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.

British Columbians share the concerns of Alaskans about risks to the environment from mining operations and most want to see tougher mining laws and regulations in B.C., according to two polls released Thursday.

The Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research polls, commissioned by SkeenaWild in B.C. and Salmon Beyond Borders in Alaska, found 75 per cent of more than 800 British Columbians polled were concerned about a tailings dam break and 54 per cent felt, that under current rules, B.C. mining poses risks to health, the environment, fishing and tourism.

“These results show that the people of B.C. are not willing to give mining companies social licence to proceed with projects if they feel salmon, water and wildlife are at risk,” Greg Knox, SkeenaWild executive director, said.

The support for rule reforms was driven by concerns that existing land use rules, such as the Mineral Tenure Act, are pro-mining and threaten the province’s natural beauty.

More than 85 per cent said they would like to see the Mineral Tenure Act changed to give other uses the same priority as mining.

Thirty-nine per cent said the jobs and economic benefits of mining outweigh those risks, but many of those agreed that reforming B.C.’s mining laws would protect jobs by ensuring other key industries were not affected by a mining spill. Only 17 per cent said reforming mining laws would cost jobs and provincial revenues, meaning taxes would increase.

When asked about Northwest B.C., where a mining boom is underway, 68 per cent said conservation should be a higher priority than development because of the importance of salmon-bearing rivers and populations of animals such as grizzly bears.

Less than half approved of how the provincial government is regulating and monitoring mines. Suggested changes include ensuring mining companies have fully-funded plans for cleanup, closure and long-term management of tailings before approval is granted, a mandatory, industry-funded clean-up fund for projects in watersheds shared by Alaska and B.C. and mining no-go zones in sensitive areas such as key salmon watersheds.

The 2014 Mount Polley tailings pond dam collapse, which sent 24-million cubic metres of waste surging into lakes and waterways from the mine owned by Imperial Metals, has focused attention on the need for reforms, Knox said.

“Greater financial assurance from mining companies, stronger government oversight and monitoring and establishing certain areas, like key salmon habitat, off-limits to mining will go a long way to avoid opposition from First Nations and local communities,” he said.

The B.C. government is accepting public submissions on reform of rules dealing with mine tailings until Oct. 16.

In Alaska, where, in the wake of Mount Polley, there has been growing concern about B.C.’s mining regulations because of mines opening close to salmon-bearing rivers running into Southeast Alaska, the poll shows overwhelming support for increased protection.

Almost three-quarters of 500 Alaskans polled were concerned about a mining waste spill affecting shared watersheds. That number jumped to 86 per cent for those living in Southeast Alaska.

More than 75 per cent of respondents want Alaska to have a seat at an international table to address concerns about B.C. mining in transboundary watersheds and 45 per cent said their vote for a member of Congress would hinge on the candidate pushing for a seat at the table.

“This provides a clear mandate for significant action by government and industry to ensure B.C.’s mining development doesn’t harm salmon, water quality, jobs and way of life downstream,” said Heather Hardcastle of Salmon Beyond Borders.

The B.C poll is subject to a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 per cent, 19 times out of 20 and the Alaska poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 per cent 19 times out of 20.

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.