In 2015, a pipeline was designed to cut through a sensitive wetland in B.C. The professional biologist reviewing the project told his company that there could be significant damage to the wetland and an extensive monitoring program would have to be set up to watch for effects.

The larger consultancy the biologist’s company worked for refused to submit the report to the pipeline company.

“They took it and rewrote it, basically,” he told DeSmog Canada. “It wasn’t my document anymore.”

The biologist, who spoke to us on the condition of anonymity, said he engaged in a protracted battle with the consultancy, with little effect.

Eventually the B.C. provincial environmental assessment office stepped in and recommended the same monitoring system he originally suggested.

That fight to alter the environmental impacts documented in a scientific report is just one example of the ways professional biologists, engineers, geoscientists and others across the country face pressure from a system with few legislated requirements for scientific rigour.

In interviews with several current and former consultants, the notion was raised again and again that strict rules for scientific integrity could provide a backstop for professionals who are being pressured to alter their recommendations to benefit a project.

That could be about to change, as the federal government introduces a new Impact Assessment Act to replace Canada’s controversial and much-maligned Environmental Assessment Act.

A large majority of Canadians want the new Act to include stricter rules around the inclusion of science, according to a new study released Monday in the journal Facets.

Looking at the comments from public, industry and government solicited by an expert review panel, researchers found the public overwhelmingly asked for more rigorous and transparent scientific analysis of projects during an environmental review.

“In the online questionnaire, people had to rank their top three concerns; science comes out way up there,” said Aerin Jacob, an author of the new study.

The sample of opinions — being drawn from written submissions to the standing committee — is admittedly self-selecting, leaving the paper open to criticisms of selection bias.

“These are people who care enough to be involved, whatever their views are,” Jacob concedes. But other surveys conducted in more traditional ways have returned similar results.

Coauthor Jonathan Moore says what makes the survey unique is that it’s a way of looking at what people are telling the government — thus allowing people to evaluate what the government actually does with that information.

For example, while industry, scientists and the public were aligned on some issues, such as transparency in the government’s decision making, one major area in which industry opinions differed from those of scientists and the public was how rigorous science should be in environmental assessments.

“I think what that means is that the degree to which the government tackled that or not will reveal the degree to which environmental assessment is created for industry or created for the rest of Canada,” Moore said.

Science often not made public

While language in Environment Minister Catherine McKenna’s mandate letter instructs her to “ensure that decisions are based on science, facts, and evidence, and serve the public’s interest,” there is no formal requirement for evidence to be made public before decisions are made.

The new study broke down that concept of evidence-based decision making in environmental assessments into five categories: openly sharing information, evaluating cumulative effects, scientific rigour, transparency in decision-making and independence between regulators and proponents.

“These results not only show there’s strong support across multiple sectors, they also give a road map of how to do it,” says Jacob.

“Rather than just saying you should use science or you should do evidence-based decision making — what does that actually mean? — here, we’re showing, here are five fundamental components of having a scientific approach to environmental assessments, and truly follow up on that commitment.”

Currently, the federal cabinet has a high degree of discretion once assessments have been presented to the government, and the factors that were or were not considered are not made public.

Increased transparency was one of the categories on which almost everyone agreed. For industry, it could mean saving time on environmental assessments, by knowing what was coming ahead of time. For the public, it could mean being able to hold politicians accountable for not taking into consideration promises they had made, or priorities they had professed to have.

Just three submissions were opposed to increased transparency in decision-making, compared to more than 150 in favour.

That’s reflected in the recommendations made by the expert panel: that “information be easily accessible, and permanently and publicly available.”

While the proposed new Act uses the word “transparent” several times, it does not require that data be made public by default, just that there be instructions on how the information can be obtained.

“That kind of redirection is not useful,” says Martin Olszynski, a lawyer at the University of Calgary Faculty of Law.

“You know that the agency has an internal file that contains all of that information, and we basically just say, all of that information should be on the public registry.”

“What if there’s a little bit of harm on my project, and there’s a little bit of harm on somebody else’s project, which is right downstream…Who’s looking at the big picture?” https://t.co/iyVNkwLqJy

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) May 7, 2018

No interconnected knowledge

That lack of transparency also means there are limited opportunities to consider cumulative impacts.

Commenters from the public and even many in industry also asked for more consideration of cumulative effects. Whether through greenhouse gas emissions, air or water quality degradation or wildlife habitat destruction, Jacob said the piling up of effects from different projects is what pushes consequences past a point of no return.

“No one project is going to do that. But together, they do,” she says.

A second professional biologist who spoke to DeSmog Canada on the condition of anonymity said cumulative impacts are among the most insidious, because without specific laws around watching for them, it’s easy to feel pressured to overlook how one project’s impacts stack on those of another nearby.

“What if there’s a little bit of harm on my project, and there’s a little bit of harm on somebody else’s project, which is right downstream…Who’s looking at the big picture?” she asked.

That gap in legislation means that industry-hired professionals have little in the way of recourse when asked to make determinations that they might otherwise feel uncomfortable making. British Columbia is currently conducting a review of the system through which paid consultants are relied upon by the province in environmental decision making (known as professional reliance). The province is also reviewing its environmental assessment process with an eye toward cumulative impacts.

Pressure on professionals

In December of 1980, David Mayhood sent in a report evaluating damage CN Rail had done to a forest in Jasper National Park. It had diverted a stream into the forest to protect its railbed. He found the stream had become impassable for fish because of logjams, while 10 hectares of forest had been wiped out.

“I was fairly graphic in the description about the damage that had been done there,” he said. But there was little appetite for graphic descriptions at the consultancy that had hired him.

“When I got the final copy of the report back with our section in it, it had been drastically changed,” he said. “Where I said an area had been devastated, they said it had been ‘altered.’ ”

Mayhood wrote a letter of protest, but the report was submitted.

He says that kind of pressure to water down language, and consequently undermine the science behind it, has persisted throughout his career.

“The fundamental issue is that biologists…should be independent,” he says. “They aren’t. They’re objectively not independent; they work for a government that has a political agenda, and private industry that also has its own agenda.”

Alana Westwood, science and policy analyst with Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, experienced that lack of independence as she began her career as a junior biologist at a consulting firm. She said that although most experiences met the standard of science, there was one particular firm that went far outside what could be considered objective science.

The consulting company was dominated by one client, an electrical generation company, which held an inordinate amount of power over the quality of science Westwood and her colleagues could do.

“I was routinely asked to do things I had no experience for or training in,” she said. For example, she was asked to conduct a bird survey in what she now knows is the off-season for the birds she was ostensibly looking for, using methods she now knows would never be effective.

And it got worse, when she was asked to do a literature review of the known effects of a particular monitoring technique the firm’s sole client wanted to use.

“Then my boss came to me, and said, of the 20 or so papers you found, how many found no effect, or found it didn’t harm them?” she recalls. There were four papers among the 20.

Her boss was clear on what needed to be done, in order to please the client upon which the entire business turned — like so many biologists before and after her, she would be asked to compromise her training, ethics and better judgment to make life easier for a client whose priority was delivering value to shareholders, rather that protecting the environment.

“Use only those four,” Westwood recalls being told.

As the interview comes to a close, co-author Jonathan Moore loops the conversation around to hockey. In recent years, the NHL — concerned that team doctors were facing conflicts of interest as they assessed players for concussions — decided to change their system.

Today, that assessment is done by outside doctors who wouldn’t face pressure to put unfit players back on the ice.

Moore sees the same possibility for environmental assessment reform to take the pressure away from professionals to deliver what their clients want.

“I find that if Canada can do it for hockey, I would hope they could do it for making these huge decisions that affect the environment and people that rely on the environment.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Gaps in basic knowledge about salmon in the estuary near Flora Bank call into question the review — and approval — of the Pacific Northwest LNG terminal proposed for the mouth of the Skeena River, according to new research from fisheries biologist Jonathan Moore.

Data published Wednesday in the journal Marine Ecology Progress Series shows salmon species don’t merely transit through the Skeena River estuary, as advanced by Pacific Northwest LNG in its environmental assessment, but can linger in the unique estuary environment for much longer periods of time than previously thought.

“The young salmon in the Flora Bank estuary are rearing from days to weeks and some individuals for months,” Moore told DeSmog Canada.

“In its environmental assessment Pacific Northwest LNG stated young salmon were moving through the estuary. Our data states that’s not true; the salmon are residing in the area.”

Moore said the new research, conducted by Simon Fraser University, Lax Kw’alaams Fisheries and the Skeena Fisheries Commission, calls into question some of the fundamental assumptions about the risks associated with building a major LNG export terminal on Lelu Island near Flora Bank.

Pacific Northwest LNG, a subsidiary of Malaysian gas giant Petronas, stated salmon species merely transited through the estuary, a rich intertidal zone home to rare eelgrass beds.

“That was the scientific foundation used to assess the risk to salmon populations in an area that is the base of a watershed the size of Switzerland,” Moore said.

Moore said far from being a simple point of passage, the area provides a critical point of transition to young salmon during their journey from river to sea.

“When young salmon are migrating from fresh water to ocean they have to go through this awkward transition.”

“It’s kind of like a puberty transition,” Moore laughed.

“To move from fresh water to salt water in the ocean can be very hard physiologically. They’re moving from breathing and living in fresh water to salt water.”

“They have to alter their systems so they don’t, basically, blow up in the ocean,” he said.

In monitoring wait times in the estuary, Moore and his fellow researchers found salmon were using the area as a waiting ground to reside, feed, grow and transition before continuing on their migratory route.

“This transition determines whether they do well out there or not,” he said.

“Their estuary period can be important for determining the trajectory of the population of salmon.”

Moore said there are some aspects of the salmon lifecycle that remain a mystery.

“There’s so much we don’t know.”

For example, previous research indicates young salmon move through estuaries very quickly.

“But everything we’ve found shows they’re not,” Moore said.

His research found 25 per cent of Chinook salmon spent at least 33 days in the estuary while Pink, Coho and Sockeye spent at least 30, 22 and five days respectively.

“The bottom line is [residency] depends on the estuary, on the species and on the population of salmon.”

Moore said in its assessment of the project, Pacific Northwest LNG concluded there would be no effects on fish.

“The concern is if you don’t properly assess the risks, you might come to the wrong conclusions,” Moore said.

The federal government’s approval of the LNG export terminal in September was met with significant criticism by the scientific and environmental community.

The scientific community asked the federal government to reject the project’s environmental assessment in March because of flawed science that represented an “insufficient base for a decision.”

Many project opponents have pointed out the review relied heavily on scientific information provided by the project proponent while excluding the research of peer-reviewed scientists.

Others have pointed to a federal study from the 1970s that found the mouth of the Skeena River was inappropriate for industrial development due to its importance for salmon species.

Last month a conservation group, SkeenaWild, launched a legal challenge against the project, saying the federal government based its approval on faulty and incomplete scientific information. Two additional legal challenges by First Nations have also been brought against the project on the basis of flawed consultation and respect of indigenous rights.

Moore said sound science is critical for the environmental assessment process.

“My scientific assessment is that there are major problems with the environmental assessment,” Moore said. “Pacific Northwest’s environmental assessment has a shaky scientific foundation and this is an example of where a claim was made without adequate information.”

“What that means is that the basis for the decision makers might not be based on reality, and might not be based on best scientific evidence.”

“More generally I think it speaks to the need to take a hard look at how Canada makes evidence-based decisions.”

An expert panel is currently conducting a review of the environmental assessment process to fulfill a promise made by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to restore scientific integrity to the decision-making process around major industrial projects.

Image: Young salmon in the eelgrass of the Skeena River estuary. Photo:Tavish Campbell

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The report is dated July 17, 1973, and stamped by the Department of the Environment.

Scientists had undertaken a study of fish in the Skeena estuary due to proposals to build a super port in the Prince Rupert area.

The federal government wanted to know: “What destructive consequences could be imparted on the fisheries resource by superport construction?”

So the scientists set out to find out which areas of the Skeena estuary — home to Canada’s second largest wild salmon run  — are most important for fish.

They found Flora Bank, one of the largest eelgrass beds in B.C., is “of high biological significance as a fish (especially juvenile salmon) rearing habitat,” and advised that “construction of a superport at the Kitson Island — Flora Bank site would destroy much of this critical salmon habitat.”

Forty years passed, with the federal government knowing Flora Bank was no place for industrial development.

And then, this Tuesday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau approved the building of a massive liquefied natural gas export port in that very spot — a spot that scientists say would disrupt a complex system that effectively holds Flora Bank in place.

What changed?

“I think the politics must have changed,” said Jonathan Moore, Liber Ero chair of Coastal Science and Management at Simon Fraser University. “All I can say is that as a scientist, the results haven’t changed. In fact, the data has gotten stronger.”

“Out of all the places that you could imagine in the area, it is the worst possible place in terms of risks to fish.”

You wouldn’t know that from reading the report commissioned by Pacific Northwest LNG and filed to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) on May 5, 2015. In that report, engineering firm Stantec argued there will be little to no environmental impact from building an LNG terminal on Lelu Island, next to Flora Bank.

That submission included no field data on fish, yet concluded that “salmon do not use Flora Bank eelgrass habitat for nursery habitat or other life dependent processes.”

Stantec was sent back to the drawing board three times to provide credible science.

The government and the proponent have never even acknowledged that the project is in important salmon habitat.

“It’s like pretending open heart surgery is like a haircut,” Moore said.

‘Bought Science’ Undermines Environmental Assessment

This kind of “bought science” represents a major conflict of interest and yet forms the foundation of the environmental assessment, Moore told DeSmog Canada.

“Ideally you’d have more of a third-party body that’s producing the science that underpins the decision-making,” he said.

Moore and his associates from Simon Fraser University and the Skeena Fisheries Commission submitted their own research during CEAA’s “comment period.”

About 300 million juvenile salmon rear in the Skeena estuary every year at the critical moment when they graduate from fresh to salt water. The Skeena salmon run is worth more than $110 million annually.

The abundance of salmon is part of the reason Lax Kw’alaams First Nation members overwhelmingly rejected a $1-billion cash offer over 40 years from Petronas, declining to give aboriginal consent to the project.

Unlike the Stantec research, Moore’s is peer-reviewed and has been published in scientific journals Science and PLOS.

“The proposal highlights a troubling blind spot in Canada’s environmental decision-making,” the article in Science reads.

“We have shown that the proposed development area supports particularly high abundances of juvenile salmon from more than 40 populations that are harvested in at least 10 First Nations territories throughout the Skeena watershed and beyond.”

For Moore, whose collaborators have sampled more than 200,000 fish during more than 100 days on the water, the science is clear.

“The data hits you on the head when you’re out there seeing it,” he said.

“Based on our most recent in-depth study where we compared 25 different habitats across the Skeena estuary … we found the Flora Bank area had 25 times more salmon than other locations.”

When the federal government announced its decision on Tuesday, Moore was disappointed — but more than anything, he was frustrated by the feds’ rhetoric about “evidence-based decision-making.”

This decision was based on science, traditional knowledge of Indigenous peoples and other relevant scientific evidence. pic.twitter.com/RlAcrkyplj

— Catherine McKenna (@cathmckenna) September 28, 2016

“You read these statements that say this was based on science and no, it really wasn’t,” Moore said. “You used some science that was paid for, but you ignored an even larger body of science that was independent. You also ignored four decades of practice and knowledge from your own fisheries programs.”

“I understand that decisions aren’t about just the environment. I understand that the economy has to factor into that. But let’s not pretend. If there are great risks to the environment, let’s have full accounting and honest accounting of those risks.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The B.C. government’s decision to build the Pacific Northwest liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal in the Skeena River estuary could have dramatic impacts on the second largest salmon population in Canada, potential affecting the constitutionally protected rights of at least 10 First Nations, a letter recently published in the prestigious journal Science argues.

The Pacific Northwest LNG export facility is proposed for Lelu Island, which adjoins Flora Bank, an eelgrass rich intertidal zone considered critical salmon habitat. The Skeena River estuary surrounding Lelu Island is considered a unique estuary system which acts as a nursery for hundreds of million of juvenile salmon each year.

The letter, co-authored by several scientists and fisheries experts from six First Nations in the affected region, says decision-makers considering the project, backed by Malaysian-owned gas giant Petronas, were uninformed of the ecological value of the estuary as a salmon nursery and its role in supporting salmon runs as far as 350 kilometres inland.

The authors argue the Canadian government did not sufficiently consider how the LNG terminal would affect inland First Nations.

True Scope of LNG Impacts "Not Taken into Account"

“We discovered that salmon from over 40 populations that are harvested in at least 10 First Nations territories rely on the Skeena’s estuary habitat that would be altered by the fossil fuel terminal,” Jonathan Moore, lead author of the letter and associate professor and Liber Ero Chair of Coastal Science and Management at Simon Fraser University, said.

“However, industry proponents and the Canadian government have only recognized the interests of a fraction of these First Nations, and have not taken into account the true scope of potential impacts.”

In the letter the authors state there has been “a striking mismatch between the narrow consideration of aboriginal rights and environmental risks and the true scale of environmental connections.”

“Salmon don’t care about boundaries. Degradation of salmon habitat can impact ecosystems and people as far as salmon can swim,” Glen Williams, member of the Gitanyow First Nation and co-author of the letter, said.

Last month the B.C. Liberals passed Bill 30, the Liquified Natural Gas Project Agreement Act, which opens the door to LNG development over the next 25 years. The Pacific Northwest LNG terminal is waiting on federal environmental approval, which is not expected until after the October 19 federal election. 

Juvenile salmon in the Skeena River estuary. Photo: Tavish Campbell.

Lack of First Nations Consultation

Donna Macintyre, a co-author of the paper, argues her nation, the Lake Babine Nation situated 350 km upstream from the estuary, could be negatively affected by the LNG project.

“The new data from the estuary is evidence that the proposed LNG terminal could pose risks to our fish and fisheries. Lake Babine is the largest of the Skeena sockeye lakes, with millions of adult sockeye returning in some years,” Macintyre said.

She added her nation was not consulted in the environmental assessment process undertaken by the federal government.

Chief John Allen French from the Takla Lake First Nation didn’t participate in the study but said he’s glad the research is being undertaken.

“We applaud this research and expect followup from Canada, B.C., and proponents of LNG projects to meaningfully address our concerns,” he said.

“We live in the headwaters of the Skeena and Fraser River watersheds where salmon are our way of life. We expect the environmental assessment process to take into account both scientific and traditional knowledge to assess the significance of impacts on our rights as Takla people.”

B.C.’s First Nations live on unceded traditional territory and have a constitutional right to maintain traditional ways of life, including hunting, trapping and fishing.

Development near the Flora Bank region could disrupt the salmon cycle, potentially preventing some First Nations from continuing their traditional practices.

“The Flora Bank region in the Skeena estuary is like Grand Central Station for salmon,” Allen Gottesfeld, of the Skeena Fisheries Commission, said.

According to Charmaine Carr-Harris from the Skeena Fisheries Commission, who published a paper on the high population of juvenile salmon near Flora Banks, field crews studying in the area have captured “tens of thousands of juvenile salmon in the area proposed for development.”

Lead author Jonathan Moore argues this information should compel decision-makers to rethink the project.

“This research offers an opportunity for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to use science to get the scale right so that they consider the true vast risks to environment and culture as well as economy,” he said. “The unintended consequences of locating this terminal in the Flora Banks region could have watershed-wide impacts.”

Image Credit: Tavish Campbell used with permission

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.