 Bridge
Over Troubled Waters
By Richard Drinnan, M.Sc., Guest Columnist – Kelowna Daily Courier,
October 26, 2008
In a recent article on the plan to sink the old bridge into Okanagan Lake,
Ministry of Transportation project manager, Jon Buckle implied that I was
being unfair when I characterized the plan as one that turns our drinking
water reservoir into a landfill site.
I think landfill is the best word to describe the plan to dump 100,000 metric
tons of concrete and steel in the lake or anywhere else. It’s a huge
amount of rubble.
Buckle also stated that the public environmental review process for the project
I have been seeking since 2005 is not as relevant as the work the ministry
is doing now to assess the issue of drinking water quality.
I disagree. I want to set the record straight and outline the approach taken
by the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of Environment and the federal
Department of Fisheries and Oceans to publicly review this project.
For 12 years the BC Ministry of Transportation has done everything it can
to avoid openly assessing the environmental and human health risks associated
with the Decommissioning Phase of the Okanagan Lake Bridge Project.
From the earliest planning stage, the ministry recognized that the decommissioning
had the greatest environmental and safety risks because the pontoons could
sink accidentally in shallow water or damage the new bridge while they were
being disassembled and towed to the graving dock up the lake. Both events would
be costly to mitigate.
Knowing these risks, the ministry failed to include the decommissioning phase
in its 1996 environmental overview report fearing the risks might raise unwanted
public concerns on a number of issues and add significant delay to the project.
These issues included severing the highway link across the lake, creating navigational
hazards, various environmental damages and project cost overruns. Among the
environmental concerns were the impacts on fish and wildlife, water quality
and human health.
This report was an important document used by the ministry in its 1996 public
consultation to gain public acceptance for the project. By omission, it did
not address public policies for land and water uses and hid the fact that the
project might use our drinking water reservoir as a dumpsite for the old bridge.
A 1997 report by the Ministry advised its engineering team that the project
should completely avoid a review under the BC Environmental Assessment Act.
It stated:
“The Okanagan Lake Bridge would take approximately 30 months to go through
the two (review) stages, and would invoke a great deal of interest in future
population growth, land use decisions and air quality concerns for the Okanagan
Valley. Having to develop answers to these questions moves the study out of
the traditional role of the engineering project manager. The bigger question
that would be difficult to answer is how the Ministry could effectively develop
mitigative strategies for issues that are so far removed from the Ministry's
mandate. If this replacement project is placed under the review process, then
the methodology will become apparent. The BCEAA promises to make it an interesting
and challenging process for transportation engineers.”
To avoid this detailed public review, ministry engineers subsequently designed
the project to fall below the two-hectare impact footprint that would trigger
a BCEAA review. The Ministry then applied for and received a project exemption
from the BC Ministry of Environment to exclude the project from a detailed
public review of the project’s environmental and health risks. It used
the grounds that the project did not meet the necessary trigger for a reviewable
project.
Knowing the project would not be publicly reviewed, the Ministry’s 2001
Lake Sediment Study for the project did not collect and analyze sediments from
the proposed dumpsites in the lake.
The Ministry’s 2001 Final Environmental Report on the project also avoided
a detailed assessment of the disposal options for the old bridge during the
Decommissioning Phase stating:
“The contractor will develop the construction and decommissioning methodologies;
however, all activities will be done in an environmentally acceptable manner,
using best management practices.”
The 2004 tender documents the Ministry sent to bridge contractors stated that
federal Authorization to sink the old bridge was not guaranteed and that bids
should contain cost estimates for both on-land and in-lake disposal options.
A 2005 report the ministry sent to the BC Treasury Board stated that the decommissioning
phase had high levels of risk but that both on-land and in-lake disposal options
were manageable, were within the ministry’s budget and could be managed
so they would not jeopardize the project.
The Ministry of Transportation’s 2005 consultation summary report was
sent to the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans to show that the public
had been consulted on the project. The report failed to mention that disposal
options for the old bridge were not discussed with the public, First Nations,
local governments and federal and provincial agencies.
The DFO 2005 environmental screening review of the project for the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency was restricted and limited to an assessment
of the impacts to fish and wildlife. The review focused on DFO maximizing compensation
payments for fish habitat damage during the project and on habitat restoration.
DFO did not conduct any studies of the project. Rather, it used the 1996, 2001
and 2005 Ministry of Transportation reports mentioned above as the basis for
their review. These reports failed to review the decommissioning phase.
At no time did other federal and provincial agencies assess the disposal options
for the old bridge. There was no review of the potential impacts to drinking
water supplies, human health, livestock or crops that may result when the old
bridge was dumped into our water reservoir. Environment Canada had a limited
role in the review of wildlife impacts but was not asked to consider impacts
to the drinking water supply.
In 2005, the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans authorized the project,
including plans to sink part of the old bridge in exchange for financial compensation
for fish habitat damages. This Authorization allowed the Ministry of Transportation
to impact a maximum footprint below the high water level totaling 2.12 hectares.
Five months later, DFO authorized a ministry request to increase the impact
footprint to 2.28 hectares. A 2006 amendment reduced the authorized the impact
area to its current 2.26 hectares. By early 2008, the ministry decided to sink
the entire bridge. Their consultant’s memo recommends an amendment to
the DFO Authorization to increase the impact footprint area to 2.86 hectares.
If this amendment is authorized, the below high water level impact footprint
of the project will have increased .74 hectares, or 43% above the BCEAA trigger
limit without due public review accountability.
For 12 years, the Ministry of Transportation has avoided public scrutiny and
a detailed technical review of the decommissioning phase because it knew this
phase would cross the two-hectare limit that triggers a complex public review
under the BC Environmental Assessment Act.
Today, the Ministry continues to avoid its public responsibilities by not
upholding public land and water use policies that protect Okanagan Lake from
being used as a dumping ground for industrial wastes. Plans for on-land disposal
are viable options that are not being considered.
The Ministry of Environment, who erroneously exempted the project from public
review in 2001, also continues to avoid any obligation to reverse its 2001
decision and publicly review the decommissioning phase of the project.
The federal government is also refusing to assess the decommissioning phase.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and DFO refuse to re-open the
federal screening review process, which they can legally do. Federal Minister
of Public Safety, Stockwell Day, and Ron Cannan are local MPs who constituents
drink water from Okanagan Lake. They have not acted on requests to have the
federal Minister of Environment, John Baird, intervene and instruct CEAA to
re-open the review.
The Ministry of Transportation has never brought forward any detailed-level
engineering, environmental and health risk assessments of plans to sink the
old bridge for public review. Current reports are conceptual in nature. There
is little, if any, environmental data from which to scientifically assess the
impacts that contaminated bottom sediments will have on the water supply and
on human health when 100,000 metric tons of concrete hit the bottom of the
lake travelling at 43 kilometers per hour.
The federal and provincial environmental review processes exist to ensure
issues of public concern are addressed - not avoided.
What is relevant is that the Ministry of Transportation has intentionally
avoided statutory review processes that would publicize concerns about land
use and health risks in favour of financial self-interest.
Public officials at all levels of government must act quickly to protect the
land and water uses of Okanagan Lake. The ministry plans sink the old bridge
before Christmas 2008.
Okanagan residents must decide if they want their water reservoir to be used
as a landfill. Once approved, landfill will become a common practice in the
lake.
Concerned residents should contact their Mayor, their MP and their MLA and
request action to stop plans to sink the old bridge until all the disposal
options have been publicly reviewed. The best disposal option will be the one
that has the least impact on the environment and on human health over the long-term.
The option that is chosen should be chosen because it is in the public interest,
is a matter of public convenience and necessity and meets public policies to
protect drinking water supplies and public health.
Richard Drinnan is a retired ecologist who lives in Kelowna, BC. He developed
the environmental review processes used by the governments of Canada and Alberta.
<< back
|
