Two years ago at this time I had just returned from a reporting trip in B.C.’s scenic Elk Valley, where I had seen the region’s coal mines — the largest in the province — with my own eyes for the first time. 

Selenium pollution in the Elk Valley watershed, which is linked to fish and bird deformities and the collapse of treasured trout populations, is on the rise. And because the Elk Valley watershed drains into the Koocanusa reservoir, which crosses the B.C.-Montana border, the province’s selenium problem is now raising the ire of our neighbours to the south. 

When the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty was signed between Canada and the U.S. to protect our shared waters, it would have been hard to imagine the kind of industrial-scale natural resource extraction we now see in the Elk Valley. And yet, more than 100 years on, these two nations are forced to confront the challenge of co-managing ecological tapestries that know no such thing as a border. 

So when things like selenium levels start to get out of hand, who do you call? The members of the International Joint Commission (IJC), for starters. The commission makes decisions on projects that can affect water levels and flow and can investigate, monitor and recommend against pollution in boundary waters shared between Canada and the U.S.

As the world awaits a transition of power after the recent U.S. election, The Narwhal spoke with one Canadian commissioner, Merrell-Ann Phare, and one American commissioner, Rob Sisson, about the role the International Joint Commission can play in reimagining the way North America manages its shared watersheds.

Carol Linnitt: Merrell-Ann, can you talk about what exactly we mean when we say transboundary watersheds? Where should people’s brains be going on the map?

Merrell-Ann Phare: Think of everywhere the Canada-U.S. boundary is. Either a water that flows from one side to the other side or that’s actually situated on the boundary. The Great Lakes are a perfect example of that.

For practical purposes, plain language, if you think about everywhere the boundary is, you’re looking at the land that those rivers and lakes across the boundary, the land that they’re situated in, including the people that are there, the ecosystems that are there, the plants and animals and various aspects of water health, including quality and quantity rate of flow, surface water, groundwater.

You’re really trying to look at the whole package in order to make a good decision in the thing that we have jurisdiction over, which is the boundary.

Rob Sisson: The attention [to] groundwater is increasing. I think there are five or six major aquifers that straddle the boundary between the two countries as well.

Carol Linnitt: It’s interesting to think about since this commission was founded and some treaties were signed, not only has our understanding of ecological impacts and ecological systems really evolved but so too has our sense of who ought to participate and who should have a voice in the way that watersheds are managed and the way that projects and their impacts are measured.

Merrell-Ann Phare: I have worked in these issues my whole life and feel strongly that the solutions to our water issues flow from having the people at the table … that both have rights and have the knowledge and are impacted by the waters.

Indigenous Peoples are key peoples that have been excluded from that decision many times, most of the time in the life of the IJC. We many years ago — long before any of the current commissioners were on the commission — had begun a whole number of projects with Indigenous people.

Some of the most interesting ones that we can talk about are for example, in the Rainy River-Lake of the Woods area, where we partnered to do some fascinating studies, incorporating Traditional Knowledge and Western science together to figure out better ways to manage, for example, in that situation, hydro dams — how to change the flows and which time of year in order to protect sturgeon spawning grounds and which are critical to the treaty rights of Indigenous people there and are part of their sustainable livelihoods.

That’s a good example, and that work has been going on for some time. I think what the commissioners are also interested in … is thinking consistently across all of our cohorts and across our programs: how do we be systematic, consistent, transparent about the role of Indigenous Peoples in the decision-making?

Rob Sisson: If I can add to that, one of my dreams for the IJC, I don’t think it’ll happen during my tenure here, but hopefully, we’ve planted the seed that the governments will eventually give the IJC the ability to create international watershed boards across the entire transboundary so there’s not one inch on the boundary where we don’t have a presence.

I see those boards as a fantastic way to bring Indigenous voices to bear on our work and on the management and protection of water along the entire transboundary. I’m very excited about Traditional Ecological Knowledge.

We’ve been dominated at the IJC and elsewhere by Western science. The more I learn about Traditional Ecological Knowledge, the more I’m just amazed at what I didn’t know, and the wisdom that Indigenous people can bring to the table.

Read more: Meet the scientists embracing traditional Indigenous knowledge

Carol Linnitt: Our readership is really familiar with the ongoing problems with selenium and other pollutants in the Elk Valley watershed. It looks like that contamination is going to be making its way into that watershed and ecosystem for potentially hundreds of years. What is the commission’s role and how does the commission view and understand that problem right now?

Merrell-Ann Phare: I can start with just the role of the commission, and then maybe Rob can talk more specifically about his views on the situation. In that situation, of course, a company like Teck [Resources] would be regulated by the federal and provincial government in Canada. The IJC has no jurisdiction over that. 

What we do though, is we become involved under the treaty if there’s an impact on waters along the transboundary or from one side to the other, and that is the case here.

We have only certain levers in our toolkit at the IJC because we’re not a government. We’re created by governments. Our levers are we can alert governments to problems that we see, we can recommend that we be given a reference that helps.

A reference is a process where we are asked by governments to study the issue and come back with recommendations to try to solve the problem or prevent conflict. That’s usually a multi-year process, very expensive but it really gets at the science and Traditional Knowledge.

Knowledge is behind the issue and it gives us an opportunity to involve basically all of the local people and provide a final report to government that sets out research, findings and recommendations.

We have asked for a reference to deal with mining issues and water quality issues [in the Elk Valley] … and we’re waiting to hear on that.

We would be very interested in doing a study that encompassed this and other mining issues to try to deal with this vexing issue, but have yet to be asked.

Rob Sisson: Yes, the Elk River — coal mining has been there for a long time. As with a lot of industrial processes, we didn’t know what issues might occur or might be there because we just forged ahead … and obviously we know now that selenium could be an issue.

We just released a long-awaited document on the human health impact of selenium, not targeting the Elk River valley or Teck, but just in general what selenium impacts on human health could be. We do know in that watershed, it’s having an impact on fish reproduction and populations and we also know and I want to stress that the two governments are working very closely on this.

I’m an angler. I love fly fishing and the Elk River-Kootenay system is close to where I live and so that’s something I keep an eye on. I think this is one of the watersheds where we could benefit from a watershed board because when you have a situation like this, there’s a lot of distrust: is the other side doing enough? Are they paying attention? Are they sharing with us all the information? Does the company really care or not? 

I think if you had a watershed board in place, if we had one in place historically, there’d be relationships already built, trust lines of communication built where I think this would flow a lot easier and there might be less controversy, less anger and more — my favourite phrase — more rowing the boat in the same direction to try to find a solution and implement it.

Carol Linnitt: I’m curious even myself: what exactly do you see a board doing? If there was a board that was designated to work on these kinds of issues, how would that board intervene in the Elk Valley in particular?

Rob Sisson: In general, a Kootenay-Elk River system board … would have local community leaders and members, NGO representatives, hopefully someone from the mining industry involved, state, local, federal government officials all together and citizens who are concerned. Primarily it would be communication- and relationship- building because that’s how you address problems.

“Because of the tailing piles, this problem could be with us for 1,000 years.”

Specifically, in this case, if the governments someday give the IJC a reference here, they could ask us to consolidate and manage or oversee the water quality testing to give everyone confidence on both sides that the measurements are accurate and true and protocols are being followed.

Because of the tailing piles, this problem could be with us for 1,000 years. They could give the IJC a reference at some point, just sort of a permanent bi-national body that’s keeping an eye and monitoring the situation hopefully for centuries.

A pile of waste rock at a Teck Resources’ mine in B.C.’s Elk Valley. Waste rock piles leach selenium into the watershed, leading to pollution problems that have caused fish deformities and the contamination of drinking water. Photo: Callum Gunn

Merrell-Ann: In terms of Indigenous governments having a role and Indigenous peoples having a role, that’s a huge piece. But remember, part of the reason we’ve suggested a reference on this topic is because there may be governance reform that’s required in order to prevent these kinds of problems in the future, particularly given the role of local governments, the role of Indigenous governments, et cetera.

Thinking about it from the scientific and Indigenous Knowledge side … what is the science actually telling us and what can we do? There’s a technology aspect to it, but there’s also a governance aspect. … A reference could help us frame out the key things that a watershed board would do.

Normally our boards, particularly the old ones … look at water quality and quantity. They don’t really look at anything beyond that. This is a much more complex and diverse problem. That’s where watershed boards come in because they have a mandate to look at all the aspects of the problem and to try to protect transboundary waters.

Carol Linnitt: It’s interesting to bring up the governance element of these problems. I’m thinking of another transboundary watershed shared between B.C. and Alaska up in the northwest. One of B.C.’s probably most infamous mines, the Tulsequah Chief, has for 60 years been leaching pollution into a river that flows directly into Alaska, a salmon-rich river.

“I look at salmon as this century’s version of bison from the 1800s.”

Rob Sisson: Last year we went on a fact-finding trip to Southeast Alaska and British Columbia because [people] in Alaska had contacted us and said, “Hey, you need to come look at this because we think this could be a big problem.”

We went up, we met with the State of Alaska, federal and local officials, NGOs and we went across and met with British Columbia and Canadian federal officials. We’ve met with mining company officials, too, to gather facts.

We don’t have a reference in the area but we used our alerting function to let the governments know that the Tulsequah Chief mine is leaching into the watershed. [The Mount Polley mine], which did not directly affect international waters or shared waters, is the example that I think a lot of people in Alaska are worried about with the bigger mines in British Columbia that would feed into the Taku, Unuk and Stikine rivers.

The ‘Grand Canyon’ of the Stikine River, near major mining projects in B.C. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

I think people on both sides are talking about those laws and regulations to better protect the watersheds. I have faith that British Columbia and the Canadian federal government will continue to make progress in that.

For me, I look at salmon as this century’s version of bison from the 1800s. Now in the 1800s in the U.S., the U.S. government made the conscious decision to try to eliminate bison in order to basically control and stamp out Indigenous culture.

We are absolutely not making the conscious decision to try to impact salmon negatively but in my mind, standing by and not being proactive in pulling out all the stops to protect the really rich salmon rivers and waters could end up doing the same thing.

If one river system loses its stability to reproduce salmon we’re going to see entire Indigenous cultures disappear — Tlingit, Haida communities along those rivers and coastal areas. It’s something I’m very keenly aware of and spent a lot of time thinking about.

Hopefully, it will never rise to an IJC reference because the governments through regulation — whether that’s a carrot or stick — will resolve it before it becomes a problem.

Merrell-Ann Phare: If I could take this step out of my IJC hat for one moment and say, IJC certainly does not weigh in on domestic legislation and … whether it’s out of date and needs to be reformed or not.

As Rob said, what we can really do is alert to a problem and, if asked, to have a reference and do a study in that area and provide some recommendations. 

I would say that I know there are some Indigenous nations in that region who work with the mines that are in support of mining. There’s not 100 per cent consensus on what is the best path here and, to me, that’s the sign of the need for governance reform domestically. I think finding out how to build legislation or rely on Indigenous laws to better protect the salmon in accordance with what their worldviews are plus British Columbians — that’s the governance reform moment that is the reconciliation moment.

That’s the conversation I think that needs to be had. I would agree with Rob that from what we know and from our investigations, Canada and B.C. are talking at length about this on an ongoing basis. Like Rob, I really hope they are very successful in that but I think those conversations must also have to involve the Indigenous nations that are directly impacted as well at a governance level, sort of a government to government table, to try to truly resolve this issue.

This conversation has been edited for brevity.

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.

Fish and wildlife in Alaska’s major watersheds are threatened by six British Columbia mines close to the Alaska border, according to a new petition that asks U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross to investigate the threat of acid-mine drainage, heavy metals pollution and the possibility of catastrophic dam failure originating in the Canadian province.

The formal petition, organized by a coalition of Alaskan tribal governments and conservation groups, calls for the International Joint Commission to investigate threats from B.C. mines that will continue to hang over the watersheds for centuries after their closure.

“It’s a very urgent issue and it’s important to a lot of people and their families,” Kenta Tsuda of Earthjustice, a signatory of the petition, told DeSmog Canada. “Their communities are at risk.”

B.C. experienced an explosion in mine growth under the former BC Liberal government, which expedited new project approvals under the 2011 jobs program.

The resource-rich corridor straddling the B.C.-Alaska border has been at the epicentre of new mine projects but also bears the legacy of B.C.’s old, abandoned mines, such as the Tulsequah Chief mine, which for decades has leaked acid mine drainage into a tributary of the salmon-rich Taku River.

Guy Archibald of the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council pointed to the lack of enforcement of mining regulations by the B.C. government and the scathing report last year from B.C.’s auditor general that said the Ministry of Environment could not guarantee the safety of any of the mines.

ICYMI: Public Inquiry Formally Requested to Investigate B.C.’s Shoddy Mining Rules

“For 60 years the Tulsequah Chief has been leaking acid mine drainage into a very productive salmon watershed and the B.C. government is doing nothing about this,” Archibald said.

In addition to Tulsequah, the petition names Brucejack mine, which started production earlier this year, Red Chris, Schaft Creek, Galore Creek and Kerr-Sulphurets-Mitchell (KSM), which will be the largest open-pit gold and copper mine in North America.

Ten mines in various stages of development are situated along the B.C./Alaska border and within a transboundary watershed. Source: Salmon Beyond Borders

The new petition — and a previous petition submitted to the Department of the Interior — show that B.C. mines are diminishing the effectiveness of two treaties that protect Pacific salmon, steelhead trout, grizzly bears and woodland caribou, Tsuda said.

“We think the facts that we present in the petition do invoke their duty to investigate,” Tsuda told DeSmog Canada.

The Taku, Stikine and Unuk rivers flow across the Canada-U.S. border from headwaters in B.C.’s Coast Mountains and the wildlife and salmon sustain local communities and support hundreds of Alaskan workers and their families, he said.

The International Joint Commission is the body that administers the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty, with a mandate to investigate disputes between the two countries.

A provision of the treaty states that “waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the other.”

The group’s petition has been submitted under what is known as the Pelly amendment to the Fishermen’s Protective Act that requires the U.S. Commerce and Interior Departments to investigate when other countries may be harming U.S. conservation treaties.

The amendment emphasizes the need, under international agreements, to protect habitat, but, if all the mines planned for the B.C. side of the border are developed, it will destroy fish habitat, Archibald predicted.

“We are willing to use every tool in the toolbox to enforce this — and the International Joint Commission looks pretty good versus a trade war,” he said.

Fred Olsen Jr., tribal president of the Organized Village of Kasaan and Southeast Alaska Indigenous Transboundary Commission chairman, said in an interview that awareness of threats posed by the B.C. mines is growing among Southeast Alaskans, along with frustration about the lack of action.

“Native people have relied on salmon and caribou from these watersheds for generations and communities continue to do so today. Commercial fishermen from Southeast Alaska also rely on these watersheds, catching tens of millions of dollars worth of salmon from these three river systems annually,” says the coalition news release.

The former provincial government promised the Tulsequah Chief would be cleaned up, but nothing happened and, on the federal front, hopes were high that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau would be sympathetic to environmental concerns, but that has been a disappointment, Olsen said.

“He has a Haida tattoo, but then look at the things he does. Everything you hear is either neutral or in favour of mining,” he said.

Eleven southeast Alaskan tribes have signed the petition and, over the next two months, other tribes will be asked to send letters of support, Olsen said.

ICYMI: Canada’s Environmental Fines are Tiny Compared to the U.S.

Enforcement of mining regulations in Canada needs to be tightened, according to Ugo Lapointe, Canada program coordinator for MiningWatch Canada, but there also needs to be a close look at the inadequate fines levied when there is a spill or an accident, he said.

On both sides of the border there is incredulity at the lack of charges after the Mount Polley disaster three years ago when the mine’s tailings dam failed, spewing millions of cubic metres of toxic waste and sludge into nearby waterways.

Lapointe also pointed to the recent $20,000 fine handed to Coalmont Energy Corp., a company which, in 2013, expelled 60,000 litres of mine waste into a tributary of the Tulameen River in the Okanagan-Similkameen region.

“$20,000 for dumping mining waste into a river is another pitiful environmental fine, showing the weakness of both B.C. and federal environmental laws and the enforcement regime. It is not setting a proper example for the industry as a whole,” Lapointe wrote in an e-mail.

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.

Six B.C. mines pose threats to Alaska’s most productive salmon rivers and should be investigated by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, according to a coalition of conservation groups and Alaskan First Nations who are invoking legislation that says it is the Interior Department’s duty to investigate when foreign nationals may be affecting U.S conservation treaties.

A petition presented to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell suggests that B.C. mines close to the Taku, Stikine and Unuk watersheds diminish the effectiveness of two treaties that protect Pacific salmon, steelhead trout, grizzly bears and woodland caribou.

The treaties are the Convention for the Conservation of Anadromous Stocks in the North Pacific Ocean and the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere.

The coalition of U.S. and Canadian groups, including Earthjustice, the United Tribal Transboundary Mining Work Group, Sierra Club of B.C., Craig Tribal Association, Friends of the Stikine Society and Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, are echoing a previous call by Alaska’s congressional delegation to refer the transboundary mines controversy to the International Joint Commission.

DeSmog Canada wrote a series on the transboundary tensions stirred up by B.C.’s mining ambitions last year.

Kenta Tsuda, Earthjustice associate attorney, said the petition provides another reason for the U.S. federal government to take action.

“Canadian authorities are letting these projects go ahead and the U.S. government is still waiting on the sidelines,” he said.

The six mines that the coalition says are endangering the rivers are:

– The Tulsequah Chief, which has leaked acid drainage for decades;

– Red Chris, which is owned by Imperial Metals, the same company that owns Mount Polley (where the collapse of a tailings dam sent mine waste and sludge flooding into local lakes and rivers);

– Schaft Creek;

– Galore Creek;

– Kerr-Sulphurets-Mitchell (KSM), which will tap into one of the largest gold and copper deposits in the world; and

– Brucejack.

Frederick Olsen Jr., United Tribal Transboundary Mining Work Group chairman, said it is time for Jewell to become involved in the problem as the federal government has a fiduciary responsibility to the tribes.

“The development and operation of the B.C. mines could severely impact life on the U.S. side of the border,” Olsen said.

“Already the Tulsequah Chief Mine has polluted the Taku watershed for decades.”

The petition to Jewell says all the mines involve large-scale infrastructure development and generate immense quantities of tailings and mine wastes, meaning water treatment will be required in perpetuity.

“The threats of acid-mine drainage and heavy metals pollution — not to mention catastrophic dam failures — will hang over the watersheds for centuries after the closure of the mines,” says a statement from the group.

A spokeswoman for Jewell’s office said she is aware of the situation and the petition.

Tsuda said the petition is being submitted under the 1971 Pelly Amendment, which does not define a timeline for a response, but which makes it clear the agency is required to act within a reasonable time.

“In this particular case, Secretary Jewell should respond promptly by undertaking an investigation of the six mines we describe. Not only because we believe the circumstances legally obligate the agency to do so, but also because so much is at stake for communities in southeast Alaska,” Tsuda said in an e-mailed response to DeSmog Canada.

Salmon from the rivers support local fishing businesses and First Nations.

“Commercial fishermen from Southeast Alaska also rely on these harvests, harvesting tens of millions of dollars worth of salmon from these three rivers annually. The watersheds collectively support hundreds of Alaskan workers and their families,” he said.

There have been recent precedents where the Secretary of the Interior has stepped in, such as in 2011 and then 2014 when the department concluded that Iceland’s whaling activities were undermining worldwide efforts to conserve whales and diminishing the effectiveness of the Convention on International Trade and Endangered Species. The U.S. federal government then instructed agencies to undertake diplomatic action to encourage Iceland to change its policies.

Image of Mount Polley mine disaster by Global News

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.

High-level international action is needed to ensure that southeast Alaskan rivers and fisheries are protected from B.C. mines along the B.C./Alaska border, say Alaska’s federal representatives.

Concerns about the environmental safety of mines in the transboundary region have escalated since the province’s auditor general issued a scathing report earlier this month on B.C.’s mining practices and Alaska’s Congressional Delegation is now pushing for Secretary of State John Kerry to step in.

“We write to express our continuing concerns about the development of several hardrock mines in British Columbia and their potential effects on water quality in the transboundary rivers that flow from Canada into Southeast Alaska,” says a letter to Kerry from the congressional delegation, made up of Senator Lisa Murkowski, Senator Dan Sullivan and Congressman Don Young, all of whom are Republicans.

The group points out that, like most Alaskans, they support responsible mining.

“But Alaskans need to have every confidence that mining activity in Canada is carried out just as safely as it is in our state. Yet, today, that confidence does not exist,” says the letter.

There is a history of Canadian acid mine waste affecting Southeast Alaska, says the letter, referring to the Tulsequah Chief Mine that has been leaking acid waste into the Taku River for decades.

“As Canada continues to consider and approve new mines in B.C. and Yukon, the risk of additional impacts has increased,” says the letter.

“Water quality is an extremely important issue for Alaskans. Accordingly we ask that you and other officials from the Department of State raise these concerns with the governments of Canada and British Columbia.”

The letter points out that the report by Auditor General Carol Bellringer concludes that B.C.’s monitoring and inspection of mines are inadequate to protect from significant environmental risks and there are major gaps in resources, planning and tools.

The delegation wants Kerry to look at whether a referral of the issue to the International Joint Commission would be the best way to determine whether Canadian mines are following best practices in their treatment of waste water and acid-producing mine tailings, especially in light of “the scientific reviews of the causes of the Mount Polley tailing disposal dam failure.”

The Mount Polley dam disaster saw 25-million cubic metres of tailings, sludge and mining waste flood pristine drinking water near Williams Lake, B.C.

Under the 1909 U.S.-Canada Boundary Waters Treaty, either nation can call for an International Joint Commission to be appointed to adjudicate water disputes.

“If problems do occur, either nation can seek damages against the other for provable economic impacts, provided there is sufficient evidence of damage,” the letter points out.

“Should there be an impact to the transboundary waters that flow from Canada to Alaska, our state’s fisheries, tourism and native peoples could all be hurt.”

About 10 mines are in various stages of exploration and permitting on the B.C. side of the border and an approval that particularly alarmed Alaskans was the Red Chris Mine in the Iskut/Stikine watersheds, which opened in 2015 and is owned by Imperial Metals, the same company that owns Mount Polley.

No response has yet been received from Kerry, but a spokesman for Kerry’s office told DeSmog Canada last year that they did not anticipate a referral to the International Joint Commission at that time and instead wanted to encourage cooperation between B.C. and Alaska.

Last November Alaska Governor Bill Walker and B.C. Premier Christy Clark signed a non-binding memorandum of understanding to establish a bilateral working group on the protection of transboundary waters, but critics say that is not sufficiently rigorous to ensure mine safety.

The letter from the congressional delegation is also asking that B.C. officials consider the cumulative effects of mining during review and approval processes and that there should be a more formal consultation process with U.S. agencies.

There should also be support for Environment Canada’s water quality study looking at the impact of mining on transboundary waters and funding for water quality testing on the U.S. side of the border to establish baseline data “so that the U.S. can file for damages in the event of mining-related damage from Canadian mines,” the group suggested.

Heather Hardcastle, campaign director for Salmon Beyond Borders said the letter is a powerful statement that underscores that Alaskans, regardless of political party, want Kerry to step in.

“The danger we’re facing here in Alaska is real and was reconfirmed by the recent B.C. auditor general’s warning,” Hardcastle said.

“We urge Secretary Kerry to stand up for American jobs and seek IJC involvement in this matter so Americans have a say in the protection of our resources shared by the U.S. and Canada.”

Almost 20,000 letters requesting the commission’s involvement have been delivered to Kerry, Hardcastle said.

Frederick Olsen Jr., chair of the United Tribal Transboundary Mining Work Group, agreed an IJC review would help with a long-term approach to the protection of transboundary waters.

“Secretary Kerry has a lot on his plate. He has big fish to fry in our crazy world, but we need him to look over at us. We want to prevent fish from frying in our waters due to B.C.’s mine waste,” Olsen said.

Image: Conrad Beaudin/Salmon Beyond Borders

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.

Water quality in a tributary of one of Southeast Alaska’s prime salmon rivers will improve once a new mine opens on the B.C. side of the border according to spokesmen for Seabridge Gold Inc, the Toronto-based company planning to open the Kerr-Sulpherets-Mitchell (KSM) mine.

The copper, gold and molybdenum mine, 65 kilometres northwest of Stewart and 30 kilometres from the Alaska border, received federal and provincial environmental assessment approvals last year and the company is now seeking a joint venture partner for the $5.4-billion project.

But the prospect of a massive mine close to a tributary that runs into the Unuk River has alarmed Alaskan fishing, First Nations and environmental groups who say the risk is unacceptable and are pushing for transboundary mining issues to be referred to the International Joint Commission.

“The long term risks of KSM far outweigh any short-term improvements to water quality the mine may create,” Chris Zimmer, Rivers Without Borders Alaska campaign director, said.

The KSM tailings pond, with a massive 239-metre tailings dam, will be built in the Bell Irving/Nass watershed in B.C., but the mine operation will be close to Sulpherets Creek which runs into the Unuk River.

“The open pits and waste rock piles are located in (the Unuk) watershed,” Heather Hardcastle of Salmon Beyond Borders said.

“They’re essentially using the Unuk, all the way up to the border as a mixing zone.”

However, Brent Murphy, Seabridge Gold vice president environmental affairs, in an interview with DeSmog Canada, said water quality in the creek is already bad because of natural erosion of copper, iron and zinc deposits.

“The acidity will basically eat your boots off,” he said.

Federal and provincial regulators agree there will not be any impact in Alaska from the mine, Murphy said.

“The operation of the KSM water management system will, in fact, improve the overall water quality,” he said, pointing to company photos of discoloured creek water.

“We will treat the water that comes into contact with the mine site and improve the water running into Sulphurets Creek and ultimately the Unuk River,” Murphy said.

But Alaskan groups say the photos are misleading and point to a 2014 report by Skeena Wild Conservation Trust that concluded KSM would release metals into the Unuk watershed that would exceed levels known to have serious impacts on salmon.

“I am especially concerned when people make statements to the effect that they can improve natural systems. Seems the height of hubris,” said Guy Archibald, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Inside Passage waterkeeper coordinator.

“There is more complexity in a mud puddle than science will ever understand and a massive intervention such as the KSM mine will no doubt have massive unforeseen negative consequences.”

Following the 2014 collapse of the Mount Polley tailings pond dam there has been increased concern about earthen tailings dams and the expert panel looking into the disaster recommended that mining companies should adopt best available technologies and consider dry stacking tailings when possible.

However, Peter Williams, Seabridge vice-president of technical services said location is the paramount concern when choosing how to dispose of tailings and, after considering dry stacking, it was decided the KSM site was ideal for wet tailings, with a lined tailings pond to ensure no discharge into the environment.

“We have put it into a valley and most of the walls are valley walls, so they are very strong,” he said.

“It makes this location very safe.”

The u-shaped valley will have gently-sloping dams at either end, constructed of sand from the tailings, Murphy said.

That is very different from the Mount Polley dam which consisted of a steeply-sloping ring dyke constructed of locally-sourced till material, he said.

“Most importantly, after treatment, water from the proposed KSM facility will be discharged on an annual basis, preventing the build-up of any water within the facility as occurred at Mount Polley where there was no treatment of water for discharge,” he said.

Zimmer, who emphasized that Alaskan groups are concerned about the effect of the mine on any rivers, whether Canadian or Alaskan, said one of the major worries is what happens over time.

“What happens after 250 years? What if the water treatment fails or doesn’t work as proposed — Seabridge has no contingency plans for this,” he said.

Williams said there should be no concerns after closure as, after the tailings are topped and revegetated, there will be minimal water flow.

During the six-and-a-half-year review process, Seabridge held numerous meetings with Alaskan groups and regulators, including a public meeting in Ketchikan, Murphy said.

There was also a detailed assessment by independent federal regulators so there was no need for a panel review — as requested by Alaskans — because it would duplicate work already done, Murphy said.

Neither would a referral to the International Joint Commission be the correct process, Murphy believes.

“In our opinion [the IJC] is a political dispute resolution process and we are continuing to support efforts of the B.C. and Alaska governments who are working on increasing cooperation between the two governments on transboundary projects and we encourage them to work towards a memorandum of understanding,” he said.

But Zimmer said most of the meetings were open only to agency and company officials and many questions remain — such as lack of funds to deal with major accidents or proof that Seabridge can treat water for selenium.

“The arrogance demonstrated by Seabridge’s blind faith in their engineering in the face of the forces of Mother Nature and time, is the same arrogance that resulted in the Titanic, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Mount Polley,” 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.

There are a few unarguable truths about mine tailings, the pulverized rock, water and sludge left over from mineral extraction — mining is a messy business, the leftovers have to be dealt with forever and it’s impossible to guarantee against another tailings dam failure such as the Mount Polley catastrophe.

In B.C., there are 98 tailings storage facilities at 60 metal and coal mines, of which 31 are operating or under construction and the remaining 67 are at mines that are either permanently or temporarily closed

That means communities throughout B.C. and Alaska are looking nervously at nearby tailings ponds, which sometimes more closely resemble lakes, stretching over several square kilometres, with the toxic waste held back by earth and rock-filled dams. The water is usually recycled through the plant when the mine is operating, but, after the mine closes, water, toxins and finely ground rock must continue to be contained or treated.

It’s the realization that tailings have to be treated in perpetuity that worries many of those living downstream, especially as the Mount Polley breach happened only 17 years after the dam was constructed.

“The concept of forever boggles people minds. In one thousand years is the bank account still going to be there? These people are going to be dead,” said Chris Zimmer of Rivers Without Borders.

“There are time-bombs up there without a plan to deal with them. Are they going to be able to build a mine that’s going to keep its integrity forever?"

[view:in_this_series=block_1]

It raises the question of whether there should be any mining in an area that is vital to five species of salmon and sustains the livelihoods of so many Alaskans, said Heather Hardcastle, a Juneau fisherman and coordinator of Salmon Beyond Borders.

“This is why this region of the world is so globally significant and why we care so much,” said Hardcastle, who is among those pushing for the issue to be referred to the International Joint Commission.

Two B.C. Tailings Dams Expected to Fail Every Decade: Expert Panel

The unease is heightened by the expert panel report on the Mount Polley dam failure, which concluded that, without significant changes to current mining practices, two tailings dams could be expected to fail in B.C. every 10 years.

Karina Brino, Mining Association of B.C CEO, said the association is aiming for a zero failure rate with members committed to implementing the panel’s recommendations for best practices.

But no one controls nature, Brino warned.

“I don’t think anyone can say this will never, ever happen again. It would be irresponsible to say that, because these are man-made structures that may be affected by natural causes,” she said.

Mining experts say that, with proper management, the ponds are safe.

“Different accidents happen, but is a plane safe? There are more accidents with planes than tailings dams. It depends on how you maintain them,” said University of B.C. mining professor Marcello Veiga.

Reclamation is a long-term commitment and communities need to be reassured that there are systems in place to look after the facilities, he said

It’s a claim met with skepticism by those battling for better safeguards for watersheds and an international assessment of the new-age gold rush on the B.C./Alaska border.

“Proposed Canadian mining and energy development on several headwaters within this region pose a major threat to fisheries and local communities downstream,” says a letter from Irene Dundas, Ketchikan Indian Community council member and former president.

“Our concern about Canada’s rush to develop this extraordinary region is compounded by recent legislative initiatives that have weakened Canadian environmental assessment standards and oversight.”

Mine Inspections Have Dropped Dramatically

According to the Chief Inspector of Mines annual reports, the number of mine inspections dropped dramatically from 2,021 in 2001 to 1,496 in 2002, after the B.C. Liberals came to power. The low was 494 in 2011 and in 2013, the latest figure available, there were 904 inspections. Mount Polley had 14 inspections, the highest of all mines.

First Nations land is ground zero for many of the dams and a June report by the B.C. First Nations Energy and Mining Council, which looked at 35 tailings ponds in northern B.C., found that 8,678 kilometres of streams, rivers and lakes, 33 First Nations communities and 208 cities and settlements would be in the path of contaminants if those dams failed.

Copper, a common contaminant in acid rock drainage, is acutely toxic to salmon and the First Nations Mining Council is calling for protection of river, lake and wetland ecosystems from industrial activities, protection for rivers with high numbers of migratory fish and better funding for problems that might arise after a mine closes.

Red Chris, KSM Mines to Use Tailings Ponds Despite Expert Recommendation

However, in northwest B.C., the two newest mines, Red Chris and KSM, are both close to important salmon rivers that flow into Southeast Alaska and both will use tailings ponds — despite a recommendation after the Mount Polley disaster that companies look at other methods, such as dry stack tailings, a method that involves filtering out water and piling dry tailings.

Several other mine proposals in the province’s northwest also specify the use of tailings ponds. The exception is the recently approved Silvertip project, owned by JDS Silver, which will use dry stacking and underground storage, despite the extra expense.

Red Chris, owned by Imperial Metals, which also owns Mount Polley, is close to the Iskut River, in the Stikine watershed. In June, Red Chris was handed its final operating permit by the province, following an evaluation of the tailings dam.

The dam is different from Mount Polley and has no lacustrine clay layer in the foundation – something that was instrumental in the Mount Polley breach — said Energy and Mines Ministry spokesman David Haslam.

“The Red Chris tailings storage facility has been the subject of three independent reviews done to assess seepage and design considerations,” he said

The province has been assured that Red Chris and its consultants have done extensive reviews of the site’s hydrogeology and made the necessary adjustments, Haslam said.

B.C.'s Push for New Transboundary Mines 'Astonishing'

But the decision to approve the Red Chris tailings pond has horrified Alaskan groups, who call the decision ill-conceived.

It is reckless for B.C. to permit a new mine with the same type of tailings technology that failed so catastrophically at Mount Polley, said a statement from Salmon Beyond Borders and the United Tribal Transboundary Mining Work Group.

“It’s astonishing to me how B.C. is dead set on getting these transboundary mines operating at all costs — even when their own experts say that current mining technology will fail,” said Rob Sanderson Jr., co-chair of the United Tribal Transboundary Mining Work Group.

Seabridge Gold’s KSM mine, which will stash its tailings behind a 239-metre high dam, making it among the highest in the world, is located in the Unuk River watershed, which drains into Alaska’s Misty Fjords National Monument.

Each mine has to be looked at individually and, for some, water management of tailings continues to be sound technology, Brino said.

“Dry stack is not new technology. It has been around for a long time and it’s more appropriate for dry climates and small operations because a lot of material needs to be hauled to the site,” she said.

“B.C. has a very wet climate and most are very large tailings facilities,” she said.

One of two mines operating in Southeast Alaska, Greens Creek, an underground silver and gold mine, uses dry-stacking and Pretium’s Brucejack, an underground mine in the Unuk watershed, recently approved by the province, plans to backfill waste underground or in lakes.

The province is moving to a requirement to have all mines with tailings ponds establish Independent Tailings Dam Review Boards, something Red Chris already has in place and a requirement that will apply to KSM, Haslam said.

Some additional requirements will not apply to those two mines as they have already received environmental assessment certificates, but, any changes to the Health, Safety and Reclamation Code for Mines, following a review this summer, will also apply to Red Chris and KSM, Haslam said,

No Compensation for Downstream Losses in Case of Tailings Dam Failure

Hardcastle, looking at the risks Southeast Alaska is facing, wants B.C. to take on more of the onus with an adequate bonding mechanism.

“There’s currently no mechanism for compensation for downstream losses when pollution occurs,” she said.

Security deposits the province requires from companies to ensure reclamation have gone from $10 million in 1984 to more than $791 million by the end of 2013, according to the Chief Inspector of Mines annual report.

The province currently holds $12 million in reclamation securities for Red Chris and $19 million for Mount Polley. The securities, which will be returned only when the sites are reclaimed, may change over the life of the mining operations.

However, the securities do not include cleaning up after disasters. Imperial Metals, which last year estimated the cleanup costs for Mount Polley at $67.4 million, is raising $100 million through debentures to cover the mop-up .

That should make all Alaskans feel insecure about corporate promises, said Zimmer, who has seen companies walk away after going bankrupt.

Photo: Cariboo Regional District

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.

Southeast Alaskans, anxious about B.C.'s mining boom along the Alaskan border, are pinning their hopes for stronger mine management on a treaty that dates back more than a century.

The International Joint Commission (IJC), operating under the Boundary Waters Treaty since 1909, is a body with six appointed members —three from Canada and three from the U.S. — used to resolve water or air conflicts between the two countries.

However, although the commission appears to be tailor-made to deal with the concern over B.C. mines in the headwaters of Southeast Alaska’s most important salmon rivers, politicians on both side of the border appear reluctant to hand over responsibility to a commission whose recommendations remain entirely independent of either party.

B.C. is seen as the major stumbling block, but the U.S. State Department is also hesitating, despite appeals to Secretary of State John Kerry from municipalities, First Nations, fishing organizations and tourism groups requesting the IJC's involvement.

In response to questions from DeSmog Canada, a State Department spokeswoman said the Mount Polley mine investigation is being watched closely and the State Department remains concerned about the potential effects of B.C. mines on the people of Alaska, but she encouraged B.C. and Alaska to increase cooperation and communication on transboundary mines rather than count on an IJC ruling.

“We have highlighted our concerns with the governments of Canada and B.C. at senior levels in government-to-government channels and do not anticipate referring this issue to the International Joint Commission at this time,” she said.

Alaska 'A Full Step Away' From Escalating Issue to Joint Commission: Lt. Governor

Alaska Lt. Gov. Byron Mallott, who recently travelled to B.C. to meet with Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett, said that discussions are continuing between Alaska and B.C. and he is not yet sure whether there will be a role for the IJC.

“Whether or not it is appropriate or timely that the IJC be invoked will be determined by the course of events,” Mallott said.

“To me, we are at least a full step away from that.”

If B.C. and Alaska forge a positive, transparent relationship, with sufficient oversight and cross-boundary input to safeguard Alaska’s interests, there may not be a need to seek help from the IJC, he said.

[view:in_this_series=block_1]

“It is important that Alaska and B.C. and the interests on both sides of the border be able to take this as far as possible,” he said, adding that, during his visit, he did not see a strong federal presence on mining issues in B.C.

The state’s congressional delegation is keeping in contact with the State Department on a possible role for the IJC, Mallott said.

Last year, Senator Lisa Murkowski, former senator Mark Begich and Congressman Don Young wrote to John Kerry asking him to raise the problem with his Canadian counterparts.

“Water quality is an extremely important issue for Alaskans. Accordingly, we ask you and other officials from the Department of State to raise these concerns with the governments of Canada and B.C.,” the letter says.

Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett has not responded to a DeSmog Canada interview request, but, in statements to media after his meeting with Mallott, he acknowledged Alaska’s “legitimate concerns” and said the discussions were a good foundation for a possible memorandum of understanding with the state.

B.C. Permitting Process Doesn’t Address Cumulative Impacts

The MOU could be similar to the arrangement with Montana, covering the Flathead River, where water testing is done at the border, he suggested.

However, the idea of an MOU does not sit well with grassroots groups pushing for a referral to the IJC.

MOUs are largely focused on information sharing and do not provide enforceable protections for downstream resources, said Chris Zimmer of Rivers Without Borders.

“Bennett’s offer for greater involvement in the B.C. permitting process is simply inadequate to address our concerns and is a sign that B.C. is not taking our concerns seriously,” Zimmer said.

“The B.C. permitting process, no matter how well it is carried out, is simply not designed to address long-term impacts from multiple mines, across a broad landscape, over the long term.”

It is always a difficult decision for politicians to ask for outside help, said David LaRoche, who served as executive secretary to the U.S. side of the commission from 1979 to 1996 and has since worked on transboundary watershed issues.

“Each country takes a leap of faith when it relies on something outside the established mechanism to have the issue addressed,” he said.

All Parties Need to Agree to Refer Case to International Joint Commission

Ideally, if the IJC is to be involved, there should be agreement from B.C., Canada, Alaska and the U.S.

“Under the treaty it is possible for one country to ask the commission to undertake a study, but it has never happened and the chances are close to zero as it would have no value because it would immediately be seen as biased by the country that did not ask,” LaRoche said.

Historically, both countries ask for a reference and agree on the specifics they want the IJC to study.

“If a province or state were to object it would be highly unlikely that a letter of reference would be sent. Unless B.C. is agreeable, this one won’t unfold,” LaRoche said.

Those campaigning for the commission’s involvement point to article four of the treaty, which says “waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the other.”

Two B.C. Tailings Dams Expected to Fail Every 10 Years

So far, none of the new mines in northwest B.C. have polluted rivers, but there is a grating awareness of the possibility of a Mount Polley-type accident, something which was underlined by the report from the independent panel looking into the failure of the tailings pond dam, which found, under current regulations, two B.C. dams would be expected to fail every 10 years.

It is a statistic that shocked observers on both sides of the border and led to ramped up calls for a referral to the IJC.

Even though findings by the commission are not binding on either party, the recommendations carry a hefty dose of moral suasion and public clout, especially as conclusions are usually reached by consensus.

In 1984, after complaints by B.C., the IJC gave the thumbs-down to construction of a dam on the Skagit River that would have flooded parts of B.C. and in 1985, after U.S. complaints, the IJC recommended against an open pit coalmine in B.C.’s Flathead Valley until the impact on fisheries could be eliminated.

NDP energy and mines spokesman Norm Macdonald said the core issue, in the wake of the systemic failures pointed out by the Mount Polley report, is the need for the province to enforce environmental rules and standards, putting public safety ahead of economics, rather than cutting essential staff and accepting huge donations from the mining industry.

“Whatever tool you use, it has to be something where there is no tolerance for failure,” Macdonald said.

“We don’t tolerate elevators or bridges falling down and we have to take the same attitude to these facilities.”

Photo: www.sacbee.com

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.

Long-held perceptions of Canada as a country with strict environmental standards and B.C. as a province that values natural beauty are taking a near-fatal beating in Southeast Alaska, where many now regard Canadians as bad neighbours who are unilaterally making decisions that could threaten the region’s two major economic drivers.

Fishing and tourism — each billion-dollar industries — are the lifeblood of Southeast Alaska, where glaciers sweep down into rivers home to five species of wild salmon and massive snow-covered peaks tower over fertile wetlands.

Tourism accounts for 10,900 jobs in the Alaska Panhandle and salmon fishing employs 7,300 people.

Air and water are the only ways into communities such as Juneau, the state capital, and almost seven million hectares, or three-quarters of Southeast Alaska, are within the Tongass National Forest, where industrial activity is limited.

But, upstream, in northwest B.C., there is a new-style gold rush with an unprecedented number of applications for open-pit gold and copper mines, some made viable by construction of the Northwest Transmission Line and all requiring road access.

Alaskan politicians, tribes, fishing organizations and environmental groups have come together in a rare show of unity to condemn B.C.’s push to approve mines close to major transboundary salmon rivers, such as the Stikine, Taku and Unuk, which run from B.C. into Alaska. Tensions are running so high the groups are asking the International Joint Commission, designed to resolve Canada/U.S. water problems, to step in.

Canada is increasingly viewed as a “bad actor,” whose record — most recently illustrated by the Mount Polley mine tailings dam collapse — shows that the province’s environmental regulations and oversight is not strong enough to protect downstream communities.

“It’s the new wild west,” said Heather Hardcastle, a commercial fisherman and co-ordinator of Salmon Beyond Borders, pointing out that, even though Alaska has nothing to gain and everything to lose, Alaskans are being denied meaningful input into mine decisions.

10 Advanced Mining Projects in Northwestern B.C.

The new mines include Imperial Metals’ Red Chris, a copper and gold mine operated by the same company that owns Mount Polley, and Seabridge Gold’s massive KSM (Kerr-Sulpherets-Mitchell) mine, 30 kilometres from the U.S border and Misty Fjords National Monument, which will open up mining of the largest undeveloped gold reserve in the world. KSM has provincial and federal environmental assessment approval and is waiting for permits.

According to B.C.’s Ministry of Energy and Mines there are 10 advanced projects in the northwest corner of B.C. and numerous others in exploration phases.

Graphic: Salmon Beyond Borders

They include Kitsault (under construction), Silvertip (provincial permit granted in June), Tulsequah Chief (construction started, but project delayed), Brucejack (Mines Act permit application under review), Kutcho and Schaft Creek (both in the environmental assessment pre-application stage).

In comparison, there are only five operating mines in Alaska, of which two are in Southeast Alaska and one of which uses dry stack tailings, the method of dealing with acid-generating mine waste favoured by the expert panel that investigated the Mount Polley dam collapse.

The Canadian system appears to aim “to get to yes fast,” without consideration of other values when it comes to resource extraction, said Jev Shelton, a commercial fisherman and former member of the Pacific Salmon Commission, the joint Canadian/U.S. regulatory body designed to protect salmon stocks.

“It is certainly triggering a fair bit of anger,” Shelton said.

B.C. Moving 'Full Speed Ahead'

The pace and scale of development is huge, said Chris Zimmer of Rivers Without Borders.

“B.C. is going full speed ahead without any brakes. It looks as if they’re trying to move as fast as they can before Alaska puts up hurdles.”

There is growing indignation that B.C. is not listening to Alaskan concerns and that additional input, promised in May after Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett met with Alaska’s Lieutenant Governor Byron Mallott, amounts to little more than window-dressing.

“We were a bit stunned by Bill Bennett giving us the table scraps and saying Alaska can come in at the final stages of permitting — they’re saying we will involve you when the final decision has been made to build the mine,” Zimmer said.

Alaskan Concerns Ignored

Gillnetter and fisheries consultant Lindsey Bloom agrees that Alaskan questions are being ignored.

“Since I started working on this issue, the disregard of Canadian officials towards us is concerning,” she said.

While Mallott and Bennett were meeting in B.C., a group of Alaskan tribal leaders, fishing industry representatives and environmental advocates met with high-level provincial government staff.

However, it was an exercise in frustration because of the lack of answers or acknowledgement of downstream concerns, according to several people who attended the meeting.

“We tried to explain we don’t want more say in the permitting process, we want something to put us on an equal footing with B.C.,” Hardcastle said.

B.C. government staff appeared to think their task was to explain the process instead of listening to concerns and suggestions, said several members of the Alaskan delegation.

Mallott, who is leading an Alaskan transboundary waters working group, said in an interview with DeSmog Canada, that, during their meeting, Bennett was amenable to the notion of more Alaskan involvement and he has been invited to Alaska to continue the conversation.

Staff who have looked at B.C.’s technical permitting and assessment of mines believe the rules in B.C. and Alaska are generally equivalent, said Mallott.

“But there are significant differences. Whether the entire range of environmental assessment and permitting is robust enough to protect both B.C. and U.S. and Alaskan interests is still something we all need to be made more comfortable with,” he said.

“We would want Alaskan officials at the table when decisions are made in such areas of permitting that it is possible that catastrophic events could take place.”

Mount Polley Tailings Dam Collapse Stokes Fears Downstream

The pace of development and the cumulative impacts of the mines in B.C. are alarming, but it is the failures that haunt Alaskans.

The image of 24-million cubic metres of mine tailings and waste water sweeping down from the Mount Polley tailings dam is etched into memories, but there are others such as the constant irritant of the ongoing acid drainage from the Tulsequah Chief mine.

“It underlines the Canadian government’s lack of commitment to what happens in the river,” said commercial fisherman Len (Pete) Peterson.

The copper and gold mine, near the confluence of the Tulsequah and Taku Rivers, has been leaking acid since Cominco stopped mining in 1957. Since 1989, there have been numerous remediation and pollution abatement orders from the B.C. government, but the leakage continues.

Earlier this year the province gave Chieftain Metals Corp., the latest owner, permission to re-open the mine and the company is currently trying to obtain financing. However, hurdles include opposition from the Taku River Tlingit First Nation. In an attempt to circumvent the problem, the company is proposing a barging system, instead of an access road, but that is likely to be a problem for Alaskan gillnetters.

At Johnny Mountain, close to the Iskut River, operations ceased in 1993 and the company attempted to burn and bury equipment. Although there has been some soil remediation, what threat remains of acid rock drainage from the underground operation is unclear.

“They shoved (the equipment) into the mountain and blew it up,” said miner Joe Bradley, who recently flew over the area.

The test of B.C.’s process is how it is carried out and the “real world” results, Zimmer said.

“Alaska understands the B.C. process. Where has it gotten us? Mount Polley disaster, Tulsequah Chief and five decades of acid mine drainage, renewed talk of Taku River barging, a total lack of involvement on the evaluation of the Red Chris mine, a denial of Alaska’s request for a KSM panel review,” Zimmer said.

Photo: Chris Zimmer

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.