At the end of January 2023, Coastal GasLink submitted a management report to the federal government. The document is a weekly overview of the company’s progress in building its Wet’suwet’en River pipeline, filed with Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
The report, received through The Narwhal through the Freedom of Data Act, highlights the site’s recent activities and includes a list of issues that arose in construction. That week, events at the river crossing had taken a serious turn.
“The water level in the Clore River has risen to such an extent that installed pumps and water intakes have not been able to cope with the increased flow,” the report says. “This occasion culminated in the fact that the isolation of the river triumphed over and the site of the structure was flooded with water to the point that the work. . . it may simply not continue. »
In other words, the site of the structure was flooded. A series of grainy images attached to the document show apparatus and infrastructure half-submerged in icy, frozen water in the course of the river, known to the Wet’suwet’en as Lho Kwa.
When the federal government reviewed the fossil fuel company’s reports, it disclosed the data obtained to the public.
The Narwhal reviewed many pages of documents and conducted interviews with the parties involved to piece together a style of conduct of the federal government that has continually failed to provide complete data to the media, relevant organizations, and Indigenous leaders. Its lack of transparency related to incidents at the Coastal GasLink border crossing in Lho Kwa suggests that the government is maintaining secrecy about the effects on salmon populations, a resource that indigenous and non-indigenous communities in northwest B. C. explotar. de which food security, economic benefits and cultural well-being depend.
Jeffrey Young, senior science and policy analyst with the David Suzuki Foundation, said the federal department, commonly referred to as DFO, has an obligation to the public to be open and transparent.
“I believe that transparency is a basic duty of any government towards the other peoples it represents,” he told Narwhal in an interview. “And when you have such a transparent duty and a law explained in a transparent way, there is no excuse. “
In early 2023, The Narwhal reached out to the federal government for explanations about the alleged disruptions at the Clore River crossing. In a reaction sent on Feb. 3, just days after the site flooded, Fisheries and Oceans Canada made no mention of the flooding incident.
Referring to an earlier allegation of issues with sediment and erosion control, a problem that plagued pipeline construction since it began in 2019, the agency said government officials had visited the site and were “assessing the data to determine compliance with the Fisheries Act.”
Around the same time, Shannon McPhail, executive director of Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition, was asking Fisheries and Oceans Canada and its provincial counterparts for information about the river crossing, concerned the company wasn’t doing enough to protect salmon habitat.
On Jan. 5, 2023, Brenda Rotinsky, a senior official at the federal department, told McPhail that they were running to address his concerns.
“I didn’t answer!” Rotinsky wrote in an email. We’re looking for [Coastal GasLink] to answer your questions so you have the most up-to-date information and it’s been difficult to answer them over the holidays. You deserve to let us back next week with what we know so far.
McPhail never received an email from the branch related to the issue.
“Maybe your popular operating procedure is to dodge moderated questions long enough for other people to give up,” he said in an interview. “But I didn’t give up. I just know that I can’t move on to the branch that’s guilty of protective fish. You have to laugh, otherwise you’re just going on to cry because it’s so ridiculous.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada has explained why no one has delivered on its promises. The branch also said why it said it had to talk to the fossil fuel company before answering McPhail’s questions.
Young said that while the company would likely have valid reasons to withhold some technical data if it seeks to enforce the law, the public does not deserve to be forced to use the freedom of data law to answer basic questions about occasions when the suitability of a basin hydrographic.
“There may have been clearer communication than was provided,” he said. “They want to be open and transparent about what they see and what they’re doing about it — how they’re going to solve the problem. »
After reviewing the recently released report and other documents received through data legislation, The Narwhal asked Fisheries and Oceans Canada why it had not disclosed the data at the time, despite the relevance of questions submitted to its service of media and similar questions raised. via McPhail. et al.
The government firm did respond.
McPhail has lost all confidence in federal power and his provincial counterparts.
“This task under a global microscope,” he said, “is an opportunity for our regulators to showcase their skills. Instead, what they’ve shown is that we’re screwed with any task that the DFO and the B. C. Energy Regulator have a say in. “- Drafting or regulatory authority.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada commented ahead of publication and the BC Energy Regulator referred The Narwhal to its previous responses to other reports.
Young said the Fisheries Act is very transparent and gives the federal government strong legal powers for species such as salmon; However, it only holds up if it is used either to avoid effects on fish habitat or to publicize the consequences of violations of the law.
“There’s a certain point of clarity that’s missing from the law,” he said. “The government itself refers to it many times to emphasize that Canada has high environmental standards when sold globally. These statements are only true if they are applied.
“In my opinion, we are reaching a point where the legal duty of the DFO and the federal government to salmon in implementing the Fisheries Act is being called into question,” Young said.
Weeks before TC Energy, the Calgary-based company building Coastal GasLink, notified the federal division about the flooding, Wet’suwet’en observers had visited the site and alleged that the pipeline company had failed to fish in the habitat, raising dwindling concerns. and rainbow trout stocks in the basin were adversely affected by structural activities. With little reaction from provincial and federal authorities, Wet’suwet’en officials returned to the river on January 28.
“We walked along the riverbank downstream of the structure site and you can see a swath of dark dust deposited when the water point fell,” Wet’suwet’en fish and wildlife monitor Gary Michell said at the time. “These sediments pose significant hazards to salmon and rainbow trout roe downstream. “
A few days before the structure flooded, a TC Energy contractor representing the pipeline assignment emailed federal fisheries official Ian Bergsma noting that “Coastal GasLink has known of turbidity occasions at Site 616 (Clore River) and Site 714 (Hirsch Creek tributary). the last two days.
The notification foreshadowed long-term developments. As temperatures in the region fluctuated, rising between five degrees above 0 and -20 degrees in a matter of days, the ice upstream has become volatile and the pipeline being built through the canal is directly at risk.
On Jan. 30, Bergsma emailed a senior official at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, telling them he had spoken that morning with a pipeline representative “about the crossing of the Clore River. “
“The loss of isolation occurred on Friday night. . . which led to flooding and freezing of the dry zone,” he wrote. “The water levels rose again despite the cold conditions; They suspect that an ice jam broke in a tributary, causing the water to rise again. “
Meanwhile, TC Energy, the Calgary-based company structuring the 670-kilometer pipeline, described the existing as an intentional component of the structure’s activities.
“To monitor emerging water levels due to last week’s higher temperatures, yesterday we announced a temporary overtopping of our barrier over the River Clore,” the company wrote in a public hearing on Jan. 30.
It’s unclear exactly why TC Energy didn’t notify the public last year that its site had been flooded, however, critics say it seeks to minimize environmental damage at the site. The report received through The Narwhal described the occasions in detail.
“Warm weather caused the ice sheets to sink into the channel, holding the ensemble back, leading to movement of the ice sheets, flaking, and wear of the sump head walls,” the paper says. “A prolonged era of warm weather accompanied by moderate rainfall eventually resulted in the release of an upstream obstacle, leading to an immediate increase in yield. High rates and an immediate drop in temperature caused the pump screen to freeze.
TC Energy told The Narwhal the public statement was a description of emergency mitigation measures, not the flood itself. The barrier mentioned was a dam set up to temporarily redirect the river around the pipeline crossing. After the site was flooded, the pipeline company worked to clean up and remove equipment before letting the river run its natural course until the high waters receded.
“As we stated in late January last year, we initiated a temporary overflow of our barrier at the Clore River in response to rising water levels due to high temperatures in the region,” a spokesperson wrote in an email. “This flood contingency measure was used to mitigate impacts to the riverbed and bank that would have otherwise occurred in an uncontrolled overflow.”
Fisheries and Oceans Canada did not directly answer a question about whether the department independently confirmed the cause of the flooding nor whether officials had assessed the adequacy of protective measures prior to the incident.
In an email, the spokesperson shared a graph with hydrometric data and noted that “the January 2023 floods were the result of peak flows due to abnormally warm and wet rains that affected watersheds. “
The spokesperson added that the branch worked with TC Energy “for many years prior to the structure to evaluate watercourse crossings and strategies used to minimize the pipeline’s effects on fish and their habitat. “
Government agencies subsequently concluded that the pipeline company met the conditions of its entry permits and remained in compliance with environmental legislation at the river crossing. An internal government document written in March stated that the BC Energy Regulator was pleased that “Coastal GasLink’s stream crossing activities on the Clore River were conducted in accordance with the standards and situations specified in [its] license. ” .
This document is a briefing note prepared for British Columbia. Ministers Josie Osborne and George Heyman highlighted the lifestyles of a series of agreements between the provincial regulator and other government departments, adding the federal fisheries agency.
“There is a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the [BC Energy Regulator and the Office of Environmental Assessment] (as well as other agencies, DFO adding) that addresses compliance and enforcement aspects among regulatory agencies,” the memorandum states.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada told Narwhal that the briefing note was not accurate.
“There is no formality between DFO and the British Columbia Energy Regulator,” a spokesperson for the federal branch wrote in an email.
Young said regardless of whether there is a formal agreement, the federal government “deferred” its powers to provincial authorities on the Coastal GasLink project.
“Fisheries and Oceans Canada has a key duty in this regard,” he said. “It’s the Fisheries Act that ultimately has the key powers to protect rivers and salmon from those impacts. “
“When problems do arise, they may be hesitant to fully apply their authority, because it becomes a federal-provincial jurisdictional type of issue or more of a political issue,” he added. “And that’s a problem.”
When The Narwhal initially pressed Fisheries and Oceans Canada for clarity around its involvement, the department told The Narwhal it was investigating the allegations and could not comment. Nearly a year later, the federal agency said it is still conducting its investigation.
“Conservation and cover investigations are complex and can vary greatly in terms of the time needed to complete them,” a spokesperson for Fisheries and Oceans Canada told Al Narwhal. “Any investigation is equivalent to a thorough investigation, adding large amounts of technical data and authorizations. , other documents, the collection of evidence, samples, photographs, and the collection of any applicable witness statements. All of those elements are mandatory to create a dossier that will be presented as a possible violation to the Crown, which then makes a decision whether the fees will be paid. be put.
TC Energy announced in November that the Coastal GasLink pipeline was mechanically completed. The fuel is expected to start flowing to Canada’s LNG liquefaction and export facility in Kitimat, which will begin operations this year.
McPhail said the fact that the pipeline was finished before the effects of the investigation were known sends a message to corporations like TC Energy.
“The industry can look at this, laugh and say, ‘Look, we can break any law we need and we’ll get there long before they finish their investigation, and 99% of the crimes we commit are. ‘It won’t result in anything that could harm our project.
Young said that while he expected an investigation to result in charges, the federal agency’s failure to prevent the pipeline allocation from harming fish habitat in recent years “is a challenge in itself. “
“This raises an additional question about how much we deserve that the federal government is conducting some kind of deep behind-the-scenes clinical research that will lead to intelligent application results,” he said, adding that a “political compromise” may simply be an alternative.
“The Fisheries Law is incredibly clear,” he added. “And when it is obviously violated, it will obviously have to be applied. “
Under the Fisheries Act, violations of the Act can result in fines of up to $500,000 or “imprisonment for a period exceeding two years,” or both.
The spokesperson specified if and when he would present evidence.
Updated January 15, 2024 at 8:59 a. m. PT: This story has been updated to include additional reaction from Fisheries and Oceans Canada.