Performance Reporting — Continued

Goal 1: Efficient and Effective Delivery of Environmental Assessment

1) Success Meeting Timelines

Reviews of the Silverberry Secure Landfill Project, the Burnaby Lake Rejuvenation Project, and the Stewart Bulk Terminals Wharf Expansion Project were completed on time. The proponent agreed to a timeline extension to complete the Basal Aquifer Dewatering Project review. A timeline extension was also required to complete the Forrest Kerr Hydroelectric Project review. Both timeline extensions were issued at the request of the Environmental Assessment Office to provide sufficient time to resolve outstanding issues raised by First Nations and government agencies.

Performance Measure	2001/02 Actual	2002/03 Target	2002/03 Actual	2002/03 Variance
Success meeting timelines (percentage of reviews completed on time)	67%	80%	80%	—

In future years, this performance measure will be modified to better reflect the new legislated requirement for government review of project applications to be completed in 180 days or less. The performance target for 2003/04 is for 90% of application reviews to be completed within 180 days.

2) Participants' Perceptions of a Professional, Expert, Fair and Open Review Process

Exit Surveys on Organizational Performance

A major performance measure for the Environmental Assessment Office Performance Plan 2001/02 to 2003/04, as well as for the Environmental Assessment Office Service Plan 2002/03 to 2004/05, is the assessment of review participants' perceptions of an expert, fair and open review process under the Act.

Performance Measure	2002/03 Target	2002/03 Actual	2002/03 Variance
Participants' perceptions of a professional, expert, fair, and open review process	Proponents: continual improvement Others: maintain or improve	Proponents: continual improvement Others: improve	—

The Environmental Assessment Office commissioned two separate but complementary modes of performance surveys designed to gauge stakeholder perceptions. Face-to-face interviews with proponents were conducted by an outside consultant to gather information and advice from proponents. A web-based survey managed by BC Stats was used to collect stakeholders' input on a variety of aspects of organizational performance. An overview of findings of both surveys is reported below.

Feedback from Proponents

Proponents were interviewed from the four project reviews that were completed in 2002/03: the Basal Aquifer Dewatering Project, the Burnaby Lake Rejuvenation Project, the Silverberry Secure Landfill Project, and an amendment to the Brilliant Powerplant Expansion Project. The proponents generally gave the Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) a positive report as described below:

EAO Aspect	Proponent comments
Organizational Capacity	EAO has competent staff, capable of implementing the environmental assessment review requirements; EAO dedicates sufficient organizational resources to conducting environmental assessment reviews, although there was indication that proponents wanted better advice on consultation with First Nations; EAO makes effective use of communications technology, however some concerns were raised over the range of correspondence (e.g., informal emails) placed on the website; EAO consistently meets established review times although questions were raised regarding the need to review certain types of projects.
Delivery of an Expert, Fair and Open Review Process	EAO effectively communicates the environmental assessment program. EAO develops and implements an e-Registry that supports a focus on client service. EAO improves the content of Internet and Intranet sites.
EAO Aspect	Proponent comments
Support for Informed Decision-making	EAO ensures that reviews focus on key strategic-level issues; EAO develops comprehensive and balanced reports that accurately reflect the issues considered during the review process; EAO ensures that sufficient rationale is provided for government's environmental assessment decisions and conditions that may be attached to certification approvals; EAO addresses potential impact issues by defining impact mitigation measures where appropriate.

Based on the responses, the consultant who conducted the interviews provided the following observations:

• Process costs to proponents need to be taken into consideration during reviews. Two proponents identified situations where they felt that the EAO established excessive public consultation requirements. With the new EAO process in place that involves customization of environmental assessment requirements based on the specifics of individual projects, the EAO will be called on to apply discretion in defining public consultation, and other process requirements.
• Continuing efforts to improve federal/provincial environmental assessment review harmonization appear to be needed, particularly in respect to the requirements of Fisheries and Oceans Canada during a joint review.
• Two proponents questioned the need to conduct environmental assessment on their projects because, in their view, the project did not pose significant adverse environmental threats. With the powers under the new Act to waive out some projects, criteria will be needed for making this determination.
• Two proponents experienced some challenges with First Nations consultation and believe that the EAO could improve its advice to proponents in this area.
• The EAO should continue to try to achieve close linkages between the environmental assessment review and permitting to facilitate the resolution of key issues that might be expected to arise during post-certification permitting activities.

Results of stakeholder surveys (conducted by BCSTATS)

BCSTATS conducted a survey of review participants in February and March 2003, who had been involved in at least one of nine projects that were either completed or under active review during the fiscal year of 2002/03. The objective of the survey was to receive input on participant perceptions of: the capacity of the EAO to deliver an expert, fair and open review process; the accessibility of project review information; and the efforts to achieve harmonized intergovernmental review.

Respondents were approached by email, phone, and postal mail and were invited to complete the survey through a phone interview or online. Survey participants fell into four participant categories: proponents (including their consultants who worked on the project review documentation); government agencies that participated in the review (provincial, federal and local government); First Nations; and the public (those who submitted comments, made enquiries, or attended meetings).

The survey population consisted of 625 people of whom 163 submitted surveys, yielding an overall response rate of 26%. The findings indicated a relatively high perception of the administration of the environmental assessment process by the EAO, with the highest ratings in the area of cooperation between federal and provincial agencies.

EAO Aspect	Survey response (% of satisfaction ratings "high" or "somewhat high")
Cooperation among federal and provincial agencies	93%
Communication during reviews	89%
Opportunities for input during the review	82%
Leadership in administering the environmental assessment process1	80%
Accessibility of information on project reviews	80%
Level of technical expertise and analysis	78%
Management of the project review	76%
Demonstration of impartiality in administering the process	69%

1	Key question, as defined by BCSTATS.

Comparisons across respondent types showed the greatest level of satisfaction among proponents, followed by review agencies with the public having less but still a high per cent reporting satisfaction with the process. The following results for perceptions of leadership provide an example of this trend.

EAO Aspect: Leadership in administering the environmental assessment process
Participant Type	"High" or "Somewhat high"	Neutral	"Somewhat low" or "low"
Proponents	100%	0%	0%
Government Agencies	85%	13%	2%
Public	68%	22%	11%

3) Cost Per Project Under Review

Upon full implementation of the new environmental assessment process, it was estimated that the costs to government could be reduced by about one-third, without significant reduction in the number of projects that are subject to review and with no reduction in review quality. In 2002/03, it is estimated that there were 15 "review years" over the 19 projects that were subject to some level of EA review. Assuming 75% of review costs are borne by the Environmental Assessment Office and an additional 25% of review costs are provided by line ministries involved in the review process, it is estimated that the average annual government environmental assessment costs was $315K per project.

Performance Measure	2001/02 Actual	2002/03 Target	2002/03 Actual	2002/03 Variance
Cost per project under review (average annual government EA costs)	$317K	$317K	$315K	-$2K

4) Approved plan for Cooperative Federal/Provincial Relationship to Guide Joint Reviews

An interim extension to the Canada-British Columbia Agreement for Environmental Assessment Cooperation was completed in 2002/03. This extension incorporated federal-provincial work planning on a project-by-project basis (so that the provincial timelines can be achieved by both levels of government), as well as a dispute resolution mechanism to involve senior-level provincial and federal officials in cooperatively resolving policy and process disputes. An improved long term agreement for federal/provincial cooperation in environmental assessment continues to be a priority.

Performance Measure	2001/02 Actual	2002/03 Target	2002/03 Actual	2002/03 Variance
Approved plan for cooperative federal/provincial relationship to guide joint reviews	In progress	Complete	Complete	—