How can you tell if someone lives in a national park? Ask them what EA stands for. Provided they aren’t fresh off the bus seeking fortune from Alberta’s booming economy, odds are good that a resident of Jasper would recognize the acronym for environmental assessment. Depending on who you’re talking to, the subsequent reaction could vary from disgusted to just befuddled. For the people who make their money conducting, reviewing and explaining environmental assessments, that just goes to show that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

One of the most common misconceptions about the EA process is that it’s “a way to make people pay” for wanting to proceed with a project. Not true, says Susan Tiege, senior program officer for the Alberta/NWT region of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA).

This belief might extend from the fact that the project proponent is responsible for providing the assessment, and then have the results pored over by the responsible authority — in the case of Jasper-based projects, Parks Canada.

When Parks is doing the project, it also has to work through the same process, even the case of seemingly insignificant developments, like the digging of a new outhouse pit, or the recent restoration of the shoreline at Pyramid Lake.

“Anytime a shovel hits the ground, the Act is part of the picture,” says Dwight Bourdin, EA specialist for Jasper National Park. That’s thanks to National Parks regulation section 12, subsection 1, that prohibits the removal or defacing of any natural object. The only way to avoid an EA is if the project has such an infinitesimal environmental impact that it makes the exclusion list. There’s not much that qualifies, especially in a national park.

Once an EA is “triggered” — in other words a project proposed by the federal government, or funded by the federal government or on federal land that isn’t on the exclusion list, the next step is to determine what sort of assessment is necessary.

A vast majority (95 per cent in JNP, according to Bourdin) of all EAs are screenings, while a scattered few require comprehensive studies, panel reviews and, hypothetically, a mediated review. This final option has never been exercised in the history of the legislation, Tiege says.

In a screening process, there is no legislated level of public consultation, one reason that some interest groups push for controversial developments to undergo a comprehensive study, which does require public discussions. These interactions with the public are considered especially important when it comes to determining the scope of the assesment. The scope of screening can be determined internally, while determining the scope of a comprehensive study requires public involvement. 

Scope is key when it comes to EAs — a road project building a bridge over a stream may affect a riparian zone nearby, but if the scope of the assessment doesn’t take that area into account, this may escape the attention of Parks Canada.

While environmental advocates might have legitimate concerns about the scope and sort of EAs, a belief that screenings are deliberately chosen in favour of comprehensive studies in order to avoid public consultation is false, says Bourdin.

“It’s part of the job to figure out what level of public input is required. We consider what’s involved, who might be interested.”

In fact, in order for a project to be reviewed by way of comprehensive study, it must meet a strict set of conditions specified in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The massive twinning project on the Trans-Canada Highway east of Lake Louise didn’t make the grade, for example. That said, the screening was extensive, and Parks Canada recognized the sensitivity of the project required plenty of opportunity for feedback.

“The standard answer is that public consultation is very important for CEAA, so you should do it whenever you can,” says Tiege.

Another misconception about EAs are that they represent the final decision on whether or not a project can proceed. There are in fact two separate determinations to be made, Bourdin says. In order to make the cut in a national park, the project has to first be within park policies and management plans, then the environmental assessment must indicate no net negative environmental impact. Then, and only then, can the project proceed to the final barrier, a decision to approve or deny a development permit.

Parks’ review process of assessments prepared on behalf of proponents like the Jasper Park Lodge, for example, lead to yet another common belief about EAs — that Parks delays developments and progress.

“Information is always coming from both directions, we provide it to the proponent and they provide it to us,” says Lori Risslling-Wynn, another EA specialist for the park. “There can be many iterations of the EA, depending on the questions we ask and the responses we get. The public might think we are delaying the process, but we can’t work on anything or approve anything before we get the information back.”

One of the most significant elements of this back and forth between responsible authority and proponent is the matter of mitigation. Whether its planting native grass seed, or promising to shut down a proposed egress trail if caribou are spotted, these measures are often quite contentious.

“We involve a lot of specialists to ask, will that work,” says Bourdin. “No matter what project you’re doing, there are always some unknowns, and the big question is if the mitigations suggested are reasonable.”

All larger environmental assessments in the park are posted on the CEAA online registry, and hard copies are made available at the park administration offices. There’s still more work to do when it comes to making the legislation accessible to Canadians, Tiege admits. There are some people and groups who are involved and aware all the time, and Tiege says the trend is towards increasing interest in the process.

“More people are starting to ask questions,” she says. “Generally, when you take the time to speak to people, you find out what they know and before long the knowledge of what is involved is getting better.”