RIVERS WITHOUT BORDERS

Posted In: Letters & Submissions

TWA submission to the Project Committee reviewing the Tulsequah Chief Mine and Road Proposal

Prepared by Neil Townsend
01.07.2002

To: Daphne Stancil, Project Assessment Director, Environmental Assessment Office.

Re: TWA submission to the Project Committee reviewing the Tulsequah Chief Mine and Road Proposal.

Dear Daphne,

This letter and the attached reports constitute the Transboundary Watershed Alliance submission to the Project Committee assessing the Tulsequah Chief Mine and Road Proposal. The membership of the TWA is as follows: Sierra Legal Defence Fund, Round River Conservation Studies, Taku Wilderness Association, Environmental Mining Council of BC, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Nakina Centre for Aboriginal Living and Learning, BC Spaces for Nature, Cassiar Watch, Sierra Club of BC, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society BC Chapter, Yukon Conservation Society, The Wilderness Society, Alaska Marine Conservation Council, Lynn Canal Conservation, Earthjustice, Ecotrust Alaska, Center for Science in Public Participation – Alaska, Friends of the Stikine, Earth Island Institute “Alaska, and EarthWILD International. This submission represents the general views of the membership but may not fully represent the specific views of any one member. Individual member groups of the TWA will also be making individual submissions to the Project Committee.

Attached to this covering letter, you should find the following documents for the Committee’s consideration:

• A Sustainability Assessment of the Tulsequah Chief Mine and Road Proposal Using the Hodge Sustainability Lens prepared by David MacKinnon.

• A roads and access study prepared for the TWA by John Nelson.

• An evaluation of current study design and wildlife information for the proposed Tulsequah Chief mining project prepared for the TWA by Robert Hayes.

• A TWA paper recommending bonding calculations and procedures for the Tulsequah Chief mine and road proposal by TWA staff.

• A legal opinion by Margot Venton of the Sierra Legal Defence Fund with regard to mitigation measures involving access control on the proposed Tulsequah Chief Access Road. The letter is dated November 3, 1999 and was originally sent to Don Weir of the Taku Wilderness Association.

The documents represent a range of concerns that the membership of the Transboundary Watershed Alliance have with the Tulsequah proposal, the process for its evaluation, and the measures that have been proposed to monitor and mitigate its impacts. In preparing our comments on the sustainability of the project, we considered both the R. Anthony Hodge report and the Tom Green sustainability studies, as well as a number of relevant documents assessing the effectiveness of regulatory procedures in British Columbia. Using the Hodge sustainability lens, we found, like Green, that the Tulsequah Chief project fails in almost all key areas of sustainability. We also found that the process by which the project has been assessed is seriously flawed in terms of Hodge’s measures of sustainability. The letter from the Sierra Legal Defence Fund is intended as a supporting document to this paper.

The John Nelson report examines road options and the concept of access management. His findings indicate that there are no acceptable options in terms of road routes and that the Project Committee should accept that and recommend rejection of the proposal rather than attempt to mitigate impacts. There is clear evidence that access control, in particular, has not been an effective means of mitigating the impacts of linear landscape intrusions of the scale anticipated in the Redfern proposal.

The TWA was fortunate to be able to contract Robert Hayes, a biologist with 20 years of experience in the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Branch, to complete a study of the adequacy of the wildlife information and study design being used in the project assessment. The results of his thorough and objective study are deeply troubling. He finds that the information being used is inadequate for the very purposes for which it is intended: to detect and mitigate adverse project impacts on large mammal communities. His findings undermine all claims that mitigation of wildlife impacts can be undertaken with regards to this project and reconfirm that it is so seriously flawed in design that it would be irresponsible and unacceptable to recommend acceptance and certification.

The final document has to do with bonding requirements. It seems ludicrous to discuss bonding requirements in the context of a project that is so clearly contrary to the spirit and the letter of the Canadian and British Columbia Environmental Assessment Acts, but we include it to reiterate our concerns that the publics of British Columbia and Alaska not be subjected to unacceptable economic and other risks by this project. The onus should be on the proponent to assume the full financial risks of this project, and the report provides 9 recommendations on how to calculate a bond that fairly addresses those risks.

Thank you for carefully considering the documents that we are submitting. As you know from previous correspondence, we do not feel that the public comment portion of the reconvened process was adequate. The public comment period should have been scheduled for a time when all of the commissioned documents were available for public consideration. In spite of that and other procedural failings, there is more than enough information available to determine that the Tulsequah Chief mine and road proposal should be rejected. In coming to that conclusion, our findings support the concerns that have been consistently expressed by the Taku River Tlingit First Nation, by the Society for Atlin’s Sustainable Economic Initiatives and all signatories to their petition, and the many people in southeast Alaska that depend on the Taku River for their recreation and economic well being.

Sincerely,

Neil Townsend

Executive Director

Cc:
Dr. Sheila Wynn, Executive Director, British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office.

Sid Gershberg, President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.