Revised Elk Valley coal mine expansion still raises water pollution concerns in southeast B.C.

Teck Resources Elkview Operations steelmaking coal mine in the Elk Valley near Sparwood, British Columbia, Canada, on Tuesday, April 26, 2022.

In the midst of an international inquiry into transboundary water pollution from southeast B.C. coal mines, Elk Valley Resources has submitted a revised proposal for new mining in the region.

The company’s proposal revises one that was first submitted by Teck Resources, the previous owner of the Elk Valley coal mines. In 2023, the provincial government directed Teck Resources to revise its proposal following a dispute resolution process initiated by the Ktunaxa Nation Council, which opposed the project over the risk of what it called “extraordinary adverse effects.”

Elk Valley Resource’s revised project description for the Fording River Extension Project, which it submitted to B.C.’s Environmental Assessment Office last month, proposes a two-phase approach to developing a smaller mine, with a shorter lifespan, with plans to restore mined areas incrementally throughout operations rather than waiting until mine operations have ended. It also limits the risks from waste rock dumps to a creek that has so far been largely unaffected by coal mine pollution and incorporates additional water quality measures.

Simon Wiebe, mining policy and impacts researcher with the Kootenay-based conservation group Wildsight, said the changes to the Fording River extension proposal are largely positive.

“But at the end of the day, the mine hasn’t changed sufficiently for us to not oppose it at all,” he said. “They’re still knocking down an entire mountain.”

Ktunaxa Nation Council and Yaq̓it ʔa·knuqⱡi’it, one of the four Ktunaxa First Nations in B.C., were involved in revisions to the mine proposal, Chris Stannell, Elk Valley Resources communication manager, said.

While Yaq̓it ʔa·knuqⱡi’it Nasuʔkin (Chief) Heidi Gravelle said the best-case scenario would be for the mine expansion to be taken off the table, she supports moving the proposal into the next phase of the environmental assessment process.

Yaq̓it ʔa·knuqⱡi’it will continue to be actively involved throughout the environmental assessment process, she said. “These are our lands and we’re here to protect them, we’re here to guide them.”

New mining would risk additional water pollution

If approved as currently proposed, the Fording River extension would see new mountaintop-removal coal mining on Castle Mountain, just south of Elk Valley Resources’ existing Fording

River Operations. The company says the expansion is necessary to maintain mine operations and sustain more than 1,500 jobs beyond the early 2030s to the early 2060s.

Under the revised proposal, the extension project would have a total footprint of 4,326 hectares. About 2,295 hectares are within already permitted areas and include existing waste rock storage areas, a coal processing plant and a tailings storage facility. The new mining area at Castle Mountain, which is not yet permitted, is just over 2,000 hectares.

In another shift from the original proposal, Elk Valley Resources is now pitching a staged approach to the project. Phase one would involve construction from 2028 to 2031 with mine operations until 2053. Construction for phase two would begin in 2044, when phase one operations are set to decline, with phase two mining planned for 2046 to 2065.

A spokesperson for the Environmental Assessment Office said the next opportunity for public comment will be after the agency decides whether the project is ready to proceed through the environmental assessment process. Wiebe has urged the government to hold a second public comment period before that decision is made, noting the project has changed since consultations in 2023.

The Elk Valley has been heavily impacted by historic coal mining dating back 130 years, as well as logging, a highway and rail corridor and residential development. The Fording River extension would add to existing impacts. It would mean losing more high-elevation grasslands in the area, which offer important wintering grounds for bighorn sheep and forage for elk and deer, for instance. “This is irreplaceable habitat,” Wiebe said.

The massive piles of waste rock left over from the mining process have been a source of water pollution for as long as coal has been mined from the Rocky Mountains of the Elk Valley. When the waste rock is exposed to rain and snow, naturally occurring minerals like selenium, which can cause deformities and reproductive issues in fish, seep into the water, eventually flowing into nearby creeks and rivers at levels well beyond what the B.C. government considers safe for aquatic life.

Glencore, Elk Valley Resources’ Swiss parent company, committed to ramping up treatment capacity when it took the mines over. Treatment facilities currently have the capacity to treat 77.5 million litres of water per day. According to the company, water treatment facilities are removing between 95 and 99 per cent of selenium from treated water, but not all water that flows downstream is treated.

“[Elk Valley Resources] has made significant progress implementing the Elk Valley Water Quality Plan,” Stannell said in an emailed statement. “Selenium concentrations have stabilized and are now reducing downstream of treatment.”

Three more water treatment projects now under construction are expected to increase water treatment capacity by another 50 million litres per day by 2027, according to the company’s website.

Selenium levels downstream of the Elk Valley coal mines remain well above B.C.’s guideline of two parts per billion. The B.C. government set selenium targets for the Fording River at 57 parts per billion closer to the mines and 40 parts per billion farther downstream. In the Elk River, the province set a target of 19 parts per billion.

“As a British Columbian, it’s kind of embarrassing, to be honest, that we’re entertaining this discussion,” Wiebe said. “We have an international water pollution issue going on and we’re talking about actively making it worse.”

Gravelle said the risks of added water pollution and lost grasslands are major concerns for Yaq̓it ʔa·knuqⱡi’it. She also worries about what happens if the company were to walk away. “Who’s going to pay for that mess that is up there?” she asked.

Late last month, the province released an updated Elk Valley Water Quality Plan, which aims for progressive improvements to water quality downstream of the mines. A spokesperson for the Ministry of Environment and Parks said “the updated plan strengthens B.C.’s regulatory role and provides a clear framework for how decisions are made that affect water quality, ensuring the Ktunaxa First Nations are included.”

The plan did not strengthen selenium targets. “But it better prepares us to make these decisions going forward by providing guidance on the process for target review and amendment,” the spokesperson said.

Meanwhile, a long-awaited international inquiry into Elk Valley coal mine pollution is underway.

Water pollution from the mines flows from the Elk River into Lake Koocanusa, a vast reservoir spanning the Canada-U.S. border, before coursing through Montana and Idaho in the Kootenai River. In both states there are long-standing concerns about the impact of the pollution on vulnerable fish species.

After more than a decade of pressure from the transboundary Ktunaxa Nation, which includes four First Nations in Canada, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes in Montana and the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, the federal governments in the U.S. and Canada agreed to involve the International Joint Commission. Its interim report is due in September.

This story by Ainslie Cruickshank, The Narwhal, is available for use by Canadian Press clients through an agreement with The Narwhal. It was originally published in The Narwhal, a non-profit online magazine that publishes in-depth journalism about the natural world in Canada. Sign up for weekly updates at thenarwhal.ca/newsletter.