By Trevor Jang for Discourse Media.

Opponents of a massive liquefied natural gas project proposed for the north coast of B.C. have dug up a scientific report that band members were never shown.

In January of this year the Lax Kw’alaams Band signed an impact benefit agreement worth approximately $1 billion over 40 years in exchange for support for the $36 billion Pacific Northwest LNG project. But documents filed in federal court last month show the band council suppressed scientific research it had commissioned when the research report did not support the band’s position on the project. Members of the Gitwilgyoots Tribe, who filed the documents, are also arguing the band has no authority to approve the project.

“I don’t believe that they’re very ethical with the way that they’re doing things,” Murray Smith, a spokesperson for the Gitwilgyoots, tells me. “Why won’t [they] show us [the report]? Because it would work against them.”

The Gitwilgyoots launched their court challenge last October to have the federal government’s approval of the LNG facility overturned. Then in March, the Lax Kw’alaams Band filed a response to have the tribe’s challenge overturned.

Pacific Northwest LNG has been controversial because of its proposed location on Lelu Island near Prince Rupert. The island sits next to a sandbar called Flora Bank, which contains tall eelgrass that protects juvenile salmon as they adjust from the fresh water of the Skeena River to the salt water of the Pacific Ocean. Opponents of the project fear it will cause devastating impacts to the nursing grounds of millions of salmon and other species.

The report suppressed by the Lax Kw’alaams Band says the location of the project is a key concern. It was written by Asit Mazumder, a professor in the Department of Biology at the University of Victoria. According to court documents, Mazumder was contracted by the band in the spring of last year to conduct an independent review of the project’s risk to fish and fish habitat in the Skeena River estuary.

Mazumder has not responded to requests for comment. But his report concluded that the research paid for by Pacific Northwest LNG, which informed the federal government leading up to Ottawa’s approval of the project, was “inconsistent.” It said the company’s modelling assumptions and lack of baseline data “make it difficult to conclude the project is at a low risk of significantly impacting Flora Bank.”

Mazumder wrote that the purpose of his report was to help Lax Kw’alaams band members “come to an informed judgement as to the likely safety of the project.” Lax Kw’alaams Mayor John Helin did not respond to requests for comment, but on April 21st he testified in a cross-examination that he didn’t share Mazumder’s report with the community. “I felt the road that he was going down was not an objective or independent review of all the necessary information that was out there,” Helin testified.  

"An Extremely Sad Experience for the Scientists"

Professor Mazumder’s was not the only science to be suppressed in the months leading up to the approval of the project. Geologist Patrick McLaren is President of SedTrend, an independent consulting firm specializing in sediment trend analysis. McLaren was hired by the Lax Kw’alaams Band in 2015 to evaluate the environmental effects of terminal development over Flora Bank.

His research concluded plans for development would have a disruptive effect on Flora Bank, and that the sediments there are ancient and irreplaceable. Then last September, just weeks before the federal government approved Pacific Northwest LNG, McLaren was served a cease and desist letter from the band warning him to stop “making references to any research, information, or other matters relating to our about your work with the Lax Kw’alaams Band.

“All of a sudden Dr. McLaren’s analysis disappeared. They never showed it again,” Smith recalls.

The letter came after McLaren wrote a memo to band members last July summarizing his concerns. This memo was read out at a community meeting in which members accused the band of spreading misinformation. McLaren says he was asked by concerned band members to write the memo, and that he was not allowed to attend the community meeting himself.

“It was an extremely sad experience for the scientists. I think we were all very distressed,” McLaren tells me in a recent interview.

The band’s letter called McLaren’s memo to band members “egregious” because it “appears to be clearly aimed at swaying the membership’s opinion.” The letter also accused McLaren of breaching his confidentiality provision in his contract with the band by writing the memo. McLaren argues he could speak out because his research was made public when it was submitted to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

“All the science that had been done had been published in international literature with people that have got nothing to do with Lax Kw’alaams, nothing to do with Flora Bank, only to do with assessing whether the scientific method and the results were reasonable. And if they weren’t, there wouldn’t have been [any] hope of having that published,” says McLaren.

The letter warned McLaren not to share or refer to any of his previous work done for the band publicly, adding that if he did, the band would take steps against him.

Suppressed Science Report Questioned Location of #PNWLNG Plant https://t.co/Cwr84uUGHR #cdnpoli #bcpoli @SkeenaWild @SkeenaWatershed pic.twitter.com/eMbWjmzf7r

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) June 8, 2017

Battle over Lelu Island continues

Mazumder’s report and the letter to McLaren were submitted as evidence in the ongoing legal battle to stop Pacific Northwest LNG. The submissions on behalf of the hereditary leaders of the Gitwilgyoots Tribe accuse the Lax Kwa’laams Band of “producing decision-based evidence rather than evidence-based decisions.”

The Gitwilgyoots are attempting to have the federal government’s approval of the project overturned, on the claim that the tribe and its hereditary leaders were not adequately consulted. The tribe claims Lelu Island and the surrounding area as its traditional territory.

But the Lax Kw’alaams Band also claims jurisdiction over Lelu Island and is attempting to have the tribe’s court challenge dismissed. The band is arguing that the tribe, which represents the hereditary governance system of the Lax Kw’alaams and broader Coast Tsimshian people, is not a legal entity and therefore did not need to be consulted.

The outcome of the case could have broad implications for the question of who can speak for First Nations: hereditary chiefs or the elected council of federally administered Indian Act bands.

The two sides return to federal court June 7 and 8 in Vancouver.

Image: Juvenile salmon in the Skeena 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.

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.

By Discourse Media with additional reporting from Carol Linnitt.

Members of the Lax Kw’alaams First Nation in northwest B.C. were given an extremely short amount of time to respond to an opinion poll that asked if they support energy development in their territory.

The polling followed a series of four information sessions held by the band council in June, focused on plans for liquified natural gas (LNG) development. At the information sessions, band members were presented with a proposed package of benefits that hinge on them voicing their support for the contentious Pacific NorthWest LNG (PNW LNG) project at the mouth of the Skeena River.

Community members are concerned because the polling question did not explicitly reference the PNW LNG proposal, which includes plans to develop the company’s LNG terminal on Lelu Island, near Prince Rupert. Other concerns about the poll that have been flagged by band members include missing forms in packages mailed to them and misinformation included in the proposed agreements package.

Biased Process

The poll question was framed and composed in a way that was likely to push respondents toward answering a particular way, says David Moscrop, a political scientist and PhD candidate at the University of British Columbia. “The implication is, ‘Don’t worry about the environmental impact; assume it will be fine . . . Are you okay with [development]?”

Moscrop says the structure of the question makes him suspicious of the intent behind the poll. “If you’re not going to do it properly, why are you doing it? Is it because you want to legitimize something you intend to do either way?” he asks.

The question itself, the timeline of the poll and location of the polling stations were all decided by the band council, according to Lawrence Lewis, an independent electoral officer hired by the Lax Kw’alaams band to oversee the process.

Ballots were mailed to all community members both within Lax Kw’alaams and living outside of the village, says Lewis. Members also had the chance to vote in person at polling stations in Lax Kw’alaams and Prince Rupert.

On August 25, The Lax Kw’alaams band council said they received 812 responses (1 spoiled) with 65.5 per cent (or 532 people) voting YES and 279 voting NO.

The mayor of Lax Kw’alaams, John Helin, wrote a message that said: “This is just another step in a process that could lead to the proposed Petronas project becoming a reality. We will have meetings with the appropriate parties (Petronas, Province, Federal Government) to see what the next steps are for this proposed project.”

Helin’s comments have led some to wonder if the poll, which didn’t mention PNW LNG by name, may be used as a de facto referendum for the project despite not being presented to the community as a binding vote.

Which may be how the B.C. government views the poll’s results.

The province released a statement thanking the community for the “positive vote” and Rich Coleman, B.C.’s Minister of Natural Gas Development, congratulated the community for voting to continue talks with government.  

Lax Kw’alaams Pacific Northwest #LNG Poll Raises Questions About #FirstNations Consultation https://t.co/Io16H27zAT #bcpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 1, 2016

Misleading Information

Discourse Media obtained the proposed benefits package that was presented at four community information sessions in June. It includes misinformation about the nature of an infrastructure project granted to the community last year, as previously reported.

The $22-million paving of Tuck Inlet Road, the only road into Lax Kw’alaams, is presented as an incentive for the community to support LNG on Lelu Island. But the project was negotiated by the band’s previous mayor, Garry Reece, who says paving Tuck Inlet Road was never tied to any LNG proposal. In the proposed benefits package it is referred to as “work started by Provincial Government as an inducement for good faith negotiations on LNG.”

While Moscrop calls into question the intent of the poll, community member and activist Christine Smith-Martin says the question is too vague and should simply ask members to say yes or no to development on Lelu Island. “It’s like writing a blank cheque. They want us to sign a blank cheque that allows them to do whatever it is they want to do,” she said.

Smith-Martin also raised concerns about the execution of the poll. She said members of her family received their ballots without the necessary First Nation Declaration Form.

In order for a ballot to be counted, they had to be  returned with a signed First Nation Declaration Form which stated: “I solemnly affirm that I am an eligible Elector of the Lax Kw’alaams Nation at the address listed below and that I am at least 18 years of age.”

Lewis acknowledges the initial mistake but says all members have now received the declaration form. When asked about concerns regarding the short timeframe of the poll, the framing of the question and the lack of polling stations in Vancouver or Terrace — where many Lax Kw’alaams members reside — Lewis deferred to the band council, saying he could only speak to the process, not how these decisions were made by the Lax Kw’alaams band.

Community Left Feeling Confused, Angry

Other concerns include the information sessions that preceded the polling. The main point of contention relayed by people who attended those meetings was the highly technical nature of the presentation, which many saw as one-sided and biased in favour of supporting Pacific Northwest LNG.

Community member Sandra Dudoward says the current poll was not handled as well as a previous canvassing of community views about the project. Dudoward was referring to a series of votes that drew international headlines in May 2015. Lax Kw’alaams voted against supporting PNW LNG in exchange for a $1.2-billion benefits agreement offered by Petronas, the Malaysian-based energy company behind the project.

Dudoward says she was given a month’s notice to prepare for that vote. This time around, she was given about a week. She found out about the vote on Aug. 16, and had to call to request an emailed ballot. The poll required that all ballots be received by mail before Aug. 24 or delivered in person at one of the polling stations in Lax Kw’alaams or Prince Rupert.

Dudoward worries that the timeframe of the poll was too short and might have affected voter turnout. She also wondered why the band hired an electoral officer to oversee the process given that the polling seemed informal and the question vague.

Despite the question not being explicitly about PNW LNG, the local Prince Rupert newspaper, The Northern View,  seemed to confirm suspicions that the poll be seen as just that. “Lax Kw'alaams members vote 'Yes' to ongoing talks with PNW LNG,” said The Northern View’s August 25 on-line headline.

Against Autonomy

For political scientist David Moscrop, the issue is bigger than just the poll and its outcome. He sees it as a larger affront to the democratic process that works against the movement towards Indigenous autonomy.

“If we’re saying that there is a legacy of colonialism and exploitation and stripping people of their power and their right to self-determination, then we should be even more sensitive that there are groups that might be doing that again,” he said.

Image: Ash Kelly

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.

In an open letter to Catherine McKenna, Canada’s Minister of Environment and Climate Change, a group of scientists publicly challenged the integrity of an environmental assessment reviewing the impacts of a major liquefied natural gas export terminal on the west coast of British Columbia.   The Pacific Northwest LNG plant, a controversial $11.4-billion export terminal, is proposed for Lelu Island near Prince Rupert. The terminal is slated to be built next to Flora Bank, a unique eelgrass rich intertidal zone scientists have termed a salmon superhighway.   According to salmon ecologist Michael Price with SkeenaWild Conservation Trust, and signatory of the open letter, the environmental assessment of the project represents a “failure of process.”   “There’s certainly a frustration with [the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency]. We feel CEAA has not incorporated the best available science.”

Price said CEAA asked both Fisheries and Oceans Canada as well as Natural Resources Canada to provide comment on the Pacific Northwest project.   “But what they were asked by CEAA to comment on was a very narrow aspect of the project and had nothing to do with other available science.”   Price pointed out the work of Dr. Patrick McLaren which found the construction of the LNG terminal on Lelu Island would likely cause a mass erosion event at Flora Bank, dismantling the eelgrass beds critical for salmon.   “McLaren has good evidence that by building this structure you’re going to destabilize Flora Bank,” Price said, “but the proponent brings in their own 3-D model saying, ‘well, actually, there will be no negative effects.’”   “Fisheries and Oceans Canada as well as Natural Resources Canada were asked to review only the proponent’s evidence and was not tasked with reviewing any other lines of evidence, even those that are peer reviewed.”   “It’s a failure of the precautionary principle,” Price said, adding it’s also a “failure of process.”   Price said that in a review of CEAA’s mandate it was unclear if a broad spectrum of science had to be considered when performing an environmental assessment.

Like what you're reading? Sign up for our email newsletter!

“I don’t see any concrete language that CEAA — in the process of assessing risk — that they need to incorporate best available science,” Price said.   “So we could be talking about a process limitation where CEAA 2012 falls short. There could be a loophole where CEAA 2012 isn’t mandated to consider science beyond that provided by the proponent.”   “Is CEAA being negligent? Maybe they’re just following their mandate,” he said.   He added that under current Fisheries Act rules, the proponent is also legally allowed to destroy salmon habitat as long as a mitigation plan is put in place that results in “no net loss of habitat.”   “If you’re going to destroy 27 square metres of salmon habitat you can simply promise to recreate 27 square metres of that lost habitat somewhere else,” he said.   “Very few of these mitigation projects actually equate to the same productivity of natural habitat. Actually creating eelgrass habitat is extremely difficult. We have a hard time as humans to recreate what Mother Nature has created.”   Price added that from a scientific perspective the ecosystem under threat is not easily replaceable.   “What is at stake is at the moment a fairly pristine, highly productive nursery ground for salmon and other fishes.”   “More migrating juvenile salmon have been found here than in any other habitat surveyed throughout the Skeena estuary,” Price said. “It’s a pristine and highly productive natural environment that will be altered significantly. The proponent is quite clear they’re project will have this effect but, they say, they will mitigate.”   And technically, Price said, “they’re following the rules because there will be no ‘net loss’ of habitat.”   He added that the specific mitigation plan to replace the lost habitat hasn’t been made available for the project.   “They can’t tell us what their mitigation plan is because they haven’t developed it yet, but they tell CEAA they are going to recreate the habitat and CEAA says, ‘okay.’”   The public comment period on the draft environmental review ends tonight at midnight.   “Theoretically not only can CEAA consider new lines of evidence put forward but that is what they are supposed to do, incorporate comments or information put forward that is relevant.”

Image: 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 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.