Primary scientific flaws in CEAA draft report
1. Misrepresentation of the importance of the project area to fish populations, especially salmon.
2. Assuming lack of information equates to lack of risks.
3. Disregard for science that was not funded by the proponent.
4. Inadequate consideration of multiple project impacts and their cumulative effects.
5. Unsubstantiated reliance on mitigation.
Lelu Island, B.C. Photo credit: Brian Huntington
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) has released a draft report on the Pacific LNG development proposed for Flora Bank/Lelu Island in northern British Columbia. The report describes the Agency's findings regarding the potential impacts of a terminal on local ecosystems in the Skeena River estuary. Of particular concern is risks to nursery habitat for salmon and other economically- and culturally-important fishes. The report concludes that the development "is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects" to fish and fish habitat. In an open letter to the Federal Government, over 130 scientists identify serious flaws in the CEAA's assessment and urge the report be rejected as it represents an insufficient base for decision-making.
Scientists identify flaws in CEAA draft report for Lelu Island LNG
Over 130 scientific experts have written an open letter to the Government of Canada outlining the scientific flaws in the draft assessment of environmental risks from the proposed Pacific NorthWest Liquid Natural Gas facility at Lelu Island, Skeena River estuary, British Columbia