There is a lot of innaccurate information on Schaft in this article which diminishes the story's relevance and reliability.

The fact that the agency is not allocating staffing or any resources to review and comment on the project tells me that it has been deemed low enough risk by the agency to not allocate resources to bother reviewing Schaft.

There is also an issue of any linking mechanism (like the Boundary Water's Treaty between USA *& Canada) to support a stage for USA review and comment. From my read of the treaty, the other nation can only raise issues with impacts to the immediate water body (e.g. Stikine River) shared between the two countries - not its tributaries.

Our impacts (if any?) are twice removed (Schaft drains into Mess Creek, which drains into the Stikine). And that is only if we consider the waste rock dumps which should be quite benign relative to tailings (lack of acid producing rock).

Our tailings system is even once more removed as they will affect Skeeter Creek which flows into Schaft Cr. Since the Skeeter Tailings Storage Facility will be isolated from the original Skeeter watershed (diversion/interception ditches plus dams and effluent treatment) and the low precipiation, it will be a tough case to raise interest across the border.