IAIA 2007, Seoul, South Korea Detroit River International Crossing Project Navigating the Multi-Jurisdictional Maze for a Large-Scale Transportation Project.

IAIA 2007, Seoul, South Korea

Detroit River International Crossing Project

Navigating the Multi-Jurisdictional Maze for a Large-Scale Transportation Project

Kaarina Stiff, Transport Canada

IAIA 2007, Seoul, South Korea

The maze

IAIA 2007, Seoul, South Korea

The Border Transportation Partnership

IAIA 2007, Seoul, South Korea

Background

• An international transportation project to add new border crossing capacity at the busiest land crossing between Canada and the United States

• A practical example of how to coordinate the legal requirements of multiple jurisdictions for a major transportation project

IAIA 2007, Seoul, South Korea

Location

IAIA 2007, Seoul, South Korea

Why a new crossing?

• Windsor-Detroit Gateway is the single busiest border crossing between Canada and the U.S

• Over next 30 years, cross-border truck traffic is expected to increase by 128%; passenger traffic is expected to increase by 58%

IAIA 2007, Seoul, South Korea

Highlights

• Multi-jurisdictional coordination– Two countries, four levels of government, three EA regimes

• Significant technical challenges– Densely populated urban areas with different development patterns– Historical salt mining activities; high water table; shallow depth to bedrock– Protected natural area within Windsor city limits

• Sophisticated stakeholders on both sides of the border, often with competing interests– Citizens and communities– Private sector interests– Local municipalities– Border users – commuters, manufacturers

IAIA 2007, Seoul, South Korea

• Meet all of our legal requirements– Ontario Environmental Assessment Act– Canadian Environmental Assessment Act– United States National Environmental Policy Act

• Demonstrate this to stakeholders• Manage legal risk

Coordination objectives

IAIA 2007, Seoul, South Korea

Background

• Discussion today will look at three elements of coordination:– Coordinating the planning processes under OEAA

and NEPA– Coordinating Canadian requirements under OEAA

and CEAA– (Using this information to satisfy SEA requirements

in Canada)

IAIA 2007, Seoul, South Korea

OEAA and NEPA

• Focus of OEAA and NEPA is generally the same:– Begin with ‘purpose’ and ‘need’ for the project– Identify and analyze alternatives– Select a preferred alternative based on a clear and traceable

analysis• Purpose of DRIC is to provide additional border

crossing capacity between Windsor, Ontario and Detroit, Michigan– “… to promote the safe, secure and efficient movement of

people and goods between Canada and the U.S. …”– “…end-to-end solution that includes a new river crossing, and

freeway connections and customs inspection plazas in both countries

IAIA 2007, Seoul, South Korea

Evaluation Process

Select Technicallyand Environmentally Preferred Alternative;

Refine & CompletePreliminary Design

Select Technicallyand Environmentally Preferred Alternative;

Refine & CompletePreliminary Design

Refine andAssess

PracticalAlternatives

Refine andAssess

PracticalAlternatives

Assess IllustrativeAlternatives &

Identify PracticalAlternatives

Assess IllustrativeAlternatives &

Identify PracticalAlternatives

Purpose of theUndertaking

Assess PlanningAlternativesand Develop

Illustrative Alternatives

Purpose of theUndertaking

Assess PlanningAlternativesand Develop

Illustrative Alternatives

Steps in Evaluation Process

TIME

Aug ‘05Jan ‘06

Jan ‘07Dec ‘07NUMBER OF

ALTERNATIVES

AMOUNT OFANALYSIS

IAIA 2007, Seoul, South Korea

Evaluation Factors

1. Changes to Air Quality

2. Protection of Community & Neighbourhood Characteristics

3. Consistency with Existing & Planned Land Use

4. Protection of Cultural Resources

5. Protection of Natural Environment

6. Improve Regional Mobility

7. Minimize Cost

IAIA 2007, Seoul, South Korea

Illustrative Route Alternatives

IAIA 2007, Seoul, South Korea

Practical Alternatives: Area of Continued Analyses (ACA)

IAIA 2007, Seoul, South Korea

OEAA and CEAA

• OEAA applies to provincial agencies that propose certain ‘undertakings’– Identification and analysis of alternatives, to determine which

alternative provides the best balance between project need and protecting the environment

• CEAA applies to federal authorities who take certain actions in relation to a “project”, as defined by the Act– Decision is focused on whether “the project is likely to cause

significant adverse environmental effects• The OEAA is typically applied earlier, which can create

difficulties coordinating with the federal regime; however the processes can be very complimentary (if we work at it)

IAIA 2007, Seoul, South Korea

Challenges

• Different focus / legal framework• OEAA is focused on analyzing alternatives; CEAA decision is focused on the

significance of the effects of the ‘project’• For screening level assessments under CEAA, consideration of alternatives

is discretionary• “Environmental effect” under CEAA is more focused on the biophysical

environment• Lack of project details in early stages makes it difficult for federal agencies to

fully articulate information needs

• Limited resources• In the absence of project details, federal agencies need to decide where to

focus their resources; lack of early participation can result in information gaps later in the process

IAIA 2007, Seoul, South Korea

What this meant for DRIC

• Provincial process starts with the identification of the undertaking: e.g., developing new border crossing capacity– We didn’t know where it would go, or what it would look like (bridge

or tunnel); we started with a “problem” not a “project”• Federal process starts with a Project Description which

needs to define the project in enough detail for federal authorities to determine if they have an EA responsibility in relation to the project– We didn’t know which watercourses we might cross, whether we

would have piers in the water, or how close we would be situated to the tall-grass prairie reserve; lack of info makes it difficult to rally the troops

IAIA 2007, Seoul, South Korea

Tools for DRIC

• Transport Canada participation in the Border Transportation Partnership– Steering Committee and Working Group includes representatives

from all four partnership agencies– Joint decision making helps to ensure that we can achieve an end-

to-end solution that works for all jurisdictions• Canada-Ontario Agreement on Environmental Assessment

Cooperation provides a framework to coordinate EA requirements– Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and Ontario Ministry

of Environment provide coordinating function for process issues; helps to encourage early involvement, which is further facilitated by TC’s role as a de facto ‘proponent’

IAIA 2007, Seoul, South Korea

DRIC Approach

• Federal review of provincial Terms of Reference– TOR is a specific provincial requirement, but federal agencies

provided comments and identified key areas of interest; familiarity with the early stages helped to streamline later stages of the process

• Federal review of provincial work plans for each subject area, such as air quality and natural heritage– Early input on study design ensured that federal information needs

were identified as early as possible; specific needs can be refined as the study proceeds

– Still difficult for federal authorities to provide “project” advice, but they can at least agree (or not disagree) with methodologies, and they’ll be up to speed when we do decide what we’re doing

IAIA 2007, Seoul, South Korea

DRIC Approach

• Federal process formally triggered with the identification of the ‘area of continued analysis’– “Early” trigger was possible once additional project details were

identified during the selection of practical alternatives, even though the specific details have not yet been defined

– We still didn’t know where we’re going, but we had a better idea• Development of federal EA guidelines undertaken in parallel

with the analysis of the practical alternatives, drawing on the work already being done– Analysis of practical alternatives generated additional information

that federal authorities can use to determine if they have responsibilities or expertise that is related to the ‘project’; this can be refined when the preferred alternative is selected

IAIA 2007, Seoul, South Korea

Are we successfully navigating the maze?

• Meet legal requirements:– OEAA and NEPA requirements are both being

met, with coordinated decisions in Canada and the U.S.

– OEAA and CEAA processes are being coordinated under the EA cooperation agreement’

– OEAA and CEAA decisions are being documented for the public

• Demonstrate to stakeholders– OEAA process involves extensive consultations– TOR explains federal-provincial coordination– Federal EA guidelines reference the provincial

work plans, to demonstrate ‘one body of documentation’

IAIA 2007, Seoul, South Korea

Are we successfully navigating the maze?

• Demonstrate to stakeholders – We only received two public

comments on the draft federal EA guidelines

• Manage legal risk:– Process is still in progress …

only time will tell

IAIA 2007, Seoul, South Korea

The maze

IAIA 2007, Seoul, South Korea

Links to SEA

• At the federal level in Canada, a strategic environmental assessment is required for policies, plans and programs

• This initiative straddles the line between a project and a plan, but an SEA of some type will likely be necessary to support government decisions related to the new crossing

• Information generated from this coordinated federal-provincial assessment, together with the feasibility study that preceded it, will provide the details necessary to support this process