Mining in Remote Areas Issues and Impacts - MiningWatch Canada

MiningWatch CanadaMining in Remote AreasIssues and Impactsa community primer

IntroductionProduced for MiningWatchCanada/Mines Alerteby the EnvironmentalMining Council of BritishColumbiaMay, 2001Research and writing:Lisa Sumi and Sandra ThomsenDesign and Layout:Nedjo RogersMiningWatch Canada/Mines AlerteSuite 508, City Centre Building880 Wellington St.Ottawa, Ontario K1R 6K7Canadatel: (613) 569-3439fax: (613) 569-5138email: canada@miningwatch.caweb: http://www.miningwatch.caContentsEnvironmental Impacts 1Exploration 1Mine Development 3Water Quality 6Conclusions 10Community Impacts 11Economics of Boom and Bust 11Social and Cultural Impacts 14Addressing Community Impacts 17Health and Safety 18Health Issues 18Safety 20Conclusions 22Environmental Assessment 23Background 23Benefits of EA 24Criticism of EA 24Conclusions 29Case StudiesInnu and Voisey’s Bay 3Tailings Leaks at Faro 7Faro’s Economic Rollercoaster 12Need for Targetted Training 13Ross River, Yukon 15The Dene Nation 16Arsenic Poisoning 19Tulsequah Chief 26About MiningWatch Canada 31Contact Organizations 32iTTo respond effectively to the challengesof mineral development, communitiesneed the context and informationnecessary to understand andweigh the issues.This booklet profiles major impactsassociated with mines developedin remote areas.In the past, development of miningprojects in remote areas of Canada(e.g., the far north) has been limitedby the costs associated withtransportation and infrastructure.By definition, remote areas may befar from the nearest road or port andpower grid. However, as older orebodies are being depleted, miningcompanies are increasingly lookingto develop deposits located in less accessibleregions of the country.The development of remote mineshas implications for the environments,for the communities and peoplewho live nearby or use the resourcesthere, and also for the mineworkers who will be employed atthese remote mine sites. There areimpacts associated with every stageof mining, from exploration throughto—and often beyond—closure.Many of the impacts discussed inthis booklet, such as water pollutionand health effects, can occur atmines regardless of whether they areremote or not. There are, however,Introductionhe mining industry plays a leading role in opening up remoteareas to industrial development.Mine development brings with it the promise of a wide range ofbenefits. The promoters of a new mine often point to the jobsthat will be available, the power and transportation infrastructurethat will be created, or the new tax and other revenues thatwill be generated.For communities on the receiving end of mineral development,however, there are also costs — potentially dramatic ones.impacts that are specific to or moreserious at remote mines, such as theimpacts of roads and routes on intactecosystems and on the aboriginalcommunities whose livelihoods arelinked to the health of these areas.This booklet is divided into foursections. The first deals with EnvironmentalImpacts, highlighting issuessuch as the effects of roads onecosystems, and the various sourcesof water pollution throughout themining process. The second section,Community Impacts, addresses concernsrelated to the boom-bust natureof the mining industry, and howthat affects economic and social stabilityof communities. Health andSafety deals with the dangers posedto workers in the mine environment,and broader community health impacts.The final section examines therole of Environmental Assessment inidentifying and preventing or mitigatingpotential impacts.In each section, summaries andreferences to relevant newspaperand magazine articles are included.Readers wanting a more detailed ortechnical discussion of impacts canrefer to the sources cited.Printed by union labour at Fleming Printing, Victoria, BCMiningWatch Canada

Environmental ImpactsMining is a high stakes game in which many uncertaintiesstill exist. The investors, the workers, the communityand the environment are exposed to a high level of risks. Thequestion is, who benefits in the short term and the long term?Who really pays the price of development — the investors, theworkers, the community or the environment?The environmental impacts of mining can begin at the explorationstage, long before the first truckload of ore is hauled tothe surface. Despite advances in technology the recent track recordof mining highlights many serious risks and impacts for thepeople and the land where minerals are discovered.This section focuses on the impacts associated with Exploration,followed by a look at some of the major sources of environmentalimpacts during the Mine Development stage.Exploration: theEdge of the Sword“The geography and wildnessof this land has shaped usall; it is a part of what itmeans to be Canadian and itmust not be lost in a recklessrush for industrial resources.”(1)*The impacts from explorationtend to be spread thinly over a vastarea because the initialstages of explorationprimarily involvesurveying large tractsof land to identify potentialmineral deposits.Relatively few ofthe deposits identifiedduring exploration aredrilled, still fewer aredrilled intensively to delineatethe deposit, andin the end, only a smallnumber of sites are everdeveloped into mines.Although an individualexploration operationmay have littleAbandoned oil drums at explorationsite, northern BC.effect on its immediate environment,the cumulative effect of thousands ofkilometres of geophysical grids cutthrough vegetation and surface soilscan cause considerable erosion, sedimentationand wildlife disturbance.(2)Recently, major discoveries ofmineral deposits have sparked explorationrushes in the northern regionsof Canada.(3,4) For example, inthe three years followingthe discovery ofa major diamonddeposit in 1990,more that 20 millionhectares ofland were staked inthe Barren Lands ofthe Northwest Territories.This wasmore land than wasstaked there duringthe previous halfcentury.(3)Similarly, in Labrador,more than250,000 claims werestaked following theDiamond Field Re-*Article numbers refer to references and summaries given in the side columns.EnvironmentalImpactsArticles with underlined titles areavailable as reprints from Mining-Watch Canada..Deal reached to protect1 Arctic wilderness sites(Globe & Mail , 01/14/97, A4)This quote comes from John Turner,ex-prime minister of Canada and legalrepresentative for the World WildlifeFund (WWF) of Canada. In 1997, theWWF applied to the Federal Court for ajudicial review of the recommendationsof the environmental assessment panelthat granted conditional approval to theBHP’s Ekati diamond mine, 300 kmnortheast of Yellowknife. The organizationwas concerned that the mine wouldbe followed by several other developmentsin the Central Arctic. The WWFwithdrew their request when an agreementwas struck with the federal government,which, among other things,committed the government to develop aplan for protected areas free of futuremining and other industrial projects.Marshall, I.B. 1982. Mining,2 Land Use and the Environment:a Canadian Overview(Environment Canada)Diamonds in the rough —3 BHP's mine in Canada'sBarrens has the potentialfor causing big environmentaland social disruption (Globe &Mail, 04/27/96, B1, B3)Prospecting exploded after BHP discovereddiamonds in the Northwest Territories.“So much exploration was takingplace across the territory that localgovernment offices ran out of metaltags for staking claims, while lumberyards couldn’t keep up with the demandfor two-by-two posts used to mark thecorners of a claim.”Scientists worry the project will impactcaribou calving grounds and migrationpaths. The fate of the herd and landclaims battles were two of the centralissues at the federal environmental andtechnical hearings held throughout NWTin February. At the hearings, scientistsalso pointed out that the draining oflakes will kill 300 to 500 species of fishand other aquatic life in five lakes.Mining In Remote Areas: Issues and Impacts 1

EnvironmentalImpactsRaglan’s success sparks4 exploration boom in Nu n-avik (Nunatsiaq News,07/30/98; http://www.nunatsiaq.com/archives/nunavut980731/nvt80731_04.html)Due to the success of Falconbridge’sRaglan operation, mining companies arerushing to Nunavik after more mineralrichdeposits.Mineral exploration and5 development at Emish(Voisey’s Bay): an introductionto the issues (1995)This information comes from the InnuNation’s website, located at http://www.innu.ca/mining.html.Diesel spill at Windy6 Craggy (Northern Miner,09/19/94, p. 16)In 1994, there was an incident involvinga spill of diesel oil from a storagetank at the Windy Craggy property innorthwestern BC. The spill was not reportedby property owner Geddes Resources;in fact, the company had to beinformed of the spill by the BC Ministryof Environment, Lands and Parks.Labrador miners accused7 of littering (Globe & Mail,12/19/95, B6)The town council in Goose Bay sayscompanies have abandoned thousandsof fuel drums and propane cylindersacross Labrador’s countryside. Theycalled on the Newfoundland governmentto stop mineral exploration companiesfrom turning their region into a garbagedump. An environmental monitor for theLabrador Inuit Association reported fiveconfirmed fuel spills, from barrels leakinginto the ground to helicopters droppingdrums into the sea. He warned thatthe problem could worsen. “After manyof these junior companies come in andcarry out a drilling program, when theypull out they’ll leave their stuff on theland.”BHP Diamonds facing environmentalcharges over8diamond mine (CanadianPress Newswire, 06/19/00)The owner of Canada's first diamondmine has been charged with disturbingfish habitat in three lakes.BHP Diamonds Inc. is charged witheight counts under the Fisheries Act.The alleged offences occurred duringconstruction of the Ekati Mine, 300 kilo-sources Inc.’s Voisey’s Bay nickel discovery.(5)If even a small portion (e.g., 1% = 2,500) of these claims areactively explored, the influx of peopleand equipment into otherwise uninhabitedor sporadically used areas (e.g., by First Nations) has the potentialto greatly impact both the landand its inhabitants.The possibility of large-scale industrialdevelopment (such as theconstruction of an on-site smelter,and associated roads and powerlines) increases when a number ofprojects having a high potential tobecome producing mines are identifiedin a specific region. Among otherthings, the Innu are concerned thatif development in their region proceeds,new projects such as the Donnerprospect will become more attractive,while older prospects likethe Strange Lake rare-earth metalsdeposit or the Brinex Kitts-Michelinuranium project, both initially abandonedfor economic reasons, may becomefeasible.(5)Unfortunately, the impacts ofmineral exploration and developmentare too often considered in isolation.Furthermore, in many jurisdictionsthere is no requirement toconduct an environmental assessmentof an exploration project. Theseissues will be discussed below in theEnvironmental Assessment section.Exploration ImpactsPollutionPollution during the explorationstage can stem from a variety of activitiesand sources.Fuels, oils and drilling fluids canspill or leak into soils (6) leading tocontamination of vegetation growingon the site. Drilling can release naturalfluids, such as brines and naturalgas to the surface. These contam i-nants can be washed into or depositeddirectly into streams, rivers,lakes and seawater.(7) The improperdisposal of wastewater and sewageat exploration camps can also pollutenearby streams. Subsequently, thewildlife, aquatic organisms and veg e-tation living in the polluted environmentcan be poisoned by these substances.Underground exploration work(“bulk sampling”) results in ore andwaste rock being deposited on thesurface. Drainage through thesewaste rock dumps or storage pilescan be a continuing source of sediments,heavy metals and acid to localwatercourses (these impacts willbe discussed in detail in the subsectionon Mine Development: WaterQuality).Clearing vegetation for rights-ofwayand test drilling sites, removalof overburden, as well as the establishmentof stream crossings can resultin considerable damage to thesoil. The resultant erosion can producesignificant sedimentation oflakes and streams (8), which can disruptfish habitat.Disturbance of the LandDisturbance can result from gridlinesbeing cut through vegetationduring soil, from electromagnetic,magnetic and gravity surveys, andfrom drilling. The location of thesegridlines usually does not reflectnatural factors such as topographyand vegetation. This damages morevegetation than if trails were to followcontours and bypass areas ofparticular natural importance. Inthe ecologically sensitive tundra ofLabrador and the Arctic these scarscan last for decades or more.Exploration camps, set up to pr o-vide accommodations for workers,also result in soil and vegetation disturbance.The extent of those effects,as well as problems associated withthe disposal of garbage and humanwaste, will depend on the size anddesign of the camp.Stripping of overburden to exam-2 MiningWatch Canada

EnvironmentalImpactsdeep-sea port and an all-weather roadfrom Bathurst inlet to the south of ContwoytoLake has been made to deal withthe potential increase in fuel and suppliesrequired to service new minesopening in the region. According to industryrepresentative, Mervin Hempenstall,existing transportation infrastructurewill be insufficient to meet theneeds of the region’s growing miningindustry. The existing road is only openin the winter, and as Hempenstall says,“You’ve got a problem just trying to getthe volume of fuel and supplies to serviceall the mines on the existingroad. . . you can only get so manytrucks on that road in the window it’sopen.”Arctic coast highway14proposal resurrected(Daily Commercial News,01/13/99, v.72(8); pg A1,A5)Northern leaders are reviving the ideaof an all-weather highway to open oneof the last great wilderness areas on theplanet to the mining industry.The $600-million project calls for an850-kilometre road from Yellowknife toa proposed saltwater port at BathurstInlet. It would cross the trackless tundra,Canadian Shield and muskeg of thecentral Arctic.Environmentalists, however, are wary.“This is one of the last large remainingwildlife areas in the world,” said BobBromley of Ecology North, who sits on agovernment committee studying theroad.Finding common ground15 (Up Here, 1994, v.10(5),Nov/Dec – supplement)This supplement addresses the questions:do diamonds offer solid economicbenefits for Canada’s North? And canthey be mined responsibly in our fragileenvironment?Mychasiw, L. and Hoefs, M.16 1988. Access-related impactsof backcountryroads to wildlife and managementapproaches to mitigatethem (Department of RenewableResources, Yukon Territorial Government)Access and Transportation:The Impact ofRoadsWhen a mining development isproposed, one key concern relates toaccess: how will the employees,equipment, construction materialsand processing chemicals be transportedto the site, and how will theore/minerals, employees and hazardouswastes be removed?There are four options for transportingmaterials and employees: air,rail, water, and roads.The concerns associated withtransporting goods by air are primarilyeconomic. It can be extremelycostly to fly materials into a minesite,and flying out ore or ore concentratesis feasible only in rare cases,e.g, rich gold deposits. As well, therewould be noise pollution associatedwith the planes, andclearing of land foran airstrip, both ofwhich couldcause disturbanceof wildlifeand human communities.The alternativeto transportinggoodsby air is totransport bytruck, rail orship (or somecombinationthereof).Roads are the source of particularly severeenvironmental impacts.In remote northern areas manyroads can only be used on a seasonalbasis (i.e., in winter, when the surfaceis frozen). Recently, in responseto the expected development of severaldiamond mines in the centralarctic, a proposal was put forth toconstruct a deep-sea port at BathurstInlet, as well as an all-weather roadfrom Bathurst Inlet to the south ofContwoyto Lake. The port’s promoterssay a northern supply routewould make other potential miningprojects in the region more viable byreducing transportation costs.(13,14)Not everyone welcomes the prospectof roads encouraging further development.“There’s much talk aboutan all-weather road,” commentsChris O’Brien, an environmentalistwith Ecology North in Yellowknife.“Increased access leads to local depletionof animals. An all-weatherroad leads to other roads and gradually,it’s opened up. You hear peoplesaying we’ve got to open up the northlike it’s some kind of can. The troubleis, once it’s opened up, you can’tclose it down.” (15)The concerns voiced by variousgroups about the effect of roads onthe environment are well founded.Some of the most significant directand indirect impacts of mining resultfrom the construction of explorationand mining roads.WildlifeTrails are oftenbuilt laterallyfrom initial accessroutes.While a networkof trails may bea benefit formineral explorationpurposes,wildlife populationsin the areabecome susceptibleto overharvest,and theeffects upon the landscape escalatein proportion to the amount of areacovered.(16)Every new road or trail in a wildernessarea occupies space that waspreviously wildlife habitat. Somespecies have traditional migrationpatterns which, if interrupted, canlead to permanent abandonment oftheir range, a reduction of the populationsize through interference withsensitive calving grounds (3,9,17), oreven the elimination of that particu-4 MiningWatch Canada

lar group of animals.(16)When the Omineca mine roadwas built in northern BC in the late1970s, slash barriers along the roadled fish and wildlife branch officersto dub it a “moose trap.” There wasalso concern that the piled up slashwas interfering with migration ofcaribou herds “as effectively as abarbed wire fence.” BC Wildlife Federationspokesperson Les Story cautioned,“when you break up a migrationcorridor for a herd of caribou,you’re signing its death warrant.”(18)Roads are bad news for bears, too,because they disrupt bear movementsby fragmenting their ranges,and because they introduce often -uncontrolled human disturbancesinto the area. The road slated to serviceRedfern Resources’ (now RedcorpVentures Ltd.’s) TulsequahChief mine in northern BC has biologistsworried. The historical patternsuggests that if use of the road is notrestricted to Redfern activities and issubject to unrestricted access byother users, as has been the case inmany other mine developmentsthroughout BC and North America,“bears will be killed by hunters,poachers and anyone else with a gunwho perceives himself or his propertyto be in jeopardy,” says bear expertPhil Timpany.(19)One of the greatest worriesfor First Nations is thatroads will increase accessto traditional hunting areas,which would meanthat subsistence harvesterswould then have tocompete with other users.The Taku RiverTlingit First Nation,environmental organizationsand the Alaskangovernment haveserious concerns thata road to the TulsequahChief mine willlead to increased exploitation and/ordestruction of the area’s resources.(17,22)Fish Habitat DestructionRoads affect watercourses by introducingsediments and pollutants.The compaction of the roadbed disruptsgroundwater flows and the imperviousnature of the road surfaceincreases runoff. Runoff and divertedwaters are often concentrated in culvertsand channels, which, if improperlydesigned, can burst and causeflooding and erosion. All of these factorsincrease erosion and result inincreased sedimentation and turbidityof the receiving waters. For example,during the construction phase ofthe Kemess mine in northern BC,vegetation was cleared and earthdumped into streams, leading tocharges being laid against the mine’sowner, Royal Oak Mines Inc., for fishhabitat destruction.(20) Trees werealso cleared for a powerline to theKemess mine without regard to theprovince’s Forest Practices Code,causing stream damage along thecorridor. (21)The board said an inspection inJune, 1999, revealed that Royal Oakthreatened water quality and fisheriesafter 50 fish-bearing streamswere blocked with debris and slashCaribou are one of the northern species potentially impactedby mines, particularly those involving the construction of newroadsEnvironmentalImpactsTroubled waters: the17 Taku dilemma (Globe &Mail, 08/10/98, A10)Redfern Resources, a junior miningcompany, is planning to build a 160-kmroad, “ the first ever into the wilderness,”and reopen and old mine fromthe 1950s.There are fears that the road will openup the area for further development.“Already, mining companies that havebeen dormant for years are breathinglife into their claims,” says Tlingitspokesperson Melvin Jack.Environmentalists argue that the roadwill lead to logging, more mines, andthe eventual destruction of the area.The Alaskan government is “deeplyconcerned, fearing the mine will damagea lucrative salmon fishery,” and hasasked that the International Joint Commission,a body set up to deal withtransboundary water disputes, conductan independent review of the project.Environmentalists battle18 Omineca mine road(Vancouver Sun, 08/10/78)The BC Wildlife Federation was fightingthe extention of the mine road,which cut northward from Fort St.James into remote Wilderness areas.Federation spokesperson, Les Storey,said that the costs were “astronomicalwith regard to environmental damage.”The impacts included destruction of fisheries,as well as disruption of cariboufeeding and migration corridors.Have the north’s grizzliesmet their match in19mine road? (VancouverSun, 05/19/98, A15)There may be as many as 11,000 oras few as 3,000 grizzlies in BC, butthere is presently a healthy populationin northern BC near the Taku River.Biologists are trying to determinewhat the impact of the 160-km TulsequahChief mining road will have on thebears.Biologist Tony Hamilton believes thatif the access road is restricted to industryuse the bears have a chance; but ifthe road is open to other traffic bearswill be shot. When no regulations existto protect bears, experience has shownthis to be true time and time again.Mining In Remote Areas: Issues and Impacts 5

EnvironmentalImpactsDumping charges laid20 against mine company(Victoria Times Colonist,04/19/99, A6)A 16-month investigation into thedumping of earth into fish-bearing watersnear Prince George ended this weekwith 13 charges laid against Royal OakMines.The alleged offences took place betweenOctober of 1977 and May of 1988during construction at the company'sKemess mine, federal fisheries officerRobert Martinolich said.Board criticizes Royal21 Oak for logging violations:water qualitythreatened by Kemess Southwork (Financial Post, 06/09/00,C7)Royal Oak Mines Inc. and three provincialgovernment ministries causedsignificant harm to the environment bychopping down 10,000 truckloads oftimber without regard to the province’sForest Practices Code, the Forest PracticesBoard said yesterday in a report.Royal Oak failed to comply with thecode after it chopped down 300,000cubic metres of timber to build a 380-kilometre-long power line to the KemessSouth gold and copper mine, the boardsaid.BC Natives vow they'll22 go to court to stop miningroad (Vancouver Sun,04/20/98, B5)The Taku River Tlingit First Nation hasconcerns that the 160-km access roadto the site will affect their traditionalhunting and fishing grounds and openup their country to other resource users“at precisely the time we are attemptingto negotiate our ownership and jurisdictionof this land at the treaty table.”The Tlingit say the environmental reviewdid not satisfy their concerns aboutthe impact of the road on their communitiesand on wildlife, especially mooseand grizzly bears.Proposal for BC mine23 may fuel Pacific fishfight (Globe & Mail,14/07/98, A7)The Alaska government has concernsthat the Tulsequah Chief mine in northernBC could destroy salmon runs vitalto downstream US fisheries. The mainconcern is the impact of the mine's accessroad, which would carry ore to At-deposits. Soil eroded from unstablizedbanks and silt drained off improperlyconstructed roads.Sedimentation can damage or destroyfish habitat; reduce the numberof organisms and bury aquatic veg e-tation on which fish feed; clog anddamage fish gills and make it difficultfor fish to feed; and destroyspawning areas.The Alaskan governmentis concerned that theTulsequah Chief road willimpact water quality, andharm the salmon fisheryon the Taku River. The accessroad will crossstreams 69 times.(23)According to an OntarioMinistry of Natural Resources:“Any water crossing hasthe potential for significantdetrimental impacts onwater quality.” (24)Les Storey of the BCWildlife Federation has noticedthe effects of watercrossings and culverts onstreams and rivers that parallel theOmineca Mining Road in northernBC. “Spawning grounds alongside460 km of a gravel road lie emptypartly due to siltation of spawningbeds and also because salmon andsteelhead have been unable to strugglethrough the road’s plugged culverts.”And on a newer section of theroad, “there is not one river, stream,creek or rivulet that has not beendamaged by road construction,” saidStorey.(18)Chemical and fuel leaks and spillsalso occur on roads. These substancescan run off of roads into watercourseswhere they can produceacute toxic impacts on aquatic life.Water QualityWater has been referred to as“mining’s most common casualty.”(25)Mining consumes, divertsand can seriously pollute water resources.When water quality is compromised,both aquatic and humancommunities can suffer.Fish like this spawning salmon are among the firstcasualties of acid mine drainage and tailingsbreachesWhile roads can seriously impactwater quality, pollution of water duringthe construction and operation ofa mine can have much more seriousimplications. Water pollution frommine waste rock and tailings (aslurry of ground up waste ore andprocessing chemicals) often need tobe managed for decades, if not centuries,after closure.There are several types of waterpollution related to mining. Themost serious threat to water qualityis acid mine drainage. Tailings spillscan also have severe impacts in bothpopulated and remote regions. Thisis especially harmful if the minewastes contain radioactive substancesand high concentrations ofmetals. Fuel, chemical and sewageline leaks and spills, and erosion/sedimentation are also detrimentalto water quality.6 MiningWatch Canada

Case study: Tailings leaks at FaroThe Faro lead-zinc mine in the Yukon has had a history of problems with its tailingspond. (31)From 1969 to 1975 at least a half-dozen leaks in the tailings impoundment systemwere monitored. There were seepages of high pH effluent, contaminated with elevatedlevels of lead, zinc and arsenic, into Rose Creek. In addition to these leaksthere were a number of major failures of the tailings pond resulting in large releasesof effluent into Rose Creek.In March of 1975, two dikes failed and 54 million gallons of contaminated tailingswater flowed into Rose Creek, depositing tailings downstream for a distance of 15 km.Charges were laid by DIAND and the Environmental Protection Service. The companypleaded guilty to one of the charges and was fined the current maximum daily fine of$5,000, but the fine was reduced to $4,500 on appeal.Another episode occurred over a several month period in mid-winter of 1976, whenhighly toxic levels of cyanide were released into Rose Creek. Fisheries officials consideredthat this spill resulted in "the waters of Rose and lower Anvil Creek being toxic to[fish downstream to] the Pelly River." Charges resulted in a fine of $49,000.In December, 1979, there was yet another breach of the tailings pond, resulting in aspill of 2.5-4 million gallons of effluent toxic to fish.Acid mine drainageAcid is created when water andoxygen come in contact with sulphide-bearingminerals.The chemical reactionthat takesplace creates sulphuricacid, which inturn is able to dissolveminerals, releasingpotentiallyharmful metals previouslybound up inthe rock. Acid maybe generated undernatural conditionsprior to any disturbancefor miningpurposes. However,mining tends to exacerbateacid generation.Throughoutthe entire miningprocess minerals arebroken down,crushed, andground up, exposingmuch more ofthe sulphide minerals to air and waterthan would occur under naturalAcid mine drainage at Equity SilverMine in BCconditions. Acid drainage occurringat mine sites is known as “acid minedrainage” or AMD for short.According to Keith Ferguson, formerlyof EnvironmentCanada, “Acidmine drainage isperhaps the mostserious environmentalproblem amine can face. . . theproblem is difficultto arrest, and thecosts associated withlong-term pollutionabatement can turna once-profitablemine into an expensiveliability.”(26)There are ore bodiesin Norway that weremined in the 1700sthat are still acidgenerating. Fergusonwas not aware ofany identified acidmine that hadstopped generating acid mine drainageon its own.(26)EnvironmentalImpactslin, 100 km north of the mine. It crossesstreams 69 times, and could open anundisturbed wilderness area to loggingand other developments (e.g., othermines). Mine activities, as well, couldaffect wildlife habitat and water quality,which in turn could impact the salmonruns.Environmental Guidelinesfor Access Roads24and Water Crossings(Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources)Environmental Mining Councilof BC. 1998. Acid Mine25Drainage: Mining andwater pollution issues in BCThis document, produced by the Env i-ronmental Mining Council of BC(EMCBC) discusses different sources andtypes of water pollution, with a focus onacid mine drainage (AMD). It also providesinformation on predicting AMD,and outlines a number of case studieson the various impacts and costs associatedwith this form of water pollution.This report can be obtained by contactingEMCBC (emcbc@miningwatch.org,ph: 250-384-2686).Breaking up rock sets off26 production of toxic cocktail(Vancouver Sun,02/12/88, B1)It is estimated that there are 300 milliontonnes of acid-generating wastes inBC. In 1988, at least 5 of the 16 operatingmetal mines had AMD control programs,and six abandoned mines wereacid generating.Tsolum: Concern for this27 damaged river grows(Victoria Times Colonist,10/10/95, A5)The Mt. Washington mine operatedfor less than 3 years before the company(Mt. Washington Copper) wentinto receivership. Exposed pyrite oresreacted with oxygen and water to formAMD, which leached copper from theore. Copper leachate moved through thewatershed, eventually reaching theTsolum River. For more than 10 yearsthe government has attempted to remedythe problem, spending in excess of$1 million of taxpayers’ money to date.Mining In Remote Areas: Issues and Impacts 7

EnvironmentalImpactsMine’s seepage poses28 threat to river (VancouverSun, 02/12/88, B1)Only one year after Equity Silver Minebegan operating, the waste rock dumpwas already generating acidic drainage.Every second, about 30 litres of thetoxic liquid seeps from the base of thewaste rock dump.At the time, there was no collectionsystem for the AMD, even though Equityhad been advised that there was a potentialthe waste rock would be acidgenerating. The company has since builta system of dams, pipes and pumps tocollect and treat the acid mine drainage.Royal Oak fined for Back29 Bay pollution(Yellowknifer, 03/25/92, A3)The discharge of 3000 gallons of tailingssludge containing arsenic cyanide,copper, lead, nickel and other chemicalsoccurred after an operator at the companyattempted to pump the toxicsludge through a pipeline. The pipelineoverflowed while the operator left hispost to take a 30-minute lunch break.Mining’s dam problem30 (Globe & Mail, 05/16/98)There have been 25 major failuresof tailings dams since 1971, accordingto the World Information Serviceof Energy based in Amsterdam.Canadian companies have been responsiblefor three of the seven failures thathave occurred since 1994.“Tailings dams are supposed to lastforever,” said one exasperated mineconsultant, “but they don’t.”“Nobody wants to spend any moneyon tailings,” says Eli Robinsky, a Torontocivil engineering consultant and critic oftailings dams. “They’ve taken all thegoodies and now they throw all the junkin the back yard.”Weinstein, M. 1992. Just31Like People Get Lost: ARetrospective Assessmentof the Impacts of theFaro Mining Development onthe Land Use of the Ross RiverIndian People (Prepared for theRoss River Dena Council)Using interviews, oral histories, communitymapping and government documents,this report traces the environmentaland social impacts of the Faromine on the Ross River Dena people.For information on how to obtain acopy of the report, contact MartinImpacts from acid mine drainageAcid mine drainage impacts waterquality in a variety of ways. Acidityis harmful to many fish andaquatic organisms. Perhaps more importantly,many metals become mobileas pH drops (i.e., as water becomesmore acidic), and at highenough concentrations these metalsbecome toxic to most life forms.For example, acid mine drainageat the Mt. Washington mine on VancouverIsland contributes to theleaching of copper, which is the“dreaded enemy” of young salmonids(coho, pink and chum salmon fry,and cutthroat and steelhead fry). Accordingto Father Charles Brandt ofthe Steelhead Society, “It is a scientificfact that the amount of copperthat finds its way yearly into theTsolum watershed kills youngsalmon and deters adult salmon escapingback to the river tospawn.”(27)If the AMD was left untreated atthe Equity Silver Mine in northernBC, “people would no longer be ableto drink the water.” So says BrianWilkes, a chemical engineer with theBC Environment and Parks ministry.Copper levels in Buck Creek (thedrinking water source for area residents)would be 750 times higherthan the recommended level, and arsenic20 times the recommendedlimit. The water treatment systemrequired to neutralize AMD at theEquity mine site (now closed) coststhe company more than $1.2 millionannually. According to Wilkes, theflow of AMD at Equity could continuefor up to 150,000 years, therefore,the treatment system essentiallywill have to continue to operatein perpetuity.(28)Tailings: leaks, seepagesand breachesfine particles and mixed with waterand chemicals to extract the targetminerals. What is left – a liquidslurry containing the leftover rockparticles, water and chemicals usedin the processing – is usually pipedto specially constructed containmentareas, known as tailings ponds orimpoundments. In these impoundmentsthe wastes are held in byearthen dams or berms. In othercases, tailings are stored in prev i-ously excavated mine pits/shafts.Tailings are transported from themill to the tailings pond throughpipes or ditches. Water can be contaminatedwhen leaks develop in thepipes or when ditches overflow. Thisoccurred at Royal Oak’s Giant Minein Yellowknife, in 1992. More than3,000 gallons of tailings sludge containingarsenic (31-391 times the allowablelimit), cyanide, copper, lead,nickel and other chemicals were accidentallydischarged by the company.The contaminated slurry eventuallyoverflowed the drainage ditch andmigrated into Baker Creek and thenGreat Slave Lake, where people fromYellowknife both swim and fish.(29)Other causes of water contaminationinclude seepages through oraround tailings dams, and breachesor failures of tailings dams themselves.“Most of these things fall downwhen they are not built according todesign,” said Mike Campbell, executivedirector of the InternationalCouncil on Metals and Environment,an industry-based organization.However, even if designed properly(e.g., with adequate storage capacityand drainage), construction problemsmay lead to failures. Because damsare most often built of materialavailable at the mine site, there canbe considerable inconsistencies inquality.(30) Earthquakes, typhoons,heavy rainfall and spring melts alsoadd to the risks of dam failure. Andperhaps one of the greatest engineer-Tailings are the waste products ofthe milling process. During this process,the ore is crushed, ground into8 MiningWatch Canada

ing challenges faced by companieswishing to develop mines in remotenorthern locales is designing tailingsdams in permafrost soils.Impacts of tailings accidentsIn the past few years, there hasbeen a number of international tailingsdisasters.(30) In many of thesecases agricultural lands and otherproperties were contaminated, andin some cases, human deaths resulted.In regions where lands arenot used for agricultural purposes,tailings spills can damage the environmentin other ways, e.g., throughthe destruction of streams andfish habitat.Chemicals:leaks andspillsA minemay usethousandsof tonnes ofchemicalsevery year toextract thetarget mineralsfrom theores, or totreat the contaminatedtailings and processing waters. All ofthese chemicals have to be transportedto the site, and then a seriesof pipes and holding tanks are usedto move and store the chemicalswithin a mineral processing facility.Thus, there are many chances forspills and leaks.In 1981, there was a major sulphurdioxide spill (approximately41,000 litres) at Equity Silver Minein northern BC. The chemical foundits way into Buck Creek, and as aresult, residents living nearby weretold to stop drinking the water fromthe creek.(28)Other potential water contaminantsinclude fuels, oil, and sewage.The US Department of Justicerecently alleged that Cominco AlaskaInc. violated the federal Clean WaterAct by exceeding the allowable limitsfor metals and pH at their Red DogMine and at the mine’s Chuckchi Seaport. There were also allegations ofunpermitted discharges of sewagefrom a temporary housing facilityand more than a thousand violationsat Cominco’s sewage treatment systemat the port. Cominco spent morethan $4.7 million to settle the lawsuitout of court.(32)Mining is the source of sometimes severe streambed erosionErosion and SedimentationSoil disturbance is greatest duringthe mine construction phase. Theresulting vegetation disturbance, atmosphericdust and noise from constructionequipment are also likely tobe at their highest levels. Significantsoil disturbance can lead to increasederosion, and if enough water is flowingthrough the site large amounts ofsediment can be transported tostreams and lakes, creating high turbidityand blanketing creek bottoms.(33) As explained above, in the subsectionon road impacts, sedimentationcan adversely affect aquatic organismsEnvironmentalImpactsWeinstein (ph:250-339-4337; email:wstein@mars.ark.com).Alaska mining company32 agrees to $4.7 millionenvironmental settlement(US Department of Justicepress release, http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1997/July97/294enr.htm)Creek damage investigated:dirt from mine33constru ction runninginto water (Prince George Citizen,08/27/97, p.3)Dirt from the construction of RoyalOak’s copper mine in northern BC wasobserved to be running into KemessCreek, “muddying the water and blanketingthe bottom of the creek with silt.”It was a concern to environment officialsbecause the creek is home to bulltrout and Dolly Varden.“It could have harmful impacts on fishspawning and kill off the insects the fishfeed on,” said BC Environment officialDave Sutherland.Old mines are swallowingOntario: $300 million34needed to fence off or fillin sinking lands around minesites, ministry says (TorontoStar, 08/16/99)The threat of underground mine collapsessuddenly swallowing buildingsand vehicles and endangering peoplecould be the start of a $300 millionheadache for Ontario.Ontario has an estimated 6,000 suchsites, says Dick Cowan, the Sudburybaseddirector of mine rehabilitation forthe Ministry of Northern Developmentand Mines.Cowan says the ministry is hoping forapproval of a new program to make allthe sites safe, including their small andlarge abandoned structures.“The previous program ended sevenyears ago and now we estimate it willtake $300 million to do the job,” hesays.He says the 6,000 sites range from“significant mine developments to smallholes that open in the ground.”He estimates 40 per cent are oncrown land and 60 per cent on privateproperty.Mining In Remote Areas: Issues and Impacts 9

EnvironmentalImpactsConclusionsMines generally close down becauseeither the ore body has beenexhausted, or prices for the mineralmake it uneconomical to continuewith the mining operation.Unfortunately, even thoughmines close down, impacts do notnecessarily cease. Acidmine drainage can be along-term problem,persisting for centuriesor even millennia.Undergroundmines can collapseyears after closure(34), contam i-nated tailings impoundmentscancontinue to be athreat to fish andwildlife, and landcan take years torecover from atmospheric depositionof smelter emissions.This potential for perennial impactsunderscores the need for comprehensiveplanning and community-leveldecision making in advanceof mine development.Impacts can remain long after the ore is gone.Public ActionCitizen efforts can and do make a significant difference inreducing the impacts of mining. There are no hard and fastrules for individuals or community organizations wishing totake action on mining impacts, but the following are somepointers for getting started.◊◊◊◊Research. Learn everything you can about the company,the mine site, current proposals, and the local environment.Read up on regulations; find out who’s responsiblein the company and in government. Wherenecessary, get expert help to understand and respond totechnical issues.Document. Take photos or video footage, get copies ofpermits, produce position papers or reports, get it inwriting.Network. Get an existing organization active on theissue, or put together a new network. Get spokespeoplewho know their stuff. Talk to mine union locals, FirstNations, environmental groups, fishery or wildlife organizations,and government ministry staff.Strategize. Talk out your options, develop scenarios,◊◊◊◊◊anticipate possible responses, lay out your positionsand your bottom line. Decide where andwhen to bend, and where to stand firm. Focus onidentifying achievable goals. A key question here is: areyou trying to stop a mine, or to improve it?Educate. Publish fact sheets, hold slide shows or informationsessions. Make maps, contribute articles tonewsletters.Advocate. Attend meetings, speak up, talk and write tomine managers and government officials. Make your positionheard on committees. Speak knowledgeably to theissues.Publicize. Hold press briefings, announce reports, respondto developments.Monitor. The best plan is only worthwhile if it is actuallycarried out. Check up, ground truth. Make sure thatagreements are lived up to, and take action if they arenot.Celebrate. Don’t be all doom and gloom. Acknowledgepositive changes. Thank your colleagues. Celebrate successes,small and large.10 MiningWatch Canada

Community ImpactsMining development has the potential to completely transformeconomic, social and cultural aspects of life innearby communities.As with any major development in remote or populated areas,the balance between positive and negative impacts needs to becarefully assessed in light of past performance and future promisesof the company (and industry) involved. The gap betweenpromise and performance has often weighed against the interestsof community sustainability. Some of the factors governingimpacts are outlined below.The Economics ofBoom and BustThe most obvious positive impactof a mining development is the potentialeconomic benefit derived bynearby communities. Mines can contributeto a community’s economy byproviding employment to communitymembers, and by pumping moneyinto the local economy through thepurchase of goods and services.Unfortunately, economicbenefits related to miningare often short-term. Diamondsmay be forever, butdiamond mines are not.Minerals are nonrenewableresources: whenan ore body is depleted, themine shuts down. Mines will neverbe a permanent answer to a community’seconomic woes.Furthermore, the reality of theindustry is that global prices are themajor determinant of whether or notmines continue operating. Mines oftenshut down temporarily due tolow metal prices, and workers, in themeantime, are laid off.(35,37) Thus,mining operations do not necessarilyprovide long-term economic stabilityfor either individual workers or thecommunity at large.EmploymentWhile it is true that employmentopportunities are created when miningprojects are developed, there areissues regarding who will get thejobs (local vs. outside workers), howlong the jobs will last, and whetheror not the people of the communityeven want to work at a mine.Many mining jobs require highlyskilled or specially trained employees,and if members ofnearby communities donot have the requiredskills the workforce mustcome from outside the region.Promises of jobs and trainingprograms are often offeredby mining companiesand governments as part of an agreementwith communities who risk beingimpacted by a proposed mine.(38,40) Unfortunately, the promise ofjobs does not always translate intolong-term employment.(39)Lessons can be learned from theoil and gas industry. When oil andgas exploration boomed in the 1970sand 1980s many companies pursuedNative employment and businesscreation. But relatively few Nativepeople gained permanent or significantwork and, in any case, job creationwas fairly localized. Now thatthe oil boom is over, those jobs noCommunityImpactsArticles with underlined titles areavailable as reprints from Mining-Watch Canada..Curragh lays off 177,35 may close Faro mine(Financial Post, 02/23/93)The Faro mine is the Yukon's largestprivate-sector employee. The layoffsare temporary pending a $29-milliongovernment loan guarantee to developthe new Grum ore body. Curragh hasbeen squeezed by a global glut of zincconcentrates that has weakened demandand sparked cutbacks from othermajor producers.Death and rebirth of a36 town (Up Here, Nov/Dec1996, v.12(6), pp. 16-18)This article by freelance writer BrendaBarnes follows the boom-bust cycle ofthe mining town of Faro in the Yukon.The town, created to house and provideservices for the workers of the mine,has had its population fluctuate between2,100 and 90 residents over its 30-yearhistory. The article includes interviewswith some die-hard Faro residents, whoare intent on staying in the community.These folks are working on devisingcommunity economic strategies to keepFaro alive during temporary shutdownsand after the inevitable closure of themine.A northeastern BC companymining town was37knocked hard with wordkey employer Quintette Coalwas closing 30 months soonerthan planned (Canadian PressNewswire, 03/02/00)A northeastern B.C. company miningtown was knocked hard Wednesdaywith word key employer Quintette Coalwas closing 30 months sooner thanplanned.About 500 workers at the massiveopen-pit operation will lose their jobs.Sliding coal prices and reduced exportvolumes plus a strengthening Canadiandollar forced Quintette operator TeckCorp. to move up plans to close themoney-losing mine to this August.The mine wasn’t supposed to closeuntil March 2003.Mining In Remote Areas: Issues and Impacts 11

CommunityImpactsCompany pledges jobs38 for Natives (Globe & Mail,10/21/96, A1, A8)BHP recently signed an agreementwith the government of the NorthwestTerritories committing the company tohiring up to 2/3 of its diamond minework force from northern and aboriginalcommunities (at least half must be Native).As well, the company must reportregularly to the government onmeeting its commitments (on hiring,training and business opportunities).BHP has also agreed to pay airfare forshift workers from communities as faraway as the Arctic coast. In return, theterritorial government will provide acceleratedapprenticeship programs to helptradespeople take advantage of the project.Natives cry foul over39 jobs at mine (Daily CommercialNews,10/21/98, B1, B2)Aboriginal leaders fear their peopleare being pigeonholed in service andsecurity jobs at diamond mines in theNorthwest Territories. “We don’t wantjust truck-driving jobs,” said Bob Dowdall,executive director of the NorthSlave Metis Alliance.He said aboriginal people are not beingtrained for the highly skilled operationspositions.“Clearly we need a training plan,”agreed Bill Erasmus, national chief ofthe Dene First Nation.Falconbridge signs historicdeal with Inuit40(Montreal Gazette,03/01/95, B4)Falconbridge’s Raglan nickel mine willchange the landscape of an area ofnorthern Quebec forever with the constructionof 10 open-pit and undergroundmines, new roads, port and airportfacilities and residences.According to the company’s environmentalimpact statement, the project’simpacts include high-acid mine tailings,gas and smoke emissions, increasedairborne dust, use of ice-breakers andlarge tankers for transport and the disposalof effluent from sewage and mineoperations. Consequently, marineplankton, fish, caribou, fox and sealpopulations will be affected.In exchange for the rights to developand operate the project, Falconbridgewill pay $75 million in compensation tothe Inuit.The Inuit will get at least 150 of theCase study: Faro’s Economic RollercoasterIn 1969, Cyprus-Anvil Mining Corporation built the town of Faro to accommodateworkers for their lead-zinc mine, the second largest in North America.The 1970s and early 1980s were the boom years in Faro, when the town’s populationpeaked at over 2,100 and additional camp facilities were built to house the morethan 700 mine workers.In 1982, though, prices of lead and zinc fell sharply, and by June of that year, productionat the mine had come to a grinding halt. A planned three-week shutdown becameeight weeks and then 17. In September, the mine announced it would not beresuming operations that winter. The announcement caused a mass exodus of employeesand their families, and Faro’s population dropped to less than 900.In 1984, Cyprus-Anvil announced it was mothballing the mine. As a result, the populationplunged to 90, and Faro became a ghost town.In 1985, a new buyer, Curragh Resources, surfaced and Faro’s population boomedonce again. The mine operated until 1993, when lead-zinc prices plummeted, forcingCurragh to close the mine and seek protect ion from its creditors.In November 1994, another company, Anvil Range bought the mine.In February 1998, Anvil Range, like Curragh, sought protection from its creditors andthe mine went into receivership.Unless a new buyer is willing to assume the environmental liability associated withthe huge tailings pond and numerous acid-generating waste rock piles, the mine sitewill remain dormant. And with the mainstay of the town’s economy lost, the people ofFaro must find other means of generating income or else Faro will once again be not h-ing but a ghost town. (36)longer exist.(41)Another issue related to employmentis that even if jobs are available,the work might not be agreeableto members of the community.(31,39)At the Faro mine in the Yukon,“jobs at the mine were tried andquickly abandoned by most[aborginal] people as unattractive formany reasons, including scheduling,discrimination, and working conditions.Other types of employment,particularly seasonal and part-timework, were in demand.”(31)The Faro experience is not an isolatedcase. Susan Wismer writes thatwhile exploration work can be compatiblewith subsistence activities ofaboriginal people in the northern regionsof Canada, experience withjobs in the mines themselves hasbeen less favourable. “The nature ofthe work, its scheduling into shiftsthat are often at least two weeks inlength, the distance of mine sitesfrom home communities, and theneed for a consistent and reliableworkforce that does not take time offon a seasonal basis, creates a situationin which the benefits of employmentin the mines are often offset bythe costs of social and family disruptionand loss of opportunities to participateadequately in communitylife.”(43)Costs and BenefitsOne question that a lot of communitiesfacing mining developmentfind themselves asking is who reallyserves to benefit from this development,and who pays the costs?Environmental impacts oftentranslate into economic impacts, asresources previously used as a sourceof formal income or subsistence purposesare rendered unusable.12 MiningWatch Canada

In 1966, the Mt. WashingtonMine on Vancouver Island went intoreceivership after only two years ofoperation. Yet it left a leg acy of acidmine drainage and heavy metal pollutionthat continues to flow untreatedinto the Tsolum River. Theconcentration of copper, particularlyharmful to young salmon, has all butwiped out the once healthy salmonruns. It has been estimated that theloss of the salmon fishery costsnearby communities $2 million ayear. To date, the province has alreadyinvested $1 million in its attemptsto deal with the problem. Themost probable means of controllingthe AMD will cost taxpayers at leastan additional $6 million.(27)At Equity Silver mine in northernBC there is presently a system inplace that treats the acid minedrainage that continues to flow fromthe mine. If the treatment systemwere to fail for an extended period oftime, the AMD would cause the poisoningand eventual loss of all fish asfar as 215 km downstream. The resultantpotential loss of economicbenefits and employment from commercialand sports fisheries is estimatedto be in the range of $4.3 millionper year.(28,44).Negative impacts on humanhealth may result from mining operations,but it is difficult to attach adollar figure to those impacts.As Lloyd Tataryn writes, “the Indiansin the NWT have not been theprimary beneficiaries of the arseniccontaminatingindustries located inYellowknife. We feel it is unjust thatcompanies can make profits fromjeopardizing the health of the peoplewho have lived on the land sincetime immemorial.”(45)Community health impacts relatedto mining are addressed inmore detail in the next section of thiskit: Health and Safety.Social and CulturalImpactsThe social and cultural implicationsof mining developments are oftenbrushed under the rug in orderCase Study: Need for Targetted TrainingIn 1995, Falconbridge signed an “historic” agreement with the Inuit in northern Quebec.Among other things, the company agreed to provide at least 150 jobs and trainingfor the Inuit people at their Raglan nickel mine.(40)The company originally thought that within 10 years Inuit could comprise 90% ofthe workforce. However, three years after the agreement was signed, and afterspending $4 million on training, less than 25% of the workers are Inuit, (42) and thepercentage of Inuit employees at Raglan is not likely to rise in the next couple ofyears.To date, the training has concentrated on preparing workers for jobs as cooks,heavy equipment operators, mechanics and truck drivers. With the constructionphase over and production gearing up, there will not be many more jobs available tothe Inuit until they train and qualify for jobs in the mill or underground.“We should . . . make greater efforts to ensure that we target the occupations withthe greatest potential for employment,” said Jim Delaruier, Kativik School Board’s directorof vocational and adult education.And that’s what the Raglan Technical Committee on employment and training hasdecided to do. At the heart of their new strategy is a college-level program in mining,as well as on-the-job training at the mine.(42)CommunityImpacts800 jobs, and they will have a large rolein evaluation of the project's environmentalimpact.Neither boom nor bust:41the renewable resourceeconomy may be thebest long-term hope for nort h-ern communities (Alternatives,v.22(4), Oct/Nov. 1996, p. 18)Author Heather Myers, assistant professorin International Studies at theUniversity of Northern BC, argues thatnon-renewable resource industries havenot ensured adequate or stable employment,either for northern peoples or forimported workers. Furthermore, theyounger generation has not shown aclear preference for moving from theland into industry. In the pursuit ofappropriate northern development, renewableresources can offer the potentialfor income, while complementingcommunity lifestyles and values. Theycan be locally based, small-scale, flexible,renewable and true to indigenoustradition. While they will not provide atotal answer to northern development,employment or income needs, renewableresource-based ventures will satisfysome key needs and values.Training of Inuit stepped42up at Raglan mine(Nunatsiaq News, 04/23/98;http://www.nunatsiaq.com/nunavik/)Initial training concentrated on preparingworkers for jobs as cooks, heavyequipment operators, mechanics andtruck drivers. Now that that constructionphase is over and production isgearing up, the mine needs workers toexcavate and process the nickel ore;these are specialized trades that requireadditional training.Turnover last year at Raglan reached70 percent.The Nasty Game: how43 environmental assessmentis failing aboriginalcommunities in Canada’s north(Alternatives, 22(4), Oct/Nov, 1996.p. 12)This article is written by Susan Wismer,assistant professor in the Departmentof Environment and ResourceStudies at the University of Waterloo.In the article, Wismer writes that Env i-ronmental Assessment (EA) can andshould be an excellent process for determiningwhether or not the outcomesMining In Remote Areas: Issues and Impacts 13

CommunityImpacts*of economic development are likely tobe positive or negative for communities.But the EA process for the BHP diamondmine failed to address if, when and howmining could contribute to communitysustainability.B. Wilkes. BC Ministry of44Environment, Lands andParks. Consequences ofunregulated release of raw acidmine drainage into the BulkleyRiver, British Columbia(Presented at the 11th Annual MineReclamation Symposium, CampbellRiver, BC. April 8-10th, 1987)Notes from the Territ o-45 ries: arsenic poisoning(Alternatives, v.7(2), 1978,p. 12)This article was written by LloydTataryn, a journalist and environmentalconsultant to the National Indian Brotherhood.The article describes a numberof studies on the impacts of arsenic poisoning.Tataryn then relates how thefederal government released the resultsof a study that found many health defectsamong Yellowknife citizens commonlyassociated with arsenic poisoning,but the government failed to do anadequate follow-up study. Consequently,the aboriginal people in Yellowknifetook it upon themselves to conducta study of hair-arsenic levels in theirchildren and mine workers compared tolevels in children and mine workers livingin Whitehorse, Yukon. The resultsshowed that arsenic levels from thepeople in Yellowknife were above the“acceptable level,” while levels of thecitizens of Whitehorse were negligible.52% of the population46 deserves a closer look: aproposal for guidelinesregarding the environmentaland socio-economic impacts onwomen from the mining developmentat Voisey’s BayProduced by the Tongamiut Inuit AnnaitAd Hoc Committee on AboriginalWomen and Mining in Labrador, thisinformation comes from the Innu Nation’swebsite (located at http://www.innu.ca/womenguidelines.html).to focus on “what is good for theeconomy.” However, the social impactsof mining developments haveto be addressed in order to create orsustain healthy communities. Somepotential social impacts related tomining are listed below.Community ServicesMany projects will result in aninflux of workers, almost all male,into neighbouring communities. Alarge, transient population can put astrain on the existing recreational,health, social and business services.Often services and infrastructure(such as more powerlines, sewageand housing) are developed to meetthe needs of a larger population. Atthe end of the mine’s life, when thetransient workers leave the community,it is the people left behind whoend up shouldering the tax burden topay for the infrastructure improv e-ments.HousingThe influx of workers can also resultin housing shortages, inflatedhouse prices and rents, and low vacancyrates. These factors make it* Distinction made through use of colour in originalProduced by the Innu Nation, this map shows the potential for mining exploration to impactarcheological sites (5)difficult for single-parent households,women who are trying to leaveabusive relationships, and lowincome,unemployed and underemployedpeople to find houses to buyor rent.And when a mine closes, inflatedhousing prices can plummet,especially in a single-industry town.With the recent announcement of theQuintette mine closure innortheastern BC, housing prices inthe community of Tumbler Ridgefell, leaving many with no jobs andhouses with little market value. (37)Women’s IssuesThe Tongamiut Inuit Annait AdHoc Committee on AboriginalWomen and Mining in Labrador hasoutlined a number of concerns relatedto potential impacts that miningdevelopments may have onwomen.(46) Their concerns includepossible disruption of marriage andfamily life, increased responsibilitiesfor women in the home, violenceagainst women, sexual harassmentin the workplace, and lack of job opportunities.These concerns are shared withInnu women leaders in Northern14 MiningWatch Canada

Labrador who feel the mining activityin the area has costs for theirfamilies and the environment. (47)A professor at Memorial Universityin Newfoundland has found thatfor married workers, long absencesfrom home can contribute to marriagebreakdowns and disrupt familylife.(49)If male partners are employed atmines that require them to be awayfrom home for weeks or months at atime, the primary responsibility formanaging the household (provisionand preparation of food, subsistenceharvesting, care of clothing, housework,maintenance of household accounts,childcare) will fall to women.This can potentially affect women’sparticipation in community life.Miriam Wall, writing on the impactof resource developments onwomen in northern Ontario states,“Time is a premium for manywomen. As mothers they often cannotafford to be away over night orfor long periods of time… workingwomen, who find themselves overburdenedwith both their paid employmentand traditional family role[can be] effectively excluded fromfurther involvement in community.”(48)Wall also writes that job opportunitiesmay be limited for women insingle-industry towns. The traditionalemployment options availableto women tend to be in the lowpaying,service sector. Moreover,there is a certain “mill mentality”that exists in single-industry towns,CommunityImpactsMining extracts toll on47 Innu women of Labrador(Herizons Winter 1997; v.11(1); pg 6-7.)Innu women leaders fear history isrepeating itself with the frenzy of miningactivity in Northern Labrador. In 1993,what is believed to be the world’s largestnickel reserve was found in Voisey’sBay, located on Labrador’s north coast.The mining boom was cheered on BayStreet, but women in the region areconcerned about how this newest invasionof their homeland will affect theirfamilies, their environment, the healingprocess and land claims negotiations.Case Study: Ross River, Yukon TerritoryThe following case study is composed of information fromthe report “Just Like People Get Lost: A retrospective assessmentof the impacts of the Faro Mining Development on theland use of the Ross River Indian People.”(31) In the report,the author makes it clear that while there were impacts directlyattributable to the mining development, there wereconcurrent factors, such as changes in education, transportation,employment, and social welfare programs, that contributedto the severe social problems experienced by the aboriginalcommunity of Ross River.Beginning in 1966, there was an influx of outsiders andbusinesses to Ross River to service the construction and operationof the Faro mine. In the ensuing years the Ross Riverband experienced increased “drinking, open conflicts, violence,sexual exploitation . . . the disintegration of somemarriages.”The internal problems among the aboriginal people wereexacerbated by the arrival of large numbers of transientwhite male labourers during the construction period. Many ofthe mine construction workers carried the stereotypic imagesof “Indians as victims and powerless,” that were prevalent inYukon and many other areas of Canada at that time. Womenwere seen as sexual objects and the men, when drunk, wereseen as objects for abuse and violence. Raids by constructionworkers to abduct women from the village were not uncommon.There have been vivid descriptions of sexual exploit a-tion and beatings of Natives by whites at the local bar.Many of the southerners who settled in the village broughturban ideas, values and behaviour.The parents of non-Native childrendemanded a southern school curriculumand were instrumental in getting the school principal,who was sympathetic to the differing needs of the Indianchildren, dismissed. Thus, even aboriginal children were involvedin the disempowerment.The impact of roads, the stresses of village life, the dislocationof some family groups from their traditional lands, andthe rapid transformation into a marginal minority changedthe lives of the Ross River people forever. When thesechanges combined with the ready availability of alcohol,however, they produced a deadly combination. Public facilitiesfor the purchase of alcohol became available in the regionwith the influx of mine construction workers. As all ofthe stresses to life in Ross River developed, extended periodsof binge drinking became the rule. When people returnedfrom a job with cash, alcohol would be bought and sharedwith friends and relatives until the money was spent.Deaths from a variety of alcohol related causes, mostly accidents,began to occur in 1966. From that time to the present,death from alcohol-related causes has been a regularevent for the Indian population, with one or more deathsfrom drinking almost every year between 1970 and 1989.The community of Ross River is in the process of healingfrom the negative social effects that have so drasticallychanged their way of life in the past 30 years. In light of theindefinite closure of the Faro mine in 1998, the people ofRoss River must now try to develop strategies for building amore healthy, sustainable community.Mining In Remote Areas: Issues and Impacts 15

CommunityImpactsM. Wall. Women and developmentin northwest-48ern Ontario (Alternatives,v.14(1), Feb. 1987)In this article, writer Miriam Wall addressesthe issue of the roles of womenin communities based upon extractiveresource industries (such as logging andmining). Wall examines barriers towomen’s participation in the politicaland economic life of these towns, andsuggests ways to increase the inclusionof women in decision-making positionswithin the communities.Miners sent to remote49sites to work suffer fromstress (Financial Post,09/13/88, p. 5)Fly-in mining, where workers aretransported into remote mine sites forspecific lengths of time, is the alternativeto the historical pattern of establishingmining towns. The typical patternsare working for 7-14 days and spendingthe same amount of time at home; orworking 3 months or more and taking 3-4 weeks off.Mark Shrimpton, adjunct associateprofessor of geography at MemorialUniversity in St. John’s, NFLD, recentlycompleted a report on fly-in mining.Shrimpton found that added stress experiencedby fly-in miners could result inincreased accidents on the job.The report recommends shorter workand sentiments such as “you have tobe a real man to be able to work inthe mill or mine” are not uncommon.This attitude can act as a real forcein preventing women from even consideringapplying for what are oftenthe only well-paying jobs available inthe community.(48)The need for gender -specific researchhas been acknowledged in recentfederal environmental assessmentprocesses. However, the lastfederal assessment process thatwomen in Labrador participated infailed to adequately assess the impactof military flight training onwomen in the region. According towomen’s groups, the environmentalimpact statement either omitted orfailed to directly acknowledgewomen’s issues. For example, “sexualassault” was portrayed as “family orcommunity violence,” sexually transmitteddiseases” became“communicable diseases” and“women’s groups” became “concernedgroups.” (46)In September 2000, a two-daygathering was held at Lake Laberge,Yukon, called Gaining Ground:Women, Mining and the Environment.It brought together womenfrom Yukon communities affected bymining, as well as women with experiencein the health, science andsocial science sectors. (50)Land ClaimsThere are six proposed miningdevelopments valued at more than$30 billion in the Arctic, all of whichinfringe on unsettled Native landclaims. Also, in addition to the InnuNation, the Labrador Inuit Associationhas outstanding land claims affectedby the nickel find at Voisey’sBay.(51)Unsettled land claims can be asource of concern for aboriginal communitiesfaced with a proposed mineraldevelopment.In the Northwest Territories, thefederal government has awardedmineral exploration rights to landover which the Dene assert aboriginalrights and title. “Without selfgovernmentagreements, the Deneare not entitled to any revenues frommining activities, even if the mine isliterally in their backyard,” says MarinaDevine, chair of the CanadianArctic Resources Committee.(51)Case Study: The Dene NationDuring the course of the Norman Wells Pipelineand Oilfield Expansion Project in the NWT, peopleof the Dene Nation feared the bulk of benefits wouldflow to the south with the oil, and that northernerswould be left to deal with the negative impacts.The Dene repeatedly stressed that job skillstraining alone would not guarantee meaningful Nativeinvolvement in development. They called fortraining that would enable them to enhance theirtraditional renewable economy and protect their culturaland social life, to ensure that once the projectwas over they would still have families and viablecommunities to live in.Despite problems with government funding, aCommunity Development Programme was eventuallyset up. This allowed the Dene to develop specialprojects on issues such as alcoholand drug abuse, housing,economic development, communitylearning and decision making, Elders andyouth, and health and education. Training was alsoundertaken in areas of monitoring techniques, leadership,communications and other types of professionaldevelopment.The programme was discontinued after only twoyears due to lack of federal funding. What the pr o-gramme taught the Dene was that the regimes of anindustrialized economy are foreign to them, and donot reflect their values and traditions. The realizedthat their cultural heritage is the only key tohealthy social development and that this processmust be in place if the Dene are to design and ben e-fit properly from economic and political development.(52)16 MiningWatch Canada

The Taku River Tlingit First Nationis presently deep into land-claimnegotiations. However, some bandmembers are concerned that a roadproposed by Redcorp Ventures Ltd.to service the Tulsequah Chief minewill soon attract more mines to thearea. More minesmean a greaterpotential forimpacts ontraditionalTlingitlands.TlingitspokespersonMelvinJack is concernedthat,“Industryseems to begoing in underthe wirebefore ourclaims aresettled. Ifeel, to some degree, that it is interferingwith aboriginal rights.”(17)Addressing CommunityImpactsOften there is not enough leadtime given to communities to putprogrammes in place to deal with thenegative social ramifications of miningdevelopments.Like the Dene (see accompanyingCase Study), the Innu Nation ofnorthern Labrador has expressed agreat deal of uncertainty over thefuture of their communities andtheir way of life.(5) The Innu areworried about the implications of additionalsocial and economic pressureswrought by mining developmentson communities that are justbeginning to heal after years ofabuse and despair. The frantic paceof exploration and development hasnot provided Innu communities withenough time to adapt organically tothis new reality.The majority of problems experiencedby the Dene with the NormanWells Project stemmed from theirinability to change existing processesor to have any meaningful input intoToo often, the benefits of a mine are shipped out of a community alongwith the oredecisions related to the project.(52)The Innu have had a similar experience,and are frustrated by refusalson the part of the companies involved– from Archean to Inco – todeal fairly with their concerns. TheInnu have stated that the timelinesand goals of the com panies and theNewfoundland government do nottake into account the need of theInnu to determine their own visionsof an economic future for their communities– a vision that may not includethe development of Voisey’sBay.CommunityImpactsrotations, greater choice of rotations, amore homelike environment, better telephonecommunications, and employeeand family assistance programs to helpalleviate stress.Yukon Conservation Society50 and Yukon Status of WomenCouncil. 2000.Gaining Ground: Women, Miningand the EnvironmentThis pamphlet was produced followinga gathering held at Lake Laberge,Yukon, in September 2000. Copies canbe obtained by contacting the YukonConservation Society (Tel: (867) 668-5678; email: ycs@polarcom.com).Land claims threaten51 NWT diamond mine(Financial Post, 02/15/96,p.1)Two Dene Native bands have landclaims negotiations with Ottawa on a3,500 km 2 tract of land at Lac de Gras inthe central Arctic, where BHP’s Ekatidiamond mine would be situated. Alawyer who was closely following theissue of the competing claims said thatan injunction to halt the project couldbe filed if business and governmentfailed to secure a revenue-sharingagreement or make concessions to theNative bands.Dene community development:lessons from52the Norman Wells Project(Alternatives, v.14(1), Feb.1987, pp. 10-12)Author Margaret Gorman relates theprocess that Dene communities wentthrough to try to gain control over theirsociety and economy in wake of theNorman Wells Pipeline and Oilfields Expansionproject. The challenge for theDene was to convert the opportunitiesbrought by a non-renewable resourcedevelopment into long-term benefits.When the Pipeline and Oilfields Expansionproject was approved, the federalgovernment committed $20 million forprogrammes to ensure jobs, trainingand business opportunities for northerners.The government also imposed atwo-year project delay to allow time forthese projects to be put in place.Mining In Remote Areas: Issues and Impacts 17

Health andSafetyArticles with underlined titles areavailable as reprints from Mining-Watch Canada..Panel makes connection53 between hardrock miningand cancer (CanadianOccupational Safety, v.32(4), 1994,p. 8)This article mentions how one or twostudies linking hardrock mining and lungcancer might have failed to convincepanel members of the relationship; butit was hard to argue with 22 studies.The studies found that: 1) the longerthe exposure the greater the incidenceof lung cancer, so it is older workerswho are most often victims from theirlifetime work experience in mining; 2)miners who had a mixed-ore experiencehad higher rates of cancer; and 3) ratesof lung cancer among non-smoking uraniumminers were similar to the rates ofsmokers in the general population. Butrates increased significantly when miningwas combined with smoking.Study evaluates cancer54 risks for nickel miners(Northern Miner, v.81(46),01/14/96, p. 5)A McMaster University study hasshown that certain workers in Ontario’snickel mines and mills are more likely tocontract various respiratory-tract cancerthan the rest of the population. Thestudy examined health records for66,100 workers employed by Inco andFalconbridge since 1940.The United Steelworkers of Canadaunion has stated that oil mist and dieselfumes are to blame for the high incidenceof cancer, and not the rock dustknown to cause silicosis in the past. Theunion has called for a reduction in thelevel of harmful emissions emanatingfrom the products of equipment manufacturers,and has urged Inco and Falconbridgeto switch to electrical equipmentfrom diesel.Mystery ailments fell55 Fording coal miners(Vancouver Sun, 05/18/95,B5)BC government officials and Fordingmanagement were unable to explain thecause of the array of ailments occurringat the coal mine. United Steelworkers ofAmerica representative, Don Takala,urged the company to shut down theHealth Impacts: theSilent TollDown in the MineA range of health problems can beattributed to working in a mine environment.CancerHealth and Safety“The mining industry has long had an unenviable history ofindustrial accidents and disease.” (49)When an underground explosion ripped through Westray Minein Nova Scotia on May 9, 1992, killing the entire shift of 26 men,it was a devastating reminder to Canadians that the human tolltaken by mining is not limited to the industry’s bloody past.Behind the tragedy of underground accidents is a range ofless visible health and safety issues, such as the gradual buildupof carcinogens (cancer-causing agents), and air and watercontamination. The impacts felt by miners and mine communitiesare indicative of an industry that has taken some importantsteps forward, but in many ways has yet to face the challenge ofputting health and safety first.Cancer is serious health risk forDiesel ExhaustSome Toxic Gases and Solid Particlesin Diesel ExhaustCarbon monoxideNitrogen oxides or NOxSulphur oxidesthe men and women who work inmines. In the late 1980s, the CanadianIndustrial Disease StandardsPanel concluded that hardrock minersare more likely to get lung cancerthan the rest of the population.(53)They based their conclusions on 22studies conducted world-wide, all ofwhich found that the incidence oflung cancer in hardrock mining wasabove the norm.The probability of developing can-Exposure to exhaust from diesel combustion is one of the major health risks underground.This summary is from the United Steelworkers website: http://www.uswa.caHydrocarbons (including benzene,formaldehyde, phenol, butadiene, etc.)Health EffectsInterferes with oxygen supply to bodyContributes to heart diseaseIrritates the eyes and respiratory systemDecreases lung functionMay decrease resistance to infectionIrritates the eyes and respiratory systemCause a large variety of health effects,including irritation, asthma and cancerPolynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) Cause cell mutations and cancerDiesel Particulate Matter (DPM) or sootContributes to heart and respiratoryproblems; causes cancer18 MiningWatch Canada

cer increases the longer a personworks at a mine, if a person hasworked in more than one mine (i.e.,where different ores are mined), andif the worker smokes.(53,54)Case Study: Arsenic PoisoningThese findings have ramificationsfor the people who work in the industry.Many workers will find themselvesworking at a number of differentmines over their lifetime, sincemany mines are only in operation fora few years. As a result, these workerswill be exposed to many differentpotential carcinogens.Known carcinogens encounteredat a mine site include: radiation, ar-In the 1970s, elevated levels of arsenic in snow, soil, water and vegetation sampleswithin city limits confirmed that not only mineworkers but also the residents of Yellowknifewere being exposed to the potentially lethal chemical. Exposure resulted primarilyfrom the smelter emissions from Giant Yellowknife Gold Mines Limited. In May of1975, Health and Welfare Canada released a study showing that many health defectsamong Yellowknife citizens were commonly associated with arsenic exposure. At thetime, St atistics Canada figures also indicated that Yellowknife had a higher cancer ratethan Canada as a whole.Spurred by these findings, the National Indian Brotherhood and the United SteelWorkers of America collected hair samples from aboriginal children living near Yellowknife,and from all the men working in the Giant Mine’s mill. These samples were analysedand compared to samples of hair collected from children and mine workers inWhitehorse (which has no arsenic source). None of the children or mine workers fromWhitehorse had hair arsenic levels above one part per million (ppm), whereas morethan 90% of aboriginal children from Yellowknife and all of the mill workers from theGiant Mine had arsenic levels above one ppm. One ppm is the upper “acceptable” limitfor hair arsenic – above this, toxicity soon develops.Understandably, the aboriginal community was upset with these results. At the time,Lloyd Tataryn, consultant on environmental issues to the National Indian Brotherhoodcommented that, “The Indians in the Northwest Territories have not been the primarybeneficiaries of the arsenic-contaminating industries located in Yellowknife. We feel itis unjust that companies can make profits from jeopardizing the health of the peoplewho have lived on the land since time immemorial. We therefore cannot be contentuntil the arsenic levels in the Indians of Yellowknife are no higher than those in theIndians in Whitehorse. The only way this can be accomplished is by forcing the companiesto stop their polluting activities.”(45)More than twenty years have passed since the Health and Welfare Canada study,yet the arsenic poisoning continues.(58)In 1996, a forum on arsenic was held in Yellowknife. During the forum, Dr. AndreCorriveau, chief medical officer for the NWT said exposure to large amounts of airbornearsenic can be dangerous, deteriorating the lungs and causing problems forpeople, particularly those with respiratory problems.However, there are no regulations in the NWT to control the release of arsenic intothe air. Royal Oak, the company that owns the Giant mine, releases between 10 tonnesand 11 tonnes of arsenic into the atmosphere each year on average.According to Kevin O’Reilly, an environmental activist, “the technology exists toeliminate the air emissions . . . we should be aiming for zero discharge.”The “way” to limit pollution is known; all that is required is the “will” to clean up theoperation. This dangerous pollution will continue until the company voluntarily introducescontrols, or the government enacts legislation requiring companies to curb theiremissions.Health andSafetymine until the cause of the health problemscould be determined. The companydid not agree that the situation wasnecessarily linked to mine operations,saying that they had examined the illnessreports and “found no commonalities,with the exception of two orthree.”Canada’s uranium miningsparks desperate56protest (Toronto Star,02/27/88, M4)The first coordinated act of civil disobedienceagainst uranium mining occurredin 1985 in Saskatchewan. Thesmall Native community of WollastonLake led the protest. For 80 hours theyblockaded all traffic in and out of twouranium mines. The blockade was “afinal, desperate attempt to be heard.”The Dene “saw no other way to voicetheir anger and frustration against anindustry they claimed was ruining theircommunity, their health, their means oflivelihood and their children’s futures.”Ottawa to study “Village57of Widows:” Deline, NWTwas uranium site(Edmonton Journal, 01/21/2000,A6)The federal government has announceda program to study how yearsof uranium mining has affected thehealth of a remote northern communitythat some call the “Village of Widows.”The village of 650 people on GreatBear Lake, 500 km northwest of Yellowknife,is across the lake from the Eldoradomine.The first area miner died of cancer in1953. The deaths accelerated in the1970s.Zero arsenic discharge58possible (Yellowknifer,05/24/96, A15)A taskforce was set up in 1995 to dealwith the arsenic emissions from RoyalOak’s Giant Mine, to help the companycontrol its emissions. The article pointsout that Environment Canada’s mainlegislation to deal with arsenic is theCanadian Environmental Protection Act,but even armed with that there’s littleOttawa can do to make Giant bringdown emissions.Mining In Remote Areas: Issues and Impacts 19

Health andSafetyYears of working dangerously:at least 3359have died in Canada’smines since Westray (HalifaxChronicle Herald, 05/05/97, A1, A4)This article provides a list of miningrelateddeaths, and their causes, for theyears 1992 to 1996.Mining still this country’s60 most dangerous job(Halifax Chronicle Herald,05/05/97, A2)Statistics Canada rates mining andquarrying as the most dangerous occupations.Between 1988 and 1993, 5% ofall workers killed on the job or by workrelatedillnesses (268 deaths) in Canadawere miners/quarry workers. Rates ofworkplace injury and death are increasingin the mining industry, while theyare decreasing in other occupations.Curragh Inc. fined $20,61 000 for safety offences(Globe & Mail, 12/05/92,B12)Curragh Inc. was fined $20,000 fortwo safety offences at its lead-zinc minein Faro, Yukon. They were fined$15,000 for failing to ensure a front-endloader was equipped with parking brake,and $5,000 for failing to ensure thatoxygen was available in its first-aid vehicle.Explosives stored in62 wrong places, inspectorsfind (Vancouver Sun,10/16/92, B11)Safety inspectors who went throughthe Giant gold mine in Yellowknife(where an explosion had recently killednine men) found explosives where theyshouldn’t have been. Blasting caps, stickpowder and bags of explosives werefound in more than 20 improper locationsat the mine owned by Royal OakMines.Placer Dome fined $325,63 000 (Victoria Times Colonist,05/05/99, C11)Placer Dome was fined $325,000 afterpleading guilty to a health and safetyviolation in the death of a Northern Ontariominer.A Labour Ministry investigation foundthat Placer Dome failed to establish proceduresto govern the movement of ascoop tram, contrary to mining regulationsunder the Occupational Health andSafety Act.senic, nickel, sulphuric acid mist inthe milling process, and asbestos.There are also suspected carcinogenssuch as oil mist and diesel fumesfrom mining equipment.(54)In addition to cancer, there areother potential healthproblems thatcan result fromworking in amine. In 1995,as many as70 employeesat anopen pit coalmine in BritishColumbiawerestruck witha variety ofailments includingblisteredeyes,peeling facialskin, and longer-term respiratoryand urinary tract problems.(55)Mental HealthIn addition to physical ailmentsrelated to mining, there are also issuesof mental health. A report writtenin 1988 documents the impact offly-in mining (i.e., where workers areflown into remote areas to work andlive for specified lengths of time) on aminer’s physical and mental health.(49) The author concluded that theseparation from family and friendsand the inability to get away fromthe work site combine to createstress that can be hazardous to aminer’s mental and physical health.Beyond the Mine Gate:Community Health ImpactsMining operations can potentiallyimpact the health of nearby communitymembers in a number of ways.Noise pollution can be disruptive,chemical spills can taint water andfood supplies (29), and air emissionscan pollute water, soil and vegetation.UraniumSmelter emissions can be a major source ofcontaminationUranium hasbeen coined“death rock” bythe Dene, and theland around uraniummines hasbeen termed the“sacrifice area,”which expressesthe idea that theimpacted zoneremains unsuitablefor humanhabitation forthousands ofyears. The coststo Native communitiesliving inthe vicinity of uranium mines havebeen high: the animals they dependon for survival have been adverselyaffected, as has their drinking water,and residents have reported new andunusual health problems.(56)The federal government has recentlyannounced it will study theeffects that years of uranium mininghas had on the village of Deline inthe Northwest Territories. The Eldoradomine operated in the 1930s and1940s during which time “Dene menwere recruited to transport the ore,carrying 45-kg sacks of it on theirbacks. They slept and sat on thosesacks during the long barge tripsacross the lake and down the Bearand Mackenzie rivers. They spentmuch of their time covered with fineuranium ore dust.” (57) There havebeen many deaths from cancer in thecommunity, which is known locallyas the “village of widows.” (57)SmeltersRisks to health increase whensmelters are part of the mining development.Residents of Anaconda20 MiningWatch Canada

Montana, where arsenic is emittedfrom a copper smelter, have a higherincidence of death from lung cancerthan the general US population.(45)Safety: Mining Still aDangerous OccupationTwo recent headlines from theHalifax Chronicle Herald capturethe reality of the risks involved inthe mining industry:“Years of working da n-gerously: at least 33 havedied in Canada’s minessince Westray”(59)“Mining still this country’smost dangerousjob”(60)Mining is a dangerous occupation.Accidents anddeaths occur for a varietyof reasons includingflaws in mine design,smaller workforces andmore overtime work, andlack of adherence tosafety regulations. (61-65) Some members of themining industry blamethe increase in accidentsand fatalities on“improper motivation” onthe part of the employees.(66)The facts suggestthat this is not the case.Between 1992 and 1997,explosions, cave-ins,heavy machinery andnoxious gases claimedthe lives of 50 miners in Canada, 27of them coal miners and the resthardrock miners.(60)Deaths underground have rippleeffects throughout a small community.This is particularly true whenmany miners die in a single calamity,as at Westray.(59)Many mines are being proposedfor remote northern regions of Canada,where permafrost conditionsprevail. Building on permafrost requiresadvanced engineering skillsand knowledge, and if mine infr a-structure is improperly designed orconstructed accidents can occur. Anincident in the Yukon highlights thepotential impacts that can be expectedfrom permafrost melt. An explosionthat injured 11 workers wasattributed to ground movementcaused by changing temperaturesthat ruptured propane pipes.(67)Underground mines have particular health and safetychallengesThere are particular problems atremote mine sites where employeesare flown in and live at the mine forspecified periods of time. As onestudy points out, fly-in workers oftensuffer stress and tension as a resultof separation from family and community.Coupled with overtimehours on the job, this stress may contributeto an increase in workplaceaccidents. (49)There is a need to address theseissues because of the likelihood ofmore “urban miners,” as southernore bodies are depleted and companiesdevelop more mines in remoteareas. Also, there are many minesHealth andSafetyKinross Gold fined64 $500,000 following twofatal accidents(Occupational Health & Safety, v.16(4), June/2000, p.13,14)Two fatal incidents within six monthsat Hoyle Pond mine near Timmins haveresulted in fines totaling $500,000against the company.Kinross Gold Corporation pleadedguilty to two counts under the OccupationalHealth and Safety Act. The companyfailed to take the reasonable precautionof ensuring that standardizedsignals were used between a workerand a train operator; and failed to establishsafety procedures for employeesworking near a hole that was blockedwith planks and loose rock.Flin Flon: death in a65company town (OurTimes, v. 17(1), Jan/Feb1998, pg 31-33+)While industrial accidents are by nomeans uncommon in Canada, HudsonBay Mining and Smelting Company inFlin Flon, Manitoba, has more than average.From 1991 to 1996, there were 14fatalities in Manitoba’s mining industry –10 of which happened at HBM&S. Thiscompared with three at Inco’s operation,which employs a similar number ofpeople in Manitoba. In fact, over thepast 70 years, 98 HBM&S workers havedied violently on the job: about oneevery nine months.Improper motivation66 main cause of accidents(Northern Miner, v. 79(14),06/07/93, p. 14)During the 1980s, Ontario averaged11 mining-related deaths per year, mostof which occurred underground. In1993, 2,800 accidents were reported tothe Ontario Workers’ CompensationBoard. The industry cited “improperlymotivated” employees as the basiccause for most accidents.At Falconbridge’s Kidd Creek mine inTimmins, the safety record is particularlygood. According to the mine manager,their safety record is, in part, theresult of suggestions from employees.This stellar record may be at risk, however,with the elimination of 250 jobs,which raises concerns about workersafety.Mining In Remote Areas: Issues and Impacts 21

Health andSafetyShifting ground blamed67for blast (Vancouver Sun,12/24/91, A3)Eleven workers at the Sa Dena Heslead-zinc mine in the Yukon were injuredas they slept in their bunkhousetrailer. Ground movement, caused bychanging temperatures, ruptured propanepipes, spilling gas beneath thetrailer. The gas was likely ignited by afurnace-pilot light or the furnace itself.Coroner calls for better68 training for miners after5 deaths (Montreal Gazette,07/24/96)All five of the deaths resulted whenminers were crushed by falling rocks.Only 14 of 40 mines offer training programsin Quebec. In Ontario, whereminers are required to take extensivetraining, accidents have dropped by 21percent.The coroner, Gilles Perron, wants allminers to be trained, and he wants Quebecto set up a mining school in northwesternQuebec. Perron also urged thework-safety commission to make suresub-contractors respect Quebec safetyrules.Survivor of mine cave-in69 wants more training(Victoria Times Colonist,11/18/98, E7)Quinsam Coal miner Michael Pearo saidhe considered suicide during the terrifyingmoments after 600 tonnes of rockfell from the roof of a mine shaft, trappinghim and killing two co-workers.Pearo was working near Darrell Ralphand Wayne Campbell on Jan. 16 whenhe was knocked unconscious by thehuge slab of rock that fell from the roof.Ralph and Campbell were killed whenthe rock trapped them inside a continuousmining machine.Pearo told a five-member jury at aninquest into the accident that thereshould be legislation ensuring moretraining for people working undergroundin the coal industry.that are only projected to operate fora few years, which discourages thecreation of new mining towns andencourages the trend toward flyingin workers.TrainingFollowing the deaths of five minersin separate accidents in Quebec,Coroner Gilles Perron concluded thatthe province’s miners need bettertraining.(68) Perron said work methodsare a factor in 90 percent of accidentsunderground.The miners’ union said the cor o-ner’s report underlines the lack ofconcern by mining companies for employees.“Clear signals of dangerwere ignored by the supervisors so asnot to reduce production,” said ArnoldDugas, director of the UnitedSteelworkers of America.At an inquest into an accidentthat killed two miners at the Quinsamcoal mine on Vancouver Island,miner Michael Pearo who survivedthe accident called for more trainingfor those working underground.“They should be well-trained,” hesaid. “ ... It should be under provinciallaw.” (69)DeregulationIf employers do not always haveworker safety foremost in mind, atleast government safety inspectorshave the ability to halt operationsthat pose a potential danger to workers.Or at least that used to be thecase.In a disturbing trend, governmentsacross the country are cuttingback on occupational health andsafety enforcement. In Alberta, morethan half of the health and safety inspectorswere laid off, leaving employersto essentially inspect and policethemselves. Similarly, in Ontario,the Ministry of Labour hasdownsized to the point where inspectorscan’t afford to visit remote minesites.(60)This trend has labour activists inCanada very concerned.“Deregulation kills people. It’s assimple as that,” said Andy King, nationalhealth and safety coordinatorfor the United Steelworkers of America.(60)“Business people are gamblers,”says Vern Edwards, a safety officialwith the Ontario Federation of Labour.“They’ll cut corners on healthand safety for the sake of productionand profits and just cross their fingersnothing happens. Unfortunately,they’re not the ones who paythe price of losing that gamble.”(60)Conclusions: A LongRoad AheadTo a certain extent, the healthand safety effects suffered by minersand mine and smelting communitiesare inherent to the industry and themine environment. Yet many of theworst impacts could be mitigated orprevented with appropriate workplaceinvestments.The long and often bloody historyof mining has produced some strongand progressive labour unions. Mineworkers and their families areamong the first to feel the impact ofpoorly designed mines. Over theyears, labour activism has been themost important force in improvingthe safety of the mine environment.However, the shocking alleg a-tions of company and governmentnegligence that came out in the Westrayinquiry underscore the distancethe mining industry still has tocome.The continued failure of companieslike Royal Oak at their GiantMine to address the health impactsof their operations speaks of an industrythat is in too many cases stillfocused on profit at the expense ofworkers and communities.22 MiningWatch Canada

TEnvironmental Assessmenthis package has so far dealt with the impacts associatedwith mining developments. However, there are opportunitiesfor identifying potential impacts before mines are developed.During the exploration stage, permits to dig, divert water,and so on, must be obtained. At the mineral development stage,however, all major mining projects in Canada have to gothrough an environmental assessment (EA) process to determineif and how development should proceed.Background: theOrigins Of EAEnvironmental assessment inCanada was created to ensure thatenvironmental concerns are adequatelyconsidered in decision making.Unfortunately, the current stateof EA processes in Canadahas been thesubject of substantialcriticism andincreasing cynicismfrom manystakeholders.Twenty yearsago, the BergerInquiry set thestandard for EAsin Canada. JusticeThomasBerger establishedthat:“environment”must includehuman socialand cultural concerns; all those affectedhave a right to a fair hearingand to have their concerns incorporatedinto the decision making process;and traditional knowledgeshould be combined with Westernscience-based information to providethe best possible information basefor decision making. He also made itclear that none of this could be accomplishedwithout adequate timefor a thorough review.(70)Impacts are best dealt with before the pit isdugSince Berger, there hasn’t been asingle assessment conducted in Canadathat has met the standards ofthe Berger Inquiry.(43)Presently in Canada, all provincesand the federal governmenthave EA legislation. North of 60°, thefederal process generally applies;however, theEA regime inthe territoriescontinues toevolve throughthe ongoingsettlement ofland claimsand selfgovernmentagreements.(71)For all otherregions, theresponsibilityfor regulatingand assessingmining oper a-tions rests with provincial gover n-ments. Occasionally, mining projectsin the provinces also require federalapproval (for example, when mineproposals include the destruction oralteration of fish habitat). When thisis the case, the two EA processes areusually merged or “harmonized,” tosave time and costs for all partiesinvolved.EnvironmentalAssessmentArticles with underlined titles areavailable as reprints from Mining-Watch Canada..Justice Thomas Berger.70 Northern Frontier,Northern Homeland: thereport of the Mackenzie ValleyPipeline Inquiry, Volume 1(Ottawa: DIAND, 1977)Marbek Resources Consultants.1998. Guide to infor-71mation requirements forthe environmental assessmentof mining projects in Canada(prepared for Environment Canada,the Canandian Environmental AssessmentAgency, and Natural ResourcesCanada)This report documents the legislativerequirements for EA of mining projectsin Canada. It also outlines the informationthat companies must produce tomeet the requirements of the EA process.Killer Gold permit stirs72 court action (Alternatives,v.21(2), 1995, p. 11)The Yukon Conservation Society (YCS)is suing the federal government for itsrefusal to require a comprehensive env i-ronmental assessment of explorationwork on a block of mineral claims in theYukon. Jennifer Ellis, executive directorof YCS says, “allowing mineral explorationin this area is appalling whenwolves are being killed to ease pressureson the local caribou. Almost 100wolves have been killed so far in thename of protecting this caribou herd,yet the federal government is refusingto even consider the environmental impactsof a mining proposal that couldhave severe repercussions for the herd.”Conservation group73 launches lawsuits challengingWestmin miningin Yukon (Vancouver Sun,05/26/94, C10)The Canadian Parks and WildernessSociety (CPAWS) has initiated two lawsuitsaimed at the federal governmentand Westmin Resources, which is exploringits mineral claim near the BonnetPlume River in the Yukon. CPAWS saysthe Department of Indian and NorthernAffairs allows mining companies to log,Mining In Remote Areas: Issues and Impacts 23

EnvironmentalAssessmentbulldoze and build airstrips, camps androads without first assessing whetherthe work harms the environment.Canadian Arctic Resources74 Committee. Critique of theBHP Environmental Assessment:Purpose, Structureand Process (Northern Perspectives.V,24(1-4), Fall/Winter 1996.pp. 7-9)Biologist balks at Kemessrequest for new75mill location (VancouverSun, 07/23/96, C7,8)The suggestion that the location ofthe mill be moved to a new site is “asignificant change,” says Gordon Ennis,habitat biologist with the federal fisheriesdepartment. It creates “potential forsignificant adverse impact [on fish].”Whereas the original mill site was locatedseveral kilometres away from KemessCreek, the new site is on a benchabout 200 metres away. The creek ishome to Dolly Varden and brown trout,a species listed as vulnerable in BC.Diamond-mine scrutiny76 called “shoddy” (Globe &Mail, 07/18/96, A8)Critics warn that enthusiasm over themine’s benefits has overshadowed alack of adequate scrutiny of its potentiallyharmful effects on land, animalsand the human communities. They saythe federal environmental-approvalprocess has been reduced to little morethan a cursory overview.Diamonds in the rough77 (Nature Canada, Fall, 1994,pp. 21-31)This magazine article, written by EdStruzik, provides an overview of theconcerns voiced by different parties involvedin the BHP Ekati diamond mineproject in the Northwest Territories.These include opinions from industry,First Nation, community and environmentalgroups.Canadian Institute of ResourceLaw. 1997. Inde-78pendent Review of theBHP Diamond Mine Process (Areport prepared for the Departmentof Indian Affairs and Northern Development)Benefits of EAIn theory, environmental assessmentfocuses on predicting and assessingthe ecological, social and relatedconsequences of proposed developments,and on identifying waysto mitigate negative effects and optimizebenefits. If properly conducted,EA processes should reveal if andhow proposed projects can be implementedwithout unacceptable impacts.For mining companies, a well coordinatedEA of a proposed miningproject can contribute significantly toeffective planning. By identifying potentialproblems with, for example,mine design and waste handlingplans, and by bringing to light thefull range of potential impacts andalternative ways of carrying out theproject before the mine is developed,EAs can help to reduce costs and unscheduledproject delays and minimizefuture economic and environmentalliabilities.(71)Criticisms of EAThere are many criticisms regardinghow the EA process is applied tomining in Canada today. These includelack of assessment at the explorationstage, insufficient opportunityfor concerned citizens to participatein the process, lack of adequatescrutiny of projects, inadequate timegiven to the reviews, and conflict ofinterest issues that arise when thegovernment is both financeer andregulator of a project.EA lacking for explorationphaseAs outlined in the section on EnvironmentalImpacts, there aremany potential impacts related tothe exploration phase. Yet in manyjurisdictions there is no proc ess toevaluate these impacts, especiallythe cumulative impacts of explorationrushes, prior to exploration. Inthe Yukon, several lawsuits havebeen launched against the federalgovernment for failing to assess theimpacts of exploration activities onthe environment.(72,73)Inadequate opportunityfor citizen participationIn Labrador, there are few examplesof consultation between governmentdepartments on assessing thepotential impacts of exploration activities.(5)What little consultationthat does exist is often hampered bythe absence of critical baseline dataon wildlife populations and distributions,key habitat areas and archaeologicalsites. According to the InnuNation, even those rare instanceswhere baseline data exist, there is aserious deficit in the basic ecologicaland cultural research required to interpretthe data correctly in order tomake informed decisions.(5)As part of the environmental reviewof BHP’s Ekati diamond minein the NWT, hearings were held incommunities likely to be affected bythe mine.Kevin O’Reilly, staff member withthe Canadian Arctic Resources Committee(CARC), has commented thatthe BHP review was neither rigorousnor procedurally fair. Communitieswere not adequately included, inpart because the EA panel was operatingwith very limited time and financialresources.(74)Prior to the hearings, people weregiven several months to prepare.However, there were many barriersto participating in this process. Thecompany’s environmental impactstatement (EIS), which was almost1,000 pages long, became availableat a time when many people wereout of communities and busy withtheir traditional harvesting activities.Funding was limited and didnot allow for adequate preparation of24 MiningWatch Canada

detailed arguments and positions.For example, because the EIS waswritten in a very technical languageand was only available in English,preparatory discussions and workshopswere necessary in communitieswhere English was not a firstlanguage in order to prepare responsesfor the hearings. No resourcesor time had been allocatedfor these purposes.(43)Only $254,000 was paid to intervenorsduring the BHP review. “Wehave a limited budget,” said MichelDorais, then head of the CanadianEnvironmental Assessment Agency,which administers the FederalEA Act, and distributesintervenor funding.(76) The federal agencycould not find sufficientfunding to evaluate thepotential impacts of theproject on communities, yetthe federal government expectsto receive an estimated$2.5 billion in royaltiesand taxes from theEkati project.(43)The Canadian ArcticResources Committee hasnoted that other environmentalreviews, someof much less technicalcomplexity, have received more intervenorfunding than the BHP review.The Pearson International AirportExpansion panel received justover $1 million; close to $4 million infunding was allocated for the GreatWhale project; and the Northern DiseasedBison review—scarcely therevenue-generating project that theBHP project is—was given morethan $500,000.(76)Lack of scientific andtechnical scrutinyEA reviews have been criticizedas being less than rigorous in theirscrutiny of mining projects.In 1996, Royal Oak’s Kemessmine in northern BC receivedboth provincial and federal approvalafter going through an environmentalreview process, whichthe BC environment minister atthe time, Moe Sihota, called a“sound and thorough environmentalassessment.” Yet, only acouple months after the projectwas approved, the company revealedthat the soils at the locationof the planned mill site wereunstable.“It suggests that somebody didnot do their homework,” saidThe roads and camps built to collect core samplesand do other exploration work can leave a lastingmark on the landscapeRosemary Fox of the Sierra Club.“It shatters one’s confidence in theintegrity of the review process.”The company wanted to movethe mill to a location that was specificallyrejected during the EAprocess. Fox said this proposalmade “a mockery of both the provincialand federal environmentalprocesses.”(75)Critics of the BHP federal environmentalreview have called it “ashoddy and hurried assessment.”(76)The head of the Canadian EnvironmentalAssessment Agencyacknowledged that the federal EAprocess has become more hurriedEnvironmentalAssessmentBC Court quashes governmentapproval of79northern mine(Canadian Press Newswire,06/29/00)In a stinging rebuke to the provincialgovernment, a BC Supreme Court justicehas quashed approval for a controversialmine on a tributary of the TakuRiver in northwestern British Columbia.Cabinet ministers failed to take intoaccount the views of the Tlingit FirstNation when deciding to give the projecta green light, said Justice PamelaKirkpatrick in a ruling released Wednesday.“The failure goes to the heart of theenvironmental review process and, assuch, renders the minister’s decisionunreasonable,” she said in her judgment.Court rejects mine near80 edge of Jasper Park: Ajudge rules a controversialmine did not get enoughinformation on environmentalimpacts(Vancouver Sun, 04/10/99, B4)A controversial open-pit coal mineproposed for the boundary of a RockyMountain national park has received asecond setback, this time at the handsof the courts.The Federal Court of Canada hasruled that the environmental assessmentof the Cheviot mine, which wouldrun along the boundary of Jasper NationalPark, did not collect enough informationabout cumulative effects of themine together with other industrial activity.In his decision, Justice Douglas Campbellwrote: “I find that the Joint ReviewPanel breached its duty to obtain allavailable information about likely forestryin the vicinity of the project, toconsider this information with respect tocumulative environmental effects, toreach conclusions and make recommendationsabout this factor and to substantiatethese conclusions and recommendationsin the Joint Panel report.”81The Pits: BC’s Huckleberrymine raises moreconcerns about flaws in the environmentalassessment andconflicts of interest in government(Alternatives, 23(2), Spring1997, pp. 4, 5)The BC government has been involvedin the Huckleberry mining project fromMining In Remote Areas: Issues and Impacts 25

EnvironmentalAssessmentin recent years. “These things werenot a problem a few years ago, whenwe had two major projects to assess ayear and no budget problems. . . butnow we have six major panels a yearand a limited budget.”(76)Bill Fuller, a retired zoologistfrom the University of Alberta, appearedin front of the EA panel forthe BHP project. He told the panelthat more analysis was needed oncaribou, as well as on the eating andCase Study: Tulsequah ChiefMajor controversies erupted following the approval of RedfernResources’ (now Redcorp Ventures Inc.’s) TulsequahChief mine proposal to reopen an old Cominco mine andbuild a 160-km road into the Taku, a roadless wildernessarea in northwestern BC.Concerns with the proposal and assessment process camefrom a number of camps: the Taku River Tlingit First Nation(TRTFN) expressed concerns about how the mine would impactthe future of their land, their people and the outcome oftreaty negotiations underway as the mine was proposed; theAlaskan government raised fears that the mine and subsequentdevelopments would damage their lucrative salmonfishery; and a range of BC and Alaskan environmental groupsargued that the mine and its 160 km. access road would disruptgrizzly bear and caribou habitat, impact key salmonhabitat and lead to the long-term degradation of the previouslyunroaded valley area through exposure to logging activitiesand other mineral exploration and development.(17)Janet Kowalski, director of habitat for the Alaska Departmentof Fish and Game, said that BC’s environmental reviewfailed to answer key questions, including what impact theproject will have on the millions of sockeye, coho and chinooksalmon in the Taku River. The proposed mine is locatedon the Tulsequah River, a major tributary of the Taku River.The Alaskans are concerned about “inadequate tailings disposal”in the historical flood plain of a major salmon river, inan area prone to earthquakes and floods. Kowalski said herstate is pro-mining but would never allow such a project.(17,19,22,23)Don Weir of the Taku Wilderness Association said he understandsthat you have to share the wilderness, but properenvironmental reviews are fundamental to making decisionsabout development. This one, he said, was deeply flawedbecause key questions identified in the EA were never answered,about habitat impacts, access management and longterm toxic waste problems. The many documents filed by thecompany did not address key local issues and were not of aquality that gave people confidence in the process.The Tulsequah Chief mine project was subject to both aprovincial and federal assessment which was conducted overthree years. During this time Alaskans, the Tlingit and environmentalistscontributed to the BC environmental review,but all were given less than 48 hours to review a draft of the104-page project -committee report.The public process was truncatedand essentially corrupted at a crit i-cal stage despite deficiencies identifiedby many participants. The TRTFN, a member of the EAproject review committee, issued a detailed critique of thedraft report in which they identified major deficiencies in thedata and assessment.(82) In spite of their objections, the BCgovernment rapidly approved the mine.The BC assessment of the Tulsequah Chief mine cameshortly after the federal government agreed to “harmonize”its EA rules with those of the provinces, a move environme n-talists claim opened the door to perfunctory reviews.Brian Jack, a member of the Tlingit First Nation, hasworked to re -establish a Native fishery in the upper Taku w a-tershed. He says he lost his faith in environmental reviews,and in the ability of both British Columbia and the federalgovernment to protect the land that is the center of his lifeand livelihood. Weir argues that it is local people, such asBrian Jack and the other fishermen and fisherwomen whodepend on the Taku, who will pay the price for inadequateassessments like this.(17)As a result of their concerns, the Taku River Tlingit FirstNation (TRTFN) filed a legal challenge against the BC governmentasking that the mine approval be quashed due toprocedural irregularities and lack of adequate data or consultationto resolve the outstanding threat to the Tlingit peopleand the ecological values of the Taku Valley.In June 2000, the Supreme Court of BC agreed with theTlingits and quashed the decision of the Ministers to issuethe Project Approval Certificate to Redfern Resources. Theyrequired the Project Committee to reconvene to address outstandingissues, and to submit any new recommendationsreport to the Ministers. The Court concluded that in thiscase "it is clear that the Ministers' reasons demonstrate thatthe statutory obligation to promote sustainability, an objectof the EAA, was not fully addressed. They noted errors inprocedure, substance and the constitutionality of the BCmine approval decision. (79)In 1998, the Auditor-General’s Office found serious deficienciesin the federal EA process and noted that Ottawa oftenfails to ensure that companies follow up on their promisesto mitigate environmental damage. (83)Further criticism has come from the House of Commonsenvironment committee, which has condemned Ottawa fornot enforcing crucial laws, especially in remote areas like thePacific Northwest.(84)26 MiningWatch Canada

migratory habits of other northernanimals such as fox and grizzlybears.“They’re spending billions onthis,” said Fuller. “Why can’t [thecompany] wait a year or two? Thenwe’ll know better what sort of restrictionsneed to be put on.”(3)David Schindler, a professor atthe University of Alberta, also appearedin front of the panel as atechnical expert. He was shocked bythe speed with which the environmentalhearings were held, given theamount of data that had to be reviewed.“I thought they would havewanted me for half a day, not fifteenminutes.”(3)An environmental review, by pursuingstandards of comprehensiveness,rigour and fairness, is intendedto give the government impartial adviceon whether a project should pr o-ceed, and if so, under what conditions.Mining projects are complex andtechnical by nature.It follows,ther efore, thatEA panelsshould taketime to examinethe technicalissues inorder to fullyunderstandthe implicationsof theproject beforemaking recommendationsonwhether or notit should bedeveloped.This wasnot the casewith the BHP environmental review.An article written by CARC documentsthe panel’s failure to addresstechnical issues.(74) The article relatesthat during the course of theBHP hearings the panel chair stated,“I would also like to stress that thisis not a technical review per se.” Furthermore,the panel did not retainlegal or technical experts to help itframe its own interests, raise questions,or assist others to explore technicalissues. It is possible that thepanel expected government agenciesto come forward with sound technicalanalyses of the pr oposal. Some did,notably the NWT Department of RenewableResources. Others, however,did little to advance the technical investigation.Some departments wereabsent from the proceedings, hardlyin keeping with the panel’s requestfor information from all relevant andinvolved agencies.As CARC asked, “If the BHP reviewwas not intended to examinetechnical aspects of the project, underwhose auspices and when willsuch a review take place?”(74)In addition to a lack of consider a-tion of technical issues, the cumulativeimpacts of mining proposals areoften not given adequate consider a-The historic Tulsequah Chief mine releases acid drainage into theTulsequah River, a major tributary of the Takution during environmental assessmentsand reviews.The Ekati diamond mine in theNWT became a major focus of attentionfor northern interest groups andFirst Nations because it is likely toEnvironmentalAssessmentwas given a $15 million infrastructureloan to complete the project. Informationreleased by the Canadian Taxpayer’sFederation indicates that anOrder-in-Council was also used to extinguisha $28.8 million government loanowed by Princeton’s former whollyownedsubsidiary, Cassiar Mining Corp.Taku River Tlingit First Nation(TRTFN). March 6,1998. Tulsequah Chief mine reopeningproject: report andrecommendations of theTRTFN, project committeemember, with respect to a decisionon a project approvalcertificate by the minister ofenvironment, lands and parksand the minister of energy andmines.This document is available on-line atthe following address: http://emcbc.miningwatch.org/emcbc/library/tulsequah_TRTFN.htmAuditor General of Canada.1998 Report of the Commissionerof the Environmentand Sustainable Development.Chapter six: Environmental Assessment– a critical tool for sustainabledevelopmentEnvironmental assessment is supposedto identify potentially significantadverse environmental effects and anymitigation measures that will reducethem to insignificance. Federal authoritieshave generally been including mitigationmeasures in the terms and conditionsof their approval, or building theminto related contract documents. It isless obvious from the information providedto us that responsible authoritiesverified whether mitigation measureswere actually implemented by projectproponents. In some cases, departmentssaid they had to allocate scarceresources to activities other than themonitoring of mitigation.This report can be found at the followingweb address: http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/c8menu_e.htmlStanding Committee on Environmentand Sustainable84Development. Report 3,Enforcing Canada's PollutionLaws: The Public Interest MustCome First!. Canadian EnvironmentalProtection Act enforcementMining In Remote Areas: Issues and Impacts 278283

study (Tabled in the House May 25,1998)Based on the evidence before it, theCommittee concluded that Canadiansare not getting the high level of environmentalprotection that they deserve. Anumber of problems with enforcementwere raised by the Committee.One major impediment concerned thelack of both human and financial resourcesrequired to meet the challengesof an ever-increasing workload.Under the federal government's programreview, Environment Canada hashad to reduce its overall budget byabout 40%. An example of the effectsof the Green Plan's expiry was providedby Peter Krahn, Head of the InspectionsDivision for the Pacific and Yukon Region.He said that on April 1, 1998, hisregion’s inspection budget will drop by30%. With respect to the ability to inspect,Krahn expects that inspectionswill drop from 550 down to about 385,while investigations in progress will dropfrom 25 down to about 16.Web address for the report: http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/ENSU/Studies/Reports/ensurp03-e.htm85EnvironmentalAssessmentThe Great Giveaway: aflawed process led theprovince’s approval of northernBC mine (Nanaimo Times,01/16/96)The Cheslatta Carrier Nation has petitionedthe BC Supreme Court to setaside the province’s decision to approvethe Huckleberry copper mine in northwesternBC. The petition, filed by SierraLegal Defence Fund on behalf of theCheslatta, claims that the provincialgovernment failed to abide by the requirementsof the Environmental AssessmentAct by accepting the miningcompany’s incomplete project reportand approving the project.be the first of many diamond mines.As well, the potential infrastructurerequired to service these mines (e.g.,roads, powerlines) has a high likelihoodof attracting other industrialdevelopments previously considereduneconomical. In short, developmentof BHP’s Ekati mine could lead to atransformation of the physical andeconomic face of the Far North.“Even when an environmentalscreening is done there are seriousflaws in the process,” says StewartElgie, lawyer with the Sierra LegalDefence Fund. “First, governmentregulators don’t have the baselinedata to make environmental predictionsbecause the science required todetermine how watersheds will beaffected – or how grizzly bears,wolves and other animals are goingto respond to the activity – has notbeen done. Secondly, the governmentsare basing their decision onthe impact of one project, not on thecumulative impacts of all that is goingon in the diamond mining territory.In essence, the whole in thiscase is far bigger than the sum of itsparts.”(77)The Canadian Arctic ResourcesCommittee echoes Elgie’s comments.The committee has written that,“What should have been a compr e-hensive regional assessment nowstands as a very limited analysis of asingle project, with reference neitherto the potential for greater developmentnor to long-term cumulativeeffects.”(43)Virtually everyone involved in theBHP public hearings expected theEA panel to recommend clear, detailedterms and conditions to minimizeenvironmental costs and maximizeeconomic benefits to aboriginalpeoples and other northerners. However,the failure of the EA panel toprovide adequate scrutiny of the potentialand cumulative impacts ofthe project resulted in recommendationsthat were perceived as beingtoo general to be very helpful.(78)The need for more comprehensiveand accurate scientific input oncumulative impacts and environmentalrisks has been recognized atthe judicial level. There have beentwo successful legal challengesbrought by the public against recentmining environmental assessments.The courts have quashed approvalsat the Tulsequah mine in northwesternBritish Columbia and the Cheviotmine near Jasper, Alberta. (79,80)Conflict of interest issuesIn addition to budgetary problemsreducing the scope and amount ofparticipation in the assessment process,there are other pressures thatmay be contributing to the fasttrackingof proposals through the EAstage.The rush for the promise of jobsand tax revenues can and has createdconflicts for governments whohave the responsibility of regulatingthe environmental impact of miningprojects.In some cases, the governmentmay also have a direct stake in aproposed mine.The province of BC was both aninvestor and regulator of PrincetonMining Corp.’s Huckleberry Mineproject in northwestern BC.(81) InDecember 1996, the BC governmentapproved the copper mine project,even though the company had not“submitted cost projections for longtermmonitoring and maintenance ofthe facility after closure . . . conductedfish tissue sampling to determinebackground levels of mercuryand other metals . . . provided modelingof long-term pit water quality. . .or assessed the impact on humans ofmine discharge.”(85) All of this informationwas required by the projectreport specifications outlined by theprovincial government. Just a few28 MiningWatch Canada

months later, the company receiveda $15 million infrastructure loan tocomplete their project.(85)Conclusions: the Futureof EAAs Susan Wismer writes,“Experience to date with the BHPreview raises serious questions aboutthe state of environmental assessmentin Canada. As a regulatory andplanning mechanism designed to ensurefair, effective and efficient decisionmaking, it does not seem to beworking.”(43)David Schindler, internationallyrenowned scientist and professor atthe University of Alberta, participatedin the BHP process. Schindlersays that he believes it is time forthe federal review process to begiven the means and legal power toconduct its business. “It’s really disgracefulthe way it operates now,” hesays. “This kind of thing is a throwbackto the Dark Ages, and I can’thelp but think that as a country,we’ll some day regret that there wasso much hurry to give so much awayto the multinationals when therewas plenty of time to think this thingthrough. After all, the diamondsaren’t going to go away.”(77)In the 1970s, many people sawthe Berger Inquiry as the beginningof an era in which environmental assessmentcould be used to balanceout the inequities inherent in largescaleresource development projects,ensure accountability and inject asuitable tone of precaution into decisionmaking. Experience with federaland provincial review processes suggests,however, the Berger Inquirymay have been the high point of anera, rather than its beginning.(43)EA is supposed to determinewhether mining projects can be developedwithout having unacceptableimpacts.In order to truly understand thebreadth of potential impacts, and todevelop strategies to prevent or mitigatethese impacts, there is a need toensure thorough scrutiny of developmentproposals.When EA hearings are held, it isthe responsibility of EA panels toconduct environmental reviews that:◊ include human social and culturalconcerns, in addition to ecosystemimpacts;◊ provide a fair hearing to all affectedparties and incorporatetheir concerns into the decisionmaking process;◊ take into consideration traditionalknowledge as well as detailed,technical Western-sciencebasedinformation;◊ address the question of longterm,cumulative impacts of theproject;◊ seriously consider alternatives tothe project and alternative waysof carrying out the project; and◊ allocate enough time for a thoroughreview.Due consideration of all of theabove factors is essential if EA panelsare to make informed recommendationson whether the developmentshould proceed, and if so, what typesof mitigative measures need to beundertaken.Throughout the EA process, theremust be a greater commitment onthe part of governments at both theprovincial and federal levels to seriouslyaddress all parties’ concerns.Only then will regulators be able tomake informed decisions as to whatis “acceptable” to all people potentiallyaffected by a mining development.Mining is only one of a spectrumof development options in any area.At the end of the day, if it is shownthat impacts cannot be mitigated orprevented, governments must havethe integrity and political will to decidethat a mining project is not anappropriate development for a particularcommunity or region.EnvironmentalAssessment“It’s really disgracefulthe way [the environmentalassessment process]operates now. Thiskind of thing is a throwbackto the Dark Ages,and I can’t help but thinkthat as a country, we’llsome day regret that therewas so much hurry to giveso much away to the multinationalswhen therewas plenty of time tothink this thing through.After all, the diamondsaren’t going to go away.”— David Schindler, participantin the assessment ofBHP’s Ekati diamondmineMining In Remote Areas: Issues and Impacts 29

Appendix 1:Contact OrganizationsHere are a few places to look for furtherinformation on mining impacts. Groups with underlinednames are members of MiningWatchCanada.Canadian ArcticResourcesCommittee (CARC)This citizens’organization with officesin Yellowknife andOttawa conductsresearch and advocacywork on issues relatedmineral exploration anddevelopment in the SlaveGeological Provincebetween Yellowknife andthe Arctic coast.In Yellowknife:tel: (867) 873-4715email: nwt@carc.orgIn Ottawa:Suite 200, 7 HintonSt.Ottawa, ON K1Y 4P1tel: (613) 759-4284email: info@carc.orgweb: http://www.carc.org/CAW Social JusticeFundThe CAW SocialJustice Fund providessolidarity assistance tonon-profit andhumanitarian projectswithin Canada andaround the world. TheCAW Social Justice Fundwas first negotiated in1990. Where CAWmembers have won theSocial Justice Fund innegotiations, theemployer pays into theFund one cent per hourworked per worker.205 Placer CourtNorth York, ON M2H3H9tel: (416) 495-6459fax: (416) 495-6554email: cawint@caw.caweb: http://www.caw.caCanadianEnvironmental LawAssociationThe CanadianEnvironmental LawAssociation (CELA) is anon-profit, public interestorganization establishedin 1970 to use existinglaws to protect theenvironment and toadvocate environmentallaw reforms. It is also afree legal advisory clinicfor the public, and willact at hearings and incourts on behalf ofcitizens or citizens’groups who are otherwiseunable to afford legalassistance.401-517 CollegeStreetToronto ON M6G 4A2tel: (416) 960-2284fax (416) 960-9392email: cela@web.caweb: http://www.cela.caCanadian Institute forEnvironmental Law andPolicyFounded in 1970, TheCanadian Institute forEnvironmental Law andPolicy (CIELAP) is anindependent, not-forprofitresearch andeducation organization.CIELAP's mission isto develop and advanceproposals for the reformof environmental law andpublic policy. CIELAP'sresearch is presented ina manner that assistspublic interest groups,government, industryand individuals in theirdaily decision-making.517 College Street,Suite 400Toronto On M6G 4A2tel: 416-923-3529fax: 416-923-5949email: cielap@cielap.orgweb: http://www.cielap.org/Canadian NatureFederationCNF is a non -profitconservationorganization with over40,000 supporters and anetwork of more than100 affiliated naturalistgroups. The CNF'smission is to protectnature, its diversity andthe processes thatsustain it.Suite 606, OneNicholas StreetOttawa ON K1N 7B7tel: 1-800-267-4088email: cnf@cnf.caweb: http://www.cnf.ca/Canadian Parks andWilderness SocietyA nationalorganization with over13,000 members and tenregional chapters,CPAWS works to achievethe creation of NewParks, to protect theintegrity of existingparks, to protect naturalconnections, and toimprove conservationlaws and policy.Suite 506, 880Wellington StreetOttawa ON K1R 6K7tel: 1 (800) 333-WILD(9453) or (613) 569-7226 (in Ottawa)fax: (613) 569-7098email: info@cpaws.orgweb: http://www.cpaws.org/Citizens Mining Councilof Newfoundland andLabradorThe Citizens MiningCouncil provides supportand information tocommunities on miningand mine impacts.34 Rennie’s Mill RoadSt. John’s NfldA1C 3P8tel/fax: (709) 722-8159Environmental MiningCouncil of BritishColumbiaEMCBC works withcommunities, labourunions, government andindustry toward theenvironmental reform ofmining practices andregulation throughresearch, education,dialogue and advocacy.201-607 Yates StreetVictoria BC V8W 2A7tel: (250) 384-2686fax: (250) 384-2620email:30 MiningWatch Canada

emcbc@miningwatch.orgweb: http://emcbc.miningwatch.orgInnu NationThe Innu of easternQuebec and Labradorhave opposed mineralexploration at Emishsince 1995. The Voisey'sBay nickel mine atEmish is the latestthreat to Innu land andInnu rights, intensifyingthe impacts of the lowlevelflight training, roadexpansion, industrialforestry andhydroelectricdevelopments which havealready had profoundcultural andenvironmentalconsequences.Sheshatshui, LB A0P1MOTelephone 709-497-8398Fax (709) 497-8396Web site: http://www.innu.caEmail: innuenv@web.netMineral Policy Center(MPC)This US-basedorganization is dedicatedto preventingenvironmental impactsassociated withirresponsible mining andmineral development,and to cleaning uppollution caused by pastmining. MPC carries outmining-related research;publishes books andreports; lobbies forlegislative and regulatoryreform of mining laws;provides technicalassistance for miningaffectedcommunities;and sponsors communitybasedworkshops onmining.tel: (202) 887-1872email:mpc@mineralpolicy.orgweb: http://www.mineralpolicy.orgProject UndergroundProject Undergroundworks toward exposingcorporate environmentaland human rightsabuses, and supportscommunities facing themining and oilindustries.tel: (510) 705-8981email:project_underground@moles.orgweb: http://www.moles.orgInter ParesThe name Inter Paresmeans “among equals”,and reflects thecollaborative approachtaken by this internationaldevelopmentorganization.58 Arthur StreetOttawa ON K1R 7B7tel: (613) 569-3439North WatchNorthwatch is aregional coalition ofenvironmental andcitizen organizations andindividual members,operating throughoutnortheastern Ontario.Founded in January of1988, Northwatch has asa priority issues that areof a regional nature :energy use andconservation; foresthealth, land use, andwildernessprotection; wastemanagement and waterquality issues; mining;and militarization. Inaddition to acting onthese issues as arepresentative body,Northwatch also providessupport to local citizen'sgroups addressing theseand other environmentalconcerns in their owncommunity.P.O. Box 282North Bay ON P1B8H2tel: (705) 497-0373fax: (705) 476-7060email:nwatch@onlink.netweb: http://www.onlink.net/~nwatch/nwatch@onlink.netUnited Steelworkers ofAmerica (USWA) —CanadaThe USWA had itsorigins in the steel andmining industries, and isnow a diverse unionrepresentingapproximately 200,000Canadian workers. TheUSWA web site hasplenty of information onissues including:Steelworkers working forwomen; health, safetyand environment;factsheets on mining forhealth and safetyactivists; labourcampaigns; and links toother labourorganizations.National Office,Toronto, ON:tel: (416) 487-1571email: uswa@uswa.caweb: http://www.ContactOrganizationsuswa.caYukon ConservationSocietyThis environmentalgroup located inWhitehorse, YT, focuseson issues relevant tonorthern Canada,including mining,forestry, wildlife,contaminants andenergy.P.O. Box 4163Whitehorse YT Y1A3T3fax: 867-668-6637tel: (867) 668-5678email: ycs@polarcom.comMining In Remote Areas: Issues and Impacts 31

Appendix 2:MiningWatch CanadaSelected MiningWatchCanada publications(available in print from our officeor on our website athttp://www.miningwatch.ca):◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊A Research Agenda forCommunities Affected byLarge-Scale Mining Activity,prepared as part ofthe "On the Ground Research"project, November6, 2000On The Ground Research:A Workshop toIdentify the ResearchNeeds of CommunitiesAffected by Large-ScaleMining ­ Workshop ReportPresentation to theHouse of CommonsStanding Committee onForeign Affairs on miningissues in Central AsiaSubmission to the PublicHearings on applicationsby Canadian United Mineralsfor licences to conductmineral explorationin Tombstone Park, May1, 2000Submission to CEAA regardingthe Five-YearReview of the CanadianEnvironmental AssessmentAct (CEAA), March31, 2000Abandoned Mines inCanada ­ a study done byW.O. Mackasey for MiningWatchCritique of the MiningAssociation of CanadaEnvironmental ProgressReport, 1999Mining's Toxic Orphans:A Plan for Action on FederalContaminated andUnsafe MinesAims and ObjectivesMiningWatch Canada (MWC) is apan-Canadian initiative supportedby environmental, social justice,Aboriginal and labour organisationsfrom across the country. It addressesthe urgent need for a co-ordinatedpublic interest response to thethreats to public health, water andair quality, fish and wildlife habitatand community interests posed byirresponsible mineral policies andpractices in Canada and around theworld.The MiningWatch Canada officeopened in April 1999. MiningWatchCanada shares infrastructure andservices with the Canadian Parksand Wilderness Society (CPAWS) ina central Ottawa location.The aims of MiningWatch Canadaare to:◊ ensure that mineral developmentpractices are consistent with thegoals of sustainable communitiesand ecological health;◊ strengthen technical andstrategic skills withincommunities and organisationsfaced with impacts of mineraldevelopment;◊ impose appropriate terms andconditions on mining and insome cases prevent thedevelopment of projects thatwould adversely affect areas ofecological, economic and culturalsignificance; and◊ advocate policies to improve theefficiency and reduce the risks ofmineral development.MiningWatch Canada is a directresponse to industry and governmentfailures to protect the public and theenvironment from destructivemining practices and to deliver ontheir sustainability rhetoric. Withtechnical and strategic expertisefrom across Canada, MiningWatchCanada will carry out and/or supportthe monitoring, analysis andadvocacy necessary to affect thebehaviour of industry and publicdecision-makers.A national non -profit withdedicated staff in an Ottawa-basedoffice, and supporting initiativesfrom partners in affectedcommunities in Canada and aroundthe world, MiningWatch Canada isgoverned by a Board of Directorscomprised of a range of experts,community leaders and activistsfrom across Canada.ActivitiesMiningWatch Canada has animpact on the accountability of policymakers and industry alike with fourmain activities. We:◊ Provide an Ottawa-basedmonitoring function of miningcompanies, government agencies,and industry associations;◊ Carry out and disseminate highquality research highlightingcurrent problems with mineralpolicies and practices;◊ Promote a well-grounded publicagenda for reform of selectedindustry practices andgovernment policy;◊ Increase regional interventioncapacity by facilitatinginformation exchange, effectivecommunications and jointstrategic initiatives amongaffected public stakeholders.◊ Link with other activist and nongovernmentalorganisationsaround the world to exchangeinformation and strategiesaround specific projects andcorporations as well as policyand legal questions.MiningWatch Canada and itsmember organisations are able toplay many roles. In some cases MWCstaff take a lead in carrying outresearch and advocacy efforts; in32 MiningWatch Canada

others MWC plays a limitedfacilitation or support role orwatching brief as other organisationswith particular expertise orjurisdiction take the lead.MiningWatch Canada will takeprimary responsibility for deliveringthe following over and above itsspecific Ottawa-based monitoringand support activities over the nexttwo years:◊◊◊◊Seminar to develop aCommunity-based participatoryframework to account for the fullcosts of mining. This will bringtogether communityrepresentatives from around theworld who had suffered theimpacts of Canadian miningcompanies to share their stories.Develop and deliver a criticalreview of a number ofgovernment policies affecting theminerals sectorDevelopment and publication ofa Framework for ResponsibleMining Practices in collaborationwith the USA's Mineral PolicyCenter.Community support and capacitybuilding in the regions, includinga national database/inventory ofadvanced mining projects, Website, listserv and quarterly emailbulletin, an expert referraldirectory, and a small grantssupport program to assistregional group campaigns andprograms.Board of DirectorsLegally, MiningWatch Canada isa federally registered non -profitsociety, with an thirteen -memberBoard of Directors.The Directors have expertise andexperience in geoscience, humanhealth sciences, politicalcommunications, resource law,campaigning, organisationalmanagement and fund-raising,international development andaboriginal issues.PersonnelThe MWC national office isstaffed by:◊◊◊National Coordinator, JoanKuyekResearch Co-ordinator,Catherine CoumansCommunicationsCoordinator, Jamie Kneen.MembershipMembership in MWC is comprisedof not-for-profit organisationsworking on environmental, socialjustice, international developmentand aboriginal issues. Membergroups serve as primary programand campaign partners and assistin the development of strategy viainput to the annual meeting.Membership applications areapproved by the Board ofMiningWatch Canada.Membership is not available to forprofitorganisations or associationsthereof. MWC programs andservices are also accessible to nonmembergroups.MiningWatchCanadaFounded in 1999,MiningWatch Canadaserves as a resource onmining issues forcommunities, workers,and First Nations acrossCanada.Contact us at:MiningWatch Canada/Mines AlerteSuite 508,City Centre Building880 Wellington St.Ottawa, Ontario K1R 6K7Canadatel: (613) 569-3439fax: (613) 569-5138email:canada@miningwatch.caweb:http://www.miningwatch.caMining In Remote Areas: Issues and Impacts 33

Photo by Lisa SumiAcidic drainage, Baker Mine, BCWhat are the social and environmentalimpacts of mining in remote areas?Full of relevant case studies and documentarycoverage, this booklet serves as a detailedintroduction to the particularly pressingissues raised by existing and proposedmineral developments in areas like Canada’sNorth.