On December 3, 2024, AWA presented in the public hearing on Northback Holdings’ applications to explore Grassy Mountain’s coal deposits. As a limited participant, AWA was given the opportunity to submit a written statement and provide a 20-minute oral presentation as a part of the two-day community session, held at the community hall in Pincher Creek. The second half of the public hearing for participants with full standing will take place January 14 – 31, 2025. It will be held at the AER’s Govier Hall, located at 250, 5th Street SW, Calgary Alberta.
The full transcript of AWA’s oral presentation can be read below:
Hello everyone, my name is Kennedy Halvorson, and I am a conservation specialist with the Alberta Wilderness Association. Founded in 1965, AWA is the oldest nonprofit in the province dedicated to conserving and protecting Alberta’s ecosystems. With the support of over 7000 members across the province, AWA works to promote good stewardship of Alberta’s wildlife, wilderness, and waters to ensure future generations enjoy the abundant benefits they provide.
I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to you today and appreciate the effort everyone has taken to be here. Despite differing perspectives, I want to recognize the importance of these public forums in which we can engage, as I know we are all largely motivated and advocating for what we think is best for the region and our communities.
I want to begin by reminding everyone what we are here to discuss. Many in support of Northback Holding’s applications have spoken in favour of the economic development they hope the proposed project will bring, citing the need for more jobs and greater job security, as well as increased incomes in the area. While I empathize with these circumstances, these arguments are not relevant to the current applications before us.
Considering Northback’s applications in isolation, what is being proposed is self-characterized as a “localized, temporary and short” exploration project on an already extensively explored mountain. Exploration is notoriously the costly phase of resource development. It requires significant investment and is a well-known barrier to getting mines operational. It does not make money; the assumption is that costs will be recouped during the extractive stage. As the proponent’s have indicated they expect it to last “105 days”, the “short-term” nature of the project means any economic or employment benefits to the local communities similarly will be temporary. Unfortunately, less than four months of work will not pay mortgages or sustain communities long-term. Accordingly, any arguments promoting the socio-economic benefits of Northback’s project outside of the application’s scope should not be considered during the public hearing.
Northback argues this project is “necessary to obtain additional information related to potential development opportunities within Northback’s coal lease area”. Citing the Coal Conservation Act’s statutory purpose, the proponent’s assert their Coal Exploration Program as necessary to “quantify Alberta’s resources”. However, 517 drill holes were bored through a cumulative 60,000 metres of mountain over 5 different exploration programs between 1970 to 2016, after the area had already endured 55 years of surface and underground mining; at what threshold does the AER consider a resource sufficiently appraised? And if further “understanding” of Grassy Mountain’s coal deposits by Northback is required now, why were their predecessor and parent companies confident and willing to put forth a full mine proposal previously? It is unclear how it will be “orderly, efficient, and economic” as required by the CCA, to permit further exploration by proponents whose past efforts were deemed inadequate on numerous occasions by multiple jurisdictions, despite being given ample opportunities to strengthen their proposal and address serious and legitimate concerns.
A review of the current applications demonstrates they suffer from similar deficiencies. For example, section 20(3) of the Public Lands Act states that if any authorization conflicts with any applicable Regional Plan under the Alberta Land Stewardship Act (ALSA), the Regional Plan prevails. The management of the public lands with the proposed project site are informed by the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan, and more specifically, the subregional Livingstone-Porcupine Hills Land Footprint Management Plan (LMFP). The plan sets out disturbance limits for motorized access among other management thresholds. These were set to avoid the undesirable conditions and adverse effects on the environment associated with high densities, including increased sedimentation and erosion in streams, stress, avoidance behaviours and mortality for wildlife, and spread of invasive species. These are to be enforced by the relevant “departments and agencies through the regulatory system”, including the AER. Just under half of the drillholes planned are on public lands, in areas where the exploration motorized access densities appear to exceed the disturbance limits. For example, the average density of major trails for the quarter parcels where proposed drill pads 021, 022, 024, and 026 are located is 4.28 km per square km, well above the limits set in the Management Plan. Northback’s applications should be required to be compliant with such thresholds, indicating the applications are insufficient.
Northback also must abide by Manual 008: Oil Sands and Coal Exploration Guide. Manual 008 states that Coal Exploration Programs have a term of five years: two to complete exploration and three years to reclaim the disturbances caused by exploration. Benga Mining Ltd., another subsidiary of Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd. and Northback’s predecessor, originally conducted exploration work on Grassy Mountain from 2013-2016. Accordingly, all reclamation of their disturbance, including drill pads, seismic lines, roads, and water crossings they maintained or expanded, should have been completed by 2018.
After being required to scale back on the new roads and forest clearing they had originally planned, Northback’s proposal now states that their exploration program will take place entirely on previously disturbed lands. But stating that they will use the same roads, drill pads, and seismic lines associated with past exploration efforts indicates that Northback’s predecessor did not fulfill their previous reclamation requirements to the site under Manual 008. Considering these are the same proponents, this is a worrisome precedent, casting doubt on their recent commitments to reclaim Grassy Mountain should their current applications be approved.
The Coal Conservation Act (CCA) states that any operation undertaken through permits or licenses issued under the Act “does not relieve a person from the requirements or liabilities arising under any other Act or otherwise” in section 22. Further, for all permissions obtained under the Public Lands Act, it is mandatory under the Act’s Master Schedule of Standards and Conditions that “disposition holders must comply with all applicable federal Critical Habitat Orders issued under section 58 of the Species at Risk Act” (SARA), and “proponents and disposition holders should contact Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) in relation to the application of the [SARA] and any relevant Critical Habitat Orders” .
A critical habitat Protection Order was issued back in 2015 under the Species at Risk Act for the Westslope Cutthroat Trout (WSCT), “which triggers the prohibition against the destruction of any part of the critical habitat”. The reason it was issued is because these trout are threatened, and their populations are in decline. If you are wondering why this matters, know that these species are indicators of watershed health, and their decreasing numbers are a warning, the so-called canary in the coal mine.
The protection order applies to anyone undertaking activities in and around critical habitat that would result in the destruction of any part of it. The order classified Gold Creek and its tributaries as critical habitat, which are located within Northback’s proposed project site. Key threats identified in the order include any “changes in water flow, sedimentation, or habitat loss, fragmentation and habitat alteration”. It also provided “examples of activities likely to destroy critical habitat of this species”, which “include mining, … or linear disturbance”. Under SARA, “a person who, without a permit, carries out an activity that contravenes one of the prohibitions under SARA, which includes destruction of critical habitat, commits an offence”. Multiple watercourse crossings listed in the deep drilling permit applications of Northback Holdings cross critical habitat of the Westslope Cutthroat Trout, and because water crossings and roads can be a source of pollution and sedimentation in aquatic habitats, the application’s are incomplete without the appropriate permitting from the DFO to identify how work should proceed across and around these crossings to protect the Westslope Cutthroat trout critical habitat.
In response to AWA’s written submission, Northback stated that our references to recently published scientific literature detailing the environmental impacts from coal mining in the Elk Valley are “completely irrelevant”, and “should be afforded no weight by the AER”. This statement is indicative of how Northback thinks and operates in regards to cumulative effects management – not only should the AER afford this research weight, they are bound to do so by Alberta’s Land Use Framework and regional planning system. Cumulative effects management is integral to Alberta’s legislation, it’s necessity demanded by the recognition that development can and does exceed ecological thresholds and carry capacities, and must be regulated as such. Cumulative effects management takes a holistic approach to understanding and handling the impacts of land-use, as the consideration of a project’s impacts in isolation does not reflect how they actually manifest on the landscape. The AER must consider what is going on in the Elk Valley, because it despite its distance away, these coal mines are polluting Alberta’s Eastern Slopes and adding to the threats that already exist there, even before Northback gets the chance to do the same.
Researchers recently have found that coal dust is a significant source of atmospheric pollution to ecosystems downwind. Fugitive coal dust from the Elk Valley coal mines in British Columbia has been found polluting remote and otherwise pristine subalpine lakes and contaminating snowpack across Alberta’s Eastern Slopes. Containing high concentrations of carcinogens like polycyclic aromatic compounds (PACs), the dust travels as fine particulate matter in the atmosphere and deposits across a vast range, detected in some locations more than 50 km away from the source. Wind patterns suggest that high depositions of these compounds are occurring within otherwise protected and well-loved areas like Peter Lougheed Provincial Park. Researchers found locations where chemical concentrations and contaminants far exceed tolerable guidelines, with some samples comparable or even at times worse than levels within ecosystems impacted by Alberta’s oil sands mines. With more than 70 percent of the Oldman basin’s water supply derived from annual snowpack, the implications are serious. This research is important because it supplies additional context for the AER to understand the environmental baseline, and determine if additional pressures, like further coal exploration, can be sustained by the ecosystems.
The research is also relevant, because although we are here today to discuss a coal exploration project, Northback has indicated that a commercial mine is their ultimate goal. They’ve stated that “all concerns relating to coal development generally, or a full commercial mine development, are beyond the scope of the Applications and should be given no consideration”, while also maintaining that “the AER must, before deciding on the Applications, take into account the potential loss of the chance to assess a commercial mine application and the significant economic benefits likely associated with that development”. Both of these statements cannot be true at once.
If the AER wants to account for the potential loss of economic benefits from a commercial mine (which recent cost-benefit analysis have not found favourable), then it must also consider the significant loss in value of ecosystem benefits and services and negative impacts to human health, should a commercial mine be developed. To quote from a paper published in the Annual Review of Public Health,
“All phases of the coal use continuum (mining, processing, combustion, and waste disposal) create adverse public health and environmental impacts. Public health impacts include cancer, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, kidney disease, mental health problems, adverse birth outcomes, impaired child development, and others.”
Research finds that these negative health outcomes will be felt most acutely by the communities nearest the mines, who will bare increased rates of disease, among other reduced social outcomes.
Science also consistently reveals that despite companies best efforts, their investments into better mitigations and management practices, there is no clean way to mine coal. The environmental degradation and negative health impacts occurring in Elk Valley provide insight into realities that very well could be duplicated in this watershed, should Northback be allowed to proceed.
On the West side of the Rocky Mountains, chemical leaching into the surrounding watershed from commercial coal mines has been an issue since their onset. Despite the company responsible having spent more than $1.4 billion dollars to address high concentrations of toxic contaminants, recent research finds that elements like selenium are continuing to accumulate in the environment. Expanded coal operations have led to a 95 percent increase in selenium, a 76 percent increase in nitrate, and 38 percent increase in sulfate concentrations in waters at Canada and the USA’s shared boundary. Increased concentrations of these chemicals cause nutrient and food-chain imbalances in the aquatic ecosystem, and migration interruptions, reproductive deformities and failure, and extirpation of species within affected watersheds.
Food harvested in areas affected by the mines is higher in selenium than areas unaffected and can pose potential health affects if consumed too frequently. Researchers have also recently found that selenium is capable of long-range transport; in the Columbia River system it was detected up to 575 river kilometres downstream from the Elk Valley mines, flowing through aquatic ecosystems in Montana, Idaho, and Washington. In comparison, the distance from the headwaters of the Oldman River to its confluence with the South Saskatchewan River is 440 km meaning these contaminants have the potential to flow well past the municipality of Taber, and could affect an estimated 210,000 people living within the Old Man watershed.
To all those here in support of the exploration project, in hopes that is will result one day in a commercial mine, you also need to understand that these watersheds do not have any more water to spare. The Alberta government recommends that to maintain healthy aquatic ecosystems, a river must retain 85% of its natural flow, known as the instream flow needs. However, the Oldman has already been well overallocated, which means its average natural flow is no longer sufficient to sustain both the instream flow needs of the river, and the human demands for water. To better put this in context for you, we’ve already set aside around 66 percent of the river’s average natural flow before the needs of the environment are even considered. Although we do have Water Conservation Objectives (WCOs), which are less stringent thresholds that water managers aim to retain in overallocated watersheds, they are regularly not being met, which threatens our long-term river health and viability. To worsen the situation, the average natural flow fluctuates dramatically, particularly in drought years like we’ve had. In both 2023 and 2024, annual demand from licensed water users alone, even without the water conservation objectives, exceeded supply in the Oldman.
This context is necessary to inform future sustainable development and the consider the full implications of allowing coal exploration, that intends to result in a commercial coal mine, at the Oldman’s very headwaters. As a regulatory body responsible for issuing and approving water license applications and transfers, the AER is implicated in the protection of Alberta’s water basins. According to the Water Act Section 66(3)(b), the Director “may consider any existing, potential or cumulative effects on the aquatic environment” before issuing a Temporary Diversion License (TDL), and AWA urges the AER do so with this context; the Oldman is already overallocated, and while new water licenses cannot be issued in these watersheds, it is also evident that permanent or temporary water license transfers, particularly so early along river, are not a viable solution either if Alberta is ever to restore the instream flow needs and ensure the Old man’s long-term resilience.
While Northback’s current proposal requests only 1500 m3 of water now, if their application is successful, they will need more water later. Their previous applications for a commercial mine development required almost 375,000 m3 in permanent and temporary licensed allocations, which is water that the Oldman cannot afford to lose. Mining is considered a consumptive use of water, creating tailings contaminated with heavy metals and chemicals that cannot be returned to the river – this represents volumes of water lost from an already overused river system. The presence of tailings on the landscape also creates additional threats, as the risk of contaminating nearby waterbodies increases. This is evident from the numerous incidents in recent years reported on the AER compliance dashboard that have occurred at existing coal operations whereby wastewater was discharged into the environment when storage ponds failed, flooded, or were inadvertently drained.
In their written submission, Northback muses that the “majority of SOC-filers did not raise any concerns with respect” to these previous exploration programs, and that they are “not aware of the previous exploration programs having resulted in any adverse impacts to the SOC-filers, long term or otherwise.”
I submit that we are all living through those adverse impacts now. It is an adverse impact, to all those who live, work, and play – and in general, rely on healthy and functioning watersheds in Southern Alberta to have to vigilantly advocate that the river’s and their associated ecological, societal, and economic values to be retained and protected. It is an adverse impact to all those who have had to mobilize, prepare, and participate in years of time and resource intensive procedures to limit further degradation of and negative impacts to our ecosystems and species at risk. It is an adverse impact to live with the uncertainty that your water may one day be polluted by a mine upstream. The failure to engage during the first exploration programs in the past was a mistake, and we are here to today because we are committed to learning from it.
As Northback has indicated in their submission, if the AER chooses to approve their applications, it is likely they will try to develop a commercial coal mine. This means that a potential impact of issuing Northback’s requested CEP, TDL, and Deep Drilling Permit in the near term will result in a full commercial development later, associated with all the negative environmental and human health impacts discussed here, which is not in the public interest. Based on a review of the applicable legislation, Northback’s current applications do not seem to address the necessary legal requirements. Further, the extent of the transboundary pollution from the Elk Valley Coal mines must also inform the AER’s decision. Although outside of the AER’s jurisdiction, this previously unknown threat impacts the ecosystems and populations along the Eastern Slopes and across Southern Alberta’s watersheds. Considering all the pressures the Old man is already under, it is unacceptable to incur additional and unnecessary pollution or potential use at the basin’s headwaters. All of the research presented here indicates that the impacts of coal mining are far from localized. It challenges the notion that AER’s basis for determining which interested parties deemed to be ‘directly and adversely affected’ in matters such as these, and to restrict those who are considered to have full standing in this proceeding (or any related proceeding) to only those living directly adjacent to the site is evidentially not informed by the best available research.
AWA requests the AER reject all of Northback’s applications and remove the ‘advanced project’ status from Grassy Mountain.
