Hi all, the following is an op ed I wrote and has been published now locally. I wanted to share here too, as I feel these questions are important for us all to consider.
Over the past year and a half, local residents have been hearing about the possibility of a magnesium mine starting up right outside Rossland city limits. The story is convoluted by the regulatory details and many still do not seem to believe it could be a reality. After all, it has been 100 years since the last active mine closed in Rossland. We are a resort municipality with a flourishing recreation economy and locals move to this area for recreation use of our surrounding environment. An open-pit is an incongruent choice for our community and lacks an air of reality as we go about our daily lives.
Unfortunately, an open-pit mine is a real possibility. If we as residents don't do everything we can to stop it, permit approvals could happen as early as this fall.
West High Yield Resources, an Alberta-based exploration company has identified a deposit with magnesium in it at Record Ridge. It is immediately adjacent to the Seven Summits Trail, directly upstream from Paterson, and next door to the community of Big Sheep Creek. This is only 7 km from Rossland along the Old Cascade Highway. If approved, it would be the closest mineral mine to a community in British Columbia. The ore trucks and mine traffic will travel through Rossland, Warfield, and Trail multiple times per day, if approved. There is asbestos and silica in the rock that will move through our communities.
Following along with the process and details of the project since Spring 2023, has led me to question the decision making around this project and its impacts to our region. I pose these questions for consideration by our community as a whole:
Should an open pit mine be allowed to start a kilometer from 42 occupied homes, with over 100 people living within a proximity to the mine that will significantly impact their daily wellbeing? Should a mine be allowed to discharge into a creek that flows past several of these homes, recharges residential drinking water wells, and is used for local agriculture and livestock? Should an open pit mine be allowed to destroy land values and place multi-generational family farming operations at risk?
Should an open pit mine be allowed to dig up a red-listed grassland, home to the threatened mountain holly fern and used by many other species including the great blue heron, toads, and other species of special concern? Should an open pit mine be allowed to start in an old growth management area? Should a mine be allowed to discharge into tributaries of the Columbia River, where salmon restoration initiatives have been undertaken both north and south of the border?
Should an open pit mine be allowed to start in a region that is thriving from recreation tourism, an industry that has been heavily invested in by both the City of Rossland and the province; the only resort municipality in the West Kootenays? This is a region that supports many local businesses who rely on recreation and tourism to support their livelihoods. Should a mine be allowed to start which will give next to nothing to our local region and only a small fraction of profits to the province in tax?
Should an open pit mine be allowed to start in a region that attracts well educated individuals from all over the world because of its natural environment and the allure of access to nature? Our Regional Hospital is offering more procedures than ever before, meaning that we as locals do not have to travel to Kelowna and Vancouver to get these procedures anymore. Would we attract the same caliber of care if we are no longer seen as an outdoor lifestyle destination but are instead labelled as an open pit mining community?
Should a mining company be allowed to cut its production to avoid an environmental assessment to get a foothold, to start work, to dig up a grassland that took thousands of years to develop, when they openly state to investors that they will pursue a significantly larger plan. A plan that would devastate the ridge, the communities surrounding it, and severely impact the region? Is it ok if the impacts of a project of this nature are not assessed by third-party specialists before provincial approvals, risking all of the above?
I feel the answer to every single question I ask here is no. It is true our region was built on mining and its true that we need mining for the future of our world. But a mine that is so close to so many people is not tenable. A mine within such a sensitive ecosystem should not be permitted. A mine that is incongruent with our local economy is not a sustainable choice. I sincerely believe the mine won’t benefit our community. This project should not be allowed to go ahead.
However, without our voices shouting from the rooftops that this isn’t what we want, this mine will happen. So please, write to the Ministry of Energy, Mines, and Low Carbon Innovation and demand a permit not be issued (MMD-Cranbrook@gov.bc.ca). Support the Save Record Ridge Action Committee who are working tirelessly to stop this project by donating (www.saverecordridge.ca). Tell our local RDKB representative, Linda Worley, and the City of Rossland that this isn’t what you want. Share with your friends to do the same.
Let’s work together to stop this mine. Action is needed now. There is power in numbers. Please make your voice heard.
smear campaignMike, can we please get a link to your source for this poll? When and by whom was it taken? How many people responded?
Good question @brothers, the Action Committee certainly didn't see that poll happen or participate. I would also like to know where this stat comes from.
FYI-SRRAC has a petition which has 1353 respondents who oppose the mine, with 81% of respondents local to the region and 92% of respondents being British Combians. Residents of Washington directly downstream make up part of the remaining 8%.
In addition, should an open pit mine be allowed to draw incredible amounts of water to dampen down the road (in what would amount to an exercise in futility once the first heat wave starts and that water evaporates before it has any effect on the dust) in their proposal to try to mitigate the airborne contaminants? Where is the information that tells us how much water will disappear and how it will impact the downstream aquafer? When residents are urged to stop watering their lawns to ensure enough is left for fire protection, etc....a corporation is allowed to have unlimited use of water?
As for those other internet polls, I think most people know there is no accountability and that all it takes to artificially skew results is for one person with multiple devices to vote multiple times, and tell all their investor friends in Alberta to do the same, and then proclaim that the results actually have merit.
I totally agree Dorothy, I wasn't expecting there to be any substance to it. Someone copy/pasting the same "poll result" on every months-old bhubble thread they can find about the mine (at 3am, complete with several blank posts each time), while calling Elissa's op-ed a "smear campaign" doesn't give the impression of a credible source.
The lone sheep polls are from the Rossland Telegraph website, as far as I know. But who and how many people actually visit that website? The last I knew the person in charge of the Telegraph was Sara Golling, maybe reach out to her to ask about that poll? I visited the website but its now a different poll (scroll to the bottom of the page of any article to find the current poll - it changes all the time).
As for the usage of water to mitigate dust - thats a very interesting question. Where would that water come from? If its coming from the resevoir and therefore would have an impact on our water levels and subsequent water restrictions, you can bet us farmers will be first in line to raise concerns about this. We already went to bat once and had restrictions essentially removed for farming/food production and backyard edible gardening, and we won't standby and watch our water source be depleted for a corporation to destroy our mountainside. We will keep our ears open for more info about that.
- Miche
Thanks Miche, that explains why I couldn't find that exact poll just by searching on Rossland Telegraph's site, so perhaps Mike's claim of 83% in favour were true at a snapshot in time, but I'll still leave the burden of proof on him, having presented it in the first place.
While I'm not in favour of the mine, it's worth clarifying the misconception around use of water for dust suppression on permanent haul roads. It's unlikely the Cascade Highway would have water used for dust control on a long term basis.
A chemical dust suppressant such calcium chloride or magnesium chloride is typically used. These are hygroscopic (moisture attracting) materials. They draw moisture from the air to hydrate the surface. The city uses these on the dirt lanes in and around Rossland, and Maldy Creek FSR was treated with one of these to the Whisky drop off last year during logging ops up there. It's effective for dust control and has the added bonus of reducing surface deterioration.
Magnesium price Sept. 2021, $US 4.50 per pound, currently down 75%.
Magnesium price Oct. 2024 $US 1.16 per pound, down 13% this year.
Why is this venture still being funded? Draw your own conclusions.
Thanks JNR for that info. Is there any confirmed information of the company's plan of how they propose to mitigate the spread of dust contaminents on the trucks from the mine site? I would think they need some sort of water source up there to wash the trucks before they leave? Or would we see even more truck traffic hauling extra water up there!?
Hi Dorothy, WHY Resources said in its application in October 2023 that it would use groundwater recharge that will flow into the pit for dust suppression water. SRRAC and others questioned their volume estimates as they seem to lack any contingency and were based on very limited groundwater monitoring data. I believe just one season of monitoring in 3 boreholes, though I would need to go back to confirm exact numbers. Either way, in the amendment document submitted in September 2024, which I'm currently reviewing, they have punted all water use for dust supression to be provided by a 3rd party contractor. Who knows where they will fill up, it's unstated. I will certainly be submitting this concern. Overall the amendment is very shy on details and focused almost exclusively on reducing production volumes. They have not addressed many of the concerns raised during the comment period last spring.
Dorothy I missed your question about truck washing, there is no indication that truck washing will be done.
Personally, I'm not a fan of playing the NIMBY game. Magnesium has to be mined from somewhere. I'd rather it not be in some remote location where miles and miles of new road have to be built in wilderness just to access it, or in some country with poor or no environmental, labour, and criminal regulations and laws. This is a mining town in a mineral rich area, I'm not sure why people would be surprised by the fact companies would like to mine here if they find a rich deposit. Aren't most houses in Rossland sold without the mineral rights? That should be a big clue if you invested into buying a house here. Being a resort community and a mining community isn't an either/or situation. It can be both.
However, I'm all for close scrutiny of this kind of operation so that they do follow regulations and to minimize negative impacts.
We should also be looking as to how they are going to house the workers locally. Personally, I think they should commit to building enough new local housing for the influx of workers. Our ski resort already has trouble attracting workers to the area because they can't find housing. Imagine if those people have to compete with mine workers for the limited stock of local housing? Mind you, the ski resort could also build their own staff housing.
I'd rather we put our efforts into mitigating negative impacts and coming up with workable solutions then putting effort into outright stopping the project.
The poll was yanked off the telagraph 540 in favour and 113 against and the narrative the FoRR member and cabin keeper sarra has been extremely biase. there is a lot of overlaping roles in the opposition leadi to FoRR members who leagaly are in breach of the agreement contract with the province by hindering tenure forest and minerals resources. sect 57 forest and range practic act.
Elissa, thank you for sharing your knowledge, but it’s only fair to apply the same scrutiny to the data and narrative behind the opposition. Let’s look at the numbers. Out of 1,300 signatures, 82% are said to be from the local region, which amounts to about 1,066 signatures from Rossland, Trail, Warfield, Paterson, and Sheep Creek. While this may sound significant, these towns have a combined population of around 14,000, meaning this represents only a small fraction of the overall regional population of over 33,000.
Furthermore, 18%—or around 234 signatures—come from outside the local area. With the involvement of external groups like Wildsight and affiliates, it’s clear that this opposition, guised as grassroots, is more of an oligarchic effort.
Mike, for starters exclude kids from your count of population. Other than that do you really seriously equate an internet poll on semi-amateur page with people signing petition where they provide their name, address etc. Your 5 blank posts above proove that it is cheap to click. Frankly, your other posts are content free as well.
Lol Sounds like my kids when the truth comes out and they get defensive! Hey, don’t sweat the petty stuff and don’t pet the sweaty stuff. If the post had no substance, why the offense? Seems like it touched a nerve.
This is about protecting air and water quality and health. And an out of province company and investors who really don't care about that. If they did, then they would happily agree to go through an environmental assessment process. Continually moving the goalposts to manipulate the process and evade accountability is a clear sign the company cannot be trusted.
I am heartened that some people from outside the region care enough about our health and quality of life to sign the petition. They would have had no financial incentive to do so, whereas someone invested in stocks in this company could easily rally their buddies to troll an online poll.
Scotty, you hit the nail on the head
1. Unlawful Interference with Crown Land (FRPA, Section 57)
It’s important to point out that FoRRS has potentially violated Section 57 of the Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA). This law prohibits unauthorized construction or maintenance of recreational facilities on Crown land without ministerial approval. Despite their role in managing the Rossland Range Recreation Site, documents suggest that FoRRS has expanded trails and facilities in ways that infringe upon Crown land designated for mining tenures, particularly those of WHY Resources. These expansions into neighboring tenures go beyond their authorized responsibilities and represent a breach of their management agreement.
2. Advocacy Violations and Jeopardy to Charitable Status
In their March 9, 2022 board meeting, FoRRS acknowledged that they are walking a fine line between advocacy and their responsibilities as a charitable organization. They openly discussed concerns that overstepping into direct opposition could risk their charitable status. While their board members have tried to separate personal advocacy from organizational involvement, they’ve blurred the lines, taking actions that may breach their agreements with provincial authorities. Such behavior could lead to the revocation of their charitable status and penalties for misusing their platform for unauthorized opposition.
3. Misleading Environmental Concerns
While SRRACS and FoRRS continue to push narratives about the Record Ridge Mine posing a severe environmental risk, it’s crucial to note that WHY Resources has submitted a comprehensive environmental mitigation plan. Their application addresses the environmental and recreational impacts, particularly those involving the Seven Summits Trail. Yet, the opposition is disregarding these efforts and pushing misinformation to rally against the project. WHY Resources has ensured minimal disruption through well-documented environmental safeguards, which are being overlooked in the opposition’s smear campaign.
4. Les Carter’s Unauthorized Land Use
Les Carter, a significant player within FoRRS, has been heavily involved in managing the Rossland Range, particularly regarding recreational infrastructure. His role in overseeing cabin construction and trail expansions has crossed into unauthorized actions, potentially violating regulations surrounding Crown land use. This includes interference with mineral tenures held by WHY Resources. Carter’s coordination with Rec Sites and Trails BC also presents a conflict of interest, particularly as FoRRS continues to expand its recreational reach into areas adjacent to legally held mineral tenures.
5. Violations of the Mineral Tenure Act
FoRRS’ activities may also violate the Mineral Tenure Act, which protects the rights of legitimate mineral tenure holders. Unauthorized expansions of recreational zones or facilities infringing upon these tenures directly interfere with WHY Resources’ legal mining claims. If FoRRS continues these expansions, they risk legal challenges that could result in penalties and a halt to their activities within the recreation site.
6. FoRRS and SRRACS’ Responsibility for Unlawful Actions
FoRRS and SRRACS are directly responsible for the unlawful actions of their directors and members. Any unauthorized land use or advocacy, especially actions hindering WHY Resources’ lawful mineral development, could result in serious legal consequences. FoRRS must comply with its agreements with provincial authorities and avoid actions that impede legitimate mineral development on Crown land. If they continue to interfere, they could face penalties or even the loss of their management agreements.
Conclusion:
The opposition to WHY Resources, spearheaded by FoRRS and SRRACS, isn’t just about environmental concerns—it involves unlawful interference with Crown land, violations of provincial acts, and actions that directly hinder legally held mineral tenures. WHY Resources has followed legal procedures and implemented measures to address environmental concerns, yet the opposition continues to push unfounded claims, jeopardizing both their own standing and the rights of mineral developers.
These violations must be scrutinized, and FoRRS and SRRACS held accountable for their actions. WHY Resources has every right to move forward with their project under provincial laws, while the opposition seeks to disrupt this process unlawfully.
Let me know if you’d like any additional details or clarifications!
Interesting conversation.
To be clear, Mike, are you stating that this mine is going ahead regardless and that the efforts against the mine are illegal?
If the mine goes ahead will the mine traffic be routed through Paterson/US border (as had been suggested at one time)?
It would appear that you are involved at a high level (not just manipulating a poorly managed online poll as previously suggested) so I am asking in earnest.
Melanie, cherry-picking information to scrutinize the project is a double-edged sword. The project’s PFS isn’t tied to the 2021 price spike or magnesium metal sales—it’s focused on the sale of raw MgO ore, which I’m sure you’re aware of. That 2021 price spike is exactly why we need a domestic supply. It’s crucial for reducing the risk of future supply chain disruptions and stabilizing industries that rely on magnesium.
Farmer Jon, thanks for the questions.
Regarding road construction, I don’t have more details beyond what’s publicly available, but from what I understand, an Indigenous company has been contracted for the work. For specific route details, it would be best to contact the company directly. Additionally, the reclassification of the project as a mineral mine would reduce truckloads by about two-thirds, minimizing traffic impacts regardless of the route.
As for the opposition, it’s becoming evident that conflicts of interest and potential breaches of the provincial agreement are surfacing at a critical time, especially with the rec site agreement up for renewal. The overlapping roles in decision-making suggest bad faith. It makes me wonder if we’re headed for another Hammerhead incident, where bad faith decision-making could jeopardize our recreation sites, trails, and cabins, as seen in the court case surrounding the City of Rossland’s actions.
So to be earnest
History seems to repeat itself, and reputations follow us: My Kootenay Now - $1 million lawsuit filed against ex-Rossland council members and Hammerhead Equities case details. We should all be concerned about the potential impacts of these actions.
Thanks for your perspective. My opinion of the mine is irrelevant of course, but I have found it hard to understand why some folks would find the idea of a mine in a mining town so absurd.
Yes, hopefully Rosslanders have learned that there are consequences to acting outside of the law, no matter how sincere or altruistic their intentions are- such actions affect us all.
Today especially seems like a wake up call for everyone in BC. Change is in the air.
Covert and overt threats now...all for daring to ask necessary questions and demand environmental accountability. I don't buy it.
Dorothy, I’m sorry you feel this way despite the lack of any engagement between us. One’s reaction often says more than the words themselves. I often tell my kids, “Sometimes the truth sounds like an attack to those not ready to hear it.” My intention here isn’t to threaten anyone but to engage in a fair, open conversation.
I’m sure you can see how this mirrors the same irresponsible decision-making as the Hamm case, given that it’s based on facts. Let’s call a pig a pig—there are undeniable parallels here that need addressing.
It will bring outside workers here and many will become permanent residents. That's the real issue. The Entightled Narcissistic Cult Clique in this Town gives Zero F's about anything or anyone but selves. They hate tourists hate anyone Who's not Narcissistic like they are. That's typical and they GangStalk the People they deem Worthy which is anyone who's not a Karen Narcissistic like they are. They hate this project simply because it takes away from the Grip they have on the Town. Environment? They are perfect fine with Lead in air and water And clearcutt that wasn't properly cleared up after it was done which leaves us at Fire Risk. That's all Good they got jobs outta those industries and don't need any more Jobs here In Fact most are Entitled And retired Baby boomers. They could give Zero Craps that the Unemployment Rate in the Area sits at 20%. It's all about? THEM! Typical Narcissistic activity. Seek,Whine,Blame,Hate,Repeat...
The comments with baseless veiled threats appear designed to distract readers from the main issue. As I understand it the City or recreation groups have no authority to stop such a project (and hence no lawsuits possible). It is up to us individual citizens to speak up.
The main issue is that it has been made clear that WHY has no intent on remaining a small operation and they keep changing the application to avoid having to go through environmental assessment. Once the ground is open they will apply to grow bigger. By then the damage to surrounding areas outside of their legal tenure will have been done. And the irreparable damage to alpine grasslands done.
If they had nothing to fear and nothing to hide, WHY would agree to environmental assessment now instead of their sharp practice, manipulating numbers to stay "legal" (albeit unethical).
I don't think that any of the comments are baseless.
People have strong feelings about this and not everyone has done their homework.
Rossland does have a reputation. Talk to people who have tried to build or develop anything around here for the last several decades- it was always important to be on the right side of key people at city hall. The Hamm reference showcases what people with a sense of entitlement are prepared to do. It should shock people but it does not.
As with any land that you do not rightfully own you have very little control over what the landowner does. Enjoying our beautiful trails is a privilege, not a right. A smug sense of entitlement is palpable in this town.
I respect the efforts of the folks who are exercising their rights to protest. Truly. But a person who is worried about raising young children ought to have saw this mining as a distinct possibility and yes, living near a smelter is also a strange choice. You either trust current environmental standards in mining or you stear clear.
Posts like these serve to have interested parties do some research...no one should be ridiculed for their feelings on this matter.
The primary concerns we residents have are much bigger than the impact to the 7 Summits Trail. I don't understand how one can call it a "Smug sense of entitlement" when citizens ask for environmental assessments and accountability to ensure that what one does on their property tenure has no harmful impact downstream and to the surrounding air and water quality. It's clear this company has bigger plans of a scale that would legally trigger the environmental assessment process...and they are trying to get out of it by continually moving the goalposts.
DorothyWD thank you for explaining this so succinctly. This is exactly it.
Dorothy, I understand your concerns about the environmental and community impacts of the project. It's important to clarify a few points that seem to have been misunderstood.
Firstly, asking necessary questions and seeking accountability is essential, but it's equally important to recognize the efforts made by WHY Resources in terms of transparency and willingness to adjust. WHY has engaged in consultations, conducted baseline environmental studies, and proposed mitigation measures based on community feedback. They are not avoiding accountability—they are taking a step-by-step approach, beginning with a small pilot project of less than 75,000 tonnes per year. This allows them to determine the viability of the project before committing to a larger operation that would warrant a full environmental assessment.
It’s important to highlight that junior exploration companies, like WHY Resources, face significant financial burdens when asked to fund extensive environmental reviews for minimal extraction operations. The goal here is to generate enough cash flow to justify a full assessment if the project proves viable for expansion. This phased approach is responsible and reasonable, given the scale of the project.
As for claims about WHY manipulating numbers to avoid regulations, the facts show that they are operating within legal frameworks. If they were to expand, they’ve indicated willingness to undergo the necessary environmental review. Additionally, any environmental concerns regarding tailings or pollution are mitigated by the nature of this project—there are no large tailings ponds or hazardous waste piles as seen in traditional metal mining operations.
Lastly, I’d encourage considering the broader context of balancing environmental sustainability with economic growth. Responsible resource development and collaboration between all stakeholders, including environmentalists, municipalities, and industry, can benefit the community without sacrificing ecological health.
Mike,
give me an example of 'SRRACS (..) unlawful interference with Crown land, violations of provincial acts, and actions that directly hinder legally held mineral tenures.'
Our mining town (where mining started widing down at the turn of 20th century and the last mine in the vicinity closed ~50 years ago) looks the way it looks because the famous Rossland mines weren't open pit mines.
As for the benefits for Canada, WHY letter of intent is with a company that only has smelters in China. It is a business, not charity and they will sell ore to the highest bidder. What benefits do you see for Rossland?
March 2022 Document: In the March 9, 2022 meeting minutes, FoRR explicitly acknowledged concerns about its charitable status if it engages in excessive advocacy. Despite this, the ongoing involvement of key individuals in both FoRR and SRRACS suggests that FoRR may be indirectly supporting political opposition activities . Source FoRR About us March 9 2022 meeting minutes 12) WHY Resources proposing an open-pit mine on Record Ridge (south end). (Application Feb. 14th, 2022). During recent years - exploration only - specific drill sites and roads. This application is for a full-on mining operation - large excavations, waste piles, haul roads, etc... An open pit will be created by removing a significant section of Record Ridge; the section removed being attractive meadow with the Seven Summits Trail. Mine site is on a mix of Crown and private land. It is in the Rossland Range but not in the Rec Site. Likely, a review process with public consultation later this year (2022). Community opposition is probable - based on recreation, environmental, flora & fauna and wildlife (hunting) values. Discussion at meeting: FoRRS Charitable Status is based significantly on our managing a free, public Rec Site. This status could be challenged if FoRS is judged to be too active in 'advocacy'; A simple descriptive map, and tours of the site would be helpful; BC Mining Act is '100 years old and designed to enable mining activity: Success of this proposal is uncertain. Proponent is a junior mining company. These are often regarded as 'mining the public' aided by tax breaks. They take on high risk ventures that frequently fail, with sites left in poor condition. Unlike major mining companies who are more likely to succeed and do substantial reclamation. FoRRS stance arising from this meeting: FoRRS will maintain a watching brief, with the expectation that FoRRS, as a high profile community Group, will be asked to comment. FoRRS comment would likely be along the lines that long term recreation, ecological and natural terrain values will outweigh the relatively short-term economic benefits from mine operations. In this matter, FoRRS Board members can act separately from a FORRS position as individual intervenors.
Draw your own conclusions!!
Such a critical point, Jacek about the vast differences between the past underground mines of Rossland's distant past versus the OPEN PIT mine proposed by WHY.
Once the first "pilot project" open pit dig is done, the environment is forever disturbed. Phased in, schmased-in...whatever the spin doctors want to call it, we have a massive hole in sensitive sub-alpine terrain that will never be the same again.
And rock dust gets airborne and travels. Silica, asbestos, etc. It would be impossible to contain it.
It doesn't take a geologist to understand that dust can travel a very long way in a short period of time, wherever the winds may blow. We know that the airborn heavy metals from the Teck Trail operations travelled long distances...such that communities within a few km's (and some UP-Hill such as Annabelle, lower Warfield) have permanently contaminated soils.
so many properties and occupied residences are easily within blowing distance, shorter distances and downhill, as compared to than the Teck/Trail/Warfield distances.
I feel so bad for anyone living in Patterson or Sheep Creek, knowing they could have this monstrosity uphill from them, with who knows what dust settling over their properties.
The conclusion I draw about this FORR red herring: I smell fish. It's fear-mongering designed to try to scare locals into believing they must somehow accept and support an open pit mine, lest we lose beloved trails and a much beloved society that had done such wonderful things for our region has to deal with legal retaliation. It won't happen. No one is doing anything wrong if they speak out against this mine. Eveeyday citizens and non profit societies have no legal power to stop this, and no one can sue us!
We just have our individual voices now. Please, everyone, write your letters!
Huh ok than stop asking questions if you don't like the answers i understand the truth is very scary!!!
individuals are perfectly fine exspressing thier concerns as they please. I would hope they are based in fact and free from any conflict of interest, affiliation, or government official Position, may the "Canadian Forces" be with you !!
Mike, my conlusion is that you provided zero examples of 'SRRACS (..) unlawful interference with Crown land, violations of provincial acts, and actions that directly hinder legally held mineral tenures.' .
You also provided example of FORR acting responsibly and not engaging into advocacy.
For a person who talks a lot about law, you are very quick to spread defamatory statements abotu individuals and organizations publicly.
It has been waste of time so I will not continue this discussion.
I'm not discouraged. Email sent to MMD-Cranbrook@gov.bc.ca
UBC is somehow deeply involved here eh i will check the network
UBC is somehow deeply involved here eh i will check the network
UBC is somehow deeply involved here eh i will check the network
UBC is somehow deeply involved here eh i will check the network
Dorothy, is there a reason you are going on about the risk of silica and asbestos dust? Is there some document somewhere indicating that the proposed mine has a lot of asbestos in it? As for silica, it's more of a problem for the workers in the vicinity. Silica is present everywhere - do you go to the beach? Yes? Are you worried when the wind picks up and blows all that silica around? Let's assume that the workers in that mine will be taking the legally mandated measures to protect themselves from silica dust exposure, which will in turn protect the community as well.
Contamination from Teck historical operations are in large part due to emissions from the smelter stack (i.e. directly into the air) something this mine will not have. And Teck fugitive dusts come from piles of concentrate, something else this proposed mine won't do at that site as far as I know. In other words what Teck did (and to a lesser degree still does) is not what this mine will do - they are very, very different operations.
It sounds like you're scared about potential impacts, but more because on the one hand you don't know what those impacts might be (and fear the worse), and on the other hand you don't trust any source that might properly inform you (the company or the government). I get the mistrust, and a certain amount is good, but be careful not to fall into the trap of believing that every horror story that came about because of mining is what's going to happen here.
To keep this in perspective think abou how this beautiful town and the surrounding area was mined in a time of very little environmental oversight or knowledge, and yet here we all are living in all the tailings and loving it so much we don't want to disturb it.
By all means keep asking questions, but ask them from those in a position to give the best answers. And be open to those answers. In other words, don't start the discussion with the conclusion that the mine must be stopped at all cost.
Phil you've identified a primary concern, a lack of understanding about the environmental impacts of this project.
This is why we need to be demanding proper environmental assessments now, instead of allowing a company to begin opening up the side of a mountain that is less than 3 kn as the crow flies from many homes, farms and a Cub Scout camp. And uphill from all that. We need a better understanding of what exactly will become airborne. As it will surely travel long distances.
And remember - the past mines were underground, not so subject to the impacts of strong winds whipping it up
Dorothy, where do you think all the rock that was mined from underground went? It didn't stay underground. Only the hole of an underground mine is actually underground, all that is dug comes out - it's not like only the gold came out. If you walk in the woods around town there are vast areas that are not natural rock formations, just the broken rocks that were taken out of the mines.
Rocks and rubble that sat, and were not continually re-dug and churned up every day.
the fact is that there is documentation of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures for your education
1.Emissions Inventory Memo (SRK 2018) – Analysis of project-related emissions and air quality impacts.
2.Natural Hazards Assessment Report (SNT 2018) – Assessment of potential natural hazards, such as landslides and floods.
3.Baseline Soils Resources Report (Yole 2018) – Soil characterization and its implications for land use and stability.
4.Baseline Hydrology Report (SRK 2022) – Study of surface and groundwater flows in the project area.
5.Monitoring Well Installation Memo (SRK 2022) – Details on groundwater monitoring well installation for hydrological assessments.
6.Groundwater Baseline Monitoring Memo (SRK 2018) – Baseline monitoring of groundwater quality and levels.
7.Baseline Aquatic Monitoring Studies Report (Azimuth 2018) – Study on aquatic ecosystems, including fish populations and water quality.
8.Surface Water Quality Data (2016-2017) – Data on surface water quality gathered over two years.
9.Fish and Fish Habitat Baseline Report (Lotic Environmental 2018) – Report on the baseline conditions of fish populations and habitats.
10.Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Report (Keefer Ecological 2017) – Mapping and classification of ecosystems in the project area.
11.Plants and Ecological Communities At Risk (Keefer Ecological 2017) – Identification of plant species and ecological communities that may be at risk due to the project.
12.Plants of Potential Importance to Local First Nations Report (Keefer Ecological 2017) – Report on plants of cultural or ecological significance to local Indigenous groups.
13.Baseline Vegetation and Soil Chemistry (Keefer Ecological 2018) – Study on the chemical composition of soils and vegetation in the project area.
14.Bird Status in Record Ridge Study Area (Keefer Ecological 2017) – Survey of bird species and their habitats.
15.Furbearer Status in the Record Ridge Study Area (Keefer Ecological 2017) – Baseline assessment of furbearing animals, such as foxes or beavers.
16.Initial Assessment for Grizzly Bears (Keefer Ecological 2017) – Evaluation of grizzly bear populations and habitats.
17.Ungulate Status in the Record Ridge Study Area (Keefer Ecological 2017) – Study on large mammals, such as deer, in the project area.
18.Summary of Baseline Work for Amphibians, Reptiles, Bats (Wind and Sarrel 2017) – Assessment of local populations of amphibians, reptiles, and bats.
19.Desk-Based Land Use Baseline Report (Dialectic Research 2018) – Review of land use patterns and capabilities in the project area.
20.Archaeological Overview Assessment (Ursus Heritage 2016) – Archaeological assessment to identify any culturally significant sites.
21.Record Ridge Rare Plants Memorandum (Cascara 2023) – Memo on the identification and preservation of rare plant species.
22.Record Ridge Socio-Economic Review (WHY Resources 2023) – Assessment of the project’s socio-economic impacts.
23.Sediment Pond Design Report (SRK 2023) – Design plan for managing sediment in water bodies.
24.Mine Plan (SRK 2023) – Detailed technical mine plan for project operations.
25.Open Pit Geotechnical Technical Memo (SRK 2022) – Technical memo on the stability of open-pit mining operations.
26.Waste Rock Storage Facility and Soil Stockpile Physical Stability Assessment (SRK 2023) – Assessment of the physical stability of waste storage areas.
27.Operations, Maintenance, and Surveillance Manual for Sedimentation Pond (SRK 2023) – Guidelines for operating and maintaining the sedimentation pond.
28.End Land Use Objective and Revegetation Prescription (Cascara 2023) – Plan for post-mining land use and vegetation restoration.
29.Water Quality Model Report (SRK 2023) – Model predicting the impact of mining on local water quality.
30.Record Ridge Soils Literature Review (McTavish 2023) – Review of existing studies on soils in the project area.
31.Record Ridge Sediment Pond Water Temperature Assessment Memo (SRK 2023) – Assessment of water temperature in sediment ponds.
32.Mine Emergency Response Plan (Greenwood 2018) – Emergency response plan for mine operations.
33.Surface Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plan (SRK 2018) – Plan to mitigate surface erosion and manage sediment.
34.Safe Discharge Plan (SRK 2023) – Plan for the safe discharge of water from the site.
35.Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage Potential Assessment (SRK 2023) – Assessment of potential environmental risks from metal leaching and acid rock drainage.
36.Fugitive Dust Management Plan (SRK 2023) – Plan to control dust emissions.
37.Noise Abatement Plan (SRK 2023 & 2018) – Plan to manage noise pollution.
38.Asbestos and Fibrous Minerals Management Plan (RJ Group and March Consulting 2018) – Plan for managing asbestos and fibrous minerals.
39.Traffic Management Plan (McElhanney 2023) – Plan for managing traffic impacts related to the project.
Most will not be fooled by above. An environmental assessment was ordered. Then the company decided to try to get out out it be changing the plans to lower production to a level that would not automatically trigger the EA process.
Clearly the company wants to avoid 3rd party accountability. Clearly they intend to grow (and will likely in the future claim "well the site is already disturbed so the impact of us growing will be minimal" and find some other loophole to exploit).
Dorothy, it’s a bit rich to say you’re not fooled when SRRACS members and directors, who organized the wildflower walk event, chose the very person responsible for the reports you’re questioning. Michael Keefer is not just some random third-party expert; he’s actively aligned with the opposition, working closely with the same people organizing the fight against the project. It doesn’t get more “independent” than that, right? Maybe educate yourself on who’s really behind the scenes before talking smack—it’s all connected, and it’s no coincidence.
These dedicated volunteers are doing such great work to hold a little known Alberta company accountable before allowing them to do irreparable harm. I would certainly trust their work more than that presented by a huge for-profit corporation. We need this company to undergo full EA by a third party and to go through due process.
Hey- fun fact about Record Ridge: it is the only alpine true ridge-walk near Rossland with a gentle, more knee-friendly gradient with minimal elevation gain (200m or so) that can be accessed by 2WD vehicle. (yes there are other trails but they aren't ridge walks with 360 views). Thank you to many old time Rosslanders who made this happen many years ago. It was my kids' first alpine hike, and many an out of town visitor (not accustomed to mountain hiking) have been awed by the scenery and panoramic vistas. Once you leave the trailhead and get out there it is a really magical place. Anyone who has ever tried to return to hiking after injury or joint replacement will know what I mean!
Dorothy, you still seem to be missing the key point here.You’ve been calling for a third-party review, but the irony is that Keefer’s already providing exactly that. The reports he drafted as an independent expert were commissioned by the company, but his expertise is also highly valued by the opposition obviously. This is a prime example of the company engaging respected local professionals and investing money into the community. So, if you trust Keefer’s work, as you’ve suggested, then maybe give credit wh credit is due to the company for hiring the very independent expert you’re championing.
Mike,
You are actively spreading disinformation and accusing others of doing just that.
FACTS: 1) SRRAC has never spoken to Micheal Keefer nor Keefer Ecological.
2) SRRAC never did a wildflower walk together with Micheal Keefer nor Keefer Ecological.
3) Keefer Ecological did some reports (Appendices 2-J, 2-K, 2-L, 2-M, 2-N, 2-O, 2-P, 2-Q, which you refer to as Documentation 10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17) for WHY. These reports were included as appendices to their mine permit application. This means Keefer Ecological was hired by WHY to do the reports.
4) Appendices 2-N, 2-O, 2-P, 2-Q (Documentation 14-15-16-17) are all desktop studies, which means these desktop studies do not include any field work to fully assess the extent of the species populations and their habitats. From Appendix 2-O (4.Conclusion, p.15): "Conclusions about species occurence in or near the Record Ridge LSA are based on available literature, research, surveys, and data, which are LIMITED FOR SOME IF NOT MANY SPECIES. FIELD VISITS, OBSERVATION AND/OR SAMPLING WAS NOT CONDUCTED."
Dorothy is right in saying that an Environmental Assesment would potentially require some of these inconclusive studies to be done more in depth.
Better yet, we work towards stopping the project all together which would only benefit those that are directly invested in the project to the detriment of the rest of the community.
Lol if I could upload images and documents I would counter you Karens but I have a life
Mike just when you were going to show the evidence it turns out that you have a life. Your credibility dropped back to zero again.
Would agree w RossOG. Considering the multitude of lengthy texts you have submitted to this thread it would seem that simply uploading a few images would be less time consuming than your efforts thus far & possibly more compelling!! (Popcorn machine on stand by)
Melina Mercer is part of knps. knps funded and put on the walk I mean I have a life because I dedicated this bulk of it lately to this post
Considering I've replied to her I would've expected that she would've owed up to this. I do my due diligence I don't spread this information I'll leave that up to SRRACS
Mike,
In your previous post you stated "Michael Keefer is not just some random third-party expert; he’s actively aligned with the opposition, working closely with the same people organizing the fight against the project. "
This is flat out not true. Michael Keefer has had no interaction with SRACC. He doesn't even live here anymore.
Why don't you do as you suggest and educate yourself before talking smack. If you are just going to post lies without putting out any evidence, your credibility, as Rosslander OG stated, is zero.
Presentations were delivered on Ecosystems of the West Kootenay/Southern Monashees by Deb MacKillop, The Blue and the Red and the better off dead: Stories of three plants of conservation neglect in the West Kootenay, Why should we care about wildflowers? by Valerie Huff & Brenda Beckwith, and Introduction to the Geology and some plant highlights of Record Ridge by Michael Keefer and Jenifer Penny, and Economical botany & ethnobotany of the Kootenays - from contact to present times by Michael Keefer.
On the first day, the group visited Record Ridge to enjoy easily accessible serpentine meadows that are just southwest of the town.
see Michael's leadership in grasslands
https://bcgrasslands.org/about-us/leadership/
see the record r grassland walk with Michael keefer and KNPS
https://bcgrasslands.org/events-gcc/3658/
KNPS 2022 Board of Directors
Visit us online and get involved!
www.kootenaynativeplants.ca
Facebook
facebook.com/KootenavNativePlantSociety/
Instagram @kootenay_native_plant_society
Kayla Tillapaugh, President Caroline McChesney, Vice President Tyson Leonard, Secretary Lori Clyde, Treasurer
Tara Dias
Nicole Murray
Camille LeBlanc
Monica Juhas
Melanie Mercer
Venessa Langhorn
Giuseppina Barker
Who we are: Residents of Rossland, Sheep Creek and Paterson Melanie Mercier, Anika Balsdon, Kel Saldern, Nigel Tuffrey, Ken Holmes, Nils French, Derek Frankowski, Kayle Robson, Devon Palmer, Jake Gearheard and Valeria Venegas.
is that enough to smack talk now !!!!! or was it a total smack down Steven ?
Mike,
I'm pretty sure you were referring to SRRAC and Michael Keefer having some sort of working relationship.
The Grassland walk you supply a link to happened in 2022. This took place a year prior to WHY resources holding their public consultation in Rossland. SRRAC was founded after, and because of, that meeting taking place. SRRAC has never been in contact with Keefer since they formed.
Question for you. Is it a massive conspiracy that people who are interested in and value the rare ecology of record ridge might also be opposed to the idea of an out of town company endangering that same grassland ecology? Is it a conspiracy that there is some overlap between people who love plants and who also want to see a mining company have to undergo an Environmental Assesment prior to establishing an open pit mine 7km from our townsite?
You are grasping at straws. There is absolutely nothing wrong with demanding oversight from a company whose sole business plan relies on the avoidance of an Environmental Assesment.
By providing the links you've ironically highlighted the importance and rarity of this grassland ecosystem.
Mike,
In addition to your misleading statements regarding the timeline of these events, you've also made it seem that
KNPS- Kootenay Native Plant Society is one and the same as
SRRAC- Save Record Ridge Action Committee
These are two completely separate entities.
SRRAC started informally in mid 2023 and formally created in 2024, the actions of its members before that are not part of SRRAC. Melanie's legit work and love for plants is part of her identity way before the 2023 application that triggered this conversation.
Mike, you still don't get it and bring random non related data pretending that they are relevant facts.