The proposed expansion of Elk Valley Resources’ (EVR) Fording River coal mine has formally entered British Columbia’s environmental assessment process public comment period. This is a critical opportunity for the public to weigh in on whether coal mining in the Elk Valley should expand further while existing mines continue to pollute, affecting downstream ecosystems and communities.
The proposed Fording River Extension (FRX) would involve expanding B.C.’s biggest coal mine by over 2,000 hectares, knocking down a mountain covered in sensitive alpine grassland, scraping out the coal, and filling in the adjacent river valley. This entire proposal, and how it is being treated by the B.C. government, raises serious questions about the credibility of B.C.’s environmental commitments, regulatory capture, and industry accountability.
The three billion cubic meters of waste rock produced through the expansion would leach selenium into the Elk River watershed, creating a toxic environment for aquatic life. Selenium concentrations in the Elk River already exceed safety thresholds several times over, threatening fish health and even raising alarm bells hundreds of kilometers downstream in Montana and Idaho. In fact, this transboundary pollution has sparked an International Joint Commission (IJC) investigation; this is a serious step in international conflict resolution.
Furthermore, in October 2025, the Ktunaxa Nation stated in a letter that it did “not endorse FRX moving into the EA [environmental assessment] stage of the process”, citing its dissatisfaction with EVR’s water quality compliance and lack of progress on reclamation among its chief concerns.
EVR’s recent $3.6 million dollar fine for continued water quality violations and mitigation delays is only the latest in a string of fines related to water pollution. In 2021, the mines broke records with a $60 million dollar fine under the Fisheries Act, and received another $16 million in fines in 2023 for continued violations. Even more federal charges were laid in 2024, which are currently before the courts.
Rather than tackling the root cause of the pollution, EVR’s expansion proposal doubles down on the same status quo that caused the problem in the first place. Its project description even argues that failing to grant the expansion would undermine the company’s sustainability goals, stating:
“The loss of production and associated revenue would impact EVR’s ability to fulfill external commitments, including efforts towards sustainable mining and contributing to EVR’s commitment to become a nature positive mining company.”
It’s a remarkable statement. The company is suggesting that more coal production (and the pollution that comes with it) is necessary to become more sustainable. This absurd logic underscores the real crisis: environmental promises already made and codified are being treated as conditional, rather than as the obligations they are. The Eby government has failed to send a clear message to industry on behalf of all British Columbians: we expect better than polluted water and broken promises.
Send a message
The Fording River Extension is not just a new cash cow; it is a litmus test of what the provincial government is willing to let slide in the name of profit. With the recent passing of Bill 15 and threats of reevaluating the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, the province has already demonstrated its willingness to ignore the concerns of First Nations and the public in order to protect economic interests. Will it do the same with the Fording River Extension?
The public now has an opportunity to weigh in on decisions that threaten to degrade this province’s wildlife and wild places. Visit the Fording River Extension public comment page, where you can look at available documents and submit your thoughts. Below are suggestions for messaging and topics you may wish to include in your submission.
Messaging and key points
Scope
- Water treatment costs: Coal mining has been shown to continue polluting waters for decades after closure. The current strategy to reduce pollution levels involves building and operating water treatment facilities that are meant to continue operating for over 100 years after mining has stopped. B.C.’s industrial bond system is intended to provide assurance for this, forcing the mines to buy ‘insurance’ that will provide the money for reclamation and water treatment into the future. But the B.C.’s government’s industry discounts in the bond policy leave huge gaps that would have to be filled by taxpayer dollars. Independent study has shown that these mines are billions of dollars short of being able to cover reclamation costs. For water treatment facility operation and maintenance alone, these discounts allow for about 75% of the costs to be deferred far into the future. B.C. has a long history of mining companies going out of business and leaving messes behind, and the stakes are too high in the Elk Valley already.
- Reclamation: What is being considered for long term reclamation of these rare high elevation grasslands? Is soil salvage being considered? Current reclamation activities have been flagged by the Ktunaxa as inadequate, and there is no guarantee that EVR will be able to reclaim these complex grassland communities at all. EVR has a history of poor reclamation outcomes. Why should we allow them to tear down another mountain if they have shown an inability to repair what they’ve already taken? Until the Ktunaxa are satisfied with the quality and quantity of current reclamation efforts there should be no new permitted mining areas.
Valued components
- Air quality: Recent studies have shown that there is a lot we don’t know about coal dust. A lack of long term air quality monitoring of existing coal mines does not help this. The draft information requirements rely heavily on computer modelling and fail to include long term monitoring in the proposal. Air quality is not something to be taken for granted, as coal dust exposure has been shown to be harmful for humans. Greater requirements, including air quality data collection and public access to this should be required.
- Aquatic resources: Existing mines continue to leach selenium in quantities proven to be harmful for fish and insect reproduction, and have sparked an international investigation into the watershed. Selenium concentrations in rivers near the mines still peaked at 38.5 times B.C.’s aquatic safety standard last year. The entirety of the Elk River downstream of the mines continues to breach this standard as well, leaving fish and aquatic insect populations vulnerable. How can we justify sacrificing another mountain to coal mining while we are still in the midst of a selenium crisis? It is important to recognize that approving this extension is a step backwards for water quality. Long term cumulative effects studies and population modelling on fish in the Elk-Kootenay rivers need to be done, including accumulated pressures from chronic selenium poisoning, climate change and precipitation and water quantity changes. Fish and insects in the watershed are already living in dire conditions, another mine expansion would only worsen the situation.
- Wildlife: FRX promises to destroy more than 200 hectares of high elevation grasslands over the course of the expansion. This rare and complex grassland habitat provides vital winter forage for Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep which are already struggling with increased pressures from human impacts. There is no guarantee that these grassland habitats will ever be able to be reclaimed to provide similar quality habitat if FRX moves forward. In the meantime, wildlife will have to contend not only with habitat loss, but all the vehicle mortality, dust, water contamination and noise that comes with these mines. A decision to approve FRX will not only further the degradation of the aquatic ecosystem of the Elk River, but sacrifice an entire mountain that provides high quality wildlife habitat.
Required assessment matters
- Greenhouse gas emissions: Study should include all of scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions to get the best picture of total GHG production. Scope 3 emissions, which include the burning of the coal produced in these mines, are traditionally treated as externalities, ie. ‘somebody else’s problem’. But the truth is that whether the coal is burned here or on the other side of the world, we share the same atmosphere. Scope 3 emissions need to be accounted for — in recent years, scope 3 emissions from Elk Valley mines have exceeded all of BC’s reported GHG emissions! This massive impact on our shared atmosphere and environment needs to be considered.
- Impacts to current and future generations: Study has shown that selenium leaching is a problem that will persist for decades, if not centuries. Tent Mt mine closed in the 1980s and continues to leach selenium in levels more than 70 times the aquatic health safety limit. Selenium pollution is currently nowhere near safety limits, and we need to carefully consider how this pollution will be handled far into the future when mining has ceased. Every mine or mine expansion we allow now is going to be a problem for future generations. How can we justify approving new mines when industry has shown an unwillingness to solve the problems it’s created now?
Cumulative effects
- Selenium and other water pollutants continue to leach in unsafe quantities from these mines. For decades, industry has dragged its feet in addressing this, and only recently has the BC government’s efforts to force the mines into something resembling responsible operation begun to bear fruit. The past two years have shown some reductions in selenium pollution, but levels continue to hit in excess of 35 times the safety guidelines in rivers nearest the mines, and the Elk River itself has not been below aquatic safety guidelines in decades. How can we be considering expansion while the cumulative effects of selenium poisoning are still so high? How many mountains of grasslands are we willing to take from wildlife such as bighorn sheep and elk, which rely on these habitats for survival? Allowing this expansion to move forward while the existing mines continue to pollute so heavily would be irresponsible.
Scraps
- Water treatment facilities have begun to reduce selenium levels, but are still far from stopping the pollution or even treating the majority of what the mines produce. Upwards of $1.5 billion has been spent on treatment facilities, and these facilities will have to operate for the foreseeable future at the cost of millions per year (100 years of facility operation after mine closure is required under B.C. law). B.C. requires that these mines provide bonds that should be able to cover these costs, but independent study has shown that they are billions of dollars short of being able to cover the costs. How are we meant to trust these mines to continue treating water once mining has stopped if they aren’t even able to handle it now while they make billions in profit a year? Reclamation cost estimates need to be made public, and bond subsidies and discounts given by the provincial government should be reduced to actually meet these costs in order for the bond system to function as intended.
- Approval of FRX would cause further loss of rare high elevation grasslands, impacting grizzly bear and big horn sheep habitat. There are no guarantees that EVR would be able to reclaim these areas after mining has stopped, as current reclamation efforts have been flagged as inadequate by the Ktunaxa Nation. Replacement of high elevation grassland habitat has never been done in the Elk Valley, and has proven uniquely difficult in other areas. Are we willing to sacrifice yet another mountain and trust that they will not leave behind a mess when they have no results to prove they are capable of reclaiming it?