RIVERS WITHOUT BORDERS

Posted In: Press Release

Public/Agency comments on Tulsequah Chief Mine indentifies clear threats to water quality and fisheries

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 23, 2004

DFO Urged to Conduct More Detailed Review
 
 
EPA
EPA is particularly concerned with the operator’s ability to maintain in perpetuity the tailings impoundment, proposed to be located in the active floodplain of Shazah Creek (issues #3 and 4), the project’s ability to meet water quality objectives (issue #5) and the potential for cumulative long-term water quality impacts (issue #14).

In general, the hazard assessment documents very well that the proposed tailings facility is in the active floodplain of Shazah Creek.  Although not a conclusion of the report, the dynamic environment documented by the report would support the conclusion that the Shazah fan is an inherently unsuitable location for a tailings facility.

Consequently, we disagree with the DFO analysis of the tailings facility Issues (#3-#4) and the ranking of the residual effects of these Issues as “Low” and instead would rank the Residual Effects as “High”.

An associated concern is the potential for other mines such as the Polaris and Big Bull, and possibly others, to be re-opened as well.  The potential cumulative water quality impacts of multiple mines operating in this highly productive and sensitive watershed will require much more additional analysis.  It is conceivable that advanced wastewater treatment, beyond what Redfern has proposed, may be required to protect water quality. 

DOI
Based on the information we have received to date on the proposed Tulsequah Chief Project (Project), it is not possible for us at this time to reach the conclusion that the proposed Project “…is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects” for resources under DOI jurisdiction.

Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP):

Previously the DFO was on record with concerns about how this project would affect the salmon bearing streams and caribou herds of the Taku region. After a closed door meeting with lobbyists for the mining company and the province of British Columbia, the DFO inexplicably changed its position and is now pushing the project forward.

It is time for leadership from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on this file. It is time for him to step up to the plate and to halt the approval of this project until the environmental sustainability issues surrounding the project are adequately addressed.

ELTON/KERTTULA
We appreciate your government’s willingness to meet with some Alaskans about this proposal.  After attending these meetings, we believe that the outstanding questions and flaws in the draft screening report require a full panel review.  The Alaskans and Canadians who live, work, and recreate on the Taku deserve nothing less.  Please defer any mine approval or permitting until that process is concluded.

20 say The undersigned conservation organizations and fishing businesses urge you to reject the January 5, 2005 draft screening report recommendation by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) that the Tulsequah Chief mine and road proposal should be approved because it “is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.”  At the bare minimum, a full panel level review, as permitted under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, should be conducted to address the serious flaws in the project as now proposed.  Any development or road access into the Taku watershed should be deferred until a conservation-based watershed plan is in place. Redfern Resources Ltd. should be required to clean up existing pollution, cumulative effects issues should be addressed and a watershed plan should be developed, all prior to any further development.

DFO’s recommended approval should be rejected.  There are far too many uncertainties and unanswered questions for the Tulsequah Chief project to be approved at this time.  There is also ample evidence that the project would harm water quality, fisheries and wildlife in the Taku.  The track record of pollution at the closed Tulsequah Chief and other BC mining sites calls into question the ability of DFO and Redfern to properly construct, operate and cleanup this site.

At the bare minimum, a full panel level review should be conducted to address the serious flaws in the project as currently proposed.  These flaws are fundamental and significant.  They cannot be addressed in the permitting process after mine approval and must be solved before any approval is granted.  Redfern Resources Ltd. should be required to clean up the existing pollution and cumulative effects issues must be addressed prior to mine approval and a watershed plan should be developed prior to any further development.

Forum testimony

Adv Cmte Res Juneau-Douglas Fish and Game Advisory Committee urges Canada to conduct a more detailed panel review of this project, due to the numerous and significant outstanding concerns

A scathing Feb. 9 letter to the Tlingit from long-time resource consultant Tony Pearse, who was asked to review the draft prepared by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, describes the federal assessment as "useless."  Pearse savages the DFO draft for failing to fulfil five crucial requirements of the legislation:

• Actions taken by responsible authorities must promote sustainable development.
• The assessment take a precautionary approach.
• Any screening consider cumulative effects.
• Authorities consider the significance of the effects.
• Technical and economic feasibility of proposed mitigation measures be considered.

An independent scientific panel that was convened at the request of the Tlingit.  Led by New York-based ecologist Daniel Botkin of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the panel also included Ray Demarchi, a highly respected wildlife biologist who worked many years for the B.C. government; Anne Gunn, a caribou expert from the Northwest Territories government, and Shawn Riley, a wildlife scientist from Michigan State University, a land use planner and a civil engineer. It found that the mine development as now conceived "will not prevent ecologically unacceptable effects" and says bluntly that "what is called a ‘road’ will actually be a highway in terms of construction standards" and will increase risks for grizzly, caribou and moose populations.  Most damning of all, the independent panel points out that while the Tulsequah plan would decommission the road when the mine closed after its nine-year lifespan, experience elsewhere indicates that "this road will never be fully or properly decommissioned."

In a written statement, Taku River Tlingit First Nation spokesman John Ward said, "The Tlingit people on both sides of the border have a long-term commitment to the land while the mining company (Redfern Resources Ltd.) has only a short-term interest in this land. Their cash register is empty and they want to use our land to fill it."

Pathello: "The overwhelming majority of people testifying are either opposed to the mine development or very concerned that there has been insufficient demonstration that the watershed would be adequately protected."

CONTACT: Chris Zimmer, Transboundary Watershed Alliance, 907/586-4905