A letter sent by SAGE to the Alberta Energy Regulator on January 9th, 2026 regarding the proposed Terms of Reference submitted for Northback Holdings Corporation – Grassy Mountain Project.

It is disappointing that Northback Holdings Corporation has submitted a boilerplate Terms of Reference for an Environmental Impact Assessment report considering the significant expense and expertise dedicated to the Grassy Mountain Coal Project Joint Review Panel proceedings in 2020. The final report of the Joint Review Panel offers many observations, concerns and recommendations that should be foundational in a re-application for a coal mining project in the Crowsnest Pass. The deficient Terms of Reference offered by Northback Holdings Corporation appears contemptuous of the opportunity offered by the Joint Review Panel to address real and important concerns about the proposed Grassy Mountain Coal Project.

Respecting that the Alberta Energy Regulator was a partner in the Joint Review Panel, there is no need for the Southern Alberta Group for the Environment (SAGE) to repeat the many outcomes articulated in the Report of the Joint Review Panel (2021). We would, however, like to take the opportunity to highlight some concerns that appear to be absent from the Terms of Reference proposed by Northback Holdings Corporation:

1. Coal, used thermally as a fuel or in the reduction of iron ore, using obsolescent technologies for steel making, is responsible for greenhouse gas emissions not only in its production, but in its use. The proposed Terms of Reference should address the cumulative effects of greenhouse gas emissions from the combustion of coal, and offer a justification for producing coal in light of the expected transition away from global coal use.
2. Air Quality monitoring and management of fugitive methane emissions as part of Canada’s Methane Strategy and greenhouse gas targets would be an important consideration in the proposed Terms of Reference. The assessment of methane emissions from exposed coal and related particulate emissions that consider regional winds should include an economic commitment for monitoring and management over the duration of a number of decades after the coal mining has ceased.
3. The safe abstraction of water from tributaries of the Oldman River Basin requires substantive base-line monitoring and scientific modelling for land-use changes and climate change as a component of an Environmental Impact Assessment.
4. Wastewater management should include examples of successful at-scale processes for the elimination of toxic elements from discharged water, including bioaccumulative elements like selenium. The Assessment should include a long-term plan for wastewater management (runoff) for many decades after the mining of coal has ceased. Such a plan would require enforceable economic commitments for monitoring and treatment over this extended period.

The Report of the Joint Review Panel was clear about the negative impacts of mining coal at Grassy Mountain. The evaluated evidence concluded “that the project is likely to result in significant adverse environmental effects on surface water quality, westslope cutthroat trout and their habitat, whitebark pine, rough fescue grasslands, and vegetation species and community biodiversity.” Further, the project would be “likely to cause significant adverse effects on surface water quality … The project will release a number of contaminants, particularly selenium, into receiving surface waters. … [and] predicted slight but chronic exceedances for a number of non-selenium contaminants …” Furthermore, the proponent was not able to determine if the ‘active management’ of water quality would be required, which could extend decades after mine closure.

Though not strictly a component of an Environment Impact Assessment, the economics of greenhouse gas emissions and air and water pollution resulting in the displacement of ranching, tourism, angling, irrigation-based agriculture and intensive livestock operation should be considered. The costs of long-term monitoring and management of the cumulative affects on air and water quality should also be included in the Terms of Reference.

To conclude, SAGE suggests that the proposed Terms of Reference reflect and better respect the Recommendations of the Joint Review Panel derived after technical consultation and due democratic process. The Grassy Mountain coal project was deemed not in the public interest. There have been no scientific advances that would change this decision. SAGE suggests that this application be postponed until Alberta’s new coal policy has been approved by the legislature and has had the benefit of robust public consultation and parliamentary debate.

The Eastern Slopes represents the source of water for the region which is the basis of our health and economy. As such, any Environmental Impact Assessment for industrial projects in the region must meet the highest of standards, and decisions on risks must defer the precautionary principle.

Postscript, submitted January 16th:

That the proposed Northback Coal Project Terms of Reference indicate the importance of meeting pollution regulations with the goal of protecting human and aquatic health into the future. This standard should be based on the scientific assessment of environmental and cumulative impacts, and independent of the current capabilities of pollution abatement technologies and the desired profitability of exploiting coal from the eastern slopes of the Rockies. As such, selenium shall be assessed using water-column concentrations and fish-tissue concentrations consistent with the Coal Mining Effluent Regulations (CMER).