Transport Canada – Their approval is being erroneously accepted for in-water recreation

Summary
Transport Canada appears to be providing approvals for which they are not qualified.

Marine navigation approval from Transport Canada is being erroneously accepted as confirmation that in-water recreational activities, such as swimming, can continue upstream of the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala Falls. 
 

Detail
For this proposed project, we understand Transport Canada’s mandate is marine navigation. For example, approving the design and location of the safety booms.

However, we understand that Transport Canada has no expertise or mandate for in-water recreational safety. This is confirmed in the second page of this e-mail from Transport Canada, where they state “Transport Canada does not have authority over swimming safety”.

Yet, we see in the second page of this letter concerning the Bala Regatta, Transport Canada states: “I have corresponded directly with the Bala Aquatic Association concerning their historic regatta and you have addressed their concerns in the ESR (2.2.5.7) and with the surface water velocity and plant flow figures (6.1, 6.2c). Their activities should be able to continue as they have planned.”

Concerning this remarkable statement from Transport Canada we note the following:

1. First, Section 2.2.5.7 of the proponent’s environmental screening report simply notes what the Regatta is, that some activities take place from the town dock, and that it includes swimming activities. Figures 6.1 and 6.2c show the flows throughout the year and at different locations, but have no information on whether swimming and other recreational activities would be safe. And certainly, there is no mention of the currently-required cycling operation which would periodically increase the flow above historical the historical values, further increasing the danger to in-water recreational activities both upstream and downstream of the proposed generating station. We therefore do not understand what information or justification Transport Canada has to state of the Bala Regatta that “Their activities should be able to continue as planned”. 
    
2. Second, both the proponent’s environmental screening report and our response to the proponent’s environmental screening report noted that the Bala Regatta includes swimming activities (as well as fun boating activities where participants often end up in the water). We do not understand how Transport Canada can be providing any advice on the safety of in-water recreational activities given that they do not have, and have confirmed they do not have any “authority over swimming safety”. 
    
3. This letter from Transport Canada was written to Hatch Ltd., the environmental consultant used by the proponent, and as a result the proponent’s response to our swimming safety concerns (as e-mailed to SaveTheBalaFalls.com, and dated April 1, 2010 – no joke!) stated “Transport Canada has reviewed completed study reports and noted that the upstream Town Docks will be able to be used during the project operation in the same way as it presently is. Transport Canada has also noted that the Regatta activities may be conducted in their present form following the building of the project. Transport Canada has communicated this directly to the regatta organizers.” That is, the proponent believes they now have confirmation that swimming in the area would be safe. 
    
4. And the Ministry of the Environment has also accepted this misinterpreted and erroneous information, as they have replied to us (in their March 25, 2011 letter denying the elevation request) “The Town Docks located upstream of the Project, will be unaffected by construction and operation with regards to access or navigation and will have no impact to the annual boat regatta …”. The boat regatta includes swimming activities, there is no such confirmation that there will be no impact.

We have detailed this concern in our request to the Minister of the Environment to review the Director of the Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch’s decision to deny the requests that this project be elevated to require an individual environmental assessment (see pages 2, 5, and 15 to 18).