Frederick Olsen Junior does not mince words when describing a joint B.C.-Alaska government report on water quality in rivers that originate in northwest B.C. and flow into Southeast Alaska.

“Smoke and mirrors. Lip service. Box-checking,” said Olsen, who is executive director of the Southeast Alaska Indigenous Transboundary Commission, a consortium of 15 tribal nations dedicated to protecting rivers.

The governments of B.C. and Alaska formed a bilateral working group four years ago, after decades of concerns about the effects of runoff from working and abandoned B.C. mines in the Stikine, Taku and Unuk watersheds. The group includes representatives from government agencies, Indigenous nations and industry. For two years, the group sampled and studied water, sediment, fish and other aquatic life from the three rivers to come up with baseline data and figure out whether or not the rivers and aquatic life are at risk.

The group’s final report, released on Feb. 25, concluded that the rivers “continue to support and sustain aquatic life in conjunction with mining and other land use activities.” It also found that although some water samples in B.C. exceeded provincial water quality guidelines, samples downstream of the B.C.-Alaska border did not exceed Alaska water quality standards.

But critics question the findings and say the group failed to adequately engage Indigenous and community groups.

Frederick Olsen Junior, executive director of the Southeast Alaska Indigenous Transboundary Commission, is disappointed by the new B.C.-Alaska report on the impact of B.C. mines on transboundary watersheds. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

Jill Weitz, director of Salmon Beyond Borders, which has spearheaded campaigns to protect the transboundary watersheds, said groups fighting to protect Alaska rivers do not believe the report accurately reflects what is happening in the rivers or the extent of community involvement.

“We have all agreed that it is a misrepresentation, not only of the public engagement and involvement of the state with Alaskans and the tribes, but a misrepresentation of the risk and potential risk and concerns around development in these watersheds,” Weitz said.

Critics are also concerned that the joint monitoring program is wrapping up. 

“It clearly identifies a notion that the State of Alaska and B.C. are not interested in developing a long-term management strategy for these transboundary watersheds,” Weitz said.

A news release from the province says there are other sampling programs planned by provincial, state and federal agencies, so there is no need for the joint monitoring program. However, the release said Alaska and B.C. will continue to work on protection of the shared waterways.

“Water and wildlife don’t recognize borders and so it’s up to all of us to protect our critical and priceless watersheds, regardless of jurisdiction,” B.C. Environment Minister George Heyman said in the news release.

In December, the U.S. Congress, led by the Alaska Congressional Delegation, allocated US$3.62 million to the U.S. Geological Survey to continue baseline monitoring at the international border.

Advocates have been calling on B.C. to clean up mining for decades

The Stikine, Taku and Unuk watersheds are prime salmon habitats, but populations in the Taku and Stikine are struggling and there have long been concerns about the potential adverse effects on them from mines. These concerns have been heightened by the 2014 Mount Polley mine disaster, which sent 24 million cubic metres of mine waste into nearby waterways after the tailings pond dam collapsed, and the six decades of inaction on cleaning up the Tulsequah Chief mine, which leaches acid waste into a tributary of the Taku.

Alaska environmental groups and tribes are concerned that B.C. mines such as Brucejack, shown here, are having negative impacts on their water that were not captured in a new B.C.-Alaska government report. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

For years, community, environmental and Indigenous groups on both sides of the border have been urging B.C. to clean up its act, tighten mining regulations and permitting requirements, demand adequate site cleanup securities from companies and bring in financial assurances to cover disasters. In 2019, in an unprecedented bipartisan move, eight U.S. senators pressed B.C. to take action. A letter from the senators highlighted the need for B.C. to improve mining safeguards and urged Premier John Horgan to recognize that contamination from upstream mines threatens Alaska businesses and resources.

Last year, an international group of 22 scientists and policy experts published a commentary in the journal Science urging both governments to address potential damages caused by pollution from B.C. mines flowing into the U.S.

The B.C. government has finally pledged to clean up the abandoned Tulsequah Chief and has committed almost $1.6 million for immediately needed work and additional studies. But B.C.’s mining sector is booming and Alaska environmental groups and tribes are concerned that, in addition to already approved or operating mines such as KSM, Brucejack and Red Chris, other major proposed projects, such as Galore Creek and Schaft Creek, are wending their way through the process and B.C.’s regulations will not protect Alaska waters.

The Stikine, Taku and Unuk watersheds, which are shared by B.C. and Alaska, are home to several mines at various lifecycle stages. Map: Carol Linnitt / The Narwhal

There is still no way for Alaskans to deal with problems originating from B.C. mines, said Chris Zimmer, Alaska campaign director with Rivers Without Borders.

“We still don’t have financial assurances to compensate Alaskans, there is still not a great transboundary plan to deal with problems,” he said. “It’s one thing to find out what is in the water, it’s a completely other thing to be able to clean it up and fix it.”

Critics raise concerns about research methods 

Over the past decade, government agencies and First Nations on both sides of the border have set up monitoring systems, but they recognized there was a need to establish baseline data against which to measure future impacts.

Jason Brune, Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, said the baseline data is incredibly important.

“The data has not shown a measurable impact to Alaskan waters from historical mining activities in B.C. and will serve as a foundation to assess potential impacts from future industrial activity as well,” he said in the news release.

The joint monitoring program included habitat assessments, physical and chemical analyses of water and sediment and analyses of resident fish species from each watershed — although the report notes that there was no way to determine how long each fish had spent at the capture site. 

The sampling took place between August 2017 and September 2019. In B.C., there were 23 sampling sites. In Alaska, up to five sites in each watershed were randomly selected for sampling and up to an additional six sites were chosen in priority areas.

Researchers found some sites in B.C had elevated concentrations of cadmium, copper, selenium and zinc in the water and some exceeded provincial guidelines, but the elements were found above and below mine sites, likely reflecting natural concentrations, according to the report. No exceedances of Alaska Water Quality Standards were found downstream of the B.C.-Alaska border.

Sediment samples from all three watersheds found sites with higher concentrations of arsenic, copper and nickel than set out in guidelines for aquatic life on both sides of the border. Concentrations were higher in sediment samples in tributaries than the main stem of rivers, with sediment from the Unuk watershed showing the highest concentrations. Again, the exceedances were found above and below mine sites.

The report said naturally occurring mineral deposits in the watershed likely influence water and sediment quality, but, in the Taku watershed, concentrations are affected by discharges from the Tulsequah Chief.

The Grand Canyon of the Stikine River is downstream from the Red Chris mine and could be affected in the event of a tailings dam failure. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

Alaskans are worried that contaminants from mine tailings ponds in B.C., like this one at Red Chris mine, could make their way into their water. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

Tests on fish produced mixed results. For example, the report flagged copper concentrations in Alaska sculpin in the Stikine watershed, but found element concentrations in Dolly Varden char were lower in Alaska than B.C on the Unuk river.

The report notes that, because of the size, diversity and complexity of the watersheds, more focused sampling programs are needed to establish what is impacting water quality and aquatic species.

Christopher Sergeant, a research scientist with the University of Montana’s Flathead Lake Biological Station, reviewed an early draft of the report and had concerns about how data was being collected.

“Monitoring efforts tend to be concentrated in small areas of each watershed or relatively short-term in effort,” he wrote in a brief.

Sergeant said the bilateral report is an important effort, but misses the mark as far as setting up a baseline of water, fish and sediment health.

“It’s just a start,” he told The Narwhal. “Measuring one spot a couple of times over one or two years does not create a baseline, especially in these rivers where climate change is making glaciers recede. There’s more rain falling and changing all the natural patterns of these rivers and that’s happening at the same time as potential mining impacts.” 

The Tulsequah Chief mine has been leaking contaminated water into a salmon watershed on the B.C.-Alaska border for over 60 years. Photo: Colin Arisman / The Narwhal

That uncertainty means scientists should be increasing measurements to understand the variability of the rivers, said Sergeant, adding that many of the tests were opportunistic, rather than a true coordinated effort, partially because of the difficulty of working in such remote areas.

Sergeant is also concerned about some of the species chosen for fish tissue samples.

Some species, such as Dolly Varden char, travel between two or three rivers in a day, so samples do not pinpoint where a problem might be occurring.

“I would say that, in some cases, they chose the wrong species,” Sergeant said.

Zimmer told The Narwhal he is concerned the report does not show the effects of the mines on fish in areas such as the Tulsequah River and he is worried it gives the false impression that everything is fine in the watersheds.

“What are the effects of sublethal levels of metals, below the water quality standards, especially with metals such as copper, which is so toxic in such tiny, tiny quantities?” asked Zimmer.

“We know we have got a bunch of crap coming out of the Tulsequah Chief mine — literally tonnes of lead and copper and arsenic — so what’s the effect of that?”

Indigenous groups call for ‘true collaboration’

The Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska are among groups who say they have not worked with the bilateral group. The Tlingit and Haida’s Native Lands and Resources Department has been collecting baseline data in the headwaters of several transboundary rivers for five years, but were not asked to submit their data for the report, according to a news release.

Their sampling program has not yet finished, but the council will be releasing some findings from the Taku and Stikine rivers in about a month.

“Our way of life depends upon the health of our transboundary waters and it’s important for Alaska tribes and B.C. First Nations to be fully engaged for true collaboration to exist,” Central Council President Richard Chalyee Eesh Peterson said.

Peterson said the report should not be viewed as the final word and Alaska tribes and B.C. First Nations need to be involved in creating a transboundary water resources management framework.

“No one should say they’ve found no environmental harm and conclude their efforts,” Peterson said. “This is just the beginning.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Scotiabank is the fifth bank in Canada to publicly refuse to bankroll industrial development in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the institution announced in a new policy released Monday.

“Scotiabank will not provide direct financing or project-specific financial and advisory services for activities that are directly related to the exploration, development or production of oil and gas within the Arctic Circle, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,” the bank said in a statement.

Scotiabank joins the rest of Canada’s major financial institutions, including Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), Toronto Dominion (TD), Bank of Montreal (BMO) and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC), in vowing not finance development in a roughly 1.6 million-acre oil-rich parcel of the refuge known as the coastal plain. 

The largest national wildlife refuge in the United States, the protected area is home to myriad sensitive species, including polar bears and the Porcupine caribou, a culturally sacred animal to the Gwich’in Nation and transboundary herd that undertakes one of the largest land mammal migrations on Earth.

The banks’ commitment comes as the Trump administration moves ahead with controversial plans to sell off oil leases in the development area early next month before president-elect Joe Biden takes office on Jan. 20, 2021. Biden campaigned on a pledge to permanently protect the refuge, calling Trump’s move to open the area to oil and gas development an “attack on federal lands and waters.”

All of Canada’s major financial institutions have now vowed not to finance development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Photo: Matt Jacques / The Narwhal

That all major Canadian financial institutions have agreed to not fund oil and gas drilling in the refuge is a testament to advocacy work by First Nations and conservation organizations, Dana Tizya-Tramm, Chief of the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, told The Narwhal.

“Scotiabank is respecting our people’s vision, you know, RBC is listening to my Elders, Bank of Montreal values our children growing up on caribou,” he said. “They see the value in this iconic herd.”

“I think the financial institutions have sent a very large signal to the rest of the world,” Tizya-Tramm said.

And while many are embracing the banks’ Arctic pledges, observers continue to note that Canada’s  banks remain heavily invested in fossil fuels. A report by the Rainforest Action Network released earlier this year, for instance, found Canada’s five major banks were among the world’s top financial backers of fossil fuel development.

Major U.S. banks pledged not to fund oil and gas drilling in refuge

The Gwich’in Steering Committee, which represents Gwich’in in the U.S. and Canada, spearheaded efforts to pressure U.S. banks against funding development in the refuge in 2018. 

Earlier this year, five major U.S. banks, including Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo and J.P. Morgan Chase, pledged to not finance development in the refuge.

That likely influenced Canadian banks, said Malkolm Boothroyd, campaigns coordinator with the Yukon chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS), which has been calling on Canadian institutions to drop funding for oil and gas development in the refuge since December 2019.

The announcements from Canadian banks comes on the heels of similar pledges from five major U.S. financial institutions, including Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo and J.P. Morgan Chase. Photo: Matt Jacques / The Narwhal

“There are so many reasons for oil companies to be wary of pursuing leases in the Arctic refuge,” he said, noting the high costs of doing business in the remote region and skepticism over whether there’s actually enough oil available to warrant industry incursion. 

Every time a bank comes out with a new policy to avoid funding development, that adds yet another reason for companies to steer clear of the refuge, Boothroyd said.

In October, RBC, the largest bank in Canada, became the first financial institution to refuse to fund development in the refuge.

“Due to its particular ecological and social significance and vulnerability, RBC will not provide direct financing for any project or transaction that involves exploration or development in the ANWR,” RBC’s updated policy guideline states.

These announcements should act as a warning to companies regardless of the politics of the day, Boothroyd said.

“The financial world is lining up and saying that they wouldn’t provide a dime to these kinds of projects, so hopefully that will make any company think twice,” he said.

‘They’re respecting our human rights as Indigenous people’

To Bernadette Demientieff, executive director of the Gwich’in Steering Committee, the message from Canadian banks is clear: “It shows that more and more people are listening to the Indigenous voices, that they’re respecting our human rights as Indigenous people,” she said.

However, the fight to protect the refuge is far from over, she added.

Map showing overlap of 1002 area lands and the Porcupine caribou herd range. Map: Carol Linnitt / The Narwhal

Indigenous leaders are increasingly shifting their focus to insurers, Demientieff said. Without the support of insurance companies, prospective companies would have no safeguards in place should they encounter financial pitfalls.

Ensuring that Biden makes good on his promise to permanently protect the refuge is another priority for the committee, she added.

Biden made several campaign commitments to increase protections for the Arctic, including a moratorium on offshore drilling in the Arctic Ocean and prioritizing climate change at the Arctic Council, an intergovernmental body that seeks to address problems faced by people who live in the area. 

There are also several lawsuits fighting the Department of the Interior’s handling of the environmental assessment process. CPAWS Yukon, along with 12 others, allege that the Department of the Interior “broke the law by disregarding the refuge’s original purposes and failing to safeguard those purposes through the design of its oil and gas leasing program.”

Porcupine caribou cover the valley of the Hulahula river in the Brooks range mountains of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Photo: Matt Jacques / The Narwhal

The National Audubon Society and the Center for Biological Diversity, among other U.S. groups, also launched a lawsuit against David Bernhardt, the secretary of the Department of Interior, who signed off on the record of decision.

And in September, attorneys general of 15 states sued the Trump administration, saying the move to open up part of the refuge to development “fails to fully evaluate and consider the devastating environmental impacts.”

“We’re not giving up, we’re gonna keep pushing,” Demientieff said. 

“This isn’t a job for us. We can’t go home at 5 o’clock and turn it off. This is our way of life. This is our identity. This is our food security, and we are spiritually and culturally connected to our lands, water and animals.”

“We are up against a very tough battle,” she continued. “We are up against a lot of money, but I really truly believe in my heart what I’m fighting for and I’m a strong believer in the power of prayer and I do believe we are going to stop this.”

‘We don’t want another Standing Rock’: Chief

Tizya-Tramm said his nation’s decision to bring advocacy efforts to financial institutions and corporate boardrooms was, in part, to keep citizens safe.

The refuge provides crucial habitat to the Porcupine caribou, a culturally important herd to the Gwich’in, who have relied on them for subsistence purposes from time immemorial. The Gwich’in, who live in Yukon, Northwest Territories and Alaska, refer to the refuge as “the sacred place where life begins.”

“I do not want to see our people having to go out onto the highways, set up picket lines and block machinery from going into this area,” Tizya-Tramm said. “Our people would be met with military, rubber bullets, pepper spray and dogs.” 

“We don’t want another Standing Rock,” he said, referring to the 2016 gathering of thousands of opponents of the Dakota Access Pipeline, which threatened water used by those on the nearby Standing Rock Sioux reservation. 

The event became a flashpoint issue for Indigenous Rights across the continent.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

With the U.S. presidential election just weeks away, the fate of oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge — the largest intact wilderness in America — seems to rest in the hands of candidates Donald Trump (decidedly pro drilling) or Joe Biden (decidedly not).

But whether or not industrial development goes ahead in a 1.6 million-acre parcel of the treasured Alaskan refuge, which provides important calving grounds for the threatened transboundary Porcupine caribou herd, could also come down to Canada.

Although in August the U.S. Department of the Interior gave the go ahead to the most aggressive lease program possible — which would open up the entire coastal plain of the refuge to potential drilling — here are all the ways Canadians could get in the way.

But first, what’s the deal with the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, again?

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is roughly 19.6 million acres (8 million hectares) of vast wilderness in northeastern Alaska that was set aside decades ago as a haven for wildlife and outdoor recreation. It’s home to a myriad of species including polar bears, migratory birds and the Porcupine caribou, a herd that undertakes one of the longest land mammal migrations on Earth.

There have been attempts in the past to get at oil reserves that lay beneath the refuge, including through exploration activities in the 1980s. But industry has been prevented from moving ahead with any major development, until now.

That’s thanks in part to a 2017 tax bill President Trump used to promote oil and gas activities and open up a portion of the refuge to potential drilling. The bill made way for at least two lease sales in the Arctic refuge by 2024, initiating an environmental assessment process that culminated in a record of decision that allows drilling in what is known as the 1002 area this past August.

Map showing overlap of 1002 area lands and the Porcupine caribou herd range. Map: Carol Linnitt / The Narwhal

Former vice-president Joe Biden has pledged to permanently protect the refuge as part of his campaign commitment to preserve the Arctic and tackle climate change.

Canada and the U.S. have a bilateral treaty to protect caribou

In 1987, Canada and the U.S. signed a treaty to ensure the Porcupine caribou herd and its habitat is protected by minimizing possible long-term impacts while balancing subsistence harvesting.

That treaty has now become the focus of talks between the Yukon and federal governments, along with other interested parties such as Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, the Gwich’in Tribal Council and the government of the Northwest Territories.

Pauline Frost, Yukon Minister of Environment, told The Narwhal the treaty may provide Canada with legal grounds to push back against the August decision.

“It fails to consider impacts to food security in the North,” Frost said. “It’s clearly for financial gains and quick access. It doesn’t consider long-term, specific impacts. It doesn’t correlate with how we do business in Yukon, how we do business in Canada, in terms of effective land management.”

Ian Waddell, a former NDP MP and B.C. MLA, told The Narwhal in 2018 that the treaty could be used to “raise a little hell” with U.S. counterparts. In an interview this week, he said this could take the form of diplomatic letters to the U.S. government.

“It gives us at least something to hang our hat on,” he said. “It’s not a big coat rack, but it’s something, and it can open up the dialogue.”

Jonathan Wilkinson, minister of Environment and Climate Change, said in a statement that the federal government has “significant concerns” with development in the Arctic refuge, noting bilateral agreements with the U.S. government are designed to not only protect the Porcupine caribou herd but also polar bears and migratory birds.

A spokesperson at Wilkinson’s office declined an interview.

The Yukon government has already proven it is willing to intervene in the issue. Last year it made a submission to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, calling for a complete redo of what the territory considered spotty preliminary environmental assessment work.

Frost, who is Gwich’in from Old Crow, said the record of decision has impacted all Gwich’in nations, which are concerned about the caribou because they are so intricately connected to their culture.

“It affected me, it affected my whole community, it affected my family,” she said. “It’s certainly something, as a Gwich’in person, that I take to heart …” 

Frost wouldn’t elaborate on the details of forthcoming talks between Yukon and the federal government, but said the record of decision and the treaty will be front and centre.

Members of the Porcupine caribou herd in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Photo: Matt Jacques / The Narwhal

Canadian banks may withhold funding for Arctic refuge drilling

Last week, the Royal Bank of Canada, the largest financial institution in the country, became the first Canadian bank to refuse to finance any oil and gas development in the Arctic refuge. 

“Due to its particular ecological and social significance and vulnerability, RBC will not provide direct financing for any project or transaction that involves exploration or development in the ANWR,” reads RBC’s updated policy guidelines for sensitive sectors and activities posted on Friday. 

A spokesperson told The Narwhal that the bank has never financed oil and gas development in the region and that the policy change was a “proactive” decision to ensure it stays that way.

A delegation made up of Gwich’in and members of the Yukon chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society have been putting pressure on not only RBC but other major banks such as TD Canada Trust, Scotiabank and the Royal Bank of Montreal since last December. 

The move follows several U.S. banks, such as Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo, which, earlier this year, publicly stated they would refuse to finance oil and gas development in the refuge.

Chris Rider, the executive director of the Yukon chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, said he hopes other banks in Canada follow RBC’s lead. If they do, that will help highlight the financial risk in store for companies bold enough to consider oil and gas development in the refuge. Severing the flow of cash earmarked for development in the area could thwart any attempt by companies to follow through with their plans, he added.

Dana Tizya-Tramm, Chief of Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, said RBC’s commitment marks the first time a Canadian bank has taken meaningful strides to consult with affected First Nations and make a decision based on those deliberations.

“This is about leadership,” he told The Narwhal. “What we need more is courage, and we’re looking to the courage of financial institutions in Canada to stand in partnership with Indigenous people and stop ecocide.”

On the trail of the Porcupine caribou herd

Canadians are joining legal disputes against drilling in the Arctic refuge

Several groups, including the Gwich’in Steering Committee, the Yukon chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and the Alaska Wilderness League, are taking the Department of the Interior to court over its handling of the environmental assessment process.

The National Audubon Society and the Center for Biological Diversity, among other U.S. groups also launched a lawsuit against David Bernhardt, the secretary of the Department of Interior, who signed off on the record of decision.

Last month, attorney generals of 15 states sued the Trump administration’s move to open up part of the refuge to development, too.

Malkolm Boothroyd, campaigns coordinator with the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society Yukon, wrote in an opinion piece for The Narwhal that his organization’s lawsuit “challenges the legality of Interior’s environmental review,” stating “the environmental review gave little heed to the seven original purposes of the Arctic refuge, like protecting wildlife, wilderness and subsistence.”

His group, along with 12 others, allege that the Department of the Interior “broke the law by disregarding the refuge’s original purposes and failing to safeguard those purposes through the design of its oil and gas leasing program.”

Adam Kolton, the executive director of the Alaska Wilderness League, said that if Trump is re-elected, litigation will continue, noting there are currently four lawsuits in motion that challenge the record of decision, including one brought by Earthjustice and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

“If Trump wins, these are still going to be active lawsuits, and, depending on the outcome of that litigation, the administration could be forced to redo its work, and this could substantially delay plans to offer the area to lease,” he said. “We think the administration really sidelined scientists, sidestepped environmental laws and went about this in a really reckless fashion.”

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Photo: Matt Jacques / The Narwhal

What would the fight to protect the Arctic refuge look like under Biden?

If the Democratic party wins the U.S. election, the battle to keep oil drilling out of the refuge might all but evaporate. 

Biden has pledged to permanently protect the Arctic refuge, calling Trump’s move to open oil and gas development there and in other areas an “attack on federal lands and waters.” 

He has several campaign commitments that involve greater protection for the Arctic, including a moratorium on offshore drilling in the Arctic Ocean and prioritizing climate change at the Arctic Council, an intergovernmental body that seeks to address problems faced by people who live in the area. 

Tizya-Tramm said that Biden’s campaign suggests that advocacy efforts in both Canada and the U.S. are working.

“We’re almost there,” he said, adding that leaders near and far can take a page from Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, which is proving to the world that sustainability is possible.

“In our community, as we advocate for the protection of the caribou, we are charting the path in North America as Indigenous people to what renewable economies look like, to what a renewable, permanent presence on the land looks like, and there is no reason why the U.S. government cannot enjoy the same successes that a small village of 250 people north of the Arctic Circle are levying today,” he said.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Canada’s largest bank, the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), has quietly become the first major financial institution in the country to refuse to fund any oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska.

“Due to its particular ecological and social significance and vulnerability, RBC will not provide direct financing for any project or transaction that involves exploration or development in the ANWR,” reads RBC’s updated policy guidelines for sensitive sectors and activities posted on Friday. 

RBC is “committed to finding ways to balance the transition to a low-carbon economy while supporting efforts to meet global energy needs and our energy clients,” Andrew Block, an RBC spokesperson, said in an email to The Narwhal.

The refuge, the largest of its kind in the United States, is home to myriad sensitive species, including polar bears and the Porcupine caribou, a transboundary herd that undertakes one of the largest land mammal migrations on Earth.

The bank’s pledge comes on the heels of a controversial U.S. decision to open up part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas development. The decision prompted swift reaction, with 13 environmental organizations taking the Department of the Interior to court.

Block said RBC has never financed any oil and gas development in the refuge, and noted the policy update is a “proactive decision” to ensure development isn’t funded in the future by the institution.

The bank also placed restrictions on financing the development of coal-fired power plants, thermal coal mines, mountain-top removal coal mines and development in UNESCO World Heritage Sites. RBC also now requires “enhanced due diligence” of any financing of energy exploration in the Arctic. A report by the Rainforest Action Network released earlier this year found RBC to be the biggest funder of fossil fuel development in Canada. 

Vuntut Gwitchin, Gwich’in Tribal Council and the Yukon chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society have been putting pressure on major Canadian financial institutions to refuse to finance development — and withdraw any existing financing — in the refuge since last fall. 

Dana Tizya-Tramm, Chief of Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, said RBC’s commitment marks the first time a Canadian bank has taken meaningful strides to consult with affected First Nations and made a decision based on those deliberations.

“This is a wonderful acknowledgement and vindication of our Elders, who spoke to the importance of the caribou. We are looking to all major banks in Canada to come into the sunlight with RBC,” he said, adding that meetings have also occurred with TD Canada Trust, the Bank of Montreal and Scotiabank, among others.

The Porcupine caribou, which migrate into Yukon, are of great cultural importance to the Gwich’in, who have harvested them for thousands of years and exercise subsistence harvesting rights.

“This is what true leadership looks like,” Tizya-Tramm said. “This movement speaks to responsible financing. They’ve really opened up a vacuum and created a whole new discussion.”

RBC joins other U.S. banks that have made similar commitments 

Earlier this year, five major U.S. banks, including Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo and J.P. Morgan Chase, pledged to not finance development in the refuge.

Chris Rider, executive director of the Yukon chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, said RBC’s decision sends a clear message that investment in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is risky. 

“This is sending a strong message that this is a project that is not going to work and that this is a project that companies aren’t going to be able to get capital for, if they do want to pursue it,” he said.

“It shows that banks like RBC are recognizing both the moral importance of protecting landscapes like the Arctic refuge and also simply that it makes good economic sense.”  

When Goldman Sachs committed to not fund development, others followed its lead “almost immediately,” Rider said.

He said this domino effect could occur in Canada, too.

“We hope to see the rest of Canada’s major banks follow suit,” Rider said. “We will be stepping up the campaign in the coming months until they do that.”

Map showing overlap of 1002 area lands, proposed for oil drilling, and the Porcupine caribou herd range. Illustration: Carol Linnitt / The Narwhal

How RBC assesses projects that may come with a risk

RBC evaluates all potential transactions through an environmental and social risk management process.

“A client’s environmental and social issues can affect their cash flow, their ability to operate, or the ability to grow their business,” according to a policy summary. “Our experience and knowledge along with our policies and processes help us identify and manage risks associated with a client’s environmental and social issues, minimizing our exposure to credit, reputational, regulatory and legal risk.”

Risk could be foisted onto RBC if a company has a history of spills, costs related to fines and remediation efforts or they default on loans, it says.

The bank assesses risk by visiting sites and conducting third-party environmental assessments, the summary says. 

Resource and energy development in the Arctic is deemed as “high risk” in a policy guidelines document.

“RBC recognizes the natural and cultural significance of the Arctic ecosystem that is threatened by a number of factors, including climate change,” it says. “The harsh conditions and fragile ecosystems make it a particularly vulnerable and challenging region for energy and resource development projects.”

Updated at 3:15 p.m. PST to add more detail about RBC’s new policy guidelines and add reference to a report by the Rainforest Action Network.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Malkolm Boothroyd is a writer, photographer and campaigns coordinator for the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society Yukon chapter.

Two years ago I sat in a windowless convention hall in Anchorage, Alaska, breathing stale air, waiting my turn to speak about the most vibrant place I’d ever visited, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. High-ranking officials from the U.S. Department of Interior sat at the front of the room, emotionless as speaker after speaker described the importance of the Arctic refuge — for caribou, birds, polar bears, and Indigenous communities across the North that depend on the Porcupine caribou herd.

The Interior Department had just begun its environmental review of oil and gas leasing on the Coastal Plain of the Arctic refuge. But even back then, the outcome seemed to have already been determined. The people in charge of the environmental review were closely tied to the oil industry, and the President of the United States had repeatedly claimed opening the Arctic refuge to drilling as one of his proudest accomplishments. All signs pointed towards a rushed and cursory review.

Pacific loons are among the many waterfowl that migrate to the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Photo: Malkolm Boothroyd / malkolmboothroyd.com

Last week the Interior Department released its Record of Decision, bringing its environmental review to a close. To nobody’s surprise, the department gave the go-ahead to the most aggressive scenario imaginable: one that would offer up the entire Coastal Plain to oil companies, and place the fewest restrictions on drilling. This week, we responded. Thirteen groups, CPAWS Yukon included, are taking the Department of Interior to court. The lawsuit is led by the Gwich’in Steering Committee, and will be argued by lawyers from Trustees for Alaska, a public interest environmental law group. Earthjustice and the Natural Resources Defence Council have filed a second lawsuit.

Our lawsuit challenges the legality of Interior’s environmental review. For example, the environmental review gave little heed to the seven original purposes of the Arctic refuge, like protecting wildlife, wilderness and subsistence. Instead it shaped its environmental review to accommodate an oil and gas leasing program, an eighth purpose that was only added in 2017 when the U.S. Congress opened the refuge to drilling. We allege that the Department of Interior broke the law by disregarding the refuge’s original purposes and failing to safeguard those purposes through the design of its oil and gas leasing program.

A calf from the Porcupine caribou herd that migrates between Alaska, northern Yukon and Northwest Territories, and is harvested by Gwich’in communities there. Photo: Malkolm Boothroyd / malkolmboothroyd.com

The U.S. government recently confirmed its decision to open the Porcupine caribou herd’s calving grounds, in Alaska’s Coastal Plain, to oil and gas development. Photo: Malkolm Boothroyd / malkolmboothroyd.com

The Porcupine caribou herd is one of few healthy herds remaining in Canada. Photo: Atsushi Sugimoto / Arctic Photo Laboratory

We also contend that the Department of Interior broke the law by not adequately considering alternatives, failing to take a hard look at the consequences of drilling and not adequately addressing the threats to Gwich’in subsistence rights. In total, our lawsuit makes eight claims against the Department of Interior for transgressions in its environmental review and associated actions to authorize leasing in the Arctic refuge. If we prevail, we hope the courts will invalidate the Department of Interior’s environmental review, and any decisions that stem from it.

The Department of Interior could have modelled its environmental review after the Berger Commission. It could have taken the time to visit every Gwich’in community, and learn why oil and gas development in the Arctic refuge poses such a grave threat to the Gwich’in way of life. The Department of Interior could have listened to scientists and the public. It could have written an environmental impact statement that acknowledged the magnitude of damage that drilling would bring. But that didn’t suit the U.S. government’s agenda — since a review in good faith would have found that the dangers of drilling far, far outweighed the pros. Instead, the Department of Interior started with a conclusion in mind, and then wrote an environmental review to justify it.

Caribou is prepared for a community feast in Old Crow, Yukon. Photo: Atsushi Sugimoto / Arctic Photo Laboratory

The coming months will be pivotal for the Arctic refuge — with lawsuits, a potential lease sale and the U.S. election all looming. At the same time we’re working on a parallel strategy, pressuring Canadian banks to rule out financing for Arctic refuge drilling. Our allies in the United States are pressuring corporations there to do the same, and five of the six largest U.S. banks have agreed.

Autumn is spreading across the Arctic, and most of the caribou have departed from the Coastal Plain. I hope that by the time the caribou return next spring, the future of the Arctic refuge will be much more secure than it is today.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The owner of the proposed KSM mine in northwest B.C., situated atop one of the largest undeveloped gold deposits in Canada, has asked the province for an emergency two-year extension on its environmental assessment certificate, citing delays caused by COVID-19.

The mine’s owner, Toronto-based Seabridge Gold, originally received approval for the project in 2014, under an environmental assessment certificate that stated the project must be “substantially started” within five years.

In 2018, the company received a five-year extension to its environmental assessment certificate. If Seabridge’s request for an emergency extension is granted, the mine will end up having 12 years to achieve a substantial start on the mine from the time it was initially approved.

Seabridge Gold’s senior vice president of environmental affairs, Brent Murphy, told The Narwhal it needs more time to find an experienced mining company as a business partner.

“Seabridge Gold has had interest from several companies to partner on the KSM project, however, the metals prices over the past few years have not been favourable for such an investment,” Murphy said in a written statement.

Seabridge Gold has estimated the project will cost more than $6 billion to build. It predicts the mine will generate over $30 billion GDP within the province and $20 billion in the rest of Canada over its 52-year lifespan.

The KSM mine site is located 65 kilometres north of Stewart, B.C., and 30 kilometres northeast of the B.C.-Alaska border.

If built, the gold, copper, silver and molybdenum mine will entail three open pits and two underground mines. The mining tenure covers 60,000 hectares, an area the size of 148 Stanley Parks. Once built, the mine could produce up to 130,000 tonnes of ore per day.

The mine’s proposed tailings facility is designed to store 2.3 billion tonnes of tailings. Its tallest dam will be 239 metres high, which is 18 metres taller than the Hoover Dam. The project initially required mining under an active glacier, but that glacier has now retreated.

The Mount Polley mine had a total tailings storage volume of 44 million cubic metres. B.C.’s transboundary mines require much higher volumes of waste storage. The tailings facility at Red Chris can store up to 305 million cubic metres of mine waste. Shaft Creek has a storage volume of 588 million cubic metres and KSM a staggering 1,213 million cubic metres. Illustration: The Narwhal

B.C.’s Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy told The Narwhal it is considering Seabridge Gold’s request. A spokesperson said the environmental assessment office will “initiate a review process with technical advisors (provincial, federal and local government agencies) and Indigenous nations to review the request.”

After that review, the office will submit its review to its chief executive assessment officer for a decision.

Delay must be ‘in the public interest’

The Environmental Assessment Act typically only allows certificate deadlines to be extended once, but companies are able to apply for an emergency provision under the Environmental Assessment Act for another extension.

Seabridge Gold made its request in March. In May, the acting chief executive assessment officer for B.C.’s environmental assessment office replied explaining the challenges the project faces must be “directly related to the emergency” and the delay must be “in the public interest.” He asked Seabridge to explain how the project’s inability to meet its 2024 deadline were directly related to delays to the 2020 field season and “why lost time cannot be made up in the coming four years.”

A helicopter traverses Salmon Glacier, the fifth largest glacier in North America, near the proposed location of the KSM mine. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

In a response dated July 3, 2020, Seabridge Gold’s president and chief operating officer, Jay Layman, wrote “not having a JV [joint-venture] partner this year impacts our ability to initiate and ultimately complete the project feasibility study.”

In order to complete the feasibility study and begin construction, Layman said Seabridge needed a partner that could provide an additional investment between $600 million and $750 million. Seabridge Gold focuses on acquiring deposits and doing exploration, then selling them or creating a joint venture to get mines built, not building mines on its own.

He said the company had been expecting a proposal from prospective partners in March that was called off because of COVID-19.

Layman went on to say COVID-19 has disrupted markets and depressed the copper market, and that their financial advisors expected markets not to stabilize until 18 to 24 months after the end of the pandemic. He also said field work and permitting have slowed down, and delayed federal regulatory approvals to impact fish habitat.

He said Seabridge has met 26 of the 41 conditions in its environmental assessment certificate to date.

Science fiction or resource extraction? The strange tale of one of the largest mines ever proposed in B.C.

KSM’s environmental analysis ‘dated,’ expert says

David Chambers, founder and president of the Centre for Science in Public Participation, has 40 years of experience in mineral exploration and development. He said the KSM mine is proposed in a very difficult area with unpredictable weather and lots of water that needs to be diverted.

With a five-year extension already granted for the mine, Chambers said “its environmental analysis is quite dated.” In addition, since receiving its certificate, Seabridge Gold did more exploration and found more minerals than initially proposed.

“I would like to see another environmental analysis, rather than a permit extension,” he said.

But he added he doesn’t find Seabridge Gold’s request “unreasonable” considering the impacts of COVID-19 on government and industry.

Seabridge Gold may be taking a long time to find a partner because KSM mine “isn’t a sure bet,” Chambers said, and the $6 billion expense and challenging topography make it harder for a company to “justify that kind of investment.”

Greg Knox, executive director of SkeenaWild Conservation Trust, said he finds COVID-19 to be “a poor excuse” for a further extension.

“They’ve had five years since their permit. They received another five years and we’re only a year into that extension and they’re already asking for additional time,” he said.

Rugged peaks and glaciers near the proposed KSM mine. The KSM mine project is composed of four mineral deposits, the Kerr, Sulphurets, Mitchell and Iron Cap. The view north in this image shows the proposed location of the Sulphurets open pit mine and future waste rock dump. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

It wouldn’t be the first time a controversial B.C. development has lost its environmental assessment certificate due to failing to start work on the project. Jumbo Glacier Resort received its certificate in 2004, was given an extra five years to substantially start the project by 2014, and still hadn’t met the conditions of the certificate by that year. The Minister of Environment at the time deemed the certificate invalid. The company launched an appeal, but the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld the decision last year.

Knox said he’d also like to see the mine reviewed under the new provincial Environmental Assessment Act and the new federal Impact Assessment Act.

If Seabridge Gold is not able to achieve a substantial start by 2024, “it should be required to undergo a new environmental assessment,” he said.

“Regulations change, mining practices change and the public should be provided a new opportunity to ensure this project is built in the best possible manner that minimizes risks.”

People in B.C. and Alaska are concerned about contamination and harm to fish habitat. Mining will take place in the Mitchell and Sulphurets watersheds, which drain into the transboundary Unuk River. Seabridge has countered this criticism by pointing out water will be taken away from the mine site via a 23-kilometre pipeline and treated at the tailings management facility. That facility will be located in the Teigen and Treaty watersheds, which drain into the salmon-bearing Bell-Irving and Nass Rivers.

Seabridge Gold has also said it’s exceeded the environmental requirements of its certificate by focusing on smaller open pits, converting to electric equipment instead of diesel and working to improve water treatment.

However, Chris Sergeant, a research scientist at the University of Montana who studies Alaskan salmon populations, said the proposed mine may still impact water quality in the Unuk River.

“Water that contacts the mine on the Unuk River side will drain directly into a water storage reservoir,” Sergeant said. “This water would receive treatment before discharge into the Unuk watershed.”

But there isn’t currently a proven method for sufficient removal of selenium — which has been shown to negatively impact fish populations — and mine operations are expected to increase selenium levels in the water, Sergeant said.

Article updated at 10:40 a.m. PST on Aug. 20, 2020, to add comment from Chris Sergeant.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The Tulsequah Chief mine — which has been leaking contaminated water into a salmon watershed on the B.C.-Alaska border for over 60 years — will cost $48.7 million to clean up, according to a final remediation plan released by the B.C. government on Wednesday. 

The cleanup effort will also cost up to $1 million a year for monitoring and maintenance in perpetuity, according to the plan. It’s unclear who will pay the cleanup tab, because the owner of the mine is in receivership.

The province, in collaboration with the Taku River Tlingit First Nation, said it will begin work this summer to ready the Tulsequah Chief mine site for final closure. 

“Taking action now is critical in order to begin to address the impacts of the former Tulsequah Chief mine,” George Heyman, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, said in a press release. 

The location of the abandoned Tulsequah Chief mine in relation to the Taku River watershed. Map: Carol Linnitt / The Narwhal

According to a 2016 report commissioned by Rivers Without Borders, a non-profit organization in  that focuses on transboundary issues in B.C. and Alaska, an estimated one million litres of contaminated water flows into the Tulsequah River, a main tributary of the Taku River, every day.

“After more than 60 years of polluting a world class salmon watershed, two bankruptcies, four years of receivership proceedings and a lot of promises, we are finally seeing real progress toward mine cleanup and closure,” Chris Zimmer of Rivers Without Borders said in a press release. 

“We have some concerns with the closure and cleanup plan and as to how and when the plan will be implemented. But between B.C.’s strong demand to end the receivership process and the release of the cleanup and closure plan, there is real momentum toward ending pollution from the Tulsequah Chief.”

Water at the Tulsequah Chief mine is contaminated due to acid rock drainage, which occurs when rock becomes oxidized and forms sulphuric acid, which leaches heavy metals out of the rock. The contaminated water includes copper and zinc, among other contaminants, at levels far exceeding safe standards. 

The 113-page final remediation plan was prepared by SNC Lavalin and SRK Consulting and includes cost estimates and a conceptual five-year plan to permanently close the mine and contain the acid rock drainage. 

Water contaminated with acid mine drainage flows into a containment pond near the Tulsequah River. Photo: Colin Arisman / The Narwhal

Who will pay to close the Tulsequah Chief mine?

Teck-Cominco operated the Tulsequah Chief mine for seven years, before abandoning it in 1957. The company, a mining giant in Canada, never put systems in place to contain the toxic waste materials.

Chieftain Metals bought the property in 2010 to reopen the mine, on the condition that it addressed the acid rock drainage issues. It built an interim water treatment plant, but only operated it for less than a year before the company shut it down, citing high operational costs. Chieftain never achieved its goals of reopening the mine before going into receivership in 2016. This week, the company and its largest creditor, West Face Capital, attended a hearing at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to determine whether the receivership proceedings will be finalized or extended. 

The decision on receivership is critical to determining the future of the mine site. West Face Capital could acquire the property through debt owed to the company by Chieftain Metals. If this happened, it would be in a position to sell the property to another mining company. In the hearing, West Face asked for an indefinite extension to the receivership so it can continue to pursue a buyer.  

The Taku River Tlingit First Nation submitted its statements to the court, urging for a quick and final decision. 

“Taku River Tlingit people are not currently able to exercise their Aboriginal rights at or around the mine site due to unsafe conditions and fears that plants and animals harvested from the area would be unhealthy to consume because of environmental contamination from the mine,” the statement read.

While it’s uncertain who will foot the bill for the eventual cleanup and closure of the mine, Teck has been involved in planning workshops for the reclamation report. 

“We understand that a number of ongoing legal proceedings with respect to the site will need to come to a conclusion as a long-term approach is finalized,” Teck told The Narwhal in a statement. “However, as this process moves forward, we are supportive of the province and the Taku River Tlingit First Nation’s interim reclamation actions at the site.” 

‘When are they going to ensure the polluter pays?’: proposed B.C. mining reforms don’t go far enough

Last year, the Environmental Law Centre and more than 30 mining advocacy and legal organizations called on the B.C. government to reform its mining laws. Suggested changes included ensuring companies are held legally liable for cleanup and setting up requirements for long-term independent analysis of water treatment systems. Even if those reforms are implemented, legacies like Tulsequah could remain a direct cost to taxpayers.

While mining companies are required to provide money up front to the government to cover the costs of reclamation, the province currently only has $1.6 billion in bonds to cover an estimated $2.8 billion in reclamation costs. 

“This small mining site is a stark reminder that we need to make sure the polluter pays and that we update our reclamation bond policy,” Nikki Skuce, director at Northern Confluence, said in an email. “It also reinforces that if you can’t clean up your mess because of costs, remoteness or complexities with the site, then you shouldn’t be able to mine at all. I think British Columbians would support no-go zones for mining and ensuring the polluter pays if it meant protecting salmon rivers and avoiding $50 million taxpayer clean-up bills.”

Skiffs and barges were used to run workers and materials upriver to this staging area, from where trucks could drive the access road to Tulsequah Chief mine. Photo: Colin Arisman / The Narwhal

Location and complexity of the mine challenges reclamation efforts

Because the site is so remote, access has always been an issue driving up costs associated with reclamation. There is no road to the former mine — small aircraft and barge are the only ways to reach the site. Barging on the river can only be done in high flow, which means there is a very narrow window of time each year to get equipment to the site, and with tides affecting entry to the Taku River, the logistics are challenging. Extreme weather conditions further complicate access.

“Where the mouth of the Taku meets the salt water, a number of different mountain ranges and channels come together, and it can be just like a horrible washing machine, and very difficult to get through,” Zimmer with Rivers Without Borders told The Narwhal in an interview. “What we’ve seen in the past when the mining companies were trying to barge stuff up there, the barges were getting stuck everywhere.” But Zimmer said it’s still the obvious option. “Flying in a bulldozer is pretty expensive.”

Accessing the site via river also means crossing an international border, a lengthy bureaucratic process. Then, once the barge reaches a suitable landing site, the equipment still has to travel to the mine on road, which is in dire need of repair. 

“Some of the first steps include replacing and repairing bridges, upgrading the access road, establishing an erosion protection berm and repairing the existing airstrip,” the ministry said in the press release.

The abandoned Tulsequah Chief mine site is situated just meters from the Tulsequah, a tributary of the salmon-rich Taku River. For six decades B.C. has failed to address acid mine drainage at the mine site. Photo: Colin Arisman / The Narwhal

Final remediation plans are a work in progress

Zimmer told The Narwhal the plan reads more like a plan for a plan, outlining several options and highlighting significant gaps in data. 

“To call it a final plan could be confusing. It’s not the final plan. It’s kind of a framework that says here are the questions we need to answer, we need to do these studies, here are the options, and here are the pros and cons. So it’s still really hard to tell exactly how good this is going to be — it depends on how it’s implemented.”

The challenges of accessing the mine and the complexity of the site delayed field studies last year. This year, the outbreak of COVID-19 further delayed fieldwork. As The Narwhal recently reported, plans are underway to continue studies this summer, but it’s uncertain whether the recent announcement will include work on-site.

“The closure and reclamation plan outlines a phased approach that involves a series of steps designed to reduce the ongoing contamination,” the government statement said. “It is designed to be flexible, so changes can be made once more information is gathered from the site.”

Zimmer said he isn’t a fan of so-called “adaptive management” but given the site’s complexity, it’s the only way forward.

As for the actual closure of the mine, the report proposes three different options for controlling and addressing the water contamination issues. One dilutes the waste water with creek water to reduce the toxins to safe levels before it reaches the river. Another suggests controlling the rate at which the water is coming out, similarly to dilute and regulate the acidic content. And the last option proposes to inject the waste water underground into the aquifer beneath the Tulsequah River.

“There still seem to be a lot of unknowns in terms of water treatment options to deal with the copper, lead, zinc and other toxins that far exceed B.C. water quality guidelines,” said Skuce, the Northern Confluence director. “None of the options to dilute or bury the wastewater seem ideal, but it’s reassuring that the province is working with the Taku River Tlingit First Nation and State of Alaska who highly value salmon and water quality.”

The report itself admitted each of the options has significant drawbacks, but said the site could require a combination of all of the methods of water treatment. 

“The combination here of an acid-producing mine right next to salmon habitat, you know, it’s a bad combination,” Zimmer said. “And it points out the challenges of reclaiming these mines. Dealing with acid mine drainage, this stuff is insidious.”

Despite the obvious challenges ahead, Zimmer is optimistic. “Let’s get some things done now that we know we can do and hopefully we can stick to a good timeline. Overall, I think it’s a very good step forward.” 

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

In a remote corner of northwest B.C., an old mixed-metals mine has been leaching contaminated water into the largest tributary of the salmon-producing Taku River for more than 60 years. 

In 2019, the B.C. government said it would have a final remediation and reclamation plan ready at the end of that year. But now, due to delays related to COVID-19, the province says the plan won’t be made public until the fall or later and on-the-ground work won’t start until next year at the earliest. 

Salmon Beyond Borders campaign director Jill Weitz is disappointed by the delay but said the work has to be done right.

“Last year, we were all really excited,” Weitz told The Narwhal. “But given that this has been an issue for 60 years, there’s certainly no need to rush the process. It might take as long to clean up as it took to pollute.”

Teck-Cominco abandoned the mine in 1957 after operating it for seven years. Since then, and possibly before, contaminated water has been leaking directly into the watershed. In 2010, Chieftain Metals acquired the property and promised to reopen the mine and address the contaminated water. It failed on both fronts and went into receivership in 2016.

The Tulsequah Chief mine sits on the banks of the Tulsequah River, 10 kilometres from where it meets the Taku River, which flows into the Pacific near Juneau, Alaska. Last year’s government announcement was met with relief by campaigners on both sides of the border, who have been working for decades to get someone to take responsibility for the mess and clean it up.

“The Alaskans have been pissed off for years, and rightly so,” said Nikki Skuce, director of Northern Confluence, an initiative based out of Smithers that focuses on land use decisions in northern B.C. “The Taku River seems pretty remote to British Columbians, way up in the very northwest corner, but it’s not to the citizens of Juneau.”

The location of the abandoned Tulsequah Chief mine in relation to the Taku River watershed. Map: Carol Linnitt / The Narwhal

Province blames delays on ‘complexity’ of site, COVID-19

Last year, the province and the Taku River Tlingit First Nation selected a proponent to develop a remediation plan for the Tulsequah Chief mine. 

The plan was developed by SRK Consulting and SNC-Lavalin, a Montreal-based engineering firm that faced criminal charges in 2018 and 2019 for its business operations in Libya and in June was ordered to pay the Canadian government $1.9 million for its role in a bid-rigging scheme in Quebec. 

The final plan was submitted to the province in April and is currently being reviewed, Karemaker said. The province declined The Narwhal’s request to review the plan. 

There were several reasons the report was late, Kent Karemaker, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, wrote in an email.  

“Due to the complexity of the site, the lack of historical data to support current assessments and the remoteness of the location and associated logistics, the completion of the remediation and reclamation plan was significantly delayed,” he said. “Similarly, due to COVID-19, the anticipated progress on the receivership process was delayed.”

We back-country paddled to the Tulsequah Chief, B.C.’s most infamous abandoned mine

Before the province can commence work, receivership has to be finalized because the government needs the money Chieftain gave it in a bond to pay for the work. 

Mines are required to post bonds with the government to cover the eventual costs of reclamation. The province currently sits on $1.6 billion in bonds to cover an estimated $2.8 billion in reclamation costs. When a mining company goes bust, taxpayers pay the difference. 

The province has collected just over $1 million from Chieftain and estimates cleanup will cost $1.2 million. However, Chieftain’s unsuccessful attempts to treat the contaminated water cost $5 million, so the final cleanup costs will likely be much higher. 

As for when receivership will be complete, Karemaker said that “given that this resides within the authority of the Ontario courts, the province is not at liberty to provide a firmer timeline, but anticipates a satisfactory outcome towards the fall.” 

The pandemic has also delayed on-the-ground work. “COVID-19 presents a challenge for operationalizing field plans this season; however, B.C. is planning to undertake work in summer 2020 to support additional studies, which are needed to plan larger-scale remedial activities,” Karemaker said.

That work includes a LiDAR survey to support design work for reclamation plans. LiDAR, or light detection and ranging, uses a system of laser scanners and GPS on a plane or helicopter to acquire accurate topographical data. The data is used to create detailed 3D maps. 

The government is also initiating an aquatics monitoring program to measure the alkalinity of the water and its impacts on aquatic life, as well as sample and study fish and other aquatic life. This is just at the planning stage with fieldwork set to start next year. 

The last aquatic ecological risk assessment at the Tulsequah Chief mine was done by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy in 2016, after it found that an earlier report by Chieftain Metals was insufficient. The ministry couldn’t complete the assessment due to challenging weather conditions but found that contaminants in the water near the mine were at levels that pose high risks to fish and other aquatic life. 

The government will also be assessing the existing water treatment plant to determine if it could be rehabilitated. Chieftain operated the plant for less than a year in 2012 before shutting it down, citing high operational costs and technical difficulties. This work will be done remotely. 

One million litres of contaminated water flows into the Tulsequah River every day

While preliminary work slowly gets underway, an estimated one million litres of contaminated water flows into the Tulsequah River every day, according to a 2016 report commissioned by Rivers Without Borders. 

The water is contaminated due to acid rock drainage, which occurs when rock becomes oxidized and forms sulphuric acid, which leaches heavy metals out of the rock. Acid rock drainage lowers the pH level of the water, making it unsafe for humans and wildlife. The contaminated water includes copper and zinc, among other contaminants, at levels far exceeding safe standards. 

Even just two drops of copper in an Olympic-sized swimming pool is enough to affect a salmon’s ability to smell. “That ability facilitates locating spawning grounds, finding food and mates, and detecting predators,” the report pointed out. 

Zinc is toxic to fish. At the time of the report, zinc levels at the mine site were more than 2,000 times higher than legal standards.

The abandoned Tulsequah Chief mine site is just meters from the Tulsequah River, a tributary of the salmon-rich Taku River. For six decades, B.C. has failed to address acid mine drainage at the mine site. Photo: Colin Arisman / The Narwhal

B.C.’s mining laws in desperate need of overhaul 

Skuce said the problems at the Tulsequah Chief point to deeper issues with mining in the province. She referred to Britannia Mine near Squamish, which cost taxpayers $46 million in reclamation costs and requires a further $3 million every year in perpetuity to monitor and treat water at the site. 

“We need to make the polluter pay,” she said. “Right now there’s a $1.2-billion liability of what it’ll cost to do reclamation. Other jurisdictions like Alaska and Quebec require full mine reclamation bonds within the first three years. And that’s something that B.C. should do.”

Last year, the Environmental Law Centre and more than 30 mining advocacy and legal organizations called on the B.C. government to reform its mining laws. Suggested changes included ensuring companies are held legally liable for cleanup and setting up requirements for long-term independent analysis of water treatment systems. Even if those reforms are implemented, legacies like Tulsequah will remain a direct cost to taxpayers.

“We need to be treating this water at the Tulsequah site forever,” Skuce said. “But it’s remote and hard to get to, with super-challenging weather conditions.” 

Accessing such a remote site for monitoring and treatment is expensive — and that’s not going to change. 

On the Alaska side of the border, the Tulsequah Chief is viewed as a frightening example of what can happen to transboundary watersheds if mines are not properly regulated. With numerous larger mines proposed or under construction along the Alaska border, like the proposed KSM mine, near Stewart, B.C., the potential environmental impacts on fish, wildlife and tourism are staggering.

“[Tulsequah] is this little thing, in my opinion, in the shadows of much more daunting problems,” Weitz said. Her view is that the eventual cleanup of the Tulsequah Chief mine can set an example for other B.C. mines — or serve as a warning.  

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Jessica Plachata grew up spending her summers at Lake Coeur D’Alene in Idaho. She would swim in and drink from the lake, and eat fish she and her family caught in it. She didn’t know it then — nobody did — but she was slowly poisoning herself.

Upriver, a complex of mines had been dumping the leftovers from lead, zinc and silver mining into the river system that drained into the lake. She had spent her youth swimming in what would later become the largest “superfund” contaminated site in the United States.

Plachata found in her 20s that she had levels of heavy metals like cadmium, mercury, lead and even uranium in her body that put her in the 97th percentile for her demographic. The metals put her at risk of cancer, reproductive problems and more. She spent decades labouring to bring her levels down, fearful of what it might mean for her future children, but when she had a son at age 38, he was born at the 100th percentile anyway.

Today Plachata lives in the postcard-beautiful expanse of Alaska’s Chilkat Valley. The cool, glacier-fed streams are home to eulachon, trout and all five species of Pacific salmon.

The Chilkat Valley has the most species of mammals anywhere in southeast Alaska, 38 species in all, and a late salmon run that brings animals from all over when the other runs have ended.

Plachata has a well on her property that provides her and her family with clean, fresh water. Their freezer is full of fish from the river.

But now, even there, the prospect of metals in the water has found her.

“It’s terrifying,” she says, as someone who knows how difficult it is to rid her body — and the land — of heavy metals.

“It’s a chemical reaction that can’t be undone.”

‘Point of no return’

The State of Alaska has been making headlines in recent months. Its university system’s budget was slashed so deeply that some question whether it can even survive. The race for oil is back on, with Governor Michael Dunleavy writing a letter to U.S. President Donald Trump begging for a host of federal restrictions to be lifted, including an assertion that water regulations should not apply to wetlands because “lands are not waters.” In the meantime, state environmental regulations are being ignored.

“Every natural resource is being given away at bargain basement prices, and the environmental permitting process … they’re using their discretion to ignore any kind of environmental permitting,” says Guy Archibald, an environmental chemist and former miner who is now the staff scientist for the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council.

One development in particular is catching Archibald’s attention as a sign of the times in Alaska. Last week the Canadian-owned Palmer VMS project received a permit from Alaska’s Department of Environmental Conservation to discharge waste water from an underground exploration tunnel.

The tunnel will dump contaminated water underground just feet away from a tributary of one of Alaska’s best salmon-producing rivers. The mine exploration project is 56 km upstream of Haines, a town with thriving ecotourism and salmon-fishing industries. It’s 29 km upstream of the ancient Tlingit village of Klukwan, which has survived on salmon for millennia.

It’s nestled into a northern corner of Alaska’s panhandle, a geographic oddity where B.C. is actually to the north and west. It butts up against B.C.’s Tatshenshini-Alsek Provincial Park on the other side of the border.

The Palmer deposit in southeast Alaska. Map: The Narwhal

Constantine North Inc., in search of sulphide minerals containing zinc, copper, silver and gold, is proposing to dig a five-metre-wide tunnel into the side of a mountain. That will generate 70,000 cubic metres of waste rock — 40 Olympic swimming pools’ worth. Those sulphides, ground up and exposed to air and water, become a permanent risk for acid rock drainage.

Inside the mountain, the tunnel will hit groundwater. When that happens, Archibald says “they’re going to be dealing with wastewater discharge forever. It’s a point of no return.”

The company will have to do something about the groundwater (now contaminated by the heavy metals in the crushed sulphide rock) seeping from the tunnel in perpetuity. The plan is to pipe it into settling ponds, where sediment can drop out of the water. It will then be piped under a talus slope — a field of rocky debris prone to rockslides — to a drainage field about two metres under the gravel.

The drainage field is within a few metres of Hanover Creek, which joins Glacier Creek as it runs down into the Chilkat River. As much as 750 litres of water will be pumped into that drainage field every minute.

The company did not have to prove that the water would not contaminate Glacier Creek. It was supposed to show that the ground where the water will be discharged is not connected to the surface water — but it failed to do so, Archibald says, and then didn’t test again after changing the plan.

In the end, the permit allows for it to pollute the surface water regardless: the permit explicitly authorizes some degradation of the water of Glacier Creek.

By not discharging the water directly into the creek, Constantine North avoided a much lengthier and more in-depth permitting process that includes cost-benefit and degradation analyses.

“They’re avoiding all of this by dumping it underground.”

The permitting process also narrowed the scope beyond what locals had hoped for. The state refused to consider the generators, fuel tanks, avalanche risk and other hazards that will necessarily accompany the project. An earlier lawsuit also ended in disappointment when a U.S. District Court for the State of Alaska ruled that the review did not need to consider the prospect of future mining. Instead, the review only considered the wastewater.

Constantine North did not respond to a request for comment.

The village that has always been

About 25 km upriver from where the Chilkat River empties into the Chilkat Inlet at Haines, it is joined by its largest tributary, the Klehini River. The Klehini, tumbling down from the mountains to the northwest in B.C.’s far north, is where Disney’s adaptation of White Fang was filmed. Its rapids are well known among paddlers, and its braided gravel is equally prized among fishermen.

Just below where the two rivers meet is the village of Klukwan, whose name translates to “ancient village; the village that has always been.”

“We’re told as we’re growing up … the mountains or the area around us is our food bowl,” Kimberley Strong, president of the Klukwan Tribal Council, told The Narwhal.

The Klehini River is joined above where it meets the Chilkat by Glacier Creek, the waterway into which the Palmer project has just been permitted to degrade. The prospect of a new mine upstream, and the exploration activity that will prove the mine’s worth, is weighing on the village.

“We’re having a really difficult time,” she says, outraged at the process that has kept her people out of the decision-making process. “It’s public lands that used to be the tribal lands of my tribe, and we have no say.”

The mine would have to be cared for into perpetuity. For the people of the eternal village, “forever” isn’t an abstraction. It’s a concept underpinning their culture and their home.

Strong doesn’t believe the company when they tell her they will clean up after themselves.

“There are abandoned mines across the country that had promises of cleanup, that they’re going to be maintained forever,” she says.

What Plachata knows from her experience absorbing the heavy metals of Lake Coeur D’Alene is that what does persist forever is the damage. Today, she works with a nonprofit, Lynn Canal Conservation, against the development of the project.

“It’s important that people understand that mine waste is a lot like nuclear waste,” she says. “It’s a contaminated gift that keeps on giving for hundreds or thousands of years.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A leading credit rating agency’s financial downgrading of Imperial Metals Corp. is sending alarm signals through B.C. and Alaska groups concerned about the future of mines operated by the company.

Moody’s Investor Service has reassessed Imperial Metals’ “probability of default rating,” with financial analysts stating the company is at imminent risk of not being able to pay its debts. The company’s rating is “judged to be speculative, of poor standing, subject to very high default risk and may be in default on some, but not all, of their long-term debt obligations,” according to the service.

Imperial Metals, based in Vancouver, owns the Mount Polley Mine near Williams Lake — the site of the 2014 tailings pond collapse — and the Red Chris Mine, a large open-pit mine near the border of Alaska which uses the same tailings pond infrastructure as Mount Polley.

Operations at a third site owned by Imperial — the Huckleberry Mine, near Houston B.C. — have been on hold since last year because of low copper prices, according to the company website.

The company has seen its stock price plummet over the last year and recently completed a new debt financing plan after lenders granted a waiver to avoid default, according to Bloomberg News. The major shareholder is oilsands tycoon and Calgary Flames co-owner Murray Edwards, who previously helped arrange $150-million in loans for the company.

When asked about its financial situation, a company representative referred DeSmog Canada to an Imperial Metals annual report.

Communities and Taxpayers Left Holding the Bag for Bankrupt Mines

Alaskan and director of Salmon Beyond Borders said Imperial Metals’ shaky finances underline the need for binding protections for everyone living downstream from mines in transboundary watersheds.

“We know (B.C.) needs much greater financial-bonding legislation, so to find out that this company is in a dire financial position is just super troubling. We know there is no money available to reclaim the Red Chris Mine, so if the company goes bankrupt, it would be very, very troubling,” Hardcastle said in an interview.

“We need a robust financial assurances mechanism in these shared watersheds.”

ICYMI: In Photos: The Canadian Mining Boom You’ve Never Seen Before

The 2015 annual report of B.C.’s Chief Inspector of Mines (the most recent year available) shows that, like other mining companies in B.C., Imperial Metal bonds do not cover estimated liabilities.

The total bond for Mount Polley was $23.6 million, but the liability estimate is $35.3 million, for a shortfall of $11.7 million.

And that liability estimate should probably be much higher, said Ugo Lapointe, Canadian coordinator of MiningWatch Canada.

The Huckleberry bond was $37 million and the liability estimate $59 million, for a shortfall of $22 million. Red Chris posted a bond of $12 million with a liability estimate of $18 million, meaning a shortfall of at least $6 million.

So Imperial Metals has $73 million in bonding for a total reclamation estimate of at least $103 million, Lapointe said.

B.C.’s Underfunded Mines Represents Over $1 Billion Taxpayer Liability

Last year, B.C.’s Auditor General Carol Bellringer, who, in a report, slammed the B.C. government for failing to adequately monitor mines, said the fund that is supposed to cover reclamation costs is short more than $1 billion.

Another 2016 report by independent economist Robyn Allan found B.C.’s out-of-date mining regulations allow companies to chronically underfund mine remediation and disaster costs, ultimately leaving the burden to taxpayers. Allan estimates B.C. mines represent an underfunded liability of $1.5 billion.

There are over 84 abandoned contaminated industrial sites in B.C., mostly from mining, that will cost an estimated $508 million to remediate, according to the Crown Contaminated Sites Program. Responsibility for these sites falls to the province because the owners and operators of the projects “no longer exist,” according to the B.C. government.

Between 2014 and 2016 the cost of contaminated sites in B.C. rose 83.4 per cent. The spectre of financially unstable mining companies adds to the growing concern that B.C.’s mining boom along the Alaska border is occurring without regard for long-term cleanup and remediation costs.

Imperial Metals remains responsible for continuing cleanup and remediation around Mount Polley, where 24 million cubic metres of contaminated sludge and mine waste swept into lakes and rivers after the collapse of a 40-metre high tailings dam.

The Red Chris mine, which opened in late 2014 and has a 25-year lifespan, has a tailings impoundment seven times the capacity of Mount Polley.

Locals Fear Repeat of Tulsequah Chief Debacle

But Alaskans can already point to a glaring example of how badly things can go wrong when mine reclamation activities aren’t adequately funded.

The Tulsequah Chief Mine, on the Canadian side of the border, has been leaking acid mine drainage into a tributary of the salmon-rich Taku River for 60 years. After two company bankruptcies and frequent promises to clean up the mess, little has happened.

Chris Zimmer of Rivers Without Borders has a sinking feeling that, if Imperial Metals gets into deep financial problems, Red Chris could be a repeat of the Tulsequah Chief.

“We saw this happen at the Tulsequah Chief where we ended up with an abandoned mine pouring acid mine drainage into the river for 60 years. That was exactly the same process,” he said.

The fears are that either the company could go bankrupt and walk away from the mess at Red Chris or, if they are short of money, they will start cutting corners, Zimmer said.

“The government needs to step in and keep a very good eye on this site and what the company is doing,” he said.

Jacinda Mack, coordinator of First Nations Women Advocating Responsible Mining and a member of the Xat’sull First Nation, is already keeping a wary eye on Imperial Metals’ finances.

“I am very concerned with this new information about Imperial Metals,” Mack told DeSmog Canada.

“Will Imperial Metals walk away from their Mount Polley Mine and abandon their responsibilities to clean up and treat the pollution from the ongoing disaster — such as what happened with owners at the Tulsequah Chief?”

“They haven’t been very forthcoming at all about this financial situation…It is really frustrating when they are ignoring things like the lake colour changing and algal blooms that never happened before,” she said.

There are many questions that need answers, such as why B.C. is not requiring Imperial Metals to pay the full cost of the Mount Polley cleanup, Mack said.

“What is B.C. going to do to ensure Imperial Metals meets health and safety requirements and their commitment to clean up Mount Polley Mine?” Mack asked.

Hardcastle is also pushing for more oversight of the transboundary mines, which are among the largest in North America.

“We need to know how we can prevent these mines from getting so far along before there are more protections in place,” she said

Alaska Politicians Pushing for Input on Transboundary Mines

The concerns are echoed by Alaska’s congressional delegation and a letter sent to U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, signed by Alaska Governor Bill Walker, Lt. Governor Byron Mallott, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Senator Dan Sullivan and Congressman Don Young, says U.S. economic interests could be threatened by B.C. transboundary mining and “inadequate financial mechanisms to assure long term management of toxic wastes and redress for damages from potential releases.”

The letter emphasizes concerns about the development of large-scale hard rock mine proposals and operations in B.C. “and their potential catastrophic effects on Alaska’s communities and habitats surrounding the transboundary rivers.”

The Alaskan politicians want the State Department to push Canada for more input on transboundary mine proposals, development of a database to track cumulative effects on water quality and a decision on whether the issue should be referred to the International Joint Commission.

Mallott and Alaska tribal representatives met with B.C. officials in early November and are planning to go to Ottawa next year to hold further talks on transboundary watersheds, Mallott said in an emailed statement. He will also go to Washington in January to meet with State Department officials.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

In the remote north-eastern corner of Alaska, just under 20-million acres have been set aside as a federal protected area since 1960. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has recently come under threat, however, with President Donald Trump’s Department of the Interior proposing lifting restrictions on seismic exploration.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal plain has been described as America’s Serengeti, and is the year-round or migratory home to numerous species that are uniquely adapted to the conditions found within this rare expanse of undeveloped wilderness along the Arctic Ocean.

Over tens of thousands of years, both the Porcupine Caribou herd and the Gwich’in people have come to depend on the integrity of that coastal plain for their survival.

“The Gwich'in call this area ‘Iizhik Gwats'an Gwandaii Goodlit,’ the Sacred Place Where Life Begins,” explained Vuntut Gwich’in Councillor Dana Tizya-Tramm via email.

“It is a keystone in the ecosystems of the Arctic, and the heart that beats outside of the Gwich'in chest.”

Oil and gas lobbyists have had the Refuge in their sights from the outset. For decades now, for every push to open up the wildlife refuge to oil and gas development, multiple generations of Gwich’in have stood up to protect the land and the herd that has sustained their way of life.

Disturbance to the landscape can upset a delicate balance between the wildlife that makes its home on the coastal plain.

Brooks Range mountains tower behind lush arctic tundra in Yukon's north slope region. Photo: Matt Jacques | DeSmog Canada

“In a miracle of phenology [the interaction of climate, habitat and plant/animal cycles], Porcupine caribou cows arrive at the coastal plain just as the first flush of spring growth provides a burst of nutrients to them, just as they all deliver their calves at once,” said Yukon Conservation Society energy analyst Sebastian Jones in an emailed response to questions from DeSmog Canada.

“In the first few critical days of a caribou calf’s life, predation is the main hazard. Until they have found their legs, they are easy prey to wolves and bears.”

To the west of the Arctic Refuge, high levels of industrial activity are already taking place, and to the south and east of the narrow coastal plain area where the caribou calving takes place, steep mountain ranges mean less nutrients and more predators.

“There is simply nowhere else suitable for the caribou to go,” said Jones.

Exploration Freeze Beginning to Thaw Under Trump

There have been numerous victories and setbacks in what has been a sustained effort over that time, but for many, any sense of relief or optimism brought about by President Obama’s 2016 move to freeze arctic oil and gas exploration in the Arctic has now vanished.

President Trump’s 2018 Budget includes instructions to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to raise an additional $1B over ten years. Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski — Chair of the Committee — has used the opportunity to champion a renewed push to open the coastal plain to oil and gas exploration. Earlier this month Murkowski introduced legislation that would give a green light to exploration in the Refuge. Republicans have now taken Murkowski’s bill and folded it into their tax reform bill.

“There is palpable concern among the quiet people of our community of 250 people,” said Tizya-Tramm.

“I've even had children as young as 8 years old ask why this is happening and if we can talk with the President, and what they can do. It is hard to see the sincere concern in our youth’s eyes. I encourage them and tell them that we will beat this, as we must.”

Jones said that since the current proposal is exploratory in nature, the true scope and scale of potential activity in the area remains to be seen.

“It depends on what they find. If the feverish dreams of the oil men come true, it will be another Prudhoe Bay — decades of drilling, all-season roads, pipelines, and oil spills.”

For the Gwich’in, Tizya-Tramm says the development would mirror the expected impact on the caribou herd.

“Our entire existence will dwindle with any presence in their calving grounds, period.”

#Trump Eyes #Arctic Wildlife Refuge for #Oil Drilling, Alarming Gwich’in https://t.co/YPUnR7fUHy #ANWR #Arctic #WildlifeConservation @MattJacques

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) November 22, 2017

‘Delicate like Fine China’

“People need to understand just how delicate this area is,” says Tizya-Tramm.  

“Traditionally we stayed out of the Coastal Plains altogether. Tundra is a very sensitive and even seismic testing will scar the land with permanent trails. These caribou have been seen to purposefully stay far away from a soup can laying on the ground. Caribou populations have fallen exponentially in Alberta and other regions where there is development.”

Arctic cottongrass, mosses, other plants and lichens vital to the Porcupine Caribou can take decades to recover from industrial damage, sometimes taking decades to return.

“The picture that arises here, and well known to our people, is that nature is a fine-tuned system. And up in one of the harshest regions in the world, it is especially delicate like fine china. We cannot limit the options of animals that exist in the narrow opportunities afforded to them, especially one of the healthiest remaining herd of caribou left,” explains Tizya-Tramm

Murkowski and supporters have pitched fossil fuel exploration in the area as a quick solution to the American budget deficit, presenting minimal impacts within the coastal plain calving grounds of the Porcupine Caribou.

Murkowski tweeted in November in defense of changes in oil and gas development since ANWR was established.

The size of development pads has decreased by nearly 80% since the 1970s. New technologies have expanded the subsurface reach of the newest rigs by 4,000% over the same period. Many exploration wells are now built using ice roads and ice pads—leaving no impact to the tundra.

— Sen. Lisa Murkowski (@lisamurkowski) November 15, 2017

“Many exploration wells are now built using ice roads and ice pads — leaving no impact to the tundra,” she wrote. 

Jones dismisses any notion of low-impact exploration or development in the area.

“This exploration is supposed to be restricted to winter on ice/snow roads and drill pads; here are multiple problems with this,” he says. “Drill rigs are massive and require multiple large loads, in turn requiring very robust roads. It is not a trivial exercise building ice roads on the tundra sufficient to deploy an oil rig. In recent years, consistent with global warming, it has become less common to have adequate snow to build winter roads, so it may not even be possible.”

Gwich’in Gearing Up for a Fight

While the momentum to open up the Arctic Refuge to development seems to be gaining, Gwich’in and supporters have been stepping up their activity as well.

The Yukon Branch of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society has launched a nationwide petition, lobbying Prime Minister Trudeau to speak up against development in the Arctic Refuge.

A delegation of Gwich’in and other Canadian officials, including Yukon MP Larry Bagnell travelled to Washington, DC earlier this month in the hopes of influencing senate votes on the issue. Upon returning, Bagnell spoke about the trip and raised the issue in the House of Commons.

For Tizya-Tramm and Gwich’in in both Canada and Alaska, the battle has been all-consuming.

“I have been working late into the night and weekends for over a month now simply trying to keep pace,” Tizta-Tramm said.

“This is a time to call upon all of our people and the strong partnerships we have forged over the years.”

The Gwich'in Steering Committee held emergency meetings in Fairbanks earlier in November that brought together tribal leadership, Elders, and community members.

“There we once again came together seeking guidance and unity. To be of one mind, one heart, so that we may speak with one voice.”

Image: Porcupine Caribou crossing the Blow River in north-western Yukon. Photo: Matt Jacques | DeSmog Canada

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.