First Nations say Alberta review of coal project inadequate, seek federal involvement

In January, the Alberta Energy Regulator ruled Montem’s plans required a new review. The company has since set out draft terms of reference for it.

The Kainai and Siksika have compiled a long list of concerns over those terms.

They point out that the Tent Mountain plan is to extract 4,925 tonnes of coal a day, a whisker shy of the 5,000-tonne level that would automatically trigger a federal review.

“Skirting just below the thresholds for federal designation,” wrote Siksika Chief Ouray Crowfoot.

He noted that Tent Mountain would be right beside another mine being assessed, North Coal’s Michel project.

“(Tent Mountain’s) proximity to the threshold and the significant coal development in the area gives rise to the need for a federal review,” Crowfoot wrote.

At least four other mines are being considered in the immediate area and the totality of potential coal expansion needs to be considered, said Fox.

“The cumulative impact of this activity has the potential to significantly and adversely impact the ecological integrity of the area and Kainai’s ability to use this area for the practice of their Aboriginal and Treaty rights.”

The First Nations say the mine would fall under the Livingston-Porcupine Hills land-use plan, in which watershed protection is supposed to be the highest priority.

They are concerned about downstream contamination from selenium and say Montem has acknowledged water is already highly allocated.

“The Proponent states that these water quality concerns may be mitigated, and even improved, by a modern water management regime … but this remains to be seen,” wrote Fox.

“Kainai’s experience is that modern water management regimes for coal projects have not been effective.”

The First Nations say the mine would affect several areas of federal jurisdiction, including fish habitat, migratory birds and endangered species. They say Ottawa should step in because the mine would affect British Columbia, as well as downstream water users in Saskatchewan.

They add Alberta’s review plans make no mention of treaty rights. The Alberta Energy Regulator is barred by law from considering constitutional questions.

The Kainai and Siksika point out there is little land left in the area where they can conduct traditional cultural practices that hasn’t already been affected by mining, energy, forestry, agriculture or settlement. They take issue with Montem’s argument that since the proposed mine site is already disturbed, further work shouldn’t be a problem.

“The baseline data should not reflect a previously disturbed mine that operated for decades, but the site before mining began,” Fox wrote. “This will give an accurate picture of what the impacts of mining on the site have been.”

Environment Canada spokeswoman Moira Kelly wrote in an email that the minister is aware of the requests.

“In general, all designation requests made to (the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada) will be given consideration.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 9, 2021.

— Follow Bob Weber on Twitter at @row1960

Bob Weber, The Canadian Press

by Canadian Press

First Nations say Alberta review of coal project inadequate, seek federal involvement

What's Happening