CEAA submits information request, regulatory clock paused, and our thoughts

As part of its review of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Springbank Off-Stream Reservoir Project, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) is able to submit requests seeking additional information to supplement their review.

On June 29, the CEAA submitted an information request to Alberta Transportation with 16 questions detailing gaps in the information contained in the EIS and/or areas where clarification was needed.

The request included questions involving:

 

• specific details on the potential effects of a worst-case scenario failure (such as a structure fail, breach, material spill, pipeline rupture)
• clarification on the method for water quality sampling during post-flood operations
• additional parameters for water quality modelling
• clarification and rationale for draw down times during specific flood scenarios
• clarification on modelled concentrations, mitigation measures, and monitoring procedures for suspended sediments
• additional methylmercury sampling and analysis, and further assessment of risk to downstream ecosystems
• information on mitigation measures and monitoring to protect migratory birds and at-risk species
• additional assessment of the environmental constraints associated with road realignments
• expanded scope for the cumulative effects assessment to include temporal boundaries
• additional assessment and specific details regarding dustfall and contaminant exposure pathways in the human health risk assessment

For the full list of questions with additional detail and background, read the CEAA’s letter here.

Regulatory clock paused

As we’ve mentioned previously, the overall time allocated for the CEAA to review the EIS is 365 days. However, the clock is able to be paused for information requests and this request has stopped the clock at 110 days (elapsed).

Similarly, in November 2017, the CEAA outlined 24 areas where the original EIS was deficient in conforming to the CEAA’s requirements. During that time, the clock was paused for just over four months until Alberta Transportation submitted the revised EIS with all requested information.

We have been advised that the Alberta Transportation team established to steer SR1 to completion has been responding to this request since it was first received and expect that response to be submitted in the very near future. Of course, we have and will continue to urge Alberta Transportation to work as quickly as possible to address the CEAA’s concerns.

Our thoughts

We should point out that these information requests are a normal part of the regulatory process, and are not an indication that a project has fundamental flaws, as some opponents may assert.

Instead, what this reinforces for us (yet again) is that a decision to have pursued the McLean Creek Project (MC1) would have been a fundamental error from a regulatory perspective.

In addition to MC1 being the inferior option across the other metrics studied, building such a project on high-use public land would invite many more opponents.

At this stage, the tremendous taxpayer cost and effort to advance SR1 simply can not be lost.

We also saw the article in the Calgary Herald: “Federal environmental review asks: What if Springbank dam were to fail?”, and our first thought was that the question really should have been: “What if the Springbank dam would fail to be built?“.

A key issue that we raised long ago but which has, to our knowledge never been fully answered is:

What was the environmental impact of the 2013 flood, to this City and southern Alberta communities, and what will the impact be when the next flood event of similar or greater magnitude strikes (which it will)?

That’s the baseline for any environmental assessment, and we have a pretty good idea of the impacts because tens of thousands of people experienced them firsthand in their homes and businesses.

At least one project must be built upstream on both watersheds to avoid that baseline.

So while the regulators rightly ask and answer impact questions to improve project outcomes, we must not forget all of the environmental impacts associated with the scouring out the guts of a city — effects that would be realized again if the Springbank Project does not proceed.

We will be sure to update you as soon as we receive updates on the CEAA information request. If you have any questions or comments, please reach out at info@crcactiongroup.com.

Regards,

Your CRCAG Board