environmental Protection Service
Environment Canada
351 St. Joseph Blvd.,
17th floor
Hull, Quebec
K1A 0H3
Tel.: (819) 953-5333
Fax: (819) 953-4093
Email: Ruth.Thoms@ec.gc.ca

© Minister of Public Works and Government Services 1998

Environmental Assessment Program
Annual Report 1997-1998

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Annual Report provides an overview of the activities of Environment Canada's National Environmental Assessment (EA) Program for the 1997-1998 fiscal year.

The National EA Program consists of Environmental Protection Service (EPS), Environmental Conservation Service (ECS) and Atmospheric Environment Service (AES) staff from both Headquarters and the five Regional Offices who contribute to meeting the Department's EA responsibilities. The Headquarters component of the Program includes the Environmental Assessment Branch as well as EA ‘practitioners' residing in the National Hydrology Research Institute in (Saskatoon, Saskatchewan), the National Water Research Institute (Burlington, Ontario) and the National Wildlife Research Institute (Hull, Québec).

The bulk of the National EA Program mandate stems from its responsibilities related to the EA of projects, as set out the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). The 1997-1998 fiscal year is the third fiscal year that the Act, and its four key regulations, have been in force. Once again, the Program has been very busy addressing more than 1800 project EAs. Our advice as an "expert" science department has influenced the design and outcome of these projects. Under MOUs and Harmonization Agreements, EC has seen fruitful cooperation with other federal and provincial agencies. The Program's activities over the past fiscal year in fulfillment of its responsibilities under the 1990 Cabinet Directive on the environmental assessment of policies, plans and programs also are reflected in this report.

The 1997-1998 year was also a year of successes for the National EA Program. The Sable Gas project demonstrated how governments can work in a spirit of cooperation to manage this valuable natural resource. The increasing use of electronic tools such as the Infolane are contributing to better communication among EA practitioners, disseminating information more efficiently and in a more timely fashion among the Regions.

Overall, Environment Canada's National EA Program has gained many new experiences during the 1997-1998 year in fulfilling its responsibilities. It is proud of the contribution it has made over this period toward encouraging the examination of the environmental implications of projects, and of policies and programs, in which the federal government has had some involvement.

Should you wish to receive more information about this Program or about the contents of this report, please contact the Director, Environmental Assessment Branch of Environment Canada, at (819) 953-1690.

PURPOSE

This Annual Report demonstrates the Department's commitment to be accountable for its actions and to share our successes in the field of Environmental Assessment (EA). This Report details our EA activity between April 1, 1997 and March 31, 1998. It also responds to the need to report on the increasing level of activity in our EA Program including departmental activities relating to adherence to the 1990 Cabinet Directive on the EA of policies and programs.

ASSESSMENTS : HIGHLIGHTS

Ontario

TransCanada Pipeines 1998 Facilities Application

In May 1997, TransCanada PipeLines (TCPL) sought approval from the National Energy Board for proposed upgrades to their pipeline facilities in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, including over 300 km of pipeline looping and new right-of-way, as well as expansions to 11 compressor stations. For the first time on an inter-provincial pipeline project, a single EC submission of FA expert advice was made to the NEB, coordinated by Ontario Region, with input from Prairie & Northern and Quebec Regions. Extensive comments and recommendations were made relating to the protection of migratory birds and their habitat, cumulative air quality impacts from compressor station emissions, and water quality impacts. EC's FA comments were successful, resulting in some positive changes to the proposed undertaking, including avoidance of migratory songbird habitat in a significant Carolinian forest habitat in southwestern Ontario. EC has advocated for several years on gas pipeline projects, including this one, that pronents use low NO_x emitting gas compressors, and TCPL now routinely installs state-of-the-art dry low-NO_x units when upgrading compressor stations. We were also successful in changing TCPL's air quality modeling approach relating to the use of realistic background NO₂ levels in urbanized areas of Canada which reflect the cumulative effect of past and present activities. In addition, EC's air specialists have also continued to work with the proponent on improving air dispersion modeling techniques used in air quality assessments for future proposals, an example of pro-active follow-up activity related to our expert FA role being undertaken after the project EA approvals have been given.

Quebec

Magnesium plant in Asbestos (Magnola Project)

The "Magnola" project was one of the first major industrial projects to be assessed in accordance with the Quebec impact assessment process, and although it was not subject to the federal process, the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement (BAPE) asked EC to designate an expert to answer questions regarding the federal Toxic Substances Management Policy at the public hearings. BAPE was very impressed with the experts loaned by EC and subsequently sent us, on three separate occasions, series of questions specifically concerning the dispersal of toxic substances in the environment. Our experts' recommendations were adopted by the Quebec Department of the Environment and Wildlife, which directed the proponent to implement the recommendations. This represents a giant step forward in terms of the recognition of the Toxic Substances Management Policy in Quebec and was made possible through the environmental assessment process.

TQM proposal to construct a pipeline to connect with PNGTS

Trans-Québec & Maritimes' proposal to construct a natural gas pipeline from Montreal to New England is subject to a comprehensive study under CEAA. Although the National Energy Board (NEB) is the lead RA, EC is also a RA due to the fact that TQM requested an easement to use Île aux Fermiers, which is owned by the Canadian Wildlife Service, to facilitate the crossing of the St. Lawrence River by means of directional drilling. Through regular exchanges between the proponent and EC, the terms of implementation were established and the environmental concerns related to this environment were identified, taking account of the island's conservation mission. Using baseline data and the comprehensive study report submitted by the proponent, EC will prepare an environmental screening report that will serve as a decision-making tool. One of the major challenges in the management of this project is to effectively coordinate the various government authorization mechanisms. EC has acted with diligence, ensuring that its concerns were properly addressed.

Pacific and Yukon

The Keenleyside Project

The Columbia Power Corporation proposes to construct a 150MW powerplant, powerline, and associated facilities at the existing Hugh Keenleyside dam near Castlegar, B.C. and approximately 56 km north of the U.S./Canada border. EC actively participated in the harmonized federal-provincial environmental review under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (DFO habitat trigger) and the BC Environmental Assessment Act (BCEAA).

Issues raised by EC included the requirements of the International River Improvements Act (IRIA), potential effects of changes in the operation of the reservoir and downstream flows on migratory bird (and fish) habitats, changed water temperature, climate change and cumulative effects. In particular, our National Water Research Institute provided invaluable advice on changed water temperature that the joint federal-provincial review team used as the basis for requiring the proponent to adopt mitigative measures to protect the already-stressed fish populations which would be affected. Given the proximity to the U.S. border, EC coordinated a U.S. agency consultation in the spirit of the "Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context" (1991). Commitments by the proponent to operate the project in a manner not exceeding the thresholds set forth in the IRIA resulted in an exception from the application of this Act in March 1998.

The project was one of the first major project screenings under CEAA that included a cumulaive effects assessment which met the requirements of both CEAA and BCEAA. The Project Committee completed its work in early April 1998 and recommended approval of the project subject to conditions that address potential environmental impacts. The strong cooperation among agencies and the efforts of the Project Committee Chair in considering and respecting all agencies' issues and mandated responsibilities ensured a successful conclusion to the review. This demonstrates the value of close cooperation in harmonised reviews, in contrast to some other such reviews which would undoubtedly benefit from a similar cooperative approach.

McNab Creek LNG Storage Facility

WestCoast Gas Services Inc.(WGSI) proposes to build the largest above-ground Liquefied Natural Gas tank in the world, to be located in Howe Sound, near Vancouver. The 3 billion cubic foot storage tank is intended to provide gas for peak use and storage. It is undergoing a review under BCEAA,only, since CEAA is not triggered. The review has generated intense public interest.

In accordance with the requirements of BCEAA for federal involvement, EC initially participated as an active member on the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) Project Committee reviewing this project. The Department provided comments on wildlife and migratory bird issues, water quality, and risk factors relating both to the environment and public safety. Misunderstandings on the part of the EAO Project Committee Chair regarding our Department's mandates as well as difficulties encountered in having the review address a number of issues raised by the Department, account for EC subsequent decision to sit as an external reviewing member rather than an active Committee member. EC now deals with the process primarily through correspondence. Furthermore, an April 1998 British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) decision on project rationale and on potential benefits to BC now casts doubt on whether this project will proceed.

Atlantic

Terra Nova

The federal government has released its response to the report of the Terra Nova Project Environmental Assessment Panel on the Terra Nova Offshore Development which recommended approval of the project, subject to various recommendations. One of the key recommendations was for the proponent to follow a precautionary approach, which means that development should proceed with the application of prudent foresight, recognizing uncertainty, and erring on the side of caution when decisions must be taken where knowledge is incomplete. Such an approach will include the use of site specific environmental assessments, pilot projects, careful impact monitoring, cautious interpretation of data and adaptive management. The EC team that contributed to the government response are to be congratulated, not only for presenting our traditional issues of concern, but also for emphasizing the need for a precautionary approach to this important development.

Sable Gas

Sable Gas is a development of six offshore gas fields near Sable Island which underwent a joint public review under CEAA, "Canada-Nova Scotia Sable Offshore Energy Project Development Application (CNSOPB) Review Process", National Energy Board Act and the Nova Scotia Environment Act. It began hearings on April 4, 1997. In January 1998, The National Energy Board approved applications from Sable Offshore Energy Project, and Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. to construct offshore and onshore facilities for the drilling, production, transmission and processing of natural gas off Canada's east coast. The decision followed a public hearing in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and subsequent acceptance by the Government of Canada of the recommendations in their report. In the presentations to the Panel, EC took a clear stand on a number of nationally important issues such as sustainable development, the preservation of Biodiversity, the protection of endangered species, use of the precautionary principle and the need for effective environmental management follow-up and protection plans.

The panel review resulted in a number of project approvals that will lead to better protection of the marine environment and birds from effects of the project, monitoring of potential cumulative effects of oil and gas development on the Grand Banks and reduction of greenhouse gases produced by the project. This will be accomplished by limiting to 1% the oil on cuttings by Dec. 31, 1999, use of non-petroleum based drilling muds and ensuring that pipeline and blasting activities in the Country Harbour do not disturb or destroy migratory birds, nests or eggs during nesting season.

Prairie and Northern

Cheviot Mine

In January 1997 a joint Alberta Energy & Utilities Board/CEAA (AEUB/CEAA) Joint Review Panel was convened in Hinton, Alberta to examine the proposed Cheviot Coal Mine Project. EC participated as part of a six department federal team that included Fisheries and Oceans, Canadian Heritage (Jasper National Park), Natural Resources, Indian and Northern Affairs, and Health Canada. EC raised issues regarding Harlequin Duck conservation, loss of migratory bird habitat, carnivores and cumulative effects. The panel report issued in June, 1997, concluded that the Cheviot mine will pose little environmental danger and will provide significant economic benefits. The panel report recommended the proponent monitor water quality and wildlife, evaluate the possibility of establishing a wildlife corridor through the mine area, and prohibit mining in the upper Prospect Creek drainage area which could harm rare alpine plants and wildlife. EC is participating on the federal-provincial management and technical committees that will be developing the detailed provisions of the company's development and operating permits. On August 2, 1997 the Mineral Policy Center (a Washington based environmental organization) joined forces with a coalition of Canadian ENGO's including the Alberta Wilderness Association, Canadian Nature Federation, Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Association and the Jasper Environmental Society and First Nations (Small boy Camp, Treaty 8 Council) to stop the Cheviot Coal Mine Project. The Mineral Policy Center was part of an American coalition that successfully put a halt to the development of the New World Mine outside of Yellowstone National Park. The Federal Court will be hearing a court challenge from the Sierra Legal Defense Fund on behalf of these organizations in late April, 1998.

Little Bow Project/Highwood Diversion Plan

The Little Bow/Highwood Water Management Plan proposed by Alberta Public Works, Supply and Services (APWSS) and Alberta Environmental Protection (AEP) entails the construction of a reservoir, various modifications to existing watercourses, and diversion of the Highwood River. For decades, periodic low summer flows have contributed to water quantity and quality problems in the Highwood and Little Bow rivers and water users in the Little Bow River Basin have experienced frequent shortages. Clear Lake, fed by surface runoff, has been virtually dry since 1985. The project is intended to improve instream flows in the Highwood River, allow the development of 20,000 new acres of irrigation, stabilize water supplies to municipalities, and facilitate water-based recreational opportunities.

The project was subject to Alberta's environmental assessment requirements under the authority of the Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB). In January 1997, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans referred the project for public review under the CEAA on the basis of aboriginal and other public concerns regarding environmental effects. In order to harmonize federal and provincial environmental assessment requirements, a joint NRCB/CEAA panel began in November 1997. Final Arguments were heard in January 1998.

EC's outstanding concerns include loss of native grassland, loss of wetland and upland habitats, the potential for mercury contamination of water released from the Little Bow Reservoir and the Squaw Coulee Reservoir, water quality of Clear Lake, and the Instream Flow Needs of the Highwood River. The Highwood River provides critical spawning and rearing habitat for rainbow trout from the world-class sport fishery supported in the Bow River downstream from Calgary. The panel report is expected to be released before the end of June 1998.

Cumulative Effects Initiative — Oilsands

In 1997, EC's written submission on the proposed Syncrude Aurora Mine identified concerns regarding the cumulative effects from the numerous oilsands developments. The Pembina Institute, a public interest group, has also indicated through the press that they are concerned about the cumulative effects of these developments. The AEUB too has indicated that it has concerns regarding regional and cumulative environmental issues and that it is considering alternative methods and procedures, through which these issues can best be addressed. Presently, an industry led study group, the Athabasca Oil Sands Cumulative Effects Assessment Enhancement Initiative, is working towards defining the cumulative effects study area boundaries, and standardized protocols and methodologies for documenting and monitoring cumulative effects within the area.

Suncor, in cooperation with a number of oil sands regional developers, municipal representatives, stakeholders and regulators are developing a common framework for conducting Cumulative Environmental Assessments (CEA). On March 12 and 13 1998, Suncor led the Oil Sands companies in the delivery of a multi-stakeholder workshop on developing environmental limits for the area as part of the CEA initiative. Another workshop is planned for July 14 to determine the next steps.

EC has indicated that the review of these projects can proceed while the framework for CEA and thresholds are being developed, but that the results of this work could require some project adjustments in the future. EC will continue to encourage the Industry led approach to CEA unless it is demonstrated that it is not adequately addressing the issue.

Alliance Natural Gas Pipeline

On July 3, 1997 Alliance Pipeline Limited Partnership filed an application with the National Energy Board (NEB) to build a massive natural gas pipeline project 1565 km of mainline and 770 km of lateral pipeline in Canada. At a cost of $4.7 billion the 37.3 million cubic metres per day pipeline would run from northeastern British Columbia to southeastern Saskatchewan where it would cross into the United States. Although Alliance filed its application in July 1997, staff from EC's Prairie and Northern Region began discussions with Alliance about their concerns with the project in mid October 1996. This series of early discussions aided the company in determining the potential environmental impacts and allowed them to incorporate changes in their preliminary design to avoid sensitive habitat prior to the filing of the application.

Inevitably, some habitat considered sensitive by the Department would be impacted by the construction. EC is continuing discussions with both the NEB and Alliance urging that construction activities in specific, identified grassland habitats be limited to time periods outside of the breeding periods for COSEWIC listed species and migratory birds dependent upon this habitat. Such prohibition would be implemented if it becomes a condition of the NEB's certificate of public convenience and necessity.

As well as resolving a number of compressor station air emissions issues noted in the the proponent's application, EC questioned the ozone limiting methodology used by the proponent to determine the conversion of NO_x to NO₂. EC informed Alliance that there is a new USEPA model (the ISC3-OLM model), that enables individual stack emissions to be calculated in areas containing multiple air emissions sources. Alliance has agreed to apply it to their project in areas where cumulative air quality impacts are an issue and that the results from this new modeling approach will be available to the regulator (the NEB). Alliance has also agreed to prepare a revised air quality monitoring program for application once the compressor stations come into service.

Uranium Mining Developments in Northern Saskatchewan

The last three reports of the Joint Federal/Provincial Panel for Uranium Mining Developments in Northern Saskatchewan were submitted in November, 1997, with simultaneous releases of the federal and provincial responses in April 1998. The reports made recommendations to governments on the Midwest project, the Cigar Lake project, and Cumulative Observations by the Joint Panel over its six year mandate. An earlier report on the McArthur River project was released by the Panel in February, 1997 and responded to in May, 1997. The Panel was established under EARP in 1991 and previously reviewed an expansion at the Cluff Lake mine, the McClean Lake project, and an earlier unsatisfactory version of the above Midwest project. All five projects have now received impact assessment approvals and entered the subsequent regulatory licensing process. EC fully participated in the Panel's public hearings, with substantive written submissions and well-received oral presentations at all major sessions.

The Department was the leading advocate of improvements to environmental monitoring programs, proper disposal of tailings and waste rock, enhanced protection of lakes and groundwaters, and the integrated study of atmospheric and terrestrial ecosystems. Our success is attributed to prior and ongoing published research on radionuclides in fish and wildlife, as coupled with technical excellence and team work within a well-conceived management plan.

HARMONIZATION

A Success Story

In September 1994, Louisiana Pacific Canada (LPC) and the province of Manitoba signed a ten-year forest management plan enabling LPC to harvest hardwood in the Swan River area of Manitoba. The agreement was subject to LPC acquiring all required licences and permits, which normally involves public hearings by Manitoba's Clean Environment Commission (CEC). This plan did not trigger a CEAA. EC had some major biodiversity concerns, such as the lack of baseline data for an ecosystem-based forest management system, lack of protection of old growth forest and snags, harvesting activities during the breeding and nesting seasons of migratory birds, and logging in riparian zones etc.

EC decided to take part in the CEC hearings under the provision of the Canada-Manitoba Agreement for Environmental Assessment Harmonization. The initial LPC response was not favorable to EC's concerns. Additional meetings with LPC officials and Manitoba Environment staff, repeated written submissions and a presentation at the CEC hearings by EC, were required to successfully have most of EC's concerns addressed. This involved staff from the operational level up to the Minister's office.

EC's efforts were further rewarded, when in 1996 Repap (Tolko) Manitoba submitted its application for a thirteen-year forest management plan. Undoubtedly benefiting from LPC's experience, Tolko submitted an EIS and mitigative measures which at the outset addressed most of EC's concerns. Consequently, the EC resources required to review and provide comments to the Tolko plan were less than half of that was expended for the LPC review process.

It is anticipated that the EIS currently in preparation for the Pine Falls Paper Company's ten-year forest management plan will largely address EC's concerns. This example demonstrates that the benefits of EC's involvement in environmental assessment can be quite significant and cost effective beyond the immediate results of a single project.

PROJECTS / ACTIVITIES

The EA Program has seen fluctuations in its activity since last year.

As an RA, the number of projects assessed dropped from 573 to 435. The decrease in screenings showed most strongly in the number of assessments for ocean dumping and wildlife permits. However, as an FA/Expert Department we received requests for advice on 1392 projects, an increase from last year's 1272.

FIGURE 1: RA ACTIVITY BY REGION

Figure 1 represents the Regional RA activity. Pacific and Yukon Region's screenings were entirely for regulatory approvals, mostly ocean dumping permits. Prairie and Northern Region screenings centered on wildlife permitting, with a few "proponent" triggered projects. Ontario Region expended more of its efforts in screening "money" triggered projects, with wildlife permits as their other strong area. Quebec Region screenings were largely wildlife related, with some "money" triggered projects as well. Atlantic Region screened largely ocean dumping permits, with wildlife permitting and the "money" trigger covering most of those remaining.

Although Pacific and Yukon Region showed the greatest RA activity in the department, Prairie and Northern was the most active Region as an expert department.

FIGURE 2: FA / EXPERT REFERRALS BY REGION

Figure 2 shows the distribution of referrals among the individual Regions. The distribution was almost identical to last year's, although the number of referrals increased by nearly 9.5 percent from last year.

FIGURE 3: FA / EXPERT ACTIVITY BY REFERRING GROUP

Figure 3 describes the distribution of FA/Expert Activity by referring group. Pacific and Yukon reported a large number of River and Estuary Management activities and Coast Guard NWPA requests, giving it a strong increase in the number of projects assessed. Prairie and Northern Region's strongest advisory activity was with Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Western Economic Diversity and was very active in the NWT with regard to territorial water license activities and oil/mineral exploratory work. Atlantic Region was most active in providing advice to its biggest customer, the provinces. Quebec and Ontario Regions gave much of their attention to their respective province and to Fisheries and Oceans (Coast Guard or habitat) requests.

A wealth of "Other" referring agencies comprised 11% of referrals and are not represented in the pie charts. These include several federal departments (eg. Agriculture and Agrifoods, Defense, Natural Resources, HDRC, Industry), agencies (eg. Canadian Port Authorities), and aboriginal government bodies (eg. Nunavut Impact Review Board) as well as private proponents.

POLICY ASSESSMENT

The Privy Council Office (PCO) put emphasis on th emandatory inclusion of an environmental considerations section in all Memoranda to Cabinet (MCs) when necessary. If it is felt that no environmental considerations section should be in the MC a justification will have to be provided if aksed. The Auditor General has highlighted this activity as one needing greater attention within the department. Our "policy" team at HQ undertook to do a Strategic Environmental Assessment, to validate and refine the interdepartmental guide.

Environmental Assessment Science Committee (EASC)

The EASC was established to assist in providing new science knowledge to environmental assessment practitioners. The EASC also serves as a forum for the identification of science gaps relative to environmental assessment and as a mechanism to promote the investigation of those gaps. The EASC is comprised of practitioners from each region. Each EC Research Institute is represented as well as the Science Office and each of the EC services. The committee met several times during 1997 and has identified several science gaps in need of further investigation.

Chile-Canada Cooperation

A delegation from Chile visited British Columbia for two weeks as part of a cooperative agreement between Canada and Chile to exchange information on environmental concerns relating to mining and mine closures. The Chileans are developing legislation for the mining industry and were interested in learning how Canada's regulations are implemented. The delegation attended a reclamation symposium in Cranbrook then travelled through Trail, Penticton, Kamloops and Vancouver to visit local mine sites and attend meetings with federal and provincial representatives.

EA TOOLS

National Environmental Assessment System

Infolane - Green Lane

It remains a priority within the EA program to consolidate program-specific information and disseminate it conveniently to all program personnel over the department's Infolane server. To deliver on this objective, the program must adopt an efficient and effective internal process to improve communications, collaboration and the management of knowledge. A well designed and functional Intranet will help us achieve this process, and in effect help in delivering on our overall Business Plan objectives.

EC is a decentralized, knowledge-based, technologically advance department, and the need for internal communications has never been more apparent than in this era of budget restraints and down-sizing. Intranet technologies are developing at a rapid pace and now offer the dynamic transactions required for legacy, knowledge and procedural applications on a department-wide basis. Our Intranet at EC is a tool to organize, disseminate and communicate information that employees need to do their jobs more effectively. The Intranet is consistent with industry standard Internet protocols, is cross platform and can run on any operating system using common interfaces.

The benefits and structural features of Intranets indicate to us that it is important for us to maintain our involvement in the Infolane initiative, and ensure that vital EA information is updated and made available to program personnel across the country. In similar fashion, it is intended to replicate sections of this information base, and make it available to the Canadian public over the department's Green Lane.

Close-Up on EA

This newsletter had its debut issue in September 1997. It highlights EA "news" items, both the serious and anecdotal, important and perhaps under-advertised items that are of interest to EA program practitioners and their colleagues within the science arm of the department. New and back issues can be accessed at our EA Intranet site.

GUIDANCE MATERIALS

Guide pour l'évaluation des impacts sur les oiseaux

The distribution of the Guide pour l'évaluation des impacts sur les oiseaux in May 1997 to federal and provincial departments and to Quebec consultants who conduct impact assessments led to a first in Quebec: no fewer than seven proponents agreed to conduct bird inventories as part of their impact assessments, which provided a sound scientific basis for evaluating the significance of the environmental impacts of the projects on breeding birds. In some cases, the analysis resulted in changes to projects to prevent the destruction of habitat used by species at risk. The importance of conducting bird inventories within the framework of impact studies was raised by EC experts testifying before the environmental panel established by Quebec's Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement (BAPE) to review the Highway 50 proposal. In its report, BAPE adopted the position presented by EC, another first in Quebec.

The Guide pour l'évaluation des impacts sur les oiseaux fills a void by providing proponents and consultants with a more uniform scientific approach for assessing environmental impacts on this resource.

Cumulative Environmental Assessment (CEA) Guide

Don Stalker of EAB served on the working group that developed the draft Cumulative Environmental Assessment Practitioners Guide that was released for public review and consultation in January 1998. Practitioners from EC regional offices and HQ participated in a series of workshops held across the country in February and March 1998. The Guide is designed as a "how to" guide for practitioners who must carry out a CEA under CEAA. It is intended to be complimented by a policy document describing when CEA is required. The Guide will be finalized early in the new fiscal year.

TRAINING

IAIA 97 - New Orleans

The International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) met in New Orleans for its 17th Annual Meeting entitled "Methods, Tools and Techniques of Assessing the Effects of Development". The major theme was "Reflections on Water, Learning from History and Assessing the Future". The conference was preceded by both the francophone sessions, Deuxième Colloque International des spécialistes francophones en évaluation d'impacts, and workshops. The francophone sessions were attended by France, African countries, Quebec universities and government, CEAA, and EC. The EC's presentation of its EA Screening System at a workshop was well received. EC's Paula Caldwell, Doug Tilden and Claire Michaud made presentations at the workshop or conference sessions.

Room Canada, sponsored by the Ontario Association for Impact Assessment (OAIA), l'Association québecoise pour l'évaluation d'impacts (AQEI) and Industry Canada, was a great success, showcasing Canadian companies and "Team Canada" governmental agencies and departments. Theme breakfasts sponsored by Canadian Environemtnal Assessment Agency, Industry Canada and EC were networking successes. Next year's IAIA in Christchurch, New Zealand and Montréal (francaphonie) promise even greater participation.

Practitioners Workshop November 1997

In order to maintain effective communication throughout the EA Program, EA practitioners met for a busy 3 days to deal with the issue of increasing quality and level of service provided by program personnel EA practitioners and the need for a national approach while recognizing regional differences.

The specific workshop objectives included:

• sharing of legal opinions and their implications for our program;
• discussions on cumulative effects and pipeline issues;
• establishment and better understanding of guidelines, the development of specifics; and
• encouraging more collaboration on internal networking in the National Program.

Specific follow-up is anticipated at the next Workshop scheduled for Québec City in October, 1998.

AUDITOR GENERAL

EC's Relative Performance

In a candid debriefing of our EA performance, officials of the Auditor General's Office said that EC's performance was assessed as being “average” - in effect, putting it in the middle of the pack in comparison to all other departments audited. This ranking may be a function of the fact that the audit did not focus on expert advice, but rather on RA performance.

It was recommended that project specific guidance be developed for those projects in which EC is most involved (e.g. Ocean disposal, Wildlife permitting). The claim of all federal departments that they consider cumulative effects, and do follow-up and monitoring was not substantiated. EC's consultations with other science departments needs improvement, averaging input from only one other department per project.

A number of ways in which to improve environmental assessments include:

• a broader more consistent view of projects and potential impacts to be assessed;
• better information in screening reports and in the Federal Environmental Assessment Index and improved public access to this information;
• better use of efficiency tools such as class screenings;
• more thorough monitoring of mitigation measures and follow-up on results; and
• increased attention to the environmental assessment of policies and programs.

LOOKING TO THE FUTURE

In the coming year, our challenges will continue to be related to increased resource pressures throughout the Federal Government. While the number of assessments for which Environment Canada provides specialist advice continues to grow, and as the department realizes more work as a responsible authority, our resources do not increase. We need to work smarter and to continue to develop improved working relationships with provinces, territories, other federal government departments and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

Our challenges also include implementing a new cost recovery initiative, responding to the Auditor General's Report that stressed the need for improvement in areas of project scoping, cumulative effects assessment, project follow-up and monitoring, and last but not least sensitizing our departmental colleagues to the requirement to do Strategic Environmental Assessments.

Our goal in 1998/99 is efficiency and effectiveness and our practitioner's workshop in October will focus on national consistency. Environment Canada is actively collaborating with the Agency and others to determine the effectiveness of screenings, comprehensive studies and panels, and to better understand departmental follow-up with respect to mitigation and monitoring. We will develop departmental guidance in the areas of pipelines, wildlife areas, and a manual for assisting EA practitioners in writing and reviewing EA documents.

Several legal challenges will reshape the way we do business. The clarification provided through court decisions, the added operational experience and our focus on ongoing improvements will allow us to assess effectively the ever increasing number and complexity of projects

The National Environmental Assessment Program as a result of historically excellent and respected working relationships offers the venue to ensure all Federal Departments act cooperatively and constructively for the protection of the environment.

Rosaline Frith

Tim Hibbard

Peter Blackall

Mike Nassichuk

Bill Bien

Claude Saint-Charles

Ian Travers

GLOSSARY

Assessment by Review Panel

- means an environmental assessment that is conducted by a review panel established pursuant to section 33 and that includes a consideration of the factors required to be considered under subsections 16(1) and (2).

Boundary

- a limitation conferred by space, time, ecology. as well as political, social or economic factors.

Class Assessment

- standardized environmental assessment guidelines to direct the required environmental assessment activities for a class of projects.

Compensation Measures

- payment in funds or replacement in-kind for losses attributed to a development; funds being used to re-create lost habitat (for example, artificial spawning beds) or other valued resources.

Cumulative Impacts

- the combined effects of components of a development or a series of developments and other activities occurring either simultaneously or sequentially, or in an interactive manner.

Ecosystem

- a community of interdependent plants and animals together with the environment which they inhabit and with which they interact.

Environmental effect

- means, in respect of a project, any change that the project may cause in the environment, including any effect of any such change on health and socio-economic conditions, on physical and cultural heritage, on the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by aboriginal person, or on any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archeological, paleontological or architectural significance, and any change to the project that may be caused by the environment, whether any such change occurs within or outside Canada.

Environmental Impact Assessment

- an activity designed to identify, predict, interpret, and communicate information about the impact of an action, on human health and well-being, including the well-being of ecosystems on which human survival depends.

Environmental Impact Statement

- a documented assessment of the environmental consequences and recommended mitigation actions of any proposal expected to have significant environmental consequences, that is prepared or procured by the proponent in accordance with the directives written by an environmental assessment panel.

Issue

- an unresolved question or concern about an environmental impact, consequence or effect.

Mitigation

- an activity aimed at reducing the severity, avoiding or controlling environmental or social impacts of a proposal, through design alternatives, scheduling, and other measures.

Monitoring

- data collection and evaluation of environmental parameters or processes.

Panel

- a multi-disciplinary group, usually of 3-6 individuals, appointed on the basis of expertise and objectivity, to evaluate, through public hearings and study, the potential environmental impact of a proposal referred to the Minister of the Environment for review.

Prevalence

- the number of incidences or locations of a type of impact that may occur in a given area.

Proponent

- the organization, company, or the department planning to undertake a proposal.

Supervision

- a continuous overseeing of a project by qualified staff hired by the proponent during the project implementation to see that a project is built according to environmental specifications.

Responsible Authority

- in relation to a project, means a federal authority that is required pursuant to subsection 11(1) to ensure that an environmental assessment of the project is conducted.

Scoping

- a process by which the important issues and alternatives that should be examined in environmental impact assessment are determined.

Surveillance

- field inspections undertaken or sponsored by a government agency to ensure that a company and its contractors are complying with the environmental terms and conditions applied to a project, and to provide timely reaction to unexpected developments or unforeseen design charges with environmental implications.

1. determining the efficiency of environmental protection measures, including the reporting on the adequacy of project impact prediction methods and mitigation measures;
2. developing capability for future projects;
3. improving on project management and planning and related programs to better protect the environment.

 

Screening

- means an environmental assessment that is conducted pursuant to section 18 and that includes a consideration of the factors set in subsection 16(1).

Screening Report

- means a report that summarizes the results of a screening.

Valued Ecosystem Components

- the environmental attributes or components identified as a result of a social scoping exercise as having scientific, social, cultural, economic or aesthetic value.

Significant Issue

- an issue for which there is a high probability that one or more impacts connected with that issue will exceed a threshold of concern such that a public review by Panel is required to address the issue.

ABBREVIATIONS