DFO, Enbridge disagreed over fish protection along pipeline route: documents

Federal fisheries officials had “troubling” disagreements with Enbridge Inc. over the company’s interpretation of it responsibility to protect fish habitat along the Northern Gateway oilsands pipeline route before the company submitted its proposal in 2010, internal documents say.

Photograph by: Handout/Enbridge , Handout/Enbridge

DFO, Enbridge disagreed over fish protection along pipeline route: documents

By PETER O'NEIL and MIKE DE SOUZA,

Vancouver Sun and Postmedia News

June 14, 2012

OTTAWA — Federal fisheries officials were having "troubling" disagreements with Enbridge Inc. over the company's interpretation of its responsibility to protect fish habitat along the Northern Gateway oilsands pipeline route before the company submitted its project proposal in 2010, according to internal documents.

Enbridge was concluding some of the crossings, over an estimated 1,000 waterways, were low risk when fisheries biologists felt the same were medium or high risk to fish and fish habitat, according to emails obtained through the Access to Information Act.

"There is not much movement (by Enbridge) for avoidance of sensitive areas," said one biologist at a February, 2010 meeting, according to a record of that gathering of four officials with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO).

"Sometimes the proponent is pushing for the cheapest option," said another meeting participant in his reply.

The clash between Enbridge and DFO took shape more than two years before the Harper government, which had been heavily lobbied by Enbridge over concerns about DFO demands, tabled Fisheries Act amendments in its budget implementation bill in April.

Those changes, which according to critics would "gut" DFO's ability to protect habitat, have become a flashpoint in the opposition's battle against bill C-38 during a marathon voting session Wednesday and Thursday in the House of Commons.

Enbridge said one of the biologists, during the 2010 meeting, was designating stream crossings as "low risk" of habitat damage "that should have been medium or high risk."

There were also concerns, cited in documents obtained by Postmedia News, about Enbridge's approach to streams known for having important spawning channels or for wildlife species listed under the federal government's Species at Risk Act (SARA) or under the B.C. government's endangered species list.

A third biologist at the same meeting "stated concern on how the proponent is proposing the crossing methods through streams with SARA-listed species, spawning channels, with no hesitation. This is a concern and was raised at the last meeting with Enbridge."

Read more here