This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Follow-up petition concerning the regional road project in St. Albert, Alberta

Petition

Dave Burkhart
214 Grandin Drive
St. Albert, Alberta

May 18, 2004

Office of the Auditor General
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
240 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0G6

Subject: Supplement to Environmental Petition concerning the proposed West Regional Road, in St. Albert, Alberta

Reference: Environmental Petition number 106

Dear Commissioner Gélinas,

There have been recent developments with respect to the subject road that have caused concern; therefore, I am submitting this supplement to my original environmental petition for your consideration.

My concerns are with respect to two matters: public access to information and significant bridge design changes to the proponent's original application.

The proponent for this project, the City of St. Albert, recently submitted a document entitled "Environmental Management Plan for Leachate at Abandoned Landfills Near the Sturgeon River" to the department of Fisheries and Oceans as supplemental information to their original Environmental Impact Assessment.

The city's environmental management plan contained an Appendix with the title "Chronologies Related to Existing Landfill Leachate Management Plan". The appendix listed correspondence, spanning more than a decade, between the City of St. Albert and various contractors that, over the years, monitored and reported on leachate in the landfill. Previous contractors have reported that a road over the old landfill would likely worsen the spread of leachate and recommended the land where the landfill once existed continue to be used only for recreational purposes. The chronology also listed correspondence between the City of St. Albert and senior regulatory staff at Alberta Environment regarding the leachate issue.

The City of St. Albert granted access to the documents listed in the chronology and I had the opportunity to review the material. In the city's files I found three separate documents, written between 1997 and 1999 by an Alberta Environment professional geologist with the Environmental Protection branch, addressed to City of St. Albert administration staff. The letters stemmed from investigations carried out by Alberta Environment and a contractor (EBA Engineering) hired to monitor leachate. All three letters stated explicitly that leachate from the old dumps had been entering the Sturgeon River.

I submitted the documents to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Edmonton Office and asked that they be considered by the environmental screening review team and be included in the Public Registry for the project. The DFO District Manager, Mr. John Englert acquiesced to my request but also commented that he had talked with Ms. Jennifer Downing from Alberta Environment and indicated there might be other correspondence on file with Alberta Environment that would help clarify monitoring results from the landfill.

I of course have no way of knowing what decision regulatory agencies are taking with regards to leachate matters from the old dump but understood Mr. Englert's statement to imply that Alberta Environment's assessment that leachate had entered the river in the past had changed.

I contacted Ms. Downing in an attempt to review the correspondence. She told me they would not release it and suggested I make an application under the province's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy (FOIPP) Act. Here in Alberta such an application can take a long time, especially when a government agency refuses to release information and it becomes necessary to appeal through the Provincial Privacy Commissioner.

Ms. Downing told me they had reviewed their files "for background" on issues related to the landfill but had used documents submitted as part of the EIA to assess if the road would likely have an impact on the landfill.

In any case, the correspondence held by Alberta Environment is obviously relevant to the leachate issue as it pertains to the screening and should be available for review by the public through the Public Registry, particularly if it has had any influence whatsoever on the decision of whether to approve the road or not. In my opinion, just the simple fact that the correspondence was reviewed by a regulatory agency that is participating in the screening would indicate that it could have a bearing on the decision and would mandate that it be made available to the public.

I request that federal regulatory agencies, including Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada, avoid rendering a decision on the project until the correspondence in question has been made available in the public registry. The public should have a chance to review and comment upon the Alberta Environment correspondence if it in fact indicates whether leachate has entered the river in the past.

My second concern is regarding a letter from the City of St. Albert's road contractor, Infrastructure Systems Ltd (ISL), to the Coast Guard division of Fisheries and Oceans dated April 21, 2004. The letter proposes design changes to the bridge as part of the West Regional Road project.

In the letter, ISL states they want to use columns instead of solid shafts for piers and that they want to put pilings in the river for six lanes instead of the original four-lane design. The contractor asked the Coast Guard if it would be necessary to "re-advertise" the project. I am concerned that this major design change could have significant ramifications that should be assessed by other federal agencies in addition to the Coast Guard.

The original EIA proposed the river be narrowed by approximately 15 meters where the bridge would be constructed. Because this caused a significant loss of fish habitat, the contractor made provision in the EIA for equivalent compensatory fish habitat farther upstream. The change from four to six lanes could have an impact on the original area of fish habitat that was lost. The proponent provided no additional plans for fish habitat compensation with their recent submission to the Coast Guard regarding the design changes.

The new bridge design has rendered the proponent's EIA obsolete. With the new bridge drawings, the description of the bridge structure at Paragraph 2.4.4 in the EIA is no longer accurate. The original bridge design is illustrated in Figures 2-3 and 2-4 in the EIA but those illustrations are no longer relevant to the new design. To complicate matters further, the new bridge drawings now refer to east-bound and west-bound structures whereas the original drawings in the EIA refer to north-bound and south-bound structures. On April 23, the proponent submitted yet another set of drawings to the Coast Guard with more proposed changes. Still, the Coast Guard has (recently) ruled the proponent need not re-advertise the changes so the public can see what is being proposed.

The EIA states (Volume I, Page 2-5), that a six-lane roadway was not considered in the environmental assessment. The EIA also states, specifically, that a six-lane roadway was not under design, was not foreseen as being required and was not identified to DFO as being part of the project.

These are likely not the only areas of the EIA that are impacted by this design change. The new design that expands the scope from four to six lanes could have a ripple effect throughout the EIA. For example, there could be additional deleterious effects on fish habitat, increased leachate risks, effects on wildlife and wildlife corridors, increased traffic noise and any number of other impacts.

I ask that the ISL application be brought to the attention of Fisheries and Oceans staff responsible for fish habitat and also to Environment Canada so those regulatory agencies will have the opportunity to assess the impact of the design changes in relation to the original EIA. It is my opinion the proponent should be required to resubmit its Environmental Impact Assessment to address all relevant issues with respect to the proposed new bridge.

Thank you for considering my requests.

Sincerely,

[Original signed by Dave Burkhart]

Dave Burkhart
214 Grandin Village
St. Albert, Alberta
T8N 2J3

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Environment Canada

September 30, 2004

Mr. Dave Burkhart
214 Grandin Village
St. Albert AB
T8N 2J3

Dear Mr. Burkhart:

I am writing in response to your Environmental Petition No. 106B to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, concerning the proposed West Regional Road re-alignment project in St. Albert, Alberta. Your petition was received in the Department on June 1.

Due to the nature of the issues being raised in the petition, my colleague, the Honourable Geoff Regan, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, will be providing you with the government's response to the petition.

I appreciate your interest in this issue.

Yours sincerely,

[Original signed by Stéphane Dion, Minister of the Environment]

Stéphane Dion

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Fisheries and Oceans Canada

September 29, 2004

Mr. Dave Burkhart
214 Grandin Village
St. Albert, Alberta
T8N 2J3

The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development has forwarded to me your supplemental petition of May 18, 2004 as Petition 106B regarding the environmental assessment process for the proposed Sturgeon River Bridge Crossing Project, part of the proposed City of St. Albert's West Regional Road. Thank you for the supplemental petition which identifies two additional concerns, namely, public access to information, and bridge design changes.

The Public Registry for the Sturgeon River Bridge Crossing Project contains all records produced, collected or submitted with respect to the environmental assessment conducted under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). The documents to which you refer were not produced, collected or submitted with respect to the environmental assessment of the Project and are therefore not included in the Registry.

Based on the environmental assessment, Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) concluded that after taking into account the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the screening report, the Project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. The screening report for the Project was finalized on August 20, 2004, and was placed in the Registry.

Regarding the revised bridge design for the Sturgeon River crossing, please note that the review team, which included DFO habitat staff and staff from Environment Canada (EC) and Transport Canada (TC), did receive and review the revised bridge plans as part of the environmental assessment for the Project.

Please be advised that, with respect to navigational issues, on March 29, 2004 legislative responsibility for the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) was transferred from DFO to TC. As a result, review of the revised bridge plans from the navigation perspective were undertaken by staff of Transport Canada.

Please contact Mr. John Englert, District Manager, Edmonton District Office, at (780) 495-8948 if you have any other questions or concerns. Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention.

Yours truly,

[Original signed by Geoff Regan, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Geoff Regan