An environmental assessment (EA) could be a useful tool if it was used properly. Unfortunately it can be inadequate and biased. Projects are often approved with only minor housekeeping changes and scientific and public input is ignored or dismissed. An EA often becomes little more than a rubber stamp in decisions allowing development.
While sanctimoniously reciting the catechism of 'environmentalism,' it anoints and blesses the process of 'development.'

– John Livingston

 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS : mitigation* magic

By law, an environmental assessment must be conducted for any new development, expansion or new activity in a national park. In addition, established businesses must conduct EAs when their leases/licences are to be renewed.

Theoretically, an EA is an unbiased report that describes how the project will be designed and operated in a manner that will avoid and/or mitigate impacts to the environment, and protect the ecological integrity of the area. Impacts to the environment are described and public input is solicited.

An example of this EA process could be a project to expand a cabin-style motel. In order to lessen the impacts, the additional rooms would be built as second storeys to existing cabins rather than as additional cabins, which leaves more of the surrounding wildlife habitat intact. However, the expansion would require new power and sewer lines, which would entail digging a long trench through a sensitive area. Public input alerts the government that the surrounding area is already stressed from too many guests tramping through it. All this is weighed by the government, and a decision is made to reduce the expansion by half so that the existing infrastructure can support the project. Pathways are constructed so the guests may still enjoy the woods but not trample everywhere.

That is how the EA process is supposed to work, but most of the time it doesn't …

The proponent of a project selects and pays a consultant to write the EA, which could lead to bias in favor of the project. As the saying goes “Whose bread I eat, his song I sing.”

A controversial project is often approved with little or no change, even when science condemns it for its negative environmental impact and the public disapproves or wants major changes.

An example of this is the Chateau Lake Louise convention centre in Banff National Park, where scientists raised concerns over the negative impact to grizzly bears in the area and also wastewater and sewage issues. The public expressed their ethical and moral opposition to further expanding convention facilities in a national park and their concern over the adverse effects of the increased number of visitors on wildlife. Input was ignored and the expansion was approved.

Examples in Jasper National Park include the lease replacement at Maligne Lake and the continued use of too many horses in the Tonquin Valley -- both places where scientific research was either lacking or disregarded along with the public’s concerns.

*The EA process “mitigation” means measures added to a project to reduce, prevent, or correct its impact. The concept is that all environmental damage must be mitigated or the project authorization should be denied. In practice, project rejection on environmental grounds is extremely rare in the public service.