History

• No salt is to be used on the haul road because it attracts wildlife to the road
• Wildlife killed by the mine must be reported immediately
  

Feb. 24: Alberta Environmental Appeals Board provides the Environment Minster, Guy Boutilier, their report on the outcome of Ben Gadd’s hearing. Decision are generally made within 30 days.

Nov. 3: Cardinal River’s Coal’s case against the Alberta Environmental Appeals Board decision is heard to determine whether to allow the Ben Gadd hearing.

Nov. 2: Conservation groups launch another legal challenge against the Federal Governments recent authorizations of the Cheviot Creek Development (first phase of mine development). The groups challenge the authorization should be quashed because it directly contravenes the Migratory Bird Convention Act.

Sept. 20: Alberta Environmental Appeals Board delays Ben Gadd’s appeal hearing for five weeks at the request of Cardinal River Coal Ltd.

Sept. 17: Cardinal River Coal serves notice that it has applied to the Court of Queens Bench of Alberta for a judicial review of Alberta Environmental Appeals Board’s decision to proceed with Ben Gadd’s appeal of the haul road development and modified Cheviot project.

Sept 10: The Alberta Environment Appeals Board denies Teck Cominco’s and Fording’s request to delay Gadd appeal hearing of the Cheviot coal mine haul road.

Offer by coalition to expedite Gadd case turned down by companies.

Sept. 1: Coalition and Sierra Legal Defense Fund, made a joint offer to Cardinal River Coal to expedite its federal case and stay Ben Gadd’s appeal of his proceedings if CRC and its parent companies agreed to stop all work on Cheviot haul road (Sept. 1).

Sept. 1: Cardinal River Coals and its parent companies Teck Cominco and Fording Canadian Coal request a stay in the appeal hearing of Ben Gadd to appeal the haul road (Sept 1).

A Notice of Application is filed by Sierra Legal Defence Fund on behalf of AWA, CNF, Pembina and Sierra Club Canada and Jasper Environmental Association. They serve DFO Prairie Office and Elk Valley Coal in regards to new haul road development for Cheviot Mine.

The Federal appeal was filed by conservation coalition calling for an environmental assessment of the entire Cheviot coal mine project. A Notice of application for judicial review was filed of the failure of the Minister of DFO to comply with his duties under CEAA in relation to the cheviot Mine Project. The Minster failed to comply with his duty under CEAA to prepare an environmental assessment of modifications for the Project before exercising power that would enable the mine project to be carried out in whole or in parts.

• Application to be made for a judicial review of the failure of the Minster of Fisheries and Oceans to comply with his duties under CEAA in relation to the Cheviot Coal Mine Project. The Minister failed to comply with duties under CEAA to prepare an EIA of the modifications on the new project before issuing authorizations.
• DFO has a duty under CEAA to implement the mitigation strategies identified in the Joint Panel and Federal reports of 1997 and 2000. DFO is not intervening as Elk Valley Coal proceeds with the construction of the haul road in the absence of authorizations.
• DFO must continue to assess the modified project and implement appropriate mitigation measures. DFO is the lead responsible authority under CEAA responsible for the assessment and mitigation of the previously assessed Cheviot mine.
• Authorizations have expired and DFO has failed to require EVC to reapply for authorizations and in doing so is ignoring project modifications.
• There are further environmental impacts associated with the new project including greater impacts on Jasper National Park, grizzly bears, migratory birds and habitat, and fish and fish habitat.

April 21: AWA Coalition representatives hold a press conference in Edmonton regarding Ben Gadd’s appeal of Cheviot Haul Road.

The groups also identify that there are several instream works that are part of the new haulroad project that would require federal authorisations under the Fisheries Act. These new instream works include the installation of culverts and a water management structure.

Furthermore, most of the issues addressed in the 1998 federal authorization remain relevant but have not been adequately addressed in regards to the new project. The federal government must become engaged in the issue to ensure the environmental impacts of the new project are assessed under CEAA. There are no federal authorizations in place for the Cheviot project but Elk Valley Coal has begun developing the road. CRC has not received authorization under the Fisheries Act for any of these activities which are part of the new proposal and an assessment must be done prior to getting such approval.

Teck Cominco became part of Cheviot holdings (35% owner of Cheviot) with Fording Canadian Coal (65% owner).

• This new Cheviot Mine project is so fundamentally changed that it now constitutes a new project. It must be reviewed in accordance with CEAA and new public hearings should be held. Any approvals from DFO should not be granted until the new project has been assessed through a review panel. CRC did not proceed with the mine project after the assessment was completed. Instead they proposed a modified version. The manner in which the project is to be carried out has changed. These circumstances require the Responsible Authority, the Minister of DFO, to undertake an EIA. He must make adjustments to the existing EIA report to account for the significant changes in the environment brought about by the new project. These obligations can only be met by conducting a new review on the entire new project.
• The proposed private haulroad itself triggers a Fisheries Act review under CEAA which requires a full review under CEAA. The impacts of construction and operation of this high speed road were not assessed through detailed environmental review in 1997. The Alberta government gave Elk Valley Coal the go ahead for this road based on an EIA done on the original project for a railway up the valley
• CEAA provides that a project includes any proposed construction, operation, modification, decommissioning, abandonment or other undertaking in relation to physical work. Once CEAA has been triggered, the Act requires that an EIA be conducted in respect to every construction, modification, decommissioning abandonment or other undertaking in relation.
• Under CEAA Section 24:
  24.(1) Where a proponent proposes to carry out in whole in part, a project for which a EIA was previously conducted and;
  a) the project did not process after the assessment was completed;
  b) in the case of a project that is in relation to a physical work, the proponent proposes an undertaking in relation to that work different from that proposed when the assessment was conducted;
  c) the manner in which the project is to be carried out has substantially changed; or
  d) the renewal of a license, approval or other action under a prescribed provision is sought.
  The Responsible Authority shall use that assessment and the report thereon to whatever extent appropriate for the purpose of complying with Sections 18 or 21. Section 24 therefore serves to essentially reengage CEAA and a new EIA.
• This implies that a new project was conducted and now DFO as the Responsible Authority must undertake an EIA according to CEAA.
• The 1997 mine application ruled out the development of a satellite mine because of environmental, technical and social reason, CEAA therefore did not address the satellite mine alternative now proposed. The social and environmental reasons given by CRC not to proceed with the satellite mine development included:
  • 1) “remaining mining activities at Luscar mine will not provide sufficient space for the in-pit disposal of tailings for the 20 year life of the Cheviot Mine,
  • 2) “ the animal mortality and significant surface disturbances associated with high speed truck haulage has major environmental implications, and
  • 3) “Physically, there is not enough room within certain segments of the McLeod Rover Corridor to accommodate a private haulage road within a minimum of 30 metres and the necessity for run away lanes, a power line right of way and the existing Grave Flats road.” (CRC 1996). All these impact remain will current mine application and must be examined.
• There is also a necessity for a new cumulative impacts assessment. The panel did not review the cumulative impacts of operating Cheviot with the continued activity at the Luscar Mine. The change in status of the Luscar mine is a significant change that may effect validity of panel conclusions regarding cumulative effects. The groups reject the CRC's characterization of the construction of the private haulroad as an independent project. It forms part of a larger satellite mine project which will require a number of Fisheries Act permits which should be assessed as a whole and not after preliminary components have been built.
• The new project is found to be even more intrusive on wildlife, the hamlet of Cadomin, the Whitehorse Creek Wildland Park, and Jasper National Park than the original project.
  • The new gravel haulroad could pose significant problems for wildlife by increasing mortality rates and impeded movement.
  • The road may cause a greater barrier to wildlife movement and ready access for poachers into McLeod valley.
  • The public and haul roads will be side by side and separated by a one-2 metre high concrete barrier, which would impede wildlife movement.
  • The haul road serves as a 22 km north south barrier to wildlife movement. Add this to the 23 km west-east trending mining area.
  • The continuous 24 hour a day, high speed traffic will result in increased road kill and serves as a barrier to seasonal movement. Add this to the quality habitat removed from the area.
  • The road’s adjacency to McLeod river and its tributaries will affect both fisheries and migratory bird habitat including harlequin ducks.
  • Road adjacency and use will result in increased load of sediment and dust and declining water quality for both fisheries and bird habitat.
  • CRC is required as a condition of the mine permit to study current wildlife movement patterns and to establish the minimum conditions necessary for wildlife corridors to be affective. These studies would include the assessment of wildlife use of the McLeod River valley for habitat and movement. This must be done as part of the CEAA review.
• The changes to the new project reduce the economic and social benefits of the mine. The company will be mining less than half the coal originally sited in 1997, 2.1 M tonnes compared to 3.25M tonnes annually, and employ only one quarter of the people of the original project The review panel in the 2000 decision recommended approval because it felt the economic benefits of the mine would outweigh the environmental and social costs of the project. However, the changes to the project have altered the forecasted costs – the mine will be producing less coal and will require fewer jobs.

Summary of the changes to the project from 1997 to 2000:

• Access Corridor:
  • 1997
    - Upgrade Grave Flats road (existing road) for access
    - Construct railway
  • 2000
    - Addition of McLeod River Valley to the mine permit to operate Cheviot as a satellite of Luscar
    - Construction and operation of a 22km high speed haul road for round the clock transport of raw coal to Luscar. Haul road to parallel Grave Flats road and McLeod River
• Transmission Line installation
  • 1997
    - Transmission Line installation
  • 2000
    - New location to parallel haul road and Grave Flats road
• Coal processing Plant and operation
  • 1997
    - Construction and operation of a new plant at cheviot
  • 2000
    - Use of 40 year old plant at Luscar instead of previously planned shut down and reclamation
• Surface Mine Development
  • 1997
    - 64 M CMT of coal
  • 2000
    - Plan to mine less than half the amount of coal - 28M CMT.
    - Total area of the mine to remain the same but with a different sequence in opening the pits.

• The Cheviot Mine is to become a satellite mine operation of the existing Luscar Mine. The Cheviot Mine will no longer be a self contained mine, rather all coal will be shipped and processed off site at the existing Luscar Mine 22 km to the north, which was originally slated for closure and reclamation in 2003.
• The new project will involve the construction of a new 22 km long 70km/hour high-speed coal haulroad adjacent to the McLeod River. This will require the enlargement of the total mine site by adding 10km of McLeod River Valley. In doing so, a 10km section of road will be constructed within the valley to link the satellite Cheviot mine permit area with the Luscar mine permit. The new size of mine area will be 7,455ha.
• Because the coal will not be processed at the Cheviot site, this eliminates the need to build a rail line and processing plant.
• The project will not be cheaper to operate and construct because the coal will be hauled off site.
• The only infrastructure at the Cheviot Mine site will be mobile trailers since Luscar infrastructure will be used.
• Coal hauling will occur 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. A truck will pass any given point every 6-15 minutes.
• Seasonal public access will occur along the existing Grave Flats road. Modifications will be made to this road to accommodate the private haul road.
• The public and private haul roads will be kept separate for safety reasons. The haulroad and Grave Flats road will intersect at three points at marked crossings.
• The new Luscar mine 69kv power system will be extended beside the haulroad.

CRC submits an application to the Alberta Government for an amendment to the existing Cheviot mine permit and seeks the environmental approval for the operation of the Luscar mine. This is another new development as the Luscar mine was to have closed in 2002. The amendment is to seek regulatory approval to construct a 10km private haulroad to link the proposed Cheviot mine permit area with the existing Luscar mine permit area. Aspects of this proposed haul road include:

• The road will be a 22 km long private high-speed coal haulroad adjacent to McLeod River, constructed beside the existing Grave Flats road. It would require the development of a new 10km section. 
• The road will fall within the access corridor that was considered and approved as part of original mine project.
• The road will be a single lane gravel road about 16 m wide. When topography allows, the road will be extended to a double lane gravel road approximately 30 m wide.
• The road will proceed after being granted after government approvals.

The Cheviot Mine is still approved, but is on hold until Luscar can secure contracts for coal purchase when market ever returns.  In the meantime Luscar and Consolidated Coal are developing the Line Creek Mine in BC to serve the same market.

March 26 - The EUB responds to the AWA Coalition’s request for a review of the decision, however the review is denied. The EUB states that CRC postponed the project and did not cancel it.

March 31 - The Luscar Mine closes. The Luscar Mine was opened in 1960. It is located 22km north of the proposed Cheviot Mine Site. Just when Albertans thought that all was quiet on the Cheviot front, the project is resurrected in a different form.

Further approval of the Cheviot Mine given by the Joint Panel Decision is based on the following (among others reasons):

• The mine is economically viable and provides significant economic benefit to the region and the province.
• CRC has adequately considered alternative methods of extraction.
• Although the proposed mine will have direct affect on water flow rates and water quality both within and beyond boundaries, the environmental effects will not be significant.
• CRC must avoid or minimize the loss of fish habitat. CRC's planned compensation for fish habitat through the creation of artificial lakes within mine pits is reasonable.
• With respect to noise and atmospheric emissions, adverse environmental effects will not be significant.

May 2 - The Federal Court issues an order formally preventing CRC from acting on the second of the two authorizations it had received for commencement of the Cheviot mine development, i.e. the industrial complex.

The Sierra Legal Defence Fund and AWA win a lawsuit challenging the adequacy of federal-provincial review of the mine application.

April 8 – AWA Coalition wins the lawsuit. The Federal Court of Canada Trial Division, Federal Justice Douglas R. Campbell strikes down authorizations granted for the Cheviot mine under the Fisheries Act. He deems the Panel review did not meet the requirements of CEAA. He rules that the environmental assessment was incomplete due to deficiencies in assessing cumulative impacts. He rules that the permanent dumping of waste rock on migratory bird habitat contradicts the Migratory Bird Convention Act, which prohibits the deposition of substances harmful to migratory birds. No authorization has since been issued for the Cheviot coal access.

UNESCO World Heritage Committee urges Canada to reconsider 1997 mine approval & work on alternatives with Alberta. The Cheviot mine site is to be located only 1.8 km from Jasper National Park, a World Heritage Site.

December 2 – The Federal Court dismisses CRC's and DFO’s motion to strike down the ENGO lawsuit.

• A phased development schedule (pit by pit) to collect data and evaluate cumulative effects
• Federal government participation in 2 committees responsible for Cheviot:
  • Conservation and Reclamation Review Committee (on site environment issues like water, air, fish and wildlife)
  • Northern East Slopes Environmental Resource Committee (off site issues such as wildlife management)

The AWA coalition (CPAWS, JEA, Pembina) and CNF launches (files) a lawsuit against the Federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Joint Review Panel as the review did not comply with requirements of CEAA. The groups argue that the Panel failed to conduct a proper environmental impact assessment (EIA) which CEAA requires for mine approval. There was failure to properly assess the cumulative impacts of logging and mining already planned in area and other project alternatives such as underground mining vs. open pit mining. Consideration of mine alternatives would decrease environmental impacts of the operation. DFO’s issuing of authorizations would also be contrary to the Migratory Bird Convention Act.

Cardinal River Coal Ltd. plans on logging and construction in April 1997.

• The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) receives CRC's request for an authorization for the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat resulting from work or undertakings associated with the Cheviot mine. Under Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, before taking action that would allow the project to be carried out, the Minster of DFO is required to ensure that an environmental assessment of the proposed project is conducted. DFO, therefore, became a responsible authority under the act and immediately initiated a EIA for the Cheviot mine.
• The project application requests the issue of authorizations under the Fisheries Act from the government for: 1) the access corridor for road upgrades, 2) the industrial complex for earthworks, discharge of groundwater and processing plant; and 3) the mine pit for construction of open pits including permanent dumping of excavated rocks and road between pits and the plant. These authorizations are required in order to proceed with project.
• These authorizations trigger a Panel review under CEAA. Authorizations are required when a project is likely to harm fish habitat. Through these Fisheries Act authorizations, the federal government sets out the conditions that CRC must meet to satisfy concerns over fish, fish habitat and migratory birds. Until the Federal Government is satisfied, authorizations will not be granted.
• DFO consults other federal departments and interest groups and concludes the mine project could result in significant environmental impacts and require a federal provincial review under CEAA.