NEW INTERVIEW QUESTIONS WITH RESPONSES

 

Review Boards

 

Mackenzie Valley Region:

Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board

 

Contact:

Alan Ehrlich, Senior Environmental Officer

 

1) Does MVEIRB’s have a standard criterion for assessing and reviewing environmental impact assessment? If so, is it publically available?

·       Regulators can have standard criteria, MVEIRB are not a regulatory.  For example, if the board is looking at drilling that might effect grave disturbance there is no chart that you can use. Thus the board uses INFORMED SUBJECTIVE Judgment based EVIDENCE of board members

·       The board is a court like body, they have a public record and their own values.  This is the point of co-management.  The board uses their own values to determine significance which is harder, in some cases in scientific predictions the board still needs to decide whether that is acceptable

·       There is a guideline, on the MVEIRB website in what is required.

2) How does the MVEIRB determine the scope and boundaries for assessing and reviewing environmental effects and cumulative environmental effects?

·       A not up to par EA would draw a line around the spatial boundary, obviously different effects will effect ecosystem, its not circle and not in the same direction

·       The board generally describes the spatial scope but makes sure developers know it matches the valued components

·       Cumulative effects, that can be bigger, i.e. caribou herd that range is as large as European countries

·       We ask the proponent and many parties for their opinion. The parties, some of them expert departments, EC, DFO, some are NGOS, communities some are aboriginal governments

·       Cumulative effects are one of the most important items in a EA, and proponents need to indicate there share of the problem.

·       Look to Appendix on the Guideline for further info on Cumulative Effects

3) What are the requirements from MVEIRB that need to be met in order to authorize and establish appropriate terms and conditions for licenses? 

·       This is subjective

·       Question of what should be dealt by an EA or a regulator.

·       Test of Significance is a way to draw the line and is determined by assessing the  magnitude, spatial, duration, likelihood, certainty, reversibility, scientific, but significance determination, the board values are important and that is what matters.  If an impact is significant the board will then either reject or mitigate the effects so as the effects are no longer significant

·       The board is like a drivers examination centre, even if the driver passes  the test,  this does not mean the driver will not get fined.  It’s the boards job to decide who passes and the acceptability, it is then the regulators that come into play with authorization for permits, etc

·       Regulators only deal with the minimal…so the same limit applies to industrial area to pristine areas,  it’s the absolute minimal tolerable, i.e. drinking water, it’s the floor not the ceiling.  Regulators  can set a limit for so many things, but they cannot tell you to define the goal, questions of acceptability

4) How are inspections and enforcement measures carried by out DIAND to ensure compliance with the Board's requirements and applicable legislation? 

·       Regular inspections for land and water, MVEIRB not involved

·       No way of closing the loop or communication with DIAND on enforcement and whether or not mitigation measures and compliance is done

 

 

Inuvialuit Settlement Region:

Environmental Impact Screening Committee

Contacts:

Barb Chalmers, EA Coordinator, Environmental Impact Screening Committee

Fred MrFarland Board Member, Environmental Impact Screening Committee

Eli Arkin, EA Coordinator, Environmental Impact Review Board

 

1) Does the EISC have a standard criterion for assessing and reviewing environmental impact assessment? If so, is it publically available?

There is no standard criteria however decisions are based on the following:

Þ    Inuvialuit Final Agreement

o   The law governing Inuvialuit land and rights

o   Key component and focus is on wildlife harvesting

Þ    Operating Procedures

o   Instruction to Proponents

 

2) How does the EISC determine the scope and boundaries for assessing and reviewing environmental effects and cumulative environmental effects?

Þ    This is subjective

Þ    Since wildlife harvesting a key component then effects to wildlife and their habitat are considered a priority, subsequently protecting wildlife habitat and so on will protect other elements in the environment

3) What are the requirements from EISC that need to be met in order to authorize and establish appropriate terms and conditions for project licenses? 

Þ    First the project is assessed in whether or not it falls in the definition of a development

o   Look at IFA for further info

Þ    An online application form is filled based on operating procedures, look that up

 

4) How are inspections and enforcement measures carried out to ensure compliance with the Board's requirements and applicable legislation? 

Þ    THERE ARE NO INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT MEAUSRES

Þ    The EISC job ‘ends’ once the project is approved

Þ    Mitigation measures can only be enforced by regulators and most time ‘wildlife harvesting’ is not included in the mandates, including INAC with a broader mandate

Þ    Mitigation measures also vary upon the seasons as the effects can be significant in one season as opposed to another

5) In general, what role do Federal Departments have in the EIRB process, with respect to their legislative responsibilities?

Þ    Advisors

Other points raised:

Discussion with Barb

Þ    There is no regulation for fuel storage in barges (double haul barges) in the sea, the legislation that only exists  is on land in which the provinces have jurisdiction.  Therefore no regulator is responsible for barges stored and hauling through the sea which is of concern

Þ    Ice Breakers are also a concern which are needed in transport of fuel.  They are unsafe for people as the ice becomes fragile

Þ    The Fisheries Joint Management Committee and Wildlife Management Committee  do no really have a coordinated role with the EISC and EIRB nevertheless will voice concerns

Þ    Historical context in 1984 IFA was signed, amendments made in 1986 and 2004. In 2004 decision-making change to three options: likely significant, insignificant, referral to review board (undecided).  Prior was to accept or decline

Discussion with Fred

Þ    CEAA’s Applicability

o   May start CEAA screening, don’t go far, both processes need to be completed as that would be a violation against the IFA if CEAA was completed prior

o   IFA emphasis wildlife harvest protection which is the main difference in CEAA. Therefore the scope included matters such as what the animals will ingest, physical activities to land  which will intervene or effect harvest

o   Will look at stream crossings, DFO also a regulator

o   The National Energy Board,  has a broader mandate therefore have stronger regulatory authority in which it can attach mitigation measures commitments into licenses.  In addition, from past experience NEB  will hold the proponent to the commitments.  “smart regulation”  is a tool used  which in a way means the interpretation overall objectives of legislation even if not specifically stated

o   Capacity is an issue, there is only one coordinator who is the support person and takes on many roles such as administration, corresponded, technical abilities.  Therefore considering there is only one person taking this role the person is limited

o   In addition, unlike CEAA there is no formal mechanism for departments to provide advice.  However they do anyway and take on the responsibility.   The expert advice is greatly dependent on for decision-making, recommendations and mitigation measures with regards to capacity

o   Triggers

§  There is no permit/licence trigger to the IFA process like CEAA rather the trigger is whether the project meets the definition of development

o   In the IFA the competent authority is vague

o   NWT water board which is co-managed and the INAC land regulators

o   Private lands and subsurface of the IFA vs. federal land (which is the SEA)

o   Capacity of examining cumulative effects to see the big picture a challenge,  BRIEA would streamline assessment and provide capacity in terms of knowledge, however this is based on BRIEA funds and until that is secured projects are in away under assessed

 

Inuvialuit Settlement Region:

 Environmental Impact Review Board

Response by email:

Hello Rada,

I have read your questionnaire and filled it out to the best of my ability. The questions were a bit broad so I hope my answers are sufficient.

I have also attached for you a copy of the EIRB's Operating Procedures, which will provide additional information (the Board is currently in the process of updating the Operating Procedures). I also refer you to our website, as well as the website of the Joint Secretariat for further information on the co-management process established under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement (IFA):

www.eirb.ca

www.jointsecretariat.ca

I should also inform you that there are two steps in the environmental assessment process here in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR). The EIRB is the second step and only reviews projects referred to it by the Environmental Impact Screening Committee (EISC): www.screeningcommittee.ca

Feel free to contact me should you have any questions or concerns regarding the completed questionnaire or the environmental assessment process in general.

Regards,

EIRB Questions

1) Does the EIRB have a standard criterion for assessing and reviewing environmental impact assessment? If so, is it publically available?

There is not necessarily a standard criterion for assessing projects referred to the Board. It is usually project specific. Yes, there are procedures that must be followed by the Board and by project proponents (as outlined in the Board’s Operating Procedures) but the Board goes on a case by case basis when reviewing development projects. To note, the Board’s Operating Procedures are publically available.

2) How does the EIRB determine the scope and boundaries for assessing and reviewing environmental effects and cumulative environmental effects?

EIRB staff will usually conduct a technical scoping session between project proponents and registered participants. This will identify the main issues, which will in turn be further scrutinized at future public hearings. The session will eventually produce an Environmental Impact Statement, which is drafted by project proponents and subsequently approved by the Board.

3) What are the requirements from EIRB that need to be met in order to authorize and establish appropriate terms and conditions for project licenses? 

These are project specific.

4) How are inspections and enforcement measures carried out to ensure compliance with the Board's requirements and applicable legislation? 

The EIRB does not carry out inspection or enforcement measures. Any inspection or enforcement is usually conducted by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), the National Energy Board (NEB), and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO).

5) In general, what role do Federal Departments have in the EIRB process, with respect to their legislative responsibilities?

Federal departments like Environment Canada (EC) and DFO are asked to participate in the review process as registered participants (interveners). They will offer technical advice to technical scoping sessions and public hearings.

 

Federal Departments

Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Fish Habitat Management

Contact:

Nicola Johnson, Environmental Assessment Analyst

 

1.     In the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, when triggered as Responsible Authority:  

 

a.     As a Responsible Authority, does DFO have its own guideline for scoping? If so, is it publicly available? Yes, guidelines were sent via email

 

b.     When DFO is involved in an environmental impact assessment, are there one or more divisions that carry out environmental assessments? If so, how is responsibility delegated? If its major project, the EA analyst will take the lead and the habitat biologist take the role of an expert, they are the ones reviewing the HADD Can go to fisheries management and coast guard for advice can ask but nothing formal

 

 

c.     With regard to scoping, how do your department and division determine the scope and boundaries for environmental effects and cumulative environmental effects? Basically for whatever valued ecosystem component and spatial impact that would be the boundaries of both environmental effects and cumulative effects, the boundaries are extended to where the impacts occur, in the case of fisheries this could extend to downstream. In CEAA, DFO is only required to examine cumulative effects within the vicinity of other projects in the area.   Therefore hypothetical cases are not considered.

 

d.      How does DFO determine whether an EA should go through a follow-up program? There is no follow-up guideline but DFO always requires monitoring component under a HADD to monitor.  Therefore just because DFO does not have follow-up guidelines does not mean nothing is monitored. 

 

e.      Does DFO have in place an enforcement program to ensure compliance with 1) mitigation measures and 2) with relevant legislation? DFO is only responsible for aquatic species at risk, would include that in the HADD with additional mitigation and monitoring programs within the authorization. They have compliance monitoring programs and operation statements and letter of advice within DFO.  If you follow these mitigations you wont have a HADD and you can use this document and you don’t need to get an authorization.  They can be charged if found guilty by Fishery Officers. Habitat biologist will conduct compliance checks and on occasion is accompanied by the fisheries officer to gather evidence, in case it needs to go to court.  There is no formal procedure; it can be random checks however limited resources means checks need to be picky such as only doing checks for a percentage of HADD. For major projects, this will most likely happen during the construction phase, unless the project itself is a hydro project (draining, dikes, coverts).  Therefore the construction phases are more important then the operation phase with regards to impacts. A fisheries officer can only direct the proponent to do anything that is related to the authorization, as that is its jurisdiction.  In the event, a fisheries officer saw non-compliance out of their jurisdiction they would notify the other department responsible and vice versa. For example, If INAC officers would inform fisheries offices and may take samples if necessary. The Fisheries Act is going under review, and one of the items will be looking make all conditions enforceable under HADD An issue under CEAA, the reason why we limit scope of the assessment is because we can only enforce the trigger.  If its an issues that does not relate to DFO there is no legal basis the cannot charge them and limit the HADD. 

 

2.     Under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, when not triggered as a Responsible Authority:

 

In the event there is no HADD authorization, DFO will provide advice on fish and fish habitat and inform the board and corresponding land and water boards of mitigation measure.  Advice would be in respect to anything DFO has a mandate related to.

 

DFO does not determine significance as that is left to the review board.

In the case of Land and water boards who conducts:

 

·       When they get a project description it is sent around to various groups and to anyone who has expertise or permit/authorization

·       Much like in CEAA, under federal coordination, to make sure all stakeholders are addressed

·       DFO will then provide expert advice and HADD authorizations.

 

There is a lot misunderstanding on DFO role in EA, and even though limiting the scope down to just the regulatory trigger, it is the only way DFO can keep it under control

 

Other points raised:

·       Working in EA, when they make legislation there is no comparison to see how legislation will conflict

·       Role of Court, recent Red Chris when determined will impact DFO scoping and the scoping guideline will change or not apply.  This is a challenge as court cases can change how things get done. DFO does have a solid legal precedent, from being involved in many court cases.

·       Departments are left to figure out their role and responsibility

 

Environment Canada

Contacts:

Carey Ogilvie, Head, Environmental Assessment North

Mark Dahl, Ocean Disposal Specialist,  Environmental Assessment North

 

- Unfortunately these were very quick interviews as both were busy and called me back in the evening with no notice

 

Informal Interview:

 

·       Responsibilities in EA varies on division respo