Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) was cowardly in the way it approved a project that will destroy one of Canada's most pristine wildlife areas, says Mitch Anderson, a member of the Transboundary Watershed Alliance.

Anderson, a Whitehorse resident, said he was shocked that he had to hear from a mining company that the controversial Tulsequah Chief mine in northern B.C. has cleared its environmental assessment review.

'I can only surmise, and it's pure conjecture on my part, that it was outright cowardice on behalf of the DFO. Why was this information left for the mining (Redfern Resources) company?' Anderson asked in an interview.

'It's a shame because the DFO has a very important mandate.'

The approved mine falls within the boundaries of B.C.'s Taku watershed, one of the largest watersheds on the west coast of North and South America.

The watershed, approximately the size of Massachusetts, is home to grizzly bears, threatened mountain caribou and all species of wild Pacific salmon.

Anderson said both his and a number of other environmental organizations are upset with the mine's approval because a proposed 160-km road to the mine would destroy some pristine habitat and he couldn't understand why a road and not a barge was being used in the project.

He said a previous operation by a separate mining company which ceased operations in 1958 left exposed sulpher-bearing rock on the site which was leaching acid into the environment for more than 40 years.

'Our feeling on it is very strong. We're not opposed to mining in general, but this mine is reckless.'

Redfern is a subsidiary company of Redcorp Ventures Ltd., a company that is traded on the open market.

Redfern and Redcorp president Terry Chandler said the DFO-approved mine has gone through intense regulatory scrutiny and would actually lead to the cleanup of the mine.

'By developing the mine site, we would be able to clean up the old site. A cleanup is built into the mine plan.

'What we would do is put in a neutral paste to fill up the void space and stop the oxidation (of the sulpher-bearing rock) of the site.'

Chandler said his company had looked into using barges but due to changes in the physical environment and the seasonal limitations of barges, using the river to get to the mine was not a feasible option.

'The barge option was thoroughly reviewed,' he said.

He said he doesn't really understand the argument of environmentalists over opposing a road because a road already exists, servicing a different company's mine, in the southern portion of the watershed and there have been no visible negative environmental impacts on the environment.

'That road has been there for six years,' he said.

Chandler said Redfern halted a feasibility study on the project in May so it could conduct more drill tests.

Sue Farlinger, the DFO regional director for oceans, habitat and enhancement, said extensive studies had been done on the area by her organization, B.C.'s ministry of the environment as well as Environment Canada, and the project posed no risk to the environment.

'We concluded that there would be no significant impact to the environment,' she said.

There had been intense public consultation on the project, she added, as was determined by Canada's Supreme Court when the matter went before it, and the proposed road would be built in such a way as to prevent sediments from entering the river.

Farlinger said the DFO doesn't have a policy of announcing approvals but that the environmental assessment results were posted on the website of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

Dr. Daniel B. Botkin, professor emeritus at the University of California, headed an independent study on the proposed mining project and voiced his opposition to the DFO's approval.

'In my 40 years' experience as a biologist, dealing with environmental issues, never have I come across an issue in which the government response so blatantly ignores simple and obvious facts and conditions,' Botkin said.

'Never has a case been so clear, nor the response of a government agency so misguided and inappropriate,' he said.