tREC'D- OCU -I.J -.- .... Hf

Ottawa ~~~ 18 20'6 Constituency Room 540, Confederation Building 403 2nd Ave West Suite 2 Ottawa, Ontario KIA OA6 RE<;U -ll~~ M- MDt:.j Brooks, AB T I R OS3 Tel.: 613-992-0761 Tel.: 403-793-677 5 Fax.: 6 13-992-0768 To! Free: 1-844-241-0020 [email protected] Fax: 403-793-6778 martin.shields.c I @parl. gc.ca HOUSE OF COMMONS (HAMBRE DES COMMUNES cMartin C::!Jhields Member of Parliament ~IECCIEUV\ED '\ JUN 2 8 2016 June 14, 2016 ------1

The Hon. Catherine McKenna, P.C., M.P. Minister of the Environment and Climate Change Fontaine Building 200 Sacre-Coeur Boulevard, 2nd Floor Gatineau QC KIA OH3

Dear Minister McKenna,

I write today supporting the request from the Rocky View County that the Canada Environmental Assessment Agency conduct a review of the proposed Springbank Off-stream Reservoir Project.

Rocky View County, a portion of which is in the Bow River Constituency, has a vested interest as the project is within their municipal boundaries.

The County has as number of concerns with the project, namely: Jurisdictional Concerns; Impacts to Fish, Fish Habitat and Navigable Waters; Species at risk; Impacts to Aboriginal Peoples; Impacts to residents, including loss of air quality; Loss of agricultural land; NEB Pipelines and Emergency Response; As well as other considerations.

I am attaching the letter sent by the County to the CEAA for your records and for informational purposes.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I look forward to your reply.

Martin Shields, M.P. Bow River

Encl (1)

CC: Reeve Greg Boehlke, Rocky View County

www.martinshieldsbowri ver.ca ~ ROCKY VIEW COUNTY Office of the Reeve ~ Cultivating Communities 911·32 Ave NE iCalgary, AB IT2 E 6X6 403-520-1290 I www. rockyvicw.ca

May 30, 2016

Springbank Off-stream Reservoir Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Canada Place 9700 Jasper Avenue, Suite 1145 , AB , TSJ 4C3

Attention: CEAA Agency

Re: Springbank Offstream Reservoir Project

Rocky View County ("County") wishes to provide comments with respect to the Springbank Off­ stream Reservoir Project ("Springbank Project"), proposed to be located within the municipal boundary of Rocky View County. The County understands the rationale for the Spring bank Project, but strongly believes a federal environmental assessment is required to ensure protection of the environment and public interest. Rocky View County submits that the Springbank Project meets the criteria required to trigger an environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 ("CEAA, 2012").

Lands within County are located in a horseshoe shape around the City of ; to the west, north and east of Calgary. Rocky View County is home to approximately 38,000 residents. The County provides numerous services to its residents, including fire, emergency, roads, water, utilities, waste management, and recycling.

The map provided below shows the location of the County in relation to the City of Calgary:

r tor:...... I -- ROCKY VIEW COUNTY -[] - ~ __ __./- ~,,~~]

I '------.. -- i~---' ·= TS UU'MNA

M.O. ol Foo iNII• \ The proponent, Transportation, seeks to locate the Springbank Project in the southern tip of the western arm of the County, immediately north of the Tsuut'ina Nation lands, as shown below in the map below from the Springbank Off-stream Reservoir Project Description, April 18, 2016 ("Project Description"):

'8·

1 I' 1'NA .~ATW) 1.&5

F oothill; ·so > 1

Rocky View County submits the following issues with respect to the Springbank Project raise concerns sufficient to warrant an environmental assessment under CEM, 2012:

1) Jurisdictional concerns; 2) Impacts to fish, fish habitat and navigable waters; 3) Impacts to species at risk; 4) Impacts to Aboriginal people; 5) Impacts to residents, including air quality impacts; 6) Loss of agricultural land; 7) NEB Pipelines and Emergency Response; 8) Other considerations; and 9) Relevant precedents.

This submission will discuss the above issues briefly in turn as they apply to the Springbank Project.

1) Jurisdictional Concerns

Rocky View County has limited jurisdiction with respect to the Project, as Development permits may not be required for provincial infrastructure works under its Land Use Bylaw. In addition, the Project Description indicates that Rocky View County will have limited discretion with respect to approving a change in land use from its current agriculture designation to a district that is more suitable for the intended use, given section 619(1) of the Municipal Government Act. Therefore, since the Alberta government is itself the proponent of the Project, it remains essential that federal authorities conduct the environmental assessment for the Springbank Project to ensure that all stakeholder interests and environmental effects are appropriately considered.

2 With the greatest respect, an outcom_e where Alberta is both the proponent and the approving environmental assessment authority for the Spring bank Project will not serve the public interest

Rocky View County also submits that federal authorities have significant expertise in reviewing projects of this nature and other projects involving the diversion of water resources, as discussed below. Federal authorities are in the best position to ensure a robust and objective environmental assessment is undertaken with respect to the Springbank Project.

2) Impacts to Fish, Fish Habitat and Navigable Waters

The Elbow River is a valued ecosystem component within the County. Residents of Rocky View County value the Elbow River as an important part of their community. As identified in the Project Description, the Elbow River contains a number of recreational fish species which are available for residents to harvest and enjoy. Given the importance of the Elbow River to life in Rocky View County, it is important to ensure that impacts on fish and fish habitat are appropriately studied by federal authorities. This will ensure the diversion of the river and the subsequent flooding of the Off-stream Storage Reservoir do not have impacts to fish and fish habitat, or such impacts are appropriately mitigated.

The Project Description indicates in Section 5.1.6.2.2 that Elbow River tributaries in the Project area do not contain sensitive fish habitat. However, Rocky View County submits that the definition of fish . habitat includes ephemeral tributaries to the Elbow River1 and should be part of any environmental impact assessment conducted. Rocky V,iew County has concerns that if a CEAA, 2012 assessment does not take place, a robust assessment of impacts to fish habitat will not take place. Rocky View County notes that ephemeral watercourses connected to fisheries can still be 2 protected by the Fisheries Act. ·

The Project Description indicates impacts to fish and fish habitat, including the following :

• Construction of the Springbank Project and associated works could impact gravel spawning beds for salmonids, or scoured pools that provide high quality overwintering habitat for fish . • Other areas of fish habitat within or downstream of the Project Area have the potential to . become degraded during construction, due to sediments being washed into the river where they could settle over sensitive fish habitat such a spawning beds. • Fish migration in the Elbow River may be disrupted for a portion of the construction period in the Project Area as the Diversion Structure is installed within the river channel.

The Elbow River may also be a navigable water, subject to common law protections and the potential protection of the Navigation Protection Act, including provisions prohibiting dewatering navigable waters without Cabinet approval (s .23). Certain canoe enthusiasts and kayakers are known to use the Elbow River as a waterway for recreational purposes.

Rocky View County submits that the above noted impacts require assessment by federal authorities through a CEAA, 2012 environmental assessment.

1 Fisheries Protection Policy Statement, October, 2013. 2 Fisheries Protection Policy Statement, October, 2013, p. 4, 7, and 18.

3 3) Species at Risk

The Project Description indicates that numerous species at risk, including twelve (12) species protected under the Species at Risk Act ("SARA") protected species may reside within the Springbank Project area and could be impacted. Rocky View County takes the position that these species at risk require appropriate protection and an environmental assessment of applicable impacts prior to the Springbank Project proceeding. As these species do not reside on federal lands, they will not be protected by SARA, except indirectly if a CEAA, 2012 assessment occurs due to the operation of section 79 of SARA. Section 79 of SARA will only apply to the Springbank Project within the context of a CEAA, 2012 assessment. Only if a CEAA, 2012 assessment is required will Alberta be required to, "identify the adverse effects of the project on the listed wildNfe species and its critical habitat and, if the project is carried out, must ensure that measures are taken to avoid or lessen those effects and to monitor them ... [t]he measures must be taken in a way that is consistent with any applicable recovery strategy and action plans."

4) Impacts to Aboriginal Peoples

Rocky View County understands that the Tsuut'ina First Nation is submitting comments with respect to this screening process. Rocky View County will leave it to the Tsuut'ina to set out their own concerns, but notes that impacts on the Tsuut'ina Nation may be a strong factor in support of a federal assessment taking place.

5) Impacts to residents, including loss of air quality

The Project Description suggests that air emissions do not represent a serious concern, as air quality impacts will only arise from construction vehicles, and the use of these vehicles will not have a measureable impact on air quality. Nevertheless, the County remains concerned about the particulates generated during construction activities.

Of long term concern are the impacts on the health of Rocky View County, Tsuut'ina First Nation, Red Wood Meadows and City of Calgary residents. The Project Description does not provide information on the amount of sediment that is expected to be deposited during a flood event nor the operational process to mitigate its impacts. Sediment deposit and dust are not trivial matters, as witnessed by the impact on the City of Calgary air quality following the 2013 flood event. The County notes that the Glenmore Reservoir receives an average of 61 acre-feet (75,200 m3) per 3 year of sediment. . I

photo credit: YouT ube poster clmb234

3 Sedimentation in Glenmore Reservoir, Calgary, Alberta, A. B. Hollingshead, E. K. Yaremko, and C. R. Neill, Canadian Geotechnical Journal 1973.

4 Rocky View County contends there may be significant risks to human health, due to wind erosion of the sediments deposited in the Off-stream Storage Reservoir following a flood event. In this respect, the County and its residents are concerned about the content of the material left behind, and the subsequent impacts to the health of County residents and proximate residents from First Nations, and City of Calgary. The Project Description indicates that Alberta Transportation will mitigate these impacts by following best management practices and applicable guidelines. However, Rocky View County submits that the extent of the problem has not been quantified; best management practices to deal with silted agriculture land are unknown, and an independent human health risk assessment is required. A true independent assessment is only possible if the federal government is conducting the assessment under CEAA, 2012.

6) Loss of agricultural land

As a result of Rocky View County being situated proximate to large urban areas, it is under increasing pressure from development which displaces farm and agricultural lands. The displacement of dependable agricultural land by development is a growing trend in the Prairies, including Alberta.4

The County is concerned about the additional loss of agricultural land from the Springbank Project and the results this has on the physical and socioeconomic environment of the County. Soils in this area are classified as Black Chernozemic soils, which are highly productive. This is an area with productive ranch lands, native grasslands, and hay and cereal crops. The deposition of silts associated with a flood event will degrade and destroy the agricultural use of the area. In addition, there will be a significant invasive weed management program required for several years following any flooding event. The County contends that neither the loss ·of agricultural land nor the cost of mitigation and soil remediation have been built into the project's cost/benefit analysis.

7) NEB Pipelines and Emergency Response

The Springbank Project will be constructed over several pipelines, including some National Energy Board ("NEB") regulated pipelines. Little information is provided by Alberta Transportation with respect to these pipelines. The County is responsible, in conjunction with other regulators and applicable stakeholders, for emergency response within its municipal boundaries and has concerns with the impacts the Springbank Project may have, particularly with respect to pipeline integrity and safety. Various provisions of the National Energy Board Act, including section 112 will require satisfaction, particularly with respect to safety and pipeline integrity, prior to construction occurring over applicable pipelines.5 The required involvement of the NEB in Springbank Project favours a CEAA, 2012 assessment.

8) Other Considerations

Rocky View County is concerned with the socio-economic costs of the Springbank Project to the County and County residents. Although these concerns may be beyond the purview of CEAA, the County considers them relevant. They include: • Health effects on residents and loss of agricultural land, as described above;

4 Rural and Small Town Canada Analysis Bulletin Catalogue no. 21 -006-XIE Vol. 6, No. 1 (January 2005) The loss of dependable agricultural land in Canada (). 5 National Energy Board letter decision on application by Metro pursuant to section 112 of the National Energy Board Act, File OF-Surv-CA-M253 02, 2 April 2007. In this case the NEB denied an application to construct a parking lot over an NEB regulated pipeline for safety and integrity related concerns.

5 • Disruption and loss of a way of life for landowners who are displaced, or adjacent to, the dry reservoir; • Loss of a regional transportation link. Springbank Road is a future Major Network road for the County that provides service to users throughout the greater Calgary area . The project will impact the ability to build the roadway to its future classification; • Loss of opportunity for recreational or water storage uses due to the design of a dry reservoir; and • The unquantified costs to County taxpayers for the relocation and construction of County road infrastructure, and the ongoing maintenance of the project area.

The extent of these concerns and impacts are unknown, as the Province has provided limited documentation to the County for our review and assessment.

9) Relevant Precedents

In support of its position that a federal environmental assessment is required, the County notes that certain federal departments have significant experience in reviewing projects that impact fresh waters, including water diversion projects and dams. For example, a federal assessment was continued and took place under CEAA, 2012 with respect to the Little Bow Reservoir Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project, proposed by Alberta Transportation. The level of environmental review for the Little Bow Project was significant and involved a comprehensive study level assessment. The project involved a proposal to upgrade the dam structures and associated canals in the Little Bow reservoir, and to replace the control structure in the canal connecting the Travers and Little Bow reservoirs. The proposed works increased the surface area of the Little Bow reservoir from 6.16 sq. km to 8.86 sq. km. Rocky View County submits the Springbank Project is more significant in scope than the Little Bow reservoir project, and covers a materially larger area (6,800 acres) than the expansion area proposed for the Little Bow reservoir expansion project (1, 726 acres).

Similarly the CEAA Agency determined that a federal environmental assessment was required for the Amisk Hydroelectric Project which involved a 330 MW hydroelectric project on the Peace River in Alberta. Although a hydroelectric facility, the project involves some similar structures as the Springbank Project, and similar federal heads of power to the Springbank Project. Other current or recent projects involving water diversions or dams are also undergoing, or have undergone, a federal environmental assessment. 6

In conclusion, as a proximate and materially affected stakeholder, and governmental approving authority, Rocky View County submits that a CEAA, 2012 assessment should be required for the reasons set out above. The most efficient method to incorporate a CEAA, 2012 assessment would be through the establishment of a joint CEAA/NRCB panel.

6 Tazi Twe Hydroelectric Project, Reference number: 80031 . Saskatchewan Power Corporation proposes the construction , operation, decommissioning and abandonment of a 50 megawatt water diversion type electrical generating station at Elizabeth Falls. The proposed project would be located adjacent to the Fond duLac River between Black Lake and Middle Lake, on Black Lake Denesuline First Nation reserve land Chicken 224 in northern Saskatchewan. Klinaklini Hydroelectric Project, Reference number: 36321 . Kleana Power Corporation proposes to develop a run-of-river hydroelectric power project on the Klinaklini River on the mainland coast of British Columbia, 167 km northeast of Campbell River, B.C.

6 Finally, on behalf of Council, I would like to state that the County supports the Alberta Government's commitment to develop and implement a flood mitigation strategy for Southern Alberta, including the County and Calgary Region. However, the County believes there are alternatives to the Springbank Off-stream Reservoir Project that have not been fully explored nor adequately compared in terms of a robust cost/benefit analysis.

Should you have any technical questions about our submission, I would direct you to contact Byron Riemann, General Manager of Infrastructure and Operations.

Sincerely, ROCKY VIEW COUNTY

Greg Boehlke Reeve cc: Honourable Brian Mason, Minister, Alberta Transportation Honourable Shannon Phillips, Minister, Alberta Environment and Parks Roy Whitney One-spot, Chief, Tsuut'ina Nation Liz Erasmus, Mayor, Townsite of Redwood Meadows Naheed Nenshi, Mayor, City of Calgary Leela Aheer, MLA, -Rocky View Nathan M. Cooper, MLA, Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills Cameron Westhead, MLA, Banff-Cochrane Angela Pitt, MLA, Airdrie John Barlow, MP, Foothills , MP, Banff-Airdrie Martin Shields, MP, Bow River Rocky View County Council Kevin E. J. Greig, County Manager, Rocky View County Byron Riemann, General Manager, Infrastructure and Operations, Rocky View County

7