Ontario’s fisheries biologists were scathing about a guide approved in 2010 that laid out conditions for controversial clear-cut logging across the province, with some calling it a “big step backwards,” according to documents obtained through freedom of information requests.

When a regional director with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry complained about its inadequate review process, he was told there was pressure from senior management and industry to move fast.

Four years after the guide was approved, Ontario gave the go-ahead to its 10-year provincial logging plan one year ago.

Environmental agency Earthroots obtained the documents from the ministry a few days after the province rejected a request from Grassy Narrows, a First Nations reserve about 80 kilometres north of Kenora, for an individual environmental assessment into the impact of clear-cut logging on that community.

For decades since a paper mill dumped 10 tonnes of mercury into their river water supply in the 1960s, residents of Grassy Narrows have complained about health problems consistent with mercury poisoning — loss of hearing, speech and sensation in the extremities, as well as tremors. They’re now concerned clear-cut logging will increase levels of the heavy metal in local fish, a traditional dietary staple.

The community of 1,500 people received notice that the request was denied on Christmas Eve.

David Sone, who filed the freedom of information request, said a summary version of the comments Earthroots received contradicts the province’s justification for rejecting Grassy Narrows’ request for a study of the logging plan’s mercury impacts.

The ministry says the Stand and Site guide approved in 2010 is different from the preliminary draft reviewed by its staff in 2007, from which the FOI documents stem.

“The final document reflected staff comments received during the internal review, a public review in 2008, and numerous meetings with stakeholders and interest groups conducted during the five years required to develop the policy,” said ministry spokeswoman Jolanta Kowalski.

On a senior manager’s complaint that the review process was inadequate, Kowalski said the “2007 internal review was the first of many opportunities to review the draft document as it was being prepared.”

The ministry did not provide any examples of changes made to the guide in response to staff concerns or other parties.

The most intriguing of the FOI documents was a single paragraph that summarized comments received during an internal ministry review of proposed changes to logging rules, said Sone.

In that paragraph, two fisheries biologists were scathing in their criticism, saying that mercury was being released and entering lakes under the existing logging rules and it would likely “be exacerbated if complete removal of shoreline vegetation is permitted.”

Sone said he quickly asked for the complete comments of the two biologists. Months later, he was told by the ministry’s freedom of information co-ordinator that they had “failed to locate” the full text.

“That was pretty shocking,” he said.

“It should raise an alarm everywhere in Ontario,” he said. “It is particularly disturbing at Grassy Narrows, where we know there has been a mercury problem. Yet, MNRF and MOE (Ministry of Environment) are pushing ahead with rules that their own biologists have said are highly flawed.”

Kowalski did not explain how the full text went missing.

The Stand and Site Guide is at the heart of clear-cut logging policy and the controversy it has created, especially in Grassy Narrows.

Studies indicate that clear-cut logging raises mercury levels in fish to dangerous levels. Mercury gets released into the atmosphere from coal-fired power plants and incinerators and enters forests in rain water, where it gets trapped in the soil. When trees are clear-cut, mercury runs off into lakes and rivers, where it gets magnified as it moves up the food chain; fish can have mercury levels much higher than the level of mercury in the water.

One study discovered that 100 per cent of walleye and pike in clear-cut boreal lakes in Quebec had mercury levels above the World Health Organization’s limit for safe consumption, compared with only 18 per cent in lakes where nearby forests have not been logged.

In February 2014, just after the province approved its logging plan, Earthroots made its freedom of information request asking the ministry for the mercury-related information it relied on when it approved the plan, paving the way to clear-cut in Grassy Narrows.

“The FOI documents say that there was a heated debate,” said Sone. “The ministry’s own biologists believed that rules in place would not protect people and fish from mercury impacts of clear-cut logging.”

The province went ahead anyway and “has now even refused an (environmental) assessment.”

In the freedom of information documents, one biologist wrote: “The entire guide is riddled with the words ‘where practical and feasible,’ may be interpreted as ‘feel free to ignore this section.’ ”

Another wrote: “This seems like we are taking big steps backwards in terms of species/habitat protection and management of resources.”

Ministry spokeswoman Kowalski said the ministry will review the guide in 2015 and “will re-evaluate the content of the guide with consideration for any new available science related to mercury mobilization as a result of forest disturbance.”

Meanwhile, Sone says Earthroots will challenge the ministry’s failure to find and share the complete document that encapsulated the biologists’ concerns.

“This breach of transparency is especially upsetting because this information could be critical to the health of families in Grassy Narrows who want to be sure that no more mercury enters their traditional foods.”