Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project

Comment Search Mobile

Comment Search

Report comment

Are you sure you want to report this comment for review?
Skip to filters
Sort by: Best match Most recent Reference number

71 results

Attachment Student addressing environmental concern

  • Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project
  • Author: Mercedes Robinson
  • Reference number: 79
  • Submitted: 2026-10-06 - 2:21 AM
  • As an Environmental Studies student I would like to address my concerns that this project would have on the environment. One of which being landscape and ecosystem eradication of the natural environment. This project will interfere with living organisms that rely on the area and will have lasting impacts to the surrounding areas. Taking into account that the mine will be in place for 15 years, that is enough time to have cumulative impacts. This project will contribute to the annual greenhouse gas emissions and interfere with people's day to day lives. It will also have an impact on the natural hydrology of the area, which can interfere with marine life and aquatic habitats. The construction of the mine will be disturbing in a number of ways creating noise and eventually air pollution as there will be continuous use of heavy machinery. I hope that you are taking into consideration any Indigenous Nations land who you may be occupying and have consulted with any or all communities. Will the future lasting effects and jobs that this mine creates outweigh the environmental impacts that it will have? What can be done to make sure that the effects are mitigated and the environment can be restored once the project is over?

Report

Attachment ECCC comments on EIS

  • Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project
  • Author: Administrator on behalf of Environment and Climate Change Canada
  • Reference number: 75
  • Submitted: 2024-05-30 - 6:50 PM
  • See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce ci-jointe 
  • Attachment included
  • Environmental Protection Operations Directorate Pacific and Yukon Region 101 - 401 Burrard Street Vancouver, BC V6C 3R2 February 28, 2024 CIAR: 80087 ECPT: 14-1201 Stefan Crampton Project Manager Impact Assessment Agency of Canada 210A-757 West Hastings Street Vancouver, BC V6C 3M2 Dear Stefan Crampton, Re: Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project – Environment and Climate Change Canada Comments for the Technical Review of the Environmental Impact Statement / Application (Round 1) On January 29, 2024, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (the Agency) initiated technical review of the Environmental Impact Statement / Application (EIS/A) for the Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project (the Project) proposed by NWP Coal Canada Ltd. (the Proponent). The Agency requested Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) undertake a detailed technical review of the EIS/A for the Project and make available ECCC specialist or expert knowledge or information to enable the review of the Project and its predicted environmental effects. ECCC’s response to this request is included as three attachments to this letter (Annex 1: Advice to the Agency, Annex 2: Information Requests Directed to the Proponent, and Annex 3: Advice to the Proponent). In Annex 2, ECCC’s technical advice is provided in two parts: a rationale and a request. Should ECCC’s comments be transcribed to a separate tracking table for information management and/or comment tracking purposes, both parts of ECCC’s comments (i.e., the rationale and the request) need to be carried over to accurately reflect ECCC’s technical advice. ECCC’s comments are founded upon departmental mandate and are related to water quality and its effects ...
Report

Attachment DFO comments on EIS

  • Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project
  • Author: Administrator on behalf of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
  • Reference number: 76
  • Submitted: 2024-05-30 - 6:50 PM
  • See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce ci-jointe 
  • Attachment included
  • Pacific Region Région du Pacifique Ecosystem Management Branch Direction de la gestion des écosystèmes 200 401 Burrard Street Pièce 200 401 rue Burrard Vancouver, BC Vancouver (C.-B.) V6C 3S4 V6C 3S4 1/3 Fisheries and Oceans Canada Pêches et Océans Canada January 10, 2023 Our file Notre référence 14-HPAC-01085 Impact Assessment Agency of Canada Attn: Stefan Crampton Project Manager 210A-757 West Hastings St., Vancouver, BC, V6C 3M2 Via email: Stefan.Crampton@iaac-aeic.gc.ca Subject: Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project Dear Stefan Crampton: Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) understands that NWP Coal Canada Ltd. (the Proponent) proposes to construct and operate the Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project (the Project), an open-pit metallurgical coal mine in the Elk Valley, approximately 12 km northeast of Sparwood, British Columbia. At the request of the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, DFO reviewed and provided comments on the conformity of 1 (EIS) with the EIS Guidelines on September 9, 2022. This letter is intended to highlight DFO concerns regarding potential effects of the Project on Westslope cutthroat trout, British Columbia population (WCT), an aquatic species listed under the Species at Risk Act as Special Concern. WCT was designated as Special Concern due to concerns regarding introduced species (hybridization and competition), habitat loss and degradation, and increasing exploitation. The Management Plan for the Westslope Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi), British Columbia Population, in Canada (federal Management Plan)2 establishes goals and objectives for management ...
Report

Attachment Natural Resources Canada comments on EIS

  • Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project
  • Author: Administrator on behalf of Natural Resources Canada
  • Reference number: 73
  • Submitted: 2024-05-30 - 6:49 PM
  • See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce ci-jointe 
  • Attachment included
  • Pacific and Yukon Region Région du Pacifique et du Yukon 210A–757 West Hastings St. 210A–757, rue Hastings Ouest Vancouver BC V6C 3M2 Vancouver (Colombie-Britannique) V6C 3M2 UNCLASSIFIED - NON CLASSIFIÉ ANNEX 1: Advice to the Agency Table 1: Advice for the Agency’s consideration in its recommendation to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and preparation of draft potential conditions Questions Responses/Comments • Has the Proponent described all project components and activities in sufficient detail to understand all relevant project-environment interactions? If not, identify what additional information is needed. No. The outline of the pit was not included in the geological cross-sections, which limits NRCan's ability to thoroughly review the assessment of potential metal leaching and acid rock drainage generation from the pit walls, consequently impacting the evaluation of site water quality. • Were the study areas sufficient to predict potential effects from all relevant Project-environment interactions, and to consider the effects within a local and regional context? • Is the baseline information sufficient to characterize the existing environment, predict potential effects and obtain monitoring objectives? If not, identify what additional information is needed. No. The geochemical sampling and testing program was insufficient (See comments below). Alternatives Assessment • Has the Proponent adequately described the criteria it used to determine the technically and economically feasible alternative means? • Has the Proponent listed the potential effects to valued components (VCs) within your mandate that could be ...
  • Attachment included
  • UNCLASSIFIED - NON CLASSIFIÉ February 28, 2024 CIAR File No.: 80087 Stefan Crampton Project Manager, Pacific and Yukon Region Impact Assessment Agency of Canada stefan.crampton@iaac-aeic.gc.ca Subject: Natural Resources Canada’s Submission for the Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project– Request for Technical Review of EIS On January 29, 2024, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (the Agency) requested Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) to conduct a technical review of NWP Coal Canada Ltd.’s (the Proponent) environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project. In particular, the Agency requested NRCan provide advice on the following: • the sufficiency of baseline data and appropriateness of methodologies to predict effects; • the mitigation measures proposed by NWP Coal Canada Ltd. (the Proponent); • the level of certainty in the conclusions reached by the Proponent on the effects; • the manner in which significance of the environmental effects, as they pertain to your department’s mandate, have been determined (i.e. the scientific merit of the information presented and the validity of the Proponent’s methodologies and conclusions); • the follow-up program proposed by the Proponent; and • whether additional information is required from the Proponent to complete the technical review. NRCan is participating in the environmental assessment process pursuant to section 20 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 as a department in possession of specialist or expert information or knowledge related to the Project. NRCan has conducted its review of the Proponent’s EIS based on the ...
Report

Attachment Health Canada comments on EIS

  • Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project
  • Author: Administrator on behalf of Health Canada
  • Reference number: 74
  • Submitted: 2024-05-30 - 6:49 PM
  • See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce ci-jointe 
  • Attachment included
  • TO: Stefan Crampton, Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) FROM: Impact Assessment Team, Health Canada (HC) DATE: March 5, 2024 (extension granted by IAAC) SUBJECT: Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project – Technical Review of Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) ANNEX 2: Information requests directed to the Proponent Table 1: Comments and suggestions for information requests to be directed to the Proponent IR # Project Effects Link to CEAA 2012 Reference to EIS/A guidelines Reference to EIS/A Context and Rationale Specific Question/ Request for Information HC-IR-01 5(1)(c)(i) Aboriginal Peoples Health/ socio- economic conditions Chapter 6 Atmospheric Environment Assessment Chapter 6: Atmospheric Environment Assessment 6.2.3 Assessment Boundaries PDF p. 12 Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) was not assessed. Table 6.2-2 states that "Diesel particulate matter [DPM] was quantified in the modelling." Health Canada (HC) agrees that DPM could be produced from diesel engines and equipment during Project activities. However, HC is unable to locate the assessment in the EIS. HC recommends the following: Provide a non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic assessment of project- related DPM. Please note that HC's 2016 guidance (HC, 2016) provides short-term and long-term guidelines for the assessment of non-carcinogenic effects of DPM. In addition, HC's 2023 guidance (Appendix C) provides a sample calculation on how to conduct a carcinogenic assessment of DPM (HC, 2023). HC. 2016. Human Health Risk Assessment for Diesel Exhaust. Available online at: http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.810907/publication.html HC. 2023. Guidance for Evaluating Human Health ...
Report

Attachment Comment by EVMN for Crown Mountain.

  • Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project
  • Author: Administrator on behalf of Elk Valley Métis Nation
  • Reference number: 68
  • Submitted: 2024-05-30 - 6:27 PM
  • See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce ci-jointe 
  • Attachment included
  • February 28, 2024 Stefan Crampton and Janet Shaw Pacific and Yukon Region Impact Assessment Agency of Canada 210A - 757 West Hastings Street Vancouver, British Columbia V6C 3M2 Telephone: 604-666-2431 Email: crown@iaac-aeic.gc.ca Project Reference Number: 80087 Subject: Elk Valley Métis Nation Technical Review of NWP Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project Environmental Impact Statement 1 Introduction The Elk Valley Métis Nation’s (EVMN) wishes to submit the following comments on the Environmental Impact Statement of the Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project. This project, proposed by NWP, a subsidiary of Jameson Resources Limited and Bathurst Resources Limited, aims to develop a coking coal mine in the Elk Valley region. The Elk Valley Métis Nation (EVMN) represents their members and provides a voice for their Indigenous way of life. The Elk Valley Métis Nation is an established Métis community who have maintained their culture and carried out their unique way of life on the lands in and around the proposed NWP Project. NWP is proposing to build and operate the Project within the EVMN territory. The Project would produce about 2 million tonnes of coal per year which would be loaded on to rail cars and shipped to the west coast. The Project will be the latest in a series of coal mine developments in the EVMN traditional territory. The cumulative effect of development of coal mines, pipelines, hydro lines, and other industrial developments on the EVMN lands has resulted in the erosion of their ability to undertake traditional activities such as hunting, fishing, and gathering. The Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project has the potential to create impacts that will negatively affect ...
Report

Attachment Comment by Old Retired Guy for Crown Mountain.

  • Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project
  • Author: Administrator on behalf of Old Retired Guy
  • Reference number: 69
  • Submitted: 2024-05-30 - 6:26 PM
  • See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce ci-jointe 
  • Attachment included
  • February 24, 2024 Here's my review/summary of what an AI identified as some of the most important elements, both pro and con in the Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project - Reference number 80087 - Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate / Environmental Impact Statement. I have done my analysis of 10 potential negative and 10 positive environmental and social impacts mentioned and provided my opinions on potential solutions or comments to some of the most important issues or indicated that I don’t believe they are significant in my opinion, which may or may not align with the view expressed by the proponent: I lived and worked in this area for more than forty years, and watched the direct impacts of mining both pros and cons during that time. I have seen the booms in the late ’70s and early ‘80s brought about by the creation of Line Creek and Greenhills and then the pain experienced with the bankruptcy of Westar in the early ’90s coupled with an 8-month strike. I did not emphasize the Indigenous interests, that was obvious from the submission and a function of what the AI chose as the top 10 pros and cons. I reviewed each and inserted my opinion based on my 40-plus years of work experience and over 60 years of life on this planet. I do not want to come across as insensitive to Indigenous or other stakeholder interests and may have stated some of my comments more bluntly than a person with more modern thinking would do, so I have taken poetic license the latitude of age should give me. That being said, in an ideal world, this project would address everyone’s interests and everything would be rainbows and unicorns but that is not reality. The need for metallurgical coal, oil, ...
Report

Attachment Comment by the Grasslands Conservation Council of British Columbia for Crown Mountain

  • Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project
  • Author: Administrator on behalf of Grassland conservation council of British Columbia
  • Reference number: 70
  • Submitted: 2024-05-30 - 6:26 PM
  • See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce ci-jointe 
  • Attachment included
  • Feb 26, 2024 The Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) and Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) Re: Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project – Grasslands Conservation Council Comments The GCC brings together a broad base of conservationists, ranchers, resource management professionals and First Nations to speak for the grasslands. Our BC Grasslands cover less than 1 % of the province but support over 30% of the Species at Risk. Our rare grasslands cannot be replaced once lost to development. Existing current cumulative effects associated with coal mining, and mine exploration on high elevation grasslands in the Elk Valley are significant. The Elk Valley is the heart of the red-listed rough fescue Gg16 (rough fescue - sulphur buckwheat - thread-leaved sandwort) community that is unique and may only occur in BC. It has both low and high-elevation species and many plants that are restricted to southeast BC. With the loss of significant areas to mining already, elk and bighorn sheep have been concentrated in smaller areas and grazing is likely degrading the remaining grasslands. Existing grasslands have been fragmented by mining, and coal dust is having unknown impacts. Mining exploration roads have also caused direct grassland losses and degraded remaining grasslands. The Crown Mountain development will have additional significant negative impacts on remaining high elevation grasslands in the Elk Valley, and impacts associated with direct loss of high elevation grasslands will not be mitigatable. There are 5 high elevation grassland (HEG) types in the Elk Valley that are red or blue-listed within British Columbia due to their rarity and high threats from permanent conversion to coal mines and mine infrastructure (B.C. ...
Report

Attachment Comment on Crown Mountain by Anonymous.

  • Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project
  • Author: Administrator on behalf of Anonymous
  • Reference number: 71
  • Submitted: 2024-05-30 - 6:26 PM
  • See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce ci-jointe 
  • Attachment included
  • According to research, methane leaked during the extraction of metallurgical coal has an annual climate impact equivalent to nearly 990 million tonnes of CO2; more than Germany's annual CO2 emissions, and more than the world's gas pipelines and LNG facilities combined. In knowing this information, how and why would we even consider the notion of opening up another coal mine here in BC? I understand the need for jobs for our next generation of workers, but shouldn’t we be transitioning workers to green jobs, and our society to a cleaner world? How much more of BC’s pristine areas will we allow to be altered and destroyed? What will be the impacts be to wildlife and the ecosystems in the Elk Valley? How much more can our world take in the name of progress and money, before humanity will lose it’s battle in the fight to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees and allow us to live in a world worth living in? I beg of you, for the sake of our children, and the children after them, please consider your decisions carefully and with good conscious.

Report

Attachment Comment from Clayton Podrasky for Crown Mountain.

  • Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project
  • Author: Administrator on behalf of Clayton Podrasky
  • Reference number: 67
  • Submitted: 2024-05-30 - 4:37 PM
  • See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce ci-jointe 
  • Attachment included
  • I’m deeply concerned about the NWP EAC applica�on to mine the Crown Mountain project. Let me start by saying I’m surprised that an inadequate submission such as has been allowed to enter the public mee�ng format given its lack of details and answers to many per�nent ques�ons. I’m also concerned that we would allow a presence of 34 years at this site for a project that amounts to slightly more than 29 million clean tons of coal (not sure if that’s the actual number or not as they state ROM volumes of 49 million and then declare it to be 60 million. However, basing that on a 15 year mine span at 1.95 clean per year on average and a 49% predicted yield). The 29 million clean tons is equivalent to the exis�ng 4 mines (within the Elk Valley) yearly output. So, we are going to disturb the last unalter drainage, one which has unaffected clean water that bares west slope cuthroat trout, for coal that could easily be produced by mines which have already broken ground, have proven track records and infra-structure to easily absorb that volume. Doesn’t make any sense. Their applica�on indicates no significant cumula�ve affects to water quality or quan�ty. Their plan to deal with selenium and nitrate release is to build a layer cake dump design and to dump rock in excavated pits. When pressed on their lack of ability to prove the layer cake design works or show scien�fic evidence of such, they quickly diverted the ques�on and answered they will implement C-Can type water treatment facili�es. Why are the specifics of this and an actual plan not included in their plan and submission? Water quan�ty is not affected yet they plan on building ponds on grave creek and u�lizing that water. Given the low levels of snowpack ...
Report

Attachment Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project

  • Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project
  • Author: Administrator on behalf of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
  • Reference number: 66
  • Submitted: 2024-05-21 - 5:35 PM
  • See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce ci-jointe 
  • Attachment included
  • Pacific Region Région du Pacifique Ecosystem Management Branch Direction de la gestion des écosystèmes 200 – 401 Burrard Street Pièce 200 – 401 rue Burrard Vancouver, BC Vancouver (C.-B.) V6C 3S4 V6C 3S4 1/2 Fisheries and Oceans Canada Pêches et Océans Canada May 6, 2024 Our file Notre référence 14-HPAC-01085 Impact Assessment Agency of Canada Attn: Stefan Crampton Project Manager 210A-757 West Hastings St., Vancouver, BC, V6C 3M2 Via email: Stefan.Crampton@iaac-aeic.gc.ca Subject: Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project Dear Stefan Crampton: On January 29, 2024, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (the Agency) initiated the technical review of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project (the Project). During the previous conformity review, DFO submitted a letter to the Agency, dated January 10, 2023, that highlighted our concerns regarding potential effects of the Project on Westslope Cutthroat Trout, British Columbia population (WCT), an aquatic species listed under the Species at Risk Act as Special Concern. The concerns raised in the letter were not addressed in the revised EIS, which NWP Coal Canada Ltd. (the Proponent) submitted on December 15, 2023. DFO submitted comments relating to our technical review of the revised EIS on February 28, 2024. The technical review focused on the Fish and Fish Habitat Assessment (Chapter 12) and associated appendices. Subsequently, DFO also participated in an in-person Technical Advisory Committee meeting in Cranbrook, BC, on April 10 and 11, 2024, which included a forum on fish and fish ...
Report

Attachment Opposition of CMCC project

  • Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project
  • Author: Kelsey Barratt
  • Reference number: 58
  • Submitted: 2024-04-04 - 1:32 PM
  • I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project. As a frequent visitor who values the natural beauty and ecological integrity of the region, I am deeply invested in the well-being of the area and its communities.  A primary concern is the cumulative environmental impact of the Crown Mountain project, given the existing number of mines in the area. The Elk Valley is already facing significant environmental challenges, and adding another mine will further strain and damage local ecosystems. Traffic is becoming an issue (for locals as well as wildlife), there is a lack of affordable housing, or housing in general, and existing projects are already creating dust and air quality concerns. The influx of workers and increased activity associated with the Crown Mountain project will only exacerbate these problems, negatively impacting both human and wildlife populations. Furthermore, the watersheds in the Elk Valley, including those that feed into the Kootenai watershed, are already experiencing considerable strain. Current selenium contamination issues stemming from existing mining operations pose significant threats to aquatic ecosystems and public health. The proposed Crown Mountain project's will exacerbate these problems, with far-reaching consequences for both the environment and downstream communities. Lastly, it is essential to consider the broader context of the climate crisis. Canada and British Columbia have committed to ambitious climate targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; the development of yet another coal mining project like Crown ...

Report

Attachment 2024.03.05 Health Canada Comments on EIS

  • Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project
  • Author: Administrator on behalf of Health Canada
  • Reference number: 60
  • Submitted: 2024-03-05
  • Participation notice: Public Notice - Public Comments Invited on the Summary of the Environmental Impact Statement
  • See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe.
  • Attachment included
  • TO: Stefan Crampton, Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) FROM: Impact Assessment Team, Health Canada (HC) DATE: March 5, 2024 (extension granted by IAAC) SUBJECT: Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project – Technical Review of Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) ANNEX 2: Information requests directed to the Proponent Table 1: Comments and suggestions for information requests to be directed to the Proponent IR # Project Effects Link to CEAA 2012 Reference to EIS/A guidelines Reference to EIS/A Context and Rationale Specific Question/ Request for Information HC-IR-01 5(1)(c)(i) Aboriginal Peoples Health/ socio- economic conditions Chapter 6 Atmospheric Environment Assessment Chapter 6: Atmospheric Environment Assessment 6.2.3 Assessment Boundaries PDF p. 12 Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) was not assessed. Table 6.2-2 states that "Diesel particulate matter [DPM] was quantified in the modelling." Health Canada (HC) agrees that DPM could be produced from diesel engines and equipment during Project activities. However, HC is unable to locate the assessment in the EIS. HC recommends the following: Provide a non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic assessment of project- related DPM. Please note that HC's 2016 guidance (HC, 2016) provides short-term and long-term guidelines for the assessment of non-carcinogenic effects of DPM. In addition, HC's 2023 guidance (Appendix C) provides a sample calculation on how to conduct a carcinogenic assessment of DPM (HC, 2023). HC. 2016. Human Health Risk Assessment for Diesel Exhaust. Available online at: http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.810907/publication.html HC. 2023. Guidance for Evaluating Human Health ...
Report

Attachment Input to NWP Coal Canada Environmental Impact Statement Doc. Ref. 22

  • Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project
  • Author: Administrator on behalf of R. Don Peel
  • Reference number: 51
  • Submitted: 2024-02-29 - 6:24 PM
  • Environmental Impact Statement of the Crown Mountain Coking Coa; Project by NWP Coal Canada Ltd.   By R. Don Peel, PGeo (APEGA) Reference: E.7.1 Atmospheric Environmental Assessment According to this section the Assessment will focus on “[a]ir emissions resulting from coal mining and processing” including the cumulative effects assessment on a local and regional basis (“Atmospheric LSA and Atmospheric RSA”). From a holistic perspective, there needs to be an inclusion of the global impact by stating the emissions of burning the estimated 1.9 million tonnes of coal annually that will be produced for the Crown Mountain coal deposit. There are statistics being used by such groups as Kootenay Tribe and BC Rising misleading public on Canada’s contribution to the GHG emissions based on the figures that this Assessment is conveying (coal mining and production). This information, which also does not reflect the per capital emissions, is likely being used by Alberta pro-development organizations. Projecting the supply that creates GHG emissions, focused on the burning of the fossil fuels, conveys a more realistic impact assessment from a global perspective. All EIAs MUST include such information to give global/state policy makers a more realistic idea of the source and amounts of GHG that are being released globally. Reporting only local and regional impacts of the mining activity is analogous to mass producing ghg emitting vehicles, without considering the impact of the use of those vehicles. To be included in the EIAs is a detailed chemical analysis of the composition of the fossil fuel (in this case, coal), to ...

Report

Attachment Crown Mountain Opposition

  • Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project
  • Author: Lane Ogden
  • Reference number: 44
  • Submitted: 2024-02-28 - 7:15 PM
  • As a concerned resident of the elk valley and avid outdoor enthusiast i am strongly opposed to this mine going through. Crucial habitat for sheep, mountain goats, grizzly bears, black bears, mule deer and too many other species to name is not worth destroying for a poorly planned low production coal mine. A company that is unable to answer even some of the most basic, yet crucial questions regarding their plan should not be able to make such a massive impact on our environment and area many call home. I am in strong opposition of this mine! 

Report

Attachment Crown Mountain Coal proposal feedback

  • Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project
  • Author: Administrator on behalf of Robert Hunter
  • Reference number: 50
  • Submitted: 2024-02-28 - 2:40 PM
  • Regarding Crown Man. Coking Coal Project Proposal I am opposed to the Crown Mountain Coal proposal. The project is situated in a wildlife corridor in which the wildlife migration value must be enhanced, not diminished. While the Environmental Impact Assessment deems that the wildlife impacts are"Not Significant" in almost every case, the EIA does not adequately consider the value of the lands beyond the actual boundaries of the proposed project. The integration of the conservation lands to the North and South and to the East and West of the proposed site are diminished by further industrial development in, not and out of the proposed project area. Furthermore, the EIA does not adequately frame the environmental impact with respect to the internationally recognized emissions targets to be met by Canada by 2050. Rather, implementation of this project would exacerbate the problem of meeting emissions targets already adopted by Canada and BC. Similarly, there is a major flaw with the Environmental Impact Assessment in that the complete life-cycle emissions of the project, ie coking and burning the coal, are not considered! While Canadian emissions are considered, projects for export of this type (coal, gas, petroleum etc) MUST be brought into the Impact Assessment process! In short, this project should, indeed, must not, go ahead. For a provincial "benefit from royalties" of, at best, $450M, the losses far outweigh the benefit!   Robert Hunter Kamloops, BC

Report

Attachment Stop harming life with mining

  • Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project
  • Author: Nicole Corrado
  • Reference number: 43
  • Submitted: 2024-02-28 - 1:45 PM
  • Coal mining is harmful to all life, and to the planet.  Forcing fish and birds to be exposed to the effluent, and cutting them up to test them for selenium and other pollutants is cruel and outdated.  Canada is phasing out toxicity testing on animals.  Please switch to animal free methods of testing effluent and other substances.  For wild fish and birds, please stop lethal sampling and switch to humane non lethal bio monitoring like is done in humans. https://www.change.org/p/stop-testing-sewer-water-on-laboratory-fish Please do not build another coal mine or coal plant.  We are in the midst of a climate crisis. This proposal, which would damage and destroy the homes of grizzly bears, caribou, birds, fish, and many animals, is terrible.  And coal mines destroy all sorts of animals in laboratory testing of their effluents, and in lethal sampling of birds, fish, frogs, etc.  We do not need more coal.  

Report

Attachment Stop testing coal pollution on animals

  • Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project
  • Author: Nicole Corrado
  • Reference number: 42
  • Submitted: 2024-02-28 - 1:43 PM
  • Coal mining is harmful to all life, and to the planet.  Forcing fish and birds to be exposed to the effluent, and cutting them up to test them for selenium and other pollutants is cruel and outdated.  Canada is phasing out toxicity testing on animals.  Please switch to animal free methods of testing effluent and other substances.  For wild fish and birds, please stop lethal sampling and switch to humane non lethal bio monitoring like is done in humans. https://www.change.org/p/stop-testing-sewer-water-on-laboratory-fish Please do not build another coal mine or coal plant.  We are in the midst of a climate crisis. This proposal, which would damage and destroy the homes of grizzly bears, caribou, birds, fish, and many animals, is terrible.  And coal mines destroy all sorts of animals in laboratory testing of their effluents, and in lethal sampling of birds, fish, frogs, etc.  We do not need more coal.  

Report

Attachment Unsure if benefits outweigh the risks

  • Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project
  • Author: Kayleigh Montgomery
  • Reference number: 41
  • Submitted: 2024-02-28 - 1:25 PM
  • The Elk Valley has reached its capacity for new mining projects. Vehicle traffic is already dense, risking human life, and wildlife mortalities occuring almost daily. The proposed mitigations for environmental impacts are good, but there isn't a quick fix or even perfected fix to water quality challenges, proven productive reclamation or dust management. If Teck, a longstanding miner in the area with endless resources and strong community relationships cannot absolve these issues, I don't agree that a short term, "one and done" project will do any better. I am not supportive of this project. 

Report

Attachment Public Comment: NWP Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project

  • Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project
  • Author: Michael S.
  • Reference number: 40
  • Submitted: 2024-02-28 - 11:57 AM
  • I am writing to express my concerns following review of the NWP Coal Canada Ltd. (NWP) Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project (the Project) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and associated Executive Summary. Project Footprint and Access The Project’s footprint will directly impact between 851-1280 hectares (ha). According to the Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping 71.47% (916.97 ha) of the Project footprint is on land with or capable of producing Old Growth and Mature Forest with all being cleared over the Project’s life, removing Species at Risk (e.g., whitebark pine) and wildlife habitat. There is mention that new conservation lands will be established (E.7.14.3) with no further detail or rationale as to how these will function as an offset for disturbance to existing conservation lands or a commitment to establishing these new lands close to the Project’s impact. Increased traffic along the upgraded Grave Creek and Harmer Creek Roads will also be detrimental. Grave Prairie is an important conservation area for wildlife (e.g., overwintering elk) and for recreation users. The EIA acknowledges that temporary disruptions to access will occur during the Construction and Pre-Production phases of the Project but fail to recognize that these disruptions will undeniably continue through the life of the Project. Even if access is maintained during the Project’s lifespan, constraints on use (e.g., road construction, blasting, heavy and light vehicle traffic) will assuredly reduce desirability of the area and reduce access recreational use over the entire Project lifespan. Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat The short- and ...

Report

Attachment 2024.02.28. USEPA Comments Crown

  • Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project
  • Author: Administrator on behalf of USEPA
  • Reference number: 63
  • Submitted: 2024-02-28
  • Participation notice: Public Notice - Public Comments Invited on the Summary of the Environmental Impact Statement
  • See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe.
  • Attachment included
  • ID# Reviewing Agency / Group Reviewer Date NWP Received Discipline / Topic Chapter / Document Section / Subsection Number or Appendix Number Section / Subsection Title (if provided) Statement/Topic in Document or Omission from Document Comment Type Round 1 Reviewer Comment EPA Carolyn Gleason Water Quality 11 11.1.1 Regulatory and Policy Setting Paragraph 2 Comment The B.C. Ministry of Environment & Climate Change Strategy has announced an upcoming amendment to the Elk Valley Area Based Management Plan. Please clarify how this mine will be incorporated into the plan and how cumulative impacts will be assessed. EPA broadly recommends that all cumulative mine-related water quality impacts to US waters from the Elk Valley be considered in the development of both the project environmental impact analysis and the amendment of the regional managment plan before their finalization. EPA Carolyn Gleason Executive Summary 0 E.9.2.2 Changes to the Environment that Would Occur on Federal or Transboundary Lands Paragraph 2 Comment This section summarizes the project's potential transboundary impacts to multiple United States resource areas including surface water quality and fish habitats. While we recognize that this section is a summary based on project models and estimates, EPA notes that the boundary conditions for these models typically end before the US/Canada boarder and do not consider the relevant US environmental quality standards past those points. Therefore, the statements on 'minimal' predicted impacts to these US resources in this section do not have a clear basis. We recommend redeveloping the transboundary impacts ...
Report

Attachment 2024.02.28. Natural Resources Canada Comments on EIS

  • Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project
  • Author: Administrator on behalf of Natural Resources Canada
  • Reference number: 62
  • Submitted: 2024-02-28
  • Participation notice: Public Notice - Public Comments Invited on the Summary of the Environmental Impact Statement
  • See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe.
  • Attachment included
  • UNCLASSIFIED - NON CLASSIFIÉ February 28, 2024 CIAR File No.: 80087 Stefan Crampton Project Manager, Pacific and Yukon Region Impact Assessment Agency of Canada stefan.crampton@iaac-aeic.gc.ca Subject: Natural Resources Canada’s Submission for the Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project– Request for Technical Review of EIS On January 29, 2024, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (the Agency) requested Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) to conduct a technical review of NWP Coal Canada Ltd.’s (the Proponent) environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project. In particular, the Agency requested NRCan provide advice on the following: • the sufficiency of baseline data and appropriateness of methodologies to predict effects; • the mitigation measures proposed by NWP Coal Canada Ltd. (the Proponent); • the level of certainty in the conclusions reached by the Proponent on the effects; • the manner in which significance of the environmental effects, as they pertain to your department’s mandate, have been determined (i.e. the scientific merit of the information presented and the validity of the Proponent’s methodologies and conclusions); • the follow-up program proposed by the Proponent; and • whether additional information is required from the Proponent to complete the technical review. NRCan is participating in the environmental assessment process pursuant to section 20 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 as a department in possession of specialist or expert information or knowledge related to the Project. NRCan has conducted its review of the Proponent’s EIS based on the ...
  • Attachment included
  • Pacific and Yukon Region Région du Pacifique et du Yukon 210A–757 West Hastings St. 210A–757, rue Hastings Ouest Vancouver BC V6C 3M2 Vancouver (Colombie-Britannique) V6C 3M2 UNCLASSIFIED - NON CLASSIFIÉ ANNEX 1: Advice to the Agency Table 1: Advice for the Agency’s consideration in its recommendation to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and preparation of draft potential conditions Questions Responses/Comments • Has the Proponent described all project components and activities in sufficient detail to understand all relevant project-environment interactions? If not, identify what additional information is needed. No. The outline of the pit was not included in the geological cross-sections, which limits NRCan's ability to thoroughly review the assessment of potential metal leaching and acid rock drainage generation from the pit walls, consequently impacting the evaluation of site water quality. • Were the study areas sufficient to predict potential effects from all relevant Project-environment interactions, and to consider the effects within a local and regional context? • Is the baseline information sufficient to characterize the existing environment, predict potential effects and obtain monitoring objectives? If not, identify what additional information is needed. No. The geochemical sampling and testing program was insufficient (See comments below). Alternatives Assessment • Has the Proponent adequately described the criteria it used to determine the technically and economically feasible alternative means? • Has the Proponent listed the potential effects to valued components (VCs) within your mandate that could be ...
Report

Attachment 2024.02.28. ECCC Comments on EIS

  • Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project
  • Author: Administrator on behalf of Environment and Climate Change Canada
  • Reference number: 61
  • Submitted: 2024-02-28
  • Participation notice: Public Notice - Public Comments Invited on the Summary of the Environmental Impact Statement
  • See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe.
  • Attachment included
  • Environmental Protection Operations Directorate Pacific and Yukon Region 101 - 401 Burrard Street Vancouver, BC V6C 3R2 February 28, 2024 CIAR: 80087 ECPT: 14-1201 Stefan Crampton Project Manager Impact Assessment Agency of Canada 210A-757 West Hastings Street Vancouver, BC V6C 3M2 Dear Stefan Crampton, Re: Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project – Environment and Climate Change Canada Comments for the Technical Review of the Environmental Impact Statement / Application (Round 1) On January 29, 2024, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (the Agency) initiated technical review of the Environmental Impact Statement / Application (EIS/A) for the Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project (the Project) proposed by NWP Coal Canada Ltd. (the Proponent). The Agency requested Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) undertake a detailed technical review of the EIS/A for the Project and make available ECCC specialist or expert knowledge or information to enable the review of the Project and its predicted environmental effects. ECCC’s response to this request is included as three attachments to this letter (Annex 1: Advice to the Agency, Annex 2: Information Requests Directed to the Proponent, and Annex 3: Advice to the Proponent). In Annex 2, ECCC’s technical advice is provided in two parts: a rationale and a request. Should ECCC’s comments be transcribed to a separate tracking table for information management and/or comment tracking purposes, both parts of ECCC’s comments (i.e., the rationale and the request) need to be carried over to accurately reflect ECCC’s technical advice. ECCC’s comments are founded upon departmental mandate and are related to water quality and its effects ...
Report

Attachment 2024.02.28 DFO Comments on EIS

  • Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project
  • Author: Administrator on behalf of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
  • Reference number: 59
  • Submitted: 2024-02-28
  • Participation notice: Public Notice - Public Comments Invited on the Summary of the Environmental Impact Statement
  • See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe.
  • Attachment included
  •       Pacific Region    Région du Pacifique  Ecosystem Management Branch   Direction de la gestion des écosystèmes  200 – 401 Burrard Street      Pièce 200 – 401 rue Burrard  Vancouver, BC    Vancouver (C.-B.)  V6C 3S4    V6C 3S4                         1/3    Fisheries and Oceans   Canada  Pêches et Océans  Canada      Your file  Votre référence  February 28, 2024          CIAR Reference No : 80087      Our file  Notre référence        14-HPAC-01085    Impact Assessment Agency of Canada  Attn: Stefan Crampton   Project Manager, Pacific and Yukon Region  210A-757 West Hastings Street  Vancouver, BC, V6C 3M2    Via email: Stefan.Crampton@iaac-aeic.gc.ca     Dear Stefan Crampton:    Subject:  ...
Report

Attachment Crown Mountain Coking Coal project comments

  • Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project
  • Author: Administrator on behalf of Anonymous
  • Reference number: 47
  • Submitted: 2024-02-27 - 11:35 PM
  • Canada and BC cannot meet currently mandated emissions goals (Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act), yet we are contemplating another coal project. The science is abundantly clear; Canada/BC must turn away from such projects   in order to ensure we meet our provincial, federal and global commitments. This project will release 5.69 MT cumulatively over the life of the Project, 414 572 tonnes/year and methane emissions of 140,720 tonnes of CO2e/year. How can we reach net-zero emissions by 2050 allowing such projects? In addition to emissions, it will cause further erosion of water quality, impacts on Species at Risk (Whitebark Pine habitat, Westslope Cutthroat Trout) and encroachment on a pristine valley. Habitat/species offsets are not scientifically proven and hence, are not considered a viable conservation option. There will be cumulative effects of this plus the other mines in the area on pollution, but once again, this is not considered. We are also signatories to the Kunming-Montréal Global Biodiversity Framework. We should adhere to its goals.   As a global society, we are faced with twin crises: Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss, and a third, pollution. This project contravenes all three! This project must not be allowed to proceed.

Report

Attachment Continued Devastation in Southeastern British Columbia

  • Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project
  • Author: Hanna Whiting
  • Reference number: 39
  • Submitted: 2024-02-25 - 9:33 PM
  • Please find my response to NWP's proposition to establish an open pit mettaurgical coal mine 12km north of the District of Sparwood, attatched.  For further information on why this project is NOT in the best interest of the public, or environment please follow this link to a podcast that also has researched this Project: https://open.spotify.com/episode/67rzuKOoD3sn1KlLK2NqIQ?si=a6aaac7fc15f4ac0
  • Attachment included
  • After thorough review of the NWP (hereafter known as the Proponent) Crown Mountain Coal Project (hereafter known as the Project) located twelve kilometers (km) north of the District of Sparwood, British Columbia (BC), it can be determined that this Project is not in the public’s best interest. For example, although the Proponent identified approximately 55 Valued Components (VC), of which three are regionally valued components through the Elk Valley Cumulative Effects Management Framework (EV-CEMF) (Grizzly bear, Old and Mature Growth forests, and Riparian Areas), their sheer lack of respect and ignorance for the detrimental cumulative and initial effects, of a Project of this capacity, is outstanding. Not only does the Proponent not believe that the Project will cause any significant, residual effects, but they have not yet developed any formal, practical mitigation measures to compensate for any VC, even those that have been identified as regionally valued components, or the federally endangered whitebark pine or limber pine. For sake of clarity, I will focus on only two of the Projects VC. Bighorn sheep: It has long been known by the province (BC) and local residents that there is great movement of sheep because of extensive access to high elevations, especially within Alexander Creek because of access to Alberta and other historical migration routes (Kuzyk et al. 2012, Stent et al. 2013, Poole et al. 2016). For example, in a study by Kim Poole (2022), he stated that one of the corridors that had the greatest use of movements, in the entire Elk Valley (3,568 km2), occurred in the Line Creek Canyon (within the project’s footprint). With the current mine plan in place, how will NWP ...
Report

Attachment Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project - Reference number 80087 - Comments

  • Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project
  • Author: Administrator on behalf of Danny Dwyer
  • Reference number: 46
  • Submitted: 2024-02-24 - 1:15 PM
  • See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce ci-jointe 
  • Attachment included
  • February 24, 2024 Here's my review/summary of what an AI identified as some of the most important elements, both pro and con in the Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project - Reference number 80087 - Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate / Environmental Impact Statement. I have done my analysis of 10 potential negative and 10 positive environmental and social impacts mentioned and provided my opinions on potential solutions or comments to some of the most important issues or indicated that I don’t believe they are significant in my opinion, which may or may not align with the view expressed by the proponent: I lived and worked in this area for more than forty years, and watched the direct impacts of mining both pros and cons during that time. I have seen the booms in the late ’70s and early ‘80s brought about by the creation of Line Creek and Greenhills and then the pain experienced with the bankruptcy of Westar in the early ’90s coupled with an 8-month strike. I did not emphasize the Indigenous interests, that was obvious from the submission and a function of what the AI chose as the top 10 pros and cons. I reviewed each and inserted my opinion based on my 40-plus years of work experience and over 60 years of life on this planet. I do not want to come across as insensitive to Indigenous or other stakeholder interests and may have stated some of my comments more bluntly than a person with more modern thinking would do, so I have taken poetic license the latitude of age should give me. That being said, in an ideal world, this project would address everyone’s interests and everything would be rainbows and unicorns but that is not reality. The need for metallurgical coal, oil, ...
Report

Attachment Strongly opposed to this mine

  • Crown Mountain Coking Coal Project
  • Author: Carleen Paltzat
  • Reference number: 38
  • Submitted: 2024-02-23 - 8:39 PM
  • The wildlife in the Kootenays are already heavily impacted by habitat degradation and fragmentation. This habitat is irreplaceable and is not worth destroying for a 15 year mine. The short-term economic benefit does not surpass the long term cumulative impacts this mine will have on the surrounding wildlife and ecosystem. Not everything should be seen as a financial transaction, you can not put a dollar amount on the importance of this ecosystem to the wildlife and to us- in these difficult times when we are feeling the negative impacts of climate change more and more every year. We need to protect these natural spaces for our health and quality of life as well. 

Report

Date submittedDisplay filters

Filters

Participation noticesDisplay filters

Report a problem on this page
Date modified: