This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Follow-up petition on acid drainage and re-opening of a metal mine in northern British Columbia

Petition

Office of the Auditor General of Canada
And the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
Attn: Petitions
240 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0G6

Dear Commissioner,

The Society for Atlin's Sustainable Economic Initiatives (SASEI) is submitting this petition under the Auditor General's Act environmental petitions process to receive a response from several federal ministries regarding the enforcement of acid mine drainage clean up in northwestern BC.

The Society for Atlin's Sustainable Economic Initiatives filed an Environmental Petition in 2003 (Petition # 95) in the hope of receiving assurances from the Government of Canada that a long-standing clean-up order for the Tulsequah Chief and Big Bull mine sites would be enforced, and that the controversial mining project's Screening Assessment would be raised to a full Panel Review.

Since then, the mining proponent Redfern Resources has announced that the planned re-opening of the Tulsequah Chief Mine is not financeable based on their resource estimate. The Minister of Environment wrote to us on May 21, 2004 that "Redfern has been advised that by June 30, 2005, the Tulsequah mine site must be in compliance with subsection 36(3) of the Fisheries Act as required in the original Inspector's Direction." (Appendix 1*) The project is currently before the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans as the final part of CEAA.

We request in this petition that the Government of Canada will:

1. Inform the public on the status of water quality at the Tulsequah Chief and Big Bull mine sites at the expiration of the clean-up order deadline.
2. Inform the public on the measures that Redfern Resources has undertaken to date to achieve compliance with the Fisheries Act.
3. Explain to the public the actions the Government will take now, should the mine sites still not be in compliance.
4. Raise the Screening Assessment to a Full Panel Review, given the latest developments as well as the long-standing contention about it.
5. Uphold its fiduciary duty to defend First Nations' right and insist on the implementation of a sustainable land use plan before approving any major industrial projects such as this one.

Introduction:

The acid mine drainage emanating from the old Tulsequah Chief and Big Bull mine sites has been known to Environment Canada since at least August 1995, when drainage samples were shown to be acutely lethal to fish.

A decade of warning letters from Environment Canada later, we are dealing with a situation where [name and position withheld] states in the media (Appendix 2*) "I don't expect it to obtain full compliance" for the June 30, 2005 deadline. The company's May 17, 2005 press release (Appendix 3*) declares the proposed project not financeable based on the estimated mineral resources, despite the current high metal prices.

The issue of abandoned, acid generating mines was the subject of a 2002 Auditor General's report and is a well-known problem to the government and Canadians, particularly here in the north.

If a decade without strict enforcement of the clean-up order has produced no acceptable results at the Tulsequah Chief and Big Bull, it would seem to warrant stronger action by Environment Canada now after the expiration of the latest deadline.

The proposed Tulsequah Chief Mine and Road Project is currently awaiting the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' decision.

Given the facts as stated by Redfern Resources that their proposed project cannot be profitably operated based on their newest feasibility update study; the well-documented history of mining where unprofitability of projects and bankruptcy of companies leave behind a mess at taxpayers' expense; as well as the high controversy, litigation and serious environmental concerns about the proposed project throughout the last ten years, we believe it does not fit within the modern criteria of sustainable development.

The way the CEAA process for this project has been conducted in the last 12 months has raised some serious questions. Also the validity of some of the decision factors is unclear as there are many contradictions and unanswered questions.

We sincerely hope that you can assist us in securing a definite response to these issues from the Federal Government.

Background:

The far northwestern corner of British Columbia, where it meets the Yukon Territory and the Alaskan Panhandle, is the location of the town of Atlin. Our community is the only settlement in the area, about 100km northeast of the Tulsequah Chief mine site, and tied to the Taku River Watershed by the history of the Taku River Tlingit First Nation as well as the commercial and recreational salmon fishery on the Taku River.

The area surrounding Atlin and the Tulsequah Chief mine site is, even in this day and age, still a fairly intact ecosystem and harbours many resources, biodiversity, traditional knowledge and creative talent. While so many regions around the world and within Canada are scrambling to boost dwindling wildlife populations, fish stocks and to fix the damages created by poorly planned development, this corner of BC is still healthy enough to become an international showcase of sustainable land use planning.

The future of the Taku River Watershed and Atlin now hinges to a large part on the Federal Government and its decision on the Tulsequah Chief Mine and Road Project.

The Taku River watershed and Atlin area are the traditional territory of the Taku River Tlingits (TRTFN), whose home it has been for thousands of years. The TRTFN have not been able to settle their land claims yet. The Taku River Tlingits have initiated a scientific, internationally acclaimed land use planning process that focuses on sustainability. Good stewardship of our environment becomes ever more critical as shrinking resources, pollution and climate change take their toll. Sustainable land use planning generally strives to protect key wildlife habitat, keep connecting corridors intact and harmonize industrial development in areas where it will cause little or no harm (and hence create no costly long-term liabilities). In short, it is the smart way to plan development and create a win-win situation.

If the Tulsequah Chief Mine and Road Project were approved, it would be pushed through without a land use plan in place for the area, despite the project's non-profitability, serious concerns about the environmental and socio-economic impacts and strong opposition.

The mine site was originally developed and operated by Cominco Ltd in the 1950s. Ore was shipped by barge to Juneau, Alaska, since the Tulsequah Chief is located within about 40km from tidewater. The unroaded watershed between the mine site and Atlin is scene to steep coastal mountains, heavy snowfall and avalanches, and many salmon-bearing streams and lakes. In 1957 Cominco closed the mine site without a proper clean up, and the legacy of acid mine drainage into salmon habitat continues half a century later.

Acid mine drainage occurs when sulphid-bearing minerals come in contact with water and oxygen. The chemical reaction creates sulphuric acid, which can dissolve minerals and release metals. Because of the mineral crushing and break-down involved in mining, much more sulphide minerals become exposed to air and water than would naturally occur. The acidity causes the pH level of water to drop, which not only is harmful as such to many aquatic organisms and fish, it also causes metals to become mobile in the water. When the concentrations of metals become high, they are toxic to most life forms.

At the Tulsequah Chief, the acid mine drainage is generated by old waste rock and broken ore piled near and within underground openings containing copper and zinc minerals. The dissolved copper and zinc, as well as lead, cadmium and arsenic, occur in elevated concentrations and leach at an estimated rate of 15 tons per year into the Tulsequah River, which drains into the Taku River.

Redfern Resources Ltd, now a subsidiary of RedCorp Ventures, purchased the Tulsequah Chief and Big Bull mine sites in 1987. The junior mining company applied for a Mine Development Certificate in 1994 and submitted its final proposal to re-open the mine in 1997. It has been embroiled in controversy ever since, to a large part because of its plan to push a 160km industrial access road from Atlin through the Taku Watershed.

Since 1995, Environment Canada has collected drainage samples at the mine site a number of times, the analyses of which showed them to be acutely lethal to fish. Warning letters by Environment Canada produced some efforts by Redfern Resources to combat the pollution at the Tulsequah Chief and Big Bull mine sites, but when in 2000 the water quality still had not improved significantly, a legal investigation was launched.

Two years later, an Inspector's Direction was issued to Redfern and the company was informed that failure to comply is an offence under paragraph 40(3)(f) of the Fisheries Act. The original deadline set was September 2003, and was extended to June 30, 2005 due to a request from Redfern Resources.

"Redfern has been advised that by June 30, 2005, the Tulsequah mine site must be in compliance with subsection 36(3) of the Fisheries Act as required in the original Inspector's Direction", according to the Minister of Environment (Appendix 1*).

This decade-long endeavour by Environment Canada to gain Redfern's compliance with the Fisheries Act is apparently fairly typical. Environment Canada identifies eight stages to its enforcement cycle, which can take anywhere from 5 – 10 years. Only ½ to 2 percent of all polluters are prosecuted for violating environmental legislation and only ½ to 2 percent of the polluters in an industry group will be convicted and fined. (Peter Krahn, Enforcement vs. Voluntary Compliance: An examination of the Strategic Enforcement Initiatives Implemented by the Pacific and Yukon Regional office of Environment Canada, 1983 – 1998, DOEFRAP 1998-3, Regional Program Report 98-2, March 1998)

Redfern Resources has maintained that their re-opening of the old mine will clean up the acid mine drainage by returning old mine waste underground below the water table and by paste backfilling old stopes. In recent media interviews, company [name and position withheld] stated the limestone beds now installed as a passive treatment system at the mines lowest-elevation tunnel are a temporary measure that will likely not bring the water quality up to federal standards (Appendix 2*). According to a telephone conversation with an Environment Canada official, water sampling to check for compliance will probably not occur before September of this year, even though the deadline for clean up ran out on June 30.

Redfern Resources has also stated that the proposed 160km access road to the mine site is necessary for the acid mine drainage clean up (Appendix 2*). All the same, the equipment and supplies at the site now, used for more exploration work as well as water treatment, were brought in without a road.

Redfern Resources states in their press release (Appendix 3*) that an update of their feasibility study shows the project not to be financially viable. Critics have highlighted the questionable economics of the project for years.

The associated expenses such as the construction and successful decommissioning of the 160km access road (which would be a first in Canadian history, according to the Minister of Environment in answer to question #9 of Environmental Petition #95), the marginal ore body and the brief predicted life-span of 9 years have never made much sense to many. For example, in 1999 the "Tulsequah Chief Project Economic Analysis" by Bartek already came to the conclusion that this project is unprofitable.

In the May 17, 2005 press release and subsequent interviews, the company has mentioned further exploration for more resources as a way to make the project workable. It is questionable how likely this will be, considering Redfern has already spent the last two summers or so doing more exploration work at their site without finding anything that would boost their recent financial analysis.

So now that the company itself admits that the Tulsequah Chief Mine and Road Project is not a profitable proposition, and taking into account the amount of controversy regarding the impact of the planned access road, the thousands of protest letters to the government, the fact that this area is still without a land use plan, the threat the project proves to the East Atlin Caribou herd, salmon habitat and grizzly bear habitat – considering all this, will the Government of Canada still go ahead and approve this project?

It would seem highly unlikely, one would think, yet the actions by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in particular over the last 12 months seem to be geared more at placating the mining industry than fulfilling any role of stewardship, as outlined below.

SASEI addressed the problematic issues we see with the access road in our Environmental Petition (#95). Since then, new concerns have arisen that we would like to see the Federal Government answer to.

In June 2002, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans sent a list to Redfern Resources of over 100 issues that had not been sufficiently addressed by the proponent.

It was encouraging for the Canadian public to see the DFO demand more detailed information on such issues as post-closure plans and scheduling, revegetation, effects on grizzly bears, salmon, caribou and traditional land use, as well as address the likelihood of the road not being decommissioned. Redfern's response in April 2004 in the view of many did not provide much new information (many referrals were made to previous studies and plans). Consequently, it came as a shock to see a complete shift in DFO's approach shortly after.

Through information obtained through an access to information request it came to light that on May 31, 2004 a secret meeting was held in Ottawa between [name and position withheld], the at the time unregistered lobbyist and former DFO Deputy Minister Bruce Rawson, the BC's Deputy Minister of the Environmental Assessment Office Joan Hesketh, [name and position withheld], and DFO Deputy Minister Larry Murray. None of the other parties who had been involved in the assessment such as the Taku River Tlingits, Alaskan and US officials, were told about the meeting.

One day after this meeting, DFO staff were instructed to dramatically reduce the public comment period on the assessment. [name withheld] told his staff to draft a letter providing assurances to Bruce Rawson that public consultations would be limited and "focused on what we need to talk about, and only the necessary players", and to accelerate the CEAA timeline.

In keeping with this seeming shift towards appeasing industry, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' January 5, 2005 draft screening report recommends approval of the Tulsequah Chief Mine Report. The screening report rates each and every one of the over one hundred issues previously raised as "not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects" now. By doing so, DFO was able to avoid having to address the cumulative impacts of the project.

It truly is astounding that DFO concludes no significant adverse environmental effects will arise from an acid generating mine on a salmon bearing stream, the access road to which will cut a 160km industrial traffic path through currently unroaded caribou and grizzly bear habitat with 67 stream crossings. No access road of such magnitude in an environment as this has ever been successfully decommissioned and revegetated (Minister of Environment in response to question #9 of Environmental Petition #95).

Given the mining legislation in British Columbia, we have raised the issue of high unlikelihood of decommissioning the access road, once built, in our previous Environmental Petition. The Minister of Environment's response above supports our concerns.

Now that the Tulsequah Chief Mine and Road Project is officially an unprofitable endeavour, we are even more concerned that this road not be pushed through the heart of the Taku River Watershed. The wildlife studies conducted along the proposed road corridor and indeed the Adaptive Wildlife Management Plan itself highlight numerous times that without decommissioning, many species will be at risk of extirpation.

The Federal Government has maintained that decommissioning is listed as one condition of BC's approval of the project, and that it falls within BC's jurisdiction. We must emphasize that the Federal Government, and particularly DFO at this time, need to take into consideration the following facts in making their decisions on this unprofitable project:

• There is not one example of an industrial road of this magnitude having ever been successfully decommissioned and revegetated in Canada.
• Unless the Province changes its mining legislature, the Mineral Tenure Act, the Mining Right of Way, and the Mining Rights Amendment Act will automatically give the legal right to use the Tulsequah Chief Mine Road to anyone with natural resource interests along the road corridor.
• All wildlife studies and the Adaptive Wildlife Management Plan are based on the unrealistic Redfern-traffic-only scenario. Canarc is already promoting its New Polaris mine site as being just a few kilometers from the proposed road. As pointed out above, BC laws make it legal for any other industrial stakeholders to use the road, so much more traffic and even greater impacts are to be expected.
• We are not aware of any timeline for the road decommissioning. Even if the Province would be prepared to face law suits from other mining companies about banning their legal access right into the Taku Watershed and enforce the decommissioning – at what point would that happen? When would the mine site be considered closed?
  
  Mines close down all the time because of financial problems, sometimes for decades. The Tulsequah Chief has only marginal resources left, and if it proves to be not viable these days with metal prices at a high, it would likely be prone to numerous closures in the future. That creates a loophole for not initiating either the mine closure or the road decommissioning.

We have not seen any of these points answered by the Federal Government other than saying it is the jurisdiction of the Province. Yet there are obvious contradictions between the legislation in BC and what is supposed to happen to the proposed access road.

So how can the Federal Government be satisfied that these issues have been fully addressed and use them as a base for decision making?

For the same reasons, it is also unacceptable to allow the road to proceed solely for the acid mine drainage clean up, should the mining project as such not go ahead now. It has been possible to date to bring in equipment and supplies by a combination of air and water transportation, which only have a very minimal impact. This should be continued.

The Minister of Environment assured us in his response to question #6 of Environmental Petition #95 that "It is important to note that EC will continue to enforce the Fisheries Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, and the Migratory Birds Regulations at the mine site during and after the environmental assessment, whether the proposed project proceeds or not."

The Canadian Government has already committed $4 billion to the clean up of old polluting mine sites. Exploration and mining is a gamble that in the end often doesn't turn a profit. Redfern Resources was well aware they took on an environmental liability when purchasing the Tulsequah Chief and Big Bull. The Canadian public expects more corporate responsibility and accountability in this day and age and wants to the pollution cleaned up.

The acid mine drainage at the mine sites needs to be cleaned up now, after polluting wild salmon streams for half a century already, and it needs to be done without the proposed 160km access road, which would only add yet another long term environmental liability and prevent this pristine area from becoming the international showcase of forward-looking, ecologically sound land use planning that it can easily become.

The petitioners expect to see the Federal Government finally enforce its clean up orders for the Tulsequah Chief Mine Site to the point where the water quality meets federal standards again, and live up to its commitment to sustainable development.

Questions regarding the federal environmental assessment process:

Q1: Have the Minister of Environment and Minister of Fisheries and Oceans received commitment in writing from the Province of British Columbia that the existing mining legislation of the Province will be changed to disallow any industrial traffic other than Redfern's on the proposed road?

Q2: Since the mining legislation of BC gives the legal right of access to all industrial stakeholders along the proposed road, can the Ministers of Environment, Transport, and Fisheries and Oceans explain in detail how the wildlife studies and Adaptive Management Plan, as well as the condition of road decommissioning have any validity and can be used as a decision factor under CEAA?

Q3: Can the Ministers of Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, and Transport explain if a timeline and deciding factors have been established to define when road decommissioning would have to commence? If not, can they explain how that decision can be made without these factors established? If not, can they explain the rationale for expecting the road to be decommissioned?

Q4: Despite the current high metal prices, Redfern Resources has declared on May 17, 2005 that their proposed Tulsequah Chief Mine and Road Project is financially not viable. Is the viability of mining projects a consideration under CEAA? If not, why not?

Q5: Can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans explain in detail why the key meeting on May 31, 2004 took place between DFO Deputy Minister Larry Murray, [name and position withheld], lobbyist and former DFO Deputy Minister Bruce Rawson, DFO [name and position withheld], and BC's Deputy Minister of the Environmental Assessment Office Joan Hesketh without notifying or inviting Taku River Tlingit or US officials? What was the purpose of the meeting?

Q6: Can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans provide the Canadian public with the minutes from that May 31, 2004 meeting? If not, why not?

Questions regarding violations of the Fisheries Act:

Q7: Can the Minister of Environment explain in detail how many Inspector's Directions the Ministry has issued to Redfern Resources as well as to RedCorp Ventures since January 1, 1998?

Q8: Can the Minister of Environment explain in detail the results from all Environment Canada inspections of the Tulsequah Chief and Big Bull mineral properties since January 1, 1998?

Q9: Can the Minister of Environment provide the Canadian public with a record of all correspondence between Environment Canada, Redfern Resources, and RedCorp Ventures? If not, why not?

Q10: Can the Minister of Environment explain if water samples were taken at the Tulsequah Chief and Big Bull mine sites at the end of the clean up deadline (June 30, 2005)? If not, could he explain in detail why not?

Q11: The Ministry of Environment has known since at least 1995 about the acid mine drainage discharge into salmon streams at the Tulsequah Chief and Big Bull mine sites and has been trying to enforce a clean up since then. If water quality is still not in compliance with the Fisheries Act as of June 30, 2005, can the Minister of Environment explain in detail the kind of enforcement the Ministry will be pursuing now?

Q12: Will the Minister of Environment stand by the commitment to enforce clean up of the acid mine drainage regardless of if the proposed project goes ahead or not?

Q13: Have salmon or other fish from the Tulsequah and Taku Rivers ever been sampled for contaminants in their tissue and blood? If so, what were the results and if not, why not?

Questions regarding the federal commitment to sustainability

Q14: Does the Canadian Government consider this proposed mining project, with its marginal ore body expected to be depleted within 9 years and its financial unviability to be sustainable development? If so, why?

Q15: Is the Canadian Government and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development committed to assisting the Taku River Tlingit First Nation as well as the non-native residents of the Atlin and Taku areas in developing a sustainable land use plan? If not, why not?

Q16: Is the financial feasibility of proposed industrial projects undergoing CEAA and federal permitting considered as a factor in the decision-making? If so, to what extent? If not, why not?

The Society for Atlin's Sustainable Economic Initiatives thanks the Commissioner for helping us secure answers to these important issues raised by our petition from the ministers.

Sincerely,

On behalf of the Society for Atlin's Sustainable Economic Initiatives

*[attachments not posted]

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Environment Canada

30 November 2005

Ms. Nicole Lischewski
Ms. Nan Love
Society for Atlin's Sustainable
Economic Initiatives
P.O. Box 499
Atlin, British Columbia
V0W 1A0

Dear Ms. Lischewski and Ms. Love:

Please find enclosed Environment Canada's response to your Environmental Petition No. 95B to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, concerning the enforcement of acid mine drainage clean-up in northwestern British Columbia. Your petition was received in the Department on August 2.

Environment Canada's detailed response addresses the issues that fall within the Department's mandate. The Departments of Fisheries and Oceans, of Indian and Northern Affairs, and of Transport will be responding separately to the questions that fall under their respective mandates.

Yours sincerely,

[Original signed by Samy Watson, Deputy Minister of the Environment]

Samy Watson

ENVIRONMENT CANADA
RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL PETITION NO. 95B
UNDER SECTION 22 OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL ACT
PETITIONERS: MS. NICOLE LISCHEWSKI AND MS. NAN LOVE

Responses to Questions Regarding the Federal Environmental Assessment Process:

Question 1

Have the Minister of Environment and Minister of Fisheries and Oceans received commitment in writing from the Province of British Columbia that the existing mining legislation of the Province will be changed to disallow any industrial traffic other that Redfern's on the proposed road?

Environment Canada is not aware of any commitment from the Province of British Columbia that existing provincial mining legislation would be changed, or that any changes to legislation have been proposed to ensure that an access road would be decommissioned.

In an August 24, 2004 letter from Environment Canada to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, it was noted that "Environment Canada is not aware of any substantial industrial access roads entering new territory that were decommissioned after the life of the project. Thus, although the currently proposed project relies on the stated intent of decommissioning, in respect to the long-term viability of the herd, we must consider that more, and/or possibly longer activity will occur in the region."

Question 2

Since the mining legislation of BC gives the legal right of access to all industrial stakeholders along the proposed road, can the Ministers of Environment, Transport, and Fisheries and Oceans explain in detail how the wildlife studies and Adaptive Management Plan, as well as the condition of road decommissioning have any validity and can be used as a decision factor under CEAA?

Environment Canada is committed to working with the Province of British Columbia, and other stakeholders, to develop a management plan for the East Atlin Caribou herd. The objective of the plan will be to ensure the long-term viability of the herd through management measures that will sustain or increase the current populations.

During the course of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act review, the Province of British Columbia committed in writing to Environment Canada to work with its governance partners and stakeholders to ensure the long-term viability of the East Atlin Caribou herd.

Question 3

Can the Ministers of Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, and Transport explain if a timeline and deciding factors have been established to define when road decommissioning would have to commence? If not, can they explain how that decision can be made without these factors established? If not, can they explain the rationale for expecting the road to be decommissioned?

Environment Canada is not aware of any conditions regarding caribou that have, or will be, included in any regulatory instruments such as permits or authorizations.

In a December 1, 2004 letter to Fisheries and Oceans Canada regarding "Documentation with Respect to Caribou Issues," Environment Canada stated that the November 16, 2004, letter from the Province of British Columbia "…addresses the concerns we have expressed to your department regarding this issue."

The December 3, 2004 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Screening—Supplemental Report on Redfern Resources Ltd's Proposed Tulsequah Chief Mine Project in Northwestern BC notes in Section 6.3 (Mitigation Measures—Environment Canada): The "Canadian Wildlife Service states that the conservation concerns for the East Atlin Caribou herd would be best addressed through the development of a comprehensive management plan involving all stakeholders. The Canadian Wildlife Service also recommends that the proponent participate in the development of the East Atlin herd management plan and adhere to all recommendations and subsequent actions arising from the plan."

The CEAA Supplemental Report also notes that the "Canadian Wildlife Service provided the following specific recommendations for mitigative/monitoring measures concerning caribou: […] there should be assurance that ancillary development along the road will not occur and that the road will be decommissioned at the end of the mine's lifetime."

Question 4

Despite the current high metal prices, Redfern Resources has declared on May 17, 2005 that their proposed Tulsequah Chief Mine and Road Project is financially not viable. Is the viability of mining projects a consideration under CEAA? If not, why not?

There is no provision within the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to assess the financial viability of proposed mining projects. As provincial governments have overall responsibility for resource management, the British Columbia Ministry of Energy and Mines is in a better position than the federal government to consider financial feasibility.

Questions 5 and 6—to be addressed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Responses to questions regarding violations of the Fisheries Act:

Question 7

Can the Minister of Environment explain in detail how many Inspector's Directions the Ministry has issued to Redfern Resources as well as to RedCorp Ventures since January 1, 1998?

No Inspector's Directions have been issued by Environment Canada fisheries inspectors to RedCorp Ventures.

There have been two Inspector's Directions issued to Redfern Resources Ltd., i.e. one each for the Tulsequah Chief and Big Bull mines. Each Direction was extended on a single occasion in order to allow Redfern Resources Ltd. a reasonable opportunity to implement its proposed mine discharge treatment system.

On July 12, 2002, Inspector's Directions were issued to Redfern Resources Ltd. and its responsible officials for the Tulsequah Chief Mine and Big Bull mines. Redfern Resources Ltd. and its responsible officials were given until September 30, 2003 to comply with the Inspector's Directions.

In June 2003, Redfern Resources Ltd. met with Environment Canada and provided information relating to its current and planned activities at the two mines.

On September 10, 2003, Environment Canada received a letter from Redfern Resources Ltd., detailing its planned remediation operations. Environment Canada responded, indicating the lack of a detailed plan, funding commitments, timelines and milestones in relation to the proposed remediation work.

A further letter from Redfern Resources Ltd., dated October 22, 2003, formally requested an extension of the Inspector's Directions until June 30, 2005, and provided a preliminary plan to achieve compliance with the Fisheries Act.

An interim remediation report was received from Redfern Resources Ltd. on October 27, 2003, and a final report was received on November 27, 2003.

The final remediation report contained a proposal for mitigating acid rock drainage using an innovative technology. Environment Canada conducted a detailed review of the final report and an evaluation of the mitigation measures proposed for the two mines. Subsequent to the review of that final report and consideration of the extension request, the Inspector's Directions were amended on May 12, 2004, with an extension granted to June 30, 2005.

The amended Inspector's Directions were granted by an Environment Canada fisheries inspector, on the condition that monthly reports be submitted on progress and deliverables outlined in the November 27, 2003 final report

Question 8

Can the Minister of Environment explain in detail the results from all Environment Canada inspections of the Tulsequah Chief and Big Bull mineral properties since January 1, 1998?

The specific details of the results from all Environment Canada inspections of the Tulsequah Chief and Big Bull mineral properties form the basis of an ongoing legal investigation and are, therefore, not available to the public; however, the following summary is being provided:

• On June 17, 1998, Environment Canada conducted an inspection of the Tulsequah Chief and Big Bull mines to determine the progress of a treatment system, as agreed to by Redfern Resources Ltd. and the provincial Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection and Ministry of Energy and Mines, as part of the Mine Approval.
• Following the June 17, 1998, inspection, on October 7, 1998, an Environment Canada fisheries inspector issued two warnings to Redfern Resources Ltd.
• In response to the warnings, Redfern Resources Ltd. installed a tile bed treatment system. A subsequent inspection of both mines, on August 4, 1999, did not alleviate concerns with respect to the ongoing discharges into the Tulsequah and Taku rivers. The tile bed treatment system had apparently failed, due to flooding in the Tulsequah River and the excess amount of sedimentation in the mine drainage.
• Redfern Resources Ltd. started improvements to the tile bed treatment system by using limestone within the mine and discharge channels. The company also began to investigate other options, such as reducing water flows in both mines. A follow-up inspection by an Environment Canada fisheries inspector was conducted on June 21, 2000.
• On July 12, 2002, as a result of further inspections, an Environment Canada fisheries inspector issued two Inspector's Directions to Redfern Resources Ltd. for the Tulsequah Chief and Big Bull mine sites, in which the company was directed to achieve compliance with subsection 36(3) of the Fisheries Act. The Directions ordered the company to prevent, mitigate or remedy the effects of the deleterious mine drainage entering the Tulsequah River and Taku River by September 30, 2003.
• Environment Canada conducted further inspections at both mines in the fall of 2003; concerns regarding the discharges to the Tulsequah and Taku rivers remained.
• Correspondence and meetings held during the fall and winter of 2003 by Environment Canada officials with Redfern Resources Ltd. resulted in the development of plans and the implementation of treatment strategies designed to reduce the deposit of deleterious substances into the Tulsequah River. Laboratory bench scale treatment studies were being conducted by Redfern's consultants during the negotiations.
• In May 2004, following meetings with the company and a study of its plans, an Environment Canada fisheries inspector issued an amended Inspector's Direction for the Tulsequah Chief and Big Bull mine sites, extending until June 30, 2005, the date by which Redfern Resources Ltd. had to comply with the Directions. The amended Directions required monthly reporting on the mines' progress towards compliance.
• After laboratory bench scale studies were completed by Redfern's consultant in the summer of 2004, Redfern Resources Ltd. constructed a pilot plant to test the innovative technology for the treatment of the acid mine drainage. The pilot plant started operation in the fall of 2004. The company submitted the monthly reports to Environment Canada, as required in the Inspector's Directions. Environment Canada inspected the mine site in the fall of 2004 to verify the specified design and that the pilot plant was operating as projected.
• The construction by Redfern Resources Ltd. of the full-scale treatment plant at the Tulsequah Chief mine started in the spring of 2005, after the successful reduction of heavy metals was demonstrated by the pilot plant. Water flow in the mine was reduced through successful plugging of major seeps, and clean water was diverted away from contaminated areas. The full-scale treatment plant was completed and started operation in the early spring of 2005.
• An Environment Canada fisheries inspector conducted another inspection for compliance with the Inspector's Direction on September 30, 2005. The inspection indicated that the discharges from both mines were likely not in compliance with the Fisheries Act. The chemical analytical results of the mine discharge waters sampled on September 14, 2005 are unavailable at this time as the analyses are not complete.

Question 9

Can the Minister of Environment provide the Canadian public with a record of all correspondence between Environment Canada, Redfern Resources, and RedCorp Ventures? If not, why not?

With respect to any correspondence between Environment Canada and Redfern Resources Ltd., which may be related to any alleged violations of the Fisheries Act, that correspondence forms the basis of an ongoing legal investigation and is therefore subject to the provisions of the Access to Information Act. It is not available to the public.

RedCorp Ventures has not exchanged correspondence with Environment Canada during the enforcement activities.

Question 10

Can the Minister of Environment explain if water samples were taken at the Tulsequah Chief and Big Bull mine sites at the end of the clean up deadline (June 30, 2005)? If not, could he explain in detail why not?

An Environment Canada fisheries inspector took samples of the discharge at the Tulsequah Chief mine subsequent to the compliance date set in the Inspector's Direction (June 30, 2005). These samples were taken on September 14, 2005.

Samples were not collected immediately following the June 30, 2005 compliance date set forth in the direction for the following reasons:

• The treatment system at the Tulsequah Chief Mine was in the final stages of installation. On June 30, 2005, there was no discharge from the treatment system; therefore, there was no discharge to be sampled. Environment Canada decided to wait until the flows stabilized before testing. Monthly monitoring reports from Redfern Resources Ltd. to Environment Canada are continuing, and operational changes such as water flow reductions within the upper mine shafts are also ongoing. An Environment Canada fisheries inspector will review all information received or gathered since June 30, 2005, in order to determine whether or not there is compliance with the terms of the Inspector's Directions and the Fisheries Act.
• No treatment system has been installed at the Big Bull Mine to date. There has, however, been a diversion of clean water away from the mine works. This has resulted in portals (mine passages and openings) caving in. Further evaluation of the mine by Redfern Resources Ltd. has to be conducted to determine the safety of further work. The lack of accessibility, limited work space and unstable ground has hampered the ability of Environment Canada fisheries inspectors to obtain samples of the mine's discharge.

Question 11

The Ministry of Environment has known since at least 1995 about the acid mine drainage discharge into salmon streams at the Tulsequah Chief and Big Bull mine sites and has been trying to enforce a clean up since then. If the water quality is still not in compliance with the Fisheries Act as of June 30, 2005, can the Minister of Environment explain in detail the kind of enforcement the Ministry will be pursuing now?

Environment Canada has initiated an investigation and if that investigation confirms a violation, an Environment Canada fisheries inspector will take measures in accordance with Environment Canada's Compliance and Enforcement Policy for the Habitat Protection and Pollution Prevention Provisions of the Fisheries Act (copy enclosed). Those measures may include actions such as Inspector's Directions, injunction and/or prosecution. The final decision with regards to proceeding with prosecution of charges, which may be recommended by Environment Canada as a result of this investigation, rests with Justice Canada.

Question 12

Will the Minister of Environment stand by the commitment to enforce clean up of the acid mine drainage regardless of if the proposed project goes ahead or not?

If the Tulsequah Chief Mine proceeds to development, Redfern Resources Ltd. will be subject to the conditions of operation as specified in the federal Metal Mining Effluent Regulations under the Fisheries Act. If the mine does not proceed to full operation, it will continue to be regulated pursuant to subsection 36(3) of the Fisheries Act.

Question 13

Have salmon or other fish from the Tulsequah and Taku Rivers ever been sampled for contaminants in their tissue and blood? If so, what were the results, and if not, why?

There have been several studies of water quality conducted by provincial and international organizations. Some of the studies have been published and are available to the public; they include:

Tulsequah and Taku River Mass Balance Water Quality Report, Lough, J. and Sharpe, I., BC Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection, November 2003.

Tulsequah Chief Mine Site Assessment and Options for Rehabilitation for Acid Mine Drainage Abatement, SRK Consulting for the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Redfern Resources, 1992. ( Part of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act review documents).

Fish Tissue Analysis from the Taku and Tulsequah River Basin, Sharpe, I., Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, BC Government and Alaska Department of Environmental Quality, 2002, (not available to date).

Responses to Questions Regarding the Federal Commitment to Sustainability:

Question 14

Does the Canadian Government consider this proposed mining project, with its marginal ore body expected to be depleted within 9 years and its financial unviability to be sustainable development? If so, why?

Sustainable development is a fundamental objective of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The Act provides an effective means of integrating environmental factors into federal planning and decision making in support of sustainable development.

As a federal authority under the Act, Environment Canada provided expert advice and information to the responsible authorities on environmental matters within the Department's mandate. Although this advice was provided in the context of a federal decision-making process that embodies sustainable development, Environment Canada's contribution is environmental knowledge.

Question 15 to be addressed by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

Question 16

Is the financial feasibility of proposed industrial projects undergoing CEAA and federal permitting considered as a factor in the decision-making? If so, to what extent? If not, why not?

There is no provision within the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to consider the financial feasibility of proposed mining projects as a factor in decision making.

Enclosure*

*[attachments not posted]

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Fisheries and Oceans Canada

December 22, 2005

Ms. Lischewski and Ms. Love
Society for Atlin's Sustainable Economic Initiatives
P.O. Box 499
Atlin, British.Columbia.
V0W 1A0

Dear Ms. Lischewski and Ms. Love:

I am writing in response to your Environmental Petition No. 95(B) to the Commissioner on the Environment and Sustainable Development, concerning the Environmental Assessment (EA) of the Tulsequah Chief Mine Proposal. The Commissioner has by letter dated August 10, 2005 referred the petition to me and my Honourable Colleagues the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, and the Minister of Transport. Below I provide responses on matters within the areas of responsibility of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO).

Response to Questions 1 and 2: The Province confirmed to DFO in a May 2005 letter signed by the Deputy Ministers of Water, Air and Land Protection, Mines and Energy, and Forestry that it was their intent to have the road decommissioned and have included this as a condition of the Special Use Permit for the Road. The Proponent agreed to this condition. The Province and the Proponent also committed to implementing access control measures to address the wildlife access issue. Road access control measures will be monitored and adapted as necessary as will the caribou management measures. The Province has further committed to developing a caribou management plan that will ensure the long-term viability of the herd regardless of whether the road is decommissioned or not. The Canadian Wildlife Service has confirmed that it is satisfied that their concerns are being addressed.

Response to Question 3: The Provincial Special Use Permit for the Tulsequah Chief Project requires that Redfern's access road be decommissioned at the end of the mine's lifespan, (approximately 9 years).

Response to Question 4: An economic analysis of the proponent's proposed project is outside the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) review.

Response to Questions 5 and 6: The meeting between the Proponent and the Deputy Minister was merely an information sharing session where the Proponent presented their project and DFO staff provided an overview of the CEAA process and the status of the review of this project within the CEAA process based on a timeline that was developed prior to the meeting by regional staff. No meeting minutes were taken and the only commitment that was made was that DFO would fulfill its EA and, if appropriate, regulatory responsibilities in a timely and effective manner. Senior DFO staff regularly meet with proponents, stakeholders and other levels of government on the status of the review of various projects. This meeting is an example of such a regular practice.

Response to Question 14: The definition of "sustainable development" in CEAA means development that meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." The CEAA process (which has been followed in this project) promotes sustainable development. However, it is up to the proponent to determine whether a project is financially viable. This is not a factor to be considered under CEAA.

Response to Question 16: An economic analysis of the proponent's proposed project is outside the CEAA review

My Honourable Colleagues will provide responses on matters within their respective areas of responsibility. I thank you for your interest in the environment.

Yours truly,

[Original signed by Geoff Regan, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Geoff Regan

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada

December 20, 2005

Society for Atlin's Sustainable Economic Initiatives
P.O. Box 499
ATLIN British Columbia
V0W 1A0

Dear Members:

I am writing in reply to your Environmental Petition No. 95(B), made to the Commissioner on the Environment and Sustainable Development concerning the Environmental Assessment of the Tulsequah Chief Mine Proposal. The Commissioner has by letter dated August 10, 2005 referred the petition to me and my colleagues the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Minister of Transport.

Below I provide responses on matters within the areas of responsibility of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

In response to question 15, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development does not have responsibility for non-native people in the Atlin area or for land use planning in the Taku area.

Some support has been provided to the Taku River Tlingit First Nation in capacity development relating to good planning practise. In 2001-2002, a member of their First Nation was sponsored for land management training through the Department. The Taku River Tlingit First Nation was funded to sponsor a land use planning and mapping workshop in April 2005. A representative was sponsored to attend a departmental comprehensive community planning session in October 2005. An invitation will be sent out to the Taku River Tlingit First Nation to attend a Department sponsored three-day workshop on comprehensive community planning in February 2006. This Department will keep Taku River Tlingit First Nation apprised of other opportunities that pertain to comprehensive community planning sponsored by the Department.

My colleagues will provide responses on matters within their respective areas of responsibility. Thank you for your interest in the environment.

Yours sincerely,

[Original signed by Andy Scott, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Transport Canada

November 29, 2005

Ms. Nicole Lischewski and Ms. Nan Love
Society for Atlin's Sustainable Economic Initiatives
P.O. Box 499
Atlin, British Columbia
V0W 1A0

Dear Ms. Lischewski and Ms. Love:

I am writing in response to your letter to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development of Canada seeking information surrounding the Tulsequah Chief and Big Bull mines in northwestern British Columbia. Your letter was forwarded to the Minister of Transport on August 2, 2005 as an environmental petition (95B) pursuant to Section 22 of the Auditor General Act. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, the Hon. Jean-C Lapierre has asked me to respond on his behalf.

Your petition has been reviewed in relation to Transport Canada's mandate. I am pleased to provide the following information for Questions 2 and 3 that pertain to the proposed access road for the Tulsequah Chief mine. I understand that other federal Departments will also respond to your letter according to their mandates and legislative responsibilities.

Transport Canada is responsible for administering the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA). The primary purpose of the NWPA is to protect the public right of safe navigation. An NWPA approval is required for any bridge crossing over a waterway that is deemed navigable. Any NWPA approval provided for a bridge associated with the Tulsequah Chief access road would be valid for a period of fifty years. This approval period is defined in the NWPA Works Regulations and any change to the approval period requires an amendment to those Regulations.

Conditions attached to an approval provided under the NWPA are associated with the protection of safe navigation. In the event that a work such as a bridge is not maintained in accordance with approved plans or is deemed an obstruction to navigation, Transport Canada will require its removal. Transport Canada does not have the authority with which to order a road itself decommissioned.

During the course of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) review of the Tulsequah Chief Mine, Transport Canada relied on expert advice from federal and provincial agencies with respect to potential effects of the access road on wildlife species and particularly on the East Atlin Caribou herd.

Transport Canada received a commitment from senior levels of the British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Ministry of Forests, and the Ministry of Energy and Mines that long-term viability of the East Atlin Caribou herd will be ensured through an adaptive management plan. This plan includes caribou monitoring and harvest management, road access controls, and bonding to ensure future decommissioning of the access road if the road is no longer used. If the road is not decommissioned, the prescribed measures would be applied to other industrial users entitled to use the road.

The Canadian Wildlife Service of Environment Canada advised Transport Canada that the commitments made by the Province would protect caribou herds. As a result of these comments and commitments from expert federal and provincial departments, Transport Canada was able to use the conditions of the adaptive management plan and road decommissioning as decision factors under CEAA.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to Transport Canada's attention. I trust that the foregoing has clarified Transport Canada's involvement in the review of the Tulsequah Chief project.

Sincerely yours,

[Original signed by Charles Hubbard, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Honourable Charles Hubbard, P.C., M.P.