|
March
1999 Newsletter
Was
Federal Assessment Tampered With?
In
late January, the federal government released its final
version of the scope for the "screening" assessment of the
expressway. There were a few changes, but it is unclear
why they were made or how significant the alterations are,
because explanations were not provided.
Regional
chairman Cooke boasted openly in the Spectator that
he had used his political muscle to have the screening narrowed.
Cooke's claim to have altered the application of the assessment
law appears to have embarrassed federal officials unfamiliar
with the debased politics of Hamilton-Wentworth. Friends
of Red Hill has asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
and the Minister of the Environment to investigate these
claims of tampering with a federal law.
In
addition, the federal environment critic of the New Democratic
Party, Rick Laliberte, wrote to the Fisheries Department
asking for a list of all submissions made on the scoping
and a written explanation of the changes in the final scoping
document.
Mr. Laliberte noted: "As you are no doubt aware, a project
proponent has made references to political interference
in a Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency process. Please
be advised that additional information requests related
to the scope and assessment process can be expected from
this office."
CHML
radio initially broadcast a false report that everything
but fish and fish habitat had been removed. The newscast
included a comment from the regional chairman who appears
to have been the source of the story. When contacted by
Friends, CHML news staff admitted they had not seen the
final scoping document.
The
document dropped the terms "ecosystem integrity" and "ecosystem
function" from the list of factors to be assessed. It has
been suggested that these are methods of measuring environmental
impacts rather than being environmental factors themselves,
and therefore their removal is not significant.
The
Region has admitted that the expressway project will result
in "high-level impacts" on ecological functions which cannot
be mitigated. Their documents concede the following under
"net impacts":"High-level impacts will occur throughout
the entire Red Hill Creek valley system including the
re-entrant section into the Niagara Escarpment. This is
due to the removal of habitats and significant biota (i.e.
Carolinian floodplain forests, valley slope forests, and
wetlands); and loss of critical ecological functions
such as primary and secondary linkage corridors (i.e. Red
Hill Creek and Davis Creek valleys, and Niagara Escarpment)."
On
the other hand, "aesthetics and recreation" was added to
the list of factors to be evaluated. Presumably this means
the assessment will take account of the loss of sports fields
and parkland as well as the severe visual impacts which
the expressway will cause. The Region was earlier forced
to evaluate visual impacts on the escarpment, but specifically
refused to consider these effects in the rest of the valley.
Direct
reference to the objectives of the Hamilton Harbour Remedial
Action Plan was eliminated, but the RAP has reportedly been
asked to comment directly during the assessment process.
There
were also changes to the definition of the scope of the
project. One of these changes appears to be an attempt by
DFO to avoid embarrassment over its failure to enforce the
federal Fisheries Act.
In
1990-91, the Region built two lengthy concrete channels
in Red Hill Creek as part of the expressway project. As
early as 1992, regional officials reported these channels
were preventing the upstream spawning runs of White Sucker
and Chinook Salmon. These observations were confirmed by
Environment Canada and other government agencies. In 1997,
reports prepared by regional consultants confirmed that
these channels have also seriously aggravated erosion in
the creek.
Everyone
now agrees that these structures were a serious mistake
and have caused serious damages. There is also no question
that these channels were constructed in preparation for
the Red Hill Valley Expressway. The draft scoping document
included these "Previously Completed Works" in the scope
of the assessment. "Relative to the concrete channels at
Queenston Road and King Street, these previously completed
works will be examined as part of the project." The final
scoping document added a qualifier: "The concrete channels
which convey Redhill Creek past Queenston Road and King
Street are previously completed works [and] will be examined
as part of the project, to the extent that they will
be modified to complete the proposal."
This
change appears to mean that the impacts imposed on the environment
by these channels for the past 8 years are no longer going
to be evaluated. This seems convenient for DFO since it
permitted the channels to be constructed in the first place,
and subsequently has failed to enforce the clear requirements
of section 35 of the Fisheries Act that forbid the net loss
of fish habitat. By eliminating consideration of the consequences
of these DFO failures, their shortcomings in this regard
will likely not be identified in the screening report.
The most significant shortcoming of the final scoping document
was also present in the earlier draft. DFO has decided not
to include an examination of the need for the expressway
or alternatives to it such as alternative locations. These
are the most important parts of environmental assessment.
When these two questions are not asked, the assessment process
is reduced to deciding whether the effects of a project
on the environment are "acceptable". Inclusion of these
factors is optional in a federal "screening", but must be
included if a panel review takes place.
Some
of these changes suggest that the assessment process may
have been tainted by backroom political arm-twisting. However,
the assessment remains much more comprehensive than the
Region wanted. It still requires that the evaluation of
the environmental impacts on air quality, noise, human health,
migratory birds, rare and endangered species, groundwater
and surface water quality, wildlife corridors, fish and
fish habitat, and the other factors listed in the December
draft.
|
