Blog

January 20 2021

The United States has a new President. What does that mean for the Arctic Refuge?

CPAWS Yukon Blog, BlogArcticRefuge

The United States has a new President. What does that mean for the Arctic Refuge?

Written by Malkolm Boothroyd, Campaigns Coordinator

The Trump administration did one big favour for the Arctic Refuge.

That felt really weird to write.

This is the same administration that we’re suing over their illegal environmental review in the Arctic Refuge, the same one that tried to approve seismic testing in critical caribou and polar bear habitat. The administration that fast tracked a lease sale in the Arctic Refuge in its final weeks in office. But this onslaught served an unintended purpose too—putting the Arctic Refuge top of mind, and making its protection a priority for President Biden.

For the last four years everybody’s focus has been about defending the Arctic Refuge against a deluge of development, and it’s exciting that we can finally start working for protection. The new administration has already announced that it will place “a temporary moratorium on all oil and natural gas leasing activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.” Here some of the other paths towards protecting the Arctic Refuge.

President Biden’s Day One action to suspend leasing activities in the Arctic Refuge sets an example the new leadership at the Department of Interior can follow. The department could reject the applications to conduct seismic testing on the Coastal Plain. They could investigate impropriety in the issuance of leases following this month’s lease sale. The new administration could also conduct a review of the entire oil and gas leasing program in the Arctic Refuge and take a proper look at the ecological, human rights and climate issues that their predecessors ignored.

The results of the senate elections in Georgia mean that there’s now a pathway to repealing Section 20001 of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act—the clause that opened the Coastal Plain of Arctic Refuge to leasing in 2017. This could happen through a process called budget reconciliation, since budget-related legislation only needs fifty one senate votes to pass, not sixty.

Scrapping Section 20001 would return the Coastal Plain to the state of semi-protection it occupied for decades, off-limits for leasing, but at the whim of future Congresses. Permanently protecting the Arctic Refuge would require sixty votes to clear the Senate, which remains a high bar.

Unfortunately repealing Section 20001 wouldn’t deal with the leases that have already been issued. However, the lawsuit that the Gwich’in Steering Committee, CPAWS Yukon and a dozen other groups launched last August could help with that. We’ve asked the court to invalidate the previous administration’s environmental review, and any leases or permits that stemmed from that review. If a judge sides with us, they could void the leases.

The Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority is the largest leaseholder, but under the terms of the lease sale it must pay $4.8 million a year to hold onto its leases. It’s clear to pretty much everybody that drilling in the Arctic Refuge is terrible business (why no major banks in Canada or the U.S. will ever fund development there, and why only two private companies showed up to the lease sale). Having to pay millions of dollars a year to sit on leases that almost nobody wants developed might snap the State of Alaska back to reality.

The Arctic Refuge has been under an immense threat for the past four years, but together we’ve managed to hold the line. Now the work to build back the protections for the Arctic Refuge begins.

The confluence of the Indian and Yukon Rivers

January 18 2021

The draft Yukon Mineral Development Strategy isn’t perfect. Why am I still optimistic?

CPAWS Yukon Blog

The draft Yukon Mineral Development Strategy isn’t perfect. Why am I still optimistic?

Header Image: Confluence of the Yukon and Indian River, by Malkolm Boothroyd
Written by Randi Newton, Conservation Manager

The Yukon’s mining regime hasn’t kept stride with 21st century realities and expectations. True, there’s been changes and improvements, through small steps and lurches, with the occasional stumble backwards. But our mining laws remain relics from the early 1900s: mineral rights stem from pounding stakes into the ground, and our placer royalty calculations pretend that gold is worth $15 an ounce (it’s around $1800 US today). Every mine opens with a promise of social and environmental sustainability, that this time will be different from previous messes. Yet major mines like Wolverine still go bust, and it’s Yukoners who have to pay for the cleanup. There’s no reason we can’t do better.

What would it take for mining to be truly sustainable?

How can the Yukon benefit from mining, without compromising the wellbeing of people, communities, and the land?

The Mineral Development Strategy has opened a wide door for Yukoners to grapple with these questions and reimagine mining for the better. Hundreds of people participated in public engagement this past summer, speaking to the good and the bad of mining, and how to reshape it. The CPAWS team took part and maybe you even saw our recommendations for a strong strategy, ‘Seven Steps for More Responsible Mining in the Yukon’. Engagement made it clear that people want mining reform, and are tired of waiting for it.

The draft strategy came out just after Christmas. This was a pivotal first step for making mining work better in the Yukon, and I couldn’t wait to curl up on my couch and crack open the document.

My take on the draft strategy and its 79 recommendations? It’s not perfect but it’s promising. Are there missing recommendations that need to be added? Yes. Are there recommendations that could be strengthened? Yep. Are there some recommendations that should be axed? Sure.

While the strategy could use some changes, it’s still jam packed with recommendations that are long overdue. It’s founded on ideas you can’t argue with: reconciliation and honouring Yukon First Nation Final Agreements and Aboriginal rights, development that respects the wellbeing of people and the environment, and managing mining in a forward thinking way. Not all of the strategy’s recommendations fully reflect these core ideas. But this is where you can step in to improve the draft and create a final strategy the Yukon can be proud to move forward with.

Right now, the CPAWS team is working on a deep dive document with our take on all 79 recommendations. In the meantime, here’s some ideas that caught our attention:

It’s time to rewrite Yukon’s outdated mining laws. This recommendation is a no-brainer: re-doing our antiquated mining legislation has been on the territorial to-do list since devolution. The strategy’s target to complete this by 2023 is ambitious but doable. The strategy also makes it clear that our mining laws need to catch up and align with the modern treaties and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including the principle of free, prior, and informed consent. Unfortunately the strategy isn’t always clear on how to do this and we’ll be making some concrete suggestions for improvement.
Creating economic sustainability for Yukoners today and future generations: A long list of recommendations aim to better capture the economic benefits that come from mining and iron out boom-bust cycles. Changes called for include updating the hardrock mining royalty system, establishing a Yukon Heritage Fund to pass on benefits to future generations, and introducing a payroll tax for fly-in, fly-out workers to stop revenue leaking outside the territory.
Better management of mining activities. Recommendations along this line include removing the ability to stake mining claims for roads, making all mining inspection reports available online, giving mining inspectors and Yukon First Nation inspectors the enforcement tools they need to inspect and monitor mine sites, no longer allowing mines to leave behind waste for thousands of years, and improving mining security so Yukoners aren’t left with clean-up costs for abandoned mines.
Take real action on mining reform. To make sure the territory makes progress on mining reform, the strategy recommends creating a Yukon Mineral Development Strategy Implementation Agency. This is key for holding our government to account.

Like I said, the strategy has room for improvement too. For example, it sidesteps some questions about transformative projects reshaping landscapes by calling on land use planning to be completed across the Yukon in five years. We think this timeframe is very, very optimistic, and in the meantime we need policies in place so mining activities don’t reach unsustainable levels in unplanned regions.

We’re happy that the Mineral Development Panel made an effort to address the conflict between mineral staking and land use planning, but their recommendations don’t go nearly far enough. They recommend pausing staking at the start of land use planning but only for areas with “specific high-value environmental, social and cultural attributes”. The problem is that this information isn’t available before planning starts: First Nations and Yukoners identify ecologically and culturally important areas during planning. A recommendation to pause staking across the entire region, and consider allowing it in some areas after the draft plan stage, would fix this issue.

We’ve also flagged recommendations that could go further to deal with the impacts of new mining roads, curb mining’s contribution to GHG emissions, fix embarrassingly low placer royalties, and put sufficient limits on free entry staking to respect the modern treaties and the principle of free, prior and informed consent.

Even though the strategy isn’t perfect, I’m still optimistic. We have a real opportunity to build off the draft’s strong recommendations and ideas, and shape the weaker ones for the better. Sharing your thoughts on the draft means that you’re part of something big: bringing Yukon’s mining regime into the 21st century. With a territorial election slated for later this year, this conversation is even more pivotal.

Ready to have your say on what should stay and what should go in the draft? You can take the public survey or send in a letter at http://yukonmds.com/. Want more guidance? Add your email below to be notified when our in-depth comment guide is ready, and watch for updates on our social media.

The deadline to submit your comments on the draft is February 22. The final Mineral Development Strategy is expected to be out on March 29.

December 16 2020

The Arctic Refuge needs your voice. Here we go again.

CPAWS Yukon Blog, BlogArcticRefuge

Baby muskox in the Arctic Refuge, by Malkolm Boothroyd
Written by Malkolm Boothroyd, Campaigns Coordinator

I feel like we’ve said this a thousand times.

The Arctic Refuge needs your voice.

We said it back in the spring of 2018, when the U.S. Government began working on its environmental review of oil and gas leasing in the Arctic Refuge.

We said it when the U.S. released a deeply flawed Draft Environmental Impact Statement at the beginning of 2019.

We said it when a company applied to conduct seismic testing in the Arctic Refuge, and again last month when another company came forward with a similar plan.

Again and again you’ve answered the call. Thousands of you have written to the U.S. Government about the importance of the Arctic Refuge to the Porcupine caribou herd and the Gwich’in. We’ve all poured our energy into these comment periods, even while knowing that the U.S. Government would disregard us.

You urged them to hold hearings in Canada. They ignored the invitation. You asked them to conduct a thorough environmental review. Instead they rushed through the process. You told them about the ecological and cultural importance of the Arctic Refuge. They chose the most aggressive leasing scenario imaginable, one which would offer up every single acre of the Coastal Plain to oil companies.

The most blatant example of this happened this month. In mid-November the U.S. Government issued its “Call for Nominations”—giving industry and the public a month to comment on land parcels and environmental mitigations ahead of a lease sale in the Arctic Refuge. The feedback received during the Call for Nominations period is meant to inform how lease sales are designed, but the U.S. Government went ahead and announced a lease sale with two weeks left in the comment period. They didn’t even give the pretense of listening.

The outgoing administration intends to hold a lease sale on January 6th, just two weeks before a new administration takes over.

But in spite of all this we’re going to say it again. The Arctic Refuge still needs your voice.

The U.S. Government isn’t acting in good faith, but we still have to. It’s critical we get our concerns on the public record. If and when this ends up before a judge, we need to be able to show that we did our job. We need to prove that the U.S. Government has consistently swept aside our concerns in its rush to auction the Arctic Refuge away to oil companies.

Still, it’s hard to keep pace with the deluge of terrible decisions coming out of Washington, D.C.. We’re in the midst of the Call for Nominations comment period, the comment period on an Environmental Assessment period for seismic testing in the Arctic Refuge, and a comment period on an Incidental Harassment Authorization for Polar Bears tied to the push for seismic testing. The latter two comment periods are happening in the midst of the holidays, in the midst of a pandemic. It’s exhausting.

In less than six weeks a new administration takes over, one that has committed to protecting the Arctic Refuge. But there’s a lot of damage the current one can do while they still control the U.S. Government. We’ve got to hold on a bit longer.

The Arctic Refuge needs your voice.

Send your comment

December 10 2020

Op-Ed: Government was right to say ‘no’ to the ATAC road

CPAWS Yukon Blog, BlogBeaverRiver, NewsArticles

Written by Randi Newton | Dec 10, 2020
Photo by Malkolm Boothroyd, iron-stained creek in the Beaver River watershed.

Resource projects can’t expect to move forward if they don’t respect proper processes.

Read the full editorial as published in the Yukon News on December 10th, 2020.

—

Op-Ed: Government was right to say ‘no’ to the ATAC road

Late last month, the Yukon government rejected an application by ATAC Resources to build a 65-kilometre mineral exploration road through the roadless Beaver River Watershed. The road would have led to ATAC’s 185-km span of mining claims, perched between Keno and the Peel Watershed, in the Traditional Territory of the First Nation of Na-Cho Nyäk Dun.

I am fortunate to have paddled through the heart of this special area twice. The Beaver River Watershed holds a richness of life: crystal blue waters marked by red Chinook salmon, watchful eagles perched overhead and wolf pups scurrying along the shoreline. I have no doubts of the impacts the road would have brought to this area.

ATAC doesn’t agree with the government’s decision and is assessing options with its lawyers. The company even released a statement questioning whether the Yukon ‘is in fact open for business.’ The reality is that ATAC’s approach left the Yukon government with no choice but to say no.

The company did not address many serious concerns with the road, seemingly grew impatient, and then tried to sidestep a land use planning process that had been put in place because of the road proposal. What this decision really means is that the best and only way forward for resource development is to respect proper processes and to work with First Nations in a meaningful way.

A long list of impacts were identified when the project went to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board (YESAB) in 2016. The Department of Environment warned that new road access, and the cascade of industrial development likely to follow, would harm moose, grizzlies, fish, and other wildlife, and negatively impact hunting and trapping. They indicated that moose populations would be at particular risk, as harvest in the management unit is already above sustainable levels. The department concluded that the ATAC road carried “a high risk of significant and immitigable impacts.”

Given the project’s potential to degrade the watershed, in 2018 the Yukon government and the First Nation of Na-Cho Nyäk Dun agreed that a land use plan in the Beaver River Watershed had to be completed before approval of road construction would be considered. This process was meant to give Na-Cho Nyäk Dun citizens and Yukoners the opportunity to try to resolve concerns with the road.

At the time, ATAC appeared committed to respecting that process. Their website even made it clear the company understood road approval was conditional, “pending a land use plan for the Beaver River”. In 2019, midway through the consultations, ATAC made the decision to walk away from the plan, and attempt to get the road approved through the back door. Mention of the land use plan was recently scrubbed from their website.

The application they submitted to the Yukon government attempted to tack the road on to their exploration permit and have the road approved as an amendment. The word “amendment” typically means “minor change” and this road, about the length of the highway between Whitehorse and Carcross, is anything but. ATAC tweaked a few short sections of the road alignment to skirt past the First Nation of Na-Cho Nyäk Dun Settlement Land, but the overall impacts and route remained the same. It seems like a clear attempt to circumvent the land use planning process.

This is the application that was recently denied by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, and for good reasons. Despite cries otherwise, nothing about the decision should have been a surprise to ATAC or those in the industry. The decision was clear cut under the Quartz Mining Land Use Regulation, which states that project applications must show how serious impacts to treaty rights and environmental and socio-cultural values will be mitigated. The regulator made it clear that ATAC failed to do so.

For one, the decision document notes that permitting an exploration road of that length — 65 km — is “unprecedented” and that no new roads over 50 km had been authorized in the last decade. Remember, the application is for a road to an exploration project, not an active mine. Approving it would be risking severe consequences for a project that might not even pan out.

The potential for damage with this project was high and ATAC’s application didn’t adequately address it. A litany of unresolved issues are noted in the decision document, ranging from inadequate baseline data to unaddressed cumulative impacts on wildlife and traditional ways of life and insufficient tools to manage these impacts.

The decision document also notes the application didn’t address the First Nation of Na-Cho Nyäk Dun’s concerns that the road would have significant adverse impacts on their Aboriginal and treaty rights, alter an untouched part of their traditional territory, and alienate people from the land.

While ATAC has argued it needs the road to advance its claims, regulators do not owe the company a road. The company is working in a jurisdiction where significant impacts have to be addressed before projects are authorized. ATAC’s application failed to do so. Regulators wouldn’t be doing their job if they allowed projects to move forward without regard for damage to Yukon’s ecological and cultural values, or impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights.

Hopefully this signals an expected way forward for doing business in the Yukon, where success is measured by the quality of relationships with local people and by securing the long-term health of the land, as well as long-term prosperity.

Responsible industry actors should stand by this Yukon government decision. It signals the importance of government following through on its commitments, including to land use planning and reconciliation. Sidestepping an established land-use planning process has not ended well for anyone in the past. Last month’s decision demonstrated that the Yukon is open for business, but not at any cost, and only to those who can work here in a respectful way.

December 9 2020

Yukon Government should listen to chorus of voices calling for a pause on placer mining in wetlands.

CPAWS Yukon Blog, BlogDawsonRegion

Header Images: Testimonies from Yukon Water Board hearings between Oct 27-29, 2020

Written by Malkolm Boothroyd, Campaigns Coordinator, and Randi Newton, Conservation Manager

Huge stretches along the Indian River resemble a moonscape. Salmon once ran up the river but it is now murky with sediments. There’s gold beneath these wetlands, and because of that much of the river will never look the same again. Now the Yukon is grappling with the future of placer mining in wetlands, in the Indian River and beyond.

Many of the wetlands being lost to placer mining are peatlands: old growth ecosystems that take thousands of years to form. Restoring mined peatlands is impossible; the best we can manage is conversion to open water ponds and marshes, tucked between newly formed hills of tailings. Once intact landscapes become a checkerboard of disturbance. This disturbance transforms how water flows, what animals can inhabit these ecosystems, and how much carbon the landscape can sequester. It also transforms how people use and relate to the land and water.

Watersheds like the Indian River are especially at risk. Mining claims overlap nearly all of the watershed’s unmined wetlands. Because of the scale of damage, the Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Board (YESAB) and the Water Board have repeatedly said no to further mining in the watershed’s undisturbed wetlands. Everytime, Yukon Government has overruled them.

Indian River near Sulphur Creek, by Malkolm Boothroyd

Yukon Government’s approach is allowing placer mines to eat away at the landscape, leading to such high levels of disturbance in the Indian River watershed and other mining hotspots that it’s now difficult to consider other futures for these places. This undermines the promise of land use planning, embedded in the Final Agreements, where First Nations, government and Yukoners are meant to come together to develop a vision for the land.

This situation prompted Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in to call on the Water Board to hold a public interest hearing on placer mining in wetlands. This is how we found ourselves at the three-day hearing this October. The Board rarely holds public hearings and it was an important opportunity for people to share their perspectives and knowledge with the Water Board and others, including Yukon Government. There were two questions at the heart of the conversation:

Should placer mining be allowed to continue transforming wetlands in the Yukon? And under what conditions would this be acceptable?

The First Nations of Trʼondëk Hwëchʼin, Na-Cho Nyäk Dun, Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, and Liard First Nation, as well as CPAWS Yukon, Yukon Conservation Society and Ducks Unlimited Canada called for a pause on mining in undisturbed wetlands until proper management frameworks, like land use plans, are in place. A pause would give time to complete studies and inventories, set thresholds on industrial disturbance, protect ecological and cultural values, and develop agreed-on reclamation standards. In this way, placer mining can find a path forward that won’t push the land beyond its breaking point.

First Nations, conservation groups and scientists were clear at the hearing: the cumulative impact of placer mining on wetlands makes it imperative for Yukon Government to hop off the treadmill of approving projects one-by-one. Taking a pause to do things right will respect and uphold Aboriginal and treaty rights, and protect the ecological integrity and continued cultural use of these sensitive habitats.

Indian River Wetlands, by Malkolm Boothroyd

The Water Board is accepting comments as part of the hearing until December 14 and will act on what they heard in the new year. We’re calling on the Board to stop issuing licenses for placer mining where there will be irreparable harm to wetlands until effective and agreed-on wetland protection and reclamation measures are in place.

We’re calling on Yukon Government to accept YESAB and the Water Board’s scientifically sound and culturally grounded recommendations that placer mining should not disturb unmined wetlands. Disappointingly, Yukon Government’s closing remarks at the hearing indicated they weren’t supportive of the Water Board pausing licensing. Of course, it’s not too late for them to change course and show they listened to what was said at the hearing.

Take Action!

Send a letter to the Yukon Water Board at ywb@yukonwaterboard.ca by December 14, 2020. You can ask for a pause on water licensing for placer mining in wetlands until management frameworks are in place to protect ecological and cultural values, set thresholds on disturbance, and develop agreed-on reclamation standards.

For more information about the hearing:

Watch all of the presentations.

Read coverage in the Whitehorse Star.

December 2 2020

What McIntyre Creek Taught Me

CPAWS Yukon Blog, BlogMcIntytreCreek, Publications

A coyote strolling through McIntyre Creek

A lynx using McIntyre Creek as a corridor within its home range

Mergansers swimming through McIntyre Creek

What are you? A porcupine? A beaver? A ghost?

A curious chickadee inspecting our camera trap

Written by Maegan McCaw, Conservation Coordinator

McIntyre Creek is the heart of a wildlife corridor that passes through Whitehorse, Yukon; home of over 90% of the Territory’s human population. It has a long and colorful history, beginning as a glacial meltwater channel and ending as a highly valued recreational and wilderness area that passes through the most developed region of the Yukon. Today, the creek and its surrounding ecosystem hold many social, cultural and ecological values, including considerable biodiversity. However, a rapidly growing human population forces City of Whitehorse planners to consider future subdivision and road developments, some of which could compromise McIntyre Creeks’ ecological roles. Protection of McIntyre Creek continues to be a topic of discussion, which provides an opportunity for collaborative local conservation planning with a long-term vision.

Documenting the story of McIntyre Creek involved a thorough literature review to understand its history and ecosystems. I pooled data and information from a variety of sources to create biodiversity maps showing different plant and animal groups, otherwise referred to as ‘taxa’. These sources of data included observations made by members of the community (“community science” data), long-term biological monitoring programs (conducted by government and other scientists and local consulting firms), conversations with experts, and my own targeted data collection using remote cameras and bat detectors. The final product of this work is The Story of McIntyre Creek (Chasàn Chùa) report, which details the history of the area, its social and ecological values, and what the future of McIntyre Creek could look like.

Sparrow’s-egg Lady’s slipper. A vulnerable species on the IUCN Red List, Maegan McCaw

As I gathered data from the area, it became overwhelmingly clear that McIntyre Creek continues to support immense ecological and biological diversity which would be difficult to summarize concisely. In 2000, Applied Ecosystem Management Ltd. classified McIntyre Creek as a Significant Wildlife Area, meaning it contains zones that are sensitive to human disturbance and provide high value wildlife habitat. The creek itself is surrounded by a variety of riparian and upland habitats, including:

• willow thickets,
• steep-walled canyons,
• grassy south-facing slopes,
• open lodgepole pine forests,
• mixed-wood forests, and
• spruce-Labrador tea forests on cool north-facing slopes

The area also has large and diverse wetlands that provide critical ecosystem services. The diverse landscapes and vegetation provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species with different life histories, including multiple rare and federally listed at-risk species. Invertebrates, although often overlooked as wildlife, are an important component of ecosystem function at McIntyre Creek and an indicator of ecosystem health. The creek is also home to multiple species of fish and one species of amphibian. McIntyre Creek has become a popular birding destination among locals because of the immense diversity of bird life that the wetlands, thickets and forests attract. Some bird species use the area as a stopover on their migration route, while others use the creek seasonally for important life stages like reproduction. Others still can be found at McIntyre Creek year-round. The area plays a similar role for mammals. Many small to medium sized mammals are permanent residents. For large mammals, McIntyre Creek is either part of a species’ home range or serves as a movement corridor.

Ducks cruising through the creek, Maegan McCaw

Wildlife corridors are strips of habitat that link two larger habitat patches. McIntyre Creek is the only corridor facilitating wildlife movement through the Whitehorse area, making it important for maintaining a travel route to the large wilderness areas to the east and west of Whitehorse. The corridor’s importance for maintaining genetic connectivity and the resilience of our wildlife populations will likely be amplified in the future as climate change progresses and development in southern Yukon expands to support a growing human population.

I also took a look into McIntyre Creek’s past. I learned that there are many archeological sites along McIntyre Creek where artifacts have been recovered, which confirm the area had been used by First Nations for thousands of years. Following the most recent glacial period, wildlife ranges expanded south from the ice-free region of Beringia, and people followed and soon had established travel routes and campsites. McIntyre Creek was an important travel route for First Nations Peoples and became part of the Traditional Territories of the Ta’an Kwäch’än Council and the Kwanlin Dün First Nation. The creek was originally named Chasàn Chùa, meaning Copper Creek in Southern Tutchone, due to the area’s abundance of copper nuggets. Today, McIntyre Creek continues to hold cultural significance for both the Ta’an Kwäch’än Council and the Kwanlin Dün First Nation.

Seep Monkeyflower – an indicator of a freshwater spring below, Maegan McCaw

Industrial activity at McIntyre Creek began in the early 1900s. This included underground and open pit mines, remains of which are present to this day. The mines targeted copper and other metals often found with copper. It was at this point that the creek was re-named McIntyre Creek after Jack McIntyre, the first prospector to stake a claim in the area. A U.S. army dumpsite near the confluence of the creek and the Yukon River wreaked havoc on the environment, and displaced local First Nations from their established campsites that they had used for millennia. More changes to the system occurred when a hydro electric project diverted water into McIntyre Creek and altered the flow volume.

Overlooking McIntyre Creek, Maegan McCaw

The City of Whitehorse has proposed several regional parks, which would be managed by the City. One of these proposed parks is McIntyre Creek. At the same time, to meet the demands of a growing population, the City has explored several subdivision expansion options – one of which extends into the McIntyre Creek corridor and has been strongly opposed by several groups. These groups have lobbied for formal protection of McIntyre Creek, including the area proposed for development, citing concerns over negative impacts to wildlife that use McIntyre Creek for year-round habitat and as a travel route to access wilderness areas on either side of Whitehorse. McIntyre Creek is also an important recreational area and a highly accessible place where people can connect with nature, a feature that has become increasing important with the travel and social gathering restrictions of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

The question of whether McIntyre Creek will receive protection remains unanswered, but the creek presents several potential opportunities for the future. While expanding development into the McIntyre Creek Corridor is convenient in the short term, it is important to consider the long-term implications of encroaching into the only wildlife corridor that passes through the City of Whitehorse. There are also many interested parties and implications of protection to consider. Different groups could contribute to management of the area in distinct ways, such as an environmental monitoring program that could be spearheaded by Yukon University. Through careful planning, formal protection is likely to achieve overall positive results – for example, a protected area could result in positive economic benefits driven by financial returns (e.g., tourism opportunities) and non-financial returns (i.e., the provision of ecosystem services). Whatever decisions are made about the future of the area, both the Kwanlin Dün First Nation and Ta’an Kwäch’än Council must be at the centre of planning to ensure their visions for the area are upheld. This may mean staving off development within the corridor until the First Nations can enter into their land use planning processes and make overarching decisions regarding the future of their traditional territories. With this larger landscape scale in mind, McIntyre Creek provides an opportunity to practice conservation proactively, benefitting not only the local environment, but also conservation planning for southern Yukon. This corridor through Whitehorse could be used to connect to other wilderness areas, including existing protected areas and key wildlife areas, promoting healthy human-wildlife interactions and ensuring the resilience of species’ and ecosystems into the future.

Read the Report

October 19 2020

Why RBC agreed with us on the Arctic Refuge

CPAWS Yukon Blog, BlogArcticRefuge

From left to right: Malkolm Boothroyd (CPAWS Yukon), Chris Rider (CPAWS Yukon), Geraldine Blake (Gwich’in Tribal Council), Cheryl Charlie (Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation), Elizabeth Staples (Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation)

Why RBC agreed with us on the Arctic Refuge

Written by Malkolm Boothroyd, Campaigns Coordinator

Last December I stepped out of an elevator, and onto the fortieth floor of the Royal Bank Plaza. I’d never dreamed that the campaign to protect the Porcupine caribou herd would take me to the heart of Toronto’s financial district. Corporate campaigning was brand new to me, just as it was to the rest of our team: Cheryl Charlie and Liz Staples with the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, Geraldine Blake representing the Gwich’in Tribal Council and Chris Rider, CPAWS Yukon’s Executive Director.

We were here to convince Canada’s largest banks to withhold finance for oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge—but maybe this was all a hopeless endeavor. After all, could the few of us really sway banks with sixty storey tall buildings, and combined assets totaling five and a half trillion dollars?

Well, we did! A few weeks ago, the Royal Bank of Canada released a new policy, pledging never to fund drilling in the calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd. It’s a huge success, and adds to the growing momentum behind the corporate campaign to protect the Arctic Refuge.

I think three factors were critical in RBC making the right decision. Firstly, Cheryl, Geraldine and Liz compellingly described the cultural and human rights implications of Arctic Refuge drilling. Oil development in the calving grounds would be immensely damaging to the Porcupine caribou herd, which in turn could bring serious impacts to the Gwich’in communities across the north that depend on caribou.

Secondly, the financial arguments for drilling in the Arctic Refuge are dubious. The oil industry across Alaska is in decline. The state produces less than a quarter of the oil it did thirty years ago, and oil majors like British Petroleum are pulling out of Alaska. There’s also tremendous uncertainty about how much oil lies beneath the calving grounds. The only test well ever drilled in the Refuge was reportedly dry, and seismic data is over thirty years old. Meanwhile oil prices are tanking and banks are losing tens of millions of dollars as oil companies default on loans.

Finally, the banking industry is under more scrutiny than ever for its involvement in fossil fuel projects. Banks have taken heavy criticism for funding the tar sands, fracking and the Dakota Access Pipeline. The financial industry is under increasing pressure to bolster efforts to tackle the climate crisis by moving money out of fossil fuels.

We outlined these issues in our meeting with RBC, and were encouraged by their attentive listening, notetaking and questions. We left feeling optimistic about the prospects of RBC agreeing to our request. Liz kept in touch with our contacts at RBC following the meeting, and kept them abreast of the latest developments. At the start of September we convened for a video conference with RBC, and learned that our efforts had convinced the bank. We had to keep a lid on the news until RBC published the policy, but we’re thrilled to share it now.

I’m sure RBC was also swayed by the growing list of banks that have acted on the Arctic Refuge. In recent months Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citi, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo have all pledged to withhold finance from Arctic Refuge drilling—after campaigning from the Gwich’in Steering Committee and Sierra Club. A dozen more banks overseas have released similar policies.

Thanks to these policies, the pool of finance available for Arctic Refuge drilling is quickly drying up. RBC’s announcement adds even more momentum to the campaign, and will hopefully spur the rest of Canada’s banks to act. There’s mounting opposition to drilling from all sides, and I’m sure oil companies are taking note.

Collage of news headlines on major banks committing to not fund drilling in the Arctic Refuge

If you haven’t already, please click here to send a letter to TD, BMO, CIBC and Sociabank, asking them to not to fund Arctic Refuge drilling. One more interesting note: CIBC has responded to these letters by saying “we do not currently, nor do we intend to finance any project or transaction that involves exploration or development related to oil and gas in the [Arctic National Wildlife Refuge]. We recognize the unique importance of this refuge from both and (sic) environmental and social perspective.” This is promising, but isn’t a concrete policy. We’ll keep pressuring CIBC and the rest of the Canadian banks on the Arctic Refuge.

I’m hugely grateful to Liz Staples, Caribou Coordinator at VGFN. This campaign couldn’t have happened without her. We also received guidance from many other organizations, but particularly the Sierra Club. A shout out for their support.

RBC is the first Canadian bank not to fund drilling in the Arctic Refuge

August 27 2020

Op-Ed: Why we’re taking the U.S. government to court over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

CPAWS Yukon Blog, BlogArcticRefuge, NewsArticles

Op-ed we’re taking the U.S. government to court over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Written by Malkolm Boothroyd | Aug 27, 2020
Photo by Ken Madsen, Porcupine caribou migration.

Our lawsuit argues the review of oil and gas development failed to value Indigenous rights and threats to wildlife, as Trump moves forward with lease sales in vital cross-border caribou habitat.

Read the full editorial as published in The Narwhal on August 27th, 2020.

—

Op-Ed: Why we’re taking the U.S. government to court over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Two years ago I sat in a windowless convention hall in Anchorage, Alaska, breathing stale air, waiting my turn to speak about the most vibrant place I’d ever visited, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. High-ranking officials from the U.S. Department of Interior sat at the front of the room, emotionless as speaker after speaker described the importance of the Arctic refuge — for caribou, birds, polar bears, and Indigenous communities across the North that depend on the Porcupine caribou herd.

The Interior Department had just begun its environmental review of oil and gas leasing on the Coastal Plain of the Arctic refuge. But even back then, the outcome seemed to have already been determined. The people in charge of the environmental review were closely tied to the oil industry, and the President of the United States had repeatedly claimed opening the Arctic refuge to drilling as one of his proudest accomplishments. All signs pointed towards a rushed and cursory review.

Last week the Interior Department released its Record of Decision, bringing its environmental review to a close. To nobody’s surprise, the department gave the go-ahead to the most aggressive scenario imaginable: one that would offer up the entire Coastal Plain to oil companies, and place the fewest restrictions on drilling. This week, we responded. Thirteen groups, CPAWS Yukon included, are taking the Department of Interior to court. The lawsuit is led by the Gwich’in Steering Committee, and will be argued by lawyers from Trustees for Alaska, a public interest environmental law group. Earthjustice and the Natural Resources Defence Council have filed a second lawsuit.

Our lawsuit challenges the legality of Interior’s environmental review. For example, the environmental review gave little heed to the seven original purposes of the Arctic refuge, like protecting wildlife, wilderness and subsistence. Instead it shaped its environmental review to accommodate an oil and gas leasing program, an eighth purpose that was only added in 2017 when the U.S. Congress opened the refuge to drilling. We allege that the Department of Interior broke the law by disregarding the refuge’s original purposes and failing to safeguard those purposes through the design of its oil and gas leasing program.

We also contend that the Department of Interior broke the law by not adequately considering alternatives, failing to take a hard look at the consequences of drilling and not adequately addressing the threats to Gwich’in subsistence rights. In total, our lawsuit makes eight claims against the Department of Interior for transgressions in its environmental review and associated actions to authorize leasing in the Arctic refuge. If we prevail, we hope the courts will invalidate the Department of Interior’s environmental review, and any decisions that stem from it.

The Department of Interior could have modelled its environmental review after the Berger Commission. It could have taken the time to visit every Gwich’in community, and learn why oil and gas development in the Arctic refuge poses such a grave threat to the Gwich’in way of life. The Department of Interior could have listened to scientists and the public. It could have written an environmental impact statement that acknowledged the magnitude of damage that drilling would bring. But that didn’t suit the U.S. government’s agenda — since a review in good faith would have found that the dangers of drilling far, far outweighed the pros. Instead, the Department of Interior started with a conclusion in mind, and then wrote an environmental review to justify it.

The coming months will be pivotal for the Arctic refuge — with lawsuits, a potential lease sale and the U.S. election all looming. At the same time we’re working on a parallel strategy, pressuring Canadian banks to rule out financing for Arctic refuge drilling. Our allies in the United States are pressuring corporations there to do the same, and five of the six largest U.S. banks have agreed.

Autumn is spreading across the Arctic, and most of the caribou have departed from the Coastal Plain. I hope that by the time the caribou return next spring, the future of the Arctic refuge will be much more secure than it is today.

May 20 2020

Eroding the Yukon’s wild character

CPAWS Yukon Blog

Eroding the Yukon’s wild character

People have complicated feelings about roads. On one hand, roads help Yukoners explore forests, lakes, rivers and mountains. On the other, we value the remoteness of places far removed from the rumble of engines. Lucky travellers might glimpse a lynx slipping across a highway, but we also see the carcassess of porcupines and songbirds along the shoulder. Roads bring many services to human societies, but are also a driving factor behind the biodiversity crisis. Roads have been called a “sleeping giant” in the understanding of humankind’s impact on the planet.

The Yukon is fortunate to still have a wealth of roadless areas—where wolves and grizzly bears can still roam freely. These are lands engraved by creeks and caribou trails, not exploration roads and seismic lines. Large, intact landscapes are essential for sustaining healthy wildlife populations, and strengthening the resilience of ecosystems in the face of the climate emergency.

A new push for road development is happening in the Yukon. These roads wouldn’t connect communities or people. Instead they would serve the needs of resource extraction companies. Resource roads would open the territory’s wild spaces to cascades of new development.

We have the right tools to make thoughtful decisions about resource road developments. The problem is that the tools are being used out of order. Land use planning is designed to lay out a broad vision for the land, and can settle the big questions around roads and other developments. However, in most of the Yukon, planning isn’t finished yet—or hasn’t even begun. Without guidance from land use plans, the territory’s environmental review process can’t adequately address the far-reaching implications of resource roads. Road after road could be approved, with little consideration for cumulative impacts. Spiderwebs of roads could slowly erode the Yukon’s wild character.

Here are a few key recommendations:

● Roads that would make the ‘first cut’ into roadless areas should be treated cautiously, especially roads proposed in areas of high ecological and cultural significance.

● Decisions about where roads are and aren’t acceptable should be made through land use planning, and in conjunction with Yukon First Nations.

● Road proponents should fund independent baseline data collection, so that YESAB can have solid information on ecological and cultural values as it reviews road proposals.

● The Yukon government should require companies to post sufficient financial security to cover the costs of resource road reclamation. Reclamation outcomes should be time-bound, and well-defined in advance of road construction.

● The scope of YESAB reviews should be expanded to better address cumulative impacts and induced developments associated with resource roads.

Read the Report

April 11 2020

Opportunities for a post COVID-19 world

CPAWS Yukon Blog blog, COVID-19, opportunities

Opportunities for a post COVID-19 world

Header Image by: Asad Chishti. But from over 2m away
Written by: Adil Darvesh, Communications Coordinator

Every day is still quite surreal for me. Every morning, there’s a split second where I think I’m about to get ready to head into the office, but then come back to reality after a quick peek at my phone. My news feed overflows with pandemic-related stories, which is helpful to stay updated but can sometimes be enough to make you frustrated. Stories of healthcare workers succumbing to COVID-19 due to lack of proper equipment, weakened environmental regulations in some crucial areas, and even that Quebec couple who flew to Old Crow without thinking about the people who live there. It’s easy to fall into the trap of letting news like this overwhelm you – I know I’ve fallen into that hole a few times.

I think it’s fair to say that, when things start looking better and we’re able to emerge from our dens, like bears after a winter-long hibernation, the world will feel just a little bit different. Do we want things to return to exactly as they were? What world do we want to see when that time comes?

As many large cities adopt physical distancing and self-isolation, and there’s less traffic on roads, in canals, and at ports, we’re seeing stories of nature getting reprieve. People are noticing animals more frequently in cities, the air is becoming cleaner, and even the water is cleaner. As the veil of pollution rises from dense urban areas, and global greenhouse gas emissions decrease, the benefits of making some key changes can have remarkable (and rapid) effects on our planet.

But to be honest, it’s a little bit hard to get excited about hearing the news of these environmental benefits when it comes with the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people. This isn’t the way I want to see nature thrive. Not at the cost of neighbours suffering from lack of employment, illness, stress and anxiety, or from uncertainty about loved ones. There are better ways.

COVID-19 is putting a spotlight on some of the weaknesses in our social and economic structures. For example, days after the World Health Organization declared a global pandemic, people cleaned out almost every grocery store in Whitehorse, highlighting the issue of food security (toilet paper security?) and the uncertainty (real or perceived) around our ability to keep shelves stocked during a crisis.

Through this, we’re also seeing some of the many strengths of people and our communities. I’ve seen people offer to do grocery runs on Facebook, people make extra efforts to help support local businesses, and I’ve received even just quick check-in texts/calls from friends to make sure I’m alright. We’re seeing a greater appreciation for essential services that keep our communities afloat, and the people who are working those roles. People are mindful about what they’re using and where they’re going. Could it be possible to improve on the weaknesses and incorporate these strengths into our everyday lives going forward? I hope so.

We have an opportunity in the coming months to reflect on what our collective future looks like through our spending habits, our interests, and our values. As economies rebound from this major setback, we will have the chance to rebuild them with a more mindful approach, through the lens of healthy people, communities, land, water, and air. We can find ways to incorporate a more community-based approach, where we take care of each other with our purchases, make better decisions around our relationship with the land and how we care for it, and put a greater focus on where we go and the resources we’re using to get there.

These may feel like platitudes, but that’s because if I’m honest, it doesn’t feel like this is the right time for us to advocate for specific actions. We are a conservation organization, and this is a public health crisis.

That’s why during the next little while you may notice that we’re a little quieter than usual, and that our communications may have a different tone or focus. This pandemic is the priority for all of us. Rest assured, we’re still working for wild spaces, and the opportunities they represent. We’ll update you if there’s a major issue on any of our campaigns, and if there’s any way for you to get involved.

It’s tough to come to terms with the state we’re in right now. A major health crisis is sweeping the globe, the likes of which we haven’t seen in over a century. But we’ll get through this the same way we get through other crises. We’ll learn from it, we’ll improve on what we have, and we’ll stick together.