Eia Process In Canada And The Usa

EIA Process in Canada and the USA

Abstract

This paper offers a comparative analysis where the similarities and differences between the environmental impact assessment process in the USA and Canada are evaluated. The introduction part of the paper covers the definition of EIA, the objectives, the benefits, and the time of EIA application. The paper also outlines a thesis statement that assists in developing the paper’s content. Additionally, the paper contains two research questions the answers to which help to meet the goal of the given research.

While comparing and contrasting the environmental impact assessment between the two countries, the fundamental aspects that have been considered include the EIA steps and level of the EIA assessment. The paper ends by giving a detailed summary of the main differences and similarities that have been evaluated in the discussion.

Introduction

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is described as a process of identifying the possible consequences for the biophysical environment and human health as well as the benefit of implementing particular activities and sending this information, at a stage when it can influence the decision, to those responsible for sanctioning the proposals (Pinchetti, 2008). The IAIA (1999) defines Environmental Impact Assessment as the process of isolating, predicting, evaluating, and alleviating the social, biophysical, and other relevant impacts of proposal development before taking major decisions and making commitments. It establishes the potential environmental implications of a particular development and predicts the environmental impacts of proposed initiatives before they are carried out. An environmental assessment identifies impending hostile environmental effects, suggests measures to moderate adverse environmental impacts, predicts whether there will be substantial adverse environmental impacts after implementing the mitigation measures, and contains a follow-up program to validate the accuracy of the environmental assessment and the efficacy of the mitigation measures (CEAA, 2015).

EIA is a decision-making and planning tool, and its objectives aim at reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects before they transpire as well as integrating environmental factors into decision-making. An environmental assessment should be conducted at the planning stage of a selected project for the advocate to be able to acknowledge the analysis of the proposed plans. The environmental assessment can assist in supporting better decision-making and result in many benefits such as avoidance and minimization of critical environmental effects, offering opportunities for public participation and indigenous consultation, increased human health protection, and reduced risks of environmental disasters or harm. Other benefits that result from EIA include an increase in government harmonization and accountability, minimized probability of transboundary environmental impacts, and occurrence of informed decisions that add to the responsible handling of natural resources (Berkes, Kislalioglu, & Fast, 2007).

As a concept, the process of the EIA came about in the United States of America in 1970 and was implanted under the United States National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Multilateral organizations have also adopted many of the EIA principles. Many countries incorporated their EIA procedures including Canada in 1973. Different countries have different EIA processes, and they change depending on the nature of the project. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to provide Environmental Impact Assessment process in Canada in contrast to the Environmental Impact Assessment process in the USA.

Research Questions

Concerning the thesis statement of this paper, two research questions will be considered. The first research question is what are the similarities between the Environmental Impact Assessment process in Canada and the USA? The second research question is what are the differences between the Environmental Impact Assessment process in Canada and the USA?

Comparison between the EIA process in Canada and the USA

In both countries, the environmental impact assessment follows certain steps where screening is the first one, and it occurs after the submission of every project. However, it should be noted that the term screening differs from country to country. In Canada, it refers both to the level of assessment (a class screening report or screening) and the process of identifying whether the EIA is essential; and if so, which level of assessment is needed (a comprehensive study or screening). In the USA, screening entails checking whether the project is listed in the obligatory EA listing or in a different list, where an EIA might be required under assured circumstances (Del Furia & Wallace-Jones, 2000).

Under the CEAA, there are four levels of environmental assessments while in the USA there are two levels or tracks available. In Canada, the standards include screening assessments, comprehensive studies, panel reviews, and mediation. These tracks were established to allow a more rigorous assessment of projects which are more likely to cause rampant effects. However, even though the Canadian regime has four tracks and the USA has two tracks, to this end Canada and the USA stand similarly where multiple tracks are available and there are mechanisms or opportunities in place to screen a project out of a more laborious assessment. There are two kinds of EIA tracks/processes under NEPA in the US. An Environmental Assessment, roughly comparable to a screening level in Canada, is a document used by the federal authority to decide whether EIS, roughly equivalent to a panel review or comprehensive study in Canada, is required (Barker & Wood, 1999).

The EIA process in the USA gives room for the project proponents to consider alternatives to their initial projects while the Canadian federal, provincial, and territorial EIA processes do not give room for alternative considerations. In the USA, the possible alternatives to a project consider the demand, the process, the activity, the scheduling, and the design. After screening, the proponent is also allowed to consider leaving the entire project, known as the ‘no project’ alternative. Some projects are site-specific, and in this case, the EIA may focus more on the scale, mitigation measures, and traffic management. In the USA, private-sector-promoted projects are more likely to consider alternatives than projects initiated by the public sector. Although not all the projects are site-specific in Canada, the EIA process does not give a step for the proponents to consider alternatives.

In both countries, the type of project does not matter while applying the EIA process. The legislation applies to both-large scale and small-scale projects, and environmental impact assessment applies to both project types in the two countries. However, a difference occurs when in Canada, no regulation defines the projects in which EIA is mandatory while in the United States of America, considerable discretion has been given to individual federal authorities to define classes of projects that should be excluded from the EIA. This option allows the exclusion of EIA after finding that they are not likely to cause any significant environmental impacts. This application permits the limitation of EIA for medium and large projects, which are more likely to cause significant effects, something that does not apply in the federal EIA process of Canada (CEAA, 2015).

In Canada and the USA, the EIA process does not provide for the approval of the project. It is acquired through individual federal authorities after the EIA process. The approval is obtained through formal licensing and permitting or other authorization processes, which are largely separate from the EIA itself. In most projects in the USA and Canada, the final EIA report must show that there are no adverse environmental effects before the project can pass to the final approval stage. Although there are opportunities given to determine whether the project can cause detrimental environmental impacts, such discretions are not given. The evolution of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was influenced by the National Environmental Policy Act in the USA, and that is why the two countries share this similarity (Gauthier, Simard, & Waaub, 2011).

A similarity occurs in the public participation in the EIA process in the USA and Canada. In both countries, public participation tends to be mandatory for larger projects and discretionary for smaller projects. In Canada, the requirement for public participation in screening assessment is discretionary for the responsible authority. Public participation in comprehensive studies is mandatory after the completion of the report, when the Agency invites the general public to comment and review the report, public involvement in the Panel Review is also a mandatory and fundamental component. At the same time, public participation is mandatory for the completion of any EIA. Affected state, federal and local agencies, Indian tribes, the proponent, and any other interests party must be urged to cooperate in the scoping process and should be granted the opportunity to review and comment on the draft of the EIA report. However, no compulsory participation in the EIA final report is required (Barker & Wood, 1999).

Additionally, in both countries, there are provisions for public hearings or reviews for selected projects or EIA tracks. In Canada, a responsible authority naturally raises a project to mediation or a panel review. Mediations and panel reviews are considered discrete and separate tracks although both can be applied in the EIA for a single project. Also, the federal Minister of the Environment is endowed to have the mediation or panel review at any time at the end of a screening level assessment or during the comprehensive study. This approach to reviews and public hearings is most akin to the EIA process in the USA where public hearings are potential where there is considerable environmental and public controversy regarding the project, or where a request has been completed by an agency with jurisdictions over the project (Sadler & McCabe, 2002).

Both countries use different approaches to their EIA processes to determine whether a proposed project will have adverse effects on the environment and whether it should proceed. The United States EIA process has a main EIA study as one of the steps to predict the extent and the magnitude of impacts and determine their significance. The study utilizes a variety of methods including questionnaires, checklists, overlays, matrices, models, and stimulations. It also considers the incorporation of mitigation measures. If there are uncertainties that may lessen by further studies, then an application is deferred until further studies. If the reduction is inappropriate, then compensation may be an option. The EIA process in Canada, on the other hand, does not entail any studies, but instead, it involves the analysis of the EA to prepare a screening report, a mediator’s report, a comprehensive study report, an environmental impact statement, and a panel report. Unlike the US EIA process, which relies on the study methods, the Canadian EIA depends on the screening, comprehensive panel, and mediators' reports to determine whether a project should proceed (Therivel & Ross, 2007).

The decision-making process is an important step in the EIA procedure. In Canada, decision-making may be either centralized or decentralized depending on the type of the project or the EIA track while in the United States, the decision-making tends to be decentralized in all the EIA processes and EIA tracks. In Canada, the level of decision-making depends on the tracks which are the screenings, the comprehensive study, the mediation, and the panel reviews. For screenings, the responsible authority has the decision-making capability in most of the EIA matters, including approvals and ultimate permitting. Since they differ from one project to another, the entire decision-making for screenings is decentralized. The Minister of the Environment may also raise the project for mediation or panel review under prescribed circumstances. For comprehensive studies, decision-making is shared between the Minister of the Environment and the responsible authority. The responsible authorities agree on the matters of the scope of the project and the scope of features to be considered in the environmental evaluation. The minister, on the other hand, decides a course of action concerning the project, taking to account the comments from the public and the comprehensive studies. For mediation and panels, the minister decides on the matters of the scope of the project, the scope of factors to be considered in environmental assessment, and the scope of assessment for establishing the basis of reference for the mediator or the panel in consultation with the responsible authority. The minister then refers the project to the responsible authority for permitting, licensing, and approval actions. The US, on the other hand, has a complete decentralized EIA decision-making process, and the decisions on approvals and the scope are made by an experienced authority that provides authorization, which is either a permit or a license. Consequently, these agencies can let the project proceed, reject the project and or attach conditions to the approval. Therefore, in the USA, decision-making is entirely decentralized in all EIA processes (Imperiale & Pian, 2013).

After the making of the final determination by the relevant authority in the EIA process, both countries allow a judicial review to take place. A judicial review refers to the ability of the project proponent or the intervener to challenge the EA decisions through the court. The rights of judicial review of the EA decisions by the Canadian courts are similar to those in the United States in that the tribunal can only review the decisions of the EIA and not their merits. In both cases, there are no EA legislations that limit public access to courts (AFN, 2015).

The EIA processes in both countries offer a follow-up program. In Canada, the process allows a monitoring program to ensure that mitigation measures identified during the process are applied throughout the project and to determine the effectiveness of the mitigation measures. The USA EIA offers a monitoring process to ensure that the project is operating within the required environmental standards and that all the predicted impacts are mitigated, as well as to reduce the occurring environmental effects that were not predicted (AFN, 2015).

A significant difference occurs in the AIE processes between USA and Canada regarding timelines. The EIA process of Canada provides timelines specifications for the EA start-up and completion of selected tracks while the AIE process does not offer any timelines specifications for the start-up or completion of the environmental assessment process. In Canada, the timelines for the start of the EIA are mandated in the Federal Coordination Regulations where a federal authority must determine whether it is likely to be a responsible Authority within 10 to 30 days of receiving a project from the proponent, a Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, or a province. If so, they are given ten days to notify any other relevant federal authority that may require the EIA specialist's information. The federal authorities are allocated 30 days to state their role in the EIA process and ten days are given to the responsible authority to notify the opponents. Timelines are also provided for the panel review. The specific time of the referral to the submission of the panel’s report should not be more than 396 days. In the case where the review panel requests the proponent to submit additional information, the compulsory period must not exceed 441 days. Other timelines applied in the start-up of EIA include 45 days for the public review of draft guidelines, a minimum of 45 days for information assessment meetings, and 45 days to provide a notice time for the hearing. Though no timelines are established for the completion of comprehensive studies and screenings in Canada, completion time specifications are set for panel reviews and the projects under the panel control (CEAA, 2012). The timelines for the panel review completions may extend to 14.5 months. All these EIA start-ups and timelines specifications are not available in the EIA process in the USA (CEAA, 2012).

Conclusion

This research aimed to assess the similarities and differences between the environmental impact assessment in Canada and the USA. According to the discussion above, various procedures have similarities and differences between the EIA processes in the two countries. The following are the identified similarities. In both countries, there are provisions for public hearings or reviews for selected projects or EIA tracks. In the two countries, the type of the project does not matter while applying the EIA process. The legislation applies to both large-scale and small-scale projects, and environmental impact assessment applies to both project types in the two countries. Additionally, in both countries, public participation tends to be mandatory for larger projects and discretionary for smaller ones. The EIA processes in both countries offer a follow-up program. After the making of the final decision by the relevant authority in the EIA process, both countries allow a judicial review to take place. A judicial review refers to the ability of the project proponent or intervener to challenge the EA decisions through the court.

The differences are as follows. For example, In Canada, decision-making may be either centralized or decentralized depending on the type of the project or the EIA track while in the United States, the decision-making tends to be decentralized in all the EIA processes and tracks. The United States EIA process has a main EIA study as one of the steps to predict the extent and the magnitude of impacts and determine their significance while the Canadian process uses the EA report analysis. The EIA process of Canada provides timelines specifications for the EA start-up and completion of selected tracks while the American EAI process does not offer any timelines specifications for the start-up or completion of the environmental assessment process. Lastly, the EIA process in the USA gives room for the project proponents to consider alternatives to their initial projects while the Canadian federal, provincial, and territorial EIA processes do not give a step for alternative considerations.