A coalition of environmental groups has launched a legal challenge against the province's Environmental Assessment Office (EAO), contending the proposed KSM mine in Northwest B.C. does not meet the criteria for a “substantial start.”
Ecojustice, representing SkeenaWild Conservation Trust and the Southeast Alaska Indigenous Transboundary Commission (SEITC), filed the petition, arguing the mine's environmental assessment is outdated and poses significant ecological and cultural risks.
B.C.’s Environmental Assessment Act mandates that environmental certificates expire if a project fails to make a substantial start within a set timeframe, requiring a fresh environmental review under current laws, science, and conditions.
“The environmental assessment for the KSM mine is over 10 years old,” said Ecojustice lawyer Rachel Gutman. “There are good reasons why the law includes expiration dates for environmental assessments, ensuring projects do not proceed based on outdated information. This is especially critical given the rapidly changing climate in Northern BC.”
Seabridge Gold, the proponent of the KSM mine, envisions it as one of the largest gold-copper mining operations globally, featuring four open pits, two underground mines, and tailings ponds that require maintenance for at least 250 years. Critics warn of unprecedented risks associated with massive waste storage, particularly given lessons from the Mount Polley disaster.
Last week, the Tsetsaut Skii km Lax Ha First Nation filed a separate but similar petition citing insufficient consultation regarding plans to store mine waste in its traditional territory in the Upper Nass River area.
Seabridge responded by defending its compliance with the “substantial start” requirement.
“We have had a week to consider the previous petition. We are very confident there is ample evidence that the determination was reasonable and appropriate,” said Rudi Fronk, chairman and CEO of Seabridge.
The company emphasized that the EAO’s decision must be proven “unreasonable” for the petitions to succeed, a legal threshold exceeding mere error.
The challengers argue the environmental assessment predates pivotal legislative and scientific developments, including updates to the Environmental Assessment Act and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. These updates incorporate advanced understandings of climate change, salmon population threats, and insights from mining disasters.
Ecojustice also alleges the EAO considered inappropriate factors in its decision, such as Seabridge’s assertion that the designation could attract joint venture partners.
“We believe it is inappropriate for the EAO, tasked with evaluating environmental impacts, to consider how their decision might support a company with funding,” said Greg Knox, executive director of SkeenaWild Conservation Trust.
A spokesperson for the B.C. Ministry of Environment and Parks declined to comment on the matter, citing ongoing court proceedings.
Of primary concern to the petitioners are the potential impacts on the Nass and Unuk rivers, vital habitats for Pacific salmon and eulachon. These species are culturally and economically essential to nearby communities, they say.
“The Unuk River is our lifeline,” said Lee Wagner, SEITC Assistant Executive Director. “The fish and wildlife it supports are the reason our people have thrived here since time immemorial.”
However, Seabridge said these concerns are not wildely shared, pointing to letters of support for the substantial start determination submitted to the EAO from other major First Nations and municipalities in the area, including the Regional District of Kitimat-Stikine.
“It is clear that the new petitioners do not represent the interests of northwest British Columbia or Canada,” Fronk said.
Should the court overturn the current designation, Seabridge indicated it would file a new application incorporating additional work completed on the project. A final decision is expected to take more than a year.
