One prominent ecologist isn't surprised to learn Environment Canada hasn't been testing the Athabasca River for chemicals from the oilsands.
That fact was revealed Tuesday when Scott Vaughan, the federal the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, tabled his fall 2010 audit of Environment Canada.
Studies have suggested that oilsands mining has environmental impacts as a result of freshwater use and pollutant releases, said the report's case study on the oilsands. Though the first commercial oilsands production began in 1967, Environment Canada only recently identified the oilsands region as a priority ecosystem and hotspot for further assessment and intervention.
In 2009, the department issued a report on water quality status and trends in Wood Buffalo National Park recommended expanding the monitoring parameters to include pollutants related to oilsands development. At the time of this audit, the department was still considering the recommendation.
"Consequently, the department's Fresh Water Quality Monitoring program has no baseline measures or long-term data to track changes in water quality and aquatic ecosystem health in the river associated with oilsands development," said the report. In addition, when it comes to water quantity, the department has not determined whether it currently has an adequate number of stations to monitor water flow related to oilsands development.
"If you'd have asked me this five years ago, I could have told you that," said Kevin Timoney, who has released a number of studies of the years linking environmental contamination to oilsands development.
"Sadly, what's happened over the years is that Environment Canada has depended upon the province to sample the water in the region."
The report's chapters highlight several areas where the federal government is not doing what it said it would do to protect the environment and move toward sustainable development, said the audit.
"There is little in our findings to offset a discouraging picture, as most suggest underlying problems in how these federal programs are being managed.
"In short, the two fundamental problems we identified are a lack of effective and sustained leadership, especially when responsibilities are shared, and inadequate information."
Environment Canada does have a sampling station down at the Old Fort on the Lower Athabasca River at the border of Wood Buffalo National Park, about 150-kilometres downstream from the oilsands.
The audit notes that the provincial government and private sector monitor water quality in this region, but their data is not available in the Department's regional long-term water quality database.
The sampling point was initially installed just to look at potential changes in the river from the pulp and paper processing industry, recalled Timoney.
"The sorts of parameters they look at are not suited to looking at the effects of the present industry that's near Fort McMurray."
He believes that Environment Canada would defend its lack of action saying with the reasoning it doesn't need to do it because the Alberta government is doing it?
"That's the answer they've given me when I've asked them other questions, for example, 'Why aren't you enforcing the Migratory Birds Convention Act? Why aren't you enforcing the Fisheries Act?'" said Timoney referring the the federal government's own statutes.
With the federal government responding that the provincial government has the authority to enforce the acts, he says Environment Canada has abdicated its responsibility.
"It's one of those shell games where they're saying 'Well look elsewhere because we don't have them but we feel as if it's being studied,' and it's not because Alberta has abdicated its own responsibility to RAMP which is useless to 99.9% of us because were not members of RAMP."
RAMP — the Regional Aquatics Management Program — was initiated in 1997 as a science-based environmental monitoring program designed to fulfill the aquatic monitoring needs of all its stakeholders. Its website says the program strives to achieve a holistic understanding of potential effects of oilsands development on aquatic systems, as well as address specific issues important to communities of the region.
Timoney isn't overly optimistic Environment Canada will change its monitoring or responsibility focus when it comes to enforcing its own statues and monitoring the chemical levels in the river as it pertains to the oilsands.
"I used to be more of an optimist, but now I'm a wait-and-see kind of person because I've heard so many promises over the years that as soon as the furor dies down, nothing happens," said Timoney who believes the status quo will end up being the most likely scenario.
"I hope I'm wrong."
Another point Vaughan made in his audit was that Environment Canada has been running the federal water quantity and water quality monitoring programs for about 40 years without knowing who — if anyone — is monitoring the quality of fresh water on federal lands. As a consequence, there are unacceptable gaps in the federal monitoring of fresh water, notably, that Environment Canada has water quality monitoring stations on only 12 of some 3,000 First Nation reserves.
"Federal leadership for water monitoring needs to be revisited, and Environment Canada needs to set out clearly how it will meet its responsibilities. In my view, this is long overdue," said Vaughan.
He noted that neither the Fresh Water Quality Monitoring program nor the National Hydrometric Program was well managed to adequately monitor and report on the quality and quantity of Canada's surface fresh water resources as many essential management practices have not been put in place by either program. The department has not defined the extent of its water monitoring responsibilities. Neither program has applied a systematic, risk-based approach to plan, implement, check, and improve its water monitoring activities, and neither program has determined whether it is satisfying client needs or has developed and implemented action plans for program improvement.
As a result, said the audit, Environment Canada does not know whether the greatest risks to water quality and quantity are being monitored.
