Cheviot Coal Mine Mackenzie Redcap Project

Cheviot Coal Mine
MacKenzie Redcap Project
Joint Application for Amendments to Approvals under the

Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, Water Act,
Public Lands Act, and Coal Conservation Act
Amendment to EPEA Approval #46972

Amendment to the Public Lands Act Approval MSL #0041321
Amendment to Fence-line Water Act Approval #00205213
Application for Pit and Dump Licences under Mine Permit #C2003-4A
March 2018
Teck Coal Limited

Cardinal River Operations
Table of Contents
Page
1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................1-1
1.1 Project Background ................................................................................................1-3
1.2 Project Proponent ...................................................................................................1-3
1.3 Project Overview ....................................................................................................1-4
1.4 Regional Planning Requirements............................................................................1-5
1.5 Regional Setting .....................................................................................................1-5
1.6 Project Regulatory Approval Process......................................................................1-6
1.7 Development Schedule ...........................................................................................1-8
1.8 Public Consultation Program ..................................................................................1-9
1.9 Application Guide and Description ........................................................................1-10
2 GEOLOGY AND GEOTECHNICAL .............................................................................2-1
2.1 Geology ..................................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Geotechnical Conditions .........................................................................................2-4
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...........................................................................................3-1
3.1 Existing and Planned Development ........................................................................3-2
3.2 MKRC Mine Extension ............................................................................................3-6
3.3 Detailed Scheduling ..............................................................................................3-12
3.4 Water Management Plan ......................................................................................3-17
3.5 Selenium Management .........................................................................................3-27
3.6 Additional Mine Operations Considerations ..........................................................3-30
3.7 Continual Planning................................................................................................3-36
3.8 Financial Security .................................................................................................3-36
3.9 Health, Safety and Environmental Management ...................................................3-36
4 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT ......................................................................4-1
4.1 Background ............................................................................................................4-1
4.2 Aboriginal Consultation ...........................................................................................4-1
4.3 Engagement with Stakeholders and the Public .......................................................4-7
4.4 Ongoing Stakeholder Engagement .........................................................................4-8
5 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION ............................................................................5-1
5.1 Air Quality ...............................................................................................................5-2
5.2 Noise Assessment ................................................................................................5-12
5.3 Hydrogeology .......................................................................................................5-17
5.4 Hydrology .............................................................................................................5-27
5.5 Surface Water Quality...........................................................................................5-36
5.6 Fish and Fish Habitat ............................................................................................5-41
Teck Resources Limited

March 2018
5.8 Soil and Terrain ....................................................................................................5-55

5.9 Vegetation and Wetlands ......................................................................................5-65
5.10 Wildlife ..................................................................................................................5-75
5.11 Historic Resources................................................................................................5-98
6 CONCEPTUAL CONSERVATION AND RECLAMATION PLAN .................................6-1
6.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................6-1
6.2 Summary of Reclamation Goals, Objectives, and Land Uses .................................6-2
6.3 Conservation Program ............................................................................................6-4
6.4 Mine Reclamation ...................................................................................................6-7
6.5 Establishment of Designated End Land Uses .......................................................6-21
6.6 Reclamation Research .........................................................................................6-25
7 APPROVAL AMENDMENTS REQUIRED ...................................................................7-1
7.1 Coal Conservation Act ............................................................................................7-1
7.2 Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act ....................................................7-5
7.3 Water Act ................................................................................................................7-5
7.4 Public Lands Act .....................................................................................................7-6
8 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................8
Appendix 1 Existing Approvals

Appendix 2 Concordance Tables – CCA, EPEA, WA, PLA
Appendix 3 Coal Quality Sample List
Appendix 4 Geotechnical Reports
Appendix 5 Detailed Bench Reserve Summary
Appendix 6 Air Quality Assessment
Appendix 7 Noise Assessment
Appendix 8 Approved Management Plans
Appendix 9 Acronyms and Glossary
Appendix 10 Project Team
Annex A Hydrogeology
Annex B Hydrology
Annex C Surface Water Quality and Benthics
Annex D Fish and Fish Habitat
Annex E Soil and Terrain
Annex F Vegetation and Wetlands
Annex G Wildlife

March 2018
Section 1 Project Introduction
March 2018
Table of Contents
Page
1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Project Background ..................................................................................................... 1-3
1.2 Project Proponent ....................................................................................................... 1-3
1.3 Project Overview ......................................................................................................... 1-4
1.4 Regional Planning Requirements ................................................................................ 1-5
1.5 Regional Setting .......................................................................................................... 1-5
1.6 Project Regulatory Approval Process .......................................................................... 1-6
1.6.1 Existing Approvals ............................................................................................... 1-7
1.6.2 Approvals and Amendments Sought.................................................................... 1-8
1.7 Development Schedule ............................................................................................... 1-8
1.8 Public Consultation Program ....................................................................................... 1-9
1.9 Application Guide and Description ............................................................................ 1-10
List of Tables
Page
Table 1.0-1 Summary of MKRC Project Footprint Components .............................................. 1-2
Table 1.0-2 Proposed New Project Disturbance Areas within Existing and New MSL
Boundaries ....................................................................................................... 1-2
Table 1.7-1 Project Phases and General Activities ................................................................. 1-8
List of Figures
Figure 1.0-1 Project Location
Figure 1.0-2 Cardinal River Operations
Figure 1.0-3 Local Project Location
Figure 1.0-4 Project Overview (with Topography Contours)
Figure 1.0-5 Project Overview (with Imagery)
Figure 1.6-1 Actual Cheviot Mine Development Compared with Approved Development
Teck Resources Limited Page 1-i

March 2018
1 Project Introduction
Cardinal River Coals Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of Teck Coal Limited (Teck), is seeking new and
amended regulatory approvals associated with the Cheviot Coal Mine to enable it to proceed with the
MacKenzie Redcap (MKRC) phase of mining operations (the Project).
The Cheviot Coal Mine is located approximately 300 kilometres (km) west of Edmonton and 70 km south
of Hinton, Alberta (Figure 1.0-1 and Figure 1.0-2). Other nearby communities include the Hamlet of
Cadomin 12 km to the north, Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Reserve #234 located 12 km to the southeast,
and the Mountain Cree Community 30 km to the southeast.
The Project is the sixth and final phase of development at the Cheviot Coal Mine, which includes the
Prospect, Cheviot Creek, McLeod, Harris, Upper Harris and lastly the MKRC pits. The Project is located
within the eastern part of the Cheviot Coal Mine Permit (2003-4A) area, adjacent to the Upper Harris
Extension pit development (Figure 1.0-3). Coal will be mined within the eastern portions of Coal Lease
No’s. 1305010855, 1305010858, and 10305010861 within Sections 27, 28, 31, 32, 33 and 34,
Township 045, Range 22, West of the 5th Meridian, Sections 05 and 06, Township 046, Range 22 West of
the 5th Meridian, and Section 01, Township 046, Range 23 West of the 5th Meridian.
Cardinal River Coals Ltd. will complete mining of all current licenced coal in 2020. The Project, if
approved, would extend mining operations at the Cheviot Coal Mine to 2027, thereby completing all
mining at the Cheviot Coal Mine.
The Project will be operated as part of the Cheviot Mine No. 1808 under Alberta Energy Regulator (AER)
Mine Permit C2003-4A. This Mine Permit Boundary currently encompasses approximately 7,455 hectares
(ha) in Townships 45 and 46, Range 22, 23 and 24, West of the 5th Meridian. The Cheviot Coal Mine
operates under Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) Approval No. 0046972-01-00
and Mineral Surface Lease (MSL) No. 0041321. Amendments to these regulatory permits and approvals
are required to enable the Project to proceed.
In this submission to the AER for the proposed Project, Cardinal River Coals Ltd. is proposing to amend
existing approvals and licences to extend Cheviot Coal Mine development eastward for the next
operational phase of mining. The proposed development footprint associated with the Project is illustrated
in Figure 1.0-4. An orthophoto of the Project area has been provided on Figure 1.0-5. The coal
processing plant, much of the main haulroad, and other service facilities required for MKRC operations
are already constructed and covered under existing approvals. The total disturbance associated with the
Project is 606.5 ha, and the various Project components are presented in Table 1.0-1. Table 1.0-2
summarizes the Project development planned within the existing MSL and within the proposed MSL
amendment area. Mining of the MKRC Project is expected to produce approximately 1.5 million tonnes of
clean coal annually, although annual production targets may be up to 3 million tonnes of clean coal. This
medium-volatile metallurgical coal is primarily exported as steel-making coal to Pacific Rim and European
markets.
CRO currently employs 352 people, as well as contractors. With the continuation of mining in the MKRC
area, continued employment also occurs. Conversely, if mining is not approved, then employment will not
continue which would have a considerable impact in the region.
Teck Resources Limited Page 1-1

March 2018
Table 1.0-1 Summary of MKRC Project Footprint Components
Footprint Component Area (ha)
Clean Water Infrastructure 7.9

Haulroads and Access Roads 68.3
MK1 (MacKenzie Phase 1) Pit 23.7
MK3EX1 (MacKenzie Phase 3 - External Dump 1) 12.6
Powerline 21.9
RC Pit (MK3 [MacKenzie Phase 3], RC1 to RC5 [Redcap Pits 1 to 5]) 298.3
RCEX (Redcap External Dump) 81.6
Soil Stockpile 32.6
Waste Water Infrastructure 15.0
Total 606.5
Table 1.0-2 Proposed New Project Disturbance Areas within Existing and New MSL Boundaries
Disturbance
Project Element
MSL (ha)
MK1 Pit 3.4

Powerlines 2.9
Existing MSL
Haulroad 23.0
Soil Stockpiles (SP1 and SP2) 3.1
Subtotal 32.4
MK1 Pit 20.3
MK2 Pit 14.5
MK4 Pit 17.8
RC Pit 298.3
Powerlines 19.0
Proposed MSL Amendment
Haulroad and Access Roads 45.3

Soil Stockpiles (SP3 to SP6) 29.5
MK3EX1 (MacKenzie 3 External Dump 1) 12.6
MK3EX2 (MacKenzie 3 External Dump 2) 12.2
Radio Transmission Tower Pad 0.1

March 2018
Disturbance
Project Element
MSL (ha)
Sedimentation Ponds (MKPO, LHPO and RCPO) 9.9

Interception Ponds 2.7
Clean and Waste Water Ditch, Pipeline, Culvert and Pond Outlets 10.3
Subtotal 574.1
Total 606.5
1.1 Project Background
Coal mining began in 2004 at the Cheviot Coal Mine to replace coal production from the Luscar Mine,
which was ramped down due to depleted coal reserves. Mining has incorporated typical open pit coal
mine operations using shovels and haul trucks to remove waste rock and loaders, excavators and haul
trucks to recover raw coal. Trucks haul the coal from the pits along the haulroad to the existing coal
processing plant located on the Luscar Mine site.
CRO plans to continue operations on the Cheviot Project with the development of the MKRC Project.
1.2 Project Proponent
The applicant is Cardinal River Coals Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of Teck Coal Limited, which
operates six open-pit metallurgical coal mines in Western Canada, five of which are in the Elk Valley area
of southeastern British Columbia (BC) and one is in Alberta. Currently, Teck Coal Limited produces in
excess of 25 million tonnes of metallurgical coal annually. Teck undertakes all mining activity in the
Cheviot and Luscar Mine permit areas through its Cardinal River Operations (CRO). CRO has operated
coal mines in west-central Alberta for almost 100 years.
Teck Coal Limited is wholly owned by Teck Resources Limited, which is Canada’s largest diversified
mining company, with business units focused on base metals (copper and zinc), energy and steelmaking
coal.
Corporate Registered Company Name
Teck Coal Limited

Cardinal River Coals Ltd.
Bag Service 2570
Hinton, Alberta T7V 1V5
Mailing Address of Head Office (Alberta)
Teck Coal Limited

#1000, 205 9th Avenue SE
Calgary, AB T2G 0R3
Phone: (403) 260-9800
Fax: (403) 264-7339

March 2018
Phone, Fax, and Email Contact Information
Hinton General Office Line Phone (780) 692-5100

Hinton Fax (780) 692-5124
Hinton General Office Email [email protected]
Environmental and Regulatory Management [email protected]
Contact Names
Correspondence regarding this application should be directed to the Hinton address, to the attention of:
Marc Symbaluk, MSc, PAg.

Superintendent Environment
Teck Coal Limited
Bag Service 2570
Hinton, Alberta T7V 1V5
Phone: (780) 692-5179
Email: [email protected]
Authorization of Application for Approval by Owner/Agent
Date: March 29, 2018
Signature:
Marc Symbaluk, MSc, PAg.

Superintendent Environment
Teck Coal Limited
1.3 Project Overview
The MKRC area is adjacent to the Upper Harris Extension Amendment (UHEA) pit development
(Figure 1.0-3). It is anticipated that the proposed development will increase the total disturbance by
approximately 606.5 ha.
The MKRC Project will be a typical truck and shovel open-pit coal mine operation with waste stripping
being carried out by large electric and hydraulic shovels, and coal loaded by backhoe excavators and
front-end loaders. Coal will be hauled approximately 35 km from the proposed MKRC pits along the
existing Cheviot Haulroad to the existing coal processing plant (CPP) located on the Luscar Mine site,
where it will be crushed, cleaned, dried, and loaded onto trains for transport to market. The Project will
maintain the Cheviot Coal Mine’s annual productive capacity of up to 3 million clean tonnes of medium-
volatile metallurgical coal for export primarily to Pacific Rim and European steel markets.
Waste rock from the MKRC pits will be deposited into pits that have already been mined or placed in one
of the external waste rock disposal areas. There are three external waste rock disposal areas planned in

March 2018
the MKRC area. The proposed mine plan would extend Cheviot Mine operations until 2027. At that point,
the reserves will be depleted and the decommissioning and closure plan will be executed.
The Cheviot MSL area will increase by approximately 2,282 ha to accommodate new mining and
associated infrastructure, and a safety zone required for blasting. Blasting is an essential part of open pit
mining – harder rock layers on top of the coal seams need to be broken up before the coal can be mined.
Most of the major components required to operate the pit extensions are in place. The MKRC Project will
involve the construction of new facilities as outlined in Table 1.0-1.
1.4 Regional Planning Requirements
There are several regional initiatives within this region as follows:
• Coal Development Policy (Government of Alberta [GoA] 1976);
• Policy for Resource Management for the Eastern Slopes (GoA 1984);
• Coal Branch Sub-Regional Integrated Resource Plan (Alberta Forestry Lands and Wildlife
[AFLW] 1990);
• Coal Branch Access Management Plan (AFLW 1994);
• Jasper National Park Management Plan (Parks Canada 2010);

• Whitehorse Wildland Provincial Park and Management Plan (Alberta Environment [AE] 2000);
and
• Luscar and Gregg River Mines Land Management Plan (GoA 2013c).
Government approved regional initiatives or plans that pertain to the MKRC with requirements that relate
to environment and resource management for the proposed changes to the activity are discussed further
in Section 5.7.
1.5 Regional Setting
The MKRC Project lies within the Cheviot Mine Permit Boundary and consists of two distinct biophysical
units in the Subalpine ecoregion – MacKenzie and Redcap. The Project is located in the Athabasca
(MacKenzie) River and North Saskatchewan (Redcap) River watersheds.
Terrain in the headwaters of MacKenzie Creek consists of bedrock-controlled ridges with relatively narrow
valley bottoms. Vegetation is dominated by slow-growing lodgepole pine. Shrub-dominated communities
occur in valley bottoms and along drainage courses. The MacKenzie unit is seasonally used by moose,
mule deer, white-tailed deer and elk. Heavy snow accumulation over much of the area restricts use by
ungulates in winter. Lynx, hare, red squirrel and marten are common throughout the area. MacKenzie
Creek appears to be an important travel corridor for grizzly bear, wolves and other wildlife, particularly in
the spring. Harlequin ducks breed at low density in the MacKenzie Creek headwaters. There are rainbow
trout and bull trout found in MacKenzie Creek.
The Redcap unit occupies the eastern end of the Cheviot Mine Permit Boundary and includes the
headwaters of Redcap Creek; topography is gently sloping to inclined and rolling. Upland sites are
dominated by coniferous forests composed of lodgepole pine. Lowland areas often consist of shrub

March 2018
dominated plant communities on wet mineral and water-saturated organic soils. This area provides
habitat for moose as well as elk, mule deer and white-tailed deer. Bighorn sheep occupy the Redcap
Range to the north of this unit and may travel through it to the mountains on the Jasper National Park
boundary. Wolves systematically travel the cut lines, while grizzly bears periodically forage in lower
elevations. Beaver are active in the headwaters of Redcap Creek. Harlequin Ducks nest intermittently in
the lower reaches of Redcap Creek. There are bull trout found in Redcap Creek.
The climate has characteristic long, cold winters with intermittent chinook warming, and cool, short
summers. Historic interpolated climate data for Alberta Townships was obtained from Alberta Climate
Information Service operated by Alberta Agriculture and Forestry (2018). The Project’s township area
(045-22 W5M) has data records from 1978 to 2016. During this time, temperatures ranged between -43°C
and 30°C, with a mean annual temperature of 1.6°C. Average annual precipitation was 660 millimetres
(mm). Historical average total precipitation in the June to September period is 351.3 mm.
1.6 Project Regulatory Approval Process
The Cheviot Coal Mine underwent an extensive regulatory approval process including an Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) that was subjected to a joint federal – provincial review. Over a six-year period,
the Cheviot Coal Mine became the focus of two public hearings and several court challenges. In 1997,
and again in 2000, a Joint Review Panel, consisting of representatives of the Alberta Energy and Utilities
Board (EUB) and appointees of the Federal Minister of Environment, recommended that the Cheviot Coal
Mine receive regulatory approval and that Cardinal River Coals Ltd. be allowed to proceed with
development of the Cheviot Coal Mine. Both the Governments of Alberta and Canada subsequently
accepted this recommendation and approved the Cheviot Coal Mine.
After the Cheviot Coal Mine was approved, a considerable number of assessments and regulatory
applications have been filed and approved to enable mining operations to continue. The following is the
chronology of this process from the time of the initial regulatory applications:
• file EIA and Regulatory Applications under the Coal Conservation Act (1996);
• EUB / Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) approval to construct and operate
Cheviot Mine (1997);
• judicial review of Joint Review Panel decision and Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO)
approvals (1999);
• Joint Review Panel upheld decision, and Cheviot Mine Permit 2000-37 issued (2000);
• Private Haulroad Project approved (2002);
• EUB replaced Permit C2000-37 with C2003-4 (2003);

• application to construct Cheviot haulroad and develop Cheviot Creek Pit; Cheviot’s EPEA, Public
Lands Act, and Water Act authorizations and licences issued/amended (2003);
• Alberta Environment and EUB approval to develop Prospect Pits (2007);

• Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD) and Energy Resources
Conservation Board (ERCB) approval of Prospect Pit application (2008);

March 2018
• application to develop Cheviot Creek Phase 1 Extension; EPEA, Public Lands Act, and Water Act
authorizations and licences issued/amended (2008);
• renewal of Cheviot EPEA Approval, renewal of Cheviot Water Act Approval, amendment of
Cheviot Mine Permit C2003-4 granted (2009);
• application for McLeod-Harris Pits development (2010);

• Cheviot EPEA, Public Lands Act, and Water Act authorizations and licences issued/amended for
McLeod-Harris Pits; Approvals granted from Alberta Environment, Alberta Sustainable Resource
Development and ERCB to develop McLeod-Harris Pits (2010);
• Cheviot EPEA Approval renewed by ESRD (2010);
• application for Renewal of Luscar Mine EPEA (2010);
• Luscar EPEA Renewal granted by ESRD (2011);
• CCA Cheviot Mine Permit Amendment C2003-4A issued by ERCB (2013).
• application for UHEA (2015); and

• Cheviot EPEA, Public Lands Act, and Water Act authorizations and licences issued/amended for
Upper Harris Extension; Approvals granted by the AER to develop Upper Harris (2016).
The approved Cheviot Coal Mine has been optimized from the original development plan. The actual
development is compared to the approved development on Figure 1.6-1. The Cheviot Coal Mine is a
mature mine site and CRO has gained considerable knowledge and experience mining and mitigating
potential effects at Cheviot. CRO intends to continue applying proven operational methods used at the
Cheviot Coal Mine to the MKRC extension.
1.6.1 Existing Approvals
Cardinal River Coals Ltd. holds the following regulatory approvals for the existing Cheviot Coal Mine:
• Mine Permit C2003-4A (Cheviot Mine);
• Mine Licence C2010-11 (McLeod-Harris Pits);
• Mine Licence C2010-12 (McLeod-Harris Dumps);
• Mine Licence C2010-11 (Upper Harris Pits);

• Mine Licence C2016-03 (Upper Harris Dumps);
• EPEA Approvals 0046972-01-00 (Cheviot), 0046972-01-01 (McLeod-Harris amendment),

0046972-01-02 (Upper Harris Extension amendment);
• Water Act Approval 00205213-00-00 (fence-line Cheviot), and amendments 00205213-00-01,
00205213-00-03, 00205213-00-05, 00205213-00-06 and 00205213-00-07;
• Water Act Licence 00226852-01-00 (water well);
• MSL No. 041321; and
• MSL No. 040889 (Cheviot Haulroad).

March 2018
These Approvals and Licences are presented in Appendix 1.
1.6.2 Approvals and Amendments Sought
The proposed Project area is adjacent to the existing Upper Harris Extension. Cardinal River Coals Ltd. is
applying for an integrated amendment application to the AER to develop the last area of the Cheviot Coal
Mine. The application will include:
• amendment to EPEA Approval No. 0046972-01-00, as amended;
• amendment to Public Lands Act Approval MSL No. 041321;
• amendment to Fence-line Water Act Approval No. 00205213-00-00; and
• new Pit and Dump Licences under the CCA in connection with Mine Permit #C2003-4A.
Cardinal River Coals Ltd. is proposing to add the MKRC extension to the Cheviot Coal Mine. The main
activities contemplated under the Activities Designation Regulation (GoA 2017b) include the addition of
numerous pits, dumps, water management features and minor infrastructure.
Section 7.0 presents the detail on the specific amendment requirements. The concordance tables for the
CCA (GoA 2013a) as per Directive 61 (AER 1983), Fence-line Water Act Application, and EPEA Guide to
Content for Energy Project Applications (AER 2014b) are provided in Appendix 2.
CRO understands that AER will give public notice of the application for the proposed amendments. As
part of CRO’s ongoing consultation, the stakeholders and Aboriginal communities will be informed of
these proposed changes and CRO will continue to engage and respond to questions and concerns. The
activities that have been completed to date are summarized in Section 4.0.
1.7 Development Schedule
Activities associated with the MKRC development include pre-construction, construction, operations,
decommissioning, closure, and reclamation (Table 1.7-1). As part of long-range planning, the optimization
of the sequence and pit extents are re-evaluated annually to meet market demand. The planned activities
for the MKRC are provided in Table 1.7-1. Completion of Project phases are dependent on achieving
planned productivities and actual completion dates may vary.
Table 1.7-1 Project Phases and General Activities
MKRC Project Phase Project Calendar Year Mine Development Activities

Year
Pre-construction 1 to 3 2019 to 2021 • Timber and brush clearing.

• Soil salvage and stockpiling.

March 2018
MKRC Project Phase Project Calendar Year Mine Development Activities

Year
Construction 1 to 4 2019 to 2022 • Construction of MacKenzie and Little

Homer Creek clear span bridges.
• Construction of powerline extension
from Harris Pit to Redcap.
• Construction of water management
structures.
• Construction of haulroad to Redcap.
• Construction of Radio Transmission
Tower.
Operations 1 to 9 2019 to 2027 • Blasting and removal of waste rock.
• Mining and processing of raw coal.
• Transporting to market.
Reclamation 3 to 9(+) 2021 to • Contouring of waste rock dumps to
2027(+) acceptable configuration.
• Decommissioning and reclamation of
roadways.
• Coversoil and seed for closure.
Decommissioning and 10+ 2028+ • Contouring of waste rock dumps to
Closure acceptable configuration.
• Ongoing monitoring and maintenance.
• Decommissioning and reclamation of
roadways and powerline corridors.
1.8 Public Consultation Program
CRO has a long history of Aboriginal consultation, stakeholder engagement and public communication,
dating back to CRO's operation and permitting for the Cheviot Coal Mine. Teck’s Sustainability Strategy
(Teck 2010b), which includes community as a key focus area, complements and augments CRO’s past
and ongoing engagement. As part of the Sustainability Strategy, Teck introduced a social management
and responsibility framework that provides the structure for implementing a consistent approach to
engagement and managing social performance. Pillars of this framework are:
• engagement;
• maximizing sustainable benefits for communities;

• managing impacts on communities; and
• mutually beneficial relationships with Aboriginal communities.

Further information regarding consultation in relation to the Cheviot Coal Mine and the Project is
presented in Section 4.0.

March 2018
1.9 Application Guide and Description
This application consists of two volumes with the following components:
Volume 1:
• Section 1 Project Introduction
• Section 2 Geology and Geotechnical
• Section 3 Project Description
• Section 4 Consultation and Engagement
• Section 5 Environmental Setting
• Section 6 Conceptual Conservation and Reclamation Plan

• Section 7 Approval Amendments Required
• Section 8 References
• Appendix 1 Existing Approvals
• Appendix 2 Concordance Tables – CCA, EPEA, WA, PLA
• Appendix 3 Coal Quality Sample List
• Appendix 4 Geotechnical Reports

• Appendix 5 Detailed Bench Reserve Summary
• Appendix 6 Air Quality Assessment
• Appendix 7 Noise Assessment

• Appendix 8 Approved Management Plans
• Appendix 9 Acronyms and Glossary
• Appendix 10 Project Team
Volume 2 (Baseline Reports):
• Annex A Hydrogeology
• Annex B Hydrology
• Annex C Surface Water Quality and Benthics
• Annex D Fish and Fish Habitat
• Annex E Soil and Terrain
• Annex F Vegetation and Wetlands
• Annex G Wildlife

March 2018
Section 1 Figures

March 2018
I Swan Hills Athabasca
33
³
²
801
V
U
661
V
U 661
U
V
658
V
U 44
³
²
43
³
²
V
U947
18
³
²
18
³
²
Westlock
Barrhead
Whitecourt
18 V
U777
³
²
751
U
V
Mayerthorpe 28
³
²
765
V
U 803
V
U
32
³
²
647
V
U Gibbons
Morinville
43
³
²
22
³
²
757
U
V 37
³
²
748
V
U St. Albert
751 V
U633
V
U 43 779
V
U
³
²
Spuce Grove
16
³
²
16
³
²
43
³
²
16
³
²
16 Edson
³
²
Stony Plain
22 Edmonton
³
²
753
V
U 770
U
V
47
³
²
Hinton 624
U
V Devon Beaumont
759 Calmar
V
U V
U 622
Leduc
623
U
V
Drayton
40
³
²
Valley 39
³
²
814
V
U
778
V
U
V
U620
2 Millet
³
²
40
³
²
Wetaskiwin
13
³
²
Project
Document Path: \\teckcominco\CGO\Groups\TCGIS\Data\Operations\CRO\Projects\MKRCPermitApplication\MXD\FinalFigures\MKCRProjectDescription_Fig1.mxd
Location 795
_
^ 771
V
U V
U
22
³
²
2
³
²
20 792
V
U
³
²
734
V
U Ponoka
53
³
²
Jasper 53
³
²
National Rimbey
U771
V U 604
Park VUV 792
815
V
U
766
V
U
Rocky 12 Lacombe
³
²
11
³
²
Mountain
House Blackfalds
V
U597
93
³
² Eckville
Sylvan Lake Red Deer
761
V
U
22
³
²
766
U
V 42
³
²
Penhold
54 2
³
² ³
²
22
³
²
LEGEND PROJECT
Railway
Primary Highway MacKenzie Redcap Project
Secondary Highway
Mine Permit Boundary TITLE
Whitehorse Wildland Provincial Park

PROJECT LOCATION
Jasper National Park
First Nation Reserve NOTES PROJECT: 14-00804
Towns Datum/Projection: UTM NAD 83 Zone 11

DRAWN BY: SP
CHECKED BY: SP
ATS TOWNSHIPS
DATE: Mar 12, 2018
FIGURE
0 25 50 100
Kilometres
1.0-1
I R 25 R 24 R 23 R 22 R 21 R 20 W5M
r
R i ve 16
³
²
a
sc T 51
ba
ha
At
Weald
s ca Riv e r Hinton
h ab a
At
47
³
²
40 T 50
³
²
_
^
T 49
Robb "
Mc
Le
od
R
i ve
r
40
³
²
Luscar T 48
Mine
Luscar Mine T 47
40
³
²
/
"
Coal Prep
" Cadomin Plant
ive r
ina R T 46
MacKenzie Pe m
b
"
/ Gap
MacKenzie
Redcap
Area
Grave Flats Road

Jasper National Park T 45
Cheviot
Mine
Alexis Nakota
Sioux Nation
Reserve #234
T 44
LEGEND PROJECT
Primary Highway
Secondary Highway MacKenzie Redcap Project
Road
Railway TITLE
Towns CARDINAL RIVER OPERATIONS

Mine Permit Boundary
NOTES
Proposed MSL Boundary PROJECT: 14-00804
DRAWN BY: SP
Datum/Projection: UTM NAD 83 Zone 11
Current Cheviot MSL Boundary CHECKED BY: SP
Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Reserve #234 DATE: Jan 4, 2018
FIGURE
Coal Haulroad
0 5 10
Kilometres
20
1.0-2
28 27 26 25
R24 R23 R23 R22
23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23
I 24
T 46
14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13
Grave Flats Road
11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12
k
ee
Cr
t
ec
sp
P ro
PROSPECT HARRIS
2 1AREA 6 5 4
AREA 3 Ha rris
C reek UPPER 2HARRIS 1 6 5 4 3 2 1
AREA
MacKENZIE
T46
Satellite Office / Shop Fuel Island

AREA
T46
T45 CHEVIOT AREA McLEOD T45

AREA
35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36
REDCAP
AREA
ek
re
C
n
r to
T ho
26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25
Grave Flats Road

23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24
14 13 R24 R23 18 17 16 15 14 13 R23 R22 18 17 16 15 14 13
LEGEND PROJECT
MacKenzie Redcap Footprint

Pit Limit with 30m Buffer MacKenzie Redcap Project
Waste Dump Limit with 30m Buffer
Satellite Office / Shop TITLE
Satellite Fuel Island

LOCAL PROJECT LOCATION
Current Haulroad
Cheviot/Upper Harris Current Mine Footprint NOTES PROJECT: 14-00804
Proposed MSL Boundary Datum/Projection: UTM NAD 83 Zone 11

DRAWN BY: SP
CHECKED BY: SP
Current Cheviot MSL Boundary
DATE: Mar 13, 2018
CRO Mine Permit Boundary
FIGURE
0 1 2
Kilometres
4
1.0-3
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
R23 R22
20 1925 19
25 2050 25 19 200 0 19
195
2000
0 1900
19
0
75 00
11
1950
12 7 10
19
200
1900
25
25
190 75 1875
0
8 9
19
18 197
18
5
50
197
5
50
22
19 1950
1900
25 1850
75
21
1950 1975
21
50
0
52.943, 2100 200
1950
22
25
00
-117.199
5,866,000
5,866,000
1650
0
5 200
190
18 1925 187 0
75 2025
21
21
50
25 2250
G
2075
1875
75
20
23
2075
25
23
Litt
23
Hom
!
00 25
2025
2350
167
le
182
5
er C
5
!
25
19
!
1750
1800 2 1 6 5
ree
4 3
! !
1825
MKPO
! ! ! ! !
1775
!
k
!
22
! !
2075
!
MK1
!
SP1
!
25
! !
25
!
1825
! ! ! !
2275
!
19
!
SP2
! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
f
!
1925
¤
¥
!
19
!
1800
!
2125
75
!
!
75
!
!
19
SP3 0
!
225
!
! !
1950
!
170
!
!
18
LHPO
25
25
!
23
21
T46 ie
00
17
T46
2325
00
!
nz
!
MK3
!
1775
e
18
1750
K k
50
MK2
!
ac ee
!
G
19
21
f 20
50
M Cr
¤
¥
!
50
25
50
T45 T45
19
! 22
18 25
19
75
MK4 MK3EX1
!
00
1900 18
00
21
! !
75
1875
!
50
!
18 !
18
!
75
!
SP4
19
!
UTRC1-SU-1
!
75
5,864,000
5,864,000
1900
!
Little UTRC1-SU-2
!
!
!
Hom 18 MK3EX2 !
75
!
18
187
er C 75
!
35 36 31 r eek 32
!
33
!
34
5
185 UTRC2-SU-1
!
! !
1875 0
RC1
! !
!
!
!
195
1900
!
UTRC2-SU-2
2000
200
18
52.92,
75 18 !
0
75 !
0
-117.096
!
!
!
19
!
00
G
RC2
!
!
!
19
1900
50 52.916,
!
1825
!
TREE
-117.241
!
ISLAND 1850
!
RC4/5
25
18
G
19
!
50
1825
!
19
50
!
2000
! !
RC3
! !
!
SP5
R e dc a
!
1925
C re e k
1850 !
5
1950
177
!
26 25 30 29 28 !
27
p
75
!
21
!
5,862,000
5,862,000
00
22 RCEX
2050
2150 2100 187 SP6

5
18
2150
00
2125
2075 RCPO
52.901,
17
-117.093
50
2025 1725
G
1975
23 24 19 20 21 22
00
R23 R22
1925 17
5
192 1900
1925
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
MacKenzie Redcap Project - Project Overview - Figure 1.0-4

±
Hinton
!
!
Robb Existing & Approved Development Proposed MacKenzie Redcap Development
The m a psa nd m a pd a t a are pr o vid ed ‘a sis ’witho ut
a ny gua r a ntee,r epresent atio n,c o nd it
io n o rwa rra nt
y
!
PitLim it So ilSt
o c kpile Po nd O ut
let Clea n Wa t
erDit
c h-
Pipeline Culver
t
0 250 500 1,
000
Wa t
ers
hed Bo und a r
y CRO Mine Per
m itBo und a r
y UpperHa r
risAppr
o ved Dev
elo pm ent m
o f a ny kind ,eit
Res o urc esLim it
herexpr
ed a s
ess ,im plied ,o rst
sum esno lia b ilit
at
y wit
ut
hr
ory.Tec k
espec t Cur
rentChev
io tMSLBo und a r
y Wa t
erc o ur
se Co nt
o ur(
25m I
nter
va l)
PitLim it-30m Buffer Pr
o po sed MSLBo und a r
y I
nter
c ept
io n Po nd Wa s
te Wa t
erDit
c h-
Pipeline Culv
ert G Co m m unic a t
io nT
o wer
DATE: MI
NEO PERATI O N:
to a ny r
dat
trut
elia nc e t
a ,a nd t
h,a c c ur
he us
he usera ss
a c y,c urr
erpla c esin t
um est he ent
he m a psa nd m a p
enc y,o rc o m plet

irer isk a st
enesso f t
o t
he
he
Cadomin
!
Mountain
! ! Po wer
line Cur
rentDis
tur
b a nc e Ha ulr
oads
Wa s
t
Wa s
t
e Dum pLim it
e Dum pLim it-30m Buffer
Sed im ent
atio n Po nd
Em b a nkm ent
f
¤
¥ Cr
ossing St
ruc t
ure ! MKRCPo wer
line
3/
16/
2018 Ca r
d ina lRiv
er
Ac c es
sRo a d s
info r mat io n c o nt
a ined in the m a psa nd m a pd a t a. Cree SCALE: CO O RDI
NATESY STEM:
Community
!
Ha ulr
o a d a nd Po werRighto fWa ys
1:
26,
000 NAD1983UTM Z o ne 1
1N
Do c um entPa t
h:\
\t
ec kc o m inc o \
CGO \
Gro ups
\TCGI
S\Da t
a\O per
atio ns
\CRO \
Pro jec t
s\MKRCPer
m it
Applic a t
io n\
MXD\
Fina lFigur
es\
MKCRPr
o jec t
Des
cript
io n_Fig1.
0-4.
m xd
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
R23 R22
11 12 7 8 9 10
5,866,000
5,866,000
Litt
Hom
!
le
er C
!
!
2 1 6 5
ree
4 3
! !
MKPO
! ! !
! ! !
k
! ! ! !
MK1
!
SP1
! ! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
SP2
! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
f
!
¤
¥
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
SP3
!
!
! ! ! !
!
LHPO
!
T46 ie
T46
!
nz
!
MK3
!
e
K k MK2
!
ac ee
!
G f
¤
¥
M Cr
!
T45 T45
!
MK4 MK3EX1
!
! !
! !
!
! !
SP4
!
!
UTRC1-SU-1
!
5,864,000
5,864,000
!
Little UTRC1-SU-2
!
!
!
Hom MK3EX2 ! !
er C
!
35 36 31 r eek 32
!
33
!
34
UTRC2-SU-1
!
! !
RC1
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! UTRC2-SU-2
!
!
!
!
RC2
!
!
!
!
!
TREE !
ISLAND
!
RC4/5
!
!
!
!
! !
RC3
! !
!
SP5
R e dc a
!
C re e k
!
!
26 25 30 29 28 !
27
p
!
!
5,862,000
5,862,000
RCEX
SP6
RCPO
23 24 19 20 21 22
R23 R22
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
MacKenzie Redcap Project - Project Overview(Imagery) - Figure 1.0-5

±
Hinton
!
!
The m apsand m ap d at aare provid e d ‘asis ’wit hout
any guarant e e ,re pre se ntation,c ond it ionor warrant y
!
PitLim it SoilSt
oc kpile Pond Out
le t Cle anWat
e r Dit
c h-
Pipe line Culve rt
0 250 500 1,
000
Wat
e rs
he d Bound ary CR O Mine Pe rm itBound ary Uppe r HarrisApprove d De v
e lopm e nt m
of any k
R es
ind ,e ithe r e x
ourc e sLim it e d as
pre ss,im plie d ,or st
sum e sno liabilit
at
ut
y wit
ory.Te c k
h re spe c t Curre ntChe v
iotMSLBound ary Wat
e rc ours
e Cont
our (
25m I
nte rval)
PitLim it-30m Buffe r Propose d MSLBound ary I
nte rc e pt
ionPond Was
te Wat
e r Dit
c h-
Pipe line Culv
e rt G Com m unic at
ionT
owe r
DATE: MI
NEOPER ATI ON:
to any re lianc e t
d at
trut
a,and t
he us
he use r ass
e r plac e sint
um e st
he m apsand m ap
he e nt
h,ac c urac y,c urre nc y,or c om ple t
ire riskast
e ne ssof t
ot
he
he
Cadomin
!
Mountain
! ! Powe rline Curre ntDis
turbanc e Haulroad s
Was
t
Was
t
e Dum p Lim it
e Dum p Lim it-30m Buffe r
Se d im e nt
at
Em bankm e nt
ionPond f
¤
¥ Cros
sing St
ruc t
ure ! MKR CPowe rline
3/
16/
2018 Card inalR iv
er
Ac c e s
sR oad s
inform at ionc ont aine d int he m apsand m ap d at a. Cree SCALE: COOR DI
NATESYSTEM:
Community
!
Haulroad and Powe r R ightof Ways
1:
26,
000 NAD1983UTM Zone 1
1N
Doc um e ntPat
h:\\t
e ck
c om inc o\CGO\Groups
\TCGI
S\Dat
a\Ope rat
ions
\CR O\Proje c t
s\MKR CPe rm it
Applic at
ion\MXD\FinalFigure s
\MKCR Proje c t
De s
c r ipt
ion_ Fig1.
0-5.
mxd
R24 R23 R23 R22
27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26
I
25 30
22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19
15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18
Grave Flats Road
10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7
k
ee
Cr
t
ec
sp
P ro
Prospect Harris Upper Harris

Document Path: \\teckcominco\CGO\Groups\TCGIS\Data\Operations\CRO\Projects\MKRCPermitApplication\MXD\FinalFigures\MKCRProjectDescription_Fig1.6-1.mxd
3 2 1
Area Area Area 2
6 5 4 3 Ha rri s 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6
C reek
T46
T46
MacKenzie
Cheviot Area Area
T45
McLeod T45
Area
34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31
Redcap
e k Area
re
C
n
rto
T ho
27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30
22 23 24 19 20 21
Grave Flats Road
22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19
15 14 13 R24 R23 18 17 16 15 14 13
R23 R22 18 17 16 15 14 13 18
LEGEND PROJECT
Proposed MSL Boundary

Current Cheviot MSL Boundary MacKenzie Redcap Project
CRO Mine Permit Boundary
Proposed MKRC Project Development TITLE
Current Disturbance Actual Cheviot Mine Development Compared with

Approved Disturbance Approved Development
Whitehorse Wildland Provincial Park NOTES PROJECT: 14-00804
DRAWN BY: SP
Datum/Projection: UTM NAD 83 Zone 11
CHECKED BY: SP
DATE: Mar 13, 2018
FIGURE
0 1 2
Kilometres
4
1.6-1
Section 2 Geology and Geotechnical
March 2018
Table of Contents
Page
2 GEOLOGY AND GEOTECHNICAL .............................................................................2-1
2.1 Geology ....................................................................................................................2-1
2.1.1 Regional Structure ............................................................................................2-1
2.1.2 Regional Geological Structure...........................................................................2-1
2.1.3 Coal Geology ....................................................................................................2-1
2.1.4 Coal Quality ......................................................................................................2-3
2.1.5 Coal Leases ......................................................................................................2-3
2.2 Geotechnical Conditions ...........................................................................................2-4
List of Tables Page

Table 2.1-1 Coal Leases Held in the MKRC Area...............................................................2-4
List of Figures
Figure 2.1-1 Surficial Geology
Figure 2.1-2 Exploration Drill Holes
Figure 2.1-3 Geologic Cross Section 45+00

March 2018

Figure 2.1-30 Detailed Stratigraphic Column
Teck Resources Limited Page 2-ii

March 2018
2 GEOLOGY AND GEOTECHNICAL

2.1 Geology
2.1.1 Regional Structure
The MacKenzie Redcap (MKRC) Project (the Project) is located in the Cadomin-Luscar coal field, within
the northwesterly trending ridges and steep-sided valleys in the front ranges of the Rocky Mountains of
west central Alberta. The region is part of the disturbed belt of central Alberta in which tectonic mountain
building forces have uplifted Cretaceous and adjacent strata in a series of parallel folded belts. Major
thrust faults are found throughout the area.
2.1.2 Regional Geological Structure
The Project is close to the western margin of the original sedimentary basin responsible for coal
deposition and is structurally bounded by two major thrust faults:
• Nikanassin to the northeast of the proposed Project, which has thrust massive Devonian and
Mississippian aged carbonates to the surface. These carbonates form the mountainous ridge to
the northeast of the MKRC area; and
• McConnell to the southwest of the proposed Project, which has thrust Cambrian and Devonian
strata to the surface where they form a steep mountain range to the southwest of the MKRC area.
The MKRC area contains localized faulting and folding due to a moderate amount of structural variability
in the MKRC pits. Bedding in the central and eastern portion of the proposed ultimate pit will dip
moderately to steeply (e.g., 25° to 60°) southward. The regional geology of the Project and surrounding
area is presented in Figure 2.1-1.
2.1.3 Coal Geology
The Project is located within the Cheviot Coal Mine Permit Boundary, which is generally characterized by
undulating upland topography ranging in elevation between 1,700 and 2,000 metres above sea level
(masl). The Project is an extension of the currently licenced Upper Harris Extension (Figure 1.0-3), and
the final stage of Cheviot Coal Mine development.
Glacial till deposits drape the Project area with an average thickness of 5 metres (m), based on the
drill-hole record. Figure 2.1-2 presents a plan view of the MKRC area containing the exploration drill-holes
as well as the locations of the geological cross sections. The geological model was developed based on
exploration drilling completed from 1993 to 2017. Representative cross sections are created with 150 to
500 m spacing and are provided in Figures 2.1-3 to 2.1-29. The cross sections were created
perpendicular to the strike of the coal, which results in a baseline that is oriented at an Azimuth of 300°.
Exploration drill-holes have been included within 25 m on either side of the section line.

March 2018
The figures include the following cross sections:
• Figure 2.1-3 Geological Cross Section 45+00





March 2018
A lithostratigraphic profile of the sedimentary sequence found in the MKRC area is illustrated in
Figure 2.1-30, and summarized as follows:
• the lower Cretaceous, coal-bearing Luscar Group is marked at the base by the Cadomin
conglomerate, a resistant unit easily identified in outcrops;
• the Gladstone Formation (predominantly shales and siltstones) conformably overlies the Cadomin
conglomerate;
• the Moosebar Formation overlies the Gladstone, and is comprised of marine shales, siltstones,
carbonates, and shaley coal horizons (e.g., M0, M1, M2 and Cheviot seams);
• the overlying Gates Formation is divided into three members; the Torrens (sandstones, and
Torrens coal marker), Grande Cache (siltstones, shales, coal) and Mountain Park (sandstone);
and
• the recessive marine shales of the Blackstone Formation lie unconformably above the Gates
Formation.
Several coal seams occur within the Gates Formation, with as many as four seams used as stratigraphic
markers. These include the rider seams (R0 to R3) and the main Jewel seam. These coal seams are a
continuance of the coal sequence in the adjacent Harris and Upper Harris regions and directly
comparable to the coal seams in the Luscar Mine permit area. Within the coal lease area, the Jewel seam
represents all of the economically mineable coal.
All planned recoverable coal will come from the Jewel seam, which averages approximately 8 m in
thickness and is immediately above the Torrens Member sandstone footwall. Previous experience with
rider seams in the Cheviot/Prospect areas has shown that they are not economically recoverable due to
thickness and variable coal quality. The rider seams range in thickness from 0.5 to 3.0 m.
2.1.4 Coal Quality
To date, nearly 170 samples from the MKRC area have been collected for quality analysis. The results
can be found in Appendix 3. The coal quality varies between the mine phases and the expected coal yield
in the processing plant is expected to be in the range of 60% to 75% in the new areas, based upon the
plant feed ash.
2.1.5 Coal Leases
The entire Project lies within Category 4 lands as defined in the Coal Policy (Government of Alberta
[GoA] 1976), which states that surface mining may be conducted. All of the coal leases in the Project area
are held by Teck Coal Limited (Table 2.1-1), and are located within the existing Cheviot Coal Mine Permit
Boundary.

March 2018
Table 2.1-1 Coal Leases Held in the Project Area
Disposition Disposition Holder Location
S 31-045-22 W5M;
S 32-045-22 W5M;
1305010855 Teck Coal Limited NE 32-045-22 W5M;
05-046-22 W5M;
N 06-046-22 W5M
35-045-23 W5M;
36-045-23 W5M;
1305010858 Teck Coal Limited
N 01-046-23 W5M;
02-046-23 W5M
N 27-045-22 W5M;
SE 27-045-22 W5M;
33-045-22 W5M;
S 34-045-22 W5M;
NW 34-045-22 W5M;
S 04-046-22 W5M
23-045-22 W5M;
Portions 24-045-22 W5M
2.2 Geotechnical Conditions
The reports documenting the pre-feasibility level geotechnical investigation and assessments for the
MKRC open pits, ex-pit waste rock dumps, and haulroad corridor are provided in Appendix 4. The key
findings and recommendations from the assessments are summarized as follows:
Open Pits
• Design criteria were developed for the final pit walls, based on a pre-feasibility level design
acceptance criteria Factor of Safety of 1.3 that is consistent with published guidance and industry
practices for pit slope design.
• The highwall and endwall designs consist primarily of double benches that are 30 m high with
bench face angles ranging from 65 to 75° and catch bench widths ranging from 8 to 11 m based
on the bedding dip and rock type. The resulting design inter-ramp slope angles range from 45° to
54°.
• For the footwall designs the maximum allowable unbenched heights and catch bench widths vary
based on bedding dip, ranging from unbenched footwalls for bedding dips of up to 25°, to
maximum double bench height (30 m) with 11 m wide catch benches for bedding dips of 65° or
greater.
• Design criteria were also developed for benched excavations in overburden soils at the crest of
pit slopes, including surface water management, to manage erosion of excavated overburden
slopes and safely accommodate expected raveling.
• Recommendations for controlled blasting of the bench faces to achieve the recommended pit wall
design criteria and careful scaling to reduce the volume of subsequent raveling.

March 2018
• Recommendations for slope inspections and suitable monitoring for pit slope movements, to
check actual conditions vs. the design basis and to assess the performance of the pit slopes as
mining progresses.
• Recommendations for targeted feasibility-level geotechnical investigation and assessment work

to advance and refine the pit slope designs.
Ex-Pit Waste Rock Dumps
• Redcap Dump:
• The current design of the Redcap ex-pit waste rock dump meets the acceptance criteria for
waste rock dump stability (i.e., Factor of Safety values of 1.3 to 1.5 for static stability, and
1.05 to 1.15 under seismic loading) based on industry standard guidelines, except for the
lowest inter-platform slope, which had Factor of Safety values below the acceptance criteria
due to the presence of low strength peat in the dump foundation.
• A preliminary assessment of potential mitigation measures to increase the stability of the

lowest inter-platform slope showed that a combination of removal of portions of the peat
along with operational controls on the rate of dump construction should be sufficient to meet
the stability acceptance criteria.
• Further investigation is required to better delineate the extent and depth of the peat deposits
as part of the feasibility-level and detailed design work, and to confirm the most appropriate
mitigation measures and finalize the dump design.
• MacKenzie Dump
• The current design of the MacKenzie ex-pit waste rock dump meets the above-noted
acceptance criteria for dump stability except for an early, interim stage of dump construction
for which analyses showed potential foundation instability during the initial loading of weak
surficial soils in the sloping dump foundation.
• A preliminary assessment of a potential revised dump configuration was performed and

showed that extending the dump toe approximately 25 m further downslope to an area of
gentler topography would increase the Factor of Safety of the initial stage of the dump to
around or marginally below the acceptance criteria.
• Additional investigation of the foundation soil conditions as well as further analyses to finalize
a dump design that meets the stability acceptance criteria will be completed during the
feasibility-level and detailed design work.
Haulroad Corridor
• The pre-feasibility level geohazard mapping and geotechnical assessment of the proposed
haulroad corridor identified geohazards that could impact locations along the haulroad such as
localized flooding, gully erosion, snow avalanches, and cut slope instabilities.
• Further investigation and assessment of the potential geohazard impacts will be performed during
the feasibility and detailed design work for the haulroad corridor to determine if mitigation
measures beyond typical road inspection and maintenance during operation are warranted, and
to design any such mitigation measures.

March 2018
Section 2 Figures

March 2018
(
N
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
( (
(
R23 R22
(
GL N
( (
(
( 11 12 7 8 9 10
(
( (
5,866,000
5,866,000
( (
GL
( ( (
(
GL
(
( ( (
(
MB
( (
(
S
(
M
(
2
(
1 6 5 4 3
(
(
GL
( (
(
(
MB
(
GCM N
(
(
(
( (
(
N
(
M GCM N
(
T46 GL T46
(
( (
GCM
(
(
T45 GL T45
( ( ( (
(
( (
M
( ( (
(
(
B M M
5,864,000
5,864,000
(
M
( (
(
( ( (
(
B
(
35 36 31 32 33 34
(
(
(
(
( (
(
(
(
N
(
(
( (
(
M
( (
M B
( (
( (
(
( ( ( (
(
( (
(
GCM N
( (
GCM
( (( ( (
( (
( (
( ( (
(
GL
(
B
(
MB
( (
CO
(
VE
(
RE
(
D
(
26 25 30 ( 29 28 27
(
5,862,000
5,862,000
(
(
B M
K Cardium Fm MB Moosebar Fm
B Blackstone Fm GL Gladstone Fm
M Mountain Park Mb N Nikanassin Fm B
GCM Grande Cache Mb F Fernie Gp K
TO Torrens
23 Mb S Spray River Gp24 19 20 21 22
COVERED Till Covered

R23 R22
K
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
MacKenzie Redcap Project Surficial Geology - Figure 2.1-1

±
Hinton
!
Robb
!
Foothills Surficial Geology

T h e maps andmap dataare provide d‘as is’with out
anyg uarante e ,re pre se ntation,condition or warranty
!
Formation Contacts Anticline Curre nt Ch e viot MSLBoundary CRO Mine Pe rmit Boundary Outwash plains 0 250 500 1,
000
m
F
ofanykind,e ith e r e x pre ss,implie d,or statutory .T e ck
Re source s Limite dassume s no liabilitywith re spe c t Je we lSe am Subcrop M Syncline Propose dMSLBoundary MacKe nzie Re dcap Footprint Colluvium Slig h tlyle ach e dtill,Cordille ran prov
e nance
to anyre liance th e use r plac e s in th e maps andmap Cadomin DAT E: MI
NEOPERAT I ON:
data,andth e use r assume s th e e ntire risk as to th e
! Bottom T orre ns Me mbe r ( T h rust Fault Alluvialf
ans andaprons Mode rate lyle ach e dtill,Cordille ran prov
e nance 3/
29/
2018 CardinalRiv
er
truth ,accurac y
,c urre nc y,or c omple te ne ss ofth e Mountain
inf ormation containe din th e maps andmap data. Cree Cadomin Formation Coarse stre am alluvium Be drock SCALE: COORDINAT ESYST EM:
Community
! 1:
26,
000 NAD1983UT M Zone 1
1N
Docume nt Path :\
\te ckcominco\
CGO\
Groups\
T CGI
S\Data\
Ope rations\
CRO\
Proje cts\
MKRCPe rmitApplication\
MXD\
FinalFig ure s\
MKCRProje ctDe scription_Fig 7.
mxd
(
484,000 486,000 ( 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
R23 R22
(
(
( ( (
( _00
( (
00
12
12
(
R4
(
00
0_
7 8 9 10 11
0_
(
12
B
25
as
( (
eli
6_
ne
11
( (
(
(
(
00
(
8_
(
(
10
5,866,000
5,866,000
R3
( ( (
00
(
E
(
(
(
0_
50
B
E ((
E as E
(
0_
(
0
EEE eE
_0
lin
10
EE E E E E E
E e
EEE E
(
99
E E
E E E E
(
0
EEE EE EEEEEEEE EE EEEE E
_0
(
E E E E E E E E E
(
(
EE E
EE EE E E E
EEE E EEE E E
E EE E E E E E
96
E EE E
E E E
E EE EEE EE E EE
0
E
(
EE EEE E EE EEEEE EE
_0
E EE E E EEEE E E E
2
Pembina
E EE E 1 E 6
E 4 3
E E EEE E E
EEEEE E EE
E EEE E E
(
93
EE EE E E EE
E E EE EEEEEEE E
( (
0
E EE E EEE E E
EEE EE E EE E
(
EEE EE
_0
E E E E E EE E E E E
(
E E E E E E E E
(
EE E
E E E
E E E E
E EEE
EE E
E E E E E E E E
90
EE E E
EE EE E EEE E EE E E E E EE E E
EEE
0
EEE EE E
5
EEE EE
(
E E E E E
(
E E
_0
EE EE E E E E E EE EE E E
E EE E E
0
EEEEEEE E E EE
_5
87
EE EE E EE EEE
EE E E
E E EE EEEE EE E E
(
E E E EE E E
85
E E E E EEEE EE E E E E E EE
0
E E E EEE EEEEE E E E
E E E EE
(
EE E EE E EE EE EEEEEE E
_5
E E
EEEE (
EE E E E E
0
(
E
EEEE E E EE E E E E E E E
_0
E
82
E
EEE E E E
(
E EE EE E E E E E E
E E E
(
E
81
E
E E EE E E EEE E E
ET46
0
T46
E E E
(
EE E E
_0
E E E E E (
E E E E E
78
E EEEE
(
E E E E E
E EE E E E E E
E E EE
0
E E
( (
E E
(
_5
E
(
E
(
E E
T45
E
0
E
T45
E E EE E
_0
73
E
(
E E
(
E E E
0
( E E E E E
_5
(
E
72
E
(
E EE E
0
E E EE E E E E
_0
E
70
E E E
EE
E E
E E
(
E
(
E
69
E E E E
(
0
E E
66 (
E E E E EE E E
_0
EE
(
E E E
EE E EE
( (
(
EE
5,864,000
5,864,000
(
E E E E
0
E
E E E E
(
E E E
(
E
_0
E E E E E EE
( (
E E
0
E E E EE EE E E
EE EE E
_5
E EE EE
63
E
(
58 ( 0
E E
EE EE EE
(
_0
61
E E E E E E
(
0
(
35
(
36 E 31 E
_5
32
E E33E E E
60
34
E E E
(
E E E
E E E E E E EE EE
(
(
E E E E E E E
E E
(
0
E E E E E E EE E E
_0
( (
E EE E E E EE EEE E
(
E E E
54
EE EEE EE
(
E
(
E
0
E E EE EE E E
(
(
E E
_0
E E E E E E
E E
E EE E E E EE E E E
E E EEE E E
(
E
51
E EE
( (
EE EE E
0
EE
(
_0
( (
E E E EE E E E E E EEE E EE
E E
(
E E E E E E
(
48
E E E E E E E E E
EE E EE E EE EE EE
0
(
EE E
_0
( (
E EEEE EE EE EE E
(
E E
E E E E E E E
45
( (( E
E E EE E EE E EE EE
( EE E
(
E E E EE E EE E (
E
E E
(
( E E
E E E E E E E
E E EE
(
E E E E EE E E
(
E
E EEE EE EE E E E EE
(
( E
E (
E E E E
E E
E E E E E
E E E E EE E EE EE
(
E E
(
E E E E E E
( (
E E E E EE E E
( E
E E
E E
E EE
E E E
E E EE E E ( (
E EE
(
26 25
E E
30 29 28
E E 27
E E
E
E
E EE
5,862,000
5,862,000
( E E
EE E E E
E
E (
E E
(
E E E E
E E E E E
E E (
E E E E E
E E E
E E E E
E E E
E E
E E
E E E
E E
E E
23 24 19 20 21 22 E E
E
R23 R22
E
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
MacKenzie Redcap Project Exploration Drill Holes - Figure 2.1-2

±
Hinton
!
Robb
!
Th em apsandm ap dataar
anyg uar antee,repr
epr ov ided‘
asis ’
esentation,condition orwar
with out
ranty
!
Anticline E Explor
ation Dr
illHole Cur
rentCh ev iotMSLBoundar
y CRO MinePer
m itBoundar
y PitLim it 0 250 500 1,
000
m
F
ofanykind,eith erex press ,im plied,orstatutory.Teck
Res our cesLim itedas sum esnoliabilitywith r espec t Syncline Cr
ossSection Pr
oposedMSLBoundar
y MacKenzieRedcap Footpr
int PitLim it-30m Buf
fer
Cadomin DATE: MI
NEOPERATI ON:
toanyr elianceth eus erplac esin th em apsandm ap
M
data,andth euserass um esth eentir eris
k astoth e
Th r
ustFault Sec
tion Bas
eline U pperHar
risAppr
ov edDev elopm ent 3/
29/
2018 Car
dinalRiv er
!
Mountain
truth ,acc urac y
,c urrenc y,orc om pletenessofth e
(
infor m ation containedin th em apsandm ap data. Cree SCALE: COORDINATESYSTEM:
Community
! 1:
30,
000 NAD1983U TM Zone1
1N
Docum entPath :\
\teckcom inco\
CGO\
Groups\
TCGI
S\Data\
Oper
ations\
CRO\
Projec
ts\
MKRCPer
m itApplication\
MXD\
FinalFig ur
es\
MKCRPr
ojectDescr
iption_Fig 8.
mxd
Not to Scale
Detailed Stratigraphic Column - Figure 2.1-30
Them a p s a n dm a p da ta a rep ro v ided‘a s i s’wi tho ut
a n ygua ra n tee,rep resen ta ti o n ,co n ditio n o r wa rra n ty
o fa n yk i
n d,ei ther exp ress,i m plied,o r sta tuto ry .T ec k
Reso urc es Li m i teda ssum es n o l ia bilitywi thresp ec t
to a n yrel ia n cetheuser p l ac es in them a p s a n dm a p DATE: MI
NEOPERATI ON:
da ta ,a n dtheuser a ssum es theen ti reri ska s to the 3/
6/2018 Ca rdi
nal
River
truth,a cc ura c y ,c urren cy,o r c om pl eten ess o fthe
inf o rm a ti
on c o n ta in edin them a p s a n dm a p da ta .
Do cum en tPa th:\

\teck
co m i
n co \
CGO\
Gro up s\
TCGI
S\Da ta \
Op era ti
o n s\
CRO\
Pro j
ects\
MKRCPerm i
tAp p l
i
ca ti
on\
MXD\
Final
Figures\
MKCRPro j
ectDescri
p ti
o n _Fi
g2.
1-30.
m xd
Section 3 Project Description
March 2018
Table of Contents
Page
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...........................................................................................3-1
3.1 Existing and Planned Development ..........................................................................3-2
3.2 MKRC Mine Extension..............................................................................................3-6
3.2.1 Pit Economics/Design Criteria ...........................................................................3-7
3.2.2 Coal Reserves ..................................................................................................3-7
3.2.3 Mine Plan Review .............................................................................................3-8
3.2.4 Pit Phasing........................................................................................................3-9
3.2.4.1 MacKenzie Phase 1 (MK1) ...............................................................................3-9
3.2.4.2 MacKenzie Phase 2 (MK2) .............................................................................3-10
3.2.4.5 Redcap Phase 1 (RC1) ...................................................................................3-11
3.2.4.6 Redcap Phase 2 (RC2) ...................................................................................3-11
3.2.4.7 Redcap Phase 3 (RC3) ...................................................................................3-11
3.2.4.8 Redcap Phase 4 (RC4) ...................................................................................3-11
3.2.4.9 Redcap Phase 5 (RC5) ...................................................................................3-11
3.2.5 Haulage Assumptions .....................................................................................3-12
3.2.6 Production Equipment Constraints ..................................................................3-12
3.2.7 Plant Constraints.............................................................................................3-12
3.3 Detailed Scheduling ................................................................................................3-12
3.3.1 Overall Material Balance/Backfill Strategy .......................................................3-13
3.3.2 Annual Mine Plan Descriptions .......................................................................3-15
3.3.2.1 Year 1 (2019) ..................................................................................................3-15
3.3.2.2 Year 2 (2020) ..................................................................................................3-15
3.3.2.3 Year 3 (2021) ..................................................................................................3-15
3.3.2.4 Year 4 (2022) ..................................................................................................3-15
3.3.2.5 Year 5 (2023) ..................................................................................................3-15
3.3.2.6 Year 6 (2024) ..................................................................................................3-16
3.3.2.7 Year 7 (2025) ..................................................................................................3-16
3.3.2.8 Year 8 (2026) ..................................................................................................3-16
3.3.2.9 Year 9 (2027) ..................................................................................................3-16
3.4 Water Management Plan ........................................................................................3-17
3.4.1 MacKenzie Sector ...........................................................................................3-21
3.4.1.1 MacKenzie Creek Crossing .............................................................................3-21
3.4.1.2 MacKenzie Settling Pond (MKPO) ..................................................................3-21
3.4.1.3 MacKenzie Sump and Pipeline (MKSU) ..........................................................3-22
3.4.1.4 Roadside Ditching ...........................................................................................3-22
3.4.1.5 Pit Dewatering ................................................................................................3-22

March 2018
3.4.2 Little Homer Sector .........................................................................................3-22

3.4.2.1 Little Homer Creek Crossing ...........................................................................3-23
3.4.2.2 Little Homer Settling Pond (LHPO) .................................................................3-23
3.4.2.3 Roadside Ditching ...........................................................................................3-24
3.4.2.4 Little Homer Sump and Pipeline (LHSU) .........................................................3-24
3.4.2.5 Pit Dewatering ................................................................................................3-24
3.4.3 Upper Tributary Redcap (UTRC) Sector .........................................................3-24
3.4.3.1 Interception Pond (UTRC1-SU-1) ...................................................................3-25
3.4.4 Redcap Sector ................................................................................................3-25
3.4.4.1 Redcap Creek Settling Pond (RCPO) .............................................................3-26
3.4.4.2 Redcap Contact Water Ditch (RCCD) .............................................................3-26
3.4.4.3 Pit Dewatering. ...............................................................................................3-26
3.4.5 Maintenance and Operation ............................................................................3-26
3.5 Selenium Management ...........................................................................................3-27
3.5.1 Strategies for Managing Selenium ..................................................................3-27
3.5.2 Selenium Trend Assessment ..........................................................................3-29
3.5.3 Selenium Monitoring .......................................................................................3-29
3.5.4 Conclusions ....................................................................................................3-30
3.6 Additional Mine Operations Considerations ............................................................3-30
3.6.1 Materials Handling Assumptions .....................................................................3-30
3.6.2 Pre-construction ..............................................................................................3-30
3.6.3 Construction....................................................................................................3-31
3.6.4 Haulroads .......................................................................................................3-31
3.6.5 Water Crossings .............................................................................................3-32
3.6.6 Power Transmission .......................................................................................3-32
3.6.7 Drilling and Blasting ........................................................................................3-32
3.6.8 Heavy Equipment............................................................................................3-33
3.6.9 Support Facilities ............................................................................................3-33
3.6.10 Pit Dewatering ................................................................................................3-34
3.6.11 Coal Handling and Processing ........................................................................3-34
3.6.12 Geotechnical Conditions .................................................................................3-34
3.6.12.1 Open Pits ........................................................................................................3-34
3.6.12.2 Ex-Pit Waste Dumps (Redcap Dump and MacKenzie Dump(s)) .....................3-35
3.6.12.3 Haulroad Corridor ...........................................................................................3-35
3.7 Continual Planning .................................................................................................3-36
3.8 Financial Security ...................................................................................................3-36
3.9 Health, Safety and Environmental Management .....................................................3-36

March 2018
3.9.1 Corporate Policies...........................................................................................3-36

3.9.2 Health and Safety Program .............................................................................3-37
3.9.3 Emergency Response Plan .............................................................................3-38
3.9.4 Environmental Protection Program .................................................................3-38
3.9.5 Health, Safety and Environment Integration into Project Management ............3-39
3.9.6 Fire Control Plan .............................................................................................3-39
3.9.7 Worker Competence and Training Program ....................................................3-39
List of Tables Page
Table 3.0-1 Summary of Project Footprint Components .....................................................3-1

Table 3.1-1 MKRC Project – Proposed Mineral Surface Lease Boundary ..........................3-2
Table 3.1-2 Administrative Boundaries for Pit and Dump Licences for MacKenzie Redcap
Project .............................................................................................................3-3
Table 3.2-1 Project Phases and General Activities .............................................................3-6
Table 3.2-2 Coal Reserve and Material Balance for MKRC Pits .........................................3-8
Table 3.3-1 Annual Mining Volumes and Schedule for MKRC ..........................................3-12
Table 3.3-2 Ex-Pit/In-Pit Waste Disposal (million loose cubic metres) ..............................3-13
Table 3.3-3 Waste Material Balance (million loose cubic metres) .....................................3-14
Table 3.4.1 Surface Water Management Schedule ..........................................................3-19
Table 3.6-1 Heavy Equipment Fleet .................................................................................3-33
List of Figures
Figure 3.1-1 Proposed Pit Licences
Figure 3.1-2 Proposed Dump Licences
Figure 3.2-1 Annual Progression Map - End of Year 2019 (Year 1)
Figure 3.4-1 Water Management Plan General Arrangement
Figure 3.4-2 Water Management Plan Overview of MacKenzie Sector
Figure 3.4-3 Water Management Plan Overview of Little Homer Sector
Figure 3.4-4 Water Management Plan Overview of UTRC Sector and Redcap Sector
Figure 3.7-1 Potential Future Haulroad Alignment
Teck Resources Limited Page 3-iii

March 2018
3.0 Project Description

Cardinal River Coals Ltd. is proposing to develop the next and final phase of the Cheviot Coal Mine with
the proposed MacKenzie Redcap (MKRC) Project (the Project). The Cheviot Coal Mine is located
approximately 300 kilometres (km) west of Edmonton and 70 km south of Hinton, Alberta (Figure 1.0-1
and Figure 1.0-2). Other nearby communities include the Hamlet of Cadomin 12 km to the north, Alexis
Sioux Nation Reserve #234 located 12 km to southeast, and the Mountain Cree Community 30 km to the
southeast.
The Project is the next phase of development in the approved Cheviot Mine (Alberta Energy Regulator
[AER] Mine Permit C2003-4A) and is expected to produce approximately 1.5 million tonnes of clean coal
annually, although annual production targets may be up to 3 million tonnes of clean coal. The six phases
of the Cheviot Coal Mine include the Prospect, Cheviot Creek, McLeod, Harris, Upper Harris and the
MacKenzie Redcap pits (Figure 1.0-3). The MKRC area is adjacent to the Upper Harris Extension pit
development (Figure 1.0-3). Progressive reclamation activities at the Cheviot Coal Mine begin when a
mining or spoiling area are completed. This reclamation approach will continue for the Project.
The life of the Project is expected to be approximately nine years. The proposed mine plan would extend
the operations to 2027. At that point, the reserves will be depleted and the decommissioning and closure
plan will be executed. The proposed mining and associated infrastructures of the Project are provided in
Table 3.0-1.
CRO currently employs 352 people, as well as contractors. With the continuation of mining in the MKRC
area, continued employment also occurs. Conversely, if mining is not approved, then employment will not
continue which would have a considerable impact in the region.
Table 3.0-1 Summary of Project Footprint Components

Powerline 21.9
Soil Stockpile 32.6
Total 606.5

March 2018
3.1 Existing and Planned Development
The Project is a component of the approved Cheviot Coal Mine, which began mining in 2004 and includes
the existing Prospect, Cheviot Creek, McLeod, Harris, Upper Harris and the proposed MKRC pits
(Figure 1.0-2). The MKRC pits on the eastern extent of the Cheviot Coal Mine constitute the next and final
phase of development of the Cheviot Coal Mine. If the Project is approved, Cardinal River Coals Ltd.
anticipates that all currently licenced coal in the Cheviot Coal Mine will be mined by 2027.
The disturbance associated with the Project is approximately 606.5 ha. A portion of the Project is already
covered by MSL No. 041321 (Figure 3.1-1). The lands required for the proposed MSL amendment are
provided in Table 3.1-1 and shown on Figure 1.0-4 and cover approximately 2,282 ha. The latitude and
longitude coordinates for the MSL are shown on Figure 1.0-4, for the following areas:
• NW corner of MSL – 52.943408N; -117.199491E
• SW corner of MSL – 52.916095N; -117.241404E

• NE corner of MSL – 52.919703N; -117.096342E
• SE corner of MSL – 52.90145N; -117.09306E
Table 3.1-1 MKRC – Proposed Mineral Surface Lease Boundary
Twp-Rge Meridian Section LSD LSD ¼
4 NW, NE, SW
6 ½ NW, ½ SW
26
12 SW, NW, ½ NE, ½ SE
045-22 W5M 13 ¼ NW, SW
28 1, 2, 5-16
27, 31, 32, 33
1-7, 12
34 8, 13 SW
11 NW, SW, SE
35 1, 2-8
045-23 W5M
36 1-8, 9, 16
4 2, 3, 4
046-22 W5M
5 1-7, 12

March 2018
11, 13 SW, SE
1, 2-12
6
13-16 SW, SE
1, 8, 9
046-23 W5M 1
16 SW, SE
The proposed locations for the MKRC pit and dump licences are listed in Table 3.1-2 and shown on
Figures 3.1-1 and 3.1-2.
Table 3.1-2 MKRC – Administrative Boundaries for Pit and Dump Licences
Twp-Rge Meridian Section LSD LSD 1/4
MK1 Pit
8 NW, SW
7
046-23 W5M 1
5, 6 NW, NE
10, 11, 12 SW, SE
MK2 Pit
15
045-22 W5M 31
14 NE
2 SW
046-22 W5M 6 3
4 NE, SE
MK3 Pit
8 NE
9, 15
045-22 W5M 32 10, 14 NW, NE, SE
13 NE
16 SW
2 SW
3 SW, NW, SE
5
4
046-22 W5M
5 SW, SE
1 SE, NW, NE
6
7 NE, SE

March 2018
8
MK4 Pit
15 NE, SE
31
16
13
045-22 W5M
14 NW, SW
32
12 NW, NE
11 NW
RC1-RC5 Pits
7 NW, NE
8 NW
9 SW, NW
27
10, 11, 13-15
12 NW, NE, SE
16 SW
14 NE
045-22 W5M 28
15, 16
1-3, 5-8, 10-12
4 NE
9 SW, SE
33
13 SE, NE
14 NW, SW, SE
15 SW
RCEX Dump
2, 8 NW
3,4 NW, NE
5, 6, 10-15
27
7 NE, NE, SW
045-22 W5M 9 NW, SW
16 SW
1 NW, NE
28 7, 10 NE, SE
8, 9, 15, 16

March 2018
14 NE
1-3, 5-8, 10-12
4 NE
9 SW, SE
33
13 NE, SE
14 NW, SW, SE
15 SW
2 SW, SE, NW
34 3-5
6 SW, SE
MK3EX1 Dump
14 NE
31
15, 16
11 NW
045-22 W5M
12 NE, NW
32
13
14 NW, SW
3 NW, SW
5 4
046-22 W5M 5 SW, SE
1-4, 8
6
7 NE, SE
1 NE
5, 6 NW, NE
046-23 W5M 1
7, 8
11, 12 SW, SE
MK3EX2 Dump
8 NE
9, 10, 15
045-22 W5M 32
11, 14 SE, NE
16 SW
2 SW
046-22 W5M 5
3 SE

March 2018
3.2 MKRC Mine Extension
The Project will be a typical truck and shovel open-pit coal mine operation with waste stripping being
carried out by conventional drilling and blasting, equipment such as large electric and hydraulic shovels,
and coal loaded by excavators and front-end loaders. Mining and waste rock sequencing will be
integrated to ensure efficient waste rock removal and to maximize back-filling of mined out areas. Coal
will be hauled approximately 35 km from the proposed MKRC pits along the existing Cheviot Haulroad to
the existing CPP at the Luscar Mine, where it will be crushed, cleaned, dried, and loaded onto trains for
transport to market. Major activities associated with the Project include pre-construction, construction,
operations, decommissioning, closure, and reclamation (Table 3.2-1). As part of the long range planning
function, the optimization of the sequence and pit extents are re-evaluated annually to meet market
demand. The phases for the Project are provided in Table 3.2-1. The planned annual mining and
development progression is shown on Figures 3.2-1 to 3.2-9. Completion of Project phases are
dependent on achieving planned productivities, actual completion dates may vary.
Table 3.2-1 Project Phases and General Activities
Project Phase Project Calendar Year Mine Development Activities

Year
Pre-construction 1 to 3 2019 to 2021 • Timber and brush clearing.

• Soil salvage and stockpiling.
Construction 1 to 4 2019 to 2022 • Construction of MacKenzie and Little
Homer Creek clear span bridges.
• Construction of powerline extension
from Harris pit to Redcap.
• Construction of water management
structures.
• Construction of Haulroad to Redcap.
• Construction of Radio Transmission
Tower.
Operations 1 to 9 2019 to 2027 • Blasting and removal of waste rock.
• Mining and processing of raw coal.
• Transporting to market.
Reclamation 3 to 9(+) 2021 to • Contouring of waste rock dumps to
2027(+) acceptable configuration.
• Restoration of roadways to natural
state.
• Coversoil and seed for closure.
Decommissioning and 10+ 2028+ • Contouring of waste rock dumps to
Closure acceptable configuration.
• Ongoing monitoring and maintenance.
• Restoration of roadways and powerline
corridors to natural state.

March 2018
3.2.1 Pit Economics/Design Criteria
CRO conducts annual evaluations of licenced and planned pits as part of a long-range planning process.
The steps involved in developing the long-range plan include the following:
• geological models are updated with any new exploration drill-hole information;
• operating cost assumptions are updated based on a review of historical costs and then adjusted
to account for projected changes based on commodity price forecasts, operating configurations,
and future contractual provisions;
• operating cost inputs include mining, coal processing, overhead, equipment leasing, closure, rail
transportation, port, and marketing;
• revenue assumptions are updated to reflect current contract coal pricing and future
pricing/exchange rate forecasts;
• these cost and revenue assumptions are used to populate a set of three-dimensional blocks
through the deposit to generate an individual block value;
• a pit finding exercise is completed using discrete mathematics in the application of a
Lerchs-Grossman (LG) algorithm to determine the ultimate pit;
• using the resultant LG shell as the foundation, the ultimate pit is adjusted to adhere to
geotechnical dictates and operating room constraints;
• the ultimate pit is sub-divided into discrete operational phases that form the basis for time
weighted scheduling of the reserve and have been designed to account for safe operating room,
adequate coal release, backfill opportunities, coal access, and water management;
• analysis of localized risks and opportunities to determine economic cutoffs (e.g., the value of
accessible coal in and under a creek bed versus the mitigation and reclamation costs associated
with fish bearing streams);
• inclusion of social concerns from Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) and First Nation
consultation, such as minimize the impact to MacKenzie Creek, which has resulted in the
decision to leave a break between MK1 and MK2 pits; and
• inclusion of environmental concerns such as fisheries and water quality, which has resulted in the
decision to leave a break between MK2 and MK4 pits, due to the presence of fish and fish
habitat.
3.2.2 Coal Reserves
The coal reserves for the MKRC pits that comprise this application are summarized in Table 3.2-2. The
detailed bench reserve summary is provided in Appendix 5. The nine mining phases included in these
coal reserves are exclusive to the Project (i.e., they are the phases located in the proposed MKRC
development area only). These reserves were based on the following criteria:
• adherence to geotechnical considerations for pit slope design;
• pit coal loss due to mining efficiency on the main Jewel seams;
• rider seams are not generally recoverable and are not included in economic decisions;

March 2018
• variable plant yield based on in-situ ash content for the main Jewel seam; and
• waste re-handle factor for over dig and re-handle concerns.
Teck is a publicly traded company that maintains an internal Reserves Committee of the Board. Reserve
estimates have been prepared using committee-approved short and long-term commodity prices and
exchange rates.
Table 3.2-2 Coal Reserve and Material Balance for MKRC Pits
Mining Phase Name Waste Raw Coal Clean Coal Ratio

Order (BCM(a)) (RMT(b)) (CMT(c)) (BCM/CMT)
1 MacKenzie 1 (MK1) 1,612,000 531,000 347,000 4.6:1

2 MacKenzie 2 (MK2) 836,000 380,000 257,000 3.3:1
3 MacKenzie 3 (MK3) 5,805,000 1,006,000 662,000 8.8:1
4 MacKenzie 4 (MK4) 1,939,000 807,000 559,000 3.5:1
5 Redcap 1 (RC1) 23,886,000 4,761,000 3,141,000 7.6:1
6 Redcap 2 (RC2) 17,572,000 3,748,000 2,487,000 7.1:1
7 Redcap 3 (RC3) 31,070,000 4,821,000 3,254,000 9.5:1
8 Redcap 4 (RC4) 28,762,000 3,792,000 2,585,000 11.1:1
9 Redcap 5 (RC5) 2,257,000 359,000 247,000 9.1:1
Total 113,739,000 20,206,000 13,539,000 8.4:1
(a)
BCM – bank cubic metres
(b)
RMT – raw metric tonnes
(c)
CMT – clean metric tonnes
In the 1996 Application and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), the Cheviot Coal Mine was predicted
to produce 65.3 million CMT of clean coal and 617.1 million bank cubic metres (BCM) of waste rock with an
average strip ratio of 9.4:1 BCM waste/CMT coal. When the Project is complete, the mine will have
produced 39 million CMT of clean coal and 361 million BCM of waste rock with an average strip ratio of
9.2:1 BCM waste/CMT coal. The main differences are the removal of Prospect phases at and above tree
line, local economic impacts of disturbing and reclaiming waterways, and the incorrect original assumption
that rider coal seams would be both easily recoverable and of coking quality.
3.2.3 Mine Plan Review
Life of mine plans are evaluated annually. The Project is a capital-intensive development that features a
long haulroad including multiple stream crossing structures and multiple areas where fish and water
impacts are a concern.
The current life of mine plan and schedule are based on an optimized mine plan that seeks to minimize
capital expenditure on new equipment, effects to fish-bearing streams and other waterways and to
maximize pit backfilling to reduce the size of ex-pit disposal areas and end pit lakes. The mine plan would
extend the life of the Cheviot Coal Mine to 2027. At that point the reserves will be depleted and the
decommissioning and closure plan will be executed.

March 2018
3.2.4 Pit Phasing
The proposed Project is a continuation of the pit sequencing from the Cheviot Coal Mine and most
directly is an extension to the Upper Harris Extension development. The annual mining and development
progression are shown on Figures 3.2-1 to 3.2-9. These phases have been incorporated into the overall
mine plan. The MacKenzie pits are roughly mined from west to east through steep topography with a
focus on avoiding fish bearing streams. The Redcap pits are contiguous syncline/anticline/synclinal
structures that are roughly mined in a clockwise fashion from the northern limits. Annual production levels
were developed with consideration given to the site’s overall production commitments and operational
considerations such as fleet size, fleet maintenance, auxiliary support requirements, and phase access
constraints. The pit phases were also designed to comply with the guidelines as laid out in the Tetra Tech
geotechnical reports (Appendix 4) for the MKRC area.
The geological cross sections (Figures 2.1-3 to 2.1-29) contain the highwall locations and ultimate levels
of in-pit backfill. The cross sections start in the west and follow the Jewel 1 Lower (J1L) seam as a
moderately dipping monoclinal structure, dipping to the south, in the MK1, MK2, and MK4 pits. A regional
level fault separates the J1L coal from the Jewel 1 Upper (J1U) to the north. The J1U seam daylights to
the west in MK3 as a closely folded syncline. As the J1U seam trends to the east, it becomes a
moderately dipping monoclinal structure dipping to the south. The J1U seam joins with the J1M seam in a
syncline/anticline structure that daylights in the western portion of RC4 and continues into RC5. There is
a brief length of overlap of both J1U and J1M seams where the J1M is structurally below the J1U. The
southern extent of the seam continues to dip to the south deeper than is economically recoverable. At the
southeastern limits of RC4, the syncline is at depth and the coal expresses as a monoclinal structure
dipping to the south. The northwestern limit of RC1 is a synclinal structure in J1L coal that shallowly dips
to the east. Near the RC1/RC2 boundary, there is a splitting of the J1L coal into J1L and J1M seams that
continue to trend to the southwest. The J1L is structurally below the J1M and becomes a monoclinal
structure dipping to the south. The J1L daylights to the north and continues to the east beyond economic
limits that are imposed by water management requirements. The J1M seam becomes a synclinal
structure that is shallowly dipping to the southeast. As the J1M trends to the southeast there is a
daylighting anticline that joints the RC1/RC2 synclinal structures to the RC4/RC5 synclinal structures
(shallowly dipping to the southeast). The J1M daylights to the north and continues to the east beyond
economic limits imposed by water management requirements.
The accessing and dumping plan does not sterilize any coal outside of planned backfilled pit areas. Areas
with steep topography or economic cut-offs related to water and/or fish management will have no added
impediments to future mining activities. Coal underlying ex-pit waste dumps are steeply dipping single
seams at depths of 200 m and more.
3.2.4.1 MacKenzie Phase 1 (MK1)
Phase 1 of the MKRC sequence (MK1) is contiguous to the North Limb of the existing licenced Harris pit
(Figure 3.2-1). It is a surface phase and abuts Harris Phase 10 (H10). Phase 1 is planned to be mined
entirely in 2019. MK1 is controlled by Harris Phase 10 to the west, by the daylighting J1L seam on the
north, highwall design requirements on the south, and is limited by the fish-bearing MacKenzie Creek to
the east. The original 1996 EIA planned for mining through MacKenzie Creek, which has now been
changed. The value of the accessible coal underlying MacKenzie Creek is less than the costs of
mitigation and reclamation associated with mining through the creek. As a result:

March 2018
• MacKenzie Creek will not be mined through;
• an environmental buffer has been included; and

• an open span creek crossing structure is planned to mitigate environmental impacts.
Waste rock from MK1 will be used to construct the Redcap haulroad and as fill for the MacKenzie Creek
crossing structure. Any additional waste rock will be used to backfill Harris Phase 10.
The final pit configuration will have some highwall and footwall that will remain in place. By not mining
between MK1 and MK2, there is approximately 370,000 CMT of coal and 2,350,000 BCM of overburden
left in place.
Phase 2 of the MKRC sequence (MK2; Figure 3.2-1) is also located on J1L coal seam. It is a surface
phase that is cut off by steep topography to the west and the fish-bearing Little Homer Creek to the east.
The initial mine plan had a continuous pit across Little Homer Creek that joined with the MK4 Pit.
Environmental considerations related to diverting and managing flows in Little Homer Creek led to a
change in the mine plan:
• the creek will not be mined through;
• an environmental buffer has been included;
• an open span creek crossing structure is planned; and

• the sedimentation ponds have been moved away from the creek to mitigate environmental
impacts.
The value of the accessible coal underlying Little Homer Creek is less than the costs of mitigation and
reclamation of the creek bed. MK2 is planned to be mined entirely in 2019. The phase is controlled by
steep topography on the west, the daylighting J1L seam on the north, the economic cut-off at Little Homer
Creek on the east, and highwall design requirements to the south. Waste rock from MK2 will be used to
construct the Redcap haulroad and the Little Homer open span crossing structure. Any additional waste
rock will be used to backfill MK1.
The final pit configuration will have some highwall and footwall that will remain in place. By not mining
between MK2 and MK4, there is approximately 59,000 CMT of coal and 310,000 BCM of overburden left
in place.
Phase 3 of the MKRC sequence (MK3; Figure 3.2-1 and Figure 3.2-2) is controlled by the J1U seam
daylighting on the north and west, and highwall design requirements on the south. The eastern limit of the
phase ties into the RC4 and RC5 phases. MK3 is planned to be mined in 2019 and 2020. Waste rock
from MK3 will mostly go to ex-pit waste dumps (MKEX1 and MKEX2). Any additional waste rock will be
used to backfill completed portions of MK3. The backfilled MK3 pit will become a portion of the Redcap
haulroad, which helps reduce the footprint of the extension.

March 2018
Phase 4 of the MKRC sequence (MK4; Figure 3.2-1 and Figure 3.2-2) is controlled by the J1L seam
daylighting on the north, increasing depth of coal and a fault cut-off of the coal seam to the east, highwall
design requirements on the south, and the economic cut-off of the fish bearing Little Homer Creek to the
west. Mining in MK4 will start in 2019 with most of the mining completed in 2020. Waste rock from MK4
will mostly go to backfilling MK3 to build the Redcap haulroad. Any additional waste rock will be hauled to
ex-pit waste dumps (MKEX1).
3.2.4.5 Redcap Phase 1 (RC1)
Phase 5 of the MKRC sequence (RC1; Figures 3.2-2 to 3.2-4) is controlled by the J1L seam daylighting
on the north, south, and west, and interim highwall design requirements to the east. RC1 is planned to be
mined between 2020 and 2022. Waste rock from RC1 will mostly go to ex-pit waste dumps.
Phase 6 of the MKRC sequence (RC2; Figures 3.2-3 to 3.2-6) is controlled by the J1L seam daylighting
on the north, the J1M seam daylighting on the western portions of the south and increasing depth to coal
on the eastern portions of the south, an economic cut-off related to freshwater diversion management and
costs to the east, and the phase daylights to RC1 to the west. RC2 is scheduled to be mined between
2021 and 2024. Waste rock from RC2 will go to an ex-pit waste dump until the RC1 phase is completed
sufficiently to allow backfilling. This will result in approximately 40% of waste rock from RC2 being used
for in-pit dumping.
Phase 7 of the MKRC sequence (RC3; Figures 3.2-5 to 3.2-7) is controlled by the J1M seam on the north,
daylighting to surface and to RC2 to the west, an economic cut-off related to freshwater diversion
management and costs to the east and increasing depth to coal to the south. RC3 is scheduled to be
mined between 2023 and 2025. Waste rock from RC3 will go to backfilling RC1 and RC2. Any additional
waste rock will be hauled to ex-pit waste dumps.
The economic pit configuration terminates just west of UTRC4 (Figure 3.2-9). The coal continues to the
east but was not deemed economical to mine. There is approximately 840,000 CMT of coal and
5,100,000 BCM of overburden left in place.
Phase 8 of the MKRC sequence (RC4; Figure 3.2-7 and Figure 3.2-8) is controlled by the J1M seam
daylighting on the north and west, MK3 to the west and RC3 in the east, increasing depth to coal to the
east and south. RC4 is planned to be mined between 2024 and 2027. Waste rock from RC4 will be used
for backfilling RC2 and RC3.
Phase 9 of the MKRC sequence (RC5; Figure 3.2-8 and Figure 3.2-9) is mining out the access ramp that
provided access to RC3 backfilling from RC4. RC5 is controlled by the J1M seam on the north and west
and increasing depth to coal to the east and south. RC5 is planned to be mined between 2026 and 2027.

March 2018
Waste rock from RC4 will be used for backfilling the MK3 and MK4. The final pit configuration will have
some highwall and footwall that will remain in place. An end pit lake will remain as there is no further
mining activities to produce waste rock material for backfill.
3.2.5 Haulage Assumptions
The haulage assumptions used at the mine to model future schedules are derived from empirical models
as well as the use of information technology and mining-specific software. The combination of
MineSight3D mine planning software, TalPac haulage simulation software, and proprietary Teck
spreadsheets is designed to calculate haul truck cycle times for various road conditions based on
distances, grades, speeds, and rolling resistance of the fleets at the CRO.
3.2.6 Production Equipment Constraints
All schedules are constrained to the operating range of the mobile equipment fleet and the availability of
the fleet from a mechanical availability perspective. The current fleet consists of primary movers as well
as auxiliary support equipment such as graders for road maintenance, dozers, water trucks, and drills for
drilling and blasting. The primary earthmoving fleet consists of five loading units: two P&H electric
shovels, one Komatsu hydraulic excavator, and two Letourneau front end loaders. The primary
earthmoving and loading equipment employ a mixed fleet of trucking models. The trucking fleet is
primarily made up of Komatsu KMS 830Es ACs and coal-handling KMS 830E DCs and Kress trucks. The
length of the coal haul and the number of dedicated coal hauling trucks has historically constrained raw
coal delivery to the CPP.
3.2.7 Plant Constraints
The CPP has a maximum production capacity of 3 million CMT of coal produced per year. This maximum
capacity is not currently constraining the total coal production at the Cheviot Coal Mine.
3.3 Detailed Scheduling
The detailed mine and reclamation schedules along with the backfill plan are presented in the following
subsections. The detailed plan that is provided is the life of mine Base Case that has operations
scheduled to the first quarter of 2027. In the first quarter of 2027, the reserves are expected to be
depleted. This milestone will then trigger the closure and final reclamation phase of the Project. The
detailed coal and waste mining volumes and schedule by year are summarized in Table 3.3-1.
Reclamation will start in the MKRC area in 2021 and progress thereafter as the mine plan allows. The
detailed mine and reclamation sequencing is shown on Figures 3.2-1 to 3.2-9, which provide an estimate
of the annual activities.
Table 3.3-1 Annual Mining Volumes and Project Schedule
Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total
Coal Mined 1.1 3.5 2.4 2.2 2.5 3.2 2.2 2.3 0.7 20.2
(million RMT)
Clean Coal 0.7 2.3 1.6 1.5 1.7 2.2 1.5 1.6 0.5 13.5
(million CMT)

March 2018
Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total
Waste Mined 3.6 17.2 12.0 10.5 13.5 18.7 15.6 17.5 5.1 113.7
(million BCM)
3.3.1 Overall Material Balance/Backfill Strategy
The mine plan, subject to operational constraints, seeks to minimize ex-pit disturbance whenever possible
through in-pit backfilling of previous pit phases. There are also three ex-pit dumps planned for the Project.
The production schedule (Table 3.3-1) includes mining through to the completion of the Project. The total
volume of waste to be disposed is approximately 114 million BCM. Applying a swell factor of 30%
requires placement of almost 149 million loose cubic metres (LCM). Through detailed mine planning
efforts, CRO is planning to direct approximately 65% of the total waste back into previously mined areas,
with the remainder (35%) directed to the Harris ex-pit dump. A breakdown by disposal area, in-pit and ex-
pit has been included in Table 3.3-2.
Table 3.3-2 Ex-Pit/In-Pit Waste Disposal
Area Waste (million LCM) % of Total
MK3EX1 2.3 1.6%

MK3EX2 2.3 1.6%
RCEX 38.7 26.4%
Backfilling in pit 99.5 67.9%
Haulroad 3.7 2.5%
Total 146.5 100%
% -percentage
LCM – loose cubic metres
An annual breakdown of the waste disposal plan is included in Table 3.3-3.

March 2018
Table 3.3-3 Waste Material Balance (million LCM)
Mining Disposal Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Total
Phase Area (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (2024) (2025) (2026) (2027)
MK1 Haulroad 1.1 1.1

MK1 Backfill 1.0 1.0
MK3 MK3EX2 0.2 4.0 4.2
MK3 Backfill 2.0 2.0
MK4 Backfill 0.6 1.2 0.6
MK4 MK3EX1 0.4 0.4
RC1 Haulroad 0.1 0.1
RC1 RCEX 15.1 15.3 0.5 30.9
RC1 Backfill 0.1 0.1
RC2 Backfill 0.3 13.1 9.1 0.4 22.9
RC3 Backfill 8.5 14.8 9.2 0.1 32.6
RC3 RCEX 7.8 7.8
RC4 Backfill 11.1 22.6 3.7 37.4
RC5 Backfill 2.9 2.9
Total 4.7 22.4 15.6 13.7 17.6 24.3 20.3 22.7 6.6 146.5

March 2018
3.3.2 Annual Mine Plan Descriptions
3.3.2.1 Year 1 (2019)
Tree and brush clearing and soil salvage will commence within the Project area upon approval, prior to
construction and operations. The MacKenzie haulroad, powerline, radio transmission tower and access
road, and clear span crossing structures across MacKenzie and Little Homer creeks will be constructed in
2019. MacKenzie and Redcap water management structures are scheduled to be completed in 2019.
Mining activity will continue in the currently approved Harris pits. Mining and haulroad development will
start at MK1, work eastward through MK2, begin MK3 and MK4 (Figure 3.2-1). Mining in MK1 and MK2 is
scheduled to be completed in 2019. Waste will be used to create the running surface of the haulroad with
some being hauled to MKEX2. Any additional waste will be hauled to backfill the currently licenced Harris
pits.
3.3.2.2 Year 2 (2020)
Tree and brush clearing and soil salvage will continue in the Redcap pit area prior to construction and
operations. Mining activity will be completed in MK3 and begun in MK4 and RC1 (Figure 3.2-2). Mining
will progress down to 1,760 m elevation in MK4, and down to 1,805 m elevation in RC1. Waste from MK3
will be directed to the MK3EX1 and MKEX2 ex-pit dumps and to backfilling the MK3 pit for use as the
primary haulroad. Waste from MK4 will be used to backfill MK3. Waste from RC1 will go to the RCEX
ex-pit dump. The RCEX ex-pit dump will be developed up to 1,800 m elevation by year end. MK3 will be
backfilled up to 1,790 m elevation. The powerline will be extended south of the future RC3 pit.
3.3.2.3 Year 3 (2021)
Tree and brush clearing and soil salvage will continue in the Redcap pit area prior to construction and
operations. Mining activity will continue in RC1 and begin in RC2 (Figure 3.2-3). Mining will progress
down to 1,730 m elevation in RC1, and down to 1,835 m elevation in RC2. All waste will go to the RCEX
ex-pit dump. The RCEX ex-pit dump will be developed up to 1,830 m elevation by year end.
Reclamation can begin in MK1 as all mining and rock disposal activities will be completed (Figure 3.2-3).
3.3.2.4 Year 4 (2022)
Mining activity will be completed in RC1 and continue in RC2 (Figure 3.2-4). Mining will progress down to
1,760 m elevation in RC2. Backfilling of RC1 is targeted and will be done immediately upon completion of
RC1 mining. Prior to backfilling all waste will be sent to the RCEX ex-pit dump. The RCEX ex-pit dump
will continue to be developed at the 1,830 m elevation by year end. The RC1 backfill dump will be
developed to the 1,865 m elevation by year end.
Reclamation can begin in MK2 as all mining and rock disposal activities will be completed (Figure 3.2-4).
3.3.2.5 Year 5 (2023)
Mining activity will be completed in MK4, with coal going directly to the plant. Mining will continue in RC2
and will commence in RC3 (Figure 3.2-5). Mining will progress down to 1,685 m elevation in RC2, and
down to the 1,760 m elevation in RC3. Waste materials from MK4 will be used to backfill the completed
MK3 pit. Although backfilling is targeted and will be done as available in the Redcap pits, there are

March 2018
portions of the year when backfilling access is not available and the RCEX will be used. The RCEX ex-pit
dump will be developed at the 1,860 m elevation by year end. The RC2 backfill upper dump will be
completed to the 1,890 m elevation, and the main RC2 backfill dump will be developed to the 1,800 m
elevation.
Reclamation can begin along the south toe of RCEX as the lower lifts of the rock disposal area will be
completed (Figure 3.2-5).
3.3.2.6 Year 6 (2024)
Mining activity will continue in RC3 in Year 6 (Figure 3.2-6). Mining will progress down to the 1,715 m
elevation in RC3. Although backfilling is targeted and will be done as access is available, there are
portions of the year when constraints will result in the RCEX being used. The RCEX ex-pit dump will be
developed at the 1,890 m elevation by year end. Sections of the main RC2 backfill dump will be
developed to the 1,795 m, 1,830 m, and 1,865 m elevations.
Reclamation can begin in the north end of RC1, as all mining and rock disposal activities will be
completed (Figure 3.2-6).
3.3.2.7 Year 7 (2025)
Mining activity will be completed in RC3 and will commence in RC4 during Year 7 (Figure 3.2-7). Mining
will progress down to 1,760 m elevation in RC4. All waste is planned to be used to backfill the completed
RC2 and RC3 mining areas. Sections of the main RC2 and RC3 backfill dumps will be developed to the
1,775 m, and 1,830 m elevations.
Reclamation may be completed on RCEX, as all planned lifts of the rock disposal area will be completed
(Figure 3.2-7).
3.3.2.8 Year 8 (2026)
Mining activity will continue in RC4 and RC5 in Year 8 (Figure 3.2-8). Mining will progress down to
1,715 m elevation in RC4. All waste is planned to be used to backfill the completed RC2 and RC3 mining
area. Sections of the main RC2 and RC3 backfill dumps will be developed to the 1,825 m and 1,865 m
elevations.
Reclamation can begin in the south end of RC1 and south end or RC2, as all mining and rock disposal
activities will be completed (Figure 3.2-8).
3.3.2.9 Year 9 (2027)
All mining activity will be completed in 2027. RC4 will be completed, and RC5 will be started and
completed in 2027. (Figure 3.2-9). All RC4 waste is planned to be used to backfill the completed RC3
mining area. All RC5 waste is planned to be used to backfill the completed MK3 and MK4 pits. Sections
of the main RC3 backfill dumps will be developed to the 1,840 m and 1,865 m elevations. MK3 backfilling
will be completed to the 1,760 m elevation. MK4 backfilling will be completed to the 1,815 m elevation.
Reclamation can be completed in the remainder of RC2 and remainder of RC3 with the exception of the
end pit lake, as all mining and rock disposal activities will be completed (Figure 3.2-9). All remaining areas

March 2018
will be reclaimed after all mining activities are completed. Additional details regarding the reclamation
plan are provided in Section 6 – Conservation and Reclamation Plan.
3.4 Water Management Plan
The Project straddles the divide between the Athabasca River and North Saskatchewan River
watersheds (Figure 1.0-4). MacKenzie Creek is the largest watercourse within the Project area that lies in
the Athabasca River watershed. It has a drainage area of 28.9 square kilometres (km2) in the Mine Permit
Boundary. Redcap Creek is the largest watercourse within the Project area that lies in the North
Saskatchewan watershed. It has a drainage area of 17.1 km2 in the Cheviot Coal Mine Permit Boundary.
A water management plan was prepared for the MKRC Project to reduce the effects on:
• water quality;
• flow regimes of receiving streams;
• fish and fish habitat of receiving streams;
• public and operational staff safety; and
• public access.
The water management strategies used to achieve these objectives are to:
• follow regulatory requirements and guidelines;
• meet downstream flow needs by using sedimentation ponds to augment flows in natural
waterbodies (e.g., active dewatering from pit areas to sedimentation ponds);
• manage natural runoff (i.e., clean water) and contact water separately to the extent practical;
• reduce the number of sedimentation ponds, with more reliance on sumps and pumping;
• use pits (e.g., mined-out pits, in-pit backfills) for temporary water storage to reduce potential
effects on receiving streams; and
• optimize the configuration of facilities for ease of access and maintenance.
The water management facilities are divided into four sectors (Figure 3.4-1) based on watershed area
and/or on the types of water (i.e., clean or contact water). The prime purpose of these facilities is to
effectively reduce impacts to the local waterbodies and fish and fish habitat. These four sectors are listed
below:
• MacKenzie Sector (MK; Figure 3.4-2): contains one settling pond (MKPO), one sump (MKSU)
and road side ditches/culverts to capture and settle contact water from the haulroad and soil
stockpile. Runoff to pit MK1 will be managed in pit and conveyed to the Harris pits.
• Little Homer Sector (LHC; Figure 3.4-3): contains one settling pond (LHPO) and road side
ditches/culverts to capture and settle contact water from the haulroad, dumps (MK3EX1 and
MK3EX2), and operational releases from pits MK2, MK3 and MK4.

March 2018
• Unnamed Tributary to Redcap Creek Sector (UTRC; Figure 3.4-4): contains one clean water
diversion consisting of various sized pipelines (UTRC1-PL-1 and 2, UTRC2-PL-1 and 2) and
associated interception facilities (UTRC1-SU-1 and 2, UTRC2-SU-1 and 2, UTRC1-PU-1 and 2,
and UTRC2-PU-1 and 2). This diversion is along the north side of Redcap pits RC1 and RC2 to
prevent up-slope drainage from contacting the pit. The diversion releases to UTRC4.
• Redcap Sector (RC; Figure 3.4-4): contains one settling pond (RCPO) and one contact water
ditch (RCCD) to manage water from the RCEX dump and operational releases from Redcap pits
(RC1 to RC5). The end pit lake will also be located in this sector.
The design criteria used for the water management components include:
• Diversion Ditches – objective is to keep contact water contained and direct it to a location for
treatment or storage:
• diversion ditches have been designed to convey the one in 10-year peak discharge.
Diversion ditches will maintain a minimum freeboard of 0.5 m above the design discharge
elevation;
• diversion ditches will only be required for contact water;
• side slopes will vary from 1H:1V to 3H:1V depending upon materials encountered;
• design bed slopes will be a minimum of 2% to minimize ice and debris build-up;
• minimum bed width will be 1 m in consideration of ease of construction for an excavator;

and
• access and maintenance benches will be constructed adjacent to diversion ditches, with
a width of 5 m, side slopes varying from 1H:1V to 3H:1V depending upon materials
encountered.
• Clean Water Diversion – objective is to keep clean water away from mine wastewater and being
deemed contact water:
• clean water diversions, including sumps or interception ponds, pumps and pipelines have
been designed to collectively convey the one in 10-year event;
• pipelines will be engineered to ensure consistency with other pipelines at CRO;
• pipelines will be constructed above ground on 8 m wide benches to facilitate access and
maintenance, and anchored with soil anchors, for consistency with anchoring systems at
CRO; and
• embankment slopes will vary from 1H:1V to 3H:1V depending upon materials
encountered.
• Sedimentation Ponds – recommended design criteria for sedimentation ponds were based on
technical guidelines from Alberta (GoA 2013d, AER 2014a) and British Columbia (BC Ministry of
Environment [BCMOE] 2015), consideration of successful previous practice at CRO, and
following EPEA Approval 46972-01-00 (as amended):

March 2018
• sedimentation ponds will be sized to meet the settleable solids criteria of 0.5 millilitres per
litre (mL/L) for all water inflows up to the 10-year storm event to comply with design
guidelines (AER 2014a);
• ponds will be sized to capture the 15 micron soil particle for the 10-year, 24-hour runoff
event, without flocculant;
• particle sizes smaller than 15 microns will require flocculant in controlled proportions to
prevent effects to the sedimentation rate and the effluent quality;
• spillways will be sized to the one in 200-year peak discharge and will be designed to
maintain 0.5 m of freeboard during the design runoff events and a minimum freeboard of
1.0 m under normal operating conditions (BCMOE 2015); and
• a smaller primary pond will be provided upstream of sedimentation ponds discussed
above to remove coarse sediment (BCMOE 2015).
• Mined out pits – purpose is to use the mined out pits to capture and store surface runoff and
contact water, and releasing it when it is of suitable quality.
• Dams – required for construction of sedimentation ponds, which are required to store and treat
contact water prior to release to the surface waterbodies:
• the designs for embankments that meet the definition of a “dam” (i.e., a structure
providing a storage capacity of 30,000 m3 or more and 2.5 m or greater in height) are
based on applicable guidelines and requirements (CDA 2013, GoA 1999).
The facilities are expected to be constructed by the end of 2019 and operational during the mining period.
The approximate timelines are presented in Table 3.4.1.
Table 3.4-1 Surface Water Management Schedule
Year Mine Year Active Mine / Development Activities Surface Water Management Facilities
2019 Year 1 - haulroad extended from Harris pit to - all Water Management infrastructure is
(Figure 3.2-1) accommodate all MKRC Mining. constructed in Year 1.
- mining in MK and LHC Sectors. - operational releases from pits MK2 and MK3
- MK1 and MK2 pits complete; MK3 pit at are conveyed LHPO. (Operational releases
1,775 m. from pit MK1 are managed in Harris pit).
- waste from MK1 and MK2 pits mostly - runoff from MK3EX1 dump is conveyed to
used for haulroad construction and to LHPO.
backfill completed Harris and MK1 pits.
MK3 waste goes to MK3EX1 dump.
2020 Year 2 - mining in MK and RC Sectors. MK3 and - operational releases from pits MK3 and MK4
(Figure 3.2-2) MK4 Pits complete; RC1 Pit at 1,760 m. are conveyed to LHPO and from RC1 Pit to
- waste mostly goes to MK3EX1, RCPO.
MK3EX2, and RCEX dumps. - runoff from MK3EX1 is conveyed to LHPO.
Runoff from MK3EX2 dump drains into pit
MK3.
- runoff from RCEX dump is conveyed to
RCPO.

March 2018
Year Mine Year Active Mine / Development Activities Surface Water Management Facilities
2021 Year 3 - mining in RC Sector. RC1 Pit at - operational releases from pits RC1 and RC2
(Figure 3.2-3) 1,730 m, RC2 Pit at 1,835 m. are conveyed to RCPO.
- waste goes to RCEX dump. - runoff from MK3EX1 and MK3EX2 dumps is
conveyed to LHPO.
RCPO.
2022 Year 4 - mining in RC Sector. RC1 pit complete, - operational releases from pits RC1 and RC2
(Figure 3.2-4) RC2 Pit at 1,760 m. are conveyed to RCPO.
- waste backfilled in RC1 and RCEX - runoff from MK3EX1 is conveyed to LHPO.
dump. Runoff from MK3EX2 dump drains into pit
MK3.
RCPO.
2023 Year 5 - mining in MK and RC Sector. MK4 and - operational releases from pits RC2 and RC3
(Figure 3.2-5) RC2 pits are complete, RC3 pit is at to RCPO.
1,760 m. - runoff from MK3EX1 is conveyed to LHPO.
- waste backfilled in RC2 pit and RC3 pit Runoff from MK3EX2 dump drains into pit
upper benches, and RCEX dump. MK3.
RCPO.
2024 Year 6 - mining in RC Sector. RC3 pit at 1,715 m. - operational releases from RC3 pit to RCPO.
(Figure 3.2-6) - waste backfilled in RC2 and RC3 pits - runoff from MK3EX11 is conveyed to LHPO.
and RCEX dump. Runoff from MK3EX2 dump drains into pit
MK3.
RCPO.
2025 Year 7 - mining in RC Sector. RC3 pit is - operational releases from RC3 and RC4 pits
(Figure 3.2-7) complete, RC4 pit is at 1,760 m. to RCPO.
- waste backfilled in RC3 pit. - runoff from MK3EX1 is conveyed to LHPO.
MK3.
RCPO.
2026 Year 8 - mining in RC Sector; RC4 pit is at - operational releases from RC4 and RC5 pits
(Figure 3.2-8) 1,715 m. to RCPO.
- waste backfilled in RC2 and RC3 pits. - runoff from MK3EX1 is conveyed to LHPO.
MK3.
RCPO.
2027 Year 9 - mining complete in RC4 and RC5 pits. - operational releases from RC4 and RC5 pits
(Figure 3.2-9) - Waste backfilled in RC2, RC3, MK3 and to RCPO.
MK4 pits. - runoff from MK3EX1 is conveyed to LHPO.
- filling of end pit lake (pits RC4 and RC5) Runoff from MK3EX2 dump drains into pit
commences MK3.
RCPO.

March 2018
3.4.1 MacKenzie Sector
The MacKenzie Sector is located in the vicinity of MacKenzie Creek and includes the clear span crossing
structure across MacKenzie Creek and is shown on Figure 3.4-2. The key water management
components in this sector include:
• MacKenzie Creek Crossing;

• MacKenzie Settling Pond (MKPO);
• MacKenzie Sump and Pipeline (MKSU);
• Roadside Ditching; and
• Pit Dewatering.
Each of these components and their function are described in the section below.
3.4.1.1 MacKenzie Creek Crossing
The haulroad will cross MacKenzie Creek just downstream of the confluence of UTMC3 with MacKenzie
Creek (with a drainage area of 8.7 km2). CRO will plan to use a structural plate corrugated steel pipe
(SPCSP) arch culvert to span the creek. The SPCSP arch culvert was designed to convey the 100-year
flood peak discharge of the MacKenzie Creek, which was estimated to be 20.9 m3/s.
Surface run-off from the haulroad on the east side of the crossing, will flow through a culvert and will
cross over the structure. The water will flow west over the crossing structure and will cross the haulroad in
a culvert before being directed to a sump (MKSU). Water in the sump will be pumped to the MacKenzie
Sedimentation Pond (MKPO).
No in-stream work will be required during construction which increases protection of the stream. Other
features of the crossing will allow contact water to be safely conveyed to MKPO for treatment prior to
release.
3.4.1.2 MacKenzie Settling Pond (MKPO)
The MKPO pond has a drainage area of 0.44 km2 with a storage capacity of 35,000 m3. It was designed
to capture particles of 15 microns or greater during the 10-year flood peak discharge (i.e. 0.56 m3/s). The
pond embankment to create the sedimentation pond was designed to extend across the valley walls, with:
• a maximum downstream embankment height of 17 m (from approximately 1705 m to 1722.0 m);

• an approximate 10 m wide crest;
• side slopes of 3H:1V;
• spillway designed to pass flows up to the 200 year flood peak discharge that will discharge to
MacKenzie Creek; and
• 0.5 m of freeboard beyond the derived 200 year design water surface elevation. The
embankment will be constructed of common fill with a drainage layer to lower the phreatic
surface.

March 2018
The embankment will be higher than 2.5 m and retain more than 30,000 m3 at its full storage capacity of
35,000 m3. The embankment will be classified as a dam under the Alberta Dam and Canal Safety
Guidelines (GoA 1999) and an application will be submitted six months prior to construction.
All surface runoff and pit water from this sector will be treated and released through this pond keeping the
MacKenzie Creek clean. CRO plans to use flocculants (floc), which have been approved for use by the
AER (and are listed in Section 4.2.8 of the EPEA approval) as necessary to assist in removal of
suspended solids.
3.4.1.3 MacKenzie Sump and Pipeline (MKSU)
The primary purpose of the MKSU sump is to collect surface run-off from the east side of the crossing,
and then pump it up to the MKPO pond. The sump will have a drainage area of 0.11 km2 and was sized to
have a storage capacity of 205 m3 with a surface area of 121 m2 (at normal operating level). This
component will prevent contact water from entering MacKenzie Creek and directing it to MKPO for
treatment and release. No sumps in the surface water management system will discharge to the
environment.
3.4.1.4 Roadside Ditching
On the west side of the MacKenzie Creek crossing all surface run-off will drain to the south where a
contact water ditch will be constructed. The road-side ditch (MKCD) will be mostly constructed on the
uphill side of the road. The ditch will convey the contact water to the MKPO pond, for the portions of the
ditch located upslope of the pond. The road that is downslope of the MKPO will have the run-off flow to
the MKSU, where it will get pumped up to the inlet of the MKPO pond.
Surface run-off from the haulroad on the east side of the crossing, will pass through a culvert over the
crossing structure. The water will flow west over the structure and will cross the haulroad in a culvert
before being directed to a sump (MKSU). Water in the sump will be pumped to the MKPO for treatment
and release.
The ditch is designed to convey at least the 10-year flood peak discharges upstream of the MKPO pond.
3.4.1.5 Pit Dewatering
Surface run-off and groundwater that reports to the MK1 pit will be pumped to the extent practical for the
purpose of maintaining safe working conditions during mining operations. Operational sumps and pumps
will be located in strategic locations near the active mining in the MK1 pit and will pump water to the
MKCD road side ditch, where it will flow to the MKPO pond for treatment and release to MacKenzie Creek
or back to the west to the UHEA area for treatment through that system.
3.4.2 Little Homer Sector
The Little Homer sector is located in the vicinity of Little Homer Creek and includes a clear span crossing
structure and is shown on Figure 3.4-3. The key water management components in this sector include:
• Little Homer Creek Crossing;
• Little Homer Settling Pond (LHPO);

March 2018
• Little Homer Sump and Pipeline (LHSU);
• Roadside Ditching; and

• Pit Dewatering.
3.4.2.1 Little Homer Creek Crossing
The haulroad will cross Little Homer Creek just downstream of MK2 and MK4 pits (with drainage area of
5.93 km2). CRO plans to use a structural plate corrugated steel pipe (SPCSP) arch culvert to span the
creek similar to the MacKenzie Creek crossing. It will be designed to withstand the 100-year flood peak
discharge of 15.9 m3/s. No in-stream work is expected for its construction.
The haulroad on the east side of the crossing will be graded so that all surface run-off will flow to the east
away from the crossing and eventually to the Little Homer Pond (LHPO). All run-off from the west side of
the crossing will be directed toward the MK2 pit. As the MK2 pit is being developed, the run-off will be
captured in a sump (LHSU) and then pumped to the contact water drainage ditch on the east side of the
crossing, eventually going to the LHPO.
No in-stream work will be required during construction which increases protection of the stream. Other
features of the crossing will allow contact water to be safely conveyed to LHPO for treatment prior to
release.
3.4.2.2 Little Homer Settling Pond (LHPO)
The LHPO will have a storage capacity of 56,700 m3 and a surface area of 10,100 m2 (at normal
operating level). It is designed to capture particles of 15 microns or greater during the 10-year flood peak
discharge of 1.1 m3/s. The drainage area for LHPO is 0.96 km2. The pond embankment was designed to
extend across the valley walls with:
• an approximate downstream embankment height of 19 m (from 1708 m to 1727 m);

• side slopes of 3H:1V (upstream) and 3.5H:1V (downstream);
Little Homer Creek; and
• 0.5 m of freeboard beyond the derived 200-year flood peak water surface elevation.
The embankment will be higher than 2.5 m and retain more than 30,000 m 3 of water at its full storage
capacity of 76,000 m3. The embankment will be classified as a dam under the Alberta Dam and Canal
Safety Guidelines (GoA 1999) and an application will be submitted six months prior to construction.
All surface runoff and pit water from this sector will be treated and released through this pond, keeping
the Little Homer Creek clean. CRO plans to use flocculants (floc), which have been approved for use by
AER (and are listed in Section 4.2.8 of the EPEA approval) to assist in removal of suspended solids.

March 2018
3.4.2.3 Roadside Ditching
On the west side of the Little Homer Creek crossing, all surface run-off will drain to the east via a contact
water ditch. The road-side ditch (MKCD) will be constructed on the uphill side of the road. The ditch will
convey the contact water toward the crossing and will be diverted to the MK2 pit. As the MK2 pit is being
developed, the run-off will be captured in a sump (LHSU) and then pumped to the contact water drainage
ditch on the east side of the crossing, eventually going to the LHPO for treatment and release.
The haulroad on the east side of the crossing will be graded so that all surface run-off will flow to the east
away from the crossing and eventually to the LHPO for treatment and release.
The ditch is designed to convey at least the 10-year flood peak discharges upstream of the sedimentation
pond.
3.4.2.4 Little Homer Sump and Pipeline (LHSU)
The LHSU will be required to capture surface run-off from the west side of the crossing until the MK2 pit
has been completed. Once the pit is completed, all surface run-off will be directed into the MK2 pit. Prior
to the MK2 pit being completed, all water will be captured in the LHSU and will be pumped to the roadside
ditch network located on the east side of the haulroad, eventually going to the LHPO for treatment and
release.
Surface run-off and groundwater that reports to the pit must be pumped out to the extent practical for the
will be located in strategic locations near the active mining in the MK2, MK4 and MK3 pits and will pump
water to the LHCD road side ditch, where it will flow to the LHPO pond for treatment and release to Little
Homer Creek.
3.4.3 Upper Tributary Redcap (UTRC) Sector
The UTRC sector refers to the drainage area of the tributaries of Redcap Creek located upstream of the
Redcap pit and is shown on Figure 3.4-4. In this sector, the clean water from these tributaries will require
management to control potential contact with the Redcap pit, and to allow diversion of the clean water to
the receiving stream. The focus of this sector is to keep clean water clean. Water from the tributaries will
be managed using interception ponds located just upstream of the Redcap pit, coupled with pumps and
pipelines to convey the clean water to watercourse UTRC4 located just east of the Redcap pit. Water
transfer in this system is from west to east. The key water management components in this sector
include:
• Interception Pond (UTRC1-SU-1)


March 2018
3.4.3.1 Interception Pond (UTRC1-SU-1)
The westernmost interception pond UTRC1-SU-1 will have a drainage area of 0.17 km2 from the natural
catchment area of UTRC1 only at UTRC1-SU-1. The pond will have a storage volume of 300 m3 with a
surface area of 170 m2 (at normal operating level). The pond will be equipped with a pump and pipeline
designed to convey the 10-year volume of 720 m3 to the next downstream interception pond
(UTRC1-SU-2).
The second westernmost interception pond (UTRC1-SU-2) will have an incremental drainage area of
0.39 km2 from the natural catchment area of UTRC1 only at UTRC1-SU-2. The pond will have a storage
volume of 720 m3 with a surface area of 430 m2 (at normal operating level). The pond will be equipped
with a pump and pipeline designed to convey the 10-year volume of 1,600 m3 to the next downstream
interception pond (UTRC2-SU-1).
The third westernmost interception pond (UTRC2-SU-1) will have an incremental drainage area of 1.83
km2 from the natural catchment area of UTRC2 only at UTRC2-SU-1. The pond will have a storage
volume of 6,700 m3 with a surface area of 2,700 m2 (at normal operating level). The pond will be
equipped with a pump and pipeline designed to convey the 10-year volume of 7,600 m3 to the next
downstream interception pond (UTRC2-SU-2).
The fourth westernmost interception pond (UTRC2-SU-2) will have an incremental drainage area of
0.23 km2 from the natural catchment area of UTRC2 only at UTRC2-SU-2. The pond will have a storage
volume of 900 m3 with a surface area of 500 m2 (at normal operating level). The pond will be equipped
with a pump and pipeline designed to convey the 10-year volume of 950 m3 to the next downstream
interception pond (UTRC4). Once the clean water reaches the UTRC4 tributary, it will flow down the
natural channel into the Redcap Creek.
Overall this approach reduces the flow increases and effects to watercourse UTRC4 by limiting the peak
flows pumped to UTRC4 to 10% of the 10-year flood peak discharge in UTRC4.
3.4.4 Redcap Sector
The Redcap sector refers to the drainage area of the dump just upstream of Redcap Creek as shown on
Figure 3.4-4. In this sector, the contact water from the dump and the dewatering flows from the Redcap
pit will be managed to control potential sediment release to the Redcap Creek and local tributaries. The
contact water from the dump will be collected by a contact water ditch (RCCD) located just downstream of
the dump, which will convey the collected water to a sedimentation pond (RCPO) located at the south end
of the dump.
The key water management components in this sector include:
• Redcap Creek Settling Pond (RCPO);
• Redcap Contact Water Ditch (RCCD); and

March 2018
• Pit Dewatering.
3.4.4.1 Redcap Creek Settling Pond (RCPO)
The RCPO will have a storage capacity of 122,000 m3 and a surface area of 36,300 m2 (at normal
operating level). It is designed to capture particles of 15 microns or greater during the 10-year flood peak
discharge of 4.0 m3/s. The drainage area for RCPO is 3.99 km2. The pond embankment was designed to
extend across the valley walls with:
• an approximate downstream embankment height of 7 m (from 1,712 m [below existing ground

level] to 1,719 m [at or above existing ground level]);
• side slopes of 3H:1V;
Redcap Creek; and
• 0.5 m of freeboard beyond the 200-year flood peak water surface elevation.
The pond embankment will be higher than 2.5 m and retain more than 30,000 m 3 of water at its full
storage capacity of 179,000 m3. The embankment will be classified as a dam under the Alberta Dam and
Canal Safety Guidelines (GoA 1999) and an application will be submitted six months prior to construction.
All surface runoff and pit water from this sector will be treated and released through this pond, keeping
the water in Redcap Creek clean. Teck plans to use flocculants (floc), which have been approved for use
by AER (and are listed in Section 4.2.8 of the EPEA approval) to assist in removal of suspended solids.
3.4.4.2 Redcap Contact Water Ditch (RCCD)
The contact water ditch will have a drainage area 3.99 km2 and was sized to convey the 10-year flood
peak discharge of 4.0 m3/s plus 0.5 m of freeboard. The ditch and adjacent 5 m wide maintenance bench
were designed to be constructed through excavation. Inclusion of the bench design effectively increases
the flow conveyance capacity of the ditch system because the ditch overflows will be accommodated by
the additional conveyance above the bench. Water will be directed to the RCPO and will be treated and
released to the receiving waterbodies.
Surface run-off and groundwater that reports to the pit must be pumped out to the extent practical for the
will be located in strategic locations near the active mining in all of the RC pits and will pump water to the
contact water (RCCD) ditch, where it will flow to the RCPO pond for treatment and release to Redcap
Creek.
3.4.5 Maintenance and Operation
The runoff from the disturbed areas (e.g. soil stockpiles, road fill, pit boundaries) located upstream of
receiving watercourses will be managed through general erosion and sediment controls, including

March 2018
perimeter silt fences at a minimum, and supplemented with coversoil, track packing, and hydroseeding,
where required.
The following maintenance activities will need to be performed during operations for the proposed water
management structures:
• monitoring of settling ponds to ensure effectiveness of water treatment when water is flowing;
• monitoring and operation of flocculant stations when floc is being used;
• settling pond dam inspections;
• ice-breaking in sedimentation and inception ponds will be done in the winter as needed;
• sediment accumulation in ponds and ditches will be routinely inspected and cleaned out on an as-
required basis;
• MacKenzie Creek and Little Homer Creek crossing structures and drainage will be monitored and
maintained to ensure water management features are functioning and keeping the contact water
out of the water courses; and
• variances to water monitoring compliance will be reported immediately as required in the EPEA
approval and the cause of the variance will be identified and corrected immediately.
3.5 Selenium Management
Conditions in CRO’s Luscar EPEA Approval #11767-02-00 and Cheviot EPEA Approval #46972-01-00
(as amended) require CRO to maintain a Selenium Management Plan (SMP) for the upper McLeod River
and receiving tributaries. The approval states:
2.6.2 The Revised Selenium Management Plan shall, at a minimum include:
(a) identification of techniques, best management plans, or technologies that will be employed to
achieve a cumulative load reduction of selenium target within three years;
(b) a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation program to assess the achievement of the selenium
load reduction strategy to determine and direct future monitoring and management on the mine
site and evaluate historical and current cumulative loads (kg/day) to the McLeod River;
(c) a summary of activities conducted annually and information on the strategies to be implemented
in the year following the year in which the information was reported; and,
(d) Any other information requested by the Director.
CRO has an approved selenium management plan (2014) and has recently (June/2017) submitted a new
plan that is under review. The update plan reflects the modifications and adjustments CRO intends to
implement to the selenium management program. The following information reflects the contents of the
2017 plan.
3.5.1 Strategies for Managing Selenium
The following are strategies that CRO has undertaken at the Cheviot Coal Mine to manage selenium:

March 2018
• Selective Water Management

This strategy involves phased water management projects to actively control the direction of
wastewater flows. There are more options for managing wastewater, with relatively higher selenium,
in an established development than in a new one due to the availability of mined-out pits that can
potentially be used for storage or attenuation through use of saturated fills. Predominately utilized on
the Luscar mine, this option of returning wastewater back into a mined-out pit has become more
viable at Cheviot as the first pits have been completely mined out.
• Increase in-pit waste rock disposal and minimize external waste rock dumping.
The goal of this strategy is to maximize sub-aqueous disposal of waste rock in-order to promote
conditions that reduce the oxidation and subsequent release of selenium. It may also result in the
establishment of reducing conditions which can result in the removal of selenium from solution. In
addition, the reduction in the number of ex-pit dumps has important implications as it has reduced the
potential selenium loading available for release from the Cheviot mine. The selective management of
pit water as discussed above also benefits selenium management by taking advantage of these
expected reducing conditions.
• Minimize the development of end pit lakes in the reclaimed landscape.
While end pit lakes may be usable for the in situ reduction of water-borne selenium in certain
situations, it is also desirable to maximize sub-aqueous disposal to minimize oxidation and to possibly
develop anoxic reducing conditions. At this point, we cannot say which scenario is preferable from a
selenium management perspective at a given site. This plan is based on the assumption that both
situations can be used to manage selenium, but that pit backfilling is a preferred scenario.
• Progressive reclamation with mine development.
Development of a coversoil, vegetation and re-establishment of streams and drainage reduces

infiltration of precipitation and percolation / seepage through waste rock dumps.
• Avoid construction of external or internal rock drains where possible.
• Maximize clean water diversions.
Use of clean water diversion reduces contact between water and waste rock
• Selective handling of selenium-bearing geologic strata.

The Moosebar Formation is a marine-based shale bed geologically underlying the coal-bearing unit.
In the preliminary assessments of total selenium concentrations in geologic strata, the Moosebar
Formation is reported as containing and potentially releasing higher concentrations of selenium than
other strata. It is not encountered in significant volumes in the Cheviot Creek or Prospect pits, but in
the McLeod-Harris development this formation has been thrust above the coal and therefore a small
volume, approximately 3% of the total waste rock, will be handled.
• Treatment
Research and development of treatment methods that are effective in reducing selenium
concentrations in mine discharge waters is currently on-going within Teck. Conclusions from these

March 2018
efforts indicate that two types of technologies are the most promising at this point: passive, such as in
situ (end pit lake or backfilled pit), and active treatment. Besides use of passive treatment options
such as backfilled pits and current pilot projects for (e.g. passive biochemical reactor at Leyland
Pond), CRO has no plans at this time to construct full scale active treatment facilities. It is the
intention of CRO, as outlined in this plan, to integrate selenium management into its core business
values and day-to-day activities to successfully manage release of selenium.
• Research and Development

On-going research and studies continue to take place at both CRO and within Teck to improve our
understanding on the mechanisms of selenium release and attenuation, the risk to the downstream
environments, and to further develop and refine management options, technologies and strategies.
As information becomes available, learnings will be incorporated into CRO’s management plan and
actions.
3.5.2 Selenium Trend Assessment
CRO’s management actions have had a positive influence on selenium trends in the McLeod River.
Although an initial increase was observed at many of the sites, primarily due to operational challenges,
over the past three-year period there has been a net decrease in total selenium concentrations as
measured at MR-2, MR-4, and MR-6. These results can be attributed to CRO’s adaptive approach in
water management, reduction in the number of discharge sources, and utilization of saturated zones in
backfilled pits.
A net increase in the trend of total selenium concentrations was observed in the analysis of data collected
from MR-4 over the management period (five-year average from 2006 to 2010). It is believed that this
trend is temporary and primarily the result of dewatering from Prospect pit. Discharge from dewatering
activities is anticipated to be further reduced with the phased startup of reclamation in the completed
Prospect mining area. As this occurs, it is anticipated that a corresponding decrease in selenium
concentrations will occur in both Prospect Creek (PRCK03) and the McLeod River (MR-4) over the next
three years.
Comparison of results from the management period of 2011 to 2013 and 2014 to 2016 against the five-
year average, median and 90th percentile (as detailed in Appendix 8, Selenium Management Plan,
Table 2.2) is provided in Appendix 8, Selenium Management Plan, Table 6.1.
The averages were calculated using the first data point for each month within each year (for the period of
2006 to 2010, 2011 to 2013, and 2014 to 2016) so as to minimize the error of averages. In a similar
fashion, the median and 90th percentiles were calculated with only the first sampling event of each month
(for each year) in an effort to account for periods of more frequent sampling.
3.5.3 Selenium Monitoring
The selenium monitoring program implemented by CRO has included frequent monitoring of surface
water selenium, as well as tissue sampling of benthic invertebrates, algae, fish tissue, and bird eggs.
Results from the monitoring program indicate that the SMP has a positive influence on managing
selenium levels in the McLeod River.

March 2018
Teck will add additional monitoring sites on MacKenzie Creek, Redcap Creek and the Cardinal River,
measuring the same parameters as discussed above.
3.5.4 Conclusions
Results of the 2014 Selenium Management Plan demonstrate that CRO actions have led to a reduction in
selenium concentrations at priority locations along the McLeod River. It is CRO’s goal to continue to
strategically manage release of selenium from its operation in an effort to support downstream water
quality objectives in the McLeod River watershed. Teck will update the 2017 Selenium Management Plan
if and when the Project is approved.
CRO submitted an updated plan in June 2017 and will steward to the measures identified in this plan for
the next three years and will continue utilizing adaptive management to identify, plan, and carry-out
actions that have measurable and meaningful ecological benefits. Results of the research and
development program provide valuable insight to existing actions and have the potential to guide our
future activities. This plan will promote continuous improvement through incorporation of expanding
knowledge and techniques/technologies in selenium management. Results of CRO’s management
measures will be reported at the conclusion of the three-year period identified above. However, ongoing
changes that occur annually will be recorded and communicated through an annual update on March 31st
of the year following data collection.
3.6 Additional Mine Operations Considerations
3.6.1 Materials Handling Assumptions
The proposed MKRC has approximately 116 million BCM of waste rock that needs to be removed to
access the recoverable coal seams. To simulate waste removal operations, the following parameters and
values were used that are derived from CRO’s experience at the Cheviot Coal Mine:
• angle of repose of 37 degrees;
• re-sloped angle of approximately 26.5 degrees for rock dumps;
• re-sloped angle of approximately 26.5 degrees for the highwall where they are reclaimed, escape
terrain will have rock faces at 65 degrees and scree slopes at 37 degrees;
• swell factor of 30%;
• ex-pit rock dumps are built and re-sloped in 10 m to 45 m lifts;

• coversoil is removed beneath rock dumps prior to dumping; and
• five-year average of 35% of the total run of mine (ROM) feed results in coarse rejects.
3.6.2 Pre-construction
Timber clearing will be followed by coversoil salvage and stockpiling, commencing in Year 1 (2019). The
disturbance associated with the MKRC will not begin until 2019 or until all necessary permits are secured.

March 2018
Clearing and grubbing will be required to prepare for the construction of access, haul road, radio
transmission tower, power transmission lines and water management features, as well as to prepare for
pit and waste rock spoil development.
As part of the pre-construction and ongoing activities planned for the proposed new areas, timber clearing
and soil salvage practices will be undertaken to comply with current practices and protocols established
at the mine. While strategic and discrete locations of the soil stockpiles have been conceived
(Figure 3.1-1), the practice of salvaging coversoil to ensure requirements are met at closure will be
maintained. Although the disturbance is known and discrete, the areas of disturbance associated with the
stockpiling of coversoil may increase depending on the actual amount of coversoil that is salvaged. This
concept of maximizing the coversoil is expanded in the reclamation closure and decommissioning section
of this application.
The timber clearing and soil salvage activities will mimic the surface phases of the MKRC to ensure
sufficient coversoil salvage for future reclamation purposes. The MKRC surface phasing is as follows:
MK1, MK2, MK3, MK4, RC1, RC2, RC3, RC4, and RC5 (refer to Section 3.3.2 and Figures 3.2-1 to
3.2-9).
Temporary sumps and pump systems will be placed strategically during this process. No water will be
released to the environment until licenced water structures are in place.
3.6.3 Construction
The Project is an extension of the existing operation. Ongoing construction will ensure the efficient and
timely construction of key infrastructure required to facilitate operation of the Project. Construction
activities will commence upon receipt of licences and approvals to ensure a smooth mining transition from
the phases currently under development to the new active working area.
3.6.4 Haulroads
Roads for transporting waste rock to waste spoils, transporting ROM coal to the processing plant and
equipment movement are required throughout the mine area. Extension of the existing roads to
accommodate the proposed Project will be minimal and limited to, for the most part, short-term roadways
to access specific areas in the pits and waste spoils. Main proposed haulroads are shown in the annual
progression maps (Figures 3.2-1 to 3.2-9).
New haulroads will be constructed to support the heavy loads they will experience. They will be
constructed with pit-run rock and regularly maintained to provide a reliable route for the haul trucks,
including watering the haulroads for dust control.
Short in-pit ramps will be built to meet double or single-lane haul truck traffic requirements as required
and crowned to provide adequate drainage. The heavy loads and on-going maintenance are expected to
produce a driving surface that will be constantly weathering and wearing, and storm events/run-off
conditions may result in high suspended solids content. Drainage will be directed into pits that will be
dewatered in a controlled manner.

March 2018
3.6.5 Water Crossings
The MacKenzie and Little Homer creeks are the two major watercourses that will require crossings. The
crossings will be constructed on the haul road so the equipment, including the haul trucks can access the
mining area and haul coal to the processing plant. A clear span crossing is proposed both creek
crossings. The select locations are shown on Figure 3.4-1. Instream works are not anticipated.
Arched crossings are proposed for both creeks which are similar to other creek crossings at the Cheviot
Coal Mine (e.g. Prospect Creek, Whitehorse Creek). The crossings will be constructed to free-span both
MacKenzie and Little Homer creeks to reduce environmental impacts. All surface run-off from the haul
road will be directed away from the crossing into nearby impoundments as per the water management
plan (Section 3.4).
3.6.6 Power Transmission
TransAlta Utilities (TAU) provides 69 kV service to the Luscar Mine main substation. From that point,
CRO is responsible for the 69 kV electrical distribution systems throughout the property. At strategic
locations, substations are located to transform the electricity to 7.2kV for distribution to the mining
equipment. Progressive extensions of the 7.2kV mine system are required to advance with the mine
development. Electricity is also transformed to 480 V for serviced bays, pumping and for pit lighting. The
lowest transformation is to 110 V for general use.
Solar/battery and propane generator installations are sometimes utilized for outlying areas for service in
drainage control facilities. These installations are normally light electrical loads associated with metering
equipment for flocculation control or environmental monitoring equipment. Where possible, power lines
are brought into these areas unless distance to the site or duration of the facility would not warrant the
cost.
Power transmission and load calculation associated with the Project is shown on the annual progression
maps (Figures 3.2-1 to 3.2-9).
3.6.7 Drilling and Blasting
Drilling and blasting of geologic layers overlying coal deposits is paramount to a mining operation. CRO
has developed and implements and maintains standard drilling and blasting practices and procedures to
address safety, operational, and environmental risks. At CRO, a fleet of mining drills are used to drill 15 m
benches in a blast pattern. The holes are loaded with ammonium nitrate and fuel Oil (ANFO)-based bulk
explosive. Emulsion explosives used in wet conditions are mixed at Teck Coal’s Elkview operation and
shipped to the Cheviot Coal Mine site. Components of ANFO Explosives are hauled to a satellite facility
at the Cheviot Coal Mine, currently located on unreclaimed mine disturbance in the south end of the
McLeod footprint, and are mixed in the explosives truck at time of loading into blastholes. The satellite
facility may be relocated to the Project area once development is underway.
Explosives will be managed according to established protocols and procedures to ensure the safety of
personnel and effectiveness of the blasting agents. Additional information surrounding the handling and
storage of explosives is outlined in company specific protocols which are based on provincial and national
regulations.

March 2018
3.6.8 Heavy Equipment
The MKRC will be mined with traditional truck and shovel techniques using the mining equipment that is
currently mining the licenced Harris and Upper Harris phases of the Cheviot Coal Mine. A list of heavy
mining equipment is provided in Table 3.6-1.
Table 3.6-1 Heavy Equipment Fleet
Description Type Capacity Number of Units
Shovel P&H 2800 30 m³ 1

Komatsu PC5500 23 m3 1
P&H 4100 44 m³ 1
Excavator Komatsu PC2000 15.7 m3 1
Caterpillar 390D 9 m³ 1
Komatsu 300LC 2
Caterpillar 345 1
Drill P&H 120A 376 mm dia. 2
Front End Loader LeTourneau L950 - 1
LeTourneau L1100 - 2
LeTourneau L1850 18 m³ 1
Dozer Caterpillar D10T Not applicable 5
Caterpillar D11R 1
Grader Caterpillar 16H Not applicable 2
Caterpillar 24M 1
Caterpillar 24H 1
Haul Truck Euclid R170 150 tonne 1
Wabco 630E (Water Truck) - 1
Komatsu 830E AC drive 215 tonne 11
Komatsu 830E DC drive (coal 200 tonne 3
box truck) -
Kress CH200C II 220 tonne 4
Euclid R260 215 tonne 1
3.6.9 Support Facilities
Fleet maintenance is provided by permanent and temporary support facilities. Two sets of permanent
office/shop complexes currently support the Cheviot operation. The main set is at the Luscar Mine and
contains the offices, shop, warehouse, tire shop and fueling facilities. The second is a satellite shop/office
facility (Cheviot Dry) at the Cheviot Coal Mine along with a satellite service bay / fuel island (Figure 1.0-3).
This may be relocated to the Project area once development is underway.
The satellite service bays consist of a trailer and fuel storage tanks with secondary containment. Within
the trailer, bulk storage of lubricants and coolants is provided with the necessary pumps and metering

March 2018
equipment for delivery to mobile equipment. Minor consumable supplies such as paper towels, window
cleaner, replacement bulbs, etc. are also provided. The sites are relocated as necessary to keep them
close to active mining areas and are often located along main hauling routes. These sites mainly serve
haul trucks but also include dozers and graders. Most other mobile equipment is serviced from fuel
service trucks.
3.6.10 Pit Dewatering
Clean water diversions minimize the volume of water that reaches active pit operations, but some water
will still enter pits during active operations. Dewatering of pit areas is critical to ensure safe and efficient
pit operation. Dewatering is comprised of pumping in advance of mining and pit bottom dewatering during
active mining.
Removal of groundwater in advance of mining serves the same purpose as clean-water diversions – to
minimize the volume of clean water that is exposed to mine activities and to enable safe mining.
Groundwater dewatering in advance of mining has been conducted consistently as part of Cheviot Coal
Mine operations since development began in 2004.
Consistent with existing operations at the Cheviot Coal Mine, the water pumped from the active MKRC pit
bottoms will be diverted to a wastewater handling facility, or an inactive pit backfill, as it will likely be high
in suspended solids. Pumped water will not be diverted directly to the receiving environment.
3.6.11 Coal Handling and Processing
Raw coal will be hauled from the Project pits via the haulroad to the existing CPP at the Luscar Mine.
Coal is initially stockpiled beside the feed crusher and then fed into the breaker with front end loaders.
The raw coal is sized by screening and passing through breakers and separated into two fractions
(coarse and fine) in preparation for coal processing. CRO’s coal preparation plant produces a high quality
metallurgical product. Modifications to the CPP are not contemplated as part of the Project.
3.6.12 Geotechnical Conditions
The pre-feasibility level geotechnical reports for the Project are provided in Appendix 4. The key
recommendations from the pre-feasibility level geotechnical work are summarized below.
3.6.12.1 Open Pits
The pre-feasibility level geotechnical highwall design criteria consist primarily of double benches that are
30 m high with 65 to 70 degrees bench faces angles and safety bench widths ranging from 8 to 12 m
depending on rock type and rock mass conditions. The resulting inter-ramp slope angles range from 45 to
54 degrees, which are slightly steeper than the designs for previous Cheviot-area pits. The favourable dip
structures that would allow for inter-slope angles of 54 degrees do not occur within the planning area. The
pre-feasibility design uses benches that are 30 m high with 65 degrees bench faces and safety benches
between 11 m and 16 m wide, resulting in inter-ramp slope angles ranging from 45 to 49 degrees. These
design angles are consistent with previous Cheviot project applications.
The pre-feasibility level footwall design criteria specify maximum allowable unbenched heights as a
function of the bedding dip of the bedrock, and for relatively steeper bedding dips that require benching of
the footwalls the associated safety bench widths are targeted to range from 8 to 11 m. Where strata

March 2018
thickness is insufficient for the rock mass to achieve competent footwalls the safety benches are pushed
back to the next competent strata layer, resulting in some 20 m wide safety benches within the footwall.
Localized safety benches have been increased to as high as a 35 m where waste haul backfilling is
planned along the footwall. Recommendations are also provided for excavation and sloping of
overburden soils adjacent to the pit slope requests.
Further investigation and design work at the feasibility-level and detailed design level is required to
finalize the pit wall design criteria.
The pre-feasibility pit slope design criteria are contingent upon:
• effective controlled blasting adjacent to the final pit walls, including the use of angled pre-shear
holes, along with careful scaling of final bench faces;
• a suitable instrumentation and monitoring program to check the actual geological and rock mass
conditions encountered as mining progresses, monitor for movements of the pit walls as well as
the groundwater conditions within the walls; and
• the above-noted blasting and monitoring aspects of the implementation of the pit slope design
criteria will be considered further during the feasibility-level and detailed design level work for the
open pits and adjusted as appropriate.
3.6.12.2 Ex-Pit Waste Dumps (Redcap Dump and MacKenzie Dump(s))
The pre-feasibility level geotechnical assessment for the MacKenzie dumps (MKEX1 and MKEX2)
identified potential issues with the scoping-level dump design due to the presence of weak, colluvial
deposits on sloping terrain in portions of the planned dump footprint. It was determined that the stability of
the dump can be sufficiently improved by adjusting the dump design to extend the toe of the dump
approximately 25 m downslope onto more gently-sloping terrain. Further work during the feasibility-level
stage is required to finalize the design of this mitigation measure and determine if operational controls on
the rate of dump construction will also be required, as well as to assess the stability of the waste dump
and adjacent MacKenzie pit due to their close proximity and refine the waste dump and/or MacKenzie pit
design as required to meet acceptance criteria for stability.
The pre-feasibility level geotechnical assessment for RCEX identified that the low strength peat deposits
within a portion of the footprint area of the dump will require mitigation measures to meet the acceptance
criteria for dump stability. The mitigation measures will likely include a combination of foundation
preparation to improve the foundation conditions along with operational measures to manage the rate of
dump construction and verify acceptable performance of the dump. Further investigation of the extent,
depth and properties of the peat deposits are required during the feasibility-level work to inform the
design and planning of the mitigation measures.
3.6.12.3 Haulroad Corridor
The pre-feasibility level geohazard mapping and geotechnical assessment of the MKRC haulroad corridor
identified some naturally-occurring slope instabilities as well as gully erosion areas that will need to be
considered during the selection and detailed design of the final route for the haulroad corridor. None of
the identified geohazards were assessed to be significant enough to warrant rerouting of the haulroad

March 2018
corridor; however, mitigation and maintenance measures with respect to the existing and potential
geohazards that were identified will need to be incorporated into the final design of the haulroad.
3.7 Continual Planning
As part of all projects, planning and project refinement continues constantly at CRO. Of particular note
with MKRC, engineering and evaluation continues regarding optimizing access to the mine development
area by a haul road routing to the south that would go directly to the Redcap mining area. Such an
alignment is show on Figure 3.7-1. Further detailed engineering is ongoing on this potential routing.
3.8 Financial Security
CRO provides financial security in accordance Alberta’s Mine Financial Security Provision (MFSP) and
supporting AER guidelines (https://www.aer.ca/documents/liability/MFSP_Guide.pdf). This liability
provision is revised and secured annually for both Luscar and Cheviot Coal Mines, and includes all
liabilities for decommissioning and reclamation, as well as interim care and maintenance costs. As the
Project area is developed, the new disturbance liabilities will be included in this provision.
3.9 Health, Safety and Environmental Management
3.9.1 Corporate Policies
Teck is committed to responsible practices in all aspects of its business and will apply these responsible
practices to the Project. The Safety and Sustainability Committee of the Board of Directors provides policy
direction and monitors the company’s environmental, social and safety performance. The Corporate
Environment and Risk Management Committee, chaired by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), is a senior
management committee that sets priorities and direction for environment, health, safety and community
management programs and tracks performance.
Teck’s Health, Safety, Environment and Community (HSEC) Management System provides a structure
for implementing the company’s sustainability commitments. It includes overarching corporate policies,
the HSEC Management Standards, guidelines and site-level policies and procedures. Teck’s
company-wide commitments are outlined in the following key sustainability policy documents.
• Charter of Corporate Responsibility is a set of principles related to business ethics, health, safety,
environment and community that governs the company’s operating practices and provides the
overarching sustainability governance commitment.
• Code of Sustainable Conduct and Our Strategy for Sustainability outline the company’s
commitment to sustainable development, focusing on aspects such as community and
environmental performance
• Code of Ethics sets out the company’s dedication to upholding high moral and ethical standards,
specifying basic business conduct and behaviour.
• Safety and Health Policy sets out the company’s commitment to providing leadership and
resources for entrenching the core value of safety.

March 2018
• Human Rights Policy sets out the company’s commitment to respecting the rights of employees,
the communities in which the company operates and others affected by the company’s activities.
• The Indigenous Peoples Policy reflects Teck’s commitment to responsible resource development.
We recognize that building relationships with Indigenous Peoples is fundamental to our success.
In addition to the charters, codes and policies described above, each operation of Teck implements
an environmental policy. The Cardinal River Operations Environmental Policy is presented in
Table 3.9-1 and identifies sustainability as a core value and environmental management as an
integral component of CRO’s business.
Table 3.9-1 Cardinal River Environmental Policy
At Teck, the pursuit of sustainability guides our approach to business. We are committed to environmental management best
practices and every goal we set in the future builds on our stewardship of the earth yesterday and today. We are determined to
achieve continual improvement in our environmental performance through our management systems. Through this policy we
commit to
• complying with applicable legal, regulatory and other requirements which relate to our operations’ identified environmental
aspects;
• ensuring effective implementation, maintenance, and documentation of each environmental management system (EMS);
• setting environmental objectives and targets which measure progress towards continual improvement, utilizing accepted
assessment processes;
• prevention of pollution;
• minimizing environmental impacts of activities and services related to mining operations;
• making this policy available to our employees, persons working on our behalf and the public; and
• raising the environmental awareness of our employees and those working on our behalf.
Signed Signed
Robin Sheremeta Matt Cole
Senior Vice President, Coal Operations General Manager, Cardinal River Operations
Teck Resources Limited Teck Coal Limited
August 2016
ISO = International Organization for Standardization; OHSAS = Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series;
HSEC = Health, Safety, Environment and Community.
3.9.2 Health and Safety Program
CRO has Occupational Health and Safety systems in place and would be implemented for the Project.
The occupational health systems and procedures at CRO help prevent occupational illness and are
designed to limit worker exposure to dust, noise, vibration and hazardous materials. Where appropriate,
CRO has education, training and counselling, prevention and risk control programs, as well as
committees for managing and minimizing potential occupational exposures and diseases. Teck will
continue to develop an occupational hygiene strategy to identify and minimize employee and contractor
exposure to chemical, physical and biological health hazards.
Teck has a three-pillar approach to health and safety that drives continual improvement and supports the
vision of everyone going home safe and healthy every day, embedding a culture of safety, learning from
high potential incidents and sharing best practices, and operating with excellence. All employees
participate in the Courageous Safety Leadership program to foster a culture of safety at Teck, building
commitment and leadership in safety. Teck fosters a culture of continual learning and improvement in
safety performance by learning from high-potential incidents (HPIs), sharing best practices in safety

March 2018
through employee training and development and participating in mine safety working groups. CRO tracks
all safety incidents and classifies significant incidents as HPIs, serious HPIs or potentially fatal
occurrences, and analyzes and learns from these incidents to identify target actions for high-risk tasks
and areas.
3.9.3 Emergency Response Plan
Emergency Preparedness is managed through Standard Practices and Procedures (SP&Ps), ongoing
training programs, protection system inspections, tests, drills, incident review and emergency response
and evacuation plans. These procedures provide the guidelines for use in emergency situations which
can vary widely in scope and location. These SP&Ps are controlled documents, revised and reviewed
regularly by senior site personnel.
CRO has an existing Emergency Response Plan SP&P in place for the Cheviot Coal Mine that would
continue to be implemented for the Project. This SP&P is designed to provide CRO staff guidance in
preparation for and response to emergency situations. The primary function of this emergency response
plan SP&P is to ensure a prompt well-organized response to minimize effects of potential disaster,
serious accident or hazardous situation. The SP&P includes emergency response procedures for
delineating roles and responsibilities, contingency plans, emergency response measures, emergency
response evaluation, and training for identified potential hazards. Health and emergency response
training would also be implemented. This manual is a controlled document revised on a 12-month basis
or as required.
3.9.4 Environmental Protection Program
CRO manages all environmental issues through an Environmental Management System (EMS) that is
certified to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14001:2004 Standard. Teck’s EMS
Manual describes the systems at CRO designed to meet the requirements as outlines in the ISO
14001:2004 standard, and is based on continual improvement, preventing pollution, and following
legislation. This manual provides a guide to the system and identifies supporting controlled documents.
The manual and supporting documentation defines and describes roles and responsibilities,
organizational structure, training programs, applicable statutory legislation and environmental standards
and procedures, best management practices and other industry specific guidance documents.
The scope of the EMS applies to all mining and processing activities that CRO can control and influence
at the mine site, including mine planning and design, exploration mining operations, waste management,
reclamation, monitoring processing and loading of rail cars. CRO’s Environmental Policy is posted on
Teck’s website, throughout CRO site and at the CRO gatehouse for public viewing.
The system was accredited in 2010 and retention of certification requires an annual audit by an
accredited third party. The entire EMS is recertified every three years, with the last recertification on
October 18, 2017, with upgrade to the ISO14001:2015 Standard expected in April 2018.
Since 2002, Teck has worked towards certification of environmental management systems to conform to
the internationally recognized International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14001 standard
(ISO 2004). Currently all six of Teck’s operating coal operations are IS014001-2004 registered.

March 2018
3.9.5 Health, Safety and Environment Integration into Project Management
The HSEC Management Standards integrate requirements from Teck’s internal corporate policies and
external sustainability commitments and, as such, they form the framework for implementing sustainability
at Teck. The HSEC Management Standards provide a consistent and systematic methodology for the
identification and effective management of HSEC issues and risks, and provide a platform to support
continual improvement in HSEC programs and performance. The HSEC Management Standards provide
auditable criteria for evaluating the performance of the HSEC management systems and set out minimum
expectations for managing the HSEC-related aspects of day-to--day activities. As a result, the Standards
are intended to provide clarity on the practices that must be in place throughout the company.
Teck’s aim is to minimize its footprint and mitigate impacts and, once mining operations have ceased, to
leave behind ecosystems that support productive uses for future generations. Within the HSEC
Management System, the HSEC Management Standards and environmental audit program help drive
continual improvement and assessment of compliance with environmental regulations. Across all of
Teck’s operations, there is a focus on comprehensive environmental management that facilitates effective
environmental stewardship.
Teck’s licence to operate depends on the ability to meet legal requirements and demonstrate value and
responsibility to all stakeholders, including both shareholders and communities. Teck continually monitors
and manages the social and environmental aspects of its activities to meet or exceed regulations, and to
ensure regulatory compliance and performance. Teck’s environmental assurance program is designed to
verify that requirements are met, as dictated by the applicable permits, legislation and regulations in each
jurisdiction. Compliance audits are conducted on a three-year rotational basis for all operations, as well
as mid-term reviews to assess the resolution of audit findings.
3.9.6 Fire Control Plan
CRO currently has guidance within the Emergency Response Plan SP&P (and other site specific SP&Ps)
that CRO will continue to implement through the life of the Project. CRO meets all regulatory
requirements with respect to effective response to a fire or explosion regardless of severity. A Mine
Rescue team is in place to meet the requirements of the Alberta Occupational Health and Safety
Legislation. To support this response, the site has two fire trucks (one at Cardinal, one at Cheviot) that
are stocked and maintained as per the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards. Team
members are trained in the use of Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) as well as fire
extinguishing techniques and the hazards involved with suppressing a fire. Mine Rescue team members
are not structural fire fighters but are trained to that standard.
3.9.7 Worker Competence and Training Program
All Project site staff are required to review and sign-off on SP&Ps; initially at the start of employment and
then on a routine basis according to the SP&P review schedule. All contractors receive thorough training
during their orientation before being authorized to work onsite.

March 2018
Section 3 Figures

March 2018
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
R23 R22
20 1925 19
25 2050 25 19 200 0 19
195
2000
0 1900
19
0
75 00
11
1950
12 7 10
19
200
1900
25
25
190 75 1875
0
8 9
19
18 197
18
5
50
197
5
50
22
19 1950
1900
25 1850
75
21
1950 1975
21
50
0
2100 200
1950
22
25
00
5,866,000
5,866,000
1650
0
5 200
190
18 1925 187 0
75 2025
21
21
50
25 2075 2250
1875
75
20
23
2075
25
23
Litt
23
Hom
!
00 25
2025
2350
167
le
182
5
er C
5
!
25
19
!
1750
1800 2 1 6 5
ree
4 3
! !
1825
MKPO
! ! ! !
is Cre
!
1775
!
k
!
22
! !
2075
!
MK1
!
SP1
!
25
! !
25
ek
!
1825
! ! ! !
2275
!
19
!
SP2
! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
f
!
1925
¤
¥
!
19
!
1800
!
2125
75
!
!
75
!
!
19
SP3 0
!
225
!
! !
1950
!
170
!
!
18
LHPO
25
25
!
23
21
T46 ie
00
17
T46
2325
00
!
nz
!
MK3
!
1775
e
18
1750
K k
50
MK2
!
ac ee
!
G
19
21
f 20
50
M Cr
¤
¥
!
50
25
50
T45 T45
19
! 22
18 25
19
75
MK4 MK3EX1
!
00
1900 18
00
21
! !
75
1875
!
50
!
18 !
18
!
75
!
SP4
19
!
!
75
5,864,000
5,864,000
1900
!
Little
!
!
!
Hom 18 MK3EX2 !
75
!
18
187
er C 75
!
35 36 31 r eek 32
!
33
!
34
5
185
!
! !
1875 0
RC1
! !
!
!
1850
!
195
1900
!
2000
200
18 18
75
!
0
75 !
0
!
!
19
!
00
RC2
!
!
!
19
1900
50 !
1825
!
TREE !
SLAND
I
!
5
RC4/
25
18
19
!
50
1825
!
19
50
!
2000
! !
RC3
! !
!
SP5
R e dc a
!
1925
C re e k
1850 !
5
1950
177
!
26 25 30 29 28 !
27
p
75
!
21
!
5,862,000
5,862,000
00
22 RCEX
2050
2150 2100 187

5
SP6
18
2150
00
2125
2075 RCPO
17
50
2025 1725
1975
23 24 19 20 21 22
00
R23 R22
1925 17
5
192 1900
1925
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
MacKenzi
eRed capPr
oject– Pr
oposed Pi
tLi
cences-Fi
gu r
e3.
1-1
±
Hi
nton
!
Robb Ex i
sti
ng&Appr
ov ed Dev el
opm ent Pr
oposed MacKenzi
eRed capDev el
opm ent
!
The m a psa nd m a pd a t a are pr o vid ed ‘a sis ’witho ut
a ny gua r a ntee,r epresent atio n,c o nd it
io n o rwa rra nt
y
!
0 250 500 1,
000
o f a ny kind ,eit herexpr ess ,im plied ,o rst at utory.Tec k Wa t
ers
hed Bo und a r
y CRO Mine Per
m itBo und a r
y UpperHa r
risAppr
o ved Dev
elo pm ent
PitLic enc e MK1 PitLim it So ilSt
o c kpile Po nd O ut
let m
Res
t
o ur
o a ny r
c esLim it
elia nc e t
ed a s
he us
sum esno lia b ilit
erpla c esin t
y wit hr espec t
he m a psa nd m a p Cad om i
n Dum pLic enc e C2010-
12 Wa t
erc o ur
se Co nt
o ur(
25m I
nter
va l)
PitLic enc e MK2 PitLim it-30m Buffer Pr
o po sed MSLBo und a r
y I
nter
c ept
io n Po nd G Co m m unic a t
io nT
o wer
DATE: MI
NEO PERATI O N:
PitLic enc e MK3 Wa s
te Dum pLim it Clea n Wa t
erDit
c h-
Pipeline Culver
t Sed im entatio n Po nd !
dat a ,a nd t he usera ss um est he ent irer isk a sto the MKRCPo wer
line 3/
16/
2018 Ca r
d ina lRiv
er
!
trut h,a c c ur a c y,c urrenc y,o rc o m plet enesso f t he Mou nt ain PitLic enc e C2010-
11 Cur
rentDis
tur
b a nc e Ha ulr
oads
PitLic enc e MK4 Wa s
te Dum pLim it-30m Buffer Wa s
te Wa t
erDit
c h-
Pipeline Culver
t Em b a nkm ent Ac c essRo a d s
info r mat io n c o nt
a ined in the m a psa nd m a pd a t a. Cr ee SCALE: CO O RDI
NATESY STEM:
Com m u nity
!
Cur
rentChev
io tMSLBo und a r
y ! ! Po wer
line PitLic enc e RC1-
5 f
¤
¥ Cr
ossing St
ruc t
ure Ha ulr
o a d a nd Po wero fRighto fWa y
1:
26,
000 NAD1983UTM Z o ne 1
1N
Do c um entPa t
h:\
\t
ec kc o m inc o \
CGO \
Gro ups
\TCGI
S\Da t
a\O per
atio ns
\CRO \
Pro jec t
s\MKRCPer
m it
Applic a t
io n\
MXD\
Fina lFigur
es\
MKCRPr
o jec t
Des
cript
io n_Fig5Pit
Lic enc e.
m xd
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
R23 R22
20 1925 19
25 2050 25 19 200 0 19
195
2000
0 1900
19
0
75 00
11
1950
12 7 10
19
200
1900
25
25
190 75 1875
0
8 9
19
18 197
18
5
50
197
5
50
22
19 1950
1900
25 1850
75
21
1950 1975
21
50
0
2100 200
1950
22
25
00
5,866,000
5,866,000
1650
0
5 200
190
18 1925 187 0
75 2025
21
21
50
25 2075 2250
1875
75
20
23
2075
25
23
Litt
23
Hom
!
00 25
2025
2350
167
le
182
5
er C
5
!
25
19
!
1750
1800 2 1 6 5
ree
4 3
! !
1825
MKPO
! ! ! !
is Cre
!
1775
!
k
!
22
! !
2075
!
MK1
!
SP1
!
25
! !
25
ek
!
1825
! ! ! !
2275
!
19
!
SP2
! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
f
!
1925
¤
¥
!
19
!
1800
!
2125
75
!
!
75
!
!
19
SP3 0
!
225
!
! !
1950
!
170
!
!
18
LHPO
25
25
!
23
21
T46 ie
00
17
T46
2325
00
!
nz
!
MK3
!
1775
e
18
1750
K k
50
MK2
!
ac ee
!
G
19
21
f 20
50
M Cr
¤
¥
!
50
25
50
T45 T45
19
! 22
18 25
19
75
MK4 MK3EX1
!
00
1900 18
00
21
! !
75
1875
!
50
!
18 !
18
!
75
!
SP4
19
!
!
75
5,864,000
5,864,000
1900
!
Little
!
!
!
Hom 18 MK3EX2 !
75
!
18
187
er C 75
!
35 36 31 r eek 32
!
33
!
34
5
185
!
! !
1875 0
RC1
! !
!
!
1850
!
195
1900
!
2000
200
18 18
75
!
0
75 !
0
!
!
19
!
00
RC2
!
!
!
19
1900
50 !
1825
!
TREE !
SLAND
I
!
5
RC4/
25
18
19
!
50
1825
!
19
50
!
2000
! !
RC3
! !
!
SP5
R e dc a
!
1925
C re e k
1850 !
5
1950
177
!
26 25 30 29 28 !
27
p
75
!
21
!
5,862,000
5,862,000
00
22 RCEX
2050
2150 2100 187

5
SP6
18
2150
00
2125
2075 RCPO
17
50
2025 1725
1975
23 24 19 20 21 22
00
R23 R22
1925 17
5
192 1900
1925
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
MacKenzi
eRed capPr
oject– Pr
oposed Du m pLi
cences-Fi
gu r
e3.
1-2
±
Hi
nton
!
Robb Ex i
sti
ng&Appr
ov ed Dev el
opm ent Pr
oposed MacKenzi
eRed capDev el
opm ent
!
The m ap sand m ap d at aar e pr ovid e d ‘ asis ’wit hout
any guar ante e ,r epre se ntation,c ond it ion orwar r ant y
!
0 250 500 1,
000
of any kind ,e it he re xp re ss,im p lie d ,orst at
ut or y.Te c k Wat
ers
he d Bound ar
y CRO Mine P e r
m itBound ar
y Up p e rHar
risAp p r
ove d De v
e lop m e nt
Dum p Lic e nc e MK2EX1 P itLim it SoilSt
oc kp ile P ond Out
le t m
Re s
t
our
o any r
c e sLim it
e lianc e t
e d as
he us
sum e sno liab ilit
e rp lac e sin t
y wit
hr e sp e c t
he m ap sand m ap Cad om i
n Dum p Lic e nc e C2010-
12 Wat
erc our
se Cont
our(
25m I
nter
val)
Dum p Lic e nc e MK3EX2 P itLim it-30m Buffe r Pr
op ose d MSLBound ar
y I
nter
ce pt
ion P ond G Com m unic at
ionT
owe r
DATE: MI
NEOP ERATI ON:
Dum p Lic e nc e RCEX Was
te Dum p Lim it Cle an Wat
e rDit
c h-
P ip e line Culve r
t Se d im e nt
ation P ond !
d ata,and t he use rass um e st he e nt ire risk ast ot he MKRCP owe r
line 3/
16/
2018 Car
d inalRiv
er
!
truth,ac c urac y,c ur r
e nc y,orc om p le t e ne ssof t he Mou nt ain P itLic e nc e C2010-
11 Cur
re ntDis
tur
b anc e Haulr
oad s
Was
te Dum p Lim it-30m Buffe r Was
te Wat
e rDit
c h-
P ip e line Culve r
t Em b ankm e nt Ac c e ssRoad s
inform at ion c ontaine d in t he m ap sand m ap d at a. Cr ee SCALE: COORDINATESYSTEM:
Com m u nity
!
Cur
re ntChe v
iotMSLBound ar
y ! ! P owe r
line
f
¤
¥ Cr
ossing St
ruc t
ure Haulr
oad and P owe rRightofWay
1:
26,
000 NAD1983UTM Z one 1
1N
Doc um e ntP at
h:\\t
e c kc om inc o\CGO\Gr
oup s
\TCGI
S\Dat
a\Op e r
ations
\CRO\P r
oje ct
s\MKRCP e r
m it
Ap p lic at
ion\MXD\FinalFigur
es\MKCRP r
oje ct
De s
crip t
ion_Fig5Dum p Lic e nc e .
m xd
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
R23 R22
20 2050 19 200
25 25 197 0
1975
5
1975
11 12 1875
7 10
1850 8 9
1675
19
1950
25 1950
1950 M ea
d ow
18 1900 17 Creek
75
5
00
182
5,866,000
5,866,000
190 18
0 00
1925
75
18
0
170
75
17
1800
18
5
182
25
180
H omer
Little
177 182 0
5
75
5
17
k e
50
1750 17 17
1825
ee zi
50 50 50
18
17
2
Cr Ken
18 1 25 25 6 5 4 3
1850 17
ac
180 1775 18
SP1 MK1
M
0 1900 187 182 50 17 50
1725
5 17
Harr SP2 5 75
i
177
Cree s 1850
k
f
5
180
75
0
¤
¥ 17
170
17
195 50
17
1800 0 17
185
0
25
50
75
50
0
19
SP3
19
1725
25
18 18 5
182
175
25 00
17
19
1825 172
75
0
5
1825
1850
18 1
25 82
T46 T46
5
1725
18
MK3
1750
50
170
177
MK2
0
190
75
180
19
0
1800
182
17
1725
00
1750
f
¤
¥
0
0
T45 T45
50
180
5
185
17
18
1950
1725
50 1775
25
17 MK3EX1
18
0
MK4
19
75
182
25
5
25
1775
17
1775 195
1800
1875 0
50
5
18 180
1825
177
75
18
0
18
18
50
75 18
19 1850 25
75 1850 1850
18
00
00
18
50
5,864,000
5,864,000
1875 19
1900
5
1850 1875
1825
19
182
75
17 1875 1925
75 185
1875
MK3EX2 0
0
1775
17
185
195
18
50
180
35 36 31 32 1825 0
33 34
25
1850 1850
187
5 18
19
1850 50
50
RC1
25
18
182
5
1875
1900 18
19
19
75
75
00
25
18
200
18
0
75
0
180
1800
1950
1800
182
5
RC2
1900
1825
1875 18 180
25
00 0
18
18
50
00
RC4/5 1850
18
25
25
1825
19
182
1800
19
5
19
50
17
75
1900
1975 00
Redc ap
1775
18
Cre ek
18
1800
1850 75
RC3
1775
00
1925 18
1800
17
2150
25
2175
26 25
75
30 29 28 27
18
177
21
25 17
75
5,862,000
5,862,000
17
50
2025 18
50
RCEX
1775
2075
5
177
17
75
172
5
1725
17
00 50
21
17
2050
25
18
00 1725
2000
23 24 19 20 21 22
19
R23 R22
192 1750
00
5 1700
19 1950
25
1900 1900 1900
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
MacKenzie Redcap Project - Annual Progression Map - End of Year 2019 (Year 1) - Figure 3.2-1
±
Hinton
!
Robb
Existing & Approved Development
!
The m apsand m ap d at aare provid e d ‘ asis ’without ! Proposed MacKenzie Redcap Development 0 250 500 1,
000
any guarant e e ,re pre se ntation,c ond it ion or warrant y
of any k
Re s
ind ,e ithe r e x
sum e sno liabilit
at
ut
y wit
ory.Te c k
h re spe c t
Curre ntChe viotMSLBound ary Wat
e rc ours
e ! ! P owe rline Roc kDispos
alAr e a f
¤
¥ Crossing St
ruc t
ure ! Ne w P owe r line I
nte r c e pt
ion P ond Wast
e Wat
e r Dit
c h-
P ipe line Culv
e rt m
to any re lianc e the us e r plac e sin the m apsand m ap Cadomin CRO Mine P e rm itBound ary Wat
e rshe d Bound ary Haulroad s
Ac t
ive Mining Are a Mac Ke nzie Re d c ap P itLim it
s Ac c e ssRoad s Se d im e nt
ation P ond Cle an Wat
e r Dit
c h-
P ipe line Culve r t DATE: MI
NEOP ERATI ON:
d ata,and t he use r ass um e st he e ntire riskast ot he Curre ntYe ar Ne w Dist
urbanc e Ne w SoilSt
oc k
pile Em bankm e nt 3/
13/
2018 Card inalRiv
er
!
Mountain Mac Ke nzie Re d c ap Dum p Lim it
s
truth,ac c urac y,c urre nc y,or c om ple t e ne ssof t he Uppe r HarrisApprov
e d De ve lopm e nt Cont
ours-25m G P ropose d Com m unic at
ion Towe r
inform at ion c ontaine d in t he m apsand m ap d at a. Cree P ropose d MSLBound ary P ond Out
le t SCALE: COORDINATESYSTEM:
Community
! 1:
26,
1N
Doc um e ntP at
h:\\t
e ck
\TCGI
S\Dat
a\Ope rat
ions
\CRO\P roje c t
s\MKRCP e rm it
Applic at
\Mac Ke nzie Re d c ap AnnualP rogrs
sion Map -Ye ar1(
EOY2019)
.mx
d
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
R23 R22
20 2050 19 200
25 25 197 0
1975
5
1975
11 12 1875
7 10
1850 8 9
1675
19
1950
25 1950
1950 M ea
d ow
18 1900 17 Creek
75
5
00
182
5,866,000
5,866,000
190 18
0 00
1925 17
00
75
18
0
170
75
17
1800
25
18
H omer
18
Little
177 182 25
5
75
5
17
k e
50
1750 17
1825
ee zi
50 50
18
17
2
Cr Ken
18 1 25 6 5 4 3
1850 75
17
ac
17
25
180 18
SP1 180MK1
25
M
0 1900 17 50
17
Harr SP2 0 75
i
177
Cree s
180 17
1850 0 1 25
k
f
5
180 750
1800
195
0
0
17 ¤
¥ 1750
75
17
50
185
25
00
17
75
50
17
0
19
SP3
19
1725
18
25
18 5
25 00 182
17
19
1825
75
1825
1850
18 1 17
25 82 50
T46 T46
5 175
1725
0
18
MK3
1750
50
170
MK2
0
17
190
75
180
19
1825 17
0
50
1800
182
17
75
00
1750
f
¤
¥
0
19
0
T45 T45
50
180
5
00
185
1950 17
MK3EX1
0
175MK4
0
18
25
17 195
25
25
1775
17
1775 0
1800
1875
50
5
18
1825
177
75
18
18
18 18
50
75 50
1875
192
19 5
75 1850 1850 SP4
18
00
50
5,864,000
5,864,000
1875
1800
1900
1875
1825
19
1875
25
1925
18
1875
MK3EX2
0
1775 185
17
195
18
50
35 36 31 32 1825 33 34
25
1825 1850 1850
187 18
5 50
19
1850
50
RC1
25
1875
18
1875
1900 1825 19
19
18 75
00
25
00
18
200
18
0
18
75
185
0
180
00 1950
0
182
5
18
25 RC2
1900
1800
1875 180
180 0
0
18
25
00
RC4/5 18 1850
18
25
25
25
19
19
19
50
17
75
1900
1975
Redc ap
1775
00
18
Cre ek
1800
75
18
1850
RC3
1775
1925 SP5
0
180
180
0
2150
25
2175
26 25 30 29 28 27
18
21
25
5,862,000
5,862,000
2025 18 RCEX
1775
50
2075
17
75
17
00 50
21
17
2050
25
18
00 1725
2000
23 24 19 20 21 22
19
R23 R22
192 1750
00
5 1700
19 1950
25
1900 1900 1900
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
±
Hinton
!
Robb Proposed MacKenzie Redcap Development

!
Existing & Approved Development 0 250 500 1,
000
f
¤
¥
!
ut or y.Te c k
Roc k Disp os
alAr
ea Cr
ossing St
ruc t
ure Ac c e ssRoad s I
nter
ce p t
ion Pond Wast
e Wat
e rDit
c h-
Pip e line Culv
ert m
Re s ourc e sLim it e d as sum e sno liab ilit y wit
hr e sp e c t Cur
re ntChe viotMSLBound ar
y Wat
erc our
se ! ! Powe r
line Ac t
ive Mining Ar
ea Mac Ke nzie Re d c ap PitLim it
s Exisit
ng Powe r
line Se d im e nt
ation Pond Cle an Wat
e rDit
c h-
Pip e line Culve r
t
DATE: MI
NEO PERATI O N:
!
to any re lianc e the us e rp lac e sin t he m ap sand m ap Cadomin
d ata,and t he use rass um e st he e nt ire risk ast ot he
!
CRO Mine Pe r
m itBound ar
y Wat
ershe d Bound ar
y Haulr
oad s Cur
re ntY e arNe w Dist
urb anc e Mac Ke nzie Re d c ap Dum p Lim it
s! Ne w Powe r
line Em b ankm e nt Haulr
oad
3/
14/
2018 Car
d inalRiv
er
e nc y,orc om p le t e ne ssof t he Mountain Pr
y Exist
ing SoilSt
oc kp ile Pond O ut
le t
Up p e rHar
risAp p r
ove d De ve lop m e nt Cont
our
s-25m
inform at ion c ontaine d in t he m ap sand m ap d at a. Cree
Community
!
Ne w SoilSt
oc kp ile G Exist
ing Com m unic at
ion Towe r
1:
26,
SCALE:
000
CO O RDI
NATESY STEM:
NAD1983UTM Z one 1
1N
Doc um e ntPat
h:\
\t
e c kc om inc o\
CGO \
Group s
\TCGI
S\Dat
a\O per
ations
\CRO \
Proje c t
s\MKRCPe r
m it
Ap p lic at
ion\
MXD\
FinalFigur
es\
Mac Ke nzie Re d c ap AnnualPr
ogr
ssion Map -Y e ar
2(EO Y 2020)
.m xd
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
R23 R22
20 2050 19 200
25 25 197 0
1975
5
1975
11 12 1875
7 10
1850 8 9
1675
19
1950
25 1950
1950 M ea
d ow
18 1900 17 Creek
75
5
00
182
5,866,000
5,866,000
190 18
0 00
1925 17
00
75
18
0
170
75
17
1800
18
25
H omer
50
Little
177 182 18
5
75
5 18
17
00
k e
50
1750 17
1825
ee zi
50
18
17
2
Cr Ken
1 25 25 6 5 4 3
1850 17
ac
180 18
SP1 1900 MK1
M
0 185 50 17 50
SP2 0 17 75 17 75
Harr
i
177
Cree s 1850 17
k
f
5
75
180
0
¤
¥ 17 25
17
195 50
1800 0 17
185
25
75
17
50
0
19
SP3
50
19
1725
17
25
18 18 5
182
175
25 00 50
17
19
1825
75
0
1825
1850
18 17
25
T46 T46
25
1725
18
MK3
1750
50
170
MK2
0
190
75
18
180
19
0
00
1800
182
17
1725
00
1750
f
¤
¥
0
0
T45 T45
50
180
5
185
1950 17 1750
50
18
17 MK3EX1
18
0
MK4
00
19
1725
775
18
75
25
1
25
25
1775
17
17 1775
50 195
1800
1875 0
50
5
18
1825
177
75
18
18
18 18
50
1825 75 50 17
19 75
75 1850 1850 SP4 18
18
75
00
00
50
5,864,000
5,864,000
1875 19
1900
1800 5
1825
19
1875 18
182
1925
18
50
50
1875
MK3EX2
0
00 1775 5
187
17
195
18
19
18
50
25
35 36 31 32 1825 33 34
25
18
18
1825 1850 19
75
25
18 50
50
1900
1850
1850 18
1875 RC1 50
1875
1900 1825
195
17
19
17 75
18
00
50
25
0
00
18
197
200
185
0
180
0
182
5
19
18
25 RC2 187
25
5
18 18
1875 18 25 180
50
19 00
25 0
185
00
RC4/5 18
0 1850
18
25
25
18
19
00
18
75
00
17 19
50
1900
1975
Redc ap
00
1775
18
Cre ek
18
1800
1850 75
RC3 18
00
1925 SP5
5
177
180
0
17
2150
25
2175
26 25 30
75
29 28 27
18
5
21
177
1775
25
1800
5,862,000
5,862,000
2025 18
50
RCEX
182
5
2075
SP6
5
177
17
1775
75
1725
17
50
00
21
17
25 175
17
2050 0
25
18
00
2000
23 24 19 20 21 22
19
R23 R22
192 1750
00
5 1700
19 1950
25
1900 1900 1900
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
±
Hinton
!

!
The m ap sand m ap d at aar e pr ovid e d ‘ asis ’wit hout Existing & Approved Development 0 250 500 1,
000
f
¤
¥
!
any guar ante e ,r epre se ntation,c ond it ion orwar r ant y Roc k Disp os
alAr
ea Ac c e ssRoad Se d im e nt
ation Pond Wast
e Wat
e rDit
c h-
Pip e line Culv
ert
ut or y.Te c k
Cr
ossing St
ruc t
ure m
hr e sp e c t
Cur
y Wat
erc our
se ! ! Powe r
line Ac t
ive Mining Ar
ea Exisit
ng Powe r
line Em b ankm e nt Cle an Wat
e rDit
c h-
Pip e line Culve r
t
Mac Ke nzie Re d c ap PitLim it
s
DATE: MI
NEO PERATI O N:
!
to any re lianc e the us e rp lac e sin t he m ap sand m ap Cadomin
CRO Mine Pe r
m itBound ar
y Wat
ershe d Bound ar
y Haulr
oad s Cur
urb anc e Exist
ing SoilSt
oc kp ile Pond O ut
le t Re c laim e d Ar
ea
d ata,and t he use rass um e st he e nt ire risk ast ot he Mac Ke nzie Re d c ap Dum p Lim it
s 3/
14/
2018 Car
d inalRiv
er
!
e nc y,orc om p le t e ne ssof t he Mountain
Up p e rHar
risAp p r
our
s-25m Pr
y Ne w SoilSt
oc kp ile Haulr
oad
Community
!
I
nter
ce p t
ion Pond G Exist
ing Com m unic at
ion Towe r
1:
26,
000
SCALE: CO O RDI
NATESY STEM:
NAD1983UTM Z one 1
1N
Doc um e ntPat
h:\
\t
e c kc om inc o\
CGO \
Group s
\TCGI
S\Dat
a\O per
ations
\CRO \
Proje c t
s\MKRCPe r
m it
Ap p lic at
ion\
MXD\
FinalFigur
es\
ogr
ssion Map -Y e ar
3(EO Y 2021)
.m xd
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
R23 R22
20 2050 19 200
25 25 197 0
1975
5
1975
11 12 1875
7 10
1850 8 9
1675
19
1950
25 1950
1950 M ea
d ow
18 1900 17 Creek
75
5
00
182
5,866,000
5,866,000
190 18
0 00
1925 17
00
75
18
0
170
75
17
1800
18
25
H omer
50
Little
177 182 18
5
75
5 18
17
00
k e
50
17
1825
ee zi
50
18
17
2
Cr Ken
1 25 25 6 5 4 3
1850 17
ac
180 18
SP1 1900 MK1
M
0 185 50 17 50
SP2 0 17 75 17 75
Harr
i
177
Cree s 1850
k
f
5
75
180
0
¤
¥ 17
17
195 50
1800 0 17
185
25
17
75
17
50
0
25
19
SP3
50
19
1725
25
18 5
182
175
18
25
19
00
1825
1825
1850
18 17
25
T46
175
T46
0 25
1725
85 0
1 18
50 MK3
75
170
17
MK2
0
190
19
75
18
18
180
0
25 00
1800
25
182
17
1725 1750
f
¤
¥
0
19
0
T45 T45
50
180
5
00
1950 17 1750
50
18
1900
17 MK3EX1
MK4
00
1725
775
18
1 195
17
25
1775
17 1775 0
50
50
1800
1875
50
5
18
1825
177
75
18
18
18 18
50
1825 75 50
1875
17 192
18
19 75 1825 5
1850 1850 SP4
50
75
18
17
00
50
5,864,000
5,864,000
1875
25
1900
1800 5
19
1875
182
1925
1825
18
1875
MK3EX2
0
5
187
195
50
18
35 36 31 32 1825 33 34
25
1775 1825 1850 19
187 17 18 50
5 50 50
1900
1850 18
1875 18
25 RC1 50
18
00
1875
1900 00
192
18 19
19
18 75
00
25
18
5
00 00 182
18
200
5
18
185
0
50
0
182 19
5 17 50
18
18
25
75 RC2 50
18
18 50
1875 18 25 180
18
25
19 00
25 0 1875
00
RC4/5 18
18
25
25
19
180
18
75
00
17 19
0
50
1900
1975
Redc ap
1775
18
Cre ek
1800
00
1850 75
RC3 00
18
1925 SP5 18
18
25 1800
17
2150
00
25
2175
26 25 30
75
29 28 18 27
18
5
21
177
25
5,862,000
5,862,000
17
75
2025 18
50
RCEX
2075
SP6
5
1775
177
17
75
1725
17
17
50
00 50
21
17
2050
25
18
00 1725
2000
23 24 19 20 21 22
19
R23 R22
192 1750
00
5 1700
19 1950
25
1900 1900 1900
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
±
Hinton
!
!
0 250 500 1,
000
any guar ante e ,r
of any kind ,e it
epre se nt
he re xp r
at
e ss
ion,c ond it ion orwar
,im p lie d ,orst at
ut or
r ant y
y.Te c k
!
Cur
y Wat
erc our
se ! ! Powe r
line
Roc k Disp os
Ac t
alAr
ea
ive Mining Ar
ea
f
¤
¥ Cr
ossing St
ruc t
ure Ac c e ssRoad s
Exisit
ng Powe r
line
Se d im e nt
ation Pond
Em b ankm e nt
Wast
e Wat
e rDit
Cle an Wat
c h-
e rDit
Pip e line Culv
c h-
ert
Pip e line Culve r
t
m
hr e sp e c t Mac Ke nzie Re d c ap PitLim it
s !
to any re lianc e the us e rp lac e sin t he m ap sand m ap Cadomin CRO Mine Pe r
m itBound ar
y Wat
ershe d Bound ar
y Haulr
oad s Cur
urb anc e Exist
ing SoilSt
oc kp ile Pond O ut
ea
DATE: MI
NEO PERATI O N:
Mac Ke nzie Re d c ap Dum p Lim it
s
d ata,and t he use rass um e st he e nt ire risk ast ot he 3/
16/
2018 Car
d inalRiv
er
!
e nc y,orc om p le t e ne ssof t he Mountain Up p e rHar
risAp p r
our
s-25m Pr
y I
nter
ce p t
ion Pond Haulr
oad
Community
!
G Exist
ing Com m unic at
ion Towe r
1:
26,
000
SCALE: CO O RDI
NATESY STEM:
NAD1983UTM Z one 1
1N
Doc um e ntPat
h:\
\t
e c kc om inc o\
CGO \
Group s
\TCGI
S\Dat
a\O per
ations
\CRO \
Proje c t
s\MKRCPe r
m it
Ap p lic at
ion\
MXD\
FinalFigur
es\
ogr
ssion Map -Y e ar
4(EO Y 2022)
.m xd
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
R23 R22
20 2050 19 200
25 25 197 0
1975
5
1975
11 12 1875
7 10
1850 8 9
1675
19
1950
25 1950
1950 M ea
d ow
18 1900 17 Creek
75
5
00
182
5,866,000
5,866,000
190 18
0 00
1925 17
00
75
18
0
170
75
17
1800
25 18
18 25
H omer
Little
177 182
5
75
5 18
17
00
k e
50
1750 17
1825
ee zi
50 50
18
17
2 18
Cr Ken
1 25 25 6 5 4 3
1850 17
ac
180 18
SP1 1900 MK1
M
0 185 50 17 50
SP2 0 17 75 17 75
Harr
i
177
Cree s 1850
k
f
5
75
180
0
¤
¥ 17
17
195 50
1800 0 17
185
25
1725
17
75
17
50
0
25
19
00
SP3
50
19
17
25
18 5
182
175
25
17
19
1825
75
0
1825
1850
18 17
25
T46
175
T46
0 25
1725
85 0
1 18
50 MK3
170
MK2
0
190
19
75
18
18
180
0
25 00
1800
25
182
17
1725 1750
f
¤
¥
0
19
0
180
T45 T45
50
180
5
00
1950 17 1750
50
18
0
1900
17 MK3EX1
MK4
00
1725
775
18
1 195
17
25
1775
17 1775 0
50
50
1800
1875
50
5
18
1825
177
75
18
18
18 18
50
1825 75 50
1875
17 1825 192
19 75 5
75 1850 1850 SP4
18
17
00
50
5,864,000
5,864,000
1875
25
1900
1800 5
19
1875
182
1925
1825
1875
MK3EX2
18
0
00 187
5
195
50
19
18
35 36 31 32 1825 33 34
25
18
1775 1825 1850
75
19
17 18 50
50 50 18
25
1850
1875 RC1 18
50
18
00
1875
1900 1825 00
195
18
19
18
18
00
25
0
00 1825
75
18
197
200
185
0
0
182
5
RC2
1900
17 75
18
18
50
25
18 18
1875 25 180
50
180 0
0
185
0
00
RC4/5 1850
18
25
25
25
19
18
180
19
18
75
00
17 19
0
50
17 182
18 75 5
1900
1975 00 177
Redc ap
5
1775
18
Cre ek
1800
1850 75
1775
RC3
1925 SP5
180
0
2150
25
2175 177
26 25 30 29 28 27 5
18
21 18
25 00
17
75
5,862,000
5,862,000
2025 18
50
RCEX
850
1
17 1825
2075 50
SP6
5
177
17
177
75
5
1725
17
00 50
21
17
2050
25
18
00 1725
2000
23 24 19 20 21 22
19
192 1750
00
R23 R22
5 1700
19 1950
25
1900 1900 1900
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
±
Hinton
!
!
Existing & Approved Development 0 250 500 1,
000
any guar ante e ,r
of any kind ,e it
epre se nt
he re xp r
at
e ss
ut or
r ant y
y.Te c k
!
Roc k Disp os
alAr
ea f
¤
¥ Cr
ossing St
ruc t
ure Ac c e ssRoad s Se d im e nt
ation Pond Wast
e Wat
e rDit
c h-
Pip e line Culv
ert
m
hr e sp e c t Cur
y Wat
erc our
se ! ! Powe r
line Ac t
ive Mining Ar
ea Mac Ke nzie Re d c ap PitLim it
s ! Exisit
ng Powe r
line Em b ankm e nt Cle an Wat
e rDit
c h-
Pip e line Culve r
t
to any re lianc e the us e rp lac e sin t he m ap sand m ap Cadomin Cur
urb anc e Exist
ing SoilSt
oc kp ile Pond O ut
ea DATE: MI
NEO PERATI O N:
d ata,and t he use rass um e st he e nt ire risk ast ot he
! CRO Mine Pe r
m itBound ar
y Wat
ershe d Bound ar
y Haulr
oad s Mac Ke nzie Re d c ap Dum p Lim it
s
3/
14/
2018 Car
d inalRiv
er
y I
nter
ce p t
ion Pond Haulr
oad
Up p e rHar
risAp p r
our
s-25m
Community
!
G Exist
ing Com m unic at
ion Towe r
1:
26,
SCALE:
000
CO O RDI
NATESY STEM:
NAD1983UTM Z one 1
1N
Doc um e ntPat
h:\
\t
e c kc om inc o\
CGO \
Group s
\TCGI
S\Dat
a\O per
ations
\CRO \
Proje c t
s\MKRCPe r
m it
Ap p lic at
ion\
MXD\
FinalFigur
es\
ogr
ssion Map -Y e ar
5(EO Y 2023)
1.m xd
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
R23 R22
20 2050 19 200
25 25 197 0
1975
5
1975
11 12 1875
7 10
1850 8 9
1675
19
1950
25 1950
1950 M ea
d ow
18 1900 17 Creek
75
5
00
182
5,866,000
5,866,000
190 18
0 00
1925 17
00
75
18
0
170
75
17
1800
18
25
H omer
50
Little
177 182 18
5
75
5 18
17
00
k e
50
17
1825
ee zi
50
18
17
2
Cr Ken
1 25 25 6 5 4 3
1850 17
ac
180 18
SP1 1900 MK1
M
0 185 50 17 50
SP2 0 17 75 17 75
Harr
i
177
Cree s 1850
k
f
5
75
180
0
¤
¥ 17
17
195 50
1800 0 17 1750
185
25
1725
1700
17
75
17
50
0
25
19
SP3
50
19
25
5
182
18
19
1825
00
1825
1825
1850
18 17
25
T46
175
T46
0 25
1725
85 0
1 18
50 MK3
75
170
17
MK2
0
190
19
75
18
18
180
0
25 00
1800
25
182
17
1725 1750
f
¤
¥
0
19
0
T45 T45
50
180
5
00
1950 17 1750
50
18
1900
17 MK3EX1
MK4
00
1725
775
18
1 195
17
25
1775
17 1775 0
50
50
1800
1875
50
5
18
1825
177
75
18
18
18 18
50
1825 75 50
1875
17 1825 192
19 75 5
75 1850 1850 SP4
18
17
00
50
5,864,000
5,864,000
1875
25
1900
1800 5
19
1875
182
1925
1825
1875
MK3EX2
18
0
00 187
5
195
50
19
18
35 36 31 32 1825 33 34
25
18
1825 1850 185 19
1775 0
75
17 18 50
50 50 50
18
1900
1850
1875 RC1
18
00
1875
1900 1825
192
19
19
18 75
00
25
5
00
18
200
182
5
185
0
0
182 19
5 50
18 RC2
00
75
18
18
1875
18
25
1850
180
50
180 0 17 1875
0 75
17
185
25
0
RC4/5 50
50
18
25
25
19
18
180
19
18
75
00
17
18
18
25
00
0
1975 177
Redc ap
180
1775
5 190
Cre ek
1800
1850 0
RC3 25
1925 SP5 17 18
50
180
25 0
2175
2150 18 1725 177
26 25 21 30 29 28 27 5
25
18
75 17
1800
75
5,862,000
5,862,000
2025 18
50
RCEX
1850
2075
SP6
5
177
17
177
75
1750 5
17
00 50
21
17
2050
25
18
00 1725
2000
23 24 19 20 21 22
19
R23 R22
192 1750
00
5 1700
19 1950
25
1900 1900 1900
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
±
Hinton
!
!
000
any guar ante e ,r
of any kind ,e it
epre se nt
he re xp r
at
e ss
ut or
r ant y
y.Te c k
!
Cur
y Wat
erc our
se ! Powe r
line
Roc k Disp os
Ac t
alAr
ea
ive Mining Ar
ea
f
¤
¥ Cr
ossing St
ruc t
ure Ac c e ssRoad s
Exisit
ng Powe r
line
Se d im e nt
ation Pond
Em b ankm e nt
Wast
e Wat
e rDit
Cle an Wat
c h-
e rDit
Pip e line Culv
c h-
ert
Pip e line Culve r
t
m
hr e sp e c t
! Mac Ke nzie Re d c ap PitLim it
s !
to any re lianc e the us e rp lac e sin t he m ap sand m ap Cadomin DATE: MI
NEO PERATI O N:
CRO Mine Pe r
m itBound ar
y Wat
ershe d Bound ar
y Haulr
oad s Cur
urb anc e Mac Ke nzie Re d c ap Dum p Lim it
s Exist
ing SoilSt
oc kp ile Pond O ut
ea
14/
2018 Car
d inalRiv
er
!
y I
nter
ce p t
ion Pond Haulr
oad
Up p e rHar
risAp p r
our
s-25m
Community
!
G Exist
ing Com m unic at
ion Towe r
1:
26,
000
SCALE: CO O RDI
NATESY STEM:
NAD1983UTM Z one 1
1N
Doc um e ntPat
h:\
\t
e c kc om inc o\
CGO \
Group s
\TCGI
S\Dat
a\O per
ations
\CRO \
Proje c t
s\MKRCPe r
m it
Ap p lic at
ion\
MXD\
FinalFigur
es\
ogr
ssion Map -Y e ar
6(EO Y 2024)
.m xd
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
R23 R22
20 2050 19 200
25 25 197 0
1975
5
1975
11 12 1875
7 10
1850 8 9
1675
19
1950
25 1950
1950 M ea
d ow
18 1900 17 Creek
75
5
00
182
5,866,000
5,866,000
190 18
0 00
1925
75
18
0
170
75
17
1800
18
25
H omer
Little
177 182
5
75
5
17
k e
50
1750 17
1825
ee zi
50
18
17
2
25
Cr Ken
1 25 6 5 4 3
18
1850
17
ac
25
180 18
SP1 MK1
M
0 17 50
17
SP2 75
50
Harr
25
17
i
1775
Cree s
180
1850 0
k
f
¤
¥
17
195
0
00
1800
185
00
75
50
17
0
19
SP3
19
25
18 5
25 182
19
1825
1825
1850
17
50
T46 T46
1725
1875 MK3
170
MK2
0
190
19
180
1825
0
25
1800
182
1725 1750
f
¤
¥
0
1775
19
0
T45 T45
50
180
5
00
1950 17
50
18
17 MK3EX1
MK4
50
19
18
5
00 195
25
172
1775
1775 0
1800
1875
50
5
1825
177
18
18
18
50
75 1825
1875
192
19 5
75 1850 SP4
00
5,864,000
5,864,000
1875
1900
1875
19
1875 1925
1825
1875
MK3EX2
0
00 185 185
195
19 0 0
35 36 31 32 1825
33 34
18
1775 1850 1850
75
17
50
19
18 RC1
25
1850 25
18
1875
00
1900 18
19
19
75
1850
75
00
25
18
00
18
200
18
75
0
1950
182
5
RC2
1900
1875
180
0
00
RC4/5 18 1850
18
25
25
25
19
19
19
50
1900
1975
Redc ap
1775
18
Cre ek
1850 75
RC3
1925 SP5 18
00
75
17
180
0
2150
25
2175
26 25 30 29 28 27
18
1775
21
25
5,862,000
5,862,000
1775
2025 18
50
RCEX
2075
SP6
5
177
17
75
1725
1725
17
00 50
21
2050
18
00 1725
2000
23 24 19 20 21 22
19
R23 R22
192 1750
00
5 1700
19 1950 1725
25
1900 1900 1900
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
±
Hinton
!
Robb
Proposed MacKenzie Redcap Development
!
any guar ante e ,r
of any kind ,e it
epre se nt
he re xp r
at
e ss
ut or
r ant y
y.Te c k
!
Cur
y Wat
erc our
se ! Powe r
line
Roc k Disp os
Ac t
alAr
ea
ive Mining Ar
ea
f
¤
¥ Cr
ossing St
ruc t
ure Ac c e ssRoad s
Exisit
ng Powe r
line
Se d im e nt
ation Pond
Em b ankm e nt
Wast
e Wat
e rDit
Cle an Wat
c h-
e rDit
Pip e line Culv
c h-
ert
Pip e line Culve r
t
0 250 500 1,
000
m
s
!
hr e sp e c t
!
m itBound ar
y Wat
ershe d Bound ar
y Haulr
oad s Cur
urb anc e Exist
ing SoilSt
oc kp ile Pond O ut
ea DATE: MI
NEO PERATI O N:
s
14/
2018 Car
d inalRiv
er
!
Mountain Pr
y I
nter
ce p t
ion Pond Haulr
oad
e nc y,orc om p le t e ne ssof t he Up p e rHar
risAp p r
our
s-25m
Community
!
G Exist
ing Com m unic at
ion Towe r
1:
26,
SCALE:
000
CO O RDI
NATESY STEM:
NAD1983UTM Z one 1
1N
Doc um e ntPat
h:\
\t
e c kc om inc o\
CGO \
Group s
\TCGI
S\Dat
a\O per
ations
\CRO \
Proje c t
s\MKRCPe r
m it
Ap p lic at
ion\
MXD\
FinalFigur
es\
ogr
ssion Map -Y e ar
7(EO Y 2025)
.m xd
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
R23 R22
20 2050 19 200
25 25 197 0
1975
5
1975
11 12 1875
7 10
1850 8 9
1675
19
1950
25 1950
1950 M ea
d ow
18 1900 17 Creek
75
5
00
182
5,866,000
5,866,000
190 18
0 00
1925
75
18
0
170
75
17
1800
18
25
H omer
Little
177 182
5
75
5
17
k e
50
1750 17
1825
ee zi
50
18
17
2
25
Cr Ken
1 25 6 5 4 3
18
1850
17
ac
25
180 18
SP1 MK1
M
0 17 50
17
SP2 75
50
Harr
25
17
i
1775
Cree s
180
1850 0
k
f
¤
¥
17
195
0
00
1800
185
00
75
50
17
0
19
SP3
19
25
18 5
25 182
19
1825
1825
1850
17
50
T46 T46
1725
1875 MK3
170
MK2
0
190
19
180
1825
0
25
1800
182
1725 1750
f
¤
¥
0
1775
19
0
T45 T45
50
180
5
00
1950 17
50
18
17 MK3EX1
MK4
50
19
18
5
00 195
25
172
1775
1775 0
1800
1875
50
5
1825
177
18
18
18
50
75 1825
1875
192
19 5
75 1850 SP4
00
5,864,000
5,864,000
1875
1900
1875
19
1875 1925
1825
1875
MK3EX2
0
00 185 185
195
19 0 0
35 36 31 32 1825
33 34
18
1775 1850 1850
75
17
50
19
18 RC1
25
1850 25
18
1875
00
1900 18
19
19
75
1850
75
00
25
18
00
18
200
18
75
0
1950
182
5
RC2
1900
1875
180
0
00
RC4/5 18 1850
18
25
25
25
19
19
19
50
1900
1975
Redc ap
1775
18
Cre ek
1850 75
RC3
1925 SP5 18
00
75
17
180
0
2150
25
2175
26 25 30 29 28 27
18
1775
21
25
5,862,000
5,862,000
1775
2025 18
50
RCEX
2075
SP6
5
177
17
75
1725
1725
17
00 50
21
2050
18
00 1725
2000
23 24 19 20 21 22
19
R23 R22
192 1750
00
5 1700
19 1950 1725
25
1900 1900 1900
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
±
Hinton
!
Robb
Proposed MacKenzie Redcap Development
!
any guar ante e ,r
of any kind ,e it
epre se nt
he re xp r
at
e ss
ut or
r ant y
y.Te c k
!
Cur
y Wat
erc our
se ! Powe r
line
Roc k Disp os
Ac t
alAr
ea
ive Mining Ar
ea
f
¤
¥ Cr
ossing St
ruc t
ure Ac c e ssRaod s
Exisit
ng Powe r
line
Se d im e nt
ation Pond
Em b ankm e nt
Wast
e Wat
e rDit
Cle an Wat
c h-
e rDit
Pip e line Culv
c h-
ert
Pip e line Culve r
t
0 250 500 1,
000
m
s
!
hr e sp e c t
!
m itBound ar
y Wat
ershe d Bound ar
y Haulr
oad s Pr
y Exist
ing SoilSt
oc kp ile Pond O ut
ea DATE: MI
NEO PERATI O N:
s
14/
2018 Car
d inalRiv
er
!
Mountain I
nter
ce p t
ion Pond Haulr
oad
e nc y,orc om p le t e ne ssof t he Up p e rHar
risAp p r
our
s-25m
Community
!
G Exist
ing Com m unic at
ion Towe r
1:
26,
SCALE:
000
CO O RDI
NATESY STEM:
NAD1983UTM Z one 1
1N
Doc um e ntPat
h:\
\t
e c kc om inc o\
CGO \
Group s
\TCGI
S\Dat
a\O per
ations
\CRO \
Proje c t
s\MKRCPe r
m it
Ap p lic at
ion\
MXD\
FinalFigur
es\
ogr
ssion Map -Y e ar
8(EO Y 2026)
.m xd
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
R23 R22
20 2050 19 200
25 25 197 0
1975
5
1975
11 12 1875
7 10
1850 8 9
1675
19
1950
25 1950
1950 M ea
d ow
18 1900 17 Creek
75
5
00
182
5,866,000
5,866,000
190 18
0 00
1925 17
00
75
18
0
170
1800
75
17 18
25
25 18
18 25
H omer
Little
177 182
5
75
5 18
17
00
k e
50
1750 17
1825
ee zi
50 50
18
17
2 18
Cr Ken
1 25 25 6 5 4 3
1850 17
ac
180 18
SP1 1900 MK1
M
0 185 50 17 50
SP2 0 17 75 17 75
Harr
i
177
Cree s 1850
k
f
5
75
180
0
¤
¥ 17
17
195 50
1800 0 17
185
25
75
17
50
0
19
25
SP3
19
1725
25
18 18 5
182
175
17
25 00
17
19
25
1825
75
0
1825
1850
18 17
25 50
T46 T46
17
1725
50
18
MK3
1750
50
170
MK2
0
190
75
18
180
19
0
00
1800
0
182
17
1725
00
1750
f
¤
¥
0
175
19
0
T45 T45
50
180
5
00
185
1950 17 1750
50
17 5 MK3EX1
0
1725 MK4
18
77
25
1 18 195
25
1775
17
25 1775 0
18
1800
1875 00
50
5
18
1825
177
75
18
18
18 18
50
75 50 1825
1875
1850 17 1825 192
19 75 5
75 1850 1850 SP4 18
18
00
75
50
5,864,000
5,864,000
1875
1900
1800 5
1825
19
1875
182
1925
1875
MK3EX2
0
00 1775 5
187
17
195
19
50
35 36 31 32 1825 33 34
18
1825 1850 185 19
0
75
18 50
50 50
18
1900
1850 18
00 RC1
1875 18
1900 1825
18
195
50 18
19
00 1800
50
18
00
25
0
75
18
197
200
0
0
180
182 18
5 00
19
RC2 25
75 187
18 5
18
18
1875 17 50
25
00
19 180 180
25 0 0
25
00
RC4/5 1850
18
18
18
50
25
17 25
18
19
75
19
17
50
50
1700 5
177 1
1900
1975 80
Redc ap
1775
18
Cre ek
0
1800
1850 75
1775
RC3 18
1925 SP5 25
180
0
2150 185
25
2175
26 25 30 29 28 0
27
18
5
21
25 177
18
00
5,862,000
5,862,000
1875
2025 18
50
RCEX
182
2075 5
SP6
5
177
17
177
75
1750 5
17
00 50
21
17
2050
25
18
00 1725
2000
23 24 19 20 21 22
19
R23 R22
192 1750
00
5 1700
19 1950
25
1900 1900 1900
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
±
Hinton
!
!
000
any guar ante e ,r
of any kind ,e it
epre se nt
he re xp r
at
e ss
ut or
r ant y
y.Te c k
!
Cur
y Wat
erc our
se ! Powe r
line
Roc k Disp os
Ac t
alAr
ea
ive Mining Ar
ea
f
¤
¥ Cr
ossing St
ruc t
ure Ac c e ssRoad s
Exisit
ng Powe r
line
Se d im e nt
ation Pond
Em b ankm e nt
Wast
e Wat
e rDit
Cle an Wat
c h-
e rDit
Pip e line Culv
c h-
ert
Pip e line Culve r
t
m
hr e sp e c t
! Mac Ke nzie Re d c ap PitLim it
s !
to any re lianc e the us e rp lac e sin t he m ap sand m ap Cadomin DATE: MI
NEO PERATI O N:
CRO Mine Pe r
m itBound ar
y Wat
ershe d Bound ar
y Haulr
oad s Pr
y Mac Ke nzie Re d c ap Dum p Lim it
s Exist
ing SoilSt
oc kp ile Pond O ut
ea
14/
2018 Car
d inalRiv
er
!
e nc y,orc om p le t e ne ssof t he Mountain I
nter
ce p t
ion Pond Haulr
oad
Up p e rHar
risAp p r
our
s-25m
Community
!
G Exist
ing Com m unic at
ion Towe r
1:
26,
000
SCALE: CO O RDI
NATESY STEM:
NAD1983UTM Z one 1
1N
Doc um e ntPat
h:\
\t
e c kc om inc o\
CGO \
Group s
\TCGI
S\Dat
a\O per
ations
\CRO \
Proje c t
s\MKRCPe r
m it
Ap p lic at
ion\
MXD\
FinalFigur
es\
ogr
ssion Map -Y e ar
9(EO Y 2027)
.m xd
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
11 12
R23 R22
7 8 9 10
5,866,000
5,866,000
Litt
Hom
le
er C
2 1 6
ree
5 4 3
MKPO
k
MK1 MK_SU
MacKenzie
f
¤
¥ Little Homer
D
Sector Sector
T46 zi
e MK2 LHPO T46
en f
¥
¤
K k
T45 ac ee
T45
MK3EX1
M Cr
E MK4
Li
Ho
ttl
e
m
er
UTRC1-SU-1
5,864,000
5,864,000
UTRC
Cr
UTRC1-SU-2
ee
MK3EX2
D
k
Sector
D
35 36 31 32 33 34
UTRC2-SU-1
E
RC1
D
UTRC2-SU-2
D
RC2
RC4/5
RC3
R ed c a
C re e k
26 25 30 29 28 27
p
5,862,000
5,862,000
RCEX
Redcap
Sector
RCPO
23 24 19 20 21 22
E
R23 R22 D
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
MacKenzie Redcap Project Water Management Plan General Arrangement- Figure 3.4-1
±
Hinton
!
Robb
Pu m p System Contac
tWaterDitch orPipeline Hau lr
oadandPowerRig h tof Way CRO MinePer
m itBou ndar
y WasteDu m p Lim it
!
T h em aps andm ap dataar epr ovided‘ as is’
with ou t
0 250 500 1,
000
! D
anyg u ar antee,r epresentation,conditionorwar ranty
m
of anykind,eith erex
Resou r
to anyr elianc
press,im plied,orstatu tor
ces Lim itedassu m es no liabilitywith r
eth eu serplac
y
es inth em aps andm ap

.T eck
espec t
Cadomin
PondOu tlet I
nter
ceptionPond SoilStockpile Water
cou r
se f
¤
¥ Cr
ossing Stu r
ctu r
e
DAT E: MI
NEOPERAT ION:
data,andth eu serassu m es th eentir er isk as to th e
!
CleanWaterPipeline Sedim entationPond Cu r
rentCh ev
iotMSLBou ndar
y PitLim it 3/
13/
2018 Car
dinalRiv
er
tru th ,acc urac y
,c ur
rency,orc om pleteness of th e Mountain
infor m ationc ontainedinth em aps andm ap data. Cree Em bankm ent Pr
oposedMSLBou ndar
y Pit/
WasteDu m p Lim it-30m Bu ffer SCALE: COORDINAT ESYST EM:
Community
! 1:
26,
000 NAD1983UT M Zone11N
Docu m entPath :\
\tec
kcom inco\
CGO\
Grou ps\
T CGI
S\Data\
Oper
ations\
CRO\
Projec
ts\
MKRCPer
m itApplication\
MXD\
FinalFig u r
es\
Water
Manag em entPlanGener
alAr
rang em ent1.
mxd
485,400 485,600 485,800 486,000 486,200 486,400 486,600 486,800 487,000 487,200
R23 R22
17 18 1830
70 1770 30
00
18 18
70
00 18
0
183
50
40
18
0
179
18
1820
10
80 18
18 0
181
80
180
17
0
5,865,800
5,865,800
175
17 0
70 176 1790
17
0
90
181
0
UT
M
1860 C2
70
17
0
183
5,865,600
5,865,600
0
184 70
18
185
0 20
17
40
17
80
16
0
170
k
ee
5,865,400
5,865,400
10
Cr
17
ie
0
6
173
nz
Ke
T46 T46
00
c
19
Ma
MK1
MKPO
50
90
2
17
MK-PU 16
176
0
3
D
10
19 MKPL
5,865,200
5,865,200
182
0
f
¤
¥
90
19
0
198
40
19
70
17
1730
178
0
0
174
ek
e
00
Cr
5,865,000
5,865,000
18
UTMC3
ie
E
nz
1720
1970 60 1800
E
19
Ke
ac
1790
M
1950
186
0
1930
1840
0 1740 1760
192
0
178
17
R23 R22
20
180
0
1880 60 770 10
18
17
1830 17
30
1
50
17
485,400 485,600 485,800 486,000 486,200 486,400 486,600 486,800 487,000 487,200
MacKenzie Redcap Project - Water Management Plan Overview of MacKenzie Sector - Figure 3.4-2
±
Hinton
!
Robb Culve rt Surfac

e Wat
e r Dit
ch Cont
actWat
e r Dit
ch or Pipe line Haulroad and Powe r R ig htof Way Propos e d MSLBound ary
!
The m aps and m ap d at
anyg uarant
aare provid e d ‘as is ’wit
e e ,re pre s e ntat ion,cond it ion or warrant
hout
y
! 0 25 50 100
of anykind ,e it he r e xpre s s ,im plie d ,or s tat utory .Te ck Mine PitPipe line D Pum p Syst
em Se d im e nt
ation Pond SoilSt
ockpile Wat
e rcours e m
R e s ource s Lim ite d as s um e s no liabilit ywit h re s pe ct
to anyre lianc e the us e r plac e s in the m aps and m ap Cadomin
3 Mine PitSum p Pond Out
le t Em bankm e nt Curre ntChe v
iotMSLBound ary PitLim it DATE: MI
NEOPER ATI ON:
f
¤
¥
3/
13/
2018 Card inalR iv
er
d ata,and t he us e r as s um e s t he e nt ire ris k as t ot he
!
Mountain
Pit
/Was t
trut h,acc urac y,c urre nc y,or c om ple te ne s s of t he
inform at ion cont aine d in t he m aps and m ap d at a. Cree Cros s ing St
ruc
ture SCALE: COOR DI
NATESYSTEM:
Community
! 1:
5,000 NAD1983UTM Zone 1
1N
Docum e ntPat
h:\
\t
eckcom inco\
CGO\
Groups \
TCGI
S\Dat
a\Ope rat
ions \
CR O\
Proje c
ts\
MKR CPe rm it
Applicat
ion\
MXD\
FinalFig ure s \
Wat
e rManag e m e nt
PlanOv
e rv
ie wofMac
Ke nzie Se c
tor.
mxd
487,400 487,600 487,800 488,000 488,200 488,400 488,600 488,800 489,000 489,200 489,400 489,600 489,800
R22
1800 18
1680
20
178
17 0
177
30 174
0
177
0
10
18
0
174 17
0 20
5,865,200
5,865,200
80 180
0
17
1760
17
00
169
90
1690
17
0
0
17
171
178
70
17
1700
0
17
Li
40
60
tt le
Ho
17
3
40
m
er
E
17
20
180
17
0
171
70
5,865,000
5,865,000
0
6
E
70
MK3 17
UT 5
MC
4
1770
1820
00
18
00
18
0
5,864,800
5,864,800
185
LHPO
17
60
179
1830
17
70
17
E 17
30
50
19
UT
20
LH
5,864,600
5,864,600
T46
C1
19
30
T46
f
¤
¥
0
186
MK2
T45 T45
18
40
Lit
tle Hom e r Sum p
1910
and Pipe line

"
J 1750
3 MK4
17
70
MK3EX1
1860
1800
19
5,864,400
5,864,400
00
er
Ho m
18
E
70
3
Little
18
1760
18
30
40
18
80
31 18
50
1790
18
60
32 181
0
1870
18
20
17
18
Lit
tle Hom e r Cont
act
90
00
5,864,200
5,864,200
Wat e r Dit
ch 1840
1900
0
181
1860
1810
1870
188
0
1830
0
186
17
17
30
50
1840 188
0 1870
1730
20
18
1820
17
18
MK3EX2
5,864,000
5,864,000
50
80
18
1870
R22
1780
60
0
18
180
188 50
17
185
0 1830
70
0
487,400 487,600 487,800 488,000 488,200 488,400 488,600 488,800 489,000 489,200 489,400 489,600 489,800
MacKenzie Redcap Project - Water Management Plan Overview of Little Homer Sector - Figure 3.4-3
±
Hinton
f
¤
¥
!
Culve rt Mine PitPipe line Se d im e nt

ation Pond Haulroad and Powe r R ig htof Way PitLim it
Robb Cros s ing St
ruc
ture
!
The m aps and m ap d at aare provid e d ‘as is ’wit hout 0 50 100 200
Sum p Mine PitSum p Em bankm e nt SoilSt
ockpile Pit
/Was t
e Dum p Lim it-30m Buffe r m
!
anyg uarant e e ,re pre s e ntat ion,cond it ion or warrant y
of anykind ,e it he r e xpre s s ,im plie d ,or s tat utory .Te ck "
J 3
R e s ource s Lim ite d as s um e s no liabilit ywit h re s pe ct Wat
e rcours e
to anyre lianc e the us e r plac e s in the m aps and m ap Cadomin Pipe line Surfac
e Wat
e r Dit
ch Was t
e Dum p Lim it DATE: MI
NEOPER ATI ON:
d ata,and t he us e r as s um e s t he e nt ire ris k as t ot he 3/
13/
2018 Card inalR iv
er
!
trut h,acc urac y,c urre nc y,or c om ple te ne s s of t he Mountain
inform at ion cont aine d in t he m aps and m ap d at a. Cree Pond Out
le t SCALE: COOR DI
NATESYSTEM:
Community
! 1:
6,000 NAD1983UTM Zone 1
1N
Docum e ntPat
h:\
\t
eckcom inco\
CGO\
Groups \
TCGI
S\Dat
a\Ope rat
ions \
CR O\
Proje c
ts\
MKR CPe rm it
Applicat
ion\
MXD\
FinalFig ure s \
Wat
e rManag e m e nt
PlanOv
e rv
ie wofLit
tle Hom e rSe ct
or.
mxd
490,000 492,000 494,000
R22
19 80 19
176 1960 20 60
70
207
1790 80
17 0 90
0
2000
2110
19
19
19
202
80
50
1820
2040
2210 22
0
80
50
20
179
21
19
2280
22
1940 60
20
36
40
0
20
70
1810 00
00
80
18
30
19
2030
18 1990 20
1940
0 2040
60
183 80 80
21
1930
19
UTRC1-PU-1
20
00 21
80 22
40
UTRC1-P1L-1
180
1770
22
1870 920
1960 20
70
20 1950
40
20
22
UTRC1-PU-2 2130
40
UTRC1-SU-1
20
2140
5,864,000
5,864,000
2250
1980
18
20
60 1840
20
D
2260
90
UTRC1-SU-2
18
2010
20
2230
MK3EX1 UTRC1-PL-2
18
22
70
30
80
18
D
00
22
187
60
0
228
E
1870 2190
90
21
19
0
UTRC2-PU-1
00
192
0
18 1850 2120
40
191
2000
10 1860
32 RC1
2020
E
20
221
0
UTRC2-PL-1
188
17 0 33 UTRC2-SU-1 34 35 22
0
2110
70 7
1960
D
22 0
2060 50
18
70
UTRC2-PU-2
1980
18
21
179 190
0
40
0
1970
30
188
E
E
20
0 21
UTRC2-SU-2 50
30
D
187 18
18 0 40
50 20
50
1990
178
0
T45 UTRC2-PL-2
T45
20
70
RC2
40
18
1840
1820
0
180
2010
50
18
RC4/5
19
30
50
19
181
3 25
18
0
30
1970
0
182
19
70
1820
17
E
193
1840 90
3
UTRC
30
0
18
18
17
60
80
184
0
UTRC1
1860 RC3
E
18
185
0
60
18
80
186
0
1780
10
E
18
1880
29 28 E RC
2 27 26
UT
1820
180
1900
0
E
5,862,000
5,862,000
E
10
4
18
UTRC
RCEX 17
90
191
1770
0
RCCD (WEST)
Re 1760
Cr dca
197 ee p
E
0
k
17
19
90
50
E
200
0
19
30 E E 1760 17
40
18
10
17
RCPO 30
E
19
5
E
90
185
UTRC
0
E
207
0
19
20
RCCD (EAST)
20
80
1720
19
20
80
50
2060 24
18
18
30
19
70
00
R22
20 20 21 22 23
194
2040 20 17
2030 10
1750
0
2020 1710
10 1710
17 1710
490,000 492,000 494,000
MacKenzie Redcap Project - Water Management Plan Overview of UTRC Sector and Redcap Sector - Figure 3.4-4
±
Hinton
!
Robb
!
The m aps and m ap d at aare provid e d ‘as is ’wit hout
0 125 250 500
Mine PitPipe line Pond Out
le t I
nte rc
e pt
ion Pond Haulroad and Powe r R ig htof Way Propos e d MSLBound ary PitLim it
!
anyg uarant e e ,re pre s e ntat ion,cond it ion or warrant y
of anykind ,e it he r e xpre s s ,im plie d ,or s tat utory .Te ck m
R e s ource s Lim it
to anyre lianc e t
e d as s um e s no liabilit
he us e r plac e s in t
ywit h re s pe c
he m aps and m ap
t
Cadomin 3 Mine PitSum p Cle an Wat
e r Pipe line Se d im e nt
ation Pond SoilSt
ockpile Wat
e rcours e Pit
/Was t
e Dum p Lim it-30m Buffe r DATE: MI
NEOPER ATI ON:
d ata,and t he us e r as s um e s t he e nt ire ris k as t ot he 3/
13/
2018 Card inalR iv
er
Cont
actWat
e r Dit
ch or Pipe line Em bankm e nt Was t
e Dum p Lim it
!
Mountain
trut h,acc
inform at
urac
ion c
y
ont
,c urre nc
aine d in t
y,or c om ple te ne s s of t
he m aps and m ap d at
he
a. Cree
D Pum p Syst
em SCALE: COOR DI
NATESYSTEM:
Community
! 1:
15,
1N
Docum e ntPat
h:\
\t
eckcom inco\
CGO\
Groups \
TCGI
S\Dat
a\Ope rat
ions \
CR O\
Proje c
ts\
MKR CPe rm it
Applicat
ion\
MXD\
FinalFig ure s \
Wat
e rManag e m e nt
PlanOv
e rv
ie wofUTR CSe c
torAnd R e d capSe ct
or.
m xd
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
R23 R22
20 1925 19
25 2050 25 19 200 0 19
195
2000
0 1900
19
0
75 00
11
1950
12 7 10
19
200
1900
25
25
190 75 1875
0
8 9
19
18 197
18
5
50
197
5
50
22
19 1950
1900
25 1850
75
21
1950 1975
21
50
0
2100 200
1950
22
25
00
5,866,000
5,866,000
1650
0
5 200
190
18 1925 187 0
75 2025
21
21
50
25 2075 2250
1875
75
20
23
2075
25
23
Litt
23
Hom
!
00 25
2025
2350
167
le
182
5
er C
5
!
25
19
!
1750
1800 2 1 6 5
ree
4 3
! !
1825
MKPO
! ! ! ! !
1775
!
k
!
22
! !
2075
!
MK1
!
SP1
!
25
! !
25
!
1825
! ! ! !
2275
!
19
!
SP2
! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
f
!
1925
¤
¥
!
19
!
1800
!
2125
75
!
!
75
!
!
19
SP3 0
!
225
!
! !
1950
!
170
!
!
18
LHPO
25
25
!
23
21
T46 ie
00
17
T46
2325
00
!
nz
!
MK3
!
1775
e
18
1750
K k
50
MK2
!
ac ee
!
G
19
21
f 20
50
M Cr
¤
¥
!
50
25
50
T45 T45
19
! 22
18 25
19
75
MK4 MK3EX1
!
00
1900 18
00
21
! !
75
1875
!
50
!
18 !
18
!
75
!
SP4
19
!
!
75
5,864,000
5,864,000
1900
!
Little
!
!
!
Hom 18 MK3EX2 !
75
!
18
187
er C 75
!
35 36 31 r eek 32
!
33
!
34
5
185
!
! !
1875 0
! !
!
!
1850
!
195
1900
!
2000
200
18 18
75
!
0
75 !
0
!
!
19
!
00
RC2
!
!
!
19
1900
50 !
1825
!
TREE !
ISLAND
!
RC4/5
25
18
19
!
50
1825
!
19
50
!
2000
! !
RC3
! !
!
SP5
R e dc a
!
1925
C re e k
1850 !
5
1950
177
!
26 25 30 29 28 !
27
p
75
!
21
!
5,862,000
5,862,000
00
22 RCEX
2050
2150 2100 187 SP6

5
18
2150
00
2125
2075 RCPO
17
50
2025 1725
1975
23 24 19 20 21 22
00
R23 R22
1925 17
5
192 1900
1925
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
MacKenzie Redcap Project - Potential Future Haulroad Alignment - Figure 3.7-1

±
Hinton
!
!
!
P itLim it SoilSt
oc kp ile P ond Out
le t Cle an Wat
e rDit
c h-
P ip e line Culve r
t
0 250 500 1,
000
Wat
ers
he d Bound ar
y CRO Mine P e r
m itBound ar
y Up p e rHar
risAp p r
ove d De v
e lop m e nt m
of any kind ,e it
Re s our
he re xp r
c e sLim it e d as
e ss,im p lie d ,orst
sum e sno liab ilit
at
ut
y wit
hr
or y.Te c k
e sp e c t Cur
re ntChe v
iotMSLBound ar
y Wat
erc our
se Cont
our(
25m I
nter
val)
P itLim it-30m Buffe r Pr
y I
nter
ce p t
ion P ond Was
te Wat
e rDit
c h-
P ip e line Culv
ert G Com m unic at
ionT
owe r
DATE: MI
NEOP ERATI ON:
to any r
d at
trut
e lianc e t
a,and t
h,ac c ur
he us
he use rass
ac y,c ur r
e rp lac e sin t
um e st he e nt
he m ap sand m ap
e nc y,orc om p le t
ire risk ast
e ne ssof t
ot
he
he
Cadomin
!
Mountain
! ! P owe r
line Cur
re ntDis
tur
b anc e Haulr
oad s
Was
t
Was
t
e Dum p Lim it
Se d e m e nt
at
Em b ankm e nt
ion P ond f
¤
¥ Cr
ossing St
ruc t
ure ! MKRCP owe r
line
3/
13/
2018 Car
d inalRiv
er
Cad Renderer Ac c e s
sRoad s
inform at ion c ontaine d in t he m ap sand m ap d at a. Cree SCALE: COORDINATESYSTEM:
1:
26,
000
Alt
ernat
e HaulRoad Haulr
oad and P owe rRightofWays
Community NAD1983UTM Z one 1
1N
!
Doc um e ntP at
h:\\t
e c kc om inc o\CGO\Gr
oup s
\TCGI
S\Dat
a\Op e r
ations
\CRO\P r
oje ct
s\MKRCP e r
m it
Ap p lic at
ion\MXD\FinalFigur
es\MKCRP r
oje ct
De s
crip t
ion_Fig3.
6-1_2.
m xd
Section 4 Consultation and Engagement
March 2018
Table of Contents
Page
4 Consultation and Engagement ....................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 4-1
4.2 Aboriginal Consultation .............................................................................................................. 4-1

4.2.1 Previous Consultation – Cheviot Coal Mine ........................................................................... 4-1
4.2.2 MacKenzie Redcap Project Consultation ............................................................................... 4-2
4.2.3 Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation .................................................................................................... 4-3
4.2.4 Ermineskin Cree Nation ......................................................................................................... 4-4
4.2.5 O’Chiese First Nation ............................................................................................................. 4-5
4.2.6 Mountain Cree Traditional Band ............................................................................................ 4-5
4.2.7 Whitefish Lake First Nation .................................................................................................... 4-6
4.2.8 Sucker Creek First Nation ...................................................................................................... 4-7
4.2.9 Follow-up and Monitoring ....................................................................................................... 4-7
4.3 Engagement with Stakeholders and the Public ......................................................................... 4-7
4.4 Ongoing Stakeholder Engagement ............................................................................................ 4-8

March 2018
4 Consultation and Engagement

4.1 Background
Teck Coal Limited (Teck) Cardinal River Operations (CRO) has a long history of Aboriginal consultation,
stakeholder engagement and public communication, dating back to CRO’s operation and permitting for
the Cheviot Coal Mine. Teck continues to engage with Aboriginal groups, stakeholders and communities
through ongoing consultation efforts regarding the MacKenzie Redcap (MKRC) Project (the Project).
Since 2010, consultation and engagement has been conducted in alignment with Teck’s Sustainability
Strategy (Teck 2010b), which looks at the greatest sustainability opportunities and risks associated with
their business. There are six focus areas: Community, Water, Our People, Biodiversity, Energy and
Materials Stewardship. The Community focus area, which envisions building strong relationships and
creating lasting mutual benefits based on respect for what community’s value, complements and
augments CRO’s past engagement.
Teck’s Sustainability Strategy is continually evolving. With 2015 marking the end of Teck’s first set of
short term goals, new goals have been set for 2020. These goals are being implemented using internal
plans that outline key steps. Teck is on track with implementing the 2020 Community Goals, which are as
follows (Teck 2016):
• refine our business policies and practices based on results of our social risk assessments, our
work in human rights and developments and the rights of Indigenous Peoples;
• engage with communities to identify social, economic and environmental priorities and to mutually
define outcomes and measures of success;
• work with Indigenous Peoples to identify and participate in initiatives to support the self-defined
goals of Indigenous communities; and
• develop metrics for monitoring Indigenous training, employment and procurement to establish
baselines and drive progress.
4.2 Aboriginal Consultation
4.2.1 Previous Consultation – Cheviot Coal Mine
From 1996 to 2004, the Cheviot Coal Mine underwent extensive regulatory review including an
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which provided opportunities for Aboriginal groups to become
involved in the review process. As part of the EIA for the Cheviot Coal Mine, Aboriginal groups with a
vested interest in the Cheviot Coal Mine area and adjacent lands were identified for consultation,
including:
• Morley groups of Stoney, the Bighorn Stoney, the Alexis Stoney (now identified as Alexis Nakota
Sioux Nation);
• Sunchild Cree (now identified as Sunchild First Nation);
• Smallboy Cree (now identified as Mountain Cree Traditional Band); and

March 2018
• O’Chiese Saulteaux band (now identified as O’Chiese First Nation).
The above groups were contacted by letter and telephone with respect to the Cheviot Coal Mine. Based
on these communications, a detailed Traditional Land Use Study was undertaken with the Alexis Nakota
Sioux Nation and Mountain Cree Traditional Band. This Traditional Land Use Study was filed with the
Joint Review Panel. The Joint Review Panel noted as follows in section 7.3 of Decision 97-08:
“In order to better understand the degree to which the area had been used by aboriginal peoples, CRC
indicated that it had carried out an assessment of traditional land use in the region. As well, numerous
meetings, field tours, and phone conversations had been carried out with representatives of the aboriginal
communities. CRC stated that it was committed to maintaining this dialogue throughout the life of the mine.
Based on the above communications, CRC advised that, in its view, three native communities, the Alexis
First Nation (Stoney), the Smallboy Camp (Cree), and the non-treaty Saulteaux group appeared to have
traditional land use interests in the area. Of these, only the Alexis First Nation and the Smallboy Camp
appeared to have land use concerns proximal to or within the Cheviot Coal Project.”
Therefore, as it pertains to treaty First Nations, the Joint Review Panel determined that only the Alexis
Nakota Sioux Nation is potentially impacted by the Cheviot Coal Mine. The Joint Review Panel also
determined that Mountain Cree Traditional Band, previously Smallboy Camp, was potentially impacted.
To date, CRO’s approach to Aboriginal engagement and consultation is guided by the following:
• the decision of the Joint Review Panel which considered traditional land use studies, as well as
discussions between the aforementioned communities and the company; and
• an Impacts and Benefit Agreement between Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation and Teck, CRO.
CRO has consulted with Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation and Mountain Cree Traditional Band for close to 20
years.
4.2.2 MacKenzie Redcap Project Consultation
Teck is committed to meaningful consultation and early engagement with Aboriginal groups that facilitates
their involvement in the development of regulatory applications. CRO submitted a First Nations
Consultation Plan to the Government of Alberta, Aboriginal Relations, Aboriginal Consultation Office
(ACO) for approval on March 20, 2018. The approach to consultation for the Project is to apply the
objectives below while comparing potential impacts identified in the 1996 Cheviot EIA against actual
impacts. Impact assessments will consider the original 1996 EIA as well as information and knowledge
gained through CRO’s environmental management and monitoring programs at both the Luscar and
Cheviot Mineral Surface Leases. Information will be reviewed in the context of proposed Project
components and activities, and address new issues or concerns raised during consultation on the Project.
The regulatory amendments CRO is applying for as part of the Project are described in Section 7. The
objectives of consultation on the Project include:
• provide information on the Project to potentially affected Aboriginal groups to assist them in
understanding the Project components and activities, potential effect, and proposed mitigation
measures to avoid or reduce potential effects;

March 2018
• enhance existing relationships with Aboriginal groups by obtaining their feedback and addressing
their issues or concerns regarding the Project; and
• work with Aboriginal groups that are potentially affected by the Project to create and build an
understanding of CRO’s environmental management and monitoring programs.
On August 16, 2017, CRO submitted a Pre-consultation Assessment for the Project Application to the
ACO. The ACO issued its Pre-consultation Assessment for the Project on August 18, 2017,
FNC201706298, directing Teck to consult with the following First Nations at a level 3 (extensive):
• Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation;

• Ermineskin Cree Nation; and
• O’Chiese First Nation.
In addition to ACO-identified First Nations, Teck is consulting with Mountain Cree Traditional Band,
Whitefish Lake First Nation and Sucker Creek First Nation based on prior and ongoing consultation in
relation to the Cheviot Coal Mine Permit.
Project-specific consultation will adhere to the Government of Alberta’s Guidelines on Consultation with
First Nations on Land and Natural Resource Management (GoA 2014b). Guidance provided by Alberta
Indigenous Relations are publicly available online (GoA 2017c) such as:
• Government of Alberta’s Proponent Guide to First Nations and Métis Settlements Consultation
Procedures (GoA 2016);
• Government of Alberta’s Guidelines on Consultation with First Nations on Land and Natural
Resource Management (GoA 2014b);
• Government of Alberta’s Policy on Consultation with First Nations on Land and Natural Resource
Management (GoA 2013b); and
• AER’s Joint Operating Procedure for First Nations Consultation on Energy Resource Activities
(AER 2015).
CRO began engaging and communicating with potentially impacted Aboriginal groups about the Project in
October 2016 and continues to meet with these groups to seek feedback regarding potential issues or
concerns.
4.2.3 Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation
CRO has a relationship with Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation (ANSN) that began with the initial Cheviot Coal
Mine application and EIA, and consultation and engagement activities have been ongoing to provide
mining related updates to ANSN and to discuss potential issues and concerns.
In 1994, detailed planning for the Cheviot Coal Mine began. As part of the planning process, a formal
relationship between CRO and ANSN was initiated. Planning for the mine included active negotiations
with ANSN culminating in 1998 with the joint signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between ANSN
and CRO. In 2012, after negotiations, CRO and ANSN signed an Impacts and Benefit Agreement (IBA).

March 2018
The IBA is a framework for the working relationship between CRO and ANSN for the life of the mine. The
IBA is a confidential and internal Teck document.
Consultation with ANSN regarding the Project began in 2016 and ongoing communication between ANSN
and CRO continues to date.
Key consultation activities and milestones with ANSN on the Project to date include:
• participation in environmental field surveys;
• site visits;
• consultation on the 2017 and 2018 Coal Exploration Programs;

• face-to-face meetings with delegated representatives and workshops; and
• Traditional Land Use Study (TLUS).
Communication to date about the Project has focused on the following topics:
• Project updates including proposed activities;
• training and participation in field activities including monitoring and water management;
• issues and concerns related to potential effects of the Project such as effects of noise on wildlife
and access; and
• potential contracting and economic development opportunities.
On November 21, 2017, ANSN provided a TLUS for the Project. Information provided by ANSN in the
TLUS will be considered where possible, including in the identification of mitigation measures. Issues and
concerns identified in the ANSN TLUS will be tracked in the ACO issues and concerns tables and
addressed through the consultation process.
4.2.4 Ermineskin Cree Nation
Consultation with Ermineskin Cree Nation regarding the Project began in 2016. The focus of consultation
and engagement activities has been to provide Project related updates and discuss potential issues and
concerns.
Key consultation activities and milestones with Ermineskin Cree Nation on the Project to date include:
• face-to-face meetings with delegated representatives and workshops; and
• TLUS.
• training and participation in field activities including monitoring;

March 2018
• use of resources in the area by Ermineskin Cree Nation members; and

• issues and concerns related to potential effects of the Project including, but not limited to, effects
to visual quality, wildlife and wildlife habitat.
On March 14, 2018, Ermineskin Cree Nation provided a TLUS document (identified as an Ancestral Land
Use Study) for the Project. Information provided by Ermineskin Cree Nation in the TLUS will be
considered where possible, including the identification of mitigation measures. Issues and concerns
identified through consultation will be tracked in the ACO issues and concerns tables and addressed
through the consultation process.
4.2.5 O’Chiese First Nation
Consultation with O’Chiese First Nation regarding the Project began in 2016. The focus of consultation
and engagement activities has been to provide Project related updates and discuss potential issues and
concerns.
Key consultation activities and milestones with O’Chiese First Nation on the Project to date include:
• consultation on the 2017 and 2018 Coal Exploration Programs; and
• face-to-face meetings with delegated representatives and workshops.

• training and participation in field activities;
• use of resources in the area by O’Chiese First Nation members and areas of cultural importance;
and
• issues and concerns related to potential effects of the Project such as access to lands and
incorporating medicinal and traditional plants into reclamation efforts.
Information provided by O’Chiese First Nation will be considered where possible, including the
identification of mitigation measures. Issues and concerns identified through consultation will be tracked
in the ACO issues and concerns tables and addressed through the consultation process.
4.2.6 Mountain Cree Traditional Band
Consultation with Mountain Cree Traditional Band (Mountain Cree) occurred during the Cheviot Mine and
Upper Harris Extension Applications projects. CRO continues to engage with Mountain Cree and
consultation regarding the Project began in 2016. The focus of consultation and engagement activities
has been to provide Project related updates and discuss potential issues and concerns.
Key consultation activities and milestones with Mountain Cree on the Project to date include:
• participation in field surveys;
• site visits;

March 2018
• consultation on the 2017 and 2018 Coal Exploration Programs; and
• face-to-face meetings with delegated representatives.
• use of resources in the area by Mountain Cree such as hunting, gathering and spiritual
ceremonies; and
• issues and concerns related to potential effects of the Project on water quality and wildlife.
In 2012 and 2013, Mountain Cree conducted a TLUS for the Upper Harris Extension Amendment Project.
Teck continues to engage with Mountain Cree to identify if there is a need to conduct a TLUS for the
Project. Information provided by Mountain Cree will be considered where possible, including the
identification of mitigation measures. Teck will continue to address issues and concerns raised by
Mountain Cree through consultation.
4.2.7 Whitefish Lake First Nation
Consultation with Whitefish Lake First Nation regarding the Project began in 2016. The focus of
consultation and engagement activities has been to provide Project related updates and discuss potential
issues and concerns.
Key consultation activities and milestones with Whitefish Lake First Nation on the Project to date include:
• participation in field surveys;
• site visits;
• face-to-face meetings with delegated representatives; and
• TLUS.
• use of resources in the area by Whitefish Lake First Nation; and
• issues and concerns related to potential effects of the Project on access and fish and wildlife.
On February 20, 2018 Whitefish Lake First Nation provided a TLUS document (identified as a Traditional
Knowledge and Use Study) for the Project. Information provided by Whitefish Lake First Nation in the
TLUS will be considered where possible, including the identification of mitigation measures. Teck will
continue to address issues and concerns raised by Whitefish Lake First Nation through consultation.

March 2018
4.2.8 Sucker Creek First Nation
Consultation with Sucker Creek First Nation regarding the Project began in 2016. The focus of
consultation and engagement activities has been to provide Project related updates and discuss potential
issues and concerns.
Key consultation activities and milestones with Sucker Creek First Nation on the Project to date include
information sharing when CRO develops amendment or permit applications.
Communication to date about the Project has focused on Project updates including proposed activities.
Information provided by Sucker Creek First Nation will be considered and incorporated where feasible,
including through the identification of mitigation measures. Teck will continue to address issues and
concerns raised by Sucker Creek First Nation through consultation.
4.2.9 Follow-up and Monitoring
Consultation with First Nations will be ongoing through the life of the Project. Teck plans to seek an
adequacy assessment for consultation on the Project from ACO in December 2018. Ongoing Aboriginal
consultation will include face-to-face meetings, responding to information requests, continuing to provide
Project updates, and working with Aboriginal groups to address issues and concerns including potential
effects of the Project and proposed mitigation measures.
Pursuant to ACO requirements, a Record of Consultation (ROC) Log will be maintained for accurate
records of interests, impacts, commitments and interactions with ACO-identified First Nations. Teck will
provide ACO and identified First Nations with bi-monthly reports as described in the Proponent Guide to
First Nations and Metis Settlements Consultation Procedures (GoA 2016). In addition to the ROC Log,
Teck will maintain an issues and concerns tracking table and will submit the tracking table with the bi-
monthly ROC reports.
4.3 Engagement with Stakeholders and the Public
CRO is committed to ongoing communication and engagement with the public and key stakeholders. The
main goal of engagement on the Project is to share information about Project activities including location
and potential changes to access. Teck has been communicating and engaging with stakeholders,
employees and the public about the Project since the 2017 Coal Exploration Program in the MacKenzie
and Redcap areas of the Cheviot Mine Permit was approved in February 2017. Engagement with
stakeholders and the public is ongoing at CRO and a summary of engagement activities to date include:
• semi-annual meetings between Teck representatives and Cadomin Environmental Protection

Association (CEPA) members to discuss the coal exploration program and the upcoming
submission for the MKRC Project;
• meetings with the Town of Hinton, Yellowhead County and the Government of Alberta’s Ministry
of Environment and Parks to provide status updates on the coal exploration programs and the
proposed Project;

March 2018
• updates on MKRC coal exploration programs and the Project at June 2017 annual trails meeting;
and
• quarterly meetings with CRO staff to provide updates about coal exploration programs and the
Project.
Stakeholder and public engagement on the Project commenced in March 2018 with the following groups:
• Town of Hinton;
• Yellowhead County;
• Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) Eric Rosendahl;

• Trappers;
• Cadomin Environmental Protection Association (CEPA);
• Alberta Off-Highway Vehicle Association;
• Alberta Fish and Game Association;
• Hinton Fish and Game Association;
• Edson Fish and Game Association;
• Whitehorse Wildland Stewards;
• Mountain Park Environmental and Historic Association;
• Alberta Snowmobile Association;

• Whitecourt Trailblazers; and
• Edson Sno-Seekers.
4.4 Ongoing Stakeholder Engagement
CRO has ongoing communication and engagement with the public and key stakeholders. A summary of
planned key engagement activities includes:
• website - the website will include up to date information about the mine
https://www.teck.com/operations/canada/operations/cardinal-river, its activities, contact
information, and changes to designated access trails;
• mine tours - CRO conducts mine tours for the public and for communities of interest;
• annual trails meetings - CRO continues to organize and support an annual meeting for
stakeholders that addresses changes to designated access trails in and around CRO;
• regulators have engaged with the public on access throughout the area and CRO has
participated in this process (Section 5.7);

March 2018
• community investment - CRO provides community investment dollars to stakeholder-led initiatives

that are directly related to the effects of mining, including maintenance and improvements to
designated access trails, campgrounds and recreation areas;
• maps - maps are available upon request at site and CRO will provide updated maps that illustrate
designated access trails in and around the MacKenzie and Redcap areas to the website indicated
above; and
• letters, email and personal communication - the majority of CRO’s engagement is through one-
on-one communication. Letters will be mailed out to recreation users including trappers who have
trap lines adjacent to the Project to provide information on the Project.
CRO will continue to maintain records of engagement with communities of interest. CRO will continue
to engage about land uses and issues through engagement mechanisms such as CRO’s annual trails
meetings, periodic focus group meetings, feedback from CRO’s website, and consultations with
adjacent land managers.

March 2018
Section 5 Environmental Assessment
March 2018
Table of Contents
Page
5 Environmental Information ............................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Air Quality...................................................................................................................... 5-2
5.1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 5-2
5.1.2 Background Concentrations ................................................................................ 5-3
5.1.3 Potential Effects .................................................................................................. 5-5
5.1.4 Mitigation and Monitoring .................................................................................. 5-11
5.1.5 Summary .......................................................................................................... 5-11
5.2 Noise Assessment....................................................................................................... 5-12
5.2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 5-12
5.2.2 Baseline Setting .............................................................................................................. 5-12
5.2.3 Potential Effects .............................................................................................................. 5-13
5.2.4 Mitigation and Monitoring .............................................................................................. 5-17
5.2.5 Summary.......................................................................................................................... 5-17
5.3 Hydrogeology .............................................................................................................. 5-17
5.3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 5-17
5.3.5 Summary.......................................................................................................................... 5-26
5.4 Hydrology .................................................................................................................... 5-27
5.4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 5-27
5.4.5 Summary.......................................................................................................................... 5-35
5.5 Surface Water Quality ................................................................................................. 5-36
5.5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 5-36
5.5.5 Summary.......................................................................................................................... 5-41
5.6 Fish and Fish Habitat................................................................................................... 5-41
5.6.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 5-41

March 2018

5.6.5 Summary.......................................................................................................................... 5-51
5.7 Land Use ..................................................................................................................... 5-52
5.7.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 5-52
5.7.5 Summary.......................................................................................................................... 5-55
5.8 Soil and Terrain ........................................................................................................... 5-55
5.8.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 5-55
5.8.5 Summary.......................................................................................................................... 5-64
5.9 Vegetation and Wetlands ............................................................................................ 5-65
5.9.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 5-65
5.9.5 Summary.......................................................................................................................... 5-74
5.10 Wildlife .................................................................................................................... 5-74
5.10.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 5-74
5.10.5 Summary.......................................................................................................................... 5-95
5.11 Historic Resources .................................................................................................. 5-97
List of Tables
Page
Table 5.0-1 Project Components .......................................................................................... 5-2

Table 5.1-1 Background Concentrations Used in the Modelling Assessment ........................ 5-4
Table 5.1-2 Summary of Baseline Case Emissions............................................................... 5-4
Table 5.1-3 Summary of MKRC and Haulroad Criteria Air Contaminant Emissions .............. 5-5
Table 5.1-4 Summary of Predicted Sulphur Dioxide Concentrations ..................................... 5-6
Table 5.1-5 Summary of Predicted Nitrogen Dioxide Concentrations .................................... 5-7

March 2018
Table 5.1-6 Summary of Predicted Carbon Monoxide Concentrations .................................. 5-8

Table 5.1-7 Summary of Predicted PM2.5 Concentrations ..................................................... 5-8
Table 5.1-8 Summary of Predicted PM10 Concentrations .................................................... 5-10
Table 5.1-9 Summary of Predicted TSP Concentrations ..................................................... 5-10
Table 5.1.10 Special Receptors ........................................................................................ 5-11
Table 5.2-1 Summary of Maximum Noise Modelling Results .............................................. 5-15
Table 5.3-1 MKRC Area and Region - Hydrogeological Assessment History ...................... 5-19
Table 5.6-1 Provincial and Federal Status of Fish Species Present in MKRC ..................... 5-42
Table 5.6-2 Waterbodies Directly and Indirectly Affected by the Mine Footprint .................. 5-46
Table 5.8.1 Soil Types and Reclamation Suitability in the Study Area and Project Footprint5-57
Table 5.8.2 Soil Quality in the Study Area and Project Footprint ......................................... 5-58
Table 5.8.3 Available Soil Volumes and Reclamation Suitability in the Project Footprint .... 5-58
Table 5.9-1 Rare Plant Species Observations in the Study Area ........................................ 5-67
Table 5.9-2 Ecosite Phase Distribution in the Study Area and Project Footprint ................. 5-69
Table 5.9-3 Wetland Distribution in the Study Area and Project Footprint ........................... 5-70
Table 5.9-4 Potential Old Growth in the Study Area and Project Footprint .......................... 5-71
Table 5.9-5 Rare Plant Occurrences in the Study Area and Project Footprint ..................... 5-72
Table 5.10-1 Relationship of Habitat to Ecosite Phase, MKRC Study Area. ...................... 5-74
Table 5.10-2 Moose Winter Foraging Habitat Units MKRC Study Area ............................. 5-81
Table 5.10-2 Elk Winter Foraging Habitat Units MKRC Study Area ................................... 5-82
List of Figures
Figure 5.0-1 Project Footprint Components

Figure 5.3-1 Groundwater Monitoring Program
Figure 5.4-1 Streamflow Monitoring Locations
Figure 5.5-1 Surface Water Quality Study Area
Figure 5.6-1 Fisheries Study Area
Figure 5.8-1 Terrain and Soil Study Area and Inspection Sites
Figure 5.8-2 Soil Map Units
Figure 5.8-3 Reclamation Suitability Ratings
Figure 5.9-1 Vegetation and Wetlands Study Area
Figure 5.9-2 Ecosite Phase Distribution
Figure 5.9-3 Wetland Distribution
Teck Resources Limited Page 5-iii

March 2018
Figure 5.9-4 Potential Old Growth Distribution

Figure 5.9-5 Location of Rare Plants
Figure 5.9-6 Location of Weed Species
Figure 5.10-1 Moose Habitat in the Project Footprint (Baseline)
Figure 5.10-2 Moose Habitat in the Project Footprint (Post-Reclamation)
Figure 5.10-3 Elk Habitat in the Project Footprint (Baseline)
Figure 5.10-4 Elk Habitat in the Project Footprint (Post-Reclamation)
Figure 5.10-5 Mountain Goat and Sheep Areas
Figure 5.10-6 Grizzly Bear Spring Habitat
Figure 5.10-7 Spring at MacKenzie Creek Haulroad Bridge
Figure 5.10-8 Beaver Activity at Redcap Creek Headwaters
Figure 5.10-9 Movement Monitoring in Redcap
Figure 5.10-10 Grizzly Bear Movement and Connectivity
Figure 5.10-11 Undisturbed Tree Cover in the Proposed Project Footprint
Figure 5.10-12 End Pit Lake and Highwall Barrier
Teck Resources Limited Page 5-iv

March 2018
5 Environmental Information
In this amendment submission, CRO is proposing to continue mining eastward of the Upper Harris
Extension Area (UHEA) for the next operational phase of mining, which is the MacKenzie Recap (MKRC)
Project (the Project). The Project components and footprint are listed in Table 5.0-1 and provided in
Figure 5.0-1.
The Project lies within the Cheviot Mine Permit Boundary and consists of two distinct biophysical units in
the Subalpine ecoregion – MacKenzie and Redcap. Terrain in the headwaters of MacKenzie Creek
consists of bedrock-controlled ridges with relatively narrow valley bottoms. Vegetation is dominated by
slow-growing lodgepole pine. Shrub-dominated communities occur in valley bottoms and along drainage
courses. The Redcap unit occupies the eastern end of the Cheviot Permit Boundary and includes the
headwaters of Redcap Creek; topography is gently sloping to inclined and rolling. Upland sites are
dominated by coniferous forests composed of lodgepole pine. Lowland areas often consist of shrub
dominated plant communities on wet mineral and water-saturated organic soils. The Project is located in
the MacKenzie Creek (Athabasca River) watershed and the Redcap Creek (North Saskatchewan River)
watershed. Mining in the Redcap Creek drainage will be the first CRO activity in the North Saskatchewan
watershed.
In 1996, an Environmental Impact Assessment and Regulatory Applications under the Alberta Coal
Conservation Act were filed for the Cheviot Mine Project. The project was subjected to a joint federal-
provincial review process and approved after two public hearings and several court challenges.
Operations commenced in 2004 and CRO has had five amendments approved as mine development
occurred. The Project will be the 6th and final phase of mining at the Cheviot Coal Mine. CRO continues to
use the coal preparation plant at the Luscar Mine to clean the coal from the Cheviot Coal Mine and will
continue to do so for the Project. Past applications included the Cheviot Creek, CC1X, Prospect, McLeod-
Harris and Upper Harris Extension mining areas. All of these have been approved and mining activities
have occurred. As a result, Teck has gained considerable knowledge and experience mining and
mitigating potential effects at Cheviot. Teck intends to continue applying proven operational methods at
CRO to the Project.
Teck is now applying for an integrated amendment application to the AER to develop the last area of the
Cheviot mine. This application includes:
• pursuant to Section 70 under the Environmental Protection Enhancement Act (EPEA), an

amendment for Approval #46972, to construct, operate, and reclaim the MKRC Project;
• amendment to Public Lands Act Approval MSL #041321; to use crown lands within the Project’s
mine permit boundary;
• amendment to Fence-line Water Act Approval #00205213; to capture, collect, treat and manage
surface runoff and groundwater as part of the water management program including development
of an end pit lake; and
• pursuant to Section 13 (2) under the Coal Conservation Act, amendment to Pit and Dump
Licenses Mine Permit #C2003-4A.

March 2018
The scope of the Project for environmental assessments includes all phases (construction, operation,
decommissioning and reclamation) of the MKRC mine extension, associated facilities and infrastructure
required to carry out these activities. Specifically, the scope of the Project includes:
• construction of predevelopment activities (i.e., timber clearing, soil salvage, site drainage and
blasting);
• construction, operation and reclamation of mine pit and dump areas;
• construction, operation and reclamation of mine access road, and associated infrastructure; and
• construction, operation and reclamation of water management facilities that include settling
ponds, drainage ditches and mined out areas.
A full description of the scope for the Project is included in Section 1.0 (Introduction) and Section 3.0
(Project Description) of this Application.
The Project footprint is approximately 606.5 ha, and includes all infrastructure, pits, roads, and
environmental management systems as summarized in Table 5.0.1 and shown on Figure 5.0-1.
Table 5.0-1 Project Components

Powerline 21.9
Soil Stockpile 32.6
Total 606.5
This section of the MKRC application provides a summary of environmental assessments along with
commitments for monitoring and mitigation of potential Project effects.
5.1 Air Quality
5.1.1 Introduction
This section provides an assessment of potential effects of atmospheric emissions from the Project on
established baseline ambient air quality. The evaluation of potential effects (Section 5.1.3) considers the
following information:

March 2018
• air quality assessment for Cheviot EPEA approval renewal (2011); and
• effects to air quality previously assessed as part of the Cheviot EIA (Cirrus 1996).
Project emissions will result from fossil fuel combustion sources, fugitive emissions from processing
equipment, soil handling, blasting, coal movement and wheel entrainment. These emissions include
diesel combustion products such as sulphur dioxide (SO2), fine particulate matter with aerodynamic
diameter below 2.5 µm (PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and fugitive dust
emissions from wheel entrainment and pit operations including total suspended particulates with diameter
below 30 µm (TSP) and particulates with diameter below 10 µm (PM10). Air dispersion modelling results
will be compared to the Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives (AAAQOs).
Modelling followed the latest Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) Air Quality Model Guideline (AESRD
2013a), using the CALMET and CALPUFF model with five years (2002 to 2006) of meteorological data.
The air quality assessment includes regional emissions from existing industrial facilities operating within
10 km of the Project boundary. Size and location of the study area and receptor locations (Appendix 6,
Figure 3.1) was based on several factors and meets the requirements of AEP model guideline (AESRD
2013a). The air quality assessment included the following sources, by assessment Case:
Baseline Case: included the following regional existing emission sources:
• Lehigh Limestone Quarry;
• Cadomin community; and
• current Cheviot Mine Site operations including the coal haul to the Luscar wash plant.
Project Case: proposed MKRC operation as described in Appendix 6, Section 4.1.
Application Case: included the following regional existing emission sources:
• Lehigh Limestone Quarry;
• Cadomin Community; and
• current Cheviot Mine Site operations and the proposed MKRC extension.
The Application Case involves a transition of mining activities from the Cheviot to the MKRC area. The
Application Case also considered the combustion emissions from the haul fleet to be Tier 1 diesel
engines, which is conservative as most are actually Tier 2 engines. Teck intends to continue applying
proven operational methods at CRO to the MKRC extension.
5.1.2 Background Concentrations
For the full Air Quality Assessment report see Appendix 6.
AEP recommends that background concentrations be based on a reduced hourly data set with the top
hourly values above the 90th percentile and non-blank ambient baseline data removed (AESRD 2013a).
For all averaging periods greater than one hour, the maximum calculated average for each averaging
period, to be used as the baseline value for modelling purposes, must then be based on the reduced
hourly ambient data set.

March 2018
For this Project, background concentrations were obtained from the Steeper air quality monitoring station
in the West Central Airshed Zone. PM10 measurements at Steeper were only available for 2009 and 2010.
No TSP measurements were available at Steeper or other nearby sites, so background TSP
concentrations were assumed to be twice the PM10 values (Brook et al. 1997). Background
concentrations used in the modelling assessment are shown in Table 5.1-1.
Table 5.1-1 Background Concentrations Used in the Modelling Assessment
90th
Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum
Parameter Percentile Monitoring Station
8-hour1 24-hour(a) Monthly(a) Annual(a)
1-hour
SO2 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 Steeper (2012-2016)

NOX 6.4 - - - 1.2 Steeper (2012-2016)
CO 229 229 - - - Steeper (2012-2016)
PM2.5 6.0 - 5.5 - 1.7 Steeper (2012-2016)
PM10 - - 14 - 6.3 Steeper (2009-2010)
Data source: AEP 2017a.
(a) Based on the reduced hourly ambient data set with the top hourly values above the 90th percentile non-blank ambient data
removed
Modelled maximum daily emissions for the Baseline Case are summarized in Table 5.1-2. Emissions from
Lehigh limestone quarry pit sources and Cadomin were obtained from the most recent air quality
assessment for the Cheviot Mine (Teck 2011). Existing Lehigh limestone quarry sources were modelled
as area sources for 10 hours each day and for 365 days each year which is conservative as the actual
Lehigh work week consists of four, 10-hour days. This is the same approach as CRO used for the EPEA
renewal application (Teck 2011). Emissions for Cheviot Mine operations were also based on the EPEA
renewal application (Teck 2011), updated with 4.3% silt content for the haulroad to be consistent with
Project emission estimates. It was assumed that the MKRC Project would operate 24 hours each day and
for 354 days per year (allowing for operational down time).
Table 5.1-2 Summary of Baseline Case Emissions
Predicted Emission Rate (kg/d)

Sources
SO2 NOX CO PM2.5 PM10 TSP
Lehigh Limestone Quarry 3.1 438 307 32 76 130

Cadomin Community 0.3 1.9 9.0 1.6 1.8 2.1
Cheviot Mine Operation 48 6,056 4,676 653 2,372 7,028
Total 52 6,496 4,992 687 2,450 7,160
Mining at the Cheviot Mine is currently forecast to be complete in 2020. This application will extend mine
life and mining activities will move east (of the UHEA mining area) into the MKRC area. This will shift the
source of air emissions to the east except for the coal haulroad which will continue to the wash plant at
the Luscar Mine.

March 2018
5.1.3 Potential Effects
Based on the mine plan, Year 4 (2022) is when reasonably worst-case air emissions could be expected
because it has the highest coal production and comparatively longest hauls. Projected annual coal
production in Year 4 at MKRC will be approximately 3.3 million raw metric tonnes (RMT) and 2.3 million
clean metric tonnes (CMT) of clean coal, with approximately 17 million bank cubic metres (BCM) of
overburden removal.
Emission sources for the Project Case in Year 4 (2022) include:
• three wash plant stacks at the Luscar coal processing plant site;
• two drilling areas – drilling and blasting overburden and rock;
• one coal mining area – bulldozing and loading coal;
• two waste removal areas – bulldozing, and loading overburden;

• two waste dump areas – unloading and bulldozing overburden;
• two overburden haulroads – hauling overburden from waste removal area to dump area;
• one coal haulroad – hauling raw coal from MKRC coal mining area to Luscar Plant;
• Luscar plant area – loading and unloading at raw and clean coal piles, and rejects pile; and
• all open activity areas – wind driven emissions from the storage piles, mining and dump area.
Table 5.1-3 summarizes maximum daily diesel fuel combustion and fugitive dust emissions generated
from Project activities, except for wind driven dust emissions which vary on an hourly basis.
Table 5.1-3 Summary of MKRC and Haulroad Criteria Air Contaminant Emissions
Predicted Emission Rate (kg/d)

Sources
SO2 NOX CO PM2.5 PM10 TSP
Mine and Plant Operation 4.2 2,137 739 109 213 414
Haulroad 3.4 1,633 703 204 1,457 5,643
Blasting 6.3 352 1,243 1.0 18 34
Dryer Stack 28 630 2,374 219 438 878
Total 42 4,752 5,058 532 2,126 6,969
CALPUFF modelling predictions for ground-level concentrations are reported below. The overall
predictions for the five years of the meteorological dataset at the maximum point of impingement (MPOI)
are provided, as well as the maximum concentrations predicted along the CRO mine permit boundary and
among the nine special receptors (only the highest of the nine predictions is listed here – predictions at
other locations can be estimated from isopleth plots). Ambient background concentrations were added to
the predictions for Baseline and Application cases.

March 2018
5.1.3.1 Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)
CALPUFF modelling predictions for ground-level concentrations of SO2 are listed in Table 5.1-4. No
exceedances of the AAAQOs are predicted for any averaging periods or scenarios. Maximum SO2
predictions are less than 1% and 3% of the AAAQOs for the Project Case and Application Case,
respectively.
Table 5.1-4 Summary of Predicted Sulphur Dioxide Concentrations
SO2 Background(a) Project Baseline Application AAAQO(b)

(µg/m3) Only (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3)
(µg/m3)
99.9th Percentile 1-hour Concentration

Overall Maximum (MPOI) 0.0 4.9 6.1 6.1 450
Mine Permit Boundary Maximum 0.0 4.8 3.7 4.8 450
Special Receptor Maximum 0.0 0.5 6.1 6.1 450
Maximum 24-hour Concentration
Maximum 30-day Concentration
Annual Concentration
(a)
2012- 2016 monitoring data (AEP 2017a)
(b)
AEP 2017b
5.1.3.2 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
CALPUFF modelling predictions for NO2 are listed in Table 5.1-5 and can also be seen in Appendix 6,
Figures 5.1 and 5.2 which show the isopleths of maximum NO2 concentration for the 99.9th percentile
1-hour, and maximum annual average concentrations for the Application Case, respectively. NO2
concentration predictions using both the OLM and the Total Conversion Method (TCM) are presented.
Key results from NO2 modelling are as follows:
• for any averaging periods and scenarios, there are no predicted exceedances of the AAAQOs for
hourly and annual NO2 predictions when the OLM is used to convert NOx predictions to NO2;

March 2018
• the MPOI for hourly NO2 is predicted to occur at the special receptor located within the Lehigh
Limestone Quarry for both Application and Baseline cases due to the combined effects of
haulroad and Lehigh emissions, and the elevation of the special receptor site. The annual MPOI
for the Application Case is predicted at the CRO mine permit boundary near the MKRC active
mining area; and
• MKRC Project contributions at the CRO MPB increased in the Application Case as the modelled
worst case mining area was closer to the CRO mine permit boundary than in the Baseline Case
and was primarily influenced by blasting activities.
Table 5.1-5 Summary of Predicted Nitrogen Dioxide Concentrations
NOx and NO2 Background(a) Project Baseline Application AAAQO(b)

(µg/m3)
99.9th Percentile 1-hour NOX Concentration(c)

Overall Maximum (MPOI) 6.4 960 1,481 1,408 -
Mine Permit Boundary Maximum 6.4 960 652 967 -
Special Receptor Maximum 6.4 138 1,481 1,408 -
99.9th Percentile 1-hour NO2 Concentration (OLM)
Overall Maximum (MPOI) - 156 240 235 300
Mine Permit Boundary Maximum - 153 117 153 300
Special Receptor Maximum - 82 240 235 300
Annual NOX Concentration(c)
Overall Maximum (MPOI) 1.2 22 30 23 -
Mine Permit Boundary Maximum 1.2 21 21 22 -
Special Receptor Maximum 1.2 5.5 25 14 -
Annual NO2 Concentration (OLM)
Overall Maximum (MPOI) - 16 21 17 45
Mine Permit Boundary Maximum - 16 16 17 45
Special Receptor Maximum - 5.4 16 8.5 45
(a)
(b)
AEP 2017b
(c)
Equivalent to the Total Conversion Method (TCM)
- Not Applicable.
5.1.3.3 Carbon Monoxide (CO)
CALPUFF modelling predictions for CO are summarized in Table 5.1-6. The model predicted no CO
exceedances of the AAAQOs. Both the 99.9th percentile 1-hour and maximum 8-hour averages were well
below the AAAQOs of 15,000 µg/m3 and 6,000 µg/m3, respectively. For both averaging periods, MPOIs
for both Application and Project cases are predicted to occur at the CRO mine permit boundary near the
MKRC active mining area, primarily influenced by blasting activities.

March 2018
Table 5.1-6 Summary of Predicted Carbon Monoxide Concentrations
CO Background(a) Project Baseline Application AAAQO(b)

(µg/m3)

Overall Maximum (MPOI) 229 960 1,009 1,189 15,000
Mine Permit Boundary 229 947 484 1,176 15,000
Maximum
Special Receptor Maximum 229 95 1,009 992 15,000
Overall Maximum (MPOI) 229 987 846 1,216 6,000
Mine Permit Boundary 229 987 468 1,216 6,000
Maximum
Special Receptor Maximum 229 110 846 825 6,000
(a)
2012-2016 monitoring data (AEP 2017a)
(b)
Source: AEP (2017b).
5.1.3.4 Particulate Matter < 2.5 microns (PM2.5)
CALPUFF modelling predictions for PM2.5 are listed in Table 5.1-7 and compared to AAAQO and CAAQS.
Isopleths for the maximum 24-hour average and annual average concentrations for the Application Case
are shown in Appendix 6, Figures 5.3 and 5.4, respectively. Key results from the PM2.5 modelling are as
follows:
• no exceedances of the AAAQOs and CAAQS are predicted for any averaging period or emission
scenario; and
• the 24-h MPOIs for both Application and Project Only cases are predicted to occur at the CRO
mine permit boundary near the MKRC active mining area, while the annual MPOIs occur at the
MPB near the Luscar processing plant.
Table 5.1-7 Summary of Predicted PM2.5 Concentrations
PM2.5 Background(a) Project Baseline Application AAQO

(µg/m3)

Overall Maximum (MPOI) 6.0 50 103 100 80(b)
Mine Permit Boundary Maximum 6.0 49 53 55 80(b)
Special Receptor Maximum 6.0 7.4 103 100 80(b)
Overall Maximum (MPOI) 5.5 17 36 35 30(c)

March 2018
PM2.5 Background(a) Project Baseline Application AAQO

(µg/m3)
Mine Permit Boundary Maximum 5.5 17 20 22 30(c)

Special Receptor Maximum 5.5 3.0 36 35 30(c)
98th Percentile 24-hour Concentration
Overall Maximum (MPOI) 5.5 7.8 13 13 28(d)
Mine Permit Boundary Maximum 5.5 7.8 11 13 28(d)
Special Receptor Maximum 5.5 1.5 13 12 28(d)
Overall Maximum (MPOI) 1.7 1.0 3.2 2.7 10(d)
Mine Permit Boundary Maximum 1.7 1.0 2.9 2.7 10(d)
Special Receptor Maximum 1.7 0.4 2.9 2.6 10(d)
(a)
(b)
AAAQG, Source: AEP (2017b)
(c)
AAAQO, Source: AEP (2017b)
(d)
CAAQS, Source: CCME (2012)
5.1.3.5 Particulate Matter Less Than 10 Microns (PM10)
In Table 5.1-8 the predicted PM10 concentrations are compared to the BCAAQO (BCMOE 2014). An
ambient background concentration of 14 µg/m3 was added to the predictions for Baseline and Application
cases. The spatial distribution of daily PM10 predictions is presented in Appendix 6, Figure 5.5 for the
Application Case. Key results from the PM10 modelling are as follows:
• no exceedances of the 24-hour BCAAQO of 50 µg/m3 are predicted for Project Only emissions at
any locations;
• no exceedances of the 24-hour BCAAQO are predicted for any scenario at the CRO mine permit
boundary; and
• the maximum 24-hour concentrations exceed the BCAAQO for both Application and Baseline
cases near Lehigh Limestone Quarry. At that location, there is only one day in the 5-year period
(0.1% of the time) when predictions are above the BCAAQO. On this day, high concentrations
were predicted during hours when Lehigh operations were ongoing and when the following
conditions were also met: “favourable” wind directions from Lehigh operations and the haulroad to
the receptor, extended periods of light wind speeds less than 1 m/s and low mixing heights near
50 m.

March 2018
Table 5.1-8 Summary of Predicted PM10 Concentrations
PM10 Background(a) Project Baseline Application BCAAQO(b)

(µg/m3)

Overall Maximum (MPOI) 14 46 80 82 50
Mine Permit Boundary Maximum 14 46 46 60 50
Special Receptor Maximum 14 17 80 82 50
(a)
(b)
Source: BCMOE 2014.
5.1.3.6 Total Suspended Particulate Matter (TSP)
Predicted maximum daily and annual TSP concentrations are presented in Table 5.1-9 and are compared
to the AAAQOs. Ambient background concentrations of 28 µg/m3 for the daily average and 13 µg/m3 for
the annual average were added to the predictions for Baseline and Application cases. The patterns of
TSP concentration for maximum daily and annual averages are shown in Appendix 6, Figures 5.6 and 5.7
for the Application Case, respectively.
Key results from the TSP modelling are as follows:
• no exceedances of the AAAQOs are predicted for any averaging periods in the Project Case;
• no exceedances of the AAAQOs are predicted for Application case at any locations along the
CRO mine permit boundary or any special receptors; and
• the maximum 24-hour concentrations exceed the 24-hour AAAQO of 100 µg/m3 for both
Application and Baseline cases and are predicted to occur near the haulroad 700 m south of the
Lehigh Limestone Quarry. At that location, there is only one day in the 5-year period (0.1 % of the
time) when predictions are above the AAAQO. On this day, high concentrations were predicted
as a result of favourable wind directions for a substantial part of the day, along with light winds
and low mixing heights.
Table 5.1-9 Summary of Predicted TSP Concentrations
TSP Background(a) Project Baseline Application AAAQO(b)

(µg/m3)

Special Receptor Maximum 28 43 114 122 100

March 2018
TSP Background(a) Project Baseline Application AAAQO(b)

(µg/m3)

Special Receptor Maximum 13 4.8 19 18 60
(a)
(b)
Source: AEP (2017b)
5.1.4 Mitigation and Monitoring
Teck will continue the ambient air monitoring program that is currently being conducted. Additional
monitoring is not planned for the MKRC area.
5.1.5 Summary
The CALPUFF model system was used to assess dispersion of emissions associated with the Project.
Compared to the Cheviot (Baseline) operation, the Project has slightly higher maximum production at the
Plant, longer haul distances, and different locations of Project mine sources relative to the CRO mine
permit boundary. Modelling also accounted for increased proportions of Project trucks with Tier 1 engines
and trucks off-line during routine maintenance. The air quality assessment includes all emissions within
the study area, including the Lehigh Limestone Quarry and the community of Cadomin.
Model predictions were made at MPOI locations, at the mine permit boundary and at a number of special
receptor locations. Special receptors were located to capture air quality predictions for the Project. The
location of the special receptors is summarized in Table 5.1.10 and shown on Appendix 6, Figure 3.1.
Table 5.1.10 Special Receptors
Distance from Project

Compliance
Receptor (from closest point of
Description with
# mining or haulroad)
AAAQO
(m)
A Mary Gregg Lake 2,955 Yes

B The old location of the Gregg River Mine offices 2,794 Yes
C Watson Creek campground 7,074 Yes
D The trappers cabin at the Highway 40/Cadomin turn-off 3,125 Yes
E Cadomin North 1,670 Yes
F Cadomin South 1,118 Yes
G Lehigh Cement main office 551 Yes(a)
H Whitehorse Creek Campground 309 Yes
I Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Reserve 3,579 Yes
(a)
Predictions exceed AAAQO once for PM10 (only one time in a five year period) and once for TSP (only one time in a five year period).

March 2018
The air quality predictions are summarized below:
• all AAAQOs were met for all averaging periods for all parameters for the Alexis Nakota Sioux
Nation Reserve and for the community of Cadomin (south and north receptors);
• the AAAQOs were met for all averaging periods for SO2, NO2 and CO at and beyond the mine
permit boundaries in all three assessment cases, and at all special receptor locations;
• maximum 24-hour PM10 predictions exceeded the BCAAQO of 50 µg/m3 near the Lehigh
Limestone Quarry and may be due in part to the simplicity with which that operation was
modelled, but also due to the overlap of quarry and haulroad emissions. Exceedances were
predicted less than 0.1% of the time;
• the maximum 24-hour concentrations exceed the 24-hour AAAQO of 100 µg/m3 for both
Application and Baseline cases and are predicted to occur near the haulroad 700 m south of the
Lehigh Limestone Quarry. Exceedances were predicted less than 0.1% of the time.
5.2 Noise Assessment
5.2.1 Introduction
This section provides an assessment of potential effects of noise emissions from the planned mine
operations on established baseline noise levels. The evaluation of potential effects (Section 5.2.3)
considers the following information:
• noise impact assessment for McLeod Harris development (aci 2010); and
• effects of noise on the previously assessed Cheviot EIA (BKL 1996).
5.2.2 Baseline Setting
AER Directive 038 requires the noise impact assessment (NIA) include background ambient noise levels
in the model. As specified in the AER Directive 038, in most rural areas of Alberta where there is an
absence of industrial noise sources, the average night-time ambient noise level is approximately
35 decibels (dBA). This is known as the average ambient sound level (ASL). This value was used as the
ambient condition in the modelling with the various Project related noise sources added.
The following section is a summary of the NIA prepared by aci Acoustical consultants Inc. The full NIA
has been included as Appendix 7. The purpose of the NIA was to generate a computer noise model of the
study area (Appendix 7, Figure 1) with the Project at various operational stages, to determine noise levels
at the surrounding theoretical 1,500 m receptors, and to compare noise levels to permissible sound levels
(PSLs) defined in the AER Directive 038. The computer noise modelling was conducted using the
CADNA/A (Build 161.4801) software package. All modelling methods exceeded the general requirements
of the AER Directive 038 on Noise Control. The study area (Appendix 7, Figure 1), is equal to the
boundary of the theoretical noise receptors, which are located 1,500 m out from the mine permit
boundary.

March 2018
Environmental noise levels from industrial noise sources are commonly described in terms of equivalent
sound levels or Leq. This is the level of a steady sound having the same acoustic energy, over a given
time period, as the fluctuating sound. In addition, this energy averaged level is A-weighted to account for
the reduced sensitivity of average human hearing to low frequency sounds. These Leq in dBA, which are
the most common environmental noise measure, are often given for day-time (07:00 to 22:00) LeqDay
and night-time (22:00 to 07:00) LeqNight while other criteria use the entire 24-hour period as Leq24.
The document which most directly relates to the Permissible Sound Levels (PSL’s) for this NIA is the AER
Directive 038 on Noise Control (2007). The AER Directive 038 sets the PSL at the receiver location based
on population density and relative distances to heavily traveled road and rail as shown in Appendix 7,
Table 1. There are two receptors nearby (MacKenzie Gap and northwest corner of Alexis Nakota Sioux
Nation Reserve #234) which do not have any residents but have been included in the assessment for
information purposes. The PSLs for these receptors are an LeqNight of 40 dBA and an LeqDay of 50
dBA. In addition, the AER Directive 038 specifies that new or modified facilities must meet a PSL-Night of
40 dBA at 1,500 m from the facility fence-line if there are no closer dwellings. Since the inception of the
criteria of 40 dBA at 1,500 m (February 2007), it has been the practice of the AER to use the mine permit
boundary as the facility “fence-line” as it pertains specifically to Directive 038. As such, the PSLs at a
distance of 1,500 m from the mine permit boundary are a LeqNight of 40 dBA and an LeqDay of 50 dBA.
No residential receptors are located within 1,500 m of the mine permit boundary. The closest identified
receptor is the MacKenzie Gap which is located at LSD 07-18-046-22 W5M, approximately 1,800 m north
of the MPB on the other side of a large hill/mountain relative to the mining activity. This is not a residence;
rather an area of traditional land use for area First Nations communities. It has been included as a
receptor and compared to the AER Directive 038 noise criteria for information purposes. Further away,
there are residents within the Hamlet of Cadomin which is located approximately 12 km to the northwest.
In addition, in the southeast corner, the mine permit boundary is directly adjacent to the northwest corner
of the Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Reserve #234. Although there are no identified residences within this
northwest corner of the Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Reserve #234, the location has been included as a
noise modelling receptor and compared to the AER Directive 038 noise criteria for information purposes.
The projected operating life of the mine will span approximately nine years. Each year, as the mine
progresses, locations and quantities of mining equipment will change. As a result, a detailed review of the
yearly mine plan was conducted to determine mining years and scenarios which are likely to result in
representative noise levels for the surrounding theoretical 1,500 m receptors and other identified
receptors. Four different mining years were selected (Year 1 (2019), Year 2 (2020), Year 5 (2023), and
Year 7 (2025)). Within each mining year, there are various equipment location configurations, resulting in
a total of 16 noise modelling scenarios as detailed in Appendix 7, Section 3.3.
The overall summary of the noise modelling results with the maximum noise levels for each of the
theoretical 1,500 m receptors and the other identified receptors for the entire Project (Year 2019, 2020,
2023, 2025) are provided in Table 5.2-1. Modelling results for Years 1 (2019), 2 (2020), 5 (2023), and 7
(2025) are presented Appendix 7, Figures 2 to 9. Noise modelling results indicate that Project noise
levels, with the addition of the ASLs, will be below the PSLs for all theoretical 1,500 m receptors and
other identified receptors. The maximum overall modelled noise level was 37.6 dBA. Results also indicate
that the maximum dBC sound levels will be less than 20 dB above the dBA sound levels for all of the

March 2018
theoretical 1,500 m receptors and the other identified receptors. As specified in the AER Directive 038, if
the dBC - dBA sound levels are less than 20 dB, the noise is not considered to have a low frequency
tonal component.

March 2018
Mackenzie Redcap Project
Table 5.2-1 Summary of Maximum Noise Modelling Results
ASL +
Application Application
Application
ASL-Night Case PSL-Night Case
Receptor Case Compliant dBC - dBA Tonal
(dBA) LeqNight (dBA) LeqNight
LeqNight
(dBA) (dBC)
(dBA)
Identified Receptors
MacKenzie Gap 35.0 26.1 35.5 40.0 YES 40.4 14.3 NO
Alexis Nakota Sioux 35.0 33.8 37.5 40.0 YES 48.4 14.6 NO
Nation Reserve #234
Theoretical 1,500 m Receptors
R-01 35.0 34.4 37.7 40.0 YES 48.9 14.5 NO
R-02 35.0 31.9 36.7 40.0 YES 46.2 14.3 NO
R-03 35.0 37.6 39.5 40.0 YES 51.4 13.8 NO
R-04 35.0 30.7 36.4 40.0 YES 46.2 15.5 NO
R-05 35.0 30.7 36.4 40.0 YES 45.4 14.7 NO
R-06 35.0 32.8 37.0 40.0 YES 48.5 15.7 NO
R-07 35.0 34.6 37.8 40.0 YES 48.5 13.9 NO
R-08 35.0 36.9 39.1 40.0 YES 51.9 15.0 NO
R-09 35.0 26.8 35.6 40.0 YES 42.3 15.5 NO
R-10 35.0 16.9 35.1 40.0 YES 31.5 14.6 NO
R-11 35.0 22.3 35.2 40.0 YES 39.3 17.0 NO
R-12 35.0 18.1 35.1 40.0 YES 31.8 13.7 NO
R-13 35.0 21.4 35.2 40.0 YES 38.7 17.3 NO
R-14 35.0 20.0 35.1 40.0 YES 34.7 14.7 NO
R-15 35.0 18.9 35.1 40.0 YES 36.7 17.8 NO

March 2018
ASL +
Application Application
Application
ASL-Night Case PSL-Night Case
Receptor Case Compliant dBC - dBA Tonal
(dBA) LeqNight (dBA) LeqNight
LeqNight
(dBA) (dBC)
(dBA)
R-16 35.0 15.3 35.0 40.0 YES 29.6 14.3 NO

R-17 35.0 35.2 38.1 40.0 YES 51.6 16.4 NO
R-18 35.0 32.0 36.8 40.0 YES 47.1 15.1 NO
R-19 35.0 30.9 36.4 40.0 YES 46.3 15.4 NO
R-20 35.0 29.5 36.1 40.0 YES 45.3 15.8 NO
R-21 35.0 29.6 36.1 40.0 YES 46.3 16.7 NO
R-22 35.0 31.6 36.6 40.0 YES 48.6 17.0 NO
R-23 35.0 27.0 35.6 40.0 YES 43.0 16.0 NO
R-24 35.0 31.9 36.7 40.0 YES 47.0 15.1 NO
R-25 35.0 36.9 39.1 40.0 YES 51.7 14.8 NO
R-26 35.0 37.5 39.4 40.0 YES 50.8 13.3 NO
R-27 35.0 33.6 37.4 40.0 YES 47.2 13.6 NO
R-28 35.0 34.6 37.8 40.0 YES 48.6 14.0 NO
R-29 35.0 33.0 37.1 40.0 YES 47.3 14.3 NO
R-30 35.0 27.3 35.7 40.0 YES 43.7 16.4 NO
R-31 35.0 32.0 36.8 40.0 YES 46.8 14.8 NO
R-32 35.0 30.2 36.2 40.0 YES 45.8 15.6 NO
R-33 35.0 27.6 35.7 40.0 YES 43.7 16.1 NO
R-34 35.0 24.8 35.4 40.0 YES 41.7 16.9 NO
R-35 35.0 25.0 35.4 40.0 YES 41.9 16.9 NO
R-36 35.0 26.4 35.6 40.0 YES 42.8 16.4 NO

March 2018
5.2.4.1 Mitigation
Results of noise modelling indicated that no specific additional noise mitigation measures are required for
Project equipment.
5.2.4.2 Monitoring
Noise monitoring is not planned at this time.
5.2.5 Summary
Noise modelling results indicate that Project noise levels for all 16 modelled scenarios, will be below the
PSLs for all receptors. The maximum overall modelled noise level was 37.6 dBA. The special receptors
locations at the MacKenzie Gap and at the Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Reserve, show predicted noise
levels will be well below the PSLs.
5.3 Hydrogeology
5.3.1 Introduction
This section provides an updated assessment of potential effects of planned mining operations on
established baseline hydrogeological conditions in the MKRC areas, as originally identified in the Cheviot
EIA. The evaluation of potential effects (Section 5.3.3) considers the following information:
• baseline hydrogeology information collected in 2017;
• effects to hydrogeology previously assessed as part of the Cheviot EIA (Piteau 1995a and
1995b);
• numerous hydrogeological investigations and assessments conducted in the region over the past
40 years related to Teck’s operations;
• considerable operational groundwater experience accumulated since the Cheviot EIA was
submitted, and the outcome of this work is consistent with Cheviot EIA predictions;
• considerable groundwater knowledge and linkages to other disciplines gained through CRO’s
environmental management plans since the Cheviot EIA submission, which increases Teck’s
confidence in current predictions; and
• considerable knowledge of site specific groundwater responses to mining gained through several
years of groundwater monitoring before and since the Cheviot EIA submission.
The total combined area of pits, waste dumps, haulroads and water management facilities in the MKRC
footprint is approximately 606.5 ha. The MKRC area is defined as the field of view provided on
Figure 5.3-1.
There have been a considerable number of hydrogeological investigations and assessments done by
Teck in this region, including the Cheviot Mine, Luscar Mine, Prospect Pit, McLeod Pit, Harris Pit, and
adjacent areas. These assessments either relate directly to the MKRC area or are relevant to the MKRC

March 2018
area because they were conducted at nearby projects in analogous mountain hydrogeological settings.
These assessments are summarized on Table 5.3-1. Additional geology setting is presented in Section 2.

March 2018
Table 5.3-1 MKRC Area and Region - Hydrogeological Assessment History
Reference Title Comment
EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd., 1976 Groundwater Conditions at 51-C-1 Baseline, Cardinal River
Coal Mine
Groundwater Consultants Group, 1977a Hydrogeology of the 51-C Baseline
Groundwater Consultants Group, 1977b Piezometer and Dewatering Well Installation, Pit 51-C-1 Dewatering experience
Barnes, R.G., 1978 Hydrogeology of the Brazeau – Canoe River Area Regional report
EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd., 1978 Appraisal of Dewatering Requirements at Pit 51-B-2 Dewatering experience
EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd., 1979 Hydrogeology of the Luscar Freehold Area
Cardinal River Coals Ltd. 1979 51-B-2 North Wall Dewatering Wells Dewatering experience
MLM Groundwater Engineering, 1981 Groundwater Investigation Mary Gregg Lake
Piteau Engineering Ltd., 1983 Hydrogeological Assessment for Geotechnical Assessment for
the Open Pit Slopes in the McLeod-Harris Mining Block
Stanley Associates Engineering Ltd. 1990 Environmental Impact Assessment for the “A” Baseline
Extension Hydrogeology
Stanley Industrial Consultants Ltd., 1991 Groundwater Monitoring Program, Hamlet of Cadomin Associated monitoring reports
UMA Engineering Ltd., 1992 Mountain Park Lease Groundwater Assessment Program
Interim Report
Sentar Consultants Ltd., 1993 Hydrogeologic Investigation, Proposed Pit 50-A8 Associated monitoring reports
Piteau Engineering Ltd., 1995a Hydrogeological Conditions in the Cheviot Mine Project Area Monitoring wells installed in the MKRC
area. Aquifer tests in Harris Creek
Area
Piteau Engineering Ltd., 1995b Environmental Impact Assessment Groundwater: Cheviot Mine Predicts hydrogeologic effects will be
Project local and not cumulative on a regional
scale. Includes MKRC area. Predicts
groundwater inflow to pits
Piteau Engineering Ltd., 1995c Assessment of Possible Effects of the 50-A8 Pit Development
on Cadomin Area Groundwater Users

March 2018
Reference Title Comment
Piteau Engineering Ltd., 1997 Groundwater Sampling Program in the Cheviot Mine Project
Area
Piteau Engineering Ltd., 1998 Aquifer Testing Program. Cheviot Underground Workings Piezometers installed in Thornton
Creek area
Hackbarth Environmental Ltd., 1999 MacKenzie Creek – Hydrogeological Review Assessment of the MacKenzie Creek
Gap
Piteau Engineering Ltd. 2010 Hydrogeological Review Environmental Protection
Enhancement Act and Water Act
Omni-McCann Consultants Ltd. 2010 Hydrogeology Review McLeod-Harris Development Upper Harris Extension
SRK Consultants Inc. 2010 Selenium Geochemistry and Water Quality Predictions Selenium study - draft
Omni-McCann Consultants Ltd. 2011a Luscar Mine Groundwater Monitoring Plan Review of existing groundwater
monitoring well network at Luscar
Mine
Omni-McCann Consultants Ltd. 2011b Cheviot Mine Groundwater Monitoring Plan Review of existing groundwater
monitoring well network at Cheviot
Mine
Omni-McCann Consultants Ltd. 2012 Groundwater Monitoring Systems at Cheviot and Luscar Mine
Areas
BGC Engineering Inc. 2014 2013 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Summary Report,
Teck Coal Ltd., 2014 Selenium Management Plan: Cardinal River Operations Selenium management
Teck Coal Ltd., 2017b Groundwater Summary Report Most recent of several compliance
reports (Luscar, Cheviot and Cadomin
areas)
Omni-McCann Consultants Ltd. 2017 Cheviot Mine Groundwater Monitoring Plan (Revised)
Matrix 2017 2017 Groundwater Monitoring Well Installation and Baseline New monitoring wells to augment
Groundwater Monitoring Program Piteau (1995a) wells and baseline
assessment

March 2018
Baseline groundwater conditions in the MKRC area are provided in Annex A. The mine plan and
groundwater monitoring network are shown on Figure 5.3-1.
5.3.2.1 Hydrostratigraphic Units
A summary of three main hydrostratigraphic units present at the Project are provided below.
Alluvial deposits - Alluvial deposits are unconsolidated valley bottom deposits that are key aquifers in
mountain environments because they often yield high volumes of groundwater and are important areas of
groundwater surface water interaction. Extents of alluvial deposits in the MacKenzie and Redcap area are
illustrated on Figure 5.3-1.
Sandstone/coal seams - Relatively thick sandstone units are found in the Mountain Park, Grande
Cache, Torrens and Gladstone units. These sandstone units may be important local aquifers.
Bedrock structure - Extensive areas of fracturing and faulting, localized within areas of moderate to
intense folding, can act as conduits for groundwater flow. Fractures can occur in any and all bedrock
units. Depending on fault characterization, major thrust faults may or may not be conduits for groundwater
flow.
5.3.2.2 Groundwater Flow
A detailed discussion of baseline groundwater flow is provided in Annex A. Salient points regarding
groundwater flow in the MKRC area are provided below.
CRO operational experience has confirmed the conceptual model that regional groundwater flow is driven
by recharge in upland areas, flow through thin surficial aquifers, bedrock units or structural conduits, and
discharge to surface water streams largely via alluvial deposits. A smaller proportion of groundwater
recharge infiltrates deeper into bedrock units and contributes to the regional groundwater flow system
(Barnes 1978).
5.3.2.3 Groundwater Quality
Baseline groundwater samples were collected to establish pre-disturbance groundwater quality including
data for those compounds that may be associated with coals (Lemay 2003). A detailed discussion of
baseline groundwater quality is provided in Annex A. Salient points regarding groundwater quality in the
MKRC area are provided below.
Shallow infiltrating groundwater typically comprises calcium-magnesium-bicarbonate-type groundwater.

As groundwater moves deeper it leaves the zone of influence of surface-related processes and its
composition transitions to a more evolved sodium-bicarbonate-type groundwater.
Groundwater quality data collected from MKRC area monitoring wells are representative of pre-
disturbance groundwater conditions and include instances of naturally elevated concentrations of nitrate,
ammonium, phenols, sulphide, several dissolved metals (including selenium), hydrocarbons, and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

March 2018
5.3.2.4 Local Groundwater Users
A detailed discussion of baseline groundwater users is provided in Annex A. The closest potential
groundwater users to the MKRC area are discussed below.
There are no identified groundwater users within the Mine Permit Boundary (Figure 5.3-1). The closest
documented drilling record from the Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP 2017c) database is an alluvial
deposit well owned by Alberta Forest Service (well ID 475570) for domestic use located approximately
5 km away from mining activities (Figure 5.3-1).
Planned mine pit extent and ex-pit waste dump locations are shown on Figure 5.0-1 and Figure 5.3-1.
Mining is planned to commence in the MacKenzie area in 2019 with four pits (MK1 through MK4)
ultimately being developed. Mining is planned to commence in the Redcap area in 2020 with five more
pits (RC1 through RC5) being developed. Mine pits are expected to range from 30 to 170 m in depth.
Mining is planned to take nine years to complete with activities commencing in 2019 and concluding in
2027.
Three sedimentation ponds are planned as part of the Project. Two sedimentation ponds (MKPO and
LHPO) are planned in the MacKenzie watershed and one sedimentation pond (RCPO) is planned for the
Redcap watershed (Figure 5.3-1). Sedimentation ponds are planned to be constructed in the first year of
operation.
Three ex-pit waste dumps are planned as part of the Project. Two ex-pit waste dumps (MK3EX1 and
MK3EX2) are planned for the MacKenzie area and one ex-pit waste dump (RCEX) is planned for the
Redcap area (Figure 5.3-1). Ex-pit waste dumps are planned to be constructed in the first two years of
operation.
Upon reclamation, mine pits will be backfilled with mine waste rock and overburden with three exceptions.
The final limits of mining in Redcap phases 4 and 5 (RC4, RC5) will not be backfilled and will form an end
pit lake. MacKenzie phases 1 and 2 (MK1, MK2) will be partially backfilled but will predominantly remain
exposed highwall and footwall features, but will not feature open water, after reclamation.
Planned infrastructure (i.e., mine pits, sedimentation ponds and ex-pit waste dumps) in the MKRC area
are similar to CRO infrastructure at adjacent mines. CRO has a good understanding of how construction
and operation of mine infrastructure can affect groundwater in this type of mountain environment. This
includes experience in mine plan development planning and validation of effectiveness of mitigation
measures.
The footprint of current planned mine developments in the Project area is smaller than the one presented
in the original 1996 EIA application. The reduced footprint is the outcome of optimized engineering
completed, in part, to reduce environmental effects.
Potential effects to groundwater quantities and flows are discussed in the sections following. Teck has
evaluated the potential effects of the Project that could affect groundwater resources:
• mine pit excavation;

March 2018
• mine pit dewatering and associated discharges to sedimentation ponds;
• ex-pit waste dump; and,

• mine pit backfill and end pit lake.
5.3.3.1 Mine Pit Excavation
Excavating mine pits results in the disruption of geologic and hydrostratigraphic units. In the case of
planned MKRC area mine pits, disruption is mainly to sandstone and coal seams but in some instances
planned mine pits will intersect alluvial deposits (Figure 5.3-1). A disruption of hydrostratigraphic units can
shorten groundwater flow paths and cause groundwater flow patterns to change as groundwater moves
preferentially toward the excavation. As discussed in Annex A, there is an established natural evolution of
groundwater quality from recharge area to discharge area in the MKRC area. Shortening the flow path
through mine pit excavation alone will disrupt this natural evolution of groundwater quality. It is anticipated
that potential effects related to changes in groundwater quality would be negligible and limited to the near
mine pit area. As such, regional effects to groundwater quality as the result of mine pit excavation alone
are not expected.
Changes to groundwater flow direction will occur as groundwater preferentially flows towards the mine pit
during excavation. This effect is expected to be localized and within the mine permit boundary as
corroborated by operational experience and groundwater monitoring at nearby mine pits. Overall, regional
changes in groundwater flux to surface water bodies due to mine pit excavation alone are not expected.
The predicted hydrology effects (quantity and timing) in the MKRC area are addressed in Section 5.4.
5.3.3.2 Mine Pit Dewatering
Groundwater flow to mine pits depends on many factors including, hydraulic conductivity of geologic
units, geologic structure, groundwater levels, mine pit extent, mine pit depth, and mine pit sequencing.
Mine pit dewatering is usually achieved in two ways; active pre-mining dewatering using pumping wells
and/or passive dewatering from a mine pit sump. Pre-mining dewatering wells are currently not part of the
MKRC mine water management plan because operational experience has determined that they are not
typically effective in this setting. In the adjacent pit development in the Upper Harris (UHEA), pre-mining
dewatering wells were not required.
In advance of mining in the Redcap pits, a number of headwater tributaries to Redcap Creek will be
diverted into a clean water diversion system upstream of the pit. This is being done to minimize the
amount of water that enters the mine pits that will require management (Figure 5.3-1 and Figure 3.4-4)
and removal from the pit.
Consistent with current practices, passive dewatering will be the primary dewatering activity in the MKRC
area. Groundwater and precipitation that collects in the mine pits will be pumped to one of three planned
sedimentation ponds (Figure 5.3-1). Once sediment settles within the ponds, the water is released to
nearby surface streams.
Dewatering rates in the Project area are expected to be similar to other nearby mining areas with similar
mining depths. Dewatering rates may be increased in the Redcap pits because the area has more alluvial
deposits intersecting mine pits. Piteau (1995b) predicted dewatering rates from the Cheviot Creek pits to
range from 145 m 3/day to 13,040 m3/day with transient and steady-state averages of 2,120 m3/day and

March 2018
1,280 m3/day, respectively. Piteau (1995b) also predicted dewatering rates for Harris Creek pits ranging
from 195 m3/day to 16,260 m3/day with transient and steady-state averages of 2,580 m3/day and
1,900 m3/day, respectively. Omni-McCann (2010) estimated dewatering rates for the Harris Creek pits to
stabilize between 3,000 m3/day and 4,000 m3/day.
Operational experience suggests Piteau (1995b) and Omni-McCann (2010) estimates were reasonable.
Using site specific data from 2016 and 2017, Harris Pit 1 filled with approximately 675,000 m3 of water in
1.5 years; which is approximately 1,200 m3/day of groundwater infiltrating into the pit during that period.
This infiltration rate is expected to be conservative for many reasons, but mainly because it includes
contribution of runoff and precipitation. CRO has demonstrated success in managing actual dewatering
rates of this magnitude in numerous pits similar to the proposed pits in the MKRC extension areas.
Passive dewatering can lower the groundwater levels in nearby hydrostratigraphic units.
Operational experience and groundwater monitoring at nearby dewatered mine pits suggest that effects
to groundwater levels are localized and temporary. Piteau (1995c) observed that changes in groundwater
levels 150 m away from the dewatered pit were negligible after three years of dewatering. Omni-McCann
(2010) described groundwater levels recovering within one to two years after dewatering ceased.
As discussed in Annex A, groundwater flow in the MKRC area is driven by recharge in upland areas; flow
through thin surficial aquifers, bedrock units or structural conduits, and discharge to surface water
streams largely via alluvial deposits. Mine pit dewatering will affect this flow path by altering groundwater
levels locally around the mine pit. Water removed from pits is diverted to sedimentation ponds and then
discharged to surface water. Depending on site specific geology, fluctuations in water levels in
sedimentation ponds may also affect groundwater levels on a very local scale. Effects to groundwater
levels are expected to be limited to the Mine Permit Boundary. Overall changes in groundwater flux to
surface water bodies due to mine pit dewatering are not expected. Hydrology effects (quantity and timing)
in the MKRC area are addressed in Section 5.4.
The nearest identified groundwater well is located in alluvial deposits near the Cardinal River,
approximately 5 km from mine dewatering activities. The effects of dewatering activities will be localized
and it is not probable that this groundwater user will be affected by mine pit dewatering activities.
Mine pit dewatering can affect water quality in terms of increased suspended solids. To mitigate this
affect, pit water is directed to sedimentation ponds where sediment settles out of suspension. Water from
sedimentation ponds is monitored and then released to surface water. Regional surface water and
groundwater quality effects due to mine pit dewatering and associated discharges to sedimentation ponds
are not anticipated.
5.3.3.3 Ex-pit Waste Dumps
Three ex-pit waste dumps are part of the mine plan (Figure 5.0-1). Ex-pit waste dumps have higher
permeability and infiltration that will change groundwater elevations and quantities. Groundwater
mounding or increased groundwater recharge will largely depend on the planned location of the ex-pit
waste dump. If the ex-pit waste dump is located on fine-grained deposits, springs may emerge at the toe
of the dump. Infiltration of water into underlying existing surficial and bedrock aquifers may occur if the ex-
pit waste dump is located on permeable deposits. Groundwater quality may be affected by recharge of
waste rock drainage water containing selenium, nitrate, and related compounds (Szmigielski 2015).

March 2018
At CRO, Teck has developed a Selenium Management Plan (SMP; Teck 2017c) to address release of
selenium in waste rock drainage water. Teck has prepared an updated Selenium Management Plan
(SMP, Teck 2017c) that has been submitted and is currently under AER review for approval. Additional
information regarding selenium management are provided in Section 3.5. This plan has been provided in
Appendix 8.
Teck actively monitors selenium in groundwater using a network of monitoring wells that are sampled
regularly and reported annually in CRO’s groundwater monitoring report. In addition to monitoring, Teck
employs a number of engineering controls to mitigate selenium release at CRO. These controls include
use of sub-aqueous disposal of waste rock, selective water management to control waste water flows and
reduce the number of discharge points, as well as surface reclamation and cover placement to reduce
infiltration into waste rock. Teck has also implemented an annual calcite monitoring program to document
the extent of calcite downstream of mine operations, and how the calcite changes over time. Calcite
deposition related to mine water release is discussed in Section 5.5.
The proposed location of ex-pit waste dump RCEX is in an area that is partly underlain by unconfined
alluvial deposits (Figure 5.3-1). To mitigate potential effects to groundwater, CRO plans to construct an
interception ditch downgradient of RCEX. The diversion ditch will divert water to the RCPO sedimentation
pond, to be treated (for TSS removal) and released to Redcap Creek. The ex-pit waste dump and
interception ditch downgradient of the RCEX may affect the existing flow path by altering groundwater
levels locally around the ex-pit waste dump and interception ditch. As a result of this mitigation, effects on
groundwater levels are expected to be limited to the mine permit boundary and effects on groundwater
quality will depend on the quantity and quality of the ex-pit waste seepage. CRO has established
environmental management plans and groundwater monitoring near ex-pit waste rock dumps at Cheviot
and will include groundwater monitoring of shallow alluvial aquifers down-gradient from the RCEX area in
its MKRC groundwater monitoring program. Hydrology effects (quantity and timing) are addressed in
Section 5.4.3.
Groundwater quality effects from to the ex-pit waste rock dump are expected to be localized as
corroborated by previous annual groundwater monitoring reports and established environmental
management plans. Potential downgradient effects related to groundwater quality are discussed in
Section 5.3.
5.3.3.4 Mine Pit Backfill and End Pit Lake
Upon completion of mining, most of the mine pit excavations will be backfilled with mine waste and
overburden. One end pit lake will be established in the RC5 Pit. Mine pit backfill is expected to be more
permeable than the original bedrock units. Mine pit backfill results in a permanent change in the continuity
of hydrostratigraphic units. This change in hydrostratigraphic units is expected to locally influence
groundwater flow paths and result in enhanced infiltration. The construction of the end pit lake will also
influence groundwater levels in adjacent hydrostratigraphic units.
As discussed in Annex A, there is an established natural evolution of groundwater quality from recharge
area to discharge area in the Project area. Backfilling mine pits with more permeable material and
establishment of an end pit lake will disrupt this natural evolution of groundwater quality. It is anticipated
that potential changes in groundwater chemistry would be negligible and limited to the near mine pit area.

March 2018
Regional effects to groundwater quality as the result of mine pit mine pit backfilling alone are not
expected.
As discussed in Annex A, groundwater flow in the Project area is driven by recharge in upland areas with
flow through thin surficial aquifers, bedrock units or structural conduits, and discharge to surface water
streams largely via alluvial deposits. Mine pit backfilling and establishment of an end pit lake will affect
this flow path by enhancing near pit infiltration and affecting local groundwater levels within the mine
permit boundary. As the backfill and end pit lakes fill with water and reach equilibrium there is a reduction
in groundwater flux available to surface water streams. Based on operational experience at Harris Pit 1
hydrogeologic equilibrium may be reached on the order of one to two years. Hydrology effects related to
timing of surface water flux in the Project area are addressed in Section 5.4.3. Observations in the Luscar
Mine suggest mine pit backfill and end pit lakes have an insignificant effect on groundwater resources
(Piteau 1995b).
5.3.4.1 Mitigation
Numerous mitigation measures are planned for the Project area that will minimize potential risk to
groundwater resources which include:
• groundwater pumped from the pits is directed to the sedimentation ponds for release to the
surface water bodies;
• clean water diversions to limit water contact with mine pits (i.e., keep clean water clean);
• interception ditch downgradient of RCEX ex-pit waste dump for release to RCPO; and
• timely reclamation of ex-pit waste dumps.
5.3.4.2 Monitoring
Teck has a long and successful history of adaptive groundwater management and monitoring in the
region. Existing groundwater monitoring wells in the Project area are illustrated on Figure 5.3-1. Most
groundwater monitoring wells are expected to remain throughout the duration of mining and reclamation
activities. Groundwater monitoring wells 95-10A/B and 95-11 A/B are expected to be mined out.
Teck continues to perform Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) and Water Act
monitoring consistent with regulatory requirements. EPEA monitoring results are routinely evaluated and
monitoring plans updated as necessary. For example, the Cheviot Mine Groundwater Monitoring Plan
was recently updated and submitted in 2017 (Omni-McCann 2017). Once approved, the Plan will be
updated to include the Project. Teck prepares an annual Groundwater Monitoring Summary Report for
CRO (Teck 2017b).
Groundwater monitoring will continue to be integrated with surface water quantity and quality monitoring.
5.3.5 Summary
Effects of the Project on groundwater resources are expected to be minimal and within the Mine Permit
Boundary:

March 2018
• numerous hydrogeological investigations have been conducted in the area over the past 40 years
contributing to a strong understanding of the effects of mining activities on baseline groundwater
conditions;
• changes in MKRC area groundwater resources are expected to be similar to effects observed
during mining in adjacent areas, which are limited and documented to be appropriately managed;
• changes to MKRC extension area groundwater resources (flow, quantity and quality) are
anticipated to be localized within the mine permit boundary and manageable as corroborated by
historical groundwater monitoring at adjacent mines;
• regional effects are not expected, and potential groundwater users are not anticipated to be
affected;
• mitigation measures are planned to minimize risk to MKRC area groundwater resources;
• Teck has considerable knowledge of mining and water management in the area;
• CRO is committed to groundwater monitoring and environmental management plans in the

MKRC extension area as per regulatory requirements; and
• the MKRC area groundwater monitoring plan will be regularly evaluated and updated as
necessary to enable adaptive management of groundwater.
5.4 Hydrology
5.4.1 Introduction
established baseline hydrological conditions in the MKRC areas, as originally identified in the Cheviot
EIA. Evaluation of potential effects (Section 5.4.3) considers the following information:
• baseline hydrology information collected in 2017; and
• effects to hydrology of local streams previously assessed as part of the Cheviot EIA
(Hydroconsult 1996).
The Project will take place in the watershed of MacKenzie Creek (including Little Homer Creek) which
flows into the McLeod River and the watershed of Redcap Creek which flows into the Cardinal River
immediately downstream of the proposed mine. These are shown on Figure 5.4-1.
footprint is approximately 606.5 ha. This area covers 6.3% (238 ha) of the MacKenzie Creek watershed at
MC2, 21.4% (364 ha) of the Redcap Creek watershed at RC6, and 2.4% of the Cardinal River at CR2
watershed (Figure 5.4-1).
Baseline hydrology conditions in the MKRC area are provided in Annex B. Figure 5.4-1 presents
streamflow monitoring locations monitored as part of the baseline data collection program. Regional
Water Survey of Canada monitoring stations were compared to Project specific streamflow monitoring
stations to determine which are representative of Project watercourses. It was determined that Wampus

March 2018
Creek is representative of streamflow monitoring stations RC6, MC1 and MC2; while the McLeod River at
Cadomin is representative of streamflow monitoring stations CR1, CR2 and CR3. Hydrographs from the
six streamflow monitoring stations indicate similar trends across all stations, with peak flow in late
May/early June following snowmelt with subsequent decreases, down to baseflow conditions later in the
year. For the period of available data, from June 1 to October 5, 2017, runoff at the Project’s streamflow
monitoring stations was higher than runoff at Wampus Creek but lower than McLeod River runoff.
The highest maximum monthly discharge occurred in either June or July at all stations, while the highest
mean monthly discharge was in June. Mean June discharges were as follows: CR1 (5.43 m3/s), CR2
(6.35 m3/s), CR3 (8.96 m3/s), RC6 (0.48 m3/s), MC1 (0.19 m3/s) and MC2 (0.96 m3/s).
The lowest flows at all stations were recorded between September 10 and 12, 2017 with the exception of
monitoring station CR3 which had its lowest recorded flow on August 1, 2017. Between September 1 to
14, 2017, average low flows were as follows: CR1 (1.05 m3/s), CR2 (1.17 m3/s), CR3 (3.71 m3/s), MC1
(0.01 m3/s) and MC2 (0.23 m3/s). While it was not possible to determine the lowest flows for Redcap
Creek (monitoring station RC6) as the level logger was missing and data were not available from August
10, 2017 onwards, the lowest recorded flow for the period of record was 0.05 m3/s. This flow was
measured on August 9 and 10, 2017. Flows at monitoring station RC6 ranged between 26% and 147% of
recorded flows at Wampus Creek, averaging 67%. Applying this range to Wampus Creek, low flows at
RC6 would range between 0.01 m3/s and 0.25 m3/s, with an average of 0.05 m3/s between September 1
and 14, 2017.
Available total suspended sediment (TSS) concentration data indicate that with the exception of spring,
TSS concentrations were quite low at the streamflow monitoring stations were below the detection limits
(i.e. 3 mg/L). During spring, TSS concentrations are approximately one order of magnitude higher than
concentrations at other times of the year. The higher concentrations are due to higher flow velocities
associated with spring freshet and peak discharges.
Teck has evaluated potential effects of the Project to annual runoff volumes on the watersheds within the
Project area that include MacKenzie Creek, Little Homer Creek, Redcap Creek and Cardinal River.
Elements of the proposed Project that could influence runoff and sediment include:
• land clearing;
• waste dumps;
• haulroads;
• mine pits and dewatering;

• sedimentation ponds and end pit lakes;
• water diversions; and
• drainage area changes.

March 2018
5.4.3.1 Land Clearing
Natural watersheds generate less direct runoff compared to cleared watersheds because of increased
transpiration, interception and retention in the understory. In general, at least 20% of forest canopy needs
to be cleared before increases in annual runoff are measurable (Stednick 1996, Stednick and Troendle
2004). Results from the Tri-Creek Study in combination with results from similar studies indicate that on
average, a 20% to 40% increase in annual runoff could be expected when 30% to 80% of a watershed is
cleared (Andres et al. 1987). In consideration that up to a maximum of 21% of the Redcap Creek
watershed would be disturbed by the proposed Project, it is not anticipated that the Project will influence
runoff due to land clearing.
5.4.3.2 Waste Dumps
Waste dumps are more porous that undisturbed ground, resulting in increased percolation and infiltration,
and seepage through the rock. Evapotranspiration will be lower, but groundwater infiltration will be higher
compared to undisturbed ground. Existing experience at the Cheviot Mine shows negligible changes in
average annual runoff occur; peak flows are attenuated and low flows are increased. Following
reclamation, evapotranspiration will increase and groundwater infiltration will decrease as a new local
groundwater level in the spoil material is reached. If reclaimed surfaces have a steeper grade than pre-
mining ones, runoff could increase.
5.4.3.3 Haulroads
Haulroads are less permeable than undisturbed ground due to their compacted surfaces. The lower
permeability could result in higher peak flows and lower low flows. However, because of their small
contribution to the Project footprint, substantial changes to runoff from haulroads are not anticipated.
Haulroads are sources of sediment. Contact water from the haulroad will be ditched and directed to a
sediment pond for settling to occur, prior to release. This will mitigate effects from haulroads on sediment
loads in receiving watercourses.
5.4.3.4 Mine Pits and Dewatering
Mine pits act as impoundments by collecting water through groundwater seeping into the pit, and surface
runoff and precipitation accumulating in pit. Pit dewatering is conducted to enable safe mining will be
done. All pit dewatering activities are directed to sedimentation ponds that will result in increased surface
flows. The released quantities are controlled by pumping so peak flows will be reduced and low flows will
be increased compared to natural surface runoff.
5.4.3.5 Sedimentation Ponds and End Pit Lakes
Sedimentation ponds and end pit lakes generally decrease peak flows because of storage and increase
low flows because of the gradual release of water back to the environment. Depending on the size of the
ponds or end pit lakes, water losses from evaporation could be significant at specific times throughout the
year, but on an annual basis, the losses are offset by precipitation.

March 2018
5.4.3.6 Water Diversions
In the Redcap area, the up-slope drainages will be diverted around mining activities via a clean water
diversion system. The diversion was designed to handle a 1:10 year precipitation event. Flows that
exceed the 1:10 year event will be conveyed directly into Redcap Pit (Figure 5.4-1). The diversion of the
water from UTRC1 and UTRC2 will be conveyed east to UTRC4 which will result in transferring flows to a
further downstream location on Redcap Creek.
5.4.3.7 Drainage Area Changes
Should the drainage area of a watershed be affected by mining, this will affect annual runoff volumes.
Decreases to drainage areas result in decreases to downstream annual runoff volumes. Similarly,
increases to drainage areas result in increases to downstream annual runoff volumes. The following
sections provide an assessment of the predicted changes to the MacKenzie Creek and Redcap Creek
watersheds.
5.4.3.8 MacKenzie Creek Watershed Conditions
During mining, up to 238 ha (6.3%) of the MacKenzie Creek watershed upstream of monitoring station
MC2 will be disturbed (Figure 5.4-1). MC2 has a drainage area of 3,810 ha and is located approximately
3 km downstream of the confluence of Little Homer Creek with MacKenzie Creek (Figure 5.4-1). Potential
effects to the MacKenzie Creek watershed are assessed at monitoring station MC2 and the following
upstream points on MacKenzie and Little Homer Creeks near their confluence.
MacKenzie Creek above Point A - MacKenzie Creek just upstream of confluence with Little Homer
Creek, shown as Point A (Figure 5.4-1) has a total drainage area of 1,356 ha. During mining, up to
74.2 ha (5.5%) of this watershed will be disturbed. Disturbance in this portion of the watershed includes
the haulroad and water management infrastructure (48.5 ha), the MK1 Pit (23.7 ha), and some of the
MK2 Pit (2.0 ha). Additional information related to the surface water management plan for the Project are
provided in Section 3.4.
Contact water from the haulroad will be ditched to the sedimentation pond (MKPO) and sump (MK-SU).
These water management facilities will be in use for the life of the mine. Water from the pond and sump
system will be released into an unnamed tributary to MacKenzie Creek (UTMC2). This release point is
about 925 m upstream of Point A and 4 km upstream of monitoring station MC2. This settling pond will
affect the magnitude of flows but annual runoff volumes will not change appreciably. Peak flows will be
reduced, there will be a lag in the rising limb of the hydrograph, and low-flows may be higher depending
on the timing of water release from this system into UTMC2. These potential effects from the settling pond
will begin in 2019 and remain until the pond is reclaimed. Increases in TSS downstream of Project
facilities are not anticipated because MKPO is designed to capture particles greater than 15 microns
under the one-in-10-year peak discharge.
MK1 Pit will be mined-out in Year 1 (2019). The MK1 Pit has an up-slope drainage area of 20.8 ha and
has a total catchment of 44.5 ha. All runoff will be managed in pit and conveyed to Harris Pit, away from
MacKenzie Creek. This may result in a 3.3% reduction in average annual runoff at Point A and about
1.2% reduction in average annual runoff at MC2. This effect is temporary as mining in MK1 Pit will be
complete by 2020 and the pit partially backfilled. Due to the porous nature of backfilled material, surface
runoff from the backfilled area will be reduced compared to pre-mining conditions until all the voids are

March 2018
saturated with groundwater seepage and percolating surface runoff. It is anticipated that this new
groundwater regime equilibrium will take 1 to 2 years to establish.
A portion of MK2 Pit (13.9% or 2.0 ha) is in Point A watershed; the remainder of the pit is in the Point B
watershed and discussed in the next section. The portion of pit located within the Point A watershed is at
the upper end of the watershed and as such, any freshwater inputs would be from direct precipitation
only. Operational releases from this pit are treated in Little Homer Pond (LHPO) and returned to
MacKenzie Creek downstream of Point A. This transfer is equivalent to less than 0.2% decrease in
annual runoff at Point A and no detectable change at MC2.
Little Homer Creek upstream of Point B – Little Homer Creek just upstream of confluence with
MacKenzie Creek, shown as Point B on Figure 5.4-1 has a total drainage area of 731 ha. During mining,
up to 74.9 ha (10.2%) of this watershed will be disturbed. Disturbance in this portion of the watershed
includes consists of the haulroad (28.9 ha), most of MK2 Pit (12.5 ha), a portion of MK3 Pit (5.0 ha), all of
MK4 Pit 17.8 ha and the MK3EX1 Waste Dump (10.7 ha).
Contact water from the haulroad, waste dumps, and operational releases from Pits MK2, MK3 and MK4
will be conveyed to sedimentation pond LHPO. Water from the pond will be released to Little Homer
Creek approximately 1.1 km upstream of the confluence with MacKenzie Creek and 4 km upstream of
MC2. Changes to TSS concentrations in the downstream watercourse are not anticipated because the
sedimentation pond is designed to capture particles greater than 15 microns under the one-in-10-year
peak discharge.
Approximately 13.9% or 2.0 ha of MK2 Pit is located outside of the Little Homer Creek (Point B)
watershed. Runoff from this portion of the pit will be treated in LHPO and the drainage area of the LHC
watershed at Point B will increase by 2.0 ha during mining. This is equivalent to a 0.3% increase in
annual runoff at Point B and no change at monitoring station MC2.
All of MK4 Pit (17.8 ha) and its up-slope drainage area (5.3 ha) are located in the Little Homer Creek
watershed, above Point B (Figure 5.4-1). Runoff to the pit will be conveyed to LHPO and released back to
Little Homer Creek. Average annual runoff volumes are anticipated to remain the same, but the timing of
flows may be altered depending on the release rate of water from LHPO.
Material in waste dump MK3EX1 has a higher infiltration capacity compared to the original bedrock, there
will likely be less surface runoff from this area, and increased groundwater influence. This will result in
less surface flow in UTLHC; however, there should not be any detectable changes in the average annual
runoff at Point B or MC2.
MacKenzie Creek at MC2 - downstream of the confluence with Little Homer Creek (Points A and B) has
a total drainage area of 3,810 ha. During mining, there will be an additional 88.8 ha of disturbance in the
MC2 watershed downstream of Points A and B. Combined with the disturbances above Points A and B, a
total of 238.1 ha (6.2%) of the watershed will be disturbed.
Disturbance in the MacKenzie Creek watershed downstream of Points A and B consists of the haulroad
and water management infrastructure (18.0 ha), most of MK3 Pit (49.6 ha), a portion of RC1 Pit (9.0 ha),
and the MK3EX2 Waste Dump (12.2 ha).

March 2018
Most of MK3 Pit (49.6 ha or 90.8% of the pit) is located in the watershed downstream of the confluence
with Little Homer Creek. All operational releases from MK3 Pit are treated in LHPO which is located along
UTLHC upstream of Point B. There is no up-slope drainage area associated with this portion of the MK3
Pit so the drainage area at Point B will increase by 49.6 ha which is equivalent to an increase in annual
runoff of 6.8% at Point B. There is no net change in drainage area at MC2 and therefore the effects would
be negligible.
Some of RC1 Pit (9.0 ha) is in the MC2 watershed downstream of Point B. The area extending into the
MC2 watershed is located on the drainage divide and does not have an up-slope drainage area.
Operational releases from RC1 will be diverted away from the MacKenzie Creek at MC2 watershed and
treated in the Redcap Pond (RCPO) which is in the RC6 drainage. This will result in a decrease in annual
runoff of about 0.2% at MC2 and an increase in annual runoff of 0.5% at RC6. The portion of the RC1 Pit
will be actively dewatered into the RCPO for approximately two years and then the pit will be backfilled
and the reclaimed contours will reestablish the drainage back toward the north into the MC2 drainage.
Due to the porous nature of the backfilled material, surface runoff from the backfilled area will be reduced
compared to pre-mining conditions until all the voids have saturated with groundwater seepage and
percolating surface runoff. It is anticipated that this new groundwater regime equilibrium in these backfill
areas will take 1 to 2 years to establish.
Material in waste dump MK3EX2 has a higher infiltration capacity compared to the original bedrock, there
will likely be less surface runoff from this area, and increased groundwater influence. Overall, this change
will result in less surface flow into MacKenzie Creek until reclamation occurs; however, there should not
be any detectable changes in the average annual runoff at monitoring station MC2.
Overall Effect to MacKenzie Creek Watershed – Mining activities in the MC2 drainage will result in a
temporary drainage area reduction of 53.5 ha. This is equivalent to a 1.4% reduction in annual runoff
volume. The description includes:
• MK1 Pit: 44.5 ha or about 1.2% reduction during mining and until backfill is saturated
(approximately 1 to 2 years);
• MK2 Pit: No net effect because water remains within the MC2 watershed;
• MK3 Pit: No net effect because water remains within the MC2 watershed;
• MK4 Pit: No net effect because water remains within the MC2 watershed; and
• RC1 Pit: 9.0 ha or about 0.2% reduction during mining and until backfill is saturated
(approximately 1 to 2 years).
Because of the higher infiltration capacity of waste rock material, there will likely be less surface runoff in
the Little Homer Creek watershed upstream of Point B, and in the MacKenzie watershed downstream of
Points A and B. There would be greater groundwater influence, resulting in no net effect at monitoring
station MC2. Timing of flows could also be altered because of the sedimentation ponds with peak flows
being attenuated and low flow and baseflows will be higher. At reclamation, all of these effects are
expected to be negligible.

March 2018
5.4.3.9 Redcap Creek Watershed Conditions
Unnamed Tributary to Redcap Creek (UTRC) - The UTRC consists of the drainage area of the
tributaries of Redcap Creek located upstream of the Redcap pits (RC1 and RC2). Runoff from the
headwaters for UTRC1, and UTRC2 will be collected in interception ponds and diverted around RC1 and
RC2 in a clean water diversion to URTC4 (Figure 5.4-1). The total drainage area to this clean water
diversion is 260 ha or 15.3% of the RC6 drainage area and is broken down as follows:
• UTRC1-SU-1: 17 ha;
• UTRC1-SU-2: 39 ha;
• UTRC2-SU-1: 183 ha; and
• UTRC2-SU-2: 23 ha.
The clean runoff to the interception ponds will be stored in the ponds and conveyed to UTRC4 for flood
events up to the 10-year return period. Above this return period, runoff would be conveyed directly into
the pit. The clean water diversion is sized to minimize potential effects in UTRC4 by limiting peak flows
entering the tributary to a maximum of 10% of the natural peak flows. This will have a regulating effect on
UTRC4, in which peak discharge will be reduced while baseflows will be enhanced. Downstream of
UTRC4, at RC6, there would not be changes in average annual runoff or sediment concentrations due to
this clean water diversion.
Redcap Mining Areas (RC1-RC5) - The RC6 watershed consists of Pits RC1 to RC5, RCEX Waste
Dump, a waste water contact water ditch (RCCD), and RCPO settling pond. An end pit lake is planned in
the RC4/5 area and is discussed in the next section. Effects of mining are assessed at RC6
(Figure 5.4-1). Downslope from the UTRC clean-water diversion, the UTRC1, UTRC2 and UTRC3
tributaries will be mined through by Pits RC1 to RC5 and Waste Dump RCEX. Operational releases from
these pits and runoff from the waste dump are directed to RCPO which releases to Redcap Creek
approximately 1.6 km upstream of RC6. The drainage area at RC6 is 1,700 ha.
During mining, up to 364 ha (21.4%) of the Recap Creek watershed at RC6 will be disturbed. This
disturbance footprint is broken down as follows:
• Redcap Pit: 235 ha

• RCEX Waste Dump: 81.6 ha
• other (RCPO, soil stockpiles, etc.): 48.1 ha.
As discussed in a previous section, a total of 9.0 ha of the RC1 Pit is located in the MacKenzie Creek
watershed and will be disturbed for two years before reclamation occurs. Because operational releases
from this pit are treated in RCPO, the total drainage area to RC6 will increase by 9.0 ha during mining
which is similar to about a 0.5% increase in average annual runoff. Negligible changes to average annual
runoff are anticipated at RC6 due to these disturbances. Timing of flows will be altered because of the
sedimentation pond; peak flows will be attenuated and low flow and baseflows will be higher. However,
the rate at which water is released from the sedimentation pond and clean water diversion will determine
how the timing of flows is altered.

March 2018
Localized effects upstream of RCPO will occur, for example at Point C downstream of the confluence with
UTRC2 (Figure 5.4-1). With just the clean water diversion in place, the contributing drainage area to Point
C is reduced by approximately 262 ha, which is equivalent to a 31.2% reduction in flows. By contrasts, at
maximum disturbance (clean water diversion in place, and Redcap Pit is mined), the drainage area of
Redcap Creek at Point C, will be decreased from 839.8 ha to 334.2 ha. This is equivalent to a 60.2%
reduction in annual runoff volume at Point C. Point C is located 1.8 km upstream of the RCPO release
point. Therefore, the magnitude of the effect decreases with distance downstream as the contributing
drainage area increases and pit water is discharged back to Redcap Creek. However, as mentioned
above, negligible changes to average annual runoff are anticipated at RC6 once the diverted water and
water the pit is released back to Redcap Creek.
Redcap – End Pit Lake - One end pit lake is planned in the RC4/5 area which has an estimated volume
of 13,730,000 m3. It is assumed that the UTRC clean water diversion will remain in place during end pit
lake filling to maintain flows in UTRC4 and downstream in Redcap Creek. It is assumed that while the end
pit lake is filling, settling pond RCPO will continue to release runoff that is collected from the RCEX pit
dump, that will augment flows to Redcap Creek.
A water balance indicates that it would take on the order of two years for the pit to fill. Any discharge from
the lake during the filling period would be to the subsurface. Assumed inflows are direct precipitation and
groundwater influx, and there are losses due to evaporation. For the water balance, a groundwater influx
rate of 0.2 m3/s was used and a net runoff (annual precipitation minus evaporation) of 193 mm over the
year. This fill rate is comparable to Harris Pit which took 1.5 years to fill.
Once the end pit lake is filled, it will have a regulating effect on downstream flows in Redcap Creek by
dampening peak flows and increasing baseflows.
Overall Effect to Redcap Creek Watershed - The maximum effect of mining to the Redcap Creek at
RC6 is a less than 1% increase in average annual runoff. Timing of flows will be altered because of the
sedimentation ponds. Generally, peak flows will be attenuated and low flow and baseflows will be higher
depending on the release rate from the ponds.
During end pit lake filling, starting in 2027, downstream flows in Redcap Creek will decrease between the
sedimentation pond (RCPO) and the confluence with UTRC4. Downstream of RC6, the decrease in flows
will be smaller than upstream of the confluence with UTRC4 because of the diverted water into UTRC4.
Once the end pit lake has filled, it will have a regulating effect on flows in Redcap Creek by decreasing
peak flows and increasing baseflows.
5.4.3.10 Cardinal River Watershed Flow Conditions
Approximately 2.4% of the Cardinal River watershed downstream of the confluence with Redcap Creek
(CR2) will be disturbed by mining. The proposed mining components making up this disturbance are
those discussed in the Unnamed Tributary to Redcap Creek and Redcap Sectors. At monitoring station
CR2, the additional 9.0 ha of drainage area gained from the westernmost portion of RC1 Pit may result in
a negligible increase in average annual runoff of 0.05%. This will occur for approximately two years until
reclamation. Redcap Creek went dry upstream of the confluence with the Cardinal River in early summer
2017. If this is a regular occurrence, flows in Cardinal River would only be affected during the spring when
Redcap Creek discharges into the Cardinal River.

March 2018
5.4.4.1 Mitigation
The surface water management plan (SWMP) for the MKRC area was designed with mitigation measures
in place to minimize the effect to surface water. Additional details of the surface water management plan
are provided in Section 3.4. Examples of mitigation include:
• sizing of water management facilities such as ponds and sumps to manage a 1:10 year
precipitation event with ability to convey up to a 200-year event via a spillway, and smaller
facilities such as road-side ditches to manage and/or convey the 10-year flood peak discharge;
• sizing the UTRC clean water diversion to manage a 1:10 year precipitation event;
• sedimentation ponds which allow sediment from runoff to settle out of the water column before
the water is released back into the environment; and
• general erosion and sedimentation control measures will be applied as needed throughout the
Project area.
The SWMP (Section 3.4) is a key mitigation measure for the Project. The Project was broken into four
different sectors (or water management areas) (Figure 3.4-1):
• MacKenzie Sector (MK; Figure 3.4-2): contains one settling pond (MKPO), one sump (MK-SU)
and road side ditches to capture and settle contact water from the haulroad and soil stockpile.
Runoff to Pit MK1 will be managed in pit and conveyed to Harris Pit;
• Little Homer Sector (LHC; Figure 3.4-3): contains one settling pond (LHPO) to capture and settle
contact water from the haulroad, Waste Dumps (MK3EX1 and MK3EX2), and operational
releases from Pits MK2, MK3 and MK4;
• Unnamed Tributary to Redcap Creek Sector (UTRC; Figure 3.4-4): contains one temporary clean
water diversion consisting of various sized pipelines (UTRC1-PL-1 and 2, UTRC2-PL-1 and 2)
and associated interception facilities (UTRC1-SU-1 and 2, UTRC2-SU-1 and 2, UTRC1-PU-1 and
2, and UTRC2-PU-1 and 2). This diversion is along the north side of Redcap Pits RC1 and RC2
to prevent up-slope drainage from contacting the pit. The diversion releases to UTRC4; and
• Redcap Sector (RC; Figure 3.4-4): contains one settling pond (RCPO) to manage water from the
RCEX Waste Dump and operational releases from Redcap Pit (RC1 to RC5). The end pit lake will
also be located in this sector.
5.4.4.2 Monitoring
Teck has established six hydrologic monitoring stations in the MKRC area (Figure 5.4-1) and will continue
monitoring of these stations during the development of the Project.
5.4.5 Summary
In total, mining will disturb 6.3%, 21.4% and 2.4% of the MacKenzie Creek at MC2, Redcap Creek at RC6
and Cardinal River at CR2 watersheds, respectively. Effects to surface water flows on MacKenzie and

March 2018
Redcap Creeks, and the Cardinal River downstream of the Project are expected to be minimal for the
following reasons:
• mitigation measures are in place to reduce the effect to surface water flows through the proper
implementation of the Water Management Plan;
• Teck is committed to streamflow monitoring and environmental management plans in the
MacKenzie and Redcap areas as per regulatory requirements; and
• the MacKenzie Redcap streamflow monitoring plan will be evaluated and updated as necessary.
5.5 Surface Water Quality
5.5.1 Introduction
This section will provide an assessment of the surface water quality for the Project. This section provides
an updated assessment of potential effects of planned mining operations on established baseline
conditions in the MKRC areas, as originally identified in the Cheviot EIA. The evaluation of potential
effects (Section 5.6.3) considers the following information:
• baseline surface water quality information collected in 2017; and
• effects to surface water quality previously assessed as part of the Cheviot EIA (CRC 1996).
The 1996 EIA concluded that impacts from the proposed Project on the SWQ of the MacKenzie, Redcap
and Cardinal catchments included exceedances of those parameters typically seen at the Luscar Mine
(CRC 1996). Nitrate was identified as a potential regional concern, although it was noted that low
phosphorus levels would likely limit eutrophication. In all cases, impacts were found to be insignificant
(local or regional extent, long in duration, minor in magnitude, and with full recovery after completion of
mining) (CRC1996).
The study area for the Project includes an existing part of the Cheviot mine permit boundary, located to
the west of the current McLeod-Harris and Upper Harris Extension (UHEA) areas at CRO. The study area
is divided by a continental watershed divide, with the Athabasca River basin to the northwest of the study
area and the North Saskatchewan River basin to the southeast of the study area (Figure 5.6-1). The total
combined area of pits, waste dumps, haulroads and water management facilities in the MKRC footprint is
A field sampling program in the MKRC area was conducted in 2017 to characterize the natural surface
water quality and lower trophic conditions prior to any disturbance occurring. Full details of the 2017 SWQ
baseline for the MKRC areas can be found in Annex C. Figure 5.5-1 presents SWQ locations monitored
as part of the baseline data collection program.
A review of relevant sections of the 1996 Cheviot EIA and data related to the Project was conducted. The
SWQ historical and baseline data analyzed for the 1996 Cheviot EIA (CRC 1996) covered most of the
current study area of the Project (Figure 5.5-1). It is recognized that the baseline SWQ data for the
original 1996 EIA was collected more than 10 years ago, and laboratory standards and detection limits as
well as the Alberta guidelines have since been updated. A full set of seasonal SWQ baseline data was

March 2018
collected in the MacKenzie and Redcap areas in 2017, to update the current baseline conditions, update
the laboratory analysis standards and detection limits, and to compare the current baseline data to the
applicable current guidelines. Calcite monitoring was also added to the baseline program to characterize
natural levels of calcite prior to mining as no previous calcite monitoring has been previously completed in
the study area.
A summary of the key sampling for SWQ and calcite are provided below.
5.5.2.1 Surface Water Quality
Seasonal SWQ samples were collected and shipped to ALS Environmental in Edmonton, Alberta
(Annex C). Chemical analysis included the following parameters:
• conventional parameters (pH, specific conductivity, hardness, total alkalinity, total dissolved solids
(TDS), total suspended solids (TSS) and turbidity);
• major ions (bicarbonate, calcium, carbonate, chloride, fluoride, hydroxide, magnesium,

potassium, sodium and sulphate);
• nutrients (nitrate, nitrite, nitrate + nitrite, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total nitrogen, total phosphorus
and dissolved phosphorus); and,
• major and trace metals scan with low detection limits, analyzed as total and dissolved metals.
Results of the 2017 SWQ baseline indicate that MacKenzie Creek and Redcap Creek have similar water
quality, with minor differences between the two catchments.
In the MacKenzie Creek catchment, most parameters had higher concentrations in summer compared to
any other seasons. Nutrient concentrations were below provincial chronic water quality guidelines for the
protection of aquatic life. Based on the concentration of total phosphorus, the trophic status of streams in
the MacKenzie Creek catchment ranged between oligotrophic and mesotrophic. Total phosphorus
typically had higher concentrations in spring than in fall. Fluoride concentrations exceeded the provincial
chronic water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life at one station in the spring, at three
stations in the summer, and at two stations in the fall. Most metal concentrations were below the
provincial chronic water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life, with the exception of total
selenium at one station in the spring, summer and fall, as well as dissolved aluminum at three stations in
the spring and two stations in the fall. The provincial acute water quality guideline for the protection of
aquatic life was exceeded in two samples for dissolved aluminum at two stations in the fall indicating
naturally elevated levels.
Watercourses in the Redcap Creek catchment indicated seasonal trends related to the onset of winter for
a number of analytes. Parameters associated with ions, including most major ion concentrations,
hardness, and TDS peaked in the winter. Low nutrient concentrations were found within the Redcap
Creek catchments, with trophic status ranging between oligotrophic and mesotrophic. Exceedances of the
provincial chronic water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life were measured in one sample
for total chromium in the spring, in seven samples for total selenium in all seasons and in one sample for
dissolved iron in the summer.

March 2018
5.5.2.2 Calcite
Representative streams in the study area were surveyed for the presence or absence of calcite and if
present, the type of calcite present (i.e. calcified algae; calcareous laminate; calcified moss/tufa; barrage
tufa; calcite scale or insect tufa), using the same monitoring field methods developed for the current
Luscar and Cheviot Mines (Lotic 2013). Habitat variables such as water depth and in situ water quality
parameters were also recorded at each sampling station.
Results indicate there is some naturally occurring calcite within the streams. There are some differences
in naturally-occurring calcite presence among the study stations, especially between the two catchments.
Calcite presence was limited in both catchments and overall most of the watercourses appeared to have
little calcite formation.
In the MacKenzie Creek catchment, four watercourses, including the mainstem of MacKenzie Creek,
were assessed for calcite presence and concretion status. Only one station, at the lower downstream
section on an unnamed tributary to MacKenzie Creek (UTMC4), was identified to have calcite presence
during the late summer field program. The degree of calcification in the creek was low, with only 25 m of
the reach indicating calcite presence and no concretions were observed. No calcite was found in the
upstream reach, or farther downstream near the confluence with MacKenzie Creek.
In the Cardinal River and Redcap Creek catchments, three watercourses, including the Cardinal River,
were assessed for calcite presence and concretion status. An unnamed tributary in the Redcap Creek
catchment (UTRC4), and two reaches of the Cardinal River, upstream and downstream of the Redcap
Creek confluence were identified to have calcite presence. Calcite presence in the reaches of UTRC4
and the upstream reach of the Cardinal River was only found during the late summer, while in the
downstream reach of the Cardinal River, calcite was found during both the late summer and fall.
The degree of calcification was low and the extent of calcite presence at each station ranged from less
than 10 m (UTRC4) to 200 m (Cardinal River reaches) of stream length. Very few concretions were found
in the interstitial spaces, and individual cobbles were easily separated from the stream bed.
Teck has evaluated the potential effects of the Project to SWQ on the watersheds within the Project area
that include MacKenzie Creek, Little Homer Creek and Redcap Creek. Elements of the proposed Project
that could influence SWQ include:
• Increased total suspended solids;
• increased nitrate concentrations;
• increased concentrations of metals and non-metals (including selenium); and
• increased calcite deposition.
Potential impacts of the Project are consistent with those identified in the 1996 EIA (CRC 1996), with the
inclusion of potential increases in calcite deposition.

March 2018
5.5.3.1 Increased Total Suspended Solids
Contact water from the Project will likely have elevated levels of total suspended solids (TSS) which will
require mitigation and monitoring actions. Management of surface water quality is described in detail in
Section 3.4, which is the prime mitigation measure for the Project.
5.5.3.2 Increased Nitrate Concentrations
Explosives containing ammonium nitrate will be used during the mine operations. Accessing the coal
requires blasting of surrounding overburden rock. Blasting leaves nitrate-containing explosives residue on
this surrounding rock and along pit walls. Subsequent placement of the surrounding rock in waste rock
dumps facilitates the exposure and potential release of nitrate residues. Nitrate concentrations
downstream of existing operations at CRO are observed to be elevated relative to background
concentrations.
Nitrates that are released to aquatic environments through the release of contact water from the Project,
may affect aquatic life through direct toxicity, or through reduced habitat quality from reduced dissolved
oxygen and/or eutrophication (CRC 1996).
5.5.3.3 Increased Concentrations of Metals and non-Metals (including selenium)
Coal is present at CRO as layers or seams interlayered with sandstone, siltstone and mudstone. This
rock contains sulphide and carbonate minerals that contain substances such as selenium. Oxidation of
sulphide minerals (mainly pyrite) and other geochemical reactions are triggered when rock is exposed to
the atmosphere, and to moisture along pit walls and in waste rock spoils. Pyrite oxidation, combined with
the presence of buffers such as carbonate minerals, results in sulphate formation and the release of
metallic, semi-metallic and non-metallic substances such as selenium (Teck 2014). Selenium
concentrations downstream of existing operations at CRO are observed to be elevated relative to
background concentrations.
Selenium is an essential nutrient, meaning trace amounts are necessary for cellular function in many
organisms, including plants, animals and people. However, selenium can be harmful when it builds up in
an organism’s tissues beyond natural levels. When elevated it can interfere with reproductive processes
in egg-laying vertebrates. In an aquatic environment, selenium is taken up from water by algae and other
microorganisms and transferred through the food web to aquatic invertebrates, fish, birds, and other
vertebrates. Selenium that is released to aquatic environments through the release of contact water from
the Project has the potential to contribute to increases in selenium in these organisms and as a result
local, populations could be impacted (CRC 1996).
5.5.3.4 Increased Calcite Deposition
Calcite, in the form of calcium carbonate from the shells of dead marine organisms, is found in
sedimentary rocks of the Rocky Mountains. As water travels through the ground or through mining waste
rock, calcite can dissolve and then re-crystalize elsewhere in a watercourse. Increasing levels of calcite
deposition have been observed in streams downstream of waste rock dumps at existing CRO operations.

March 2018
Calcite formation has the potential to physically alter streambed composition, by depositing on the surface
of inorganic substrates (e.g. rocks, gravel) and organic media (e.g. algae mats, vegetation). Large
deposits or formations of calcite can limit habitat availability to lower trophic organisms and fish.
Water in contact with pits and waste rock and processing facilities, typically drain into settling ponds
which discharge into the receiving environment. Calcite deposits/formations are most prevalent directly
downstream of these ponds. Once these smaller creeks enter the larger flows of downstream rivers,
calcite deposits/formation cease, likely as a result of increased dilution as well as the changes in physical
characteristics and increased scouring.
5.5.4.1 Mitigation
As per all previous mine phase operations at CRO (i.e. Luscar, Prospect, Cheviot, McLeod, Harris, and
Upper Harris), the MKRC phase will adhere to the same objectives of CRO’s Water Management Plan to
manage water in an environmentally responsible manner. Responsible environmental management of
water at the CRO includes:
• maximizing the separation of contact and non-contact water;

• mitigation for this is to develop clean water diversions, which are described in the surface
water management plan (SWMP) in Section 3.4, and discussed in Section 5.4;
• managing the discharge of contact water to avoid or minimize environmental effects;

• Teck has developed a SWMP (Sections 3.4 and 5.4) that captures and manages contact
water during the development of the Project, and includes sedimentation ponds, flocculant
stations, roadside ditching, sumps, pipelines and pumps. The purpose of the SWMP is
primarily to remove total suspended solids before water is released to the natural streams;
• Teck has an approved selenium management plan to address selenium levels resulting from
mining operations at Cheviot, with key points provided in Section 3.5. An updated plan was
submitted to the AER in 2017 and is currently under review. Teck will manage selenium from
the Project in accordance with the approved plan, and anticipates future updates to the plan
will be required;
• nitrogen enrichment will be addressed by minimizing the use of ammonium nitrate during
blasting activities by doing the following:
• a pre-determined ratio between volume of explosive product to waste rock is implemented

to minimize ammonium nitrate usage while maintaining sufficient rock breakage;
• the ammonium nitrate is measured as every hole is being filled to prevent overloading;
• continuous testing of alternative blasting and loading methods is being performed, to

improve efficiency and thus reduce the quantities of ammonium nitrate used; and
• maximum ignition of the ammonium nitrate is ensured through product quality control and
monitoring, dewatering wet holes and lining with plastic, or the use of water resistant
product where dewatering is not possible and double priming of holes where cut offs are
a concern.

March 2018
• maximizing (where practical) opportunities for on-site water reuse and recycling, thereby
minimizing discharges of contact water from the premises; and
• minimizing the removal of flows in existing catchments.
5.5.4.2 Monitoring
Teck will conduct the following monitoring:
• as per Section 4.2 of EPEA Approval No. 46972-01-00, 46972-01-01 and 46972-01-02 (as
amended), Teck will add the following:
• MacKenzie Pond (MKPO), Little Homer Pond (LHPO) and Redcap Pond (RCPO) will be
added as major ponds and monitored the same;
• sampling locations for both upstream and downstream sampling on MacKenzie Creek,
Redcap Creek and the Cardinal River with monitoring to be the same as the other surface
waterbodies.
• for selenium management purposes, sampling points will be added in MacKenzie Creek, Redcap
Creek and the Cardinal River with monitoring program to aligned with the approved Selenium
Management Plan; and
• Teck will monitor for calcite precipitation in the MacKenzie Creek, Redcap Creek and the Cardinal
River using the same methods as currently used at CRO.
5.5.5 Summary
An effective surface water management program was planned for the approved Project and is also
planned for the Project (Section 3.4). The revised program will be similar and remains within the existing
EPEA approval monitoring and reporting expectations. Teck will need to expand the Water Act Approval
fence-line to include the planned activities. Management of selenium, nitrates and total suspended solids
are key components to the Cheviot Mine water management and also for the Project.
5.6 Fish and Fish Habitat
5.6.1 Introduction
established baseline fish and fish habitat conditions in the MKRC areas, as originally identified in the
Cheviot EIA. The evaluation of potential effects (Section 5.4.3) considers the following information:
• baseline fish and fish habitat information collected in 2016 and 2017; and
• effects to fish and fish habitat of local streams previously assessed as part of the Cheviot EIA
(Pisces 1996).
The Project will take place in the watershed of MacKenzie Creek (including Little Homer Creek) which
flows into the McLeod River. The Project will also take place in the watershed of Redcap Creek which
flows into the Cardinal River immediately downstream of the proposed mine. These are shown on
Figure 5.6-1.

March 2018
footprint is approximately 606.5 ha. This area covers 6.3% (238 ha) of the MacKenzie Creek watershed at
MC2, 21.4% (364 ha) of the Redcap Creek watershed at RC6, and 2.4% of the Cardinal River at CR2
watershed (Figure 5.6-1).
The most recent (2016 & 2017) fish and fish habitat baseline data are provided in Annex D. A complete
reference and summary of historical fisheries information for the MKRC area, including the original
fisheries baseline assessment completed by Allan et al. (1995) and the original EIA completed by Allan
(1996), is presented in Annex D (Pisces 2017).
The fish and fish habitat study area includes portions of the upper MacKenzie Creek drainage which is a
tributary to the McLeod River in the Athabasca River basin. The MacKenzie Creek watershed ranges from
high energy, high gradient alpine/sub-alpine watercourses with coarse substrates, to lower elevation
foothills streams with lower gradients and more frequent fine substrates. Upper MacKenzie Creek is
reported to support Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (AEP
2017).
Within the proposed MKRC MSL boundary MacKenzie Creek and its tributaries are Class B waterbodies
with a restricted activity period (RAP) of September 1st to July 15th. Class B fish habitat contains high
sensitivity areas and are classified as being sensitive enough to be damaged by any type of activity in the
waterbody (AEP 2006). Class B habitat areas are considered important to the continued viability of a
population of fish species in the area (AEP 2006).
Another portion of the fish and fish habitat study area includes the Redcap Creek drainage, which is a
tributary to the Cardinal River in the North Saskatchewan River basin. The mainstem of Redcap Creek is
formed by the junction of three unnamed headwater tributaries. Redcap Creek flows through a shallow
valley, largely unconfined, with well-defined stable banks. Redcap Creek is the only stream in the Cheviot
Mine study area that is significantly influenced by beaver activity (Allan et al. 1995). The Redcap Creek
system historically has supported Bull Trout and Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii) (AEP 2017e).
Within the MKRC area the Redcap Creek mainstem and its tributaries, along with the Cardinal River are
Class C waterbodies with a RAP of September 1st to April 30th and May 15th to August 15th (AEP 2006).
Class C fish habitats contain moderately sensitive areas and are considered sensitive enough to be
potentially damaged by unconfined or unrestricted activities within a waterbody (AEP 2006). They are
broadly distributed habitats supporting local fish species populations (AEP 2006).
Table 5.6-1 provides as summary of the fish species reported to occur within each of the watersheds
associated with the Project.
Table 5.6-1 Provincial and Federal Status of Fish Species Present in MKRC
Species Provincial Status(a) Federal Status(b)
Bull Trout – MacKenzie Creek General Status: Sensitive COSEWIC: Special Concern
Western Arctic populations Detailed Status: Threatened SARA: Under Consideration
Bull Trout – Redcap Creek General Status: Sensitive COSEWIC: Threatened

March 2018
Species Provincial Status(a) Federal Status(b)

Saskatchewan – Nelson River Detailed Status: Threatened SARA: Under Consideration
populations
Cutthroat Trout – Redcap Creek
Secure No Status
(introduced/stocked population)
Rainbow Trout – MacKenzie Creek General Status: At Risk COSEWIC: Endangered
(Athabasca River population) Detailed Status: Threatened SARA: Under Consideration
Rainbow Trout – MacKenzie Creek Secure No Status
(non-native)
(a)
AEP 2015b
(b)
DFO 2016
All Bull Trout in Alberta are classified as ‘Sensitive’ in the current General Status of Alberta Wild Species
and are classified as ‘Threatened’ under Alberta’s Wildlife Act (Table 5.7-1). The Committee on the Status
of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) recently listed the Western Arctic populations of Bull Trout
(MacKenzie Creek drainage) as ‘Special Concern’ and the Saskatchewan-Nelson River populations
(Redcap Creek drainage) as ‘Threatened’ (Table 5.6-1). Under the Species at Risk Act (SARA), both sub-
species currently have ‘No Status’ but are ‘Under Consideration’ (Table 5.6-1).
Cutthroat Trout were introduced into the Cardinal River watershed in 1986, 1987, 1988 and once, in
1986, directly into Redcap Creek (Allan et. al 1995). According to Allan (1995), Cutthroat Trout in the
Cardinal River established self-reproducing populations, although it appears that this population is now
very limited or potentially non-existent within the Redcap Creek portion of the drainage (Annex D). The
general status of introduced/stocked Cutthroat Trout in Alberta is ‘Secure’ (Table 5.6-1). Due to the lack
of Cutthroat Trout in the 2017 baseline study this fish species was not considered further in this impact
assessment.
Ten thousand hatchery (non-native) Rainbow Trout were stocked at the mouth of MacKenzie Creek in
1935 and 1936 as well as throughout the McLeod River, but no other stocking has occurred within
MacKenzie Creek. The general status of Athabasca Rainbow Trout (ARTR) in Alberta is ‘At Risk’ and is
further classified as ‘Threatened’ under Alberta's Wildlife Act (Table 5.6-1). This species was listed as
‘Endangered’ by COSEWIC in May 2014. Under the SARA, the species is currently considered ‘Under
Consideration’ (Table 5.6-1).
Within their range in Alberta there are considered to be low numbers of mature Athabasca Rainbow
Trout, and more than half of the populations (80%) are in high-risk categories (AARTRT 2014). Limiting
factors for Athabasca Rainbow Trout include competition with introduced Brook Trout, genetic mixing with
stocked Rainbow Trout populations, fragmentation of habitat by poorly designed stream crossings,
recreational overfishing and watershed disturbances from logging, mining, and oil and gas activities
(AARTRT 2014).
In 2010, the Athabasca Rainbow Trout Recovery Team was established, with representation from the
provincial and federal governments, as well as key stakeholders with a broad range of interests. This
team was established to try to “increase the number of Athabasca rainbow trout populations in low risk
categories by a minimum of 10%; reverse the trend of an increasing number of populations in high risk

March 2018
categories; and increase the number of pure strain (core) populations” (AARTRT 2014). According to the
Athabasca Rainbow Trout Recovery Plan (2014), an admixture coefficient (Qi) is used to define an
individual fish’s genome inferred to be indigenous origin. Genetically “pure” or “core” ARTR populations
have Qi scores ≥ 0.99. Limited hybridization/conservation ARTR populations have scores of 0.950 to
0.989. Introgressed/stocked/naturalized (ISN) ARTR populations have scores < 0.950, meaning the
ARTR population’s genetic purity is considered compromised.
As part of the Recovery Team’s work, Rainbow Trout sampled and genetically tested in the lower portions
of MacKenzie Creek, (i.e., below the Project’s proposed MSL boundary), had an average Qi score of
0.831, indicating an ISN population (AARTRT 2014). As part of the Project’s 2017 assessment, genetic
testing was completed on Rainbow Trout sampled from the upper portions of the MacKenzie Creek
drainage (i.e., within the Proposed MSL boundary, including Little Homer Creek). The results indicate that
although 23 of the 54 fish tested had individual Qi scores ≥ 0.99, 12 individual Rainbow Trout had Qi
scores between 0.950 and 0.989, 19 individual Rainbow Trout had Qi scores of <0.95 (ranging from 0.694
to 0.941) (Taylor 2017): with a total combined average Qi score of 0.93. The Rainbow Trout with Qi
scores < 0.99 were interspersed throughout the study area indicating the genetic purity of the Rainbow
Trout population has been compromised due to introgression.
Potential impacts to fish and fish habitat within the MacKenzie Creek, Redcap Creek and Cardinal River
watersheds as a result of the proposed Project development are:
• increased sediment loads (suspended and deposited),
• physical loss and/or alteration of habitat (including changes in quantity),
• creation of barriers to fish movement,
• changes in water quality, and
• fish mortality
5.6.3.1 Sediment
Sedimentation potential is a common concern of most mining projects in or near flowing water. There are
two forms of sediment; suspended and depositional. Suspended sediment generally consists of the
smaller mineral particles such as clay and silt. These particles remain suspended in the water column for
a longer period of time and can disperse and be deposited greater distances downstream; but also are
flushed more easily from the creek systems into larger main stems. The depositional particles generally
are the larger mineral elements such as sand and larger (gravel etc.). Although these particles are
heavier, they will still be activated in higher velocity streams like the upper MacKenzie Creek and
deposited further downstream or in pools in areas where stream energies are lower (sedimentation).
For the potentially affected watercourses within the MacKenzie Creek, Redcap Creek and Cardinal River
watersheds, the main potential sediment inputs may occur in the construction of clear span watercourse
crossings, the clearing of trees and remaining clearcut areas, the installation of powerlines, construction
of water management ponds infrastructure and runoff from haul and light duty vehicle roads, and ex-pit
waste dumps.

March 2018
Increases in sedimentation of watercourses downstream of mining and infrastructure are not anticipated
as the WMP is designed to mitigate this impact by moving mine affected water to sedimentation ponds
that are designed to capture particles greater than 15 microns under the one-in-10-year peak discharge
(Golder 2017).
5.6.3.2 Physical Loss and/or Alteration of Habitat
During mining of large areas, it is often unavoidable to mine through water bodies that provide fish habitat
and therefore fish habitat is lost temporarily, or sometimes permanently. Another aspect of this potential
impact is loss or disturbance of parts of available habitat such as stream banks which include vegetation
that provides cover, nutrients, shade, bank stability and overhanging habitat. Changes in flow or loss of
streambed substrates or instream cover such as woody debris, boulders or aquatic vegetation may also
occur.
During MKRC mine planning, all efforts were made to avoid placement of mine activities in fish bearing
watercourses. For example, avoidance of mining and use of clear span crossing structures for the
MacKenzie Creek and Little Homer Creek drainages. Sedimentation ponds were located off the main
stems of fish bearing watercourses (Section 3.4). Additional detail regarding avoidance measures is
provided in Section 3.2.4. The waterbodies that will be directly impacted by the pits or other mine
infrastructure, were identified and confirmed to not provide useable fish habitat. These waterbodies
include UTLHC1 and UTMC1 in the MacKenzie Creek watershed, and UTRC1, UTRC2, UTRC3 in the
Redcap Creek watershed (Table 5.6-2, Figure 5.6-1).
UTLHC1 will have a sedimentation pond (Little Homer Settling Pond [LHPO]) located upstream of its
mouth, prior to entering Little Homer Creek. Although flows from this tributary may be altered as far as
timing of high and low flows, no loss of flow will occur (Section 5.4.3). Contact water will be diverted from
the haulroad and the adjacent pits, to the LHPO, and although annual runoff volumes of UTLHC1 will be
greater than baseline, it was assessed that the volume change within the MacKenzie Creek will be
negligible (Section 5.4.3).
The upstream section of UTMC1 will be lost in-pit, with a sedimentation pond (MCPO) located on the
lower section closer to the mouth, prior to it entering MacKenzie Creek. Flows from this tributary will be
altered with high flows attenuated and low flows and baseflows increased, depending on the release
schedule, but no loss of flow will occur (Section 5.4.3). Due to contact water diversion from the pit and
from runoff water from the haulroad to the MCPO, annual runoff volumes of UTMC1 will not change
appreciably (Section 5.4.3) and therefore MacKenzie Creek flows will be maintained.
The upper headwaters of UTRC1 and UTRC2 will be diverted around the Redcap Pit, to the east as clean
water. Each tributary will drain into a series of interception ponds where the water will then release into
UTRC4. Any groundwater from the middle portions of UTRC1, UTRC2 and all of UTRC3 will accumulate
in the Redcap Pit and be pumped to sedimentation pond RCPO, where water will be treated for TSS and
then released into the lower portion of Redcap Creek near UTRC4, which is currently providing habitat to
resident and occasionally migrant Bull Trout (Table 5.6-2). Based on the required water management, the
upper section of Redcap Creek that would normally receive seasonal flows from the UTRC1 – UTRC3
tributaries will result in a decrease in flows.

March 2018
This reduction in flow of Redcap Creek will occur upstream of RCPO, to hydrology assessment Point C,
which is located just downstream of the confluence with UTRC2 (Figure 5.4-1). With just the required
water management (i.e. interception ponds with upper flows diverting to UTRC4) in place, the contributing
natural drainage area to Point C will be reduced by approximately 262 ha, which equates to a 31.2%
reduction in watershed contribution to Point C. At maximum disturbance (i.e., a combination of the water
management infrastructure and the full extent of the Redcap Pit at operation), the drainage area of
Redcap Creek at Point C, will be reduced by another 334.2 ha, which will equate to a total of 60.2%
reduction in watershed contribution (i.e., annual runoff volume) at Point C.
Point C is located 1.8 km upstream of the RCPO release point; therefore, the effect of this reduction in
watershed contribution at Point C decreases with distance downstream as the contributing drainage area
increases and pit water is discharged back to Redcap Creek. Negligible changes to average annual runoff
are anticipated on Redcap Creek at hydrology monitoring point RC6, as the diverted water from UTRC1
and UTRC2, along with treated pit water is released back to Redcap Creek.
The alteration of fish habitat within this portion of Redcap Creek, contains moderate to low quality Bull
Trout habitat (baseline information is provided in Annex D). In relation to Bull Trout life stages, this portion
of the Redcap Creek was deemed to provide low to moderate adult stage habitat, and moderate juvenile
stage habitat. It is important to note; however, there are large sections within this portion of Redcap Creek
that are heavily impacted by beaver dam impoundments, poor riparian cover. Downstream of this portion
of Redcap Creek, flows were observed to run subsurface, suggesting connectivity to the Cardinal River
may only occur during high flow regimes. A small portion of UTRC2, near Site 11a, that is also considered
fish habitat (low quality Bull Trout habitat) will also be impacted. Based on the potential loss/alteration of
habitat within Redcap Creek a DFO 35(2) Authorization may be required. As part of the application for
authorization an Offsetting Plan would be submitted.
Table 5.6-2 Waterbodies Directly and Indirectly Affected by the Mine Footprint
Fish Mine
Site Watercourse Habitat Quality
Present Impact
2d (UTLHC1) Tributary to Little Homer Creek None Not fish habitat Direct
3a (UTMC1) Tributary to MacKenzie Creek None Not fish habitat Direct
7a (UTRC4) Tributary to Redcap Creek Bull Trout Low Indirect
7b (UTRC4) Tributary to Redcap Creek None Low Indirect
7c (UTRC4) Tributary to Redcap Creek None Not fish habitat Indirect
Including 10 Redcap Creek (UTMC4 to Site 12a) Bull Trout Moderate Indirect
12a (UTRC1) Upper Redcap Creek Bull Trout Low Indirect
12b (UTRC1) Upper Redcap Creek None Not fish habitat Direct
10a (UTRC3) Tributary to Redcap Creek None Not fish habitat Direct
11a (UTRC2) Tributary to Redcap Creek Bull Trout Moderate/Low Indirect
11b (UTRC2) Tributary to Redcap Creek None Not fish habitat Direct

March 2018
Some waterbodies will be indirectly impacted due to increases or decreases in annual flows from
diversion of headwaters around pits and from accumulation within the pits. The waterbodies that will be
indirectly impacted include the lower section of UTRC1 and UTRC2 at Sites 12a and 11a, UTRC4 and the
middle section of Redcap Creek extending from UTRC4 upstream to Site 12a (Figure 5.6-1). Other than
the upper reaches of UTRC4, these waterbodies provide habitat for resident and occasionally migrant
Bull Trout in this area (Table 5.6-2).
The indirect impact on UTRC4 will be an increase in flows from the clean water diversion and interception
ponds from UTRC1 and UTRC2. UTRC4 will convey water back into the lower portion of Redcap Creek.
The interception ponds are designed to store clean run-off water for flood events up to the 10-year return
period (Section 3.4). Additional flood water above this level will be conveyed into the Redcap Pit;
therefore, flows from the interception ponds to UTRC4 will be managed to minimize potential impacts in
UTRC4 by limiting peak flows to a maximum of 10 % of natural peak flows (Section 3.4). Based on this
the overall peak flows will be attenuated and low flows and baseflows will be higher.
Groundwater inputs can be important to fisheries resources, as areas of upwelling are utilized for
spawning habitat (McPhail & Baxter 1996). During the baseline fish and fish habitat assessment no
substantial upwellings were identified within the Mine Permit Boundary and the impacts to groundwater
flows were assessed (Section 5.3.3) to be minimal and constrained to within this boundary; therefore,
changes to groundwater flows are not anticipated to affect the local or regional fish and fish habitat
resources.
5.6.3.3 Barriers to Fish Movement
Fish move between habitats for spawning, in search of food, to escape predators, or to leave undesirable
habitat. These migrations are often seasonal and occur at various life stages for different species. If
barriers to movement are created and exist over a long term, fish populations can be eliminated in
sections of water bodies that provide fish habitat that may be essential or critical to certain species’
existence and therefore cause population reduction or even extirpation (Allan 1996). At the juvenile life
stage, fish often move shorter distances for upstream dispersion or in search of more habitat and
therefore can be affected in a similar manner as the adults which also can cause population reduction
and extirpation.
As Cutthroat Trout, Rainbow Trout and Bull Trout are all fish species that migrate as juveniles and adults
and have all been present within the MKRC development area, barriers could affect these populations in
the short- and long-term. This is evident within the Redcap Creek drainage area where surface
connection between Redcap Creek and the Cardinal River is limited to high flow years. During 2017
surface connection between Redcap Creek and the Cardinal River was not observed. This lack of a
consistent connection may isolate the existing Bull Trout population likely making it mostly a resident
population with occasional migrants during higher flows that provide connectivity to the Cardinal River.
Project related works that could potentially create barriers to fish movement include construction of
watercourse crossings during which time works would need to be temporarily isolated to complete any
instream work. Construction of the sedimentation ponds, interception ponds and the clean and
wastewater ditches/pipeline culverts and the open pits for mining are not anticipated to create barriers to
fish passage as these structures are all present on non-fish bearing waterbodies.

March 2018
For the MKRC proposed mine plan there will be no mining over fish bearing waterbodies; therefore, there
should be no barriers to fish movement due to mining the MKRC area.
5.6.3.4 Changes in the Water Quality
Temperature - streams that are at higher altitudes generally have reduced diversity including available
food, vegetative cover, and temperature due to the harsh environment (Giller and Malmqvist 1998).
Temperature has been identified as the key environmental factor affecting distribution, behaviour and
metabolic rates of fish (Bronmark and Hansson 1998). Rainbow Trout and Bull Trout are considered cold
water species, with Athabasca Rainbow Trout specifically adapted to the cold headwater streams and
upper reaches of main stem rivers (AARTRT 2014). Rainbow Trout and Bull Trout seasonal movements
are triggered by temperature.
Tree removal within the Project area can increase sediment loads and decrease shading of overland flow
which can increase water temperatures of the receiving creeks. Water temperatures of Redcap Creek will
likely be affected due to these warmer inputs as well as the loss of flow from upper Redcap Creek
(UTRC1) and the tributaries (UTRC2 & UTRC3) that currently enter from the north. The loss of these
cooler headwater stream inputs through the middle section of Redcap Creek may increase creek
temperatures, and the loss of water volume will decrease water depth which in turn may cause increased
solar warming. Additionally, water diverted into the interception ponds may increase in temperature due to
increased surface area for absorption of solar inputs and decreased velocities.
Water Chemistry - exposed rock and sedimentation from mining can increase elements in receiving
waters. Numerous studies have been documented showing increases in chemical constituents from these
waters released or mobilized during mining activities (Sonnenberg 2011). Bioaccumulation of selenium in
fish tissue, due to elevated Se levels in water, has the potential to adversely affect the reproductive
capacity of exposed fish (Rasmussen et al. 2007). Additionally, increased levels of total dissolved solids
(TDS) have been shown to reduce fertilization success in hatchery salmonid species (Stekoll et al. 2009)
as well as chironomid embryo development (Chapman et al. 2000), which are a common food source for
salmonid species.
High levels of nutrients and major ions from clearing, blasting and mining in an area can affect the
chemical balance in streams. Runoff from overland flow accumulates these nutrients and ions with the
potential to reach receiving waters. Nitrogen and phosphorus inputs increase the productivity of algae in
creeks causing an increase in temperatures and a decrease in dissolved oxygen and light penetration into
the creek. This not only affects fish directly but food sources such as benthos as well.
Expected Project effects that could potentially affect water chemistry include overland flow through
exposed rock from rock dumps and pits which can increase elements, including selenium, in receiving
waters (Section 5.5.3). Calcite deposition can occur downstream of mine operations which can change
fish habitat by eliminating spawning gravels and interstitial spaces for cover. Calcite deposition related to
mine water release is also discussed in Section 5.5.3.
5.6.3.5 Fish Mortality
Instream work that requires isolation can result in entrapment of fish and potential mortality if the isolated
area is dewatered prior to fish removal. Additionally, sedimentation ponds and clean water ditches can
have attractant flows that cause fish to move upstream into the structures and then have the potential to

March 2018
trap and kill fish during lower flows or during draining for maintenance. Sedimentation ponds also have
the potential to kill fish due to anthropogenic causes (sediment, flocculant etc.).
Potential Project impacts that could result in fish mortality are instream isolated crossing construction
sites, the sedimentation ponds and clean water ditches. Additional access roads are not anticipated to
result in increased fish mortality (through angling) as all MKRC roads will be closed to public and
reclaimed at the end of mine life.
5.6.4.1 Mitigation
During MKRC mine planning all efforts were made to avoid placement of mine activities in fish bearing
watercourses. For example, avoidance of mining and use of clear span crossing structures for the
MacKenzie Creek and Little Homer Creek drainages. Sedimentation ponds were located off the main
stems of fish bearing watercourses (Section 3.4). Additional detail is provided below and in Section 3.2.4.
Sediment - sediment in surface runoff water from disturbed ground at, and adjacent to roads, crossing
sites, mining areas, waste dumps and soil stockpiles will be controlled in the short term by utilizing
temporary and permanent surface controls;
• post construction stabilization, principally by re-vegetation of exposed cuts, fills and ditches will
mitigate the longer-term potential effects of sediment generation;
• proper isolation techniques will be used if flowing water is present at the time of any instream
work during watercourse crossing construction and diversion of water;
• pumping from instream isolated areas or to pump the creek around an instream isolated area, the
outlet will have a diffuser or will be placed in a location that is not subject to erosion from the
outflow;
• clean water and wastewater ditches, pipeline and/or culverts will be utilized to move water
throughout the development area;
• interception ponds will be used to help manage sediment by storing high flows and decreasing
discharges for clean water diversions (Section 3.4); and
• sedimentation ponds will be used to remove sediment from any contact waters before being
released back into the system.
Physical Loss and/or Alteration of Habitat – the determination of whether an Offset Plan is required
will be conducted in consultation with DFO. If required, at a conceptual level, offsetting might include
habitat creation within UTRC4 that can be utilized by fish for either spawning and/or rearing habitat during
and post mining. Possible repairs and upgrades to the public off highway vehicle trails in the area (to
repair the existing bank degradation and instream sedimentation caused by fords, improperly constructed
crossings and trails running adjacent to the creeks) is another potential offsetting option.

March 2018
Barriers to Fish Movement:
• all crossings over fish bearing waters will be designed as clear span structures to provide fish
passage for trout species and meet the Alberta Environment Water Act Code of Practice for
Watercourse Crossings. No impact to groundwater flow is anticipated;
• the only time that potential fish barriers within fish bearing waters should be in place is during
creek crossing construction, depending on the construction methodology; and
• according to the Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings Edson Management Area Map
(Alberta Environment 2006), watercourses potentially impacted by crossings are Class B
waterbodies with a RAP extending from September 1 to July 15, and potentially a Class C
waterbody with a RAP extending from September 1 to April 30 and May 15 to August 15. During
this time no instream work will be conducted without the permission of the Provincial Government
contingent on the advice of a QAES.
Changes in Water Quality:
• water quality mitigations are also provided in Section 5.5.4;

• revegetation of disturbed areas after infrastructure construction and post mining will be completed
as soon as possible after disturbance to help minimize this impact;
• during construction, all heavy equipment working near streams will be free of external grease, oil,
mud, and fluids and will be refueled in a manner that ensures no deleterious substances enter
surrounding waterbodies;
• pumps will be placed in appropriate spill containment pans and a spill response plan will be in
place during work; and
• care will be taken to ensure that no construction debris enters the creek.
Fish Mortality:
• a fish capture and release program will be completed by a QAES within any isolated construction
sites on fish bearing waters, prior to dewatering. Any fish trapped in the isolated construction
areas will be transported and released to a suitable location before construction within the
isolated area begins;
• if a pump is used to pump water in any fish bearing waters, the intake will be screened in
accordance with DFO Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen Guideline (DFO 1995); and
• fish exclusion structures will be placed on all pond outlets and clean water ditches, pipeline and
culverts to restrict any potential for fish movement into ponds or ditches that may not provide
adequate fish habitat or may be drained due to future maintenance.
5.6.4.2 Monitoring
• total suspended solids monitoring will be completed at the outlet of all sedimentation ponds;
• benthic community monitoring will be completed in the fall during and post mining to monitor for
changes to the benthic community;

March 2018
• fish and fish habitat assessments will be completed to monitor for changes to the fish populations;
• chlorophyll a and periphyton levels will be analyzed when benthic invertebrate sampling is
completed, to help determine if nutrient levels are balanced;
• selenium testing on benthos and fish will be completed during mining and post mining to monitor
for potential selenium accumulation; and
• calcite monitoring will be completed.
5.6.5 Summary
Projects in or near waterbodies that support a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal (CRA) fishery
require that the project avoid causing “serious harm to fish” (DFO 2016). If complete avoidance is not
possible, actions to mitigate the potential harm should then be implemented. If these actions do not fully
mitigate serious harm to fish, then offsetting is required for the harm to be authorized.
The following summarizes the steps that have been taken to meet current regulations and reach approval
to complete the Project and to protect the fishery within the MKRC development area.
Avoidance - the mine plan has been completed with as much consideration as possible to avoid
impacting fish and fish habitat within the MKRC development area.
• mine infrastructure, including pits have avoided fish bearing waterbodies and are planned over
non-fish bearing waterbodies; and
• watercourse crossings of fish bearing waterbodies have been designed to pass fish (clear span).
Mitigation -most of the potential impacts can be mitigated if the identified measures are implemented and
the monitoring plans are put in place to identify potential unmitigated impacts as soon as possible.
Continuous updates to the mitigation and monitoring plans, as required, will help to minimize impacts of
Project development on fish and fish habitat.
• sedimentation of waterbodies will be minimized by managing clean and contact water movement
throughout the mine Project area following the WMP (Section 3.4);
• water quality will be monitored throughout the Project and post mining to ensure that the WMP is
working effectively;
• instream work, within fish bearing waterbodies, will be limited to crossing construction and follow
federal and provincial regulations including monitoring of turbidity and fish rescue;
• barriers to fish passage will not exceed regulated allowances;

• monitoring of fish and fish habitat will be completed during and post mining; and
• most waterbodies annual flow levels will be maintained with changes mostly limited to timing of
water release. The section of Redcap Creek that is fish bearing and will potentially see a loss of
60% of its annual flow, will require offsetting.
Offsetting – the determination of whether an offset plan is required for the improvement and creation of
fish habitat in the Project area will be conducted in consultation with DFO.

March 2018
• at a conceptual level, offsetting might include habitat creation within UTRC4 that can be utilized
by fish for either spawning and/or rearing habitat during and post mining; and
• repairs and upgrades to the public trails in the area could be considered to repair the existing
bank degradation and instream sedimentation caused by fords, improperly constructed crossings
and trails running adjacent to the creeks
5.7 Land Use
5.7.1 Introduction
Teck has been mining at the Cheviot Mine since 2004. Teck intends to continue applying proven
operational methods at CRO to the MKRC extension. This section provides a summary of baseline
conditions and an assessment of impacts which may result due to development of the Project, for existing
land and resource uses within the study area. Included in this section is a baseline summary and
assessment of impacts to land use policies, environmentally sensitive areas, parks, reservations, and
unique features. Potential impacts to subsurface rights as pertaining to coal development, surface
dispositions, industrial dispositions, trap-lines, forestry resources, aggregate resources, access, and
recreation activities within the study area are provided. Proposed mitigation and monitoring efforts to
reduce the impact of the proposed development of land and resources uses are summarized.
5.7.2.1 Land and Resource Policies
The Project will be developed in accordance with a number of provincial and local land management
policies and plans. The following policies and plans are located within the MKRC area:
• Coal Development Policy (GoA 1976);
• Policy for Resource Management for the Eastern Slopes (GoA 1984);
• Coal Branch Sub-Regional Integrated Resource Plan (AFLW 1990);
• Coal Branch Access Management Plan (AFLW 1994);
• Jasper National Park Management Plan (Parks Canada 2010);
• Whitehorse Wildland Provincial Park and Management Plan (AE 2000); and
• Luscar & Gregg River Mines Land Management Plan (GoA 2013c).
5.7.2.2 Existing Surface Rights
For this assessment, surface rights include all dispositions or reservations regulated under the Public
Lands Act. A Public Land Standing search, determined that three surface dispositions (CNC040004,
TFA173305, TFA174364), all held by Teck and within the MKRC area.
5.7.2.3 Existing Subsurface Rights
Existing subsurface dispositions within the MKRC area were limited to four coal leases which are held by
Teck and some Freehold Leases which Teck has agreements in place for.

March 2018
5.7.2.4 Access
Primary access will come through the Upper Harris development to the MKRC area. The existing
haulroad network will continue to be used to transport raw coal to the wash plant at the Luscar Mine. No
haulroads are currently developed within the proposed MKRC development area. The public Grave Flats
road is not utilized for construction or site access by Teck, with the exception of areas where Teck holds a
User’s Agreement with Yellowhead County. Public access to the proposed MKRC currently comprises a
trail network that accommodates limited motorized and unmotorized access.
5.7.2.5 Unique sites and special features
Unique sites and special features within the study area include Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs),
and legislated protected areas. The ESAs are areas that are important to the long-term maintenance of
biodiversity, physical landscape features, and/or other natural processes. A list of ESAs in the province
was first created in 1997 and was last updated in September 2014. It is intended to be used as an
information tool for land use and watershed planning (Fiera 2014). Thirty-one full and 14 partial ESAs are
located within the study area. They are classified as Criteria’s 1, 3 and 4, indicating that they possess
focal species, species groups, or their habitat; ecological integrity in terms of habitat intactness and/or
connectivity; and that they contribute significantly to water quality and quantity. The majority of the ESAs
scored zero (0) for Criteria 2, indicating that rare, unique, or focal habitats are uncommon.
5.7.2.6 Forestry
The study area is located within Forest Management Units (FMU) E13 and E14. One Forest Management
Agreements (FMA8800025), held by West Fraser Mills Ltd. is located within these FMUs.
5.7.2.7 Agriculture
No dispositions or activities associated with agriculture are located within the study area.
5.7.2.8 Hunting
AEP regulates recreational hunting in Alberta and separates the province into Wildlife Management Units
(WMUs). The study area falls within WMU 437, which includes regulations for the seasonal hunting of
white-tailed deer, mule deer, moose and elk (GoA 2017a).
5.7.2.9 Fishing
AEP regulates fishing within Alberta. The province is divided into three management zones based on
ecosystem type (i.e., Eastern Slopes, Parkland-Prairie and Northern Boreal). The study area falls within
the Easter Slopes Management Zone, Watershed Units ES2 and ES3. These Watershed Units contain a
combination of the Red Deer River, North Saskatchewan River, Athabasca River, and Pembina River
Watersheds. The MacKenzie Creek drainage (MacKenzie Creek mainstream and Little Homer Creek),
Cardinal River, and the Redcap Creek drainage include fish bearing waterbodies which may be impacted
by the Project.

March 2018
5.7.2.10 Trapping
Trapping in Alberta is governed through a registered trapline system. No trapping dispositions (TPAs) are
located within the study area.
5.7.2.11 Non-consumptive Recreation
Non-consumptive recreation in the region focuses on outdoor activities such as hiking, camping, and off
highway vehicle (OHV) use (AEP 2018). Two motorized OHV trails run through the study area (AEP
2018). Hiking and camping are also permitted in and around the proposed development area.
5.7.3.1 Land and Resource Use Policies
The Project does not conflict with any of the resource policies:
• Coal Development Policy;
• A Policy for Resource Management of the Eastern Slopes;
• Coal Branch Sub-Regional Integrated Resource Plan;
• The Coal Branch Access Management Plan;
• Jasper National Park Management Plan;

• Whitehorse Wildland Provincial Park Management Plan; and
• Luscar & Gregg River Mines Land Management Plan – Regional Integrated Decision.
5.7.3.2 Existing Surface Rights
One consultative notation company (CNC) disposition and two temporary field authorizations (TFA) for
industrial access are located within the LRSA. No conflicts with the proposed MKRC development exist
as all three of these surface dispositions are held by Teck.
5.7.3.3 Existing Subsurface Rights
For the Project, the coal leases are either held by Teck or are Freehold Leases whose holders Teck has
an agreement with. There are no additional subsurface rights are in the area. The proposed Project will
not conflict with any existing subsurface rights.
5.7.3.4 Access
A new haulroad and powerline corridor will be developed within the proposed MKRC development and
will be connected to the existing haulroad at the Upper Harris (Figure 5.0-1) area which runs to the wash
plant at the Luscar Mine. Access to the proposed MKRC development area will be accommodating of
public and employee safety, in accordance with CRO’s approach to managing mine access through
designated access trails as possible. No conflicts are anticipated.
A map showing the trails is provided on the Teck website (can be found at the following link:
https://www.teck.com/operations/canada/operations/cardinal-river/).

March 2018
5.7.3.5 Unique Sites and Special Features
The Cheviot Mine was previously approved and the proposed Project is within the existing Mine Permit
Boundary. The MKRC development will occur within this area and potential conflicts were previously
resolved.
There is no conflict with any policies or existing land uses in the MKRC area, so no mitigation or
monitoring is planned.
5.7.5 Summary
The proposed Project is anticipated to have no conflict with surrounding industrial land uses or users.
5.8 Soil and Terrain
5.8.1 Introduction
established baseline soil conditions in the MKRC areas, as originally identified in the Cheviot EIA. The
evaluation of potential effects (Section 5.8.3) considers the following information:
• baseline terrain and soil information collected in 2017, 2011 and 2007;
• McLeod-Harris Development Area Application (Teck 2010a);
• 1996 Cheviot Environmental Impact Assessment (CRC 1996); and
• information and knowledge gained through CRO environmental management and monitoring
programs at both the Luscar and Cheviot Mine since operations commenced.
The Terrain and Soil Study Area is shown in Figure 5.8-1. The total combined area of pits, waste dumps,
haulroads and water management facilities in the MKRC footprint is approximately 606.5 ha.
The detailed terrain and soil baseline conditions for the study area are provided in Annex E, and are
summarized below. The study area is within the MacKenzie Creek and Redcap Creek watersheds.
5.8.2.1 Terrain Types and Topography
The parent materials identified in the study area through field work and mapping are dominantly
comprised of glacial till (67.3 % of the area), with less than 10% each of residuum (weathered
bedrock/bedrock), organic materials, colluvium and fluvial. Approximately 3.2% of the study area is
characterized as previously disturbed.
The topography (slope classes) of the study area is variable, with slope classes ranging from 1 to 9 (0 to
0.5% to >70 to 100%), which is consistent with the Project’s location within the subalpine region.
Approximately 80.8% of the study area is characterized by slopes 10% or greater (slope class greater
than 4).

March 2018
5.8.2.2 Soil Map Unit Types
Soils within the study area fall within five parent material groups, including colluvium, fluvial, organic,
residuum and till. The five soil groups are further subdivided for mapping purposes based on approximate
soil profile depth (“a” with >70 cm profile depth, “b” with 30 to 69 cm profile depth and “c” with 0 to 29 cm
profile depth), and wetness (w modifier to indicate poorly and very poorly drained soils or polygons
mapped as having seepage). Approximately 42.1% of the study area has deeper soil profiles (“a”), 47.7%
has soil profiles of medium depth (“b”), and 7.0 % is associated with shallow profiles (“c”). Approximately
3.2% of the study area is classified as previously disturbed. Approximately 15.5% of the study area is
associated with poor to very poor drainage.
5.8.2.3 Soil Suitability for Reclamation
Soils in the study area were evaluated to determine the quality of material available for reclamation. Most
of the study area is classified as having Fair suitability for reclamation (approximately 78.7%), with
approximately 9.6% rated as having Good reclamation suitability. Organic soils (approximately 8.6%) and
disturbed land (approximately 3.2%) were not rated.
5.8.2.4 Soil Available for Salvage
The volumes of soil available for soil salvage throughout the study area were determined by mapping soil
polygons and assigning approximate standardized salvage depths to individual polygons. Soils were
separated into “a” (75 cm salvage depth), “b” (50 cm salvage depth) and “c” (15 cm salvage depth) soil
units. The standardized salvage depth of each unit was multiplied by the area of the soil unit to determine
the potential reclamation material volume.
Soil will be salvaged from all suitable and accessible areas within the Project footprint, excluding
presently disturbed land, areas with very shallow soil profiles, soils with increased stoniness, and areas
associated with slopes steeper than 22°.
Teck has evaluated the potential effects of the Project on the soils resource. The elements that have
been assessed include:
• terrain diversity;
• soils quality; and
• soil volumes.
5.8.3.1 Terrain Diversity
Terrain diversity could be affected by the Project, as the extraction of coal will require removal of all soil
and overburden materials within the mine pit. Creation of roads and other infrastructure will also require
soil removal and alteration of existing terrain. The landscape patterns within the disturbance areas can
change considerably from baseline conditions due to overburden and coal removal. In general, the
variability of slope classes is less in the reclaimed landscape. With the exception of highwall and footwall
slopes, the maximum slope angles allowed in the reclaimed landscape are 27° (as directed in the EPEA
approval). Undisturbed areas adjacent to the Project will not be impacted.

March 2018
Upon closure and reclamation, the landscape is anticipated to include a variety of slope classes, aspects
and landforms, reducing the potential Project effects of reducing terrain diversity.
5.8.3.2 Soil Quality
Soil quality could be affected by the Project through, soil salvage, stockpiling, replacement, compaction,
erosion and accidental releases (equipment breakdown, fuel release). All soils were mapped and rated
for reclamation suitability which is presented in Table 5.8.1 and summarized in Table 5.8.2. The soil map
units are shown on Figure 5.8-2 and the reclamation suitability is shown on Figure 5.8-3.
Table 5.8.1 Soil Types and Reclamation Suitability in the Study Area and Project Footprint
Soil Map Unit(a) Reclamation Study Area Project Footprint

Suitability Rating
Area Proportion Area Proportion
(ha) (%) (ha) (%)
Ca Fair 19.8 0.9 8.0 1.3

Cb 120.4 5.4 6.3 1.0
Cbw 0.5 0.0 0.1 <0.1
Cc 9.1 0.4 0.2 <0.1
Faw Fair 40.1 1.8 1.3 0.2
Faw-Maw 35.5 1.6 8.7 1.4
Fbw 23.9 1.1 0.9 0.1
Fc 1.6 0.1 0.0 0.0
Ma Fair 555.1 25.0 168.1 27.7
Maw 41.2 1.9 28.5 4.7
Mb 813.5 36.6 194.7 32.1
Mbw 12.3 0.6 11.6 1.9
Mc 75.3 3.4 14.0 2.3
Oaw Not Rated 191.4 8.6 76.8 12.7
Obw 0.6 <0.1 0.4 0.1
Ra Good 53.1 2.4 21.3 3.5
Rb 90.1 4.1 13.5 2.2
Rc 70.0 3.1 16.3 2.7
DL Not Rated 70.8 3.2 35.8 5.9
Total 2,224.3 100.0 606.5 100.0
C= colluvium, F=fluvial, M=Morainal (Till), O=Organic, R=Residuum/weathered bedrock, DL = disturbed land, “a”= >70 cm
(a)
profile depth, “b” = 30 to 69 cm profile depth and “c” = 0 to 29 cm profile depth, and w = wetness modifier to indicate poorly and
very poorly drained soils or polygons mapped as having seepage.

March 2018
All mapped mineral soils are rated as having Fair or Good soil quality. With proper planning and
appropriate soil handling, revegetation success should not be impeded by soil properties during
reclamation.
Table 5.8.2 Soil Quality in the Study Area and Project Footprint
Reclamation Study Area Project Footprint

Suitability Class
(ha) (%) (ha) (%)
Fair 1,748.4 78.6 442.5 73.0

Good 213.2 9.6 51.0 8.4
Not Rated - Organic 191.9 8.6 77.2 12.7
Not Rated - Disturbed 70.8 3.2 35.8 5.9
Total 2,224.3 100.0 606.5 100.0
5.8.3.3 Soil Volumes
The volume of soil available for reclamation can be affected by the Project through inappropriate soil
handling measures. Soil loss, including loss through erosion, is possible during soil salvage, stockpiling
and replacement. Teck will continue to use current soil salvage, stockpiling and replacement practices
which have been demonstrated to minimize soil loss. The estimated total soil volume available to be
salvaged within the Project footprint is 3,528,581 m3 (Table 5.8.3).
Table 5.8.3 Available Soil Volumes and Reclamation Suitability in the Project Footprint
Footprint Soil Standardized Reclamation Project Footprint

Component Map Soil Suitability
Unit(a) Thickness (m) Area (ha) Material Volume Available
for Salvage (m3)
Clean Water Ma 0.75 Fair 1.7 12,730

Infrastructure
Maw 0.75 Fair 0.8 5,956
Mb 0.5 Fair 2.1 10,432
Mbw 0.5 Fair 0.1 717
Oaw 0.75 Not Rated 0.4 2,654
DL 0 Not Rated 0.1 0
Clean Water Infrastructure Total 5.2 32,489
Haulroads and Ca 0.75 Fair 0.0 241
access roads
Cb 0.5 Fair 4.6 22,925
Cc 0.15 Fair 0.2 250
Faw 0.75 Fair 0.8 6,286

March 2018

for Salvage (m3)
Faw- 0.75 Fair 0.5 3,469

Maw
Ma 0.75 Fair 26.3 197,233
Maw 0.75 Fair 0.4 2,690
Mb 0.5 Fair 18.5 92,266
Mc 0.15 Fair 1.0 1,429
Oaw 0.75 Not Rated 3.3 24,543
Ra 0.75 Good 7.2 54,117
Rb 0.5 Good 0.7 3,583
Rc 0.15 Good 0.9 1,361
Haulroads and access roads Total 68.3 410,393
LHPO Ca 0.75 Fair 1.0 7,731
Faw 0.75 Fair 0.0 46
Ma 0.75 Fair 0.3 1,963
Mb 0.5 Fair 0.3 1,704
Obw 0.5 Not Rated 0.4 1,874
LHPO Total 2.1 13,317
MK1 Faw- 0.75 Fair 0.1 609
Maw
Ma 0.75 Fair 1.3 9,512
Mb 0.5 Fair 5.4 26,763
Mc 0.15 Fair 13.1 19,628
MK1 Total 23.7 56,512
MK2 Cb 0.5 Fair 0.7 3,659
Ma 0.75 Fair 7.0 52,615
Mb 0.5 Fair 1.6 8,130
Oaw 0.75 Not Rated 0.0 19
Ra 0.75 Good 1.4 10,660

March 2018

for Salvage (m3)
Rb 0.5 Good 2.2 10,770

Rc 0.15 Good 0.7 1,092
MK2 Total 14.5 86,945
MK4 Ca 0.75 Fair 5.7 42,985
Cb 0.5 Fair 0.7 3,617
Mb 0.5 Fair 6.9 34,290
Ra 0.75 Good 2.3 17,151
Rb 0.5 Good 0.4 2,159
MK4 Total 17.8 100,201
MK3EX1 Ca 0.75 Fair 1.2 9,330
Cb 0.5 Fair 0.2 1,139
Mb 0.5 Fair 6.7 33,615
Ra 0.75 Good 1.6 11,898
Rb 0.5 Good 2.0 10,174
Rc 0.15 Good 0.0 32
MK3EX1 Total 12.6 66,187
MK3EX2 Ma 0.75 Fair 0.7 5,405
Maw 0.75 Fair 0.4 3,323
Mb 0.5 Fair 9.1 45,511
Rb 0.5 Good 0.9 4,461
Rc 0.15 Good 0.4 597
MK3EX2 Total 12.2 59,296
MKPO Faw- 0.75 Fair 0.0 14
Maw
Ma 0.75 Fair 1.0 7,170
MKPO Total 1.0 7,184

March 2018

for Salvage (m3)
Pond Outlet Cc 0.15 Fair 0.0 27

Faw 0.75 Fair 0.0 246
Faw- 0.75 Fair 0.1 392
Maw
Ma 0.75 Fair 0.4 3,193
Oaw 0.75 Not Rated 0.2 1,773
Pond Outlet Total 0.8 5,632
Powerline Faw 0.75 Fair 0.3 2,514
Faw- 0.75 Fair 0.5 3,811
Maw
Fbw 0.5 Fair 0.3 1,463
Ma 0.75 Fair 11.9 89,354
Maw 0.75 Fair 0.3 2,275
Mb 0.5 Fair 4.0 20,124
Mbw 0.5 Fair 0.3 1,479
Oaw 0.75 Not Rated 2.0 14,962
Ra 0.75 Good 0.6 4,359
Rb 0.5 Good 0.2 976
Rc 0.15 Good 1.1 1,692
Powerline Total (b) 21.9 143,011
RC Pit (MK3, Cb 0.5 Fair 0.0 16
RC1 to RC5)
Faw 0.75 Fair 0.0 163
Faw- 0.75 Fair 7.1 52,922
Maw
Fbw 0.5 Fair 0.6 2,824
Ma 0.75 Fair 85.3 639,762
Maw 0.75 Fair 17.4 130,680
Mb 0.5 Fair 96.3 481,430
Mbw 0.5 Fair 10.9 54,379
Oaw 0.75 Not Rated 36.7 275,539

March 2018

for Salvage (m3)
Ra 0.75 Good 8.2 61,269

Rb 0.5 Good 7.1 35,305
Rc 0.15 Good 13.1 19,632
RC Pit (MK3, RC1 to RC5) Total 298.3 1,753,920
RCEX Ma 0.75 Fair 10.0 74,731
Maw 0.75 Fair 7.3 54,419
Mb 0.5 Fair 39.8 199,123
Oaw 0.75 Not Rated 23.8 178,151
RCEX Total 81.6 506,424
RCPO Ma 0.75 Fair 0.0 0
Oaw 0.75 Not Rated 6.8 51,273
RCPO Total 6.8 51,273
Soil Stockpile Cbw 0.5 Fair 0.1 497
Faw 0.75 Fair 0.1 709
Ma 0.75 Fair 20.8 155,689
Maw 0.75 Fair 1.7 12,763
Mb 0.5 Fair 3.1 15,443
Oaw 0.75 Not Rated 0.1 1,103
Soil Stockpile Total 32.6 186,204
UTRC1-SU-1 Ma 0.75 Fair 0.2 1,627
UTRC1-SU-1 Total 0.2 1,627
UTRC1-SU-2 Mb 0.5 Fair 0.2 839
Oaw 0.75 Not Rated 0.3 2,461
UTRC2-SU-1 Faw- 0.75 Fair 0.5 4,098
Maw
Ma 0.75 Fair 0.0 71
Mb 0.5 Fair 0.1 539
Oaw 0.75 Not Rated 0.9 6,712

March 2018

for Salvage (m3)

UTRC2-SU-2 Ma 0.75 Fair 0.2 1,243
Mbw 0.5 Fair 0.3 1,349
Waste Water Ma 0.75 Fair 1.2 8,751
Infrastructure
Maw 0.75 Fair 0.2 1,381
Mb 0.5 Fair 0.7 3,525
Oaw 0.75 Not Rated 2.3 16,998
Waste Water Infrastructure Total 4.3 30,655
Total 606.5 3,528,581
Notes:
(a)
C= colluvium, F=fluvial, M=Morainal (Till), O=Organic, R=Residuum/weathered bedrock, “a”= >70 cm profile depth, “b” = 30 to 69
cm profile depth and “c” = 0 to 29 cm profile depth, and w = wetness modifier to indicate poorly and very poorly drained soils or
polygons mapped as having seepage
(b)
Coversoil along powerline right of will not be salvaged, only localized soil disturbance is required where powerpoles are installed.
5.8.4.1 Mitigation
The Conceptual Conservation and Reclamation Plan (Section 6) provides detailed mitigation measures
that will be implemented by Teck to protect terrain and soil resources. In order to reduce the potential
effects of the Project on soil and terrain resources, CRO will continue to implement the following
mitigation measures as directed in EPEA Approval No. 46972-01-00, 01 and 02:
• salvage upland surface soil for use in reclamation;
• salvage sufficient organic soil material for use in reclamation;

• ensure soil salvage, stockpiling, and placement of soil materials is supervised by a qualified
individual;
• suspend soil handling activities under wet or windy conditions when there is potential for
degradation of soil quality;
• store materials in a manner to minimize material loss or degradation of quality (e.g. wind and
water erosion);
• locate stockpiles in areas that are accessible and retrievable;
• ensure adequate thickness of suitable material over unsuitable overburden;
• replace soils at varying thicknesses to assist in creating diversity in the reclaimed landscapes;

March 2018
• place surface soil without decompaction or decompact the replaced materials where needed to
reduce potential compaction because of soil replacement activities;
• seed/stabilize topsoil stockpiles used as long-term storage; and
• revegetate reclaimed landscapes to stabilize soil.
5.8.4.2 Monitoring
To assess the effectiveness of employed mitigation measures, CRO will monitor:
• potential soil erosion on stockpiles and recently replaced soil;
• the effectiveness of erosion control processes implemented;
• the reclaimed areas for surface soil quality and quantity; and
• reclaimed landscapes for stability, drainage, and vegetation re-establishment.
5.8.5 Summary
Potential effects to soil and terrain resources are limited to the Project Footprint and are most likely to
occur during construction and reclamation of the Project. The Project footprint is 606.5 ha which is shown
on Figure 5.0-1.
Project activities that may affect the soil resource and terrain include:
• soil salvage and handling – salvage of all required soil materials in the proposed disturbance
areas as well as soil handling related to direct placement or stockpiling. Construction on (padding
over) or salvage of organic materials for use in reclamation processes may result in effects to soil
quality;
• soil stockpiling – stockpiling of salvaged soil materials during the construction of the Project, both
short term and long term, results in potential for soil erosion issues and effects to soil productivity;
• development of Project infrastructure – includes creation of roads, and all related Project
infrastructure, will require soil removal and alteration of existing terrain;
• mining process – extraction of the coal will require removal of all soil – landscape patterns within
the proposed mining pit as well as all overburden materials. Replacement of overburden
materials at reclamation will result in terrain units different from baseline conditions and the
potential for introduction of unsuitable overburden materials into the reclaimed soil profile;
• operational activities – day to day operations (i.e. equipment breakdowns, fuel releases from fuel
stations) that may result in effects to soil through accidental releases; and
• progressive reclamation – activities related to re-contouring of reclaimed landscapes and soil

handling and replacement, may result in effects to the reclaimed soil profiles and terrain.
Inappropriate re-contouring and/or soil replacement activities may result in effects to the
reclaimed soil profile and a decrease in land capability for the desired end land uses or delay in
achieving land capability.

March 2018
The potential direct environmental effects can be minimized using appropriate mitigation measures as
outlined in Section 5.8.4, and by following the Conservation and Reclamation Plan (Section 6). Through
environmental monitoring, Teck will evaluate the effectiveness of the mitigation measures, and will adjust
or add new mitigation measures as necessary so that terrain and soil resources are protected. Overall,
Project effects can be mitigated using well established practices at Cheviot.
5.9 Vegetation and Wetlands
5.9.1 Introduction
established baseline hydrological conditions in the MKRC areas, as originally identified in the Cheviot
EIA. The evaluation of potential effects (Section 5.9.3) considers the following information:
• baseline vegetation and wetlands information collected in 2017;
• McLeod-Harris Development Area Application (Teck 2010a);
• 1996 Cheviot Environmental Impact Assessment (CRC 1996); and
• information and knowledge gained through CRO environmental management and monitoring
programs at both the Luscar and Cheviot Mineral Surface Leases.
Vegetation and wetland resources evaluated in this section are characterized by ecosite phases and
wetland vegetation types, rare and uncommon communities, potential old growth forests, rare plant
species and regulated weed species that can be described, mapped and assessed within the overall
study area. Consistent with the Alberta Wetland Mitigation Directive, the Alberta Wetland Policy does not
apply to the MKRC extension as a result of timing. Specifically, the AER has confirmed that the Alberta
Wetland Policy Implementation (Alberta Environment and Parks 2017) will not apply to the Project (email
from Jonathan Toews (AER), November 21, 2017 @ 4:13pm, cc to Rick Nutbrown and Lisa Shauer) as it
lies within the approved area of the original Cheviot Project (CRC 1996).
The vegetation and wetland study area is presented in Figure 5.9-1. The total combined area of pits,
waste dumps, haulroads and water management facilities in the MKRC footprint is approximately
606.5 ha.
The detailed vegetation and wetlands baseline conditions for the study area are provided in Annex F and
are summarized in this section. The study area is within the MacKenzie Creek and Redcap Creek
watersheds.
The Project is located within the Subalpine Natural Subregion of Alberta where climate conditions are
generally limiting to plant re-establishment due to an extremely short growing season, occurrence of
frosts throughout the year, low average air and soil temperatures during the growing season, and the
presence of drying winds in winter and early spring (CRC 1996). Plant communities occur in predictable
patterns within the region according to changes in topography, elevation, slope aspect and soil drainage.
Meadows, grasslands and dwarfed shrublands occur at higher elevations where slopes are exposed to
strong winds. Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir dominate forested stands below this in upper
elevations and some northerly aspects while lodgepole pine is more prevalent at lower elevations. Valley

March 2018
bottoms are typically vegetated by a mixture of shrub communities and wetlands due to cold air drainage
and an increase of soil moisture.
Field surveys were completed from June 16 to 21, 2017, and July 27 to August 3, 2017, to supplement
historical field data collected in and around the study area during the Cheviot Mine Project Application
(CRC 1996) and the McLeod-Harris Development Area Application (Teck 2010a). A review of historic
survey information including Alberta Conservation Information Management System (ACIMS) databases,
aerial photography and existing land classification systems provided the direction for the 2017 field
surveys. An updated vegetation and wetland map was developed for the study area with both ecosite
phase and wetland vegetation types.
5.9.2.1 Ecosite Phases and Wetlands
Upland communities account for a total of 1,665.9 ha or 74.9% of the study area, dominated by reference
rhododendron lodgepole pine (54.5%) and Engelmann spruce (12.8%) leading ecosite phases.
Lodgepole pine and Engelmann spruce leading hairy wild rye ecosite phases follow with 5.0% and 1.6%,
respectively, of the total study area.
Wetland communities cover 477.1 ha or 21.4% of the study area, increasing in size, number and
complexity towards the southeast. Wetland communities are dominated by wooded coniferous swamps
(11.9%), followed by wooded coniferous fens (4.2%), shrubby fens (3.1%) and shrubby swamps (1.4%).
Non-vegetated natural areas and existing disturbed lands account for 10.6 ha (0.5%) and 70.8 ha (3.2%)
of the study area, respectively.
5.9.2.2 Rare or Uncommon Vegetation Communities
Rare ecological communities generally differ from other recognized vegetation types and are identified,
ranked and mapped by Alberta Parks (2017a, b). Uncommon vegetation types are defined as those cover
types with less than one percent coverage within the study area. For further details, see Annex F.
While one rare ecological community (Engelmann spruce subalpine fir/flat-leaved willow/stair-step moss)
is thought to have potential to occur within the study area, stands visited during baseline field work were
not old enough nor mixed with sufficient subalpine fir to meet the criteria of that community. As a result,
no rare ecological communities were identified in 2017.
A number of uncommon vegetation types (i.e., those with less than one percent cover of the study area)
are present at baseline. They include:
• shrubby and graminoid grasslands;
• lodgepole pine / bearberry / lichen sites;

• upland shrubby meadows;
• forb meadows or graminoid marshes;
• treed or wooded coniferous bogs;

• graminoid fens; and
• mineral soil and weathered bedrock.

March 2018
5.9.2.3 Old Growth Communities
A number of polygons met the criteria for old growth using forest inventory and stand origin age,
accounting for 421.4 ha or 18.9% of the study area. However, all stands sampled during baseline surveys
in 2017 were approximately 14 to 34 years too young. As such, these polygons are considered to be
potential old growth forests at this time.
5.9.2.4 Rare Plant Species
Eight of the 184 vascular plant species identified in the study area during the 2017 baseline surveys are
on the tracking and watch lists for Alberta (Table 5.9-1). These eight species were found at 17 different
locations within the study area. No rare bryophytes or lichens were identified in the study area. Historic
rare plant occurrences are either found in the McLeod-Harris Development Area to the west of the study
area or are no longer tracked or watched (i.e., de-listed species).
Table 5.9-1 Rare Plant Species Observations in the Study Area
Scientific Name Common Name Track or Provincial Global

Watch List Rank Rank
Agrostis mertensii northern bent grass Track S2 G5

Campanula uniflora alpine harebell Watch S3 G5
Castilleja cusickii yellow paintbrush Watch S3 G4G5
Epilobium leptocarpum slender-fruit willowherb Track S2 G5
Eriophorum callitrix beautiful cotton grass Track S2 G5
Penstemon albertinus blue beardtongue Watch S3 G4G5
Physaria arctica arctic bladderpod Track S3 G4G5
Pyrola grandiflora Arctic wintergreen Watch S3 G5
5.9.2.5 Regulated Weed Species
While no prohibited noxious weeds were found in the study area, two noxious species (tall buttercup
[Ranunculus acris] and ox-eye daisy [Leucanthemum vulgare]) were identified at four separate locations
within the study area.
Teck has evaluated the potential effects of the Project on vegetation and wetland resources are primarily
associated with the clearing and removal of natural vegetation and disturbing soils within the Project
Footprint. Potential changes may also occur through changes to hydrology and topography during mine
operations until closure. As such, vegetation and wetlands can be directly or indirectly affected by Project
activities through:
• direct loss of vegetation and wetlands through vegetation clearing and removal;
• indirect loss of wetlands from temporary watershed flow changes associated with tributary
diversions made during Project development; and

March 2018
• changes in vegetation composition through the potential introduction and dispersal of undesirable
species.
For this assessment, Project effects to vegetation and wetlands within the Project Footprint are described
using the maximum Project disturbance area, assuming all mining activities, Project facilities and
infrastructure are being completed at the same time. This is conservative because Teck plans to
progressively reclaim areas as they become available, which will mitigate some of the effects of resetting
structure to an earlier (younger) seral stage. In the study area, direct and indirect effects on community
and species diversity were examined by assessing predicted changes in:
• loss or removal of terrestrial vegetation (ecosite phases);
• loss or removal of wetland resources;
• loss of communities of limited distribution;

• loss of potential old growth forests;
• loss of rare plants; and
• increase in regulated weed species.
5.9.3.1 Ecosites and Ecosite Phases
The Project Footprint is predicted to cover 606.5 ha or 27.3% of the study area (Table 5.9-2), where the
direct loss of all vegetation and wetland resources may occur. No ecosites or ecosite phases are
completely removed from the study area as a result of the Project (Table 5.9-2 and Figure 5.9-2). While
some communities are expected to be reduced in area, others are not affected at all. Additionally, some
ecosite phases are expected to be re-introduced after reclamation activities are complete (see
Conceptual Conservation and Reclamation Plan (Section 6).
Not all ecosite phases mapped in the study area are represented within the Project Footprint. Ecosite
phases that are affected within the Project footprint are roughly present in the same proportion (%) as
they are found within the entire study area. As such, the pine-leading lodgepole pine / rhododendron (d1)
ecosite phase is predicted to be the most affected (324.0 ha or 53.4% of the Project Footprint) followed
by the spruce-leading phase (d2) of the same ecosite (80.8 ha or 13.3% of the Project Footprint). The
Project is also expected to affect approximately 13.3 ha or 2.2% of other upland site types within the
Project Footprint (Table 5.9-2). All ecosites assigned to a wetland land unit type are discussed further in
the following wetlands section.
Project development would marginally reduce natural non-vegetated lands (less than 0.1% of the Project
Footprint) but would temporarily add an additional 570.7 ha of disturbed land to the study area prior to
reclamation, as 35.8 ha within the Project Footprint has been previously disturbed (Table 5.9-2 and
Figure 5.9-2).

March 2018
Table 5.9-2 Ecosite Phase Distribution in the Study Area and Project Footprint
Ecosite Ecosite Phase Land Unit Type Study Area Project Footprint
Phase Description
(ha) (%) (ha) (%)
a1 shrubby grassland Upland 0.8 < 0.1 0.0 0.0

a2 graminoid grassland Upland 0.4 < 0.1 0.0 0.0
b1 lodgepole pine (Pl) / Upland 17.2 0.8 0.0 0.0
bearberry / lichen
c1 lodgepole pine (Pl) / Upland 110.3 5.0 6.5 1.1
hairy wild rye
c3 Engelmann spruce (Se) Upland 35.8 1.6 5.4 0.9
/ hairy wild rye
d1 lodgepole pine (Pl) / Upland 1,211.2 54.5 324.0 53.4
rhododendron–mesic
d2 Engelmann spruce (Se) Upland 283.7 12.8 80.8 13.3
/ rhododendron–mesic
e1 shrubby meadow Upland 6.5 0.3 1.3 0.2
Wetland 31.4 1.4 2.7 0.5
e2 forb meadow Wetland 0.8 < 0.1 0.5 0.1
f1 lodgepole pine (Pl) / Wetland 118.5 5.3 29.1 4.8
rhododendron–
subhygric
f2 Engelmann spruce (Se) Wetland 72.0 3.2 9.7 1.6
/ rhododendron–
subhygric
g1 Engelmann spruce (Se) Wetland 73.5 3.3 34.9 5.8
/ horsetail
h1 treed bog Wetland 14.6 0.7 0.0 0.0
i1 treed fen Wetland 94.5 4.2 48.5 8.0
i2 shrubby fen Wetland 69.0 3.1 25.5 4.2
i3 graminoid fen Wetland 2.7 0.1 1.6 0.3
mineral soil Natural, Non- 5.2 0.2 0.0 0.0
Vegetated
weathered bedrock Natural, Non- 5.4 0.2 0.1 < 0.1
Vegetated
disturbed land Anthropogenic, 70.8 3.2 35.8 5.9
Non-Vegetated
Total 2,224.3 100 606.5 100

March 2018
5.9.3.2 Wetlands
The area of wetlands that are potentially affected directly by the Project is presented in Table 5.9-3 and
Figure 5.9-3. Of the seven wetland types identified in the study area, six occur in the Project Footprint. A
total area of 152.6 ha (25.2%) of these wetlands will be directly lost because of Project development.
Wooded coniferous swamps are predicted to be the most affected by the Project with 73.7 ha (12.2%)
being removed, followed by wooded coniferous fens and shrubby fens reduced by 48.5 ha (8.0%) and
25.5 ha (4.2%), respectively. While these losses represent approximately 31.9% of the overall wetlands
within the study area, none of the wetland types identified here would be completely removed from the
area (Table 5.9-3 and Figure 5.9-3). Additionally, wetlands will be created in the reclaimed landscape and
re-introduced to the closure landscape.
The Project is also anticipated to have indirect effects on wetlands through the clean-water diversion of
headwaters from a number of unnamed tributaries located upstream of Redcap Pit, belonging to the
Redcap Creek Watershed. This diversion may result in a reduction or loss of diversity to wetlands and
wetland-dependant species that require these inputs to function as during baseline conditions, until the
tributaries are no longer diverted and surface water patterns are restored in the closure landscape.
Additionally, flows may be reduced due to diversion of water from headwater tributaries and from other
mining activities around the Redcap Pit and Redcap External (RCEX) Dump during operations
(Figure 5.9-1) (including the period when the proposed end pit lake is filled). This will affect surficial
groundwater flow to wetlands in proximity to Redcap Creek, which are expected to be indirectly affected
by Project development. For more information on these potential effects, see the Hydrology Assessment
(Section 5.4).
No potential effects to wetlands in the MacKenzie Creek Watershed (including Little Homer Creek) are
expected, as culverts are planned within wetlands and water crossings to maintain drainage patterns
during Project development.
Table 5.9-3 Wetland Distribution in the Study Area and Project Footprint
Wetland Wetland Description Study Area Project Footprint

Code
(ha) (%) (ha) (%)
SWc wooded coniferous swamp 264.0 11.9 73.7 12.2

SS shrubby swamp 31.4 1.4 2.7 0.5
MG graminoid marsh 0.8 < 0.1 0.5 0.1
BWc wooded coniferous bog 14.6 0.7 0.0 0.0
FWc wooded coniferous fen 94.5 4.2 48.5 8.0
FS shrubby fen 69.0 3.1 25.5 4.2
FG graminoid fen 2.7 0.1 1.6 0.3
Total 477.1 21.4 152.6 25.2

March 2018
5.9.3.3 Rare or Uncommon Vegetation Communities
A portion of some ecosite phases and wetlands of limited distribution in the study area occur in the
Project Footprint and will be reduced further as a result of Project development. A total of 3.5 ha of
ecosite phases and wetlands of limited distribution will be removed from 53.7 ha present at baseline
(Tables 5.9-2 and 5.9-3). No ecosite phases or wetlands of limited distribution are completely removed
from the study area.
As no rare ecological communities were identified in the study area, the Project is not expected to result
in the removal of any rare ecological communities.
5.9.3.4 Old Growth Communities
Of the 421.4 ha of potential old growth forest identified in the study area, 109.9 ha are located within the
proposed Project Footprint (Table 5.9-4 and Figure 5.9-4). This area accounts for 18.1% of the Project
Footprint and 4.9% of the study area. All potential old growth stands are coniferous-based with reference
rhododendron ecosites primarily affected (88.0 ha or 14.5% of the Project Footprint expected to be
removed). Overall, the Project is expected to reduce the area with potential to support old growth forests
by 18.1% of the study area.
Table 5.9-4 Potential Old Growth in the Study Area and Project Footprint
Ecosite Ecosite Phase Land Unit Study Area Project Footprint

Phase Description Type
(ha) (%) (ha) (%)
b1 lodgepole pine (Pl) / Upland 3.0 0.1 0.0 0.0

bearberry / lichen
c1 lodgepole pine (Pl) / Upland 29.8 1.3 0.6 0.1
hairy wild rye
c3 Engelmann spruce (Se) Upland 5.3 0.2 0.3 < 0.1
/ hairy wild rye
d1 lodgepole pine (Pl) / Upland 195.2 8.8 32.8 5.4
rhododendron–mesic
d2 Engelmann spruce (Se) Upland 126.9 5.7 55.3 9.1
/ rhododendron–mesic
f1 lodgepole pine (Pl) / Wetland 1.5 0.1 0.9 0.2
rhododendron–
subhygric
f2 Engelmann spruce (Se) Wetland 11.7 0.5 2.2 0.4
/ rhododendron–
subhygric
g1 Engelmann spruce (Se) Wetland 27.3 1.2 10.6 1.7
/ horsetail
i1 treed fen Wetland 20.7 0.9 7.2 1.2
Total 421.4 18.9 109.9 18.1

March 2018
5.9.3.5 Rare Plant Species
Of the eight rare plant species (18 occurrences) identified in the study area, six species (11 occurrences)
were observed in the Project Footprint (Table 5.9-5 and Figure 5.9-5). While Project development will
result in the removal of all rare plant species listed within the Project Footprint as identified in Table 5.9-5,
only slender-fruit willowherb (Epilobium leptocarpum) and beautiful cotton grass (Eriophorum callitrix)
located at one location each, are species of specific provincial conservation concern (currently tracked
with a rank of S2). All other rare plant species found within the Project Footprint are on the watch list, for
which Alberta Parks likes to collect information but no mitigation is expected. Occurrences of northern
bent grass (Agrostis mertensii) and arctic bladderpod (Physaria arctica) will not be affected as they do not
occur within the Project Footprint (Table 5.9-5 and Figure 5.9-5).
Table 5.9-5 Rare Plant Occurrences in the Study Area and Project Footprint
Rare Plant Name Track or Provincial Number in Number in

Watch List Rank Vegetation and Project
Wetlands Study Area Footprint
Agrostis mertensii Track S2 1 0

(northern bent grass)
Campanula uniflora Watch S3 1 1
(alpine harebell)
Castilleja cusickii Watch S3 7 3
(yellow paintbursh)
Epilobium leptocarpum Track S2 1 1
(slender-fruit willowherb)
Eriophorum callitrix Track S2 1 1
(beautiful cotton grass)
Penstemon albertinus Watch S3 1 1
(blue beardtongue)
Physaria arctica Track S3 1 0
(arctic bladderpod)
Pyrola grandiflora Watch S3 5 4
(Arctic wintergreen)
Total Number of Rare Plant Occurrences 18 11
5.9.3.6 Regulated Weed Species
While two noxious species (tall buttercup [Ranunculus acris] and ox-eye daisy [Leucanthemum vulgare]),
were identified at four separate locations within the study area, only one instance of tall buttercup was
identified within the Project Footprint (Figure 5.9-6). The other occurrences of tall buttercup were found
just outside the Project Footprint, near the proposed pond outlet area near MacKenzie Creek (MCPO)

March 2018
and the southwest corner of the proposed RCEX Dump (Figure 5.9-1). Ox-eye daisy was also found
outside of the Project Footprint near the proposed Redcap Pit RC1.
Because of the persistent nature of these and other regulated weed species, they may be introduced from
off-site or spread from existing populations as a result of Project activities in and around the Project
Footprint. It is expected that the presence of these species will be limited through current and ongoing
weed control practices implemented during all stages of Project development. Noxious weed
management will occur in compliance with the Weed Control Act and Regulations (Province of Alberta
2010). The introduction and spread of undesirable species will not contribute to potential Project effects.
5.9.4.1 Mitigation
Mitigation measures will be implemented as possible to reduce potential Project effects on vegetation and
wetlands as described in the following sections.
• minimize the area required for construction and operation of the Project;
• reclaim and establish equivalent upland and wetland ecosystems with similar land capability to
the pre-disturbance setting;
• use direct soil salvage and placement techniques to maximize the effectiveness of natural
propagules;
• continue to use native vegetation (e.g. trees, shrubs, forbs and when necessary graminoids)
during in reclamation to provide structure for wildlife, restore habitat connectivity and enhance
overall biodiversity;
• continue to use native, non-invasive seed mix when warranted for erosion control;
• continue to maintain the integrity of the hydrologic regime and drainage patterns of wetlands
(e.g., use of culverts);
• avoid disturbing rare plants where possible; and
• maintain weed management and control program to limit the establishment and spread of weeds.
5.9.4.2 Monitoring
To assess the effectiveness of mitigation measures, Teck will continue vegetation monitoring that is
currently being done for ongoing operations:
• assess and monitor the composition, structure, ecological succession and biodiversity of
reclaimed areas;
• forest regeneration surveys will be completed in areas reclaimed to open or closed forests. A
survey system and standards applicable to coal mines will be developed with AER consultation;
• monitor drainage systems to ensure surface flows are maintained to minimize effects on adjacent
wetlands;
• monitor and report on any rare plant seeding or transplant activities;

March 2018
• continue the vegetation plot monitoring program on Cheviot Mine; and

• implement periodic weed monitoring and report on the success of weed control activities when
employed.
5.9.5 Summary
The Project will result in a reduction of vegetation and wetland communities within the study areas. No
rare ecological communities were identified in the study area. With proposed mitigation, reclamation and
monitoring of vegetation and wetlands communities, the environmental effects on the loss of vegetation
and wetland communities will be minimized. As noted earlier, AER has confirmed that the Alberta
Wetland Policy Implementation (AEP 2017d) will not apply to the MKRC as it lies within the area already
considered in the original Cheviot EIA (CRC 1996).
The Project could result in loss of rare plant species within the study area. Two rare vascular plant
species of specific provincial conservation concern occur in the Project Footprint area and successful
propagation (seed or transplant) of these species during reclamation is currently considered
experimental. Observations of all rare plant occurrences noted in this assessment will be reported to
Alberta Parks for updating of ACIMS tracking and watch lists.
5.10 Wildlife
5.10.1 Introduction
Baseline wildlife conditions and an assessment of effects on wildlife in the MKRC study area were first
described in the 1996 Cheviot Permit Application (Bighorn 1996 and Bios 1996). Information from these
reports plus wildlife information available from subsequent wildlife monitoring programs, specific studies,
management plans and the 2017 field program are presented in Annex G and are used to provide an
updated assessment.
The MKRC study area is defined on Figure 5.10-1. The total combined area of pits, waste dumps,
haulroads and water management facilities in the MKRC footprint is approximately 606.5 ha. Teck has
taken the ecosite phases identified in the study area and has converted them to the appropriate wildlife
habitat types to be used in this assessment.
Table 5.10-1 Relationship of Habitat to Ecosite Phase, MKRC Study Area.
Project Footprint
Study Area (Baseline)
Ecosite (Disturbance) % Area Disturbed
Habitat
Phase per Ecosite Phase
Area (ha) Area (%) Area (ha) Area (%)
Upland
Upland Shrub a1 0.8 0.04% 0.0 0.0% 0.0%
Grassland a2 0.4 0.02% 0.0 0.0% 0.0%
b1 17.2 0.8% 0.0 0.01% 0.3%
Pine - Dry
c1 1,010.3 5.0% 6.5 1.1% 5.9%

March 2018
Project Footprint
Study Area (Baseline)
Ecosite (Disturbance) % Area Disturbed
Habitat
Phase per Ecosite Phase
Area (ha) Area (%) Area (ha) Area (%)
Spruce c3 35.8 1.6% 5.4 0.9% 15.1%

Pine - Mesic d1 1,211.2 54.5% 324.0 53.4% 26.8%
Spruce - Mesic d2 283.7 12.8% 80.8 13.3% 28.5%
Shrubby Meadow e1 38.0 1.7% 4.1 0.7% 10.7%
Forb Meadow e2 0.8 0.04% 0.5 0.1% 62.2%
Wetland
Pine Wetland f1 118.5 5.3% 29.1 4.8% 24.5%
Spruce-Fir Wetland f2 71.0 3.2% 9.7 1.6% 13.5%
Spruce Wetland g1 73.5 3.3% 34.9 5.8% 47.5%
Treed Bog h1 14.6 0.7% 0.0 0.0% 0.0%
Treed Fen i1 94.5 4.2% 48.5 8.0% 51.3%
Shrubby Fen i2 69.0 3.1% 25.5 4.2% 37.0%
Graminoid Fen i3 2.7 0.1% 1.6 0.3% 57.7%
Non-Vegetated
Disturbance Layer DL 70.8 3.2% 35.8 5.9% 50.6%
(existing)
Mineral Soil MS 5.2 0.2% 0.0 0.0% 0.0%
Weathered Bedrock WB 5.4 0.2% 0.1 0.01% 1.0%
TOTAL 2,224.3 1 606.5 1 27.3%
The Project lies within the Cheviot Mine Permit and consists of two distinct biophysical units in the
Subalpine ecoregion – MacKenzie and Redcap. Terrain, vegetation, and wildlife and land use
characteristics for each unit are somewhat different. The Cheviot Mine Reclamation Plan Cardinal River
Coals Ltd. (1996) identifies different reclamation strategies for each distinct area, referred to as
Biophysical Reclamation Units (BRU). End land use objectives for the MacKenzie BRU are identified as
watershed, forestry, wildlife, fisheries and recreation.
Baseline conditions for the study area are provided in Annex G and are summarized in this section.
Eighty-seven terrestrial wildlife species were confirmed to be present in the study area (Annex G,
Appendix I). This included 43 birds, 19 small mammals, 15 ungulates and 10 carnivores.

March 2018
5.10.2.1 Amphibians
No amphibians were reported either historically or during the 2017 field season in the MKRC study area.
5.10.2.2 Birds
To allow comparison with the 1993 breeding bird survey conducted in the study area, similar field
techniques were employed in 2017. Forty-three bird species were identified in the MKRC study area.
Overall bird relative abundance was higher in 1993 (374 birds/km²) as compared to relative abundance in
2017 (261 birds/km²). Bird species diversity (BSD) was similar (2.74 BSD in 1993 and 2.72 BSD in 2017).
Factors affecting these differences include: sample size and location, differences in weather or declining
bird numbers. Local weather patterns in 2017 may have affected the presence and density of White-
crowned Sparrow. Reduced density of the Dark-eyed Junco in 2017 may be part of a regional trend of
decreasing numbers. Bald Eagles were observed during the 2017 spring migration and Northern Harrier
observed during the 2017 fall migration. The Boreal Owl was detected during nocturnal owl surveys in
1993.
Results of several instream foot surveys of MacKenzie Creek conducted since 1996 and incidental
observations over the years have indicated a spring concentration of harlequins at, or just downstream of,
the MacKenzie Gap. This pattern of occupation, plus the presence of one duckling in 1995 and females in
2012 in MacKenzie Creek above the Gap, indicates that the headwaters of MacKenzie Creek may be
used for nesting purposes but at low densities. The consistent observations of harlequins from the
MacKenzie Gap downstream to the mouth of Meadow Creek indicates that this stretch of MacKenzie
Creek is an important spring staging and probable brood-rearing area for harlequins breeding in
MacKenzie Creek. Instream foot surveys in 1995 and 1996 indicate that harlequins occur in the Cardinal
River watershed at low densities and that Redcap Creek is used for nesting at least in some years
(intermittently).
5.10.2.3 Small Mammals
Anabat Express bat detectors were deployed to document occurrence and use of bats in the MKRC. Of
the nine species of bats in Alberta, six species were identified in MKRC. They were: hoary bat (LACI),
silver-haired bat (LANO), big brown bat (EPFU), Eastern red bat (LABO), little brown myotis (MYLU), and
Northern myotis (MYSE). The most number of detections at one site (1,023) occurred at an active beaver
pond in Redcap Creek headwaters (UTRC1). It is likely that some of the little brown myotis identified in
MKRC spend the winter in the nearby Cadomin Cave.
Red squirrel and snowshoe hare were the most abundant small mammals as measured by snow-track
counts and wildlife camera-trap. Beaver activity was associated with Redcap Creek. Other small
mammals identified in MKRC were: woodchuck, golden-mantled ground squirrel, common muskrat, deer
mouse, Western jumping mouse, southern red-backed vole and meadow vole.
5.10.2.4 Ungulates
In 2017 moose, elk, mule deer and white-tailed deer, were documented in the MKRC study area by
means of wildlife camera-traps, winter snow tracking and pellet-group counts. White-tailed deer were the
most widespread ungulate, appearing on eight of 12 wildlife camera-traps, mule deer occurred on six
camera-traps, moose on three camera-traps and elk on one camera-trap. White-tailed deer and mule

March 2018
deer were caught using streams as a travel corridor in the narrow valleys associated with the MacKenzie
watershed during summer when water flow was low.
Snow accumulation over winter in the MKRC study area likely affects ungulate distribution. A series of
winter air surveys encompassing the Cheviot Mine Permit and the Redcap Range conducted between
1994 and 2005 resulted in no observations of mule deer or white-tailed deer in the MKRC study area.
Only a few elk were observed while the upper reaches of Redcap Creek and MacKenzie Creek fell within
the core area of winter moose distribution.
Habitat suitability mapping indicated that 9.1% of the MKRC study area was rated as high capability for
moose; this habitat was concentrated along Redcap Creek and its tributaries, as well as along two
tributaries to MacKenzie Creek (Little Homer Creek and UTMC4). Moderate habitat capability for moose
was associated with upland forest habitat and comprised 63% of the study area (Annex G, Figure 8).
Habitat classified as very low capability for elk comprised 93% of the MKRC study area, 3.2% was rated
as very high for elk. This habitat was concentrated along riparian shrub areas associated with Redcap
Creek, Little Homer Creek, MacKenzie Creek and UTMC4 (Annex G, Figure10).
Habitat for bighorn sheep does not occur in the MKRC study area. A moss covered set of horns from a
young ram was discovered in the valley bottom of UTMC4 below Recap Mountain. The young ram may
have made its way down form the Redcap Mountain and succumbed to predation in the valley bottom.
Bighorn sheep have been observed on the benches of the Cardinal River, possibly part of a limited
movement from Redcap Mountain to MacKenzie Mountain on the Jasper Park border.
5.10.2.5 Carnivores
Snow-track counts indicated that lynx, coyote, marten, and grey wolf were present in the MKRC study
area (0.31, 0.20, 0.17, and 0.03 tracks/km-day respectively). Lynx were widespread, occurring on seven
of 12 wildlife camera-traps. Cougar were not detected in the MKRC study area during the 2017 wildlife
field surveys.
The grey wolf was detected on the two MacKenzie trail wildlife camera-traps and on one placed on a
cutline connecting Redcap Mountain to the lower meadows of Redcap Creek. Snow depths affect wolf
movements by influencing the distribution of prey species; there is little incentive for wolves to spend time
in the MKRC study area in winter.
Track of one wolverine was recorded on the ridge south of Little Homer Creek in 1993. Wolverine were
not detected in the MKRC study area in 2017 but since their home range is large they are expected to
occur in the MKRC study area occasionally. The presence of ermine was confirmed by snow track counts
and mink and fisher (probable) by camera-trap in 2017.
Signs of grizzly bear use (diggings, bear rub trees, bones of skeleton) were recorded during wildlife field
work conducted in the MKRC study area throughout 2017. This information was mapped with results of a
grizzly bear habitat model using Resource Selection Function (RSF) techniques obtained from the
Foothills Research Institute. Primary habitat tended to occur in riparian areas and was concentrated in the
Redcap Unit of the MKRC study area. Upland habitat was of less value to grizzly bears. This is
corroborated by the location of bear sign documented during the 2017 field season. Grizzly bears were
captured on 6 of 8 wildlife camera-traps located on game trails, cutlines or OHV trails. Grizzly bears are
using the trail beside MacKenzie Creek as a north-south travel corridor through the MacKenzie Gap to

March 2018
access country on either side of the Redcap Range. This same trail is used by recreation OHV users and
for horse travel for hunting.
5.10.2.6 Wildlife Species Status
Three species identified in the MKRC study area (Harlequin Duck, grizzly bear, wolverine) are listed
under the Alberta Wildlife Act. The grizzly bear and wolverine, plus the little brown myotis, northern myotis
and Canada lynx are listed under the federal Species at Risk Act (Note: the Canada lynx is identified as
Not at Risk under SARA).
The General Status of Alberta Wildlife lists the above six species plus five additional species as
“Sensitive” (Bald Eagle, Alder Flycatcher, silver-haired bat, Eastern red bat, fisher) and two species as
“Undetermined” (Pacific-slope Flycatcher and Gray-cheeked Thrush).
Industrial effects on wildlife can be classed as direct or indirect. Direct effects include:
• mortality by increased vehicular collisions;
• increased mortality of Grizzly Bears due to bear-human conflict;
• disturbance of occupied Grizzly bear dens; and
• disturbance of nesting birds; and

• disturbance of roosting bats
Indirect effects include disturbance and habitat loss due to construction and operating phases. The
construction phase can result in habitat change by temporary avoidance and increased energy loss.
Indirect effects can be divided into three categories:
• habitat change;
• creation of barriers; and
• harassment resulting in habitat alienation or death.
5.10.3.1 Increased Vehicular Collisions
The Project will build additional haulroad to link MKRC to existing operations. Records of wildlife mortality
by means of vehicle collision are currently maintained for the Cheviot Mine and reported annually.
Records indicate a low level of mortality that would not affect ungulates at the population level. There
have been no grizzly bear mortalities caused by vehicle collisions on the Luscar and Cheviot Mines.
Many species of birds change diet with season, feeding on insects during nesting period then switching to
fruit and/or seeds during non-breeding seasons. Others are scavengers, or predators on other
vertebrates and large insects. Scavengers such as Bald Eagle and Common Raven may be at risk of
vehicle collision if attracted to carrion left at or near roadways.

March 2018
5.10.3.2 Increased Mortality of Grizzly Bears
The grizzly bear is vulnerable to changes in mortality particularly when new access is opened as this will
increase the potential for bear-human conflict including self-defence kills during hunting, poaching kills,
and increased potential for grizzly-vehicle collisions. The presence of non-natural attractants (i.e., human
food, garbage, petroleum products) can raise mortality risk by increasing the potential of bear conflict with
humans necessitating the removal or destruction of the bear).
Stevens & Duval (2005), Kansas (2005) and Stenhouse et al. (2015) cite humans with road access to
bear habitat as the primary factor in bear mortality. The current MSL boundary for the Cheviot Mine will be
extended to include the Project development. The MSL provides a high level of security for carnivores
since public access to the property is controlled by CRO. The Cheviot Mine Permit also falls within the
Coal Branch Public Land Use Zone (PLUZ) (AEP 2018) in which various levels of public access can be
designated. CRO holds an Annual Trails Meeting attended by industry, government and non-government
organizations to discuss access management within the PLUZ with respect to mining plan changes.
Bear populations in the Alberta Yellowhead Population Unit (Bear Management Area 3) located between
the North Saskatchewan and Athabasca Rivers, have more than doubled between 2004 and 2014
(Figure 1 in Stenhouse et al. 2015). The reasons for the population increase are unclear however the
highest number of individual bears detected on a sampling site in Bear Management Area 3 occurred on
the reclaimed Luscar Mine which appears to provide regionally important habitat (Stenhouse et al. 2015).
As the bear population increases locally and regionally it is expected that bear sightings will increase.
Safety programs (i.e., Bear Aware training, Alberta BearSmart) implemented by industry and government
should reduce potential bear-human interactions. Over the life of the Luscar and Cheviot mines there
have been no problem bear encounters necessitating removal or destruction of a bear.
5.10.3.3 Disturbance of Occupied Grizzly Bear Den Sites
Clearing vegetation during hibernation may disturb or kill bears in their dens. Pigeon et al. (2014)
investigated grizzly bear denning characteristics in west-central Alberta. At the broadest scale
investigated, grizzly bears avoided wetlands, and selected high-elevation, dry conifer stands with
abundant high-quality spring food. At more localized scales, grizzly bears selected areas of low road
densities and dense conifers associated with little high-quality autumn food. Slope angle had the most
influence on den selection followed by percent autumn food, road densities, percent wetland, and percent
spring food. Most bears in the Cheviot area den at higher elevations however there is potential for
denning in the MKRC study area.
The date of grizzly bear denning is often dependent on weather conditions and will vary from year to year.
A local study of grizzly bear denning (Graham and Stenhouse 2014) found that different age-sex classes
of grizzly bears exhibit different denning chronology. Pregnant females entered dens first in early
November, followed by lone adult females, females with cubs of all ages and adult males in close
succession. Sub-adult males and females with cubs entered their dens last, in late November. Conversely
grizzly bears exited their dens in reverse order with sub-adult males and females emerging first, in early
April, followed by adult males, females with yearling cubs or older, lone adult females, and finally, females
with cubs of the year in late April.

March 2018
5.10.3.4 Disturbance of Nesting Birds
Vegetation clearing activities prior to soil salvage will remove habitat used by birds. The Canadian federal
Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA) (Government of Canada 1994) and the associated Migratory
Birds Regulations protect migratory birds in Canada. Regulations state that no person shall disturb,
destroy or take a nest, egg, nest shelter, eider duck shelter or duck box of a migratory bird. Unintended
destruction of migratory birds, their nests or eggs is referred to as incidental take and is prohibited under
the MBCA.
In Canada, the general nesting period may start as early as mid-March and may extend until the end of
August. This is a general nesting period that covers most federally protected migratory bird species. This
period varies regionally across Canada mainly due to differences in species assemblages, climate,
elevation and habitat type. The Project is in Bird Conservation Region 10, Zone 4A which includes the
Northern Rockies. The regional nesting period for this zone is late-April to mid-August (ECCC 2017a).
Teck’s EPEA approval lists the restricted period from May 1 to July 31.
5.10.3.5 Disturbance of Roosting Bats
Vegetation clearing activities may also disturb bats that roost in trees during summer. Timing of activities
to reduce incidental take of migratory birds will also apply to these bat species.
5.10.3.6 Habitat Alteration or Loss
The construction phase can result in habitat change by temporary avoidance by wildlife and increased
energy loss.
Moose - A winter foraging habitat suitability index (HSI) model (Romito et al. 1999) was used to evaluate
the amount and quality of pre-existing moose winter foraging habitat disturbed by the Project and the
amount and quality of moose winter foraging habitat after reclamation. The model produces HSI values
for winter food habitat and is applicable to west-central Alberta. The model applies to forest and non-
forest habitat areas of the Lower and Upper Foothills, Montane and Subalpine Natural Subregions.
Suitability is determined from structural characteristics within stands rather than classified forest stands
directly.
One variable is used to predict winter foraging habitat for moose (S1) where S1= Tall Shrub and
Deciduous Sapling Cover. The HSI moose foraging model = S1.
Pre-existing moose winter foraging habitat in the MKRC study area (A) provides 1,019 moose habitat
units (Table 5.10-2 and Annex G, Figure 8). Pre-existing moose winter foraging habitat in the Project
Footprint (B) provides 288 moose winter foraging habitat units (Table 5.10-2 and Figure 5.10-1). After
reclamation, there will be 108 moose habitat units in the Project Footprint (C), a reduction of 180 habitat
units (Table 5.10-2 and Figure 5.10-2). Shrublands provide high forage value for moose and forest
habitats provide some forage as well as cover. Grasslands, end pit lakes and highwalls have no value in
the moose winter foraging model. A summary of moose habitat requirements is found in Annex G,
Appendix VI.

March 2018
Table 5.10-2 Moose Winter Foraging Habitat Units MKRC Study Area
(A) Amount and (C) Amount and

(B) Amount and
Quality of Pre- Quality of Post-
Quality of Pre-existing
existing Moose Reclamation Moose
Moose Habitat in the
Rank HIS Range Habitat in the Study Habitat in the Project
Project Footprint
Area Footprint
Area (ha) HU Area (ha) HU Area (ha) HU
Very High ≤0.8 to 1.0 201.5 198 78.1 76 58.5 23

High ≤0.6 to 0.8 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Moderate ≤0.4 to 0.6 1,401.7 727 362.8 188 336.3 19
Low ≤0.2 to 0.4 199.2 43 41.4 10 63.5 4
Very Low <0.0 to 0.2 319.5 51 86.2 14 14.6 1
None 0 102.5 0 38.0 0 133.5 60
Total 2,224.3 1,019 606.5 288 606.5 108
Elk - A winter foraging Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Model developed by Buckmaster et al. (1999) was
used to evaluate the amount and quality of pre-existing elk habitat disturbed by the Project and the
amount and quality of elk habitat after reclamation.
The model produces HSI values for critical winter food habitat and is applicable to west-central Alberta.
The model applies to forest and non-forest habitat areas of the Lower Foothills and Montane Natural
Subregions but is broadly applicable to other habitat areas dominated by vegetation similar to that in this
region, including pure deciduous, mixed wood and pure coniferous forest types, as well as wetland and
riparian forest, meadows, shrublands, and areas regenerating after forest harvesting.
The HSI winter foraging model for elk consists of three controlling habitat variables (S1, S2, S4) and one
modifying variable (S3) where S1 = Tree Canopy Closure [in non-forested areas], S2 = Tree Canopy
Closure [in forested sites], S3 = Deciduous in Tree canopy and S4 = Grass Cover [included so that areas
of non-habitat are not given a high suitability rating]. The HSI elk foraging model = max (S1 x S4, S2 x
S3).
Pre-existing elk winter foraging habitat in the study area (A) provides 205 elk habitat units (Table 5.10-3
and Annex G, Figure 10). Pre-existing winter elk winter foraging habitat within the Project Footprint (B)
provides 62.5 elk habitat units (Table 5.10-3 and Figure 5.10-3) and after reclamation within the Project
Footprint (C) there will be 108 elk habitat units, an increase of 45.5 habitat units (Table 5.10-3 and
Figure 5.10-4).
This increased habitat suitability for elk will also increase habitat suitability for mule deer in the more
open, rugged parts of the MKRC reclamation and by white-tailed deer in reclaimed areas closer to valley
bottom habitat.

March 2018
Table 5.10-3 Elk Winter Foraging Habitat Units MKRC Study Area
(C) Amount and

(A) Amount and (B) Amount and
Quality of Post-
Quality of Pre- Quality of Pre-
Reclamation Elk
HIS existing Elk Habitat existing Elk Habitat in
Rank Habitat in the Project
Range in the Study Area the Project Footprint
Footprint
Area (ha) HU Area (ha) HU Area (ha) HU
Very High ≤0.8 to 1.0 72.1 72 27.1 27 0.8 0.8

High ≤0.6 to 0.8 0.0 0 0.0 0 113.7 79
Moderate ≤0.4 to 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.0 0
Low ≤0.2 to 0.4 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Very Low <0.0 to 0.2 2,070.0 132 543.0 35 443.8 28
None 0 81.4 0 35.9 0 48.2 0
Total 2,224.3 205 606.5 62.5 606.5 108
Bighorn Sheep - The study area does not provide habitat for bighorn sheep however part of the
“Mountain Goat and Sheep Area” obtained from the on-line Fish and Wildlife Internet Mapping Tool (AEP
2017) falls within the proposed MSL boundary in the vicinity of the MK2 and MK4 Pits as well as a small
overlap with the diversion ditch located on the northwest corner of RC1 Pit (Figure 5.10-5). These overlap
areas appear to fall within buffers adjacent to occupied bighorn sheep range associated with the alpine
portions of Cadomin Mountain and Redcap Mountain. The overlap areas with the proposed MKRC MSL
boundary do not enclose viable bighorn sheep habitat.
The antipredator strategy of bighorn sheep is visual detection of predators at distance followed by
movement to escape terrain (cliffs or cliff-like habitat) which cannot be negotiated by predators. Bighorn
sheep are sprinters and cannot keep up a sustained run for long so must always be near to escape
terrain. Quality forage in proximity to escape terrain is an essential component of bighorn sheep habitat.
The MKRC reclamation plan contains a long 2.64 km benched wall which provides suitable bighorn sheep
escape terrain. The wall is bordered by coniferous forest on the top and is flush with the end pit lake on
the bottom, neither of which provide significant (or any) foraging opportunity for bighorn sheep. Bighorn
sheep may on occasion show up on this wall or in reclaimed portions of the Redcap Pits but without the
combination of the two features will be forced to move on to find habitats with higher foraging opportunity.
Grizzly Bear - Signs of grizzly bear use recorded in the study area in 2017 was mapped with results of a
spring grizzly bear habitat model using Resource Selection Function (RSF) techniques (Figure 5.10-6).
The RSF model output was obtained from the Foothills Research Institute (fRI). Figure 5.10-6 indicates
that primary spring grizzly bear habitat in the MKRC area is highly associated with wetland habitats in
Redcap Creek and all its tributaries, MacKenzie Creek and tributaries including Little Homer Creek, and
UTMK1, UTMK2, the lower reaches of UTMK3 and UTMK4. Bear diggings were found within wetland
habitat especially in the vicinity of the Redcap waste dump (RCEX), Little Homer Creek and MacKenzie
Creek.

March 2018
Bats - Bat species in Alberta show certain common habitat preferences, most frequently encountered in
ecotones, where water meets land, forest meets meadow, or where cliffs or building rise (Pattie and
Hoffman 1990). Mining in the study area will involve vegetation clearing prior to soil salvage and
subsequent mining. This removal of forest cover will indirectly affect bats by: creating a loss of habitat for
species that use trees as roosting habitat; reducing insect prey found in interior forest habitats; and
disrupting forage opportunities along the edge of the forest and open riparian habitats.
Small-scale habitat disturbances that create small forest openings (i.e. cutblocks and access roads) may
increase edge habitat and be used by bats for foraging and provide flight corridors or navigational
references for bats (Grindal and Brigham 1998) however large disturbance areas may not increase edge
habitat proportional to the disturbance size.
Small Mammals - Small mammals (Annex G, Section 3.5) are an important prey for avian and
mammalian predators. They are associated with diverse pine, spruce and riparian habitats in the study
area. All these habitats will be disturbed by the Project (Table 5.10-1). The snowshoe hare was
associated exclusively with pine-mesic habitat of which 26.8% (324.0 ha) will be disturbed (Table 5.10-1).
Red squirrels are abundant throughout the coniferous forests of the study area. About 25% (416.7 ha) of
upland coniferous forests will be disturbed by the Project and approximately 33% (122.2 ha) of wetland
coniferous forest, treed bog and treed fen will be disturbed by the Project (Table 5.10-1).
Breeding Birds and Raptors - Vegetation will be cleared in advance of mining activities. Mining
disturbance will affect 33.6% (149.3 ha) of all wetland habitats in the study area (Table 5.10-1). The
highest densities of birds in the study area occurred in wetland habitat types (Annex G, Table 5). Of the
wetland habitats, 51.3% (48.5 ha) of treed fen, 47.5% (34.9 ha) of spruce wetland, 24.5% (29.1 ha) of
pine wetland, 37.0% (25.5 ha) of shrubby fen, 13.5% (9.7 ha) of spruce-fir wetland, and 57.7% (1.6 ha) of
graminoid fen will be disturbed.
Lower bird densities were associated with upland habitats (Annex G, Table 5). In the study area, 24.8%
(421.3 ha) of upland habitat will be disturbed by mining activities (Table 5.10-1). This includes 26.8%
(324.0 ha) of pine-mesic, 28.5% (80.8 ha) of spruce-mesic, 6.2% (6.5 ha) of pine-dry, 15.1% (5.4 ha) of
spruce, 10.7% (4.1 ha) of shrubby meadow, and 62.2% (0.5 ha) of forb meadow habitats.
Project activities will alter 50.6% (35.8 ha) of currently disturbed areas and remove 1.0% (0.1 ha) of
weathered bedrock. These areas can be reclaimed to productive habitats for birds especially if reclaimed
to riparian habitats.
The general status of the Pacific-slope Flycatcher (Western Flycatcher) is listed as Undetermined by
AEP (2015a) (Annex G, Table 20). This species nests in streamside habitats where there are
opportunities for nest placement on cutbanks or rock outcrops. It was detected only along MacKenzie
Creek near the mouth of Little Homer Creek in 1993. Remains of a nest were found in the MacKenzie
Gap in 2017. These sites are downstream of the clear span haulroad crossing and will not be affected by
the Project.
AEP (2015a) lists the status of the Alder Flycatcher as “Sensitive” (Annex G, Table 20). It is not listed
under the Alberta Wildlife Act, Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) or
Species at Risk Act (SARA). The Alder Flycatcher was found in shrubby meadow habitat (e1) and spruce

March 2018
wetland (g1) habitats associated with Redcap Creek on the south side of the Redcap external dump in
1993. Alder Flycatcher were not detected during the 2017 breeding bird survey.
The Gray-cheeked Thrush (Alberta status “Undetermined”, Annex G, Table 20). was detected in a steep
coniferous slope beside MacKenzie Creek (Plot # T6-5, Annex G, Figure IV.2) on June 23,1993, along
UTMK2 (also on June 23, 2017) and at the km 9 crossing of Little Homer Creek (June 25, 2017). None of
these sites will be disturbed by Project development. This species was not detected in the Redcap area.
The Gray-cheeked Thrush is primarily a bird of brushy willow-alder thickets and low spruce forests with
dense undergrowth (Lowther et al. 2001). Nests have been found in crotches of branches of willow or
alder shrubs, but also on horizontal or slanting trunks of fallen trees, atop broken-off stubs or rotting
stumps, and horizontal spruce branches.
The Northern Harrier was observed hunting over shrubby fen habitat associated with UTRC1 tributary
during the fall 2017 migration (Annex G, Section 3.3.2). Thirty-seven percent (25.5 ha) of this habitat will
be disturbed by the Project (Table 5.10-1). The Bald Eagle was observed over Redcap Mountain during
the spring 2017 migration. Redcap Mountain is outside the study area. In 1993, Boreal Owls were
detected nesting along MacKenzie Creek, the Cardinal River and Redcap Creek. This species is found in
mature coniferous forest in lower subalpine and montane ecoregions especially with adjacent meadows
or clearings nearby. About 33% (122.2 ha) of coniferous wetlands, treed bog and treed fen habitats will
be disturbed by the Project (Table 5.10-1).
Loss of Wildlife Features - MacKenzie Creek Spring - A spring and small pool is located within 14 m of
the clear span crossing of MacKenzie Creek (Figure 5.10-7). This spring is known to be used by moose
and potentially other wildlife. A wildlife camera has been placed at this spring to record wildlife use over
the winter of 2017/2018. The spring could potentially be altered or buried during construction of the
haulroad and clear span crossing over MacKenzie Creek.
Beaver Dams in Redcap Creek - The diversion of water from UTRC1 and UTRC2 to UTRC4 will be
required to prevent contact with the Redcap Pits. Reduced water flow to the highest beaver pond on
UTRC1 will likely cause the pond to dry up or water levels to be so low as to cause abandonment by
beavers. This would restrict beaver activity to the lower dams and ponds immediately downstream
(Figure 5.10-8). These lower ponds also receive water from a small tributary from the west flowing
through a large shrub meadow. The presence of these dams and associated beaver activity (i.e.,
maintenance of dams and still water ponds) may provide an ecosystem service by retaining water in this
headwater meadow of Redcap Creek.
5.10.3.7 Creation of Barriers
Barriers can interrupt migration patterns and travel routes, create uneven habitat use, alter predation
rates, and increase human access and hunting efficiency.
Wildlife Movement Patterns - MacKenzie Creek is an important travel corridor for wildlife including
grizzly bears as it provides a physical break through the Redcap Range (MacKenzie Gap) for wildlife
traveling north and south (Annex G, Figure 6). MacKenzie Creek south of the MacKenzie Gap is
restricted by a narrow valley which concentrates wildlife on the trail located on the west side of the creek.
This trail is also used by the public (using OHVs and horse travel for hunting).

March 2018
A major game trail runs along the Little Homer Creek through willow-birch vegetation on the valley bottom
and low benches on the valley side.
Wildlife cameras MK01 and MK02 placed on a north-south cutline on high ground between the UTRC2
and UTRC3 tributaries and on a game trail beside UTRC2 respectively, indicates wildlife including moose,
white-tailed deer, grizzly bear, gray wolf and Canada lynx use these features to travel from high ground
associated with Redcap Mountain to the Redcap Creek valley bottom (Figure 5.10-9) (Annex G,
Appendix III, Table III.5). The development of the Redcap Pits and subsequent replacement with an end
pit lake and 2.64 km highwall bordering the south side of the lake will alter these movement patterns.
Grizzly Bear Movement - Movement Relative to Un-mined and Reclaimed/Partly Reclaimed Landscapes
- Several studies have investigated grizzly bear movement in relation to potential human made barriers
(i.e. roads) and specifically in relation to active mining in the Luscar/Gregg area and in the Cheviot area
(Schwab 2003, Nielsen 2004, Stevens and Duval 2005, Kansas 2005, Symbaluk 2008) (Figure 5.10-10).
These analyses found that grizzly bears generally moved freely across areas of dispersed as well as
concentrated human use in the region (Neilsen 2004). At finer scales Stevens and Duval (2005) and
Kansas (2005) found minimal differences between movement corridors in the un-mined Cheviot Permit
area (0.85 km/km2) with the mined and partially reclaimed Gregg/Luscar mines (0.68 km/km2). They
identified at least three higher probability movement corridors which occurred right across the
Luscar/Gregg River mines in close proximity to active mining areas.
Symbaluk (2008) indicated that “…although active mining may present inherent temporary habitat loss
and episodic local movement barrier, such as active mining pits, the analysis conducted suggests that
mining land use has not resulted in landscape level movement barriers for grizzly bears within the current
Cheviot or Luscar/Gregg River mine areas.”
Few barriers other than vertical walls will impede the movement of grizzly bears through rugged terrain.
Topographic forms such as ridges, elevated benches or sunken gullies provide greater security for wildlife
(Bow Corridor Ecosystem Advisory Group 1998). Undisturbed tree islands on the reclaimed Luscar and
Gregg River mine sites have been used by grizzly bears for bedding, caching and consuming ungulates
(Cristescu et al. 2016). The highest known detection of individual bears during the 2014 estimate of
grizzly bears in BMA3 occurred on the Luscar Mine (Stenhouse et al. 2015).
Specific Movement Paths - Retention of undisturbed tree cover is important for security for grizzly bears
(Teck 2009). The MKRC disturbance boundary is irregularly shaped, and pits are discontinuous resulting
in a long perimeter boundary around the disturbance which encloses a high proportion of undisturbed tree
cover relative to the disturbance (Figure 5.10-11). This will promote grizzly bear movement through and
around the MacKenzie Pits and associated infrastructure. The Redcap Pits are more continuous and are
characterized by a smaller proportion of undisturbed tree cover relative to disturbance (Figure 5.10-11).
Wildlife camera-traps monitoring wildlife use of highwalls in the Prospect area of the Cheviot Mine
indicate that grizzly bears, wolves and other carnivores can travel along benched pit walls
(Photograph 5.10-1 and Photograph 5.10-2). The 2.64 km highwall proposed on the south side of the end
pit lake in the Redcap Unit (Figure 5.10-12) may be used for limited east-west travel by these carnivores
but will hinder north-south travel in this area, forcing wildlife to move around either side of the
lake/highwall feature.

March 2018
Photograph 1 Grizzly Bear from Prospect Camera-trap PC-02
Photograph 2 Gray Wolves from Prospect Camera-trap PC-02
Harlequin Duck Movement Along Streams - It is likely that some low level of nesting occurs on MacKenzie
Creek upstream of the MacKenzie Gap (Annex G, Section 3.3.3). Stream connectivity is important to

March 2018
Harlequin Ducks moving broods from potential nest sites high on MacKenzie Creek to brood-rearing
areas downstream of the MacKenzie Gap.
Harlequin Ducks have been confirmed nesting in Redcap Creek at least in some years (intermittent)
(Annex G, Section 3.3.3). Harlequin nests are placed close to water edge (<5 m) in dense vegetation with
overhead cover (Robertson and Goudie 1999). This type of habitat is characteristic of the lower reaches
of Redcap Creek. Water flow in the Redcap Creek channel upstream of the mouth of UTRC4 will be
reduced by 31% (Matrix 2017) due to loss of water from Upper Redcap Creek (UTRC1) and two
connecting tributaries (UTRC2 and UTRC3) that normally discharge into Redcap Creek from the north.
Water from these streams will be diverted around the pits into UTRC4 or into the downstream
sedimentation pond (RCPO). This may affect choice of nesting locations in the middle portion of Redcap
Creek.
Several beaver dams were identified in Redcap Creek upstream of the mouth of UTRC4 (Annex G,
Figure 6). These dams and associated ponds may provide an ecosystem service by retaining water in the
middle reaches of Redcap Creek upstream of the mouth of UTRC4 given that altered flow levels can still
maintain flow in the Redcap Creek channel.
5.10.3.8 Harassment Resulting in Habitat Alienation or Death
Harassment has been described as active or passive. Active harassment involves acute psychological or
physiological stress resulting in flight and direct mortality, or flight and lost reproduction. Passive
harassment involves anxiety, stress and prolonged vigilance resulting in avoidance behaviours or
increased energy costs and reduced reproduction.
5.10.4.1 Mitigation
Measures that mitigate the potential for direct mortality, habitat loss, and disruption of movement patterns
on wildlife include (among others): timing of operations, avoiding disturbance, minimizing disturbance,
design of stream crossings, and reclamation of areas disturbed by mining and associated infrastructure.
Wildlife have different habitat requirements and diet preferences. Reclamation techniques that promote
vegetation and topographic diversity by means of a variety of activities and treatments will fulfill a wide
range of life requirements. Examples include avoiding disturbance, minimizing disturbance, topographic
manipulation, direct haul placement of soil, topsoil handling, inoculation of local ground cover, seeding
with a variety of grass and legume species, and establishing native ground cover, shrubs and trees.
5.10.4.2 Increased Vehicular Collisions
Cardinal River Operations implements several practices to reduce the risk of wildlife-vehicle collisions,
including:
• speed limits on mine roads are low (≤ 70kph) thus reducing the chances of wildlife collision
(Standard Practices and Procedures Mine Road Rules GE 16 v4);
• haulroads are wide with good visibility;

March 2018
• professional trained operators are linked with radio communication and report the presence of
wildlife on active haulage routes to other drivers; and
• reduce the potential of collision with mammalian and avian scavengers by the timely removal of
carrion from roadways.
5.10.4.3 Increased Mortality of Grizzly Bears
Objective 1 of the Teck Coal Limited (2009) grizzly bear 10-year management plan is: “Minimize the rate
of human / grizzly bear conflicts on the MSL and Mine Permit. Specifically, limit the number of direct mine-
caused grizzly bear mortalities and removals to zero”. Strategies to reduce conflict with grizzly bears
include refraining from feeding any wildlife on site, proper waste management, use of bear-proof storage
of potential bear attractants, immediate clean-up of spills from petroleum-based products and regulated
human access along designated trails. The strategies below are intended to limit incremental bear
mortality that may be associated with mining operations:
• continue the effective garbage removal and management procedures currently employed at the
Luscar and Cheviot mines;
• require field staff to have bear awareness training;
• Include safety practices to reduce bear-human interactions in mine orientation (i.e., field staff are
required to carry bear spray, air horns);
• stress the importance of not feeding or approaching wildlife in mine orientation;
• visitor and Vendor Orientation. Visitors must sign off on the following statement before entering
Cardinal River Operations: “Do not disrupt wildlife - feeding is strictly prohibited”;
• discuss new wildlife situations as they occur during the daily environment and safety meetings to
keep staff informed and aware;
• identify reclaimed and undisturbed areas within the Cheviot mine permit that are commonly used
by grizzly bears and enact measures to minimize human / grizzly bear interactions in these areas
(e.g., temporary trail closures, education / orientation/signage);
• continue to prohibit the carrying and discharge of firearms on the MSL (with exception of legal
transportation by the public on designated trails and Fish and Wildlife officers in the course of
their duties);
• the hunting of big game is not permitted in the Gregg River Resources Coal Mineral Surface
Lease in WMU 438, and the Cardinal River Coal Mineral Surface Lease in WMU 438 (Alberta
Government 2017). Note: Hunting of grizzly bears in Alberta has been closed since 2006; and
• carefully plan locations of access trails through the MSL once mining has been completed to
decrease the risk of human-bear encounters on these predominantly open landscapes. Locate
trails in areas of minimal known grizzly bear use and minimize line of sight from trails to areas of
known or likely grizzly bear concentrations. The Luscar Mine has strictly regulated human access
along designated trails which makes human presence predictable to bears and other wildlife.
Access management and future trail placement will be coordinated through community
engagement and dialogue with the Government of Alberta.

March 2018
5.10.4.4 Disturbance of Occupied Grizzly Bear Den Sites
To avoid disturbance of occupied bear dens, it is recommended that vegetation clearing in MKRC occur
outside the denning period for grizzly bears.
• avoid clearing vegetation activity during the period of hibernation for grizzly bears. Fall clearing is
the best to avoid occupied den sites. Should vegetation need to be cleared during denning
season, a den search of the area will be conducted prior to clearing. If a den is found, Alberta
Wildlife Management will be notified, and mitigation will be developed specific to that site and
location (i.e., avoid clearing until hibernation is completed, leave buffer of undisturbed
vegetation).
5.10.4.5 Disturbance of Nesting Birds
• clear vegetation in advance of the breeding season to deter breeding birds from nesting and to
avoid destruction of migratory birds, their nests or eggs. MKRC is in the Boreal ecozone where
habitat destruction activities (e.g. vegetation clearing, water diversion, construction, etc.) in areas
attractive to migratory birds carry a particularly high risk of disturbing or destroying migratory
birds, their nests or eggs between May 1 and July 31 (EPEA Approval No. 46972-01-00,
Section 3.2.8); and
• consult the Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) (2017b) websites for timing of
nesting of migratory birds in Canada and the Teck bird guidance document (Teck 2015) as part of
the planning process for vegetation clearing activities.
5.10.4.6 Disturbance of Roosting Bats in Trees in Summer
• the timing of clearing vegetation to avoid incidental take of migratory birds will also apply to bats
that roost in trees in summer.
5.10.4.7 Habitat Alteration or Loss
Human activity and noise associated with clearing and construction may disrupt foraging activities of
ungulates and temporarily displace wildlife from the local area. This type of displacement will be short
term and spatially restricted to sites where active construction occurs.
Promote Discontinuous Edge Boundaries and Retain Tree Islands within the Disturbance Area
• as well as planned reclamation of open and closed forests, the undisturbed tree islands left within
the disturbance area and tree cover adjacent the disturbance boundary will provide escape cover
for elk, and deer, thermal cover for moose and bedding sites for grizzly bear;
• there will be several blocks totaling approximately 147 hectares of undisturbed forest left within
the disturbance boundaries of the Project (Figure 5.10-11). Vegetation in the undisturbed areas is
primarily composed of upland coniferous forest (Table 5.10-1). This habitat will provide security
cover for ungulates and carnivores, some forage for ungulates under the canopy, and nesting
habitat for forest-dwelling birds. Undisturbed forest, such as the tree islands outlined in
Figure 5.10-11, will provide security and help maintain wildlife movement patterns in the Project
Footprint during and after active mining. Undisturbed forest also provides a seed source for

March 2018
adjacent disturbed areas as observed on the leeward side of undisturbed forest vegetation on the
Luscar Mine and
• tree islands should be maintained and widened where possible especially in Redcap
(Figure 5.10-11) to provide shelter for animals and to encourage movement through the Project
Footprint. During mining, opportunities for minimizing Project disturbance in the MKRC study area
may become available. Retention of any undisturbed habitat within or at the edge of the proposed
Project Footprint will minimize effects on wildlife habitat (Figure 5.10-11).
Promote Topographic Diversity
• elk and mule deer use rugged terrain as part of their anti-predator strategy. The reclaimed
landscape should consist of rugged terrain with varied slope and aspect. Topography should be
reclaimed to rolling landscapes with a full range of aspects. Slope angle can vary from level to a
maximum of 26.5°. Slope positions in the reclaimed landscape will range from depression valley
bottom to crest positions. This type of topographic variation promotes vegetation diversity and
seasonal foraging for ungulates and grizzly bear. Sparsely vegetated talus slopes provide habitat
for small mammals and birds. The benched wall associated with the Redcap Pits can potentially
provide mineral licks for ungulates.
Promote Variety in Soil Treatments
• where possible, salvaged soil should be handled by direct placement. As direct placement of soil
will contain live seeds, roots and rhizomes, it is expected that the resulting vegetation
composition will be high in native plants even if subsequent treatment (i.e. seeding with a variety
of graminoids and legumes) is required to achieve a minimum vegetation cover for erosion
prevention or to meet wildlife cover and forage requirements;
• other soil handling techniques such as rough-surface or rough mounding treatments of coversoil
can trap moisture for tree growth and should be placed where closed canopy forests are required.
Excessive surface roughness is not necessary; and
• preparation of a seedbed during reclamation of coal mines in Alberta often involves back-filling,
contouring, capping with fine-textured regolith, and capping with a coversoil that is either graded
to a uniform thickness (smooth-surface) or placed to create an irregular surface (rough-surface or
rough-mounded). Either soil treatment - smooth or rough - produces a vegetation cover more
rapidly than if left completely to natural processes (Russell and LaRoi 1986). The native botanical
component on smooth-surface reclaimed sites will tend to increase with time because of natural
colonization, but possibly at a slower rate than on rough-surface sites (Wali 1999). Deeper soils
will promote forest development. Tree canopy closure appears to be a key factor in facilitating the
naturalization of forest understory vegetation on reclaimed lands (Strong 2000).
Promote Vegetation Diversity
• use native trees and shrubs, grasses and forbs where practical to reclaim disturbed areas.
• incorporate a variety of grasses, legumes and forbs in the seed mix. Diversity helps prevent
omission for any particular wildlife species diet preference. For example, in winter, elk prefer to
graze fine forages like bluegrasses, fescues and dryland sedges over the coarser forages like
wheatgrass. For the ungulates, diversity in forage is essential for proper rumen function;

March 2018
• the use of diverse seed mixes on the Luscar and Gregg River Mines have provided many
ecosystem functions (erosion prevention, forage for ungulates and grizzly bears, seeds and
herbage for small mammals, marmots and golden-mantled ground squirrels and flowering plants
for insects). Once the tree canopy begins to close it is expected that most of the grassland
species will die out to be replaced by understory cover more suited to a shaded environment
(Strong 2000);
• establish shrub species such as willow, birch, alder, buffaloberry, and rose in areas designated as
closed or open forest to add understory structure to future forests and provide forage and hiding
cover for ungulates, grizzly bears, small mammals and birds; and
• explore opportunities to increase the area reclaimed to wetland habitats, especially shrub
meadows or forest with a shrub understory to provide browsing opportunity for moose.
Vegetate Topsoil Stockpiles
• revegetation of the topsoil stockpiles (if required) helps to encourage wildlife use of the disturbed
area prior to reclamation as well as providing erosion control.
Habitat Loss – Grizzly Bear
Reclamation techniques that provide grizzly bear habitat on mined landscapes include:
• developing reclamation plans that provide habitat for mammalian prey (ungulates and small
mammals);
• establishing plant species known to be important foods for grizzly bears. Cristescu et al. (2015)
reported that grizzly bears on the reclaimed Luscar and Gregg River mines consumed large
amounts of graminoids and forbs as well as deer, elk and bighorn sheep. Other food species that
are seasonally important for grizzly bears include Hedysarum sp., cow parsnip, horsetail,
dandelion, blueberry, buffaloberry, and ants (Munro et al. 2006);
• provision of a diversity of habitat types including open and closed forests with emphasis on
riparian habitats where possible;
• avoiding disturbance of buffers. Tree islands and undisturbed areas are reduced by
approximately 40% in area in the MacKenzie Unit and by 80% in area in the Redcap Unit If the
buffers are used for mining activity; and
• provision of diverse habitats and food items for grizzly bear also provides habitats for other
carnivores like fisher, wolverine, and Canada lynx.
Habitat Loss - Bats
Mitigation for loss of habitat used by bats includes:
• providing littoral zones in the end pit lake. The development of a littoral zone at the edges of the
end pit lake may produce areas of shallow, ponded water suitable for small hatches of insect prey
for the little brown myotis, silver-haired bat and other bat species feeding over water; and
• reclamation to various community types of open and closed forest will provide habitat for roosting
bats and insect sources throughout the disturbance area. The early succession stage of

March 2018
reclaimed upland forest will provide edge habitat suitable for foraging for several bat species
particularly if these areas are in proximity to riparian areas.
Habitat Loss – Small Mammals
Reclamation techniques that provide habitat requirements for small mammals include:
• provide talus habitat. In some cases, rock that is dumped but not contoured can be maintained at
the natural angle of repose to provide a specialized talus habitat. Talus is defined as: “angular
rock fragments accumulated at the foot of a steep rock slope and being the product of successive
rock falls; a type of colluvium” (Dunster and Dunster 1996). The terraces planned for reclaiming
MK1 and MK2 Pits may have some capability for establishing this feature;
• establish rock piles in open reclaimed landscapes. Rock piles are honey-combed with protected
spaces which provide shelter from the elements for small mammals and birds and perching
platforms for raptors (i.e., Northern Harrier). Cooler spaces in summer and shelter from winds in
winter are used by invertebrate and vertebrate prey species which are in turn consumed by
predators (i.e., ermine). Rock piles provide landform diversity on a local scale;
• rock piles for use by small mammals are best located in valley bottoms, draws and on protected
hillsides, whereas rock piles for use by raptors are best located near hilltops;
• rock piles should be 1 to 4 m high and occupy an area of around 10 m2. Lengths can be variable.
The core of the rock pile should be constructed by three or more large boulders surrounded by
smaller rocks; and
• piles of logging trash can also perform the function of rock piles in an early succession landscape.
Habitat Loss – Breeding Birds and Raptors
• the reclaimed MKRC landscape will include a variety of plant community types including a closed
forest community type with varying percentages of pine and spruce, open forest shrubland
community type, open forest grassland community type, and riparian habitats. Opportunities to
enhance a willow shrub understory in forest habitats will provide nesting habitat for Alder
Flycatcher and other bird species that nest in shrubs (i.e., White-crowned Sparrow) as well as
increasing browsing opportunities for moose;
• “snags” or tall poles placed in large open areas especially near water, have been demonstrated to
be used by large raptors (e.g., Red-tailed Hawk) for perching and hunting. Other specialized
features such as rock piles, logs and brush piles are features that can be used by raptors like the
Northern Harrier for perching and hunting; and
• highwalls, depending on configuration can provide nesting sites for raptors. The Great Horned
Owl and Common Raven have used highwall features for nesting on Cardinal River Operations
Luscar Mine.
Loss of Wildlife Features - MacKenzie Creek Spring
• inform construction and operation personnel of the location of the MacKenzie Creek spring and
minimize disrupting the spring during construction / operation activities.

March 2018
5.10.4.8 Creation of Barriers
Barriers can interrupt migration patterns and travel routes, create uneven habitat use, alter predation
rates, and increase human access and hunting efficiency.
Disruption of Wildlife Movement Patterns
• maximize retention of tree islands associated with the Redcap Pits;

• the use of a clear span structure to cross MacKenzie Creek will enable wildlife to travel along
MacKenzie Creek without crossing the haulroad. MacKenzie Creek is an important movement
corridor funneling wildlife through the MacKenzie Gap;
• likewise, the clear span crossing over Little Homer Creek will enable wildlife to move freely
upstream and downstream along this drainage; and
• opportunities for reducing the length of the pit wall (2.64 km straight line) associated with the
Redcap Pits such as exploring creating a ramp made of free dumped rock (during operations) to
create a talus slope at the northwest corner of the end pit lake could reduce the length of the wall
by about 500 m.
Barriers to Grizzly Bear Movement
• avoid disturbance of the closed canopy forest on the north, east and west side of the Redcap
Pits;
• maximize retention of tree islands associated with the Redcap Pits on the north side of the end pit
lake and between the large soil stockpile to the west (Figure 5.10-11);
• avoid disturbance of buffers where possible. Tree islands and undisturbed areas are reduced by
approximately 40% in area in the MacKenzie Unit and by 80% in area in the Redcap Unit If the
buffers are used for mining activity; and
• design reclamation plans that will result in complex topography characterized by ridges and
slopes of various aspect and angles and that will establish closed and open forests in disturbed
areas. The provision of complex topography and open and closed forests in the reclamation
program will promote movement through the study area, especially the Redcap unit. Stenhouse
et al. (2015) reported that canopy cover affected female grizzly bear detection probabilities more
than other site characteristics (covariates) like terrain ruggedness, while canopy cover and terrain
ruggedness affected detection probabilities and scale of movement for male grizzly bears.
Barriers to Harlequin Duck Movement Along Streams
• the planned clear span crossing of MacKenzie Creek will provide unobstructed movement for
harlequins that may be using this part of MacKenzie Creek for nesting;
• monitor potential harlequin use of MacKenzie Creek during construction of the clear span
crossings; and
• maintain flow in the Redcap Creek channel upstream of the mouth of UTRC4.

March 2018
5.10.4.9 Harassment Resulting in Habitat Alienation or Death
• control of human activities such as provided by a MSL can provide a predictable and neutral
environment for wildlife. This reduces the effects of human harassment and provides conditions
where wildlife can use reclaimed habitats even while industrial activity is on-going.
5.10.4.10 Monitoring
Wildlife monitoring activities identified in the Cheviot Wildlife Management and Monitoring Plan (Teck
2017) include: an annual wildlife survey, maintenance of carnivore observation records, maintenance of
mortality records, use of camera-traps for specific information and survey of Harlequin Ducks in the
McLeod River and tributaries. All are relevant to the Project except for the Harlequin Duck survey of the
McLeod River which is part of the monitoring activities for the Cheviot, Prospect, McLeod and Harris Pits.
Annual Wildlife Survey
Systematic wildlife surveys are conducted on the Cheviot and Luscar Mines annually. This systematic
survey provides information on species presence, general abundance, date of occupation of reclaimed
areas and distribution and concentration areas. It provides a continuous record of wildlife species
occupation and use of the mined and reclaimed areas over time. The wildlife survey is designed for 100%
ground coverage and is achieved by driving, viewing and walking prescribed routes. Observations of
bighorn sheep, elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, carnivores and other wildlife made during the systematic
surveys are recorded, mapped and tabulated. The population-based assessment will account for
seasonal responses and provide direct measures of population abundance and change over time.
Mapping of observations provides the spatial and temporal information necessary to interpret wildlife
response to the successional stage of reclaimed habitats. Active pits are not surveyed. Multiple surveys
are conducted throughout the year roughly corresponding to winter, spring, summer and fall seasons.
Carnivore Observation Records
Teck maintains a program of carnivore observations by field employees. A form is filled out for each
carnivore observation indicating date, time, observer, species, animal features, activity and location.
Observations are summarized and reported in the annual report. A map of general locations is produced.
Observations reflect the location of the observer, but this information increases awareness of the
presence of large carnivores and is a mechanism to track the presence of carnivores during the stages of
mining and reclamation.
Mortality Records
Records of wildlife mortality on Cardinal River Operations MSL are maintained and summarized in the
annual report. Information includes species, age/sex, type of vehicle involved, date and location.
Wildlife Camera-Traps
Wildlife camera-traps are currently deployed in the Cheviot Prospect Pits to address specific questions
(e.g., determine wildlife use of highwalls). Information from the wildlife camera-traps are incorporated into
the annual report. Use of camera-traps will be deployed in MKRC if required to answer questions specific
to the development phase of the Project.

March 2018
Harlequin Duck Survey
Harlequin Duck surveys conducted in the McLeod River are conducted to monitor the potential effects of
the Cheviot Mine pits in the McLeod River headwaters. It is recommended that Harlequin Duck use of
MacKenzie Creek upstream of the MacKenzie Gap be monitored during the year of construction of the
clear span crossing.
5.10.5 Summary
Approximately 27% of the study area will be disturbed by mining and associated infrastructure
(Table 5.10-1). Mining disturbance will affect 33.6% (149.3 ha) of all wetland habitats in the study area
which include 51.3% (48.5 ha) of treed fen, 47.5% (34.9 ha) of spruce wetland, 24.5% (29.1 ha) of pine
wetland, 37.0% (25.5 ha) of shrubby fen, 13.5% (9.7 ha) of spruce-fir wetland, and 57.7% (1.6 ha) of
graminoid fen will be disturbed. In upland habitat, 24.8% (421.3 ha) will be disturbed by mining activities,
including 26.8% (324.0 ha) of pine-mesic, 28.5% (80.8 ha) of spruce-mesic, 6.2% (6.5 ha) of pine-dry,
15.1% (5.4 ha) of spruce, 10.7% (4.1 ha) of shrubby meadow, and 62.2% (0.5 ha) of forb meadow
habitats. Mining activities will alter 50.6% (35.8 ha) of currently disturbed areas and disturb 1.0% (0.1 ha)
of weathered bedrock. This is a summary of the habitat types that will be affected by the Project.
The following is a summary of the predicted residual effects after mitigation:
• the risk of wildlife vehicle collisions on roadways of the MKRC is low because: speed limits on
mine roads are low (≤ 70kph), haulroads are wide with good visibility, drivers are linked with radio
communication, and carrion is removed in a timely fashion from roadways.
• the potential for direct mortality of grizzly bears on MKRC is low with the implementation of the
following strategies that reduce bear-human interaction: use of secure containers for domestic
garbage and transfer to the licenced landfill in Hinton, bear awareness training for field staff,
visitor vendor orientation that includes bear safety practices, daily safety meetings, prohibition of
carrying firearms (with exceptions), closure of hunting on the MSL, and careful placement of
designated access trails. Over the life of the Luscar and Cheviot mines there have been no
problem bear actions.
• to avoid incidental take of migratory birds, vegetation will be cleared in advance of the breeding
season to deter breeding birds from nesting and to avoid destruction of birds, their nests or eggs.
MKRC is located in the Boreal ecozone where habitat destruction activities carry a particularly
high risk of disturbing or destroying migratory birds, their nests or eggs between May 1 and
July 31.
• timing of vegetation clearing activities to reduce incidental take of migratory birds will also apply
to bat species that roost in trees in summer.
• the use of a clear span structure to cross MacKenzie Creek and Little Homer Creek will enable
wildlife to travel along these stream valley bottoms without crossing the haulroad. Clear span
structures will also retain stream connectivity and allow any Harlequin Ducks nesting in the
headwaters of MacKenzie Creek to move young to brood rearing habitat downstream of the
MacKenzie Gap.

March 2018
• Harlequin Ducks may be using the shrub habitat associated with the banks of the lower reaches
of Redcap Creek for nesting, at least in some years. Water flow in the Redcap Creek channel
upstream of the mouth of UTRC4 will be reduced by 31% (Section 5.4) due to loss of water from
Upper Redcap Creek (UTRC1) and two connecting tributaries (UTRC2 and UTRC3) that normally
discharge into Redcap Creek from the north. This may affect choice of nesting locations in the
middle portion of Redcap Creek.
• the MKRC boundary is irregularly shaped and the MacKenzie Pits are discontinuous, a
configuration that is favourable for wildlife movement crossing the disturbance area. CRO can
explore opportunities thru development to reduce the 2.64 km highwall associated with the
Redcap Pits to reduce alteration of the north-south movement of grizzly bears, other carnivores
and ungulates.
• A spring and small pool is located within 14 m of the clear span crossing of MacKenzie Creek
(Figure 5.10-7). Construction and operation personnel will be informed of the location of this
spring to make plans to avoid the spring during construction/operation activities.
• mapping of moose habitat quality in MKRC pre-disturbance and post reclamation indicates there
will be a reduction of 38.2 moose habitat units in the MKRC area largely due to the loss of
wetland habitat in the Redcap disturbance. This corresponds to an increase of 43.3 elk habitat
units in Redcap due to increased forest/grassland vegetation. Mitigation of habitat loss for
ungulates involves employing reclamation techniques that promote vegetation and topographic
diversity by means of a variety of activities and treatments.
• develop reclamation plans that provide foods known to be important to grizzly bears such as a
variety of graminoids, legumes and forbs as well as deer, elk, moose and small mammals. Other
plant food species that are seasonally important for grizzly bears include Hedysarum spp., cow
parsnip, horsetail, dandelion, blueberry, buffaloberry, and ants.
• reclamation to various community types of open and closed forest will provide future habitat for
roosting bats and insect sources throughout the reclaimed area. The development of a littoral
zone at the edges of the end pit lake may produce areas of shallow, ponded water suitable for
small hatches of insect prey for the little brown myotis, silver-haired bat and other bat species that
feed over water.
• small mammals are an important prey for avian and mammalian predators. They are associated
with diverse pine, spruce and riparian habitats in the study area. Reclamation techniques that
provide habitat requirements for small mammals includes: provision of a specialized talus habitat
by free dumping rock that is not contoured and remains at the natural angle of repose and
establishing rock piles in open reclaimed landscapes to provide diversity at a local scale. Piles of
logging trash can also perform the function of rock piles in an early succession landscape.
• the highest densities of birds occurred in wetland habitat types (Annex G, Table 5), lower bird
densities were associated with upland habitats. Birds will require a variety of plant community
types including a closed forest community type with varying percentages of pine and spruce,
open forest shrubland community type, open forest grassland community type, and riparian
habitats. Opportunities to enhance a willow shrub understory in forest habitats will provide nesting
habitat for those species that nest in shrubs and browse opportunity for moose. Establishing
“snags” or tall poles placed in large open areas especially near water, rock piles, logs and brush

March 2018
piles will provide raptors with platforms to perch and hunt. Highwalls, depending on configuration
can provide nesting sites for raptors (i.e., Common Raven).
5.11 Historic Resources
A Statement of Justification for the proposed Project was submitted to the Historical Resources
Management Branch of Alberta Culture and Tourism on July 28, 2017. An approved Archaeological
Research Permit to complete the recommended Historical Resources Impact Assessment (HRIA) for the
Project was received and the HRIA was completed. Should additional historical resources be identified
during construction and operation of MKRC, appropriate actions and communications will be initiated
immediately upon discovery. Teck will obtain clearance under the Historical Resources Act prior to
commencing any Project development.

March 2018
Section 5 Figures

March 2018
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
R23 R22
11 12 7 8 9 10
5,866,000
5,866,000
Litt
Hom
!
le
er C
!
!
2 1 6 5
ree
4 3
! !
MKPO
! ! !
! ! !
k
! ! ! !
MK1
!
SP1
! ! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
SP2
! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
f
!
¤
¥
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
SP3
!
!
! ! ! !
!
LHPO
!
T46 ie
T46
!
nz
!
MK3
!
e
K k MK2
!
ac ee
!
G f
¤
¥
M Cr
!
T45 T45
!
MK4 MK3EX1
!
! !
! !
!
! !
SP4
!
!
UTRC1-SU-1
!
5,864,000
5,864,000
!
Little UTRC1-SU-2
!
!
!
Hom MK3EX2 ! !
er C
!
35 36 31 r eek 32
!
33
!
34
UTRC2-SU-1
!
! !
RC1
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! UTRC2-SU-2
!
!
!
!
RC2
!
!
!
!
!
TREE !
ISLAND
!
RC4/5
!
!
!
!
! !
RC3
! !
!
SP5
R e dc a
!
C re e k
!
!
26 25 30 29 28 !
27
p
!
!
5,862,000
5,862,000
RCEX
SP6
RCPO
23 24 19 20 21 22
R23 R22
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
MacKenzie Redcap Project - Project Footprint Components - Figure 5.0-1

±
Hinton
!
!
The m apsand m ap d at aare provid e d ‘asis ’wit hout
any guarant e e ,re pre se ntation,c ond it ionor warrant y
!
PitLim it SoilSt
oc kpile Pond Out
le t Cle anWat
e r Dit
c h-
Pipe line Culve rt
0 250 500 1,
000
Wat
e rs
he d Bound ary CR O Mine Pe rm itBound ary Uppe r HarrisApprove d De v
e lopm e nt m
of any k
R es
ind ,e ithe r e x
sum e sno liabilit
at
ut
y wit
ory.Te c k
h re spe c t Curre ntChe v
iotMSLBound ary Wat
e rc ours
e Cont
our (
25m I
nte rval)
PitLim it-30m Buffe r Propose d MSLBound ary I
nte rc e pt
ionPond Was
te Wat
e r Dit
c h-
Pipe line Culv
e rt G Com m unic at
ionT
owe r
DATE: MI
NEOPER ATI ON:
to any re lianc e t
d at
trut
a,and t
he us
he use r ass
e r plac e sint
um e st
he m apsand m ap
he e nt
h,ac c urac y,c urre nc y,or c om ple t
ire riskast
e ne ssof t
ot
he
he
Cadomin
!
Mountain
! ! Powe rline Curre ntDis
turbanc e Haulroad s
Was
t
Was
t
e Dum p Lim it
Se d im e nt
at
Em bankm e nt
ionPond f
¤
¥ Cros
sing St
ruc t
ure ! MKR CPowe rline
3/
16/
2018 Card inalR iv
er
Ac c e s
sR oad s
inform at ionc ont aine d int he m apsand m ap d at a. Cree SCALE: COOR DI
NATESYSTEM:
Community
!
Haulroad and Powe r R ightof Ways
1:
26,
1N
Doc um e ntPat
h:\\t
e ck
\TCGI
S\Dat
a\Ope rat
ions
\CR O\Proje c t
s\MKR CPe rm it
Applic at
\MKCR Proje c t
De s
c r ipt
ion_ Fig5.
0-1.
mxd
(
(
( (
(
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000 496,000 498,000
( (
( (
(
( (
R23 R22
(
(
( (
(
( (
(
(
( ( ( (
( ( (
k
( (
( ( ( (
ee
( (
(
(
( ( (
Cr
(
( ( ( (
10 11
( ( (
12 7 8 9
w
10 11
(
12 7
( ( ( ( (
o
( (
ad
( ( ( (
( (
Me
(
(
( (
(
( (
MacKe
( ( (
( ( ( (
Creek
( (
(
(
( (
( ( (
( (
nzie
( (
(
(
( (
(
(
(
5,866,000
5,866,000
(
( ( ( (
( ( ( (
(
( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (
( ( ( ( ( (
(
(( ( (
(( ( (
(
( ( ( (
( ( ( ( (
Hom
Litt r Cre
( (
(
( (
( ( ( (
le (
17-17A (TL)
( ( (
e
(
( ( (
17-17B (GS)
( ( (
MKPO
( ( (
3 Harris C 2 1
( ( ( ( (
6 5 4 3 2 1 6
( (
reek MK1
(
(
(
!
(
(
ek
( (
(
SP1
(
( (
SP2
(
95-13A (GC)
(
(
(
( (
(
17-13B (JT) !
(
( (
SP3
( (
(
( ( (
95-14A (GC)
(
T46 T46
(
17-16 (GS) !
(
( ( (
95-14B (GC)
(
zie
( (
(
(
( (
en k
(
(
( (
LHPO
K
(
( (
!
(
(
ac ee
(
(
( (
M Cr
( ( (
( ( ( ( (
(
(
MK2
T45 T45
(
(
MK3EX1
( ( (
(
( ( ( ( ( (
(
( ( ( ( ( (
(
(
(
95-15A (GC) !
(
( (
(
(
(
( ( (
95-15B (JT)
( (
5,864,000
5,864,000
( ( ( (
UTRC1-SU-1
(
(
MK4
( ( (
( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (
(
(
Lit
( ( ( ( (
UTRC1-SU-2
(
tle MK3EX2
(
(
(
(
(
(
( ( (
H om SP4 RC1
( (
( ( (
( ( ( ( ( (
(
(
er
(
(
34
(
35
(
36 UTRC2-SU-1 34
(
31 ree 32
(
C 33 35 36 31
(
( (
MK3
( (
(
(
(
k
( ( ( (
(
(
(
(
(
( ( (
(
95-11A (GC)
(
(
( ( ( (
UTRC2-SU-2
( ( ( ( ( (
(
(
(
( ( (
(
( (
95-11B (GC) !
( ( (
(
(
(
(
(
( ( (
(
( ( (
(
( ( ( (
RC2
(
(
( ( ( (
( 17-18 (AD)
(
( (
(
(
( ( ( ( ( ( (
TREE
( (
(
!
(
( ( (
( ( ( ( (
ISLAND
(
RC4/5 !
(
( ( ( ( ( ( ( (
(
(
95-10A (GC)
( ( ( ( ( (
( (
( ( ( (
( ( (
95-10B (GC)
( ( (
( ( ( ( (
RC3
(
( ( (
( (
(
RC17-37
(
Redca
( ( (
Creek
(
SP5
( ( (
(
! 95-12A (GC)
( ( (
(
95-12B (JT) 26
(
p
( (
27 26 25 30 29 28 27 25
5,862,000
5,862,000
30
( (
(
RCEX
( ( (
(
!
(
(
(
(
( (
(
SP6
(
(
(
RCPO (
(
(
(
(
(
22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19
Well Screen Interval Completed
AD |Alluvia lDepo sit s
5,860,000
5,860,000
TL |Till
GC |Gr a n d Ca c he M b r
. Cardinal River
475582 475580 475581 95-09A (AD) !
A
JT |J ewel/ To rren sM b r
.
(
95-09B (GC)
GS |Gla dst o n e Fm .
Ń
*95-13B was destroyed and replaced by 17-13B. Ń
475570
A
!
! ABGr o un dw a t
erI
n fo r
mat
io n Cen t
re W ell ( ( Thr
ustFa ult Well Condition Status Well Depth 475569
Bo t
to m o fTo r
ren sM em b erEdge Go o d 95-09A Sha llo w Refer en c e:Alt a LIS,2017;V a lt us,2017( Im a ge Da t e:2007&2012) .
A
ABGr
o un dw a t
erI
n fo r
mat
io n Cen t
re Spr
in g
!
(
Sur fic ia la n d st ruc t
ur a lgeo glo gic a lda ta obt a in ed fro m Tec k 2017,
J
ewelSea m Sub c r
o pEdge !
( Da m a ged 95-13A M edium Ba yr o c k,L. A.a n d T. H. F.Reim c hen ,1975. Alexis
!15
( Geo lo gic Bo r
eho le – Ar
tes
ia n Co n dit
io n s
14
Alluvia lDepo sit
13
!
( Un kn o wn
18
95-15B Deep
Sur fic a lGeo lo gyAlb er
Alb er ta En vir
ta F17
oot hillsa n d Ro c ky M o un t
o n m en ta n d Alb erta Resea r
a in s
,
c h Co un c il,M a p150.
16 15 14 13 Ca r
din a lRiver 18
No .234
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000 496,000 498,000
MacKenzie Redcap Project - Groundwater Monitoring Program - Figure 5.3-1

±
Hinton
!
PitLim it I
nter
c ept
io n Po n d Clea n W a t
erDit
c h-
Pipelin e Culver
t W at
erc o ur
se
The m a psa n d m a pda t
a n y gua r an tee,r epr esen t
a ar e pr
at
o vided ‘
io n ,c o n dit
a sis’wit
io n o rwa r
ho ut
ran ty
!
Robb
!
PitLim it-30m Buffer Em b a n km en t W a st

e W at
erDit
c h-
Pipelin e Culver
t Cur
ren tChevio tM SLBo un da r
y
G Co m m un ic a t
io n To wer
0 250 500 1,
000
m
o f a n y kin d,eit
Tec k Reso ur
herexpr
c esLim it
ess,im plied,o rst
ed a ssum esn o lia b ilit
atutor y.
y with
W a st
e Dum pLim it So ilSt
o c kpile Po n d Out
let Pr
o po sed M SLBo un da r
y
f
¤
¥ Cr
o ssin g St
ruc t
ure
respec tt o a n yr elia n c e t he userpla c esin t he m a ps Cadomin DATE: M I
NEOPERATI ON:
a n d m a pda t a ,a n d t he usera ssum est he en t ir
er isk
W a st
e Dum pLim it-30m Buffer Ha ulr
o a d a n d Po werRight
so fW a y ! M KRC Po w er
lin e CRO M in e Per
m itBo un da r
y 3/
23/
2018 Ca r
din a lRiver
!
a st o the t rut h,a c c ur a c y,c ur ren c y,o rc o m plet en ess

!
Mountain
o ft he in fo rm at io n c o n t a in ed in t he m a psa n d m a p SCALE: COORDINATESYSTEM :
Cree Sedim en t
atio n Po n d Ac c essRo a d
da t a. Community
! 1:
40,
000 NAD1983UTM Zo n e 1
1N
Do c um en tPa t
h:K:
\Ac t
ive Pr
ojec t
s2017\AP17-
00051t
o 17-
00100\17-
00054\Figur
es\M KRCAm en dm en t
\Fig 5.
3-1GW M o n it
orin g Pr
o gr
a m 17-
00054.
m xd
480,000 482,000 484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000 496,000 498,000
R23 R22
Me
ow
ad
Cr
ee
k
L it
tle
Ma
en
c
zie
K
16 15 14 13 18 MC2 17 16 15 14 13 18
Cr
ee
k
,
!
Þ
5,868,000
5,868,000
k
ee
Cr
9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7
ow
ad
Me
MacKe n
1 meek
Mc
Cr
Cree k
L
i le
eo
d
zie
Ri
r
ve
5,866,000
5,866,000
ek
il
C re
m
e
Littl k
rri s Cree
Ha
Cre
A
!
(
k
e Ho
e
MKPO
B
!
(
4 3 Harris C 2 MK1 1 5 4 3 2 1 6
reek
me
SP1
r
SP2
T46
SP3
T46
LHPO
ie
nz
Ke k
ac ree
T45
M C
T45
MK2 MK3EX1 MK3
MacKenzie Creek
McL r
MC1 MK4
Rive
Watershed
eod
5,864,000
5,864,000
,
! SP4 UTRC1-SU-1
Þ
Li MK3EX2 UTRC1-SU-2
tt le
Ho
33 34 m UTRC2-SU-1
35 36 31 er 32 33 RC1 34 35 36 31
Cr
ee
k UTRC2-SU-2
Mc
Redcap Creek
Leod
Watershed
McLeod
River
RC2
River
RC4/5
Little Homer Creek
Watershed
RC3
R edca
Cr ee k
SP5
28 27
p
26 25
5,862,000
5,862,000
30 29 28 27 26 25 30
RCEX
C
!
(
SP6
RCPO
Cardinal River RC6

Watershed
,
!
Þ
21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19
R23 R22 CR2

5,860,000
5,860,000
CR1 , !
! ,
Þ Þ
Cardinal River
CR3 Located 30 km East -->
480,000 482,000 484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000 496,000 498,000
MacKenzie Redcap Project - Streamflow Monitoring Locations - Figure 5.4-1

±
Hinton
!
Pit Lim it Se dim e nta tion Pond Cle a n Wa te r Ditch -

Pipe line Culve rt Wa te rcourse Ma cKe nzie /
R e dca p Dra ina g e Divide
Th e m a ps a ndm a p da ta a re provide d‘a s is’with out
a nyg ua ra nte e ,re pre se nta tion,condition or wa rra nty
!
Robb
!
Pit Lim it -30m Buffe r I

nte rce ption Pond Wa ste Wa te r Ditch -
Pipe line Culve rt Curre nt Ch e viot MSLBounda ry
G Com m unica tion Towe r
Surfa ce Flow Dire ction
0 250 500 1,
000
m
of a nykind,e ith e r e xpre ss,im plie d,or sta tutory
Te ck R e source s Lim ite da ssum e s nolia b ilitywith
.
Wa ste Dum p Lim it Em b a nkm e nt PondOutle t Propose dMSLBounda ry
f
¤
¥ Crossing Structure
, Stre a m flowMonitoring Sta tion Loca tion (
Ma trix)
re spe ct toa nyre lia nce th e use r pla ce s in th e m a ps Cadomin
Wa te rsh e dBounda ry !
Þ
DATE: MI
NEOPER ATI ON:
a ndm a p da ta ,a ndth e use r a ssum e s th e e ntire risk
Wa ste Dum p Lim it -30m Buffe r SoilStockpile MKR C Powe rline CR O Mine Pe rm it Bounda ry 3/
22/
2018 Ca rdina lR ive r
!
a s toth e truth ,a ccura cy ,curre ncy,or com ple te ne ss

! ! !
( Sub wa te rsh e dDra ina g e Point of I
nte re st
Mountain Sub wa te rsh e dBounda ry
of th e inform a tion conta ine din th e m a ps a ndm a p SCALE: COOR DI
NATESYSTEM:
Cree Ha rris Pit Lim it Ha ulroa da ndPowe r R ig h ts of Wa y Acce ss R oa d
da ta . Community
! 1:
45,
1N
Docum e nt Pa th :K:
\Active Proje cts 2017\
AP17-
00051to17-
00100\
17-
00054\
Fig ure s\
MKR CAm e ndm e nt\
Fig 5.
4-1Stre a m flow Monitoring Loc17-
00054.
m xd
480,000 482,000 484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000 496,000 498,000
20 21 22 23 24
R23 R22 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20
Me
ow
ad
Cr
ee
k
L it
tle
acM
en
zi e
K
17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17
Cr
ee
MC-
3
k
5,868,000
5,868,000
ATHABASCA RIVER WATERSHED
k
ee
Cr
8 9 10 11 12 7 9 10 11 12 7 8
ow
8
ad
Me
M acKe
Mc
1 m ek
Cr
C reek
Le
e
il e
o
n z ie
d
Ri
r
ve
5,866,000
5,866,000
UTMC4-
2
MC-
2
ek
il
Cre
m
e
H om
1
Li tt erCre
rr i s C ree
Ha
LHC-
2
U
le
k TM
C2 4
UT
5 4 3 Harris Cre 2 MKPO
MK1 1 6 5 3 2 1 6 5
MC
ek UTM C1
ek
SP1
4
SP2
T46 nz
ie
SP3 LHPO
UTMC4-
1
T46
Ke k
ac ee
UTMC3-
1
T45 T45
M Cr
MK2 MK3EX1
MC-
1
Mc L r
MK4
Rive
k
ee
5,864,000
5,864,000
Cr
eod
SP4 UTRC1-SU-1
LHC-
1 Li
t UT
e v io LH RC1
Ch ttle C1 UTRC1-SU-2
Ho MK3
me UTRC2-SU-1
32 33 34 36 31 rCr 32 33
1
35 36 31
35 ee MK3EX2
C
TR
k U
34-2
UTRC2-SU 32
Mc
Leod
UTM
McLeod
RC2
R iver
R ive r
UTR C4-
1
C3
RC4/5
SP5 RC3
Re dca
C reek
2
RC
UT
29 28 27 30
5,862,000
5,862,000
26
p
30 29 28 RCEX 27 26 25 29
25
C3
UTRC4
U TR
UT
Whitehorse SP6
C7
RC
Wildland Park
UTR
RCPO
6
R C-
1 UTR C4-
2
U
TR
C
5
20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 19 20
R C-
2 24
22 23 CR -
2
NORTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER WATERSHED
5,860,000
5,860,000
Cardinal River
CR -
1
17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17
Ale xis
R23 R22
CardinalR ive r
No.234
480,000 482,000 484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000 496,000 498,000
MacKenzie Redcap Project - Surface Water Quality Study Area - Figure 5.5-1
±
Hinton
!
Pit Lim it Se dim e ntation Pond Cle an Wate r Ditch -

Pipe line Culve rt Wate rcourse Surve yLocation
Th e m aps andm ap dataare provide d‘ as is’with out
!
Robb
!
Pit Lim it -30m Buffe r I

nte rce ption Pond Waste Wate r Ditch -
Pipe line Culve rt Curre nt Ch e viot MSLBoundary
G Com m unication Towe r
StudyAre a
0 400 800 1,
600
m
of anykind,e ith e r e xpre ss,im plie d,or statutory
Te ck R e source s Lim ite dassum e s no liabilitywith
.
Waste Dum p Lim it Em bankm e nt PondOutle t Propose dMSLBoundary
f
¤
¥ Crossing Structure
Wate rsh e dBoundary
re spe ct to anyre liance th e use r place s in th e m aps Cadomin DATE: MI
NEOPER ATI ON:
andm ap data,andth e use r assum e s th e e ntire risk
Waste Dum p Lim it -30m Buffe r SoilStockpile MKR C Powe rline CR O Mine Pe rm it Boundary 3/
23/
2018 CardinalR ive r
!
as to th e truth ,accuracy ,curre ncy ,or com ple te ne ss

! !
Mountain
of th e inform ation containe din th e m aps andm ap SCALE: COOR DI
NATESYSTEM:
Cree Harris Pit Lim it HaulroadandPowe r R ig h ts of Way Acce ss R oad Park /Prote cte dAre a
data. Community
! 1:
50,
1N
Docum e nt Path :K:
AP17-
00051to 17-
00100\
17-
00054\
Fig ure s\
MKR CAm e ndm e nt\
Fig 5.
5-1SWQ StudyAre a17-
00054.
m xd
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000 496,000
R23 R22 R22 R21
k
ee
Cr
MacKe
ow
Creek
McLeodRi
ver
ad
10 11 12 7 8 9 11 12 7
Me
10
n zi e
5
(
!
4
5,866,000
5,866,000
UTM
C2 3 (
!
(
!
MKPO
6 2a
Pembi
naRi
ver
UTM (
!
1a
C1
3 2 1
UT
Li 5 4 3 2 1 6
MC
tt
le
4
!
(
Ho
3a
(
!
LHPO
m
2d
er
(
!
Cr
eek
ie 1b
nz 2b
(!
! ( UT
e
K k
LH
a c ee 6
C1
M Cr
C3
(
!
UTM
5,864,000
5,864,000
Li
t
Hom
t
le
er
Cr
eek
36 (
!
34 35 (
! 31 2c 32 33 34 35 36 31
UMC-
1
7c
2
12b
RC
(
!
UT
(
!
UT
RC
1
1
1b
C4
(
!
UTR
C3
UTR
Redc
12a 7b
ap
27 26 25 30 29 28 1
1a 25 30
5,862,000
5,862,000
(
!
(
! (
! 26
27
C
re
ek
RCPO
10a 10
7a
(
!
!
(
(
!
9
(
!
22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19
13
Car
dinal
Ri
ver Ale xisNakota
5,860,000
5,860,000
Sioux Nat ion
(
! Re se rv
e #234
15 14 13
R23 R22 18 17 16 15 14 13
R22 R21
18
484,000 486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000 496,000
MacKenz
ieRedcapPr
oject– Fi
sher
iesSt
udyAr
ea– Fi
gur
e5.
6-1
±
Hi
nton
!
Robb Car
d inalRive rSit
es Pr
oje c tDe ve lop m e ntFoot
print Cur
y Wat
erc our
se
!
Wat
ershe d Bound ar
y
The m ap sand m ap d at aar e pr ovid e d ‘ asis ’wit hout ! (
! 0 250 500 1,
000
ut or y.Te c k m
Re s
t
our
o any r
c e sLim it
e lianc e t
e d as
he us
sum e sno liab ilit
e rp lac e sin t
y wit
hr e sp e c t
he m ap sand m ap Cadomi
n (
! Mac Ke nzie Sit
es CRO Mine P e r
m itBound ar
y Pr
y I
m p ac t
e d Fish Hab it
at DATE: MI
NEOP ERATI ON:
16/
2018 Car
d inalRiv
er
!
e nc y,orc om p le t e ne ssof t he Mount
ain
inform at ion c ontaine d in t he m ap sand m ap d at a. Cree Re d c ap Sit
es SCALE: COORDINATESYSTEM:
1:
35,
000
(
!
Community NAD1983UTM Zone 1
1N
!
Doc um e ntP at
h:\
\t
e c kc om inc o\
CGO\
Group s
\TCGI
S\Dat
a\Op e r
ations
\CRO\
P r
oje c t
s\MKRCP e r
m it
Ap p lic at
ion\
MXD\
FinalFigur
es\
MKCRP r
oje c t
De s
crip t
ion_Fig5.
7-1.
m xd
486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
12
R23 R22 7 8 9 10
11
11
5,866,000
5,866,000
!
( !
(
!
( !
( !
(
!
(
!
( !
( !
(
k
Li
ee
Cr
tt
le
!
( !
( !
(
ie
!
( !
(
Ho
!
nz
( !
(
!
(
Ke
m
!
( !
(
er
c
!
( !
(
a
!
(
C
1 M 6
!
( !
(
3
!
(
re
!
(
ek
!
(
2 !
( !
( !
( !
( 5 4 2
SP1 !
( !
( MK1 !
( !
(
!
( !
(
SP2
!
( ! !
( !
(
!
( ( !
(
!
( !
( !
(
!
( !
( !
( !
(
!
( !
(
!
( !
( !
( ! !
(
( !
( !
( !
(
!
( !
( !
( !
(
SP3
!
( ! !
( !
( !
( !
(
!
( !
( !
( (
( MKPO
!
( !
( !
( !
( !
( !
( !
(
!
( ! !
(
!
( !
( !
( !
( !
( !
( !
( !
(
T46
! !
T46
( (
!
( !
( !
( !
( !
(!(
!
( !
( !
( !
( ! !
(
! !
( !
( !
( !
( !
( (
( !
( !
( !
( !
(
!
(
!
( !
( (LHPO
! !
(
T45
!
(
T45
!
( !
( !
(
!
( !
( !
(
MK3EX1
!
( !
( !
! ( !
(
( ( MK2
! !
(
!
( !
(
!
( !
(
MK4
!
( !
( !
( !
( !
(
k
!
(
MK3
ee
!
( !
( !
( !
(
Cr
!
( !
( !
( !
(
!
( !
( ! !
(
zie
!
( !
( ( !
( !
( ! !
(
en
!
( ( !
(
5,864,000
5,864,000
( UTRC1-SU-1
!
( !
( !
( !
( !
(
cK
!
( !
( !
( RC1 !
!
UTRC1-SU-2
( !
( !
Ma
!
( !
( (
!
MK3EX2
!
( !
( !
( (
!
( !
( !
(
( 31
!
33
(
! !
(
!
!
(
!
( SP4 !
(
!
(
35
( !
(
36 32 UTRC2-SU-1 34 35
!
( !
( !
( !
( !
(
! !
( !
(
(
Lit
!
( !
( !
(
tle
! !
( !
( !
(
( !
(
Ho(
! !
( !
( !
( !
( !
( !
(
me
!
( !
(
( !
! ( !
( !
( !
(
rC
!
( !
( !
( !
( ! !
( (
! !
(
re
!
(
UTRC2-SU-2
(
ek !
(
!
( !
( ! !
( ( !
( !
( !
(
! !
( !
( !
( !
(
( !
( !
(
!
( ( !
! ( !
( !
( !
( !
( ! !
( !
( !
! ( ( ! !
( ( (
!
( !
( (!
! ( !
( ! !
( ( !
( ! RC2
( ! ( !
( ! ( !
( !
( (
!
! !
( !
( !
( !
( !
(!( !
( ! ( !
(
( !
( !
( ( ( !
! !
( !
(
!
( !
(
!
( !
( !!
(
( ! ! !
( (!
( !
( ( (
! (! !
( ! !
( (
( !
!
( !!
((
!
( RC4/5 !
( ! !
(
! !
( ( ( !
( !
! (( !( ! ( !
( !
( !
(
!
!
( ( !
(
!
( ! !
( ( !( ( ! !
( ! !( !
( !
( !
( ! !
( (
( ( !
! ( !
( !
( !
(
! ! !
(
!
(
!
( !( ( ! ( (! !
( !
( !
( !( ! !
( ( ( !
! ( (
!
( (
!
!
( !
( ! (
( ! ! ( ! !
( RC3 ( !
! (
! ! ! !
( ( ( !
( !
( !
(
! ( ( !
(
(
! !
( !
( !
( !
( ! ! !
( !
(
( !
! ( !
( ( !
( ! !
( ( ( !
SP5
!
( ( (
!
( !( ! !
( !
( ( ! ! ( !
( !
( (!
! (
( !
! !
( ( !
(
( !
( !
(
!
( !
( ! ( !
( ! ( !( !( ( (
! !
( ! ! !
( !
( ! !
( !
(
!
( ( (
30
!
29
(
28 !
( ! ( !
( ! ( !( (! ! !
( ( !
( !
( !
( !
(
26 25
!
(
!
( !
( ( ! ( !( !( ! ! !
( !
(27!
( !
( !
( !
( 26
! ( !( !
(
5,862,000
5,862,000
( !
(
!
(
!
( ( !
! ( !
( ( !
! ( !( !( (! !( !( !
( !
( ! !
( !
(
(
!
( !
( RCEX !
( !( ! ( !
( !( !
(
!
(
!
( ! ( !( SP6 !
( !
(
( !
( ! ( !( !( !( ! !
(
!
( !
( ! ( !
( !
( !
( !
( !
(
!
(
( !( !
( !
(
!
( !( ! ( ! !
(
!
( !
( !
(
!
( !
(
RCPO !
(
! ( !
! ( ! ( !
(
(
!
(
R23 R22
23 24 19 20 21 Redc 22 23
ap Cree
k
486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
MacKenzie Redcap Project - Terrain and Soil Study Area and Inspection Sites - Figure 5.8-1
±
Hinton
!
!
Robb Pit Lim it S edim entation Pond Clean Water Ditch -
PipelineCu lvert Watercou rse Soil Inspection Site
Th em aps andm ap dataareprovided‘ as is’with ou t !
2007 0 200 400 800
anyg u arantee,representation,condition or warranty Pit Lim it-30m Bu ffer I
nterception Pond WasteWater Ditch -
PipelineCu lvert m
of anykind,eith er express,im plied,or statu tory.
Teck Resou rces Lim itedassu m es no liabilitywith
WasteDu m p Lim it Em bankm ent PondOu tlet
G Com m u nication Tower
!
(
201
1
f DATE: MI
NEOPERATI ON:
!
¤
¥
(
respect to anyrelianceth eu ser places in th em aps Cadomin
Crossing S tru ctu re
andm ap data,andth eu ser assu m es th eentirerisk
WasteDu m p Lim it-30m Bu ffer S oilS tockpile MKRC Powerline 2017 3/
16/
2018 CardinalRiver
!
!
(
as to th etru th ,accu racy
,cu rrency
,or com pleteness
! !
Mountain CRO MinePerm it Bou ndary
of th einform ation containedin th em aps andm ap
T
errain andS oilS tu dyArea S CALE: COORDINATES YS TEM:
Cree Harris Pit Lim it Hau lroadandPower Rig h ts of Way Access Road
data. Community
! 1:
25,
000 NAD1983UTM Zone1 1N
Docu m entPath :K:
\ActiveProjects 2017\
AP17-
00051to 17-
00100\
17-
00054\
Fig u res\
MKRCAm endm ent\
Fig 5.
8-1Terrain S oilS tu dyArea17-
00054.
m xd
486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
11
12 R23 R22 7 8 9 10
11
6-
7
8 6-
7
7 6-
8
5,866,000
5,866,000
7
6-
7
7
7-
8
6-
7 8 7-
8 8-
9
6 7 7-
8 7 8-
6- 9 6-
8
7 6-
7 8
6-
7
k
8 6-
8
Li
ee
6-
7
Cr
tt
6-
7 6-
7
le
7-
8 6
ie
Ho
5-
6 7-
8
8
nz 8
Ke
m
6-
7 6-
8
7-
8
er
6 6
ac
C
1-
3
M
6
5 4
7-
8
3
re
6 7 6 7-
8 8-
9
6 6
ek
2 1
6-
7
6
6 4-
6
2
5-
6
7-
8
8
7-
8 6-
7
7-
8 5-
6
7-
8 6 5-
6 7
7-
8 6 6-
7
6-
7 6
6-
7 7-
8 6-
8
7 8 8
7-
8 8 4-
5 6-
8 6-
7 5-
6
4-
5 4-
5 7 5-
6
7 4-
6 4-
6 1-
4 6-
8
7 6
7-
8 7-
8 5-
6 7 5
6 7 4-
6
6-
7
8 4-
5 7 6-
7 8-
9
1-
6 7-
8 5-
6
4-
5
6 6 5-
5- 6 7 6
7 7-
8 6 1-
7
7-
8 6-
8 6 6-
7
7 6 7
7 6 7 7-
8 6-
7
6 7 7-
8
6-
7 6-
7 7 8 7-
8
3-
4 6-
8 6-
7 7-
8 6-
7
3-
4 7 3-
4 7-
8 6 7-
8
3-
4 8 6-
7 6 4-
7 7-
8
7-
8 3-
6 6-
7
6-
8 5 7-
8 6-
7
T46
8 6 3-
4
T46
7 3-
4 3-
4 7-
8 6-
7 7-
8 6-
7 7-
8
7 7-
8 8 6-
8 4-
6
6-
7 7 7-
8 4-
6
8 7 6 5-
1- 6 5-
6 7-
8
7-
8 7 7-
8
6-
7 5-
6 6-
7 3-
4 3-
4 6 6-
7 6 4-
6
7 7-
8 7-
8
6-
7
7 8 8 7-
7- 8 7 4-
6 5-
7
7-
8 3-
4 7-
8 6-
8
7-
8 7-
8 6-
7 5-
6
5-
8 6-
7 8 1-
6 4-
6 6 6-
7 6-
7
T45
1-
7 7
T45
4-
5 3-
6 6-
7
6-
8 6-
7 1-
6 6-
7 6-
7
7-
8 6-
7 6
8 7-
8 3-
6 6 6
6 7-
8 4-
6
6-
7 6 4-
3- 6
6 7-
8
4-
8 6 8 5-
6 4-
7
6-
7
6-
7 6 4-
4- 6
6
k
7-
8 7-
8 7-
9
4-
7
ee
7-
8 4-
6 5-
6 7-
8
7-
8 8 6-
7 7
Cr
4-
7 3-
6
6-
7 7-
8 4-
6 4-
6
6 8 7
zie
6-
7 8 8-
9 7-
8 6-
8 4-
7 6 6-
8
7-
8 7-
8 6-
8 5-
6
32
en
6 6 7 7-
6- 8
5,864,000
5,864,000
5-
7 8 8
6 7-
8 4-
6
cK
6-
7 5-
6 4-
7 6 8
4-
5 7-
8 3-
4 6-7 7-8 7-
8 6
7-
8 7
Ma
5-
6 3-
7 7-
8 6-
7 3-
6 3-
6 3-
6 3-
6 8
6-
7 7-
8 4-
5 6-7 5-8 5 6-
8
6-
7 7-
8 6-
8
4-
5 6 8 7-
8 7-
8 7-8 4-
6
7 6-
7 4-
6 5-
7 3-
6 7 3-
4
36
6-
7 4-
6
33
6
34
6-
7 1-
6 6-
8
3-
6 6 7-
8 8-
9 7-
9 7 4-
6 3-
7 9
6 7-
8 3-
4
6-
7 4-
6
35
6-
7
31
5
35
6-
8 5-
6 5
3-
4 5-
7 4-
6 6 7-
8
6-
7 8 5-
6 5-
6 6-
8 4-
6 4 6-
7
Lit 5-
6
5-
6
3-
7 6-
7 4-
6 6-
7 6-
7
t
3-
6
le
7-
8 4-
7 7 8 4-
8
3-
4 6-
8 7 3-
4
Ho 6-
8 4-
5 5-
6
5-
6 3-
6 5-
6 5 4-
6 5-
6
4-
5 8
me 6-
8 7
4 6-
8 7
6 3-
4
4-
5 rC 5-
6
3-
6
4-
7 4-
6 4-
6 7-
8
re
7-
8 5-
6 3-
4 4-
6 6
ek
4-
6 3-
5 5-
6 4-
8
4-
5 5-
6
6-
7 6-
8 7 4-
6 3-
4
5-
6 4-
5 6 7-
8
3-
4 1-
2
3-
4 3-
4 7-
8 4-
6 1-
5 5-
7 3-
4 3-
4
3-
4 1-
5 3-
4
4-
5 7 7-
8 4-
7 4-
6 7-
8
6 5-
6 4-
6 6 5-
6
4-
7 6 4-
8
3-
5 1-
3
4-
6 7 3-
4 5-
6
6-
7 5 4-
7 3-
5
3-
4 5-
6 4-
7 4-
6 4-
6 6
1-
6
4-
5 4-
6 3-
4 5-
6 8
6 5-
4- 7
3-
5
4-
5 4-
6 5-
6
5-
6 1-
2 6-
7 4-
5 5-
6 6
4-
5 7-
8
5-
7 3-
4
5-
6 6-
7
1-
3 4-
6 5-
7 4-
6 5-
6 5-
6
3-
5 7-
8
4-
5 6 4-
7 6 3-
3- 6
3-
5 4-
6 4-
5
4-
5 6-
7 6 8
6-
7
3 3-
6
4-
5 6 4-
6 4-
6 3-
4 5-
7 5-
6 6-
7 7
3 5-
7
5-
7 3-
6
6 4-
6 5-
6 6-
7 6
4 4 3-
5 3-
6
6
1-
3 7 3-
5- 4
3-
5
6-
7 7 3-
4
4 3-
5
4-
5 6 3-
6 3-
5 3-
5 3-
5
4-
6 6-
7
7-
8 3-
4 3-
6 6-
7 6-
7
3-
5 3-
4
5-
6 3-
4 3-
5 6-
7 5-
6 3-
5
3-
5 3-
5 5-
6
4-
5 5-
7 3-
4
3-
6 5-
6
3-
4 6-
7 3-
5
25
7 3-
4 4-
5 5-
6
30 29
7-
8
6-
7
28 3-
6
3-
6
5-
6
26
5-
6 4-
6
6
6-
7 27 8 4-
6 26
6
3-
4
5,862,000
5,862,000
3-
4 3-
4
8 4-
5
5-
6 5
5-
6 5-
6 5-
6 5-
6
4-
5 4-
6
4-
5
1-
4 6-
7 7-
8
4-
5 3-
4
3-
4 4-
6
4-
6 6-
7 3-
6 5-
6 4-
6 5-
6
4-
6 4-
5
4-
5
4-
5 5-
7
6 4-
6
4-
6
7-
8
6
1-
4 4-
5
5-
6 7-
8
3-
4 6
4-
5 5-
6
6-
7
5-
6
4-
5 3
R23 R22
23 24 19 20 21 Redc 22 23
ap Cree
k
486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
MacKenzie Redcap Project - Soil Map Units - Figure 5.8-2

±
Hinton
!
Proje ct De ve lopm e nt Footprint Soil Map Units Faw Maw Obw T

e rrain andSoilStudyAre a SoilUnit De scription: Pare nt Mate rial:Profile De pth : NOTES:
!
Robb
Th e m aps andm ap dataare provide d‘ as is’with out
Modifie r C-Colluvium a->70cm
Soilm ap units are labe lle dbyslope class.
0 200 400 800
Ca
!
anyg uarante e ,re pre se ntation,condition or warranty CR O Mine Pe rm it Boundary Faw-
Maw Mb R a Pare nt Mate rial Caw Transpare ncyfillwas applie dto are as
m
of anykind,e ith e r e xpre ss,im plie d,or statutory . F-Fluvial b-30-69cm outside of th e Proje ct Footprint,so as to
Te ck R e source s Lim ite dassum e s no liabilitywith
Wate rcourse Cb Fbw Mbw R b Profile De pth M -Morainal c-0-29cm h ig h lig h t fe ature s with in th e Proje ct Footprint.
re spe ct to anyre liance th e use r place s in th e m aps Cadomin Colours in th e le g e ndm aydiffe r slig h tlyfrom DATE: MI
NEOPER ATI ON:
andm ap data,andth e use r assum e s th e e ntire risk Cbw O -Org anic 3/
23/
2018 CardinalR ive r
Fc Mc R c th ose on th e fig ure .
!
as to th e truth ,accuracy ,curre ncy ,or com ple te ne ss Mountain R -R e siduum Modifie r:
of th e inform ation containe din th e m aps andm ap
Cc w-we t SCALE: COOR DI
NATESYSTEM:
Cree Ma Oaw Disturbe dLand
data. Community
! 1:
25,
1N
Docum e nt Path :K:
AP17-
00051to 17-
00100\
17-
00054\
Fig ure s\
MKR CAm e ndm e nt\
Fig 5.
8-2SoilMap Units 17-
00054.
m xd
486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
11
12 R23 R22 7 8 9 10
11
5,866,000
5,866,000
k
Li
ee
Cr
tt
le
ie
Ho
nz
Ke
m
er
ac
C
1 M 6 5 4 3
re
ek
2 2
T46 T46
T45 T45
k
ee
Cr
zie
en
5,864,000
5,864,000
cK
Ma
36 31 32 33 34
35 35
Lit
t le
Ho
me
rC
re
ek
25 30 29 28 27
26 26
5,862,000
5,862,000
R23 R22
23 24 19 20 21 Redc 22 23
ap Cree
k
486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
MacKenzie Redcap Project - Reclamation Suitability Ratings - Figure 5.8-3

±
Hinton
!
Pr int Reclamation Suitability Ratings

ojectDev elopm entFootpr T er
rain andSoilStudyAr
ea
!
Robb
T h em aps andm ap dataar epr ov ided‘as is’with out
NOT ES: 0 200 400 800
Good
!
anyg uar antee,r epr esentation,condition orwar ranty
ofanykind,eith erexpr ess,im plied,orstatutor y. CRO MinePer
m it Boundar
y Tr anspar enc yf illwas appliedto ar eas m
T eck Resour ces Lim itedassum es no liabilitywith outsideofth ePr ojectFootpr int,so as to
respect to anyr elianceth euserplaces in th em aps Cadomin Water
cour
se Fair h ig h lig h tfeatur es with in th eProjectFootpr int. DAT E: MI
NEOPERAT I ON:
andm ap data,andth euserassum es th eentir er isk
Or
g anic-NotRated Colour s in th eleg endm aydif ferslig h tlyf
rom 3/
23/
2018 Car
dinalRiv er
!
as to th etruth ,accur acy,cur r

ency ,orcom pleteness Mountain th oseon th ef ig ure.
ofth einf orm ation containedin th em aps andm ap SCALE: COORDINAT ESYST EM:
Cree
Distur
bedLand
data. Community
! 1:
25,
Docum entPath :K:
\Activ ePr
ojects 2017\
AP17-
00051to 17-
00100\
17-
00054\
Fig ur
es\
MKRCAm endm ent\
Fig 5.
8-3Reclam ation Suit Rating 17-
00054.
m xd
486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
11
12 R23 R22 7 8 9 10
11
5,866,000
5,866,000
!
(
Li
ee
Cr
tt
le
ie
Ho
nz
Ke
m
er
ac
C
1 M 6
!
(
3
re
ek
!
(
2 5 4 2
SP1 MK1 !
( !
(
!
(
SP2
!
(
!
( !
(
!
( !
(
SP3
!
( !
( MKPO
!
(
T46 T46
!
(
!
( !
( !
(
LHPO
!
(
T45 MK3EX1
T45
!
(
!
( MK2
MK4
k
!
( MK3
ee
Cr
!
(
zie
( !
(
en
!
5,864,000
5,864,000
UTRC1-SU-1
cK
RC1 UTRC1-SU-2
Ma
MK3EX2
!
( 31 !
( SP4 33
35 36 32 UTRC2-SU-1 34 35
!
(
Lit
t le
Ho !
(
me
rC !
(
re !
( UTRC2-SU-2
ek !
( !
( !
(
!
( !
( RC2
!
(
RC4/5
!
(
!
( !
(
!
( !
(
!
( !
(
!
( RC3
!
(
SP5 !
(
!
(
30
!
(
29 (!
! (
26 25 28 27 !
( !
( 26
5,862,000
5,862,000
!
(
(RCEX
! !
(
SP6 !
(
!
( !
(
!
( RCPO !
(
!
(
!
(
R23 R22
23 24 19 20 21 Redc 22 23
ap Cree
k
486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
MacKenzie Redcap Project - Vegetation and Wetlands Study Area - Figure 5.9-1
±
Hinton
!
!
Robb Pit Lim it Sedim entation Pond Clean Water Ditch -
PipelineCu lvert Watercou rse 2017BaselineVeg etation and
T h em aps andm apdataareprovided‘ as is’with ou t ! !
( WetlandSu rveyLocation 0 200 400 800
anyg u arantee,representation,condition or warranty Pit Lim it-30m Bu ffer I
nterception Pond WasteWater Ditch -
PipelineCu lvert m
T eck Resou rces Lim itedassu m es no liabilitywith
WasteDu m pLim it Em bankm ent PondOu tlet
G Com m u nication T ower
Veg etation andWetlands Stu dyArea
respect to anyrelianceth eu ser places in th em aps
andm apdata,andth eu ser assu m es th eentirerisk
Cadomin
!
WasteDu m pLim it-30m Bu ffer SoilStockpile MKRC Powerline
f
¤
¥ Crossing Stru ctu re
DAT E:
3/
23/
2018
MI
NEOPERAT I ON:
CardinalRiver
,cu rrency
,or com pleteness
! !
Mountain CRO MinePerm it Bou ndary
of th einform ation containedin th em aps andm ap SCALE: COORDINAT ESYST EM:
Cree Harris Pit Lim it Hau lroadandPower Rig h ts of Way Access Road
data. Community
! 1:
25,
Docu m entPath :K:
AP17-
00051to 17-
00100\
17-
00054\
Fig u res\
MKRCAm endm ent\
Fig 5.
9-1Veg Wetlands Stu dyArea17-
00054.
m xd
486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
11
12 R23 R22 7 8 9 10
11
5,866,000
5,866,000
k
Li
ee
Cr
lett
ie
Ho
nz
Ke
m
er
ac
C
1 M 6 5 4 3
re
ek
2 2
T46 T46
T45 T45
k
ee
Cr
zie
en
5,864,000
5,864,000
cK
Ma
36 31 32 33 34
35 35
Lit
t le
Ho
me
rC
re
ek
25 30 29 28 27
26 26
5,862,000
5,862,000
R23 R22
23 24 19 20 21 Redc 22 23
ap Cree
k
486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
MacKenzie Redcap Project - Ecosite Phase Distribution - Figure 5.9-2

±
Hinton
!
Pr int Vegetated
ojectDev elopm entFootpr c1 e1 g1 i3 Veg etation andWetlands StudyAr
ea
!
Robb
Th em aps andm ap dataar epr ov ided‘as is’with out !
NOTES: 0 200 400 800
anyg uar antee,r epr esentation,condition orwar ranty
CRO MinePer
m it Boundar
y a1 c3 e2 h 1 Non-Vegetated Tr anspar enc yf illwas appliedto ar eas m
ofanykind,eith erexpr ess,im plied,orstatutor y.
Teck Resour ces Lim itedassum es no liabilitywith outsideofth ePr ojectFootpr int,so as to
Water
cour
se a2 d1 f
1 i1 Distur
bedLand DATE: MI
NEOPERATI ON:
respect to anyr elianceth euserplaces in th em aps Cadomin h ig h lig h tfeatur es with in th eProjectFootpr int.
andm ap data,andth euserassum es th eentir er isk
b1 Miner
alSoil Colour s in th eleg endm aydif ferslig h tlyf
rom 3/
23/
2018 Car
dinalRiv er
!
as to th etruth ,accur acy,cur r

ency ,orcom pleteness d2 f
2 i2
Mountain th oseon th ef ig ure.
ofth einf orm ation containedin th em aps andm ap SCALE: COORDINATESYSTEM:
Cree Weath er
edBedr
ock
data. Community
! 1:
25,
1N
Docum entPath :K:
\Activ ePr
ojects 2017\
AP17-
00051to 17-
00100\
17-
00054\
Fig ur
es\
MKRCAm endm ent\
Fig 5.
9-2EcositeDistr
ib17-
00054.
m xd
486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
11
12 R23 R22 7 8 9 10
11
5,866,000
5,866,000
k
Li
ee
Cr
tt
le
ie
Ho
nz
Ke
m
er
ac
C
1 M 6 5 4 3
re
ek
2 2
T46 T46
T45 T45
k
ee
Cr
zie
en
5,864,000
5,864,000
cK
Ma
36 31 32 33 34
35 35
Lit
t le
Ho
me
rC
re
ek
25 30 29 28 27
26 26
5,862,000
5,862,000
R23 R22
23 24 19 20 21 Redc 22 23
ap Cree
k
486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
MacKenzie Redcap Project - Wetland Distribution - Figure 5.9-3

±
Hinton
!
ProjectDevelopm entFootprint Wetland FWc-Fen Wooded,coniferou s Veg etation andWetlands Stu dyArea
!
Robb
T h em aps andm apdataareprovided‘ as is’with ou t !
NOT ES: 0 200 400 800
anyg u arantee,representation,condition or warranty
CRO MinePerm it Bou ndary SWc-Swam pWooded,confierou s FS-Fen Sh ru bby T ransparenc yfillwas appliedto areas m
T eck Resou rces Lim itedassu m es no liabilitywith ou tsideof th eProjectFootprint,so as to
Watercou rse SS-Swam pSh ru bby FG -Fen Gram inoid DAT E: MI
NEOPERAT I ON:
respect to anyrelianceth eu ser places in th em aps Cadomin h ig h lig h tfeatu res with in th eProjectFootprint.
MG -Marsh Gram inoid Colou rs in th eleg endm aydiffer slig h tlyfrom 3/
23/
2018 CardinalRiver
!

,cu rrency
,or com pleteness Non-
Wetland
Mountain th oseon th efig u re.
of th einform ation containedin th em aps andm ap SCALE: COORDINAT ESYST EM:
Cree BWc-Bog Wooded,coniferou s
data. Community
! 1:
25,
Docu m entPath :K:
AP17-
00051to 17-
00100\
17-
00054\
Fig u res\
MKRCAm endm ent\
Fig 5.
9-3WetlandDistrib17-
00054.
m xd
486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
11
12 R23 R22 7 8 9 10
11
5,866,000
5,866,000
k
Li
ee
Cr
lett
ie
Ho
nz
Ke
m
er
ac
C
1 M 6 5 4 3
re
ek
2 2
T46 T46
T45 T45
k
ee
Cr
zie
en
5,864,000
5,864,000
cK
Ma
36 32 33 34
35 31 35
Lit
t le
Ho
me
rC
re
ek
25 30 29 28 27
26 26
5,862,000
5,862,000
R23 R22
23 24 19 20 21 Redc 22 23
ap Cree
k
486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
MacKenzie Redcap Project - Potential Old Growth Distribution - Figure 5.9-4

±
Hinton
!
!
Robb
T h em aps andm apdataareprovided‘ as is’with ou t NOT ES:
!
ProjectDevelopm entFootprint 2017BaselineVeg etation and Veg etation andWetlands Stu dyArea 0 200 400 800
!
( WetlandSu rveyLocation T ransparenc yfillwas appliedto areas m
T eck Resou rces Lim itedassu m es no liabilitywith CRO MinePerm it Bou ndary ou tsideof th eProjectFootprint,so as to
respect to anyrelianceth eu ser places in th em aps Cadomin PotentialOldGrowth Stand h ig h lig h tfeatu res with in th eProjectFootprint. DAT E: MI
NEOPERAT I ON:
!
Watercou rse Colou rs in th eleg endm aydiffer slig h tlyfrom 3/
23/
2018 CardinalRiver
,cu rrency
,or com pleteness Mountain Non-
PotentialOldGrowth Stand th oseon th efig u re.
of th einform ation containedin th em aps andm ap Cree SCALE: COORDINAT ESYST EM:
data. Community
! 1:
25,
Docu m entPath :K:
AP17-
00051to 17-
00100\
17-
00054\
Fig u res\
MKRCAm endm ent\
Fig 5.
9-4 PotentialOG Distrib17-
00054.
m xd
486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
11
12 R23 R22 7 8 9 10
11
5,866,000
5,866,000
!
(
Li
ee
Cr
tt
PYROGRA
le
ie
Ho
17RW068 nz
Ke
m
er
ac
_
^
C
1 M 6 5
!
(
4 3
re
ek
!
(
2
!
(
PYROGRA !
( !
(
17RW071 !
(
2
_
^
!
( !
(
!
( !
(
!
( !
(
PYROGRA !
(
CAMPUNI
T46 T46
17RW074 !
(
!
( _
^ ( 17RW073
!
_
^
!
(
!
(
T45 T45
!
(
!
(
k
!
(
ee
Cr
!
(
zie
_
^( !
(
en
!
5,864,000
5,864,000
PHYSARC
cK
PYROGRA
Ma
17RW015 17RW061
36 32 33
35 31
!
( _
^
!
(
34 35
!
(
Lit
t le
Ho !
(
me ERIOCAL CASTCUS
rC !
(
re
ek
!
( 17RW037 17RW041
!
(
_
^
!
( _
^
!
(
!
( !
(
CASTCUS !
(
17RW036
_
^
!
(
!
(
_
^
!
(
!
( PYROGRA !
(
!
( 17RW042 !
(
CASTCUS
!
(
_
^( EPILLEP
17RW051
!
PENSALB
AGROMER 17RW031 _
^
!
(
26
17RW076 !
(
25 30 _
^ !
(
29 28 !
(!( 27
26 !
( !
(
CASTCUS
5,862,000
5,862,000
17RW046 !
(
CASTCUS
_
^
!
( !
(
!
(
17RW045
!
( !
_
^(
CASTCUS CASTCUS
17RW043 ! 17RW026
(_^
( !
(
_
^
!
!
(
R23 R22
23 24 19 20 21 Redc 22 23
ap Cree
k
486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
MacKenzie Redcap Project - Location of Rare Plants - Figure 5.9-5

±
Hinton
!
LABELEXAMPLE:
!
Robb
Th em aps andm apdataareprovided‘ as is’with ou t ! ProjectDevelopm entFootprint _
^ RarePlant Observation Veg etation andWetlands Stu dyArea 0 200 400 800
RarePlant m
of anykind,eith er express,im plied,or statu tory. CRO MinePerm it Bou ndary 2017BaselineVeg etation and
Teck Resou rces Lim itedassu m es no liabilitywith Species Code:CASTCUS
respect to anyrelianceth eu ser places in th em aps Cadomin
!
( WetlandSu rveyLocation DATE: MI
NEOPERATI ON:
! Watercou rse SiteI
D: 17RW096 3/
23/
2018 CardinalRiver
,cu rrency
,or com pleteness Mountain
of th einform ation containedin th em aps andm ap Cree SCALE: COORDINATESYSTEM:
data. Community
! 1:
25,
1N
Docu m entPath :K:
AP17-
00051to 17-
00100\
17-
00054\
Fig u res\
MKRCAm endm ent\
Fig 5.
9-5RarePlants 17-
00054.
m xd
486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
11
12 R23 R22 7 8 9 10
11
5,866,000
5,866,000
!
(
Li
ee
Cr
tt
le
ie
Ho
nz
Ke
m
er
ac
C
1 M 6 5
!
(
RANUACR 4 3
re
ek
!
(
( 17RW070 RANUACR LEUCVUL 2
Weed-01
!
GF
Weed-02
!
GF
!
( (
!
(
GF
2 !
( !
(
!
( !
(
!
( !
(
!
(
T46 T46
!
(
!
( !
( !
(
!
(
T45 T45
!
(
!
(
k
!
(
ee
Cr
!
(
zie
( !
(
en
!
5,864,000
5,864,000
cK
Ma
36 !
( 32 !
( 33
35 31 34 35
!
(
Lit
t le
Ho !
(
me
rC !
(
re !
(
ek !
( !
( !
(
!
( !
(
!
(
!
(
!
( !
(
!
( !
(
!
( !
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
26
!
(
25 30
!
(
29 28 !
(!( 27
26 !
( !
(
5,862,000
5,862,000
!
(
!
( !
(
RANUACR !
(
Weed-03 (
! !
(
GF
!
( !
(
!
(
!
(
R23 R22
23 24 19 20 21 Redc 22 23
ap Cree
k
486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
MacKenzie Redcap Project - Location of Weed Species - Figure 5.9-6

±
Hinton
!
LABELEXAMPLE:
!
Robb
T h e m aps andm ap dataare provide d‘ as is’with out ! Proje ct De ve lopm e nt Footprint Re g ulate dWe e dSpe cie s Obse rvation Ve g e tation andWe tlands StudyAre a 0 200 400 800
Re g ulate dWe e d
GF
of anykind,e ith e r e xpre ss,im plie d,or statutory . CRO Mine Pe rm it Boundary 2017Base line Ve g e tation and m
T e ck Re source s Lim ite dassum e s no liabilitywith Spe cie s Code :RANUACR
!
( We tlandSurve yLocation DAT E: MI
NEOPERAT I ON:
17RW070
re spe ct to anyre liance th e use r place s in th e m aps Cadomin
Wate rcourse Site I
D:
andm ap data,andth e use r assum e s th e e ntire risk 3/
23/
2018 CardinalRive r
!
as to th e truth ,accuracy ,curre ncy ,or com ple te ne ss Mountain

of th e inform ation containe din th e m aps andm ap Cree SCALE: COORDINAT ESYST EM:
data. Community
! 1:
25,
1N
Docum e nt Path :K:
AP17-
00051to 17-
00100\
17-
00054\
Fig ure s\
MKRCAm e ndm e nt\
Fig 5.
9-6We e dSpe cie s 17-
00054.
m xd
Section 6 Conceptual Conservation and
Reclamation Plan
March 2018
Table of Contents
Page
6 Conceptual Conservation and Reclamation Plan ......................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.2 Summary of Reclamation Goals, Objectives, and Land Uses ................................................... 6-2
6.3 Conservation Program ............................................................................................................... 6-4

6.3.1 Vegetation and Timber Clearing ............................................................................................ 6-4
6.3.2 Coversoil and Regolith Salvage ............................................................................................. 6-5
6.4 Mine Reclamation ...................................................................................................................... 6-7

6.4.1 General Reclamation Timing.................................................................................................. 6-7
6.4.2 MKRC Reclamation Progression ........................................................................................... 6-8
6.4.3 Terrain Conditions and Recontouring .................................................................................... 6-9
6.4.4 Soil Replacement Plan ........................................................................................................... 6-9
6.4.5 Vegetation Communities and Species ................................................................................. 6-11
6.4.5.1 Revegetation Approach .................................................................................................... 6-14
6.4.5.2 Seeding ............................................................................................................................ 6-14
6.4.5.3 Woody Species Establishment......................................................................................... 6-17
6.4.5.4 Riparian/Wetland Habitat Establishment ......................................................................... 6-17
6.4.5.5 Reclaimed Communities .................................................................................................. 6-18
6.4.6 Surface Water Drainage ....................................................................................................... 6-20
6.4.7 End Pit Lake Development ................................................................................................... 6-20
6.5 Establishment of Designated End Land Uses.......................................................................... 6-21

6.5.1 Watershed Protection ........................................................................................................... 6-21
6.5.2 Ecological Function .............................................................................................................. 6-21
6.5.3 Wildlife Habitat ..................................................................................................................... 6-22
6.5.4 Fisheries Habitat .................................................................................................................. 6-23
6.5.5 Wildland Public Access ........................................................................................................ 6-23
6.5.5.1 Mining and Reclamation Phase ....................................................................................... 6-23
6.5.5.2 Post-Reclamation Phase ................................................................................................. 6-24
6.5.5.3 Post-Certification Phase .................................................................................................. 6-24
6.6 Reclamation Research ............................................................................................................. 6-25

6.6.1 Watershed Protection ........................................................................................................... 6-25
6.6.2 Ecological Function and Revegetation ................................................................................. 6-25
6.6.2.1 Native Species Establishment.......................................................................................... 6-25
6.6.2.2 Re-establishment of a Forest Cover ................................................................................ 6-25
6.6.2.3 Achievement of Biodiversity Objectives ........................................................................... 6-26
6.6.2.4 Long-term Monitoring Objectives ..................................................................................... 6-26

March 2018
6.6.2.5 Wildlife Habitat and Species ............................................................................................ 6-26

6.6.2.6 Wildland Access (or Public Access) ................................................................................. 6-27
List of Tables
Page
Table 6.2-1 Resource Objectives by Biophysical Reclamation Unit (BRU) Objective .......................... 6-4
Table 6.3-1 Coversoil Available for Salvage in MKRC Footprint........................................................... 6-5
Table 6.3-2 SoilQualityintheTerrainandSoilStudyAreaandProjectFootprint.......................................... 6-5

Table 6.4-1 Reclamation Cycle ............................................................................................................. 6-7
Table 6.4-2 Annual Reclamation Schedule for the Project ................................................................... 6-8
Table 6.4-3 Soil Salvage and Replacement Volumes ......................................................................... 6-11
Table 6.4-4 Post-reclamation Terrain, Soils and Vegetation for the Cheviot Mine and MKRC .......... 6-13
Table 6.4-5 Seed Mix Composition, Cheviot Mine and MKRC ........................................................... 6-16
Table 6.4-6 Comparison of Cover of Pre- and Post-Reclmation Ecological Units................................ 6-18
Table 6.4-7 Lake Characteristics ......................................................................................................... 6-21
List of Figures
Figure 6.3-1 Soil Map Units
Figure 6.4-1 Reclamation Sequence
Figure 6.4-2 Post Reclamation Contours
Figure 6.4-3 Reclamation Cross Sections
Figure 6.4-4 Baseline Ecosites
Figure 6.4-5 End Land Use Plan
Figure 6.4-6 Reclaimed Landscape Drainage

March 2018
6 Conceptual Conservation and Reclamation Plan

6.1 Introduction
This section presents the objectives and methods that will be used to develop and reclaim the lands
disturbed by the proposed MacKenzie Redcap (MKRC) Project (the Project). This conceptual
Conservation and Reclamation (C&R) Plan for the Project has been prepared to provide information
about the planning process for the ongoing reclamation and the ultimate closure of the Project; and forms
the basis for the application for approval of the Project under the Alberta Environmental Protection and
Enhancement Act (EPEA).
Mining at the Cheviot Coal Mine is currently forecast to be completed in 2020. Coal produced from the
mine is processed at the Luscar plant, located at the Luscar Mine. CRO is in the process of preparing a
three-year reclamation plan, targeted for submission to the AER in June 2018; this will guide the
reclamation plan at the Cheviot Mine.
The Luscar Mine commenced mining operations in 1969 under the name Cardinal River Coals with
ownership by Consol and Luscar Limited. It was operated under Permit #1768, issued by the Department
of Mines and Minerals. The mine operated continuously until 2004 when all economical coal resources
were exploited. There is currently no active mining; however, coal processing, water management,
reclamation and other activities associated with mining continue. Teck assumed operatorship of the mine
in 2008 with the takeover of Elk Valley Coal Corporation. The mine is operated by Cardinal River Coal
Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Teck.
There is more than 40 years of history and experience with reclamation between the Luscar and Cheviot
mines. This C&R plan incorporates successes and lessons learned over time. The C&R design, methods
and timeline represent a realistic and considered approach to mine reclamation that allows for timely and
effective action while maintaining flexibility to take advantage of opportunities to improve. CRO has
received awards from:
• in 2007, Major Reclamation Award by the Alberta Chamber of Resources;
• in 1994, Citation from Alberta Chamber of Resources in recognition of the company's quality of
submission for Mine Permit; and
• in 1990, Order of the Bighorn Award by the Alberta Government contribution to wildlife
conservation through land reclamation efforts, particularly in regard to bighorn sheep habitat.
In 2017, CRO applied for a reclamation certificate for 189 ha of reclaimed land in the Sphinx Lake area
at the Luscar Mine. CRO has also received a number of reclamation certificates including:
• RC #00222574-00-00 – for lands under D&R Approval C-10-77 (11767);
• RC #00222656-00-00 – for lands under LOC 6224;

• RC #00222767-00-00 – for lands under LOC 770439; and

March 2018
• RC #00222770-00-00 – for lands under LOC 770367.

The approach to reclamation has evolved over time and has adapted from the conceptual reclamation
plan filed with the original application in 1996 (CRC, 1996). A conceptual reclamation plan was developed
for the Cheviot mine permit application in 1996 (CRC, 1996). This plan was developed by a multi-
disciplinary team of individuals that provided a broad range of experiences in wildlife management,
fisheries, soil and terrain resources, ecological considerations, native species re-establishment,
regulatory and practical implementation. The outcome was an ecosystem-based adaptive management
approach to mitigating the impacts of mining disturbance. Experience and learnings from past and
ongoing reclamation included in this C&R plan are progressive reclamation, advances in terrain
contouring and soil placement to create a receptive non-erosive surface, and appropriate selection of
revegetation (habitat-plant communities) ecological units. These improvements to reclamation over the
years have led to greater native species use and establishment, including promotion of natural ingress,
and thus to the maintenance of biodiversity and other land use goals on the post mine landscape.
6.2 Summary of Reclamation Goals, Objectives, and Land Uses
Reclamation goals for the Project must be consistent with regional plans and zoning. The Coal Branch
Sub-Regional Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) was approved in 1990. It provided a planning framework
for the management and use of public lands and resources within a planning area that stretches from
Hinton to Edson along the Yellowhead corridor, west to the Jasper National Park boundary, and south to
the Brazeau River. The plan supersedes the zoning configuration set down in the Eastern Slopes Policy
revised in 1984 and the Coal Development Policy for Alberta of 1976.
The Coal Branch planning area has been divided into eight smaller resource management areas (RMAs);
the Cheviot Coal Mine is located in the Mountain Park-Folding Mountain RMA. The proposed Project is
located on land zoned “General Recreation” or “Critical Wildlife” within the Mountain Park-Folding
Mountain RMA. This RMA recognizes the current and future importance of coal resources in the area
while recognizing other resource values and environmental sensitivity. It states that “coal exploration and
development in the Mountain Park Critical Wildlife Zone and General Recreation Zone will be allowed
under existing approval processes and will not be prevented or pre-empted by other interim land uses”.
The proposed development is identified as a permitted use on land zoned for general recreation under
certain circumstances and under special conditions and controls where necessary.
The Coal Branch Access Management Plan (AMP) of 1994 and the Coal Branch Forest Land Use Zone
(FLUZ) of 1999 were developed to manage motorized and non-motorized recreation in the Coal Branch
region and to provide a basis for planning, management, monitoring and enforcement. The Coal Branch
Public Land Use Zone (PLUZ; prior to 2012 this was referred to as a FLUZ – Forest Land Use Zone)
includes motorized and non-motorized trails through the development area.
Whitehorse Wildland Provincial Park (WWPP) was created in 1998 and covers 173 square kilometres in
the Whitehorse, upper McLeod and upper Cardinal River watersheds. It was created to provide a buffer
between the Cheviot Project and Jasper National Park and to provide wildland recreational experiences
such as hiking, hunting, equestrian experiences and basic camping sites. The Cheviot mine and haulroad
are adjacent to this park on its western and southern boundaries. The Yellowhead County’s Grave Flats
Road provides public access to the Cardinal Divide portion of the WWPP and this road runs through the
Cheviot mine. The MKRC Project will not affect access to the Grave Flats Road.

March 2018
Jasper National Park - The eastern boundary of Jasper National Park lies approximately 4.0 km to the
northwest of the Cheviot mine area. Jasper National Park staff have been involved with many of CRO’s
environmental workplans over the past decade.
CRO’s fundamental reclamation objective is to reclaim lands to meet the intended end land uses. An
ecosystem management approach is used as the basis for this plan, recognizing ecological integrity,
adaptive management and human interactions as key considerations. The following factors were
considered:
Ecological: The targeted reclamation conditions are biologically attainable and sustainable. They
accommodate the biophysical factors of soil development (re-establishment and maturation of nutrient,
water, physical and other processes) and ecosystem processes (vegetation and faunal development and
interactions) within climatic limitations over time.
Economic: Economic aspects of mining and reclamation operations are critical to the sustainability of the
Project. Specific mining and reclamation activities, which are influenced by pit sequencing, include
external dumping of waste rock, soils handling, the limitations of hauling soil over long distances, and the
ability to backfill high walls and footwalls.
Social: The targeted reclamation conditions must be socially beneficial. A number of provincial land use
initiatives provide guidance for industrial and public access management in the region – the Coal Branch
Integrated Resource Plan (AFLW, 1990), the Whitehorse Wildland Provincial Park Management Plan
(AE 2000) and the Coal Branch Access Management Plan (AFWL, 1994) are key planning documents
that have been considered.
Regulatory: The targeted reclamation conditions must meet or exceed regulatory requirements. Several
provincial government documents provide legislation and direction regarding reclamation at the Luscar
and Cheviot mines.
End land use objectives for the Project are unchanged from those approved for the existing Cheviot mine
(EPEA Approval #46972). Five resource uses have been identified for the Cheviot mine’s reclaimed
landscapes. These values are compatible with government resource planning objectives and regulatory
requirements and are ecologically and economically sustainable:
• watershed protection - this value is paramount and is given highest consideration in all aspects of
this plan;
• wildlife habitat;
• fisheries habitat - emphasizing the maintenance of bull trout populations and the conservation of
native Athabascan rainbow trout populations;
• forest re-establishment - for watershed, wildlife, ecological processes and scenic values.
Commercial timber production will be emphasized in that part of the landscape overlapping West
Fraser Mills’ Forest Management Area;
• recreational uses - in selected areas, particularly in the McLeod River valley, to accommodate Off
Highway Vehicles (OHV) use and emphasize scenic values without negatively affecting wildlife
and watershed values.

March 2018
The Cheviot Coal Mine disturbance area has been divided into three Biophysical Reclamation Units
(BRUs) based on their unit combination of ecological conditions and resource objectives:
• McLeod BRU: Includes the Prospect, Cheviot, Harris, Thornton and upper McLeod drainages;
• MacKenzie BRU: Includes the MacKenzie drainage;
• Recap BRU: Includes the Redcap drainage of the Cardinal River watershed.
Table 6.2-1 provides the resource use objectives for the three BRU’s identified.
Table 6.2-1 Resource Objectives by Biophysical Reclamation Unit (BRU) Objective
BRU
Resource Objective
McLeod MacKenzie Redcap
watershed protection P P P
"sheep" habitat assemblage - - -
"elk-deer" habitat assemblage P P S
"moose" habitat assemblage S P S
grizzly bear habitat specialized, localized
Harlequin duck fluvial fluvial fluvial
raptors specialized, localized
fisheries aquatic aquatic aquatic
commercial timber production - - P
human/recreational use specialized, localized
P = primary objective; S = secondary objective; "-" = not intentionally designed for.
Differences in biophysical and land use characteristics among the 3 BRU's required that different emphasis
be placed on their targeted post-reclamation land use values. This does not mean that a particular use will
not occur, but rather it is not intentionally promoted.
6.3 Conservation Program
The MKRC conservation program will include merchantable timber and soil salvage.
6.3.1 Vegetation and Timber Clearing
The key procedures in the disturbance and removal of vegetation include the following:
• Teck will continue with its current practices and will also comply with the requirements for
vegetation clearing as stated in Section 3.2.8 of the EPEA approval (46972-01-00 as amended)
“The approval holder shall minimize vegetation clearing from May 1 to July 31 to reduce the
impact on breeding bird populations. When proposing to clear vegetation within this period, the
approval holder shall obtain authorization in writing from an Inspector prior to vegetation clearing”;
• merchantable timber will be salvaged within the MKRC disturbance footprint; and

March 2018
• timber and brush that is not salvageable will be incorporated into the coversoil materials.
6.3.2 Coversoil and Regolith Salvage
Coversoil salvage is conducted to recover suitable soil materials prior to mining disturbance. Suitable
material for reclamation purposes includes organic material such as tree slash, stumps and roots, litter
material (LFH layer) and a blending of the A and B horizons.
Coversoil is salvaged with dozers that push the soil into windrows. The soil is loaded into trucks and
either hauled to a stockpiling site or directly placed. Direct placement of soil is the preferred option but
can only be done if pit sequencing can permit reclamation to proceed prior to the completion of soil
salvage operations.
In 2017, soil field surveys and mapping were completed (Annex E) to develop a Soil Conservation Plan
for the MKRC area. Soil units mapped for the MKRC Project are provided in Table 6.3-1 and Figure 6.3-1.
For the assessment and salvage/reclamation recommendations, Paragon surveyed and mapped soils at
a scale of 1:5000, characterized principal soil types and overburden materials, and determined soil quality
for reclamation for each mapped soil type following Soil Quality Criteria Relative to Disturbance and
Reclamation (SQCWG 1987). Table 6.3-2 provides the soil quality in the Project footprint.
Table 6.3-1 Coversoil Available for Salvage in MKRC Footprint
Soil Map Unit(a) Project Footprint
Area (ha) Proportion (%) Volume (m3)

Ca 8.0 0.9 60,287
Cb 6.3 5.4 31,356
Cbw 0.1 0.0 497
Cc 0.2 0.4 277
Faw 1.3 1.8 9,964

Faw-Maw 8.7 1.6 65,315
Fbw 0.9 1.1 4,287
Fc 0.0 0.1 0
Ma 168.1 25.0 1,261,049
Maw 28.5 1.9 213,487
Mb 194.7 36.6 973,734
Mbw 11.6 0.6 57,924
Mc 14.0 3.4 21,057
Oaw 76.8 8.6 576,188
Obw 0.4 <0.1 1,874
Ra 21.3 2.4 159,454
Rb 13.5 4.1 67,428

March 2018
Soil Map Unit(a) Project Footprint
Area (ha) Proportion (%) Volume (m3)

Rc 16.3 3.1 24,406
DL 35.8 3.2 0
Total(b) 606.5 100.0 3,528,581
(a)
C= colluvium, F=fluvial, M=Morainal (Till), O=Organic, R=Residuum/weathered bedrock, “a”= >70 cm profile depth, “b” = 30 to
69 cm profile depth and “c” = 0 to 29 cm profile depth, and w = wetness modifier to indicate poorly and very poorly drained
soils or polygons mapped as having seepage.
(b)
Total values may not equal sum of components due to rounding.
Table 6.3-2 Soil Quality in the Terrain and Soil Study Area and Project Footprint
Reclamation Suitability Terrain and Soil Study Area Project Footprint

Class
Area (ha) Proportion (%) Area (ha) Proportion (%)
Fair 1,748.4 78.6 442.5 73.0
Good 213.2 9.6 51.0 8.4
Not Rated - Organic 191.9 8.6 77.2 12.7
Not Rated - Disturbed 70.8 3.2 35.8 5.9
Total 2,224.3 100.0 606.5 100.0
Salvage depth generally varies from 15 to 60 cm but is occasionally as much as 1 to 2 m in areas of

accumulated organic materials. The equipment operator is given an expectation of the type of soil
material to be salvaged and a general understanding of the salvage depth and then salvaged based on
the visual qualities of the soil during the activity. Steep slopes (i.e., greater than 22o), thin soils (less than
10 cm), coarse fragment content and previous disturbance make soil salvage impractical in some areas.
CRO will continue with current practices and will also comply with the coversoil salvage requirements of
EPEA Approval No. 46972-01-00, 01 and 02, which states:
• (Section 3.2.1) - The approval holder shall salvage sufficient surface soil from land to be
disturbed to meet the reclamation objectives specified in PART 6 of this approval.
• (Section 3.2.2) - The approval holder shall salvage all surface soil on slopes less than 22°.
• (Section 3.2.3) – Surface soil shall not be buried or used for other purposes unless authorized by
an Inspector.
• (Section 3.2.4) – The approval holder shall conduct direct placement of salvaged surface soil on
contoured portions of the disturbed land whenever possible.
• (Section 3.2.5) – When surface soil is stockpiled, the stockpiles shall be constructed as follows:
(a) Surface soil shall be stockpiled separately from other materials;
(b) Stockpile foundations must be stable;
(c) Stockpiles shall be stabilized to control water and wind erosion;
(d) Stockpiles shall be accessible and retrievable; and

March 2018
(e) Stockpiles shall be revegetated either by direct seeding or by natural recovery unless
authorized in writing by the Inspector.
• (Section 3.2.6) – Unless otherwise authorized in writing by an Inspector, the approval holder shall
immediately suspend surface soil salvage when:
(a) Wet or frozen field conditions will result in the degradation of surface soil quality; or
(b) High wind velocities, any other field conditions or mine operations will result in the degradation
of surface soil quality or loss of surface soil; or
(c) Directed to do so in writing by an Inspector.
• (Section 3.2.7) - The approval holder shall only recommence surface soil salvage when
suspended under 3.2.5 if:
(a) Field conditions referred to in 3.2.5 no longer exist,
(b) Direction for a change in surface soil salvage procedures is received in writing from an
Inspector.
The estimated soil volume salvaged present in the MKRC area is estimated to be 3,528,581 m3
(Table 6.3-1).
6.4 Mine Reclamation

6.4.1 General Reclamation Timing
Timber clearing, soil salvage and stockpiling will take place in advance of the phased development, with
operations occurring from 2019 to 2027 and decommissioning and closure to follow. Once mining is
complete in an area, including backfilling, reclamation may begin if the area is no longer needed by other
mine services. Reclamation will commence in Year 3 (2021) in the MK1 area. The progression of
reclamation that occurs while mining activities are still active in the Project area are shown on
Figure 6.4-1. Once reclamation begins, it follows the cycle shown in Table 6.4-1. The annual reclamation
sequencing for the life of the Project is provided in Table 6.4-2.
The goal is to achieve reclamation certification within 10 years following completion of appropriate
reclamation activities. The reclamation certification process is administered by the Alberta Energy
Regulator (AER). CRO has one application currently under review. A second part of the process includes
the relinquishing of the Public Lands Act approvals, in particular the MSL for the reclaimed area.
Table 6.4-1 Reclamation Cycle
Activity on Area Available for Reclamation Timing
Terrestrial and Riparian Reclamation:

Contouring & Soil Placement Year 0
Initial Revegetation (Seeding or Leave for Natural) Year 1
Fertilizing (optional) Years 1 to 3
Woody species planting Years 1 to 3
Monitoring Years 1 to 10
Reclamation Certification Year 10
Wetland / Pond:
Contouring & Soil Placement Year 0

March 2018
Activity on Area Available for Reclamation Timing
Initial Revegetation (Seeding or Leave for Natural) Year 1

Woody species planting Year 1
Reclamation Certification Years 7 to 10
End Pit Lake Reclamation:
Backfilling and operations complete Year 0 (2027)
Final water line reached Year 2 (2029)
Revegetation (Riparian/Shoreline) Years 0 to 2
Reclamation Certification Year 10
6.4.2 MKRC Reclamation Progression
The reclamation schedule for the Project is provided in Table 6.4-2 and Figure 6.4-1. In total 257.4 ha
have been identified as potential reclamation areas from 2021 to 2027 with the remaining 349 ha to be
reclaimed after mining operations are completed.
Table 6.4-2 Annual Reclamation Schedule for the Project
Reclamation
Progressive
2028 to
Total
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
Disturbance Total
2030
MK1 Pit 16.1 16.1 7.6 23.7

MK2 Pit 11.4 11.4 3.1 14.5
MK4 Pit 17.8 17.8
RC Pit (MK3, RC1
24.9 45.3 79.3 149.5 148.8 298.3
to RC5)
MK3EX1 12.6 12.6
MK3EX2 12.2 12.2
RCEX 14.9 65 79.9 1.7 81.6
MKPO 1 1
LHPO 2.1 2.1
RCPO 6.8 6.8
UTRC1-SU-1 0.2 0.2
UTRC1-SU-2 0.5 0.5
UTRC2-SU-1 1.6 1.6

March 2018
Reclamation
Progressive
2028 to
Total
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
Disturbance Total
2030
UTRC2-SU-2 0.4 0.4

Pond Outlet 0.8 0.8
Powerline 21.9 21.9
Soil Stockpile 32.6 32.6
Clean Water Ditch
5.2 5.2
– Pipeline Culvert
Waste Water Ditch
4.3 4.3
– Pipeline Culvert
Haulroads and
0.5 0.5 67.8 68.3
Access Roads
TOTAL(a) 0 0 16.1 11.4 14.9 24.9 65 45.3 79.8 257.4 349 606.5
(a)
Total area may not equal sum of components due to rounding
6.4.3 Terrain Conditions and Recontouring
Landform design involves three stages – pit bench excavation, dump construction, and contouring. The
dominant factor in pit bench excavation is the safe access to the coal reserve. In their typical form, high
walls have an overall angle of 45°, with a series of benches and further safety benches at 15 m or 30 m
intervals up the wall. Bench faces are 65°.
Meso and Macro topography is largely a result of backfilling or ex-pit dump construction. Dumps are
constructed by systematic removal of waste rock which is overlaying the coal reserves in the mining
process during the pit development. The resulting waste rock dump construction is planned to provide
final dump surfaces that will result in a rolling, varied terrain that approximates adjacent topography and
will encourage meso and macro-site diversity. The final landform design stage involves contouring.
Dozers are used to reduce deposited waste rock slope angles to 27° (50%) or less. All slopes in the
reclaimed landscape will be reduced to 27° or less with the exception of some highwall and footwall
areas. There will be 38.5 ha of highwalls (linear distance of approximately 3,500 m) and footwalls left
standing in the MKRC area. The highwall slopes will typically be 45°.
The post mining contours are shown on Figure 6.4-2. Post mining cross sections depicting the final
topography are shown on Figure 6.4-3.
6.4.4 Soil Replacement Plan
Teck will continue with current practices and will also comply with the coversoil replacement requirements
of EPEA Approval No. 46972-01-00, 01 and 02 (and as amended), which presently states:

March 2018
• (Section 6.3.4) – the approval holder shall place a minimum of 0.10 m of regolith on recontoured
areas, excluding the bed of waterbodies, when available subsoil does not meet the requirements
of 6.3.6.
• (Section 6.3.6) – the approval holder shall establish reclaimed soil profiles in the re-contoured
areas of mine disturbance, as shown in the application consisting of a minimum of 0.3 m of
salvaged surface soil on top of a minimum of 0.10 m of subsoil rated as good, fair or poor as
described in the Soil Quality Criteria Relative to Disturbance and Reclamation, 1987, unless
otherwise specified in this approval.
All recontoured lands will receive a 30 cm application of coversoil, either from stockpile or from direct
placement operations. The recommended method of coversoil placement is to establish intentional
surface roughness and variability. This practice results in a rough, mounded surface with abundant micro-
relief (30-60 cm from top of mound to bottom of depression). Coversoil thickness over a distance of 3 m
may vary from 5 to 60 cm, with a median thickness of about 30 cm. Woody slash, stumps, roots, seeds
and rock provide surface cover, roughness and sources of native plants.
Each area of disturbance is calculated and using an average of 30 cm of coversoil replacement, the total
volume is calculated (Table 6.4-3). That volume is then converted to the number of truckloads of coversoil
that are required. The loads are then dumped as evenly as possible across the polygon and spread with a
dozer. The dozer will finish spreading coversoil by establishing rough mounding. Coversoil depths checks
will be performed during placement activities.

March 2018
Table 6.4-3 Soil Salvage and Replacement Volumes
Area Salvageable
Reclaimed Soil Volume Salvageable
Site Requiring Soil Surplus
Area (ha) Required (m3) Soil (m3)
Soil (ha) (m3)
MK1 Pit 7.7 7.7 23,100 56,512 33,412

MK2 Pit 6.1 6.1 18,300 86,945 68,645
MK4 Pit 17.8 17.8 53,400 100,201 46,801
RC Pit (MK3, RC1 to
250 250 750,000 1,753,920 1,003,920
RC5)
MK3EX1 12.6 12.6 37,800 66,187 28,387
MK3EX2 12.2 12.2 36,600 59,296 22,696
RCEX 81.6 81.6 244,800 506,424 261,624
MKPO 1 1 3,000 7,184 4,184
LHPO 2.1 2.1 6,300 13,317 7,017
RCPO 6.8 6.8 20,400 51,273 30,873
UTRC1-SU-1 0.2 0.2 600 1,627 1,027
UTRC1-SU-2 0.5 0.5 1,500 3,300 1,800
UTRC2-SU-1 1.6 1.6 4,800 11,420 6,620
UTRC2-SU-2 0.4 0.4 1,200 2,591 1,391
Pond Outlets 0.8 0.8 2,400 5,632 3,232
Powerline 21.9 21.9 65,700 143,011 77,311
Soil Stockpile 32.6 32.6 97,800 186,204 88,404
Clean Water Ditch–
5.2 5.2 15,600 32,489 16,889
Pipeline Culvert
Waste Water Ditch –
4.3 4.3 12,900 30,655 17,755
Pipeline Culvert
Haulroads and Access
68.3 68.3 204,900 410,393 205,493
Roads
End Pit Lake 34.2 1(a) 3,078 0 0
Highwall 38.5 0 0 0 0
Total 606.5(b) 534.7 1,604,178 3,528,581 1,924,403
Areas that will not have coversoil replaced include the highwall and the end pit lake, which total
6.4.5 Vegetation Communities and Species
The revegetation program currently utilized for the Cheviot Mine has been designed to achieve the
objectives of short-term erosion control, watershed protection, wildlife habitat and ecological values as

March 2018
presented in Section 6.1. The revegetation program captures experience gained from almost 40 years of
reclamation at the Luscar mine, from research plots established and monitored in the Cheviot area from
1994 to 2004 (Walker 2005), long term research plots established in 2010, and experience from
numerous multi-disciplinary personnel, including stakeholders who have been involved with the Cheviot
Coal Mine throughout its life.
The revegetation program has been designed to initiate a range of vegetation communities that are
similar in function and seral development to natural vegetation communities in the area. The types of
vegetation communities that will be initially developed on a site will depend on its site characteristics.
Slope angle, slope position and aspect are key factors in this regard. Forest communities will be
developed on receiving sites that are protected from wind and sun exposure, while grasslands will be
developed on upper slope, exposed aspects (Table 6.4-4). The pattern of vegetation communities
immediately adjacent to the footprint has also been used to plan communities in the reclaimed landscape.

March 2018
Table 6.4-4 Post-reclamation Terrain, Soils and Vegetation for the Cheviot Mine and MKRC
Landform Slope Aspect Soil Type Vegetation Examples of Principle Plant Species
Position Community
Trees Shrubs Grasses, Forbs
Height of top variable or 30 cm rough open forest- spruce pine dwarf birch cinquefoil fescues, bluegrasses,
Land flat shrub-grassland buffalo-berry willow wheatgrasses, low-growing
legumes
Hillside lower- west-south 30 cm rough open forest- pine spruce dwarf birch buffalo-berry bluegrasses, wheatgrasses
middle shrub-grassland willow
east-north 30 cm rough closed forest spruce dwarf birch alder, willow bluegrasses, wheatgrasses
upper-crest west-south 30 cm rough grassland dwarf birch cinquefoil fescues, bluegrasses,
buffalo-berry wheatgrasses, tall legumes
east-north 30 cm rough closed and spruce pine dwarf birch willow bluegrasses, wheatgrasses
open forest
Valley Bottom toe- na 30 cm rough open forest- spruce pine dwarf birch willow tufted hairgrass, fescues, low-
depression, shrubland growing legumes
riparian closed forest
Rock Outcrop
Cliff na east-north bedrock barren na na na
Terrace lower- east-north rubble, fines grassland na na fescues, bluegrasses,
upper wheatgrasses, tall legumes
Rock Piles & na na rubble barren, na na na
Windrows grassland
Talus na west-south rubble barren- na na fescues, bluegrasses,
grassland wheatgrasses, tall legumes
Water Bodies
Littoral Zone na na 5 to 20 cm submergent na na na
rough
Deeper Water na na bedrock, none na na na
rubble

March 2018
6.4.5.1 Revegetation Approach
The revegetation program is described in terms of two primary components – a woody species
establishment program and a native species natural recovery process. Additionally, an initial seeding
program and/or fertilizer application may be incorporated for erosion control.
The objective of the initial revegetation program is to establish a protective vegetation cover that serves to
minimize water and wind erosion without restricting the longer-term objectives of native species
establishment and development of wildlife habitat values. The “kick-starting” of key soil development
functions (structural development, building organic pools, establishing soil biotic populations and
adequate porosity) is also desired.
An adaptive management approach to revegetation will be employed. Refinements to the seed mixes and
application rates will be made through a process of trials, monitoring and review. For example, recently
reclaimed sites on the Luscar Mine (51-C6, Sphinx Lake area) and at Cheviot have included trials
involving “no seed” and “nurse crop only” treatments to determine if these techniques have application in
the reclamation plan. Small-scale trials were initiated in 2004 and 2005 with more long-term trials
established in 2010. Additional trials and continued monitoring will be used to assess this strategy under
a variety of slope, aspect and other post mining reclamation conditions.
Data from long-term monitoring plots, some twelve years old that have been established throughout the
Luscar and Cheviot mines, support the use of leave for natural recovery for native species supplemented
through the planting of tree and shrub species (Paragon 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017). As a
result, only limited seeding will take place over the duration of this plan.
It should be noted that the monitored plots are predominately south facing. These aspects tend to be the
most limiting for vegetation establishment. It is anticipated that other aspects, especially north and east
exposures will establish as well as those monitored.
Areas left for natural recovery will be classified as “temporary reclamation” until the required percent
vegetative cover is established. The introduction of the term “temporary reclamation” was initiated by the
AER in their December 21st, 2016 letter regarding definitions and content requirements for annual
reporting.
6.4.5.2 Seeding
Three revegetation seed mixes have been developed to address the different reclaimed site conditions
and objectives that are involved. Seed mixes used for reclamation at Cheviot were revised in 2015 and
are unchanged from those approved for the adjacent Upper Harris extension. As a result of CRO’s move
to natural recovery, only limited seeding will take place in the Project area. The composition of the seed
mixes and a summary of the justification for each species are included in Table 6.4-5:
• The “natural recovery” mix is designed to encourage the establishment of native plant species
through planting and natural recovery. This mix may be used on sites where shrubs and trees are
to become a dominant part of the vegetation community and will be employed on sites where
such species will most readily establish – lower slope positions, protected northerly and easterly
aspects and valley bottom. The mix consists primarily of low-growing, non-competitive species

March 2018
that will provide a longer-term cover while still permitting abundant ingress of locally native
species. These low-growing native species were selected for their forage value for elk and deer.
• The “grasslands” mix is designed to provide erosion control as well as longer-term forage for
wildlife. This mix may be used on sites that are most exposed to wind and sun (westerly and
southerly aspects), primarily in upper slope and crest positions, as well as on the steepest parts
of the landscape (terraced cliffs, talus slopes and escarpments). The seed rate and species
composition is designed such that openings in the ground cover will be available for native
species ingress and colonization.
• The “open forest” mix is a combination of species from the grasslands and natural recovery mixes
and may be seeded at a rate that allows the establishment of woody species while permitting the
longer-term establishment of higher-value forage cover. A low initial composition of forage
species will permit the establishment of woody plants and native forbs, while also establishing a
lower-density forage cover. The sites where this mix would be used include mid-slope and lower
slope positions where an open forest community is desired.
The seed application rate and species composition are determined on a pure live seed basis and only
certified weed-free seed is used. One application of fertilizer may be given at the time of initial seeding.
An “establishment” fertilizer will be used with higher phosphorus and potassium.

March 2018
Table 6.4-5 Seed Mix Composition, Cheviot Mine and MKRC
Mix Composition (% by wt)(a)

Species Selection Rationale
Natural Open
Grasslands
Recovery Forest
Alpine bluegrass “Blueridge” 3-8 3-8 3-8 Native, forage value, non-aggressive
Canada bluegrass “Ruebens” 0 3-8 3-8 Native, forage value, non-aggressive
Rocky mountain fescue “Vaartnou” 3-8 3-8 3-8 Native, forage value, non-aggressive
Slender wheatgrass “Highlander” 3-8 5-10 3-8 Native, lower forage value, non-aggressive
Northern wheatgrass “Elbee” 0 3-8 3-8 Native, lower forage value, non-aggressive
Native, low forage value, non-aggressive, prefers wetter
Tufted hairgrass 0 0 3-8
sites
Hard fescue “Durar” 3-8 3-8 3-8 Native, forage value, non-aggressive
Fringed bromegrass common 0 3-8 3-8 Native, lower forage value, non-aggressive
Seeding rate (kg/ha) 40-60 40-60 40-60 -
(a)
Mix composition will be determined on a Pure Live Seed basis to ensure that seed size, establishment success and seed viability are considered in achieving desired plant
establishment goals.

March 2018
6.4.5.3 Woody Species Establishment
Tree and shrub plantings will be undertaken one to three years after coversoil placement. Planting may
be delayed by two to three years if areas receive initial seeding. After three years, the initial flush of
regrowth on seeded areas is reduced, leaving openings for less aggressive and slower-establishing
native species. Experiences at the Luscar Mine have demonstrated that the shelter and soil amelioration
benefits offered by a non-aggressive cover outweigh the negative impact of competition. Protection from
exposure has been identified as a critical requirement in the successful establishment of woody species
at these higher elevations (Root, 1976; Fedkenhaur, et.al., 1987; Walker, 2004). Areas identified for
natural recovery will also be supplemented through the planting of tree and shrub species.
All woody species used in the planting program will be grown from locally collected seed or cuttings.
Planting rates will address the limiting exposure conditions at the site and will be sufficient to ensure
establishment criteria are met. Trees will comprise the dominant vegetation in closed forest communities,
and shrubs or grasses will form the dominant vegetation in open forest communities. Woody species will
be established in both upland and riparian/wetland areas. Density and spacing targets are summarized
below:
• Shrublands - Shrubs will be planted in “islands” of 100 to 300 m2, at a spacing of 1 to 2.5 m.
Islands will be spaced 30 to 80 m apart. This planting scheme will promote shrubland
development in areas of the landscape; it is not intended to immediately return a continuous
shrub cover over large areas;
• Open forest – shrublands - Planting densities and spacing will be similar to that of shrublands
but with coniferous trees planted between shrub islands at 3 to 10 m spacing;
• Open forest – grasslands - Coniferous trees planted at 3 to 10 m spacing and in islands on

areas seeded to grasslands or where natural recovery is expected; and
• Closed forest - Lodgepole pine and Engelmann spruce will be planted in pure and mixed stands,
in plantations of 3 to 15 ha. Seedlings will be planted at approximately 2 m spacing. This strategy
is intended to achieve an established density of at least 1,000 stems per hectare after 5 to 8
years.
6.4.5.4 Riparian/Wetland Habitat Establishment
Riparian and wetland communities in the area occur in predictable patterns according to changes in
elevation, slope orientation and drainage regime. Due to terrain, the amount of riparian and other
wetlands is limited. Wetlands are generally found in areas of lower elevation associated with fluvial
channels, and areas where organic matter can accumulate. During reclamation, riparian habitat will be
reclaimed to open forest (shrubland or grassland) or to closed forest. Closed forest will be planted with
spruce, and open forest may be spruce or pine depending on the location and width of the riparian
reclamation. Tree planting densities will be as described for closed and open forest uplands. Shrubs will
be planted at 1 to 2 m spacing along stream, water body and other wetland margins in a ‘buffer strip”
along either side of the wetland. Outside of this buffer strip, an area will be planted less densely with a
mix of shrub and coniferous trees. Where possible, CRO will seek opportunities to source riparian soils for
placement in reclamation of hygric features in the closure landscape.

March 2018
6.4.5.5 Reclaimed Communities
The pre-disturbance vegetation communities are shown on Figure 6.4.4. The reclaimed communities are
shown on Figure 6.4-5 and summarized in Table 6.4-6. Reclaimed communities are identified by type and
subtype as follows:
• Open Forest Type
• Shrubland subtype
• Grassland subtype
• Spruce > Pine subtype (spruce dominant)
• Pine > Spruce subtype (pine dominant)
• Closed Forest Type
• Spruce > Pine subtype
• Pine > Spruce subtype
• Talus Slope or Weathered Bedrock Type
• Highwall subtype
• Riparian and Wetland Type
• Closed Forest – spruce subtype
• Open forest – shrubland subtype
• Open forest – grassland subtype
• Wetland/pond subtype
• End Pit Lake Type
Table 6.4-6 Comparison of Cover of Pre- and Post-Reclamation Ecological Units
Post-Reclamation
Baseline Cover
Reclaimed Ecological Unit Cover
Equivalent Ecological
(Type and Subtype) Map Unit(a)
Area Relative Area Relative
(ha) Cover (%) (ha) Cover (%)
OPEN FOREST
Open forest-shrubland a1, e1 1.3 0.2 29.4 4.8

Open forest-grassland a2, e2 0.0 0.00 84.5 13.9
Open forest – Pine>Spruce b1, c1, f1(b) 6.5 1.1 10.4 1.7
Open forest – Spruce>Pine c3 5.4 0.9 14.6 2.4
CLOSED FOREST
Pine>Spruce d1, f1(b) 324 53.4 320.0 52.8

March 2018
Post-Reclamation
Baseline Cover
Reclaimed Ecological Unit Cover
Equivalent Ecological
(Type and Subtype) Map Unit(a)
Area Relative Area Relative
(ha) Cover (%) (ha) Cover (%)
Spruce>Pine d2, f2, g1, h1 80.8 13.3 37.1 6.1

TALUS SLOPE & WEATHERED BEDROCK
Weathered bedrock,
Highwall 0.1 0.02 38.5 6.3
Talus Slope
RIPARIAN & WETLAND
Closed Forest - Spruce BWc (h1), FWc (i1) SWc 4.6
122.2 20.0 1.3
Open Forest - Spruce (f2, g1)(c) 3.3
Open forest - shrubland BS (h2), FS (i2), SS (e1) 28.2 4.7 29.1 4.8
Open forest - grassland FG (i3), (e2) 2.1 0.3 0.8 0.1
MG (marsh), WA or WB
Wetland/pond 0 0 1.4(d) 0.2
(shallow open water)
END PIT LAKE
End pit lake Deep (>2m) open water 0 0 34.2 5.6
AII, AIH, ASR, CIP, CIW,
ANTHROPOGENIC 35.8 5.9 0 0
CL
TOTAL(e) 606.5 100 606.5 100
(a)
ecosite Phase (Beckingham and Archibald 1996) or Alberta Wetland Classification system (AESRD 2015).
(b)
f1 ecosite phase summarized with open forest, may also be closed forest.
(c)
some e, f and g ecosites may be classified as swamp wetlands (SS or SWc).
(d)
1.4 ha littoral zone (WA or fringe WG wetland) on north shore of pit lake is excluded from table.
(e)
Total values may not equal sum of components due to rounding.
The reclaimed community type and subtype represent the target community. It must be noted that, while
the conditions required for vegetation communities will be established during reclamation, the post-
reclamation vegetation communities will not be re-established immediately. Disturbances associated with
the Project development will be reclaimed to an early state of succession. The reclaimed sites will be
physically stable and the vegetation cover will be self-sustaining much sooner than if these reclamation
actions were not conducted. Species composition within the vegetation cover will continue through seral
development until ecological equilibrium is reached. Even after this equilibrium, communities will continue
to change but at a much slower rate (CRC 1996).
The design of the end land use is an iterative process. Initial community cover targets are established
then modified to minimize potential effects from the Project based on assessments of soil, vegetation,
wildlife and water. For example, preliminary results from wildlife habitat impacts were used to modify the
community cover targets in the Project area, reducing the potential effect on ungulates. Table 6.4-6
represents the results of this iterative process.

March 2018
With reclamation, the area of disturbed land (35.8 ha reduction) and forested wetlands (primarily bogs
and fens; 113.3 ha reduction) will be reduced the most, while the area of open forest (96 ha increase) and
open water (34.2 ha increase) will be increased the most (Table 6.4-6).
6.4.6 Surface Water Drainage
A prime objective of CRO’s approvals is to protect the watershed. Final reclamation is planned and
implemented to meet this commitment for the long-term health of the entire watershed. The continued use
of coversoil rough mounding as a site preparation technique has stemmed the flow of surface water away
from mining areas into the surrounding environment. The surface drainage on the post-mining landscape
is shown in Figure 6.4-6.
Objectives in planning post-reclamation drainage include the protection of the soil resource and
minimizing sedimentation and selenium enrichment in surface waters. Protection of soil resources will be
achieved through the salvage and placement of suitable soils using the rough-mounded soil placement
technique where possible, surface water management on reclaimed surfaces and the effective use of
nurse crops and other species to protect the soil during vegetation re-establishment. Experience at the
Luscar Mine confirms the effectiveness of these techniques in minimizing soil erosion.
The first principle is to keep “clean water clean”. This is achieved through the use of clean water
diversions (CWD). These CWDs are meant to divert clean surface water away from the mining areas and
return into native streams. Once mining is completed, the CWDs are reclaimed to stable wetland or
upland communities, depending on their location.
6.4.7 End Pit Lake Development
In the 1996 conceptual reclamation plan, up to 12 end pit lakes were identified in the post-reclamation
landscape in the Cheviot permit area, of which 11 were identified in the Cheviot Creek, Prospect,
Harris/McLeod and MacKenzie development areas. It is meaningful to note that, as a demonstration of its
adaptive management approach to development, the current Cheviot Coal Mine plan, including the
proposed Project, reduces the number of lakes to three. The Joint Panel Reports of 1997 and 2000
recognized the potential for end pit lakes to provide self-sustaining fisheries habitat but granted their
approval for the plan conditional on further research to prove the viability of this concept. They also
recommended that each proposed end pit lake would have to be fully justified in the application process;
otherwise, backfilling the pits where possible was encouraged.
The Project includes one pit lake (Table 6.4-7) that is part of a larger catchment area that extends under
the Redcap backfill. The lake has no outlet but has been designed with a decant point that will drain to the
east if the water increases above 1,755 masl. The lake is centered on the last area to be mined and will
hold 15 million m3 of water when full. The RC backfill areas will hold an additional 4.25 million m3 of water.
In total, approximately 19 million m3 of water will be required before the lake reaches the decant elevation
of 1,755 masl.
Once backfilling is completed and dewatering stops, the lake will begin to fill. Based on operational
experience at Harris Pit 1, hydrogeologic equilibrium may be reached on the order of 1-2 years. The north
shore of the lake will be reclaimed to riparian open forest shrubland as described in Section 6.4.4. This
riparian band will be approximately 5 m wide or more depending on slopes. The south shore of the lake is
at the base of the highwall and will afford only limited opportunity for planting of riparian vegetation.

March 2018
Experience and long-term monitoring of pit lakes in the region (Hatfield 2008, Hatfield 2014) indicates that
wetland vegetation and invertebrates within the littoral zone readily establish in water 1.5 m deep or less
once lake levels have stabilized, and that macrophyte establishment of areas 3 m deep begins by year
four to five. The MKRC pit lake will have approximately 1.4 ha of littoral zone that is 3 m deep or less.
Table 6.4-7 Lake Characteristics
Water Level (m) 1,755
Lake Surface Area (ha) 34.2
Lake Volume (1,000 m³) 15,000
Littoral Zone (ha) 1.4
6.5 Establishment of Designated End Land Uses
Achievement of the end land use objectives designated for this mining development is discussed below.
The end land uses are shown on Figure 6.4-5.
6.5.1 Watershed Protection
Watershed protection will be achieved through the following measures:
• diversion of clean-water streams around the disturbance footprint;
• effective management of surface run-off and pit water through settling ponds;
• effective conservation of the soil resource - replacement of high-quality soil resources and use of
the rough-mounding technique;
• surface drainage to minimize contact between waste rock and water;
• reduce disturbance footprint to minimize contact between waste rock and water;
• maximize in-pit waste rock disposal to maximize sub-aqueous disposal of waste rock and to
minimize surface disturbance;
• maintain minimum flows in the Redcap Creek during filling of the lone end pit lake in the RC pits
including the in-pit backfill areas; and
• prompt revegetation of erosion-prone soils.
6.5.2 Ecological Function
Ecological function will be re-established through the following measures:
• effective conservation of the soil resource – replacement of high-quality soil resources,

employment of the rough-mounding technique, and minimizing the time that soil is in stockpile;
• use of native woody and herbaceous plant species where feasible;

March 2018
• utilize revegetation and reclamation practices that encourage natural recovery of vegetation
communities;
• minimize the disturbance footprint, and preserve islands of undisturbed vegetation within the
footprint, where feasible;
• plan for the establishment of a range of vegetation communities, based on ecological principles;
• incorporate adjacent undisturbed plant communities into the reclamation plan; and
• establish a range of landscape and microsite conditions to encourage diversity in plant

communities.
6.5.3 Wildlife Habitat
Wildlife habitat values have been addressed through the following measures:
• minimize the disturbance footprint, and preserve islands of undisturbed vegetation within the
footprint where feasible;
• plan for the establishment of a range of vegetation communities, based on ecological principles;
• incorporate adjacent undisturbed plant communities into the reclamation plan;
• establish a range of landscape and microsite conditions, to encourage diversity in plant

communities and wildlife habitats, including the development of talus slopes, terraced cliff,
footwalls, and rock piles/windrows;
• initiation of closed-forest habitats will accommodate the needs of selected species;
• recontouring to develop varied, irregular topography to promote wildlife movement during early
seral stage; and
• post-reclamation land use planning to consider wildlife needs.
Actions specific to harlequin duck management include:
• restoring riparian habitat in lower Harris Creek as part of the final closure landscape after
reclamation; in the upper McLeod after the culvert crossing is removed; and in lower Thornton
Creek;
• avoid construction activities in riparian habitat during the nesting period of June 15 – August 1st
where possible; and
• avoid restoration actions that may increase public access to the riparian zone.
Actions specific to grizzly bear management include:
• establish preferred bear forage species in low risk areas. Avoid the establishment of preferred
bear forage species in high-risk areas such as public routes and high visibility areas;
• prohibit hunting within the MSL;
• effective waste management;
• ensure effective and sufficiently frequent movement corridors in the post-reclamation landscape;

March 2018
• access closure on some exploration lines outside the disturbance footprint; and
• monitoring as recommended in the grizzly bear management plan.
6.5.4 Fisheries Habitat
Fisheries habitat has been considered through the following measures:
• significant clean water diversion infrastructure designed to sustain natural flows watershed flows
and water quality throughout the Project development;
• effective management of surface run-off and pit water through settling ponds; and
• avoidance of disturbance through crossings, infrastructure selection, and mine design.
6.5.5 Wildland Public Access
Wildland public access has been addressed through the following measures:
• minimizing the disturbance footprint, and the preservation of islands of undisturbed vegetation
within the footprint, where feasible;
• planning for the establishment of a range of vegetation communities, based on ecological

principles;
• prompt revegetation of erosion-prone soils;
• public engagement and communication to highlight access restrictions and re-established public
access;
• re-establish public access when safe to do so; and
• construction of trails in the reclaimed landscape as per existing management plan and CRO
commitments.
Public access management within the Cheviot development area is considered during three phases:
mining and reclamation, post-reclamation and post-certification.
6.5.5.1 Mining and Reclamation Phase
Public access through and adjacent to the mining development must be restricted during the mining and
reclamation phase to ensure public and employee safety. For example, public access into the Cheviot
and Thornton Creek areas was cut off when mining began in the Cheviot Creek pit development and this
access route has remained restricted since that time.
The following example of access accommodation was employed for the Prospect development:
• Public access (hiking and horse-back) has remained available on the Prospect Creek Designated
Access Trail (DAT) and on trails over Drummond Ridge from Whitehorse Creek.
• When Prospect mine development required, limited periodic public access closures on the
Prospect Creek DAT were applied in order to mitigate blasting hazards. As such, CRO worked
with communities and Whitehorse Wildland Provincial Park (WWPP) to establish an interim DAT
up a small trail existing to the north of the disturbance limits.

March 2018
• Signage at the Prospect Creek and Whitehorse Creek trailheads and other public communication
actions (such as information at the Cadomin General Store, website postings, etc.) were
implemented to inform the public about access restrictions and any other public safety issues
deemed appropriate by CRO.
• More recently, CRO was actively engaged in permitting requirements and establishing an interim
alternate Cadomin Mountain Trail during the active Upper Harris mining activity.
With the Project, CRO will continue to engage with nearby communities through existing forums, such as
the Annual Trails Meeting, to seek accommodations for safe continued access both during mining as well
as planning for integration of access in the post-mining landscape.
6.5.5.2 Post-Reclamation Phase
After reclamation activities are complete and the vegetation cover is established, the establishment of
DATs can be considered through the reclaimed landscape. Access can only be permitted through the
reclaimed areas on DATs and must be compatible with the applicable regional access management plan.
The existing regional plan was produced in 1994 and public stakeholders and government land managers
who have attended various CRO-sponsored meetings (e.g. annual trail meetings from 2005 to 2008; May
2005 Staging Area Focus Group meeting; February 3, 2006 Land Use Focus Group meeting) were
unanimous in their belief that this regional plan needs to be reviewed thoroughly to be relevant to current
and future access management needs.
The provision of public access on a designated hiking trail through the reclaimed landscape will
accommodate those persons interested in gaining access onto and across the MSL lands during this
period. This system is similar to that currently in place on areas of the Luscar Mine. Time limitations to
trail use may apply, as determined through government and public consultation. For example, the OHV
trail that connected Mountain Park to Drummond Ridge was open to All Terrain Vehicle (ATVs) from June
25 to October 15 during operations. Consideration of hiking, equestrian and OHV access can be re-
established as soon as it is safe to do so and when compatible with applicable land use plans.
6.5.5.3 Post-Certification Phase
As reclaimed lands receive government certification and CRO’s surface disposition is relinquished, public
access restrictions to protect the establishing vegetation communities are no longer necessary. A number
of factors must still be addressed in the access planning process. Wildlife, watershed values, ecological
function and wildland recreation have been identified as the priority items for this area and the trend of
increasing public/OHV demand would be best addressed through deliberate and timely planning within a
regional access management framework. Land and access management at this phase would become the
responsibility of the provincial land management agencies. CRO has been and will continue to be an
active proponent in furthering the development of a robust land use management plan. This process was
pioneered for Luscar and Gregg River mine land use planning. The Luscar and Gregg River Mine Land
Management Plan (GoA 2013c), which received ministerial approval in 2013, is intended to be both
adaptive and appropriately resourced to enable the smooth transition of mined lands back to the
provincial government. CRO will support the government to embark in a similar process for the Cheviot
Coal Mine, including the government’s attention to meaningful engagement with communities long
engaged with the Cheviot Coal Mine.

March 2018
6.6 Reclamation Research
Biophysical monitoring and reclamation research will be an essential component of the reclamation
program. Research has been ongoing at the Luscar mine for many years and will be continued in the
Project area so that issues can be identified, and adaptations made in a timely manner. In addition to
providing important feedback on the effectiveness of reclamation techniques, monitoring also provides
data useful in planning for the reintroduction of human uses.
Monitoring and research have been discussed in other sections of this Application. Monitoring and
research associated with land reclamation is presented for each of the following resource objectives, as
described in the following sections.
6.6.1 Watershed Protection
CRO’s EPEA approval required selenium management plan was updated in 2017 (Teck 2017b).
Monitoring for other water-related parameters is summarized in Section 3.4 and Section 5.0. Programs
related to soils and vegetation are discussed below.
6.6.2 Ecological Function and Revegetation
CRO continues to focus on the establishment of plant communities that can develop ecological functions
similar to those of the surrounding landscape. The main elements of the “research” component of the
program include:
• the establishment of locally native plant species;
• re-establishment of a forest cover; and
• achievement of biodiversity objectives
6.6.2.1 Native Species Establishment
CRO continues to investigate the most effective ways to establish native plant species while still ensuring
effective watershed protection. Techniques focus on natural or “aided” recovery, through the testing of
different seeding strategies (including “nurse crop only”, combination of nurse crop/native, or native and
no seed/native ingress options) and soil salvage and handling strategies (e.g., sourcing from valley
bottom versus upper slope positions, incorporating litter material and coarse woody debris into salvage
material). Direct placement, soil depth, and the rough-mounded placement strategy have been dealt with
relatively thoroughly. Other techniques of native species establishment are also being examined such as
direct seeding or planting of selected species.
6.6.2.2 Re-establishment of a Forest Cover
CRO continues to examine techniques of forest cover re-establishment. Evaluations will include early-
survival considerations such as tree and shrub species type, seedling container type, spring versus
summer or fall planting and stock age, as well as site-specific issues such as vegetative competition and
susceptibility to browse damage by wildlife.

March 2018
6.6.2.3 Achievement of Biodiversity Objectives
Biodiversity is an important consideration in CRO’s reclamation program. A number of techniques have

been developed or assessed to promote biodiversity, such as in landform design (e.g., rough-mounded
soil placement and irregular contour development) and revegetation (e.g., natural recovery, nurse crop
establishment, direct soil replacement, etc.). Continuing development of these techniques is ongoing.
6.6.2.4 Long-term Monitoring Objectives
CRO has initialized long-term soil and vegetation monitoring plots on the Luscar and the Cheviot Coal
Mine sites. The objectives of the long-term soil monitoring plots are to examine the evolution of soils on
reclaimed lands from different origin and possible changes to performance.
Vegetation monitoring will include the establishment of temporary and permanent transects to assess
plant species composition, plant vigor, an estimation of biomass production, competition, survival and
early growth of woody plants and other native species, and changes in vegetation composition over time.
In addition to the long-term monitoring plots, CRO conducts soil audits on newly reclaimed areas which
are undertaken according to the Soil Quality Criteria Relative to Disturbance and Reclamation
(SQCWG 1987). Soil analyses include pH, electrical conductivity (EC), sodium adsorption ration (SAR),
soluble cations, sulphate, total N, organic carbon %, CaCO3 equivalent, bulk density, and particle size
distribution (including coarse fragment percentage). Coversoil and regolith depths and texture, colour,
structure and consistence, rooting, and coarse fragment content will also be recorded. The inspection
intensity is one inspection per 1.25 ha and the actual soil samples will be sampled at an intensity of one
sample per 10 ha. Furthermore, soil monitoring will involve quality control during salvage and
replacement.
The objectives of the long-term vegetation monitoring plots are to track the progression of the reclaimed
areas into vegetation community types that are comparable to natural sites in the region and examine the
succession of reclaimed vegetation communities, particularly in response to management practices, such
as biodiversity and wildlife habitat quality. Ongoing monitoring at these plots includes:
• continue monitoring of tree seedling survival and early growth in the Sphinx Lake and Cheviot
plantations;
• small-scale treatments with nurse crop, no seeding, and two different mixes (native and
native/agronomic) on recently reclaimed disturbances at the Cheviot Coal Mine;
• assess reclamation successes on Luscar Mine to develop reclamation certification criteria that
can be used/modified for Cheviot – ongoing;
• continue soil audits at Luscar and Cheviot Mines – ongoing.
6.6.2.5 Wildlife Habitat and Species
The establishment of plant communities relevant to wildlife and wildlife habitat will focus on the re-
establishment of riparian habitat in the closure landscape. Monitoring will focus on native woody species
establishment over 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year periods:
• monitoring of wildlife species and movements; and

March 2018
• migratory bird monitoring.
6.6.2.6 Wildland Access (or Public Access)
CRO will continue to maintain records of contact with stakeholders about access. CRO will continue to
engage about land uses and issues through CRO’s annual trails meetings, periodic focus group
meetings, feedback from CRO’s website, and consultations with adjacent land managers
(e.g., Whitehorse Wildland Park, AEP, and Whitehorse Campground).

March 2018
Section 6 Figures

March 2018
486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
11
12 R23 R22 7 8 9 10
11
8 6-
7
7 6-
8
5,866,000
5,866,000
7 7
6-
7
6-
7
7-
8
6-
7 8 7-
8 8-
9
6
7 7-
8 7 8-
6- 9 6-
8
7 8
6-
7
k
6-
7 8 6-
8
Li
ee
6-
7
Cr
tt
6-
7
6-
7
le
7-
8 7-
8 6
ie
Ho
5-
6
8
nz 8
Ke
m
6-
7 6-
8
er
6 6 7-
8
ac
C
1-
3 8-
9
M 7-
8
5 4 3
re
6 7 6 7-
8
6 6 6
ek
2 1
6-
7
6
6
2
5-
6 4-
6
7-
8
8
7-
8 7-
8 6-
7
7-
8 5-
6
6 5-
6 7 6
7-
8 6-
7 6-
7
7-
8 6-
8 6
7 6-
7 8
8
7-
8 4-
5 6-
8 7 6-
7 5-
6
8 4-
5 4-
5 1-
4 5-
6
7 4-
6 6-
8
7 6 5-
6 7
7-
8 7-
8 4-
6 8 5-
6 5
7 4-
6 4-
5 6-
7 8-
9
6 7 7-
8
6 5-
6 5-
6 6-
7 7
4-
5 7-
8 6 6 1-
6 1-
7
7 6-
7
7-
8 6-
8 7 6 6 7
7 6 7-
8 6-
7 7
6 6-
7 7 7-
8
6-
7 7 8 7-
8
3-
4 6-
8 6-
7 7-
8 6-
7
3-
4 7 3-
4 7-
8 6 7-
8 7-
8
3-
4 8 6-
7 4-
7 6-
7
7-
8 3-
6 6-
7
6-
8 5 7-
8
T46
8 6 3-
4 6
T46
7 7-
8 7-
8 7-
8
3-
4 3-
4 7 7-
8 6-
7 8 6-
8 6-
7
7 7 4-
6
8 7-
8 1-
6 5-
6 4-
6 7-
8
7-
8 7-
8 7 5-
6 7-
8
6-
7 5-
6 6-
7 3-
4 3-
4 6 6-
7 6 4-
6
7 6-
7 7 7 7-
8 7-
8
8 7-
8 4-
6 5-
7
6-
7 7-
8 3-
4 7-
8 6-
8
7-
8 7-
8 5-
6 3-
6
5-
8 6-
7 8 6-
7 1-
6 4-
6 6 6-
7 6-
7
T45
1-
7 7
T45
4-
5 6-
7
6-
8 6-
7 1-
6 6-
7 6-
7 6 6 6
8 7-
8 6-
7 3-
6
7-
8 4-
6
6 7-
8 6-
7 4-
6
3-
6 6 7-
8
6 6-
7 4-
6 5-
6 4-
7
4-
8 6-
7 8
4-
6 6
k
7-
8 7 7-
8 7-
9
4-
6
ee
7-
8 4-
7 5-
6 7-
8
7-
8 8 6-
7
4-
6
Cr
4-
7 3-
6
6 6-
7 7-
8 4-
6 8
zie
6-
7 8 8-
9 7-
8 6-
8 4-
7 6 6-
8 7
7-
8 7-
8 6-
8 5-
6
6-
7 7-
8
en
8 6 6
5,864,000
5,864,000
5-
7 8
6 7-
8 4-
6
cK
6-
7 5-
6 4-
7 7-
8 6 8
4-
5 7-
8 6-
7 7-
8 3-
6 6
7-
8 7 3-
4 6-
7
Ma
5-
6 3-
7 7-
8 3-
6 6 3-
3- 6 6-
8 8
6-
7 7-
8 4-
5 6-7 5-
8 5
6-
7 7-
8 6-
8
4-
5 6 8 7-
8 7-
8 7-8 4-
6
7 3-
6 7 3-
4
36
6-
7 4-
6
31
4-
6
32
6-
7
33
6
34
1-
6 7 5-
7 6-
8
6 6-
7 7-
8 8-
9 7-
9 3-
7
6 3-
6 7-
8 9
6-
7
35 4-
6 3-
4 5 6-
7
35
4-
6 5
6-
8 4 5-
6 4-
6
5-
6 6-
8 5-
7 6 7-
8
6-
7 8 5-
6 4-
6 6-
7
Lit 5-
6 3-
6
5-
6
3-
7 6-
7 4-
6 6-
7 6-
7
7-
8
3-
4 t le 6-
8 7 3-
4
7 8 4-
8
Ho
6-
8 4-
5 5-
6 4-
7
3-
4 5-
6 3-
6 5 4-
6 5-
6
me
8 4 5-
6 7
6 6-
8
4-
5 3-
4 4-
5 rC 6-
8 7 5-
6
6 4-
3- 7 4-
6 4-
6 7-
8
re
7-
8 5-
6 3-
4 4-
6 6
ek
3-
5 4-
8
4-
5 5-
6 5-
6 3-
4
6-
7 6-
8 4-
6 7 4-
6
3-
4 5-
6 1-
2 6 7-
8
3-
4 4-
6 5-
7
3-
4 3-
4 7-
8 1-
5 3-
4 3-
4 3-
4
1-
3 1-
5
4-
5 7 7-
8 4-
6 4-
6
6 5-
6 4-
7 6 5-
6 7-
8
4-
7 6 4-
8
3-
5
6-
7 7 3-
4 5-
6 6
5 4-
7 4-
6 4-
7 3-
5 4-
6
3-
4 5-
6 4-
5 4-
6 6
1-
6 4-
6
3-
4 5-
6 8
4-
6 5-
7 3-
5
4-
5 5-
6 1-
2 4-
6 5-
6
6-
7 4-
5 5-
6
5-
7 3-
4 4-
5 7-
8
5-
6 6-
7
4-
6 4-
5 5-
7 4-
6 5-
6
1-
3 4-
6 3-
5 7-
8
4-
5 6 4-
7 3-
6 3-
6 5-
6
3-
5 4-
5
6-
7 6 8
6-
7
4-
5 3 3-
6
6 3 4-
6 4-
6 3-
4 5-
7 5-
6 7
4-
5 5-
7 7 6-
6- 7
5-
7 3-
6
6 4-
6 5-
6 6
4 3-
5
6 4 3-
6
1-
3 5-
7 3-
4
3-
5 6-
7 7 3-
4
4 3-
5
4-
5 6 3-
6 3-
5 3-
5 3-
5
4-
6 6-
7
7-
8 3-
4 6-
7 6-
7
3-
6
3-
4 3-
5 3-
4
5-
6 3-
5 6-
7 5-
6 3-
5 5-
6
4-
5 3-
5 3-
5
5-
7 3-
4
3-
6 5-
6
3-
4 6-
7 3-
5
25
7 4-
5 5-
6
30 29 28
7-
8 3-
4 3-
6 5-
6
3-
6
6-
7
26
5-
6 4-
6
6
6-
7
27 4-
6
26
6
3-
4 3-
4
5,862,000
5,862,000
8
3-
4
8 4-
5
5-
6 5
5-
6 5-
6 5-
6
4-
5 4-
6
4-
5 5-
6
1-
4 6-
7 7-
8
3-
4
4-
5 3-
4 4-
6
4-
6 6-
7 3-
6 5-
6 4-
6
4-
6 5-
6
4-
5 4-
5
6 4-
5 5-
7
4-
6
4-
6
7-
8 6
1-
4
5-
6 4-
5 7-
8
3-
4 6
4-
5 6-
7 5-
6
5-
6
4-
5 3
R23 R22
23 24 19 20 21 Redc 22 23
ap Cree
k
486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
MacKenzie Redcap Project - Soil Map Units - Figure 6.3-1

±
Hinton
!
printSoil Map Units

Proje ctDe ve lopm e ntFoot Faw Maw Obw Wat
e rcours e SoilUnitDe s cript
ion: Pare ntMat e rial:Profile De pt
h: NOTES:
!
Robb
The m aps and m ap d at aare provid e d ‘as is ’w it hout
Mod ifie r C-Colluvium a->70cm
Soilm ap unit s are labe lle d bys lope clas s .
0 200 400 800
Ca
!
anyg uarant e e ,re pre s e ntat ion,cond it ion or w arrant y CR O Mine Pe rm itBound ary Faw -
Maw Mb R a T
e rrain and SoilSt
ud yAre a Pare ntMat
e rial Caw Trans pare ncyfillw as applie d t o are as
m
of anykind ,e it he r e xpre s s ,im plie d ,or s t
atutory . F-Fluvial b-30-69cm out s id e of t
he Proje ctFoot print,s o as t o
Te ck R e s ource s Lim it e d as s um e s no liabilityw it h Cb Fbw Mbw R b Profile De pt
h M -Morainal c-0-29cm hig hlig htfe ature s w ithin t
he Proje ctFoot print
.
re s pe ctto anyre liance t he us e r place s in the m aps Cadomin Colours in t he le g e nd m ayd iffe r s lig ht
lyfrom DATE: MI
NEOPER ATI ON:
and m ap d at a,and t he us e r as s um e s t he e ntire ris k Cbw O -Org anic 3/
20/
2018 Card inalR ive r
Fc Mc R c t
hos e on t he fig ure .
!
as t ot he t ruth,accuracy ,curre ncy ,or com ple t e ne s s Mountain R -R e s id uum Mod ifie r:
of t he inform at ion cont aine d in t he m aps and m ap
Cc w -w e t SCALE: COOR DI
NATESYSTEM:
Cree Ma Oaw Dis t
urbe d Land
d at a. Community
! 1:
25,
1N
Docum e ntPat
h:K:
\Act
ive Proje ct
s 2017\
AP17-
00051t
o 17-
00100\
17-
00054\
Fig ure s \
C_and _R \
2018Applicat
ion\
Fig 6.
3-1SoilMap Unit
s 17-
00054.
m xd
486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
1900
R23 R22 20
Me
7 8 9 00 10 11
11 12
ad
20 w
00 Cr
20
1900
o
18 ee
00
k 210
1800
00 0
1900
21 18
5,866,000
5,866,000
1900
00 00
00
17
1900 2100
ek
re
e
zi 1900
C
23
00
e n 00
M acK
18
2000 22
00
Li
2
ttl
3
e
6
Ho
4
2028+ 2021 5
m
2
er
19002028+
2028+
Cr
ee
1
17
00 k
2022
T46 T46
T45 00
T45
19
20
23
00
22
00
00
21
00
18
0
00
180
20
0
5,864,000
5,864,000
00
190
00
2028+ 2024
19
35
31 34
36 32 35
1900
33 2026
1900
2027
2026
00
19
00
18
0
180
2000
2027
2100
26
0 29
220 30 28
25
2025 27 26
5,862,000
5,862,000
R 2028+
Cr edc
ee a
k 2023
p
2100
19
00
1800
20
23 2000 19 20 00 21
24 22 23
1700
R23 R22
486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
MacKenzie Redcap Project - Reclamation Sequence - Figure 6.4-1

±
Hinton
!
Robb CRO Mine Pe rm itBoundary Reclamation by Year 2023 2026 Wat

e rcours e
!
Th e m aps and m ap dat aare provide d ‘as is ’wit h out
anyg uarant e e ,re pre s e nt at ion,condit ion or warrant y
!
0 250 500 1,
000
of anykind,e it h e r e xpre s s ,im plie d,or s t atut ory .
2021 2024 2027 m
Te ck Re s ource s Lim it e d as s um e s no liabilit ywit h
re s pe ctt o anyre liance t h e us e r place s in t h e m aps Cadomin 2022 2025 2028+ DATE: MI
NEOPERATI ON:
and m ap dat a,and t h e us e r as s um e s t h e e nt ire ris k 3/
23/
2018 CardinalRive r
!
as t ot he truth ,accuracy ,curre ncy ,or com ple t e ne s s Mountain
of t h e inform at ion cont aine d in t h e m aps and m ap Cree S CALE: COORDINATES YS TEM:
dat a. Community
! 1:
25,
000 NAD1983UTM Zone 11N
Docum e ntPat
h :K:
\Act
ive Proje ct
s 2017\
AP17-
00051t
o 17-
00100\
17-
00054\
Fig ure s \
C_and_R\
2018Applicat
ion\
Fig 6.
4-1Re clam at
ion S e que nce 17-
00054.
m xd
486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
1900
R23 R22
Me
200
0
ad
20 w
00 Cr
20
1900
o
ee
00
k 210
1800
0
1900
21 18
5,866,000
5,866,000
1900
1800 00 00
00
17
1900 0 0 2100
ek
18
re
e
zi 1900
C
23
00
e n 00
M acK
18
2000 22
00
Li
1850 1800
ttl
e
Ho
2 190 1 6 5 4
m
0 3 2
er
1900 175
1750
0 17
Cr
170 0 0
17
ee
0
5
k
0
17
1750
17
0
0
0
00
18
1750
0
1800
0
T46 T46
17
17
1750
5 0
T45 00
T45
19
20
23
00
22
00
00
18
0
21
0 1
1850 1800
00
8
0
00
180
185
20
0
0
5,864,000
5,864,000
00
1800
190
00
19
18 18
5 0 5 0
35 36 31 32 33 34 35
1900 18
0 0
1850
18
5 0
1900
00
19 18
5 0
165
00
17
0
18
0
0
0
0
18
17
18
5
0
0
0
0
180
2000
2100
18
0 5
220 0
26 25 30 29 28 27 26
5,862,000
5,862,000
R 180
0
Cr edc
ee a 1750
k
p
2100
19
00
1800
20
2000 00
1700
R23 R22
486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
MacKenzie Redcap Project - Post Reclamation Contours - Figure 6.4-2

±
Hinton
!
Robb
!
The m a ps a nd m a p d a t a a re provid e d ‘a s is ’wit hout ! CR O Mine Pe rm itBound a ry Dis t
urba nce Bound a ry R e cla im e d Cont
our (
10m int
e rva l) 0 250 500 1,
000
a nyg ua ra nt e e ,re pre s e ntat ion,cond it ion or wa rra nt y
of a nykind ,e it he r e xpre s s ,im plie d ,or s tat utory . End PitLa ke Wa t
e rcours e m
Te ck R e s ource s Lim it e d a s s um e s no lia bilitywit h
re s pe ctto a nyre lia nce t he us e r pla ce s in t he m a ps Cadomin DATE: MI
NEOPER ATI ON:
a nd m a p d a ta ,a nd t he us e r a s s um e s t he e nt ire ris k 3/
23/
2018 Ca rd ina lR ive r
!
as t ot he t ruth,a ccura cy ,curre ncy ,or com ple t e ne s s Mountain
of t he inform a t ion cont a ine d in t he m a ps a nd m a p Cree SCALE: COOR DI
NATESYSTEM:
dat a. Community
! 1:
25,
1N
Docum e ntPa t
h:K:
\Act
ive Proje ct
s 2017\
AP17-
00051t
o 17-
00100\
17-
00054\
Fig ure s \
C_ a nd _ R \
2018Applica t
ion\
Fig 6.
4-2Pos tR e cla m a t
ion Cont
ours 17-
00054.
m xd
Dist
urbanc e Are a Nort
he ast
-Sout
hwe stCrossSe c t
ion 1 Dist
urbanc e Are a Nort
he ast
-Sout
hwe stCrossSe c t
ion 5
1900 1900
l)
A B A B
m as
00
.
7
1
4
89
2
.
6
1
4
l)
m as
ion (
1800 1800
ion (
at
Ele v
at
1700
End P itLake
1700
Ele v
500 1000 1500
Dist
anc e (
m)
1600
500 1000 1500 2000
Dist
anc e (
m)
Dist
urbanc e Are a Nort
he ast
-Sout
hwe s
tCros
sSe c t
ion 2 Dist
urbanc e Are a Nort
he ast
-Sout
hwe s
tCrossSe c t
ion 6
1900
m asl)
1900
m asl)
A B
A B
ion (
ion (
1800
1800
Ele vat
Ele vat
End P itLake
1700
500 1000 1700
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Dist
anc e (
m) Dist
anc e (
m)
e
A
re en z i
1900
2100
2200
ek
a
cK
M C
1900
2300
Dist
urbanc e Are a Nort
he ast
-Sout
hwe stCrossSe c t
ion 3
1900
l)
Li
1
A
m as
170
ttl
ion
2 1 6
e
5 4 2100 3
Ho
ion (
190
A
m
1800
Sec
0
er
at
00
Cr
18
Ele v
2200
n2
ee
B
3
1700 A
tio
00
500 1000 1500
T46
n
19
1900
tio
c
Dist
anc e (
m) 200
Se
180
T45
0
c
Se
0
B
1900
A
4
n
tio
B
190
c
35 36 31 33 34
Se
0
19
Dist
urbanc e Are a Nort
he ast
-Sout
hwe s
tCros
sSe c t
ion 4 B A
19
00
5
00
1900
m asl)
n
tio
B
00
A
1800
19
c
Se
ion (
1800
6
1900
Ele vat
n
Red p
tio
Creek
ca
20
c
1700 00
Se
500 1000 1500
B
Dist
anc e (
m) 26 0 25 30 29 27
220
2100
R22 R23 B
MacKenzie Redcap Project - Reclamation Cross Sections - Figure 6.4-3

±
Hinton
!
Robb
!
! CRO Mine P e rm itBound ary End Land Use Highwall Cros
s-Se c t
ion Loc at
ion 0 400 800 1,
600
The m apsand m ap d at aare provid e d ‘asis’wit hout m
any guarant e e ,re pre se nt at
ion,c ond it ion or warrant y Close d Fore st Ope n Fore st Wat
e rc ourse
of any kind ,e it he r e xpre ss,im plie d ,or st atutory.
Cadomin DATE: MI
NEOP ERATI ON:
Te c k Re sourc e sLim it e d assum e sno liabilit y wit h End P itLake Riparian 3/
23/
2018 Card inalRive r
!
re spe c tto any re lianc e t he use r plac e sin t he m aps
and m ap d at a,and t he use r assum e st he e ntire risk
Mountain
ast ot he truth,ac c urac y,c urre nc y,or c om ple t e ne ss Cree SCALE: COORDINATESYSTEM:
Community
! 1:
10,
1N
Doc um e ntP at
h:K:
\Ac t
ive P r oje c t
s2017\AP 17-
00051t
o 17-
00100\17-
00054\Figure s\C_ and _ R\2018Applic at
ion\Fig 6.
4-3CrossSe c t
ions17-
00054.
m xd
486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
11
12 R23 R22 7 8 9 10
11
5,866,000
5,866,000
k
Li
ee
Cr
tt
le
ie
Ho
nz
Ke
m
er
ac
C
1 M 6 5 4 3
re
ek
2 2
T46 T46
T45 T45
k
ee
Cr
zie
en
5,864,000
5,864,000
cK
Ma
36 31 32 33 34
35 35
Lit
t le
Ho
me
rC
re
ek
25 30 29 28 27
26 26
5,862,000
5,862,000
R23 R22
23 24 19 20 21 Redc 22 23
ap Cree
k
486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
MacKenzie Redcap Project - Baseline Ecosites - Figure 6.4-4

±
Hinton
!
Proje ct De ve lopm e nt Footprint Vegetated c1 e1 g1 i3 Wate rcourse

!
Robb
T h e m aps andm ap dataare provide d‘ as is’with out !
NOT ES: 0 200 400 800
CRO Mine Pe rm it Boundary a1 c3 e2 h 1 Non-Vegetated Ve g e tation andWe tlands StudyAre a T ranspare nc yfillwas applie dto are as m
of anykind,e ith e r e xpre ss,im plie d,or statutory .
T e ck Re source s Lim ite dassum e s no liabilitywith outside of th e Proje ct Footprint,so as to
a2 d1 f1 i1 Disturbe dLand DAT E: MI
NEOPERAT I ON:
re spe ct to anyre liance th e use r place s in th e m aps Cadomin h ig h lig h t fe ature s with in th e Proje ct Footprint.
andm ap data,andth e use r assum e s th e e ntire risk
b1 Mine ralSoil Colours in th e le g e ndm aydiffe r slig h tlyfrom 3/
20/
2018 CardinalRive r
!
as to th e truth ,accuracy ,curre ncy ,or com ple te ne ss d2 f2 i2

Mountain th ose on th e fig ure .
of th e inform ation containe din th e m aps andm ap SCALE: COORDINAT ESYST EM:
Cree We ath e re dBe drock
data. Community
! 1:
25,
1N
Docum e nt Path :K:
AP17-
00051to 17-
00100\
17-
00054\
Fig ure s\
C_and_R\
2018Application\
Fig 6.
4-4Ecosite Distrib17-
00054.
m xd
486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
1950
R23 R22
195 19 1900
0 0 50
0
195
190
0
Mea
20
180
1900 do wC 50
1850
reek
21
1800
1750
1950 00
5,866,000
5,866,000
1900
00
2000
17
2050
185
0
1900
e
zi 1900
en
acK ek 23 1950
M Cre 50
1850 23
Ho m e
Close d 22 00
50
L i tt ree
Fore st O pen
O p e n For
e st SE-PL For e st
50
rC
22
le
O pen SE- PL
2 1 SE- PL O p e n
5 4 3 2
20
18
00
Fore st Highwall Fore st O p e n For e st O p e n
00
SE-PL O p e n For
e st Close d Fore st
SE-PL SE- PL
21
k
SE- PL
1850 1850
Fore st Shr ub land
O pen
00
SE- PL
1950 O p e n For e st
170
For e st
Shr ub land 210
O pen Shrub land O pen 0
0
215
18 1800
For
e st Fore st
50 SE-
PL PL-SE 2200
0
O pen 230
Fore st Close d O p e n For e st 0
PL-SE Fore st Shr ub land
2350
2050
T46 T46
PL-SE
1800
O pen
19
Highwall
T45
For e st
1850
50
T45
Shrub land
1950
00
20
190
1900 18
50 185
0
0
180
22
50
21
0
18 O p e n For
e st
50
00 19
20
5,864,000
5,864,000
PL- SE 00
20
50
Close d O pen
00
Fore stSE
1900
Fore stSE O pen
17
Close d Fore stSE
50
For
e stPL- SE O pen Close d
Close d
Fore stSE For e st O p e n
Fore st O pen
35 36 31 32 PL-SE 33 Fore stSE PL-SE For e st 34 35
Shr
ub land
19 Close d
00 For e st
PL- SE O p e n
18 Fore st
1950
00 Close d
For
e stPL- SE Shr ub land
1900
O p e n Fore st
Gr assland
Lit
toral
Close d Fore st
1900
O p e n Fore st Z one
Gr assland PL- SE
O p e n For e st
0
190
Close d Fore st Shr ub land
PL- SE O pen
Fore st
O pen Gr
assland
O p e n Fore st
0
For e st
0
195
Gr assland
195 Shrub land End PitLake
O p e n For e st Close d
Shr ub land Fore st
PL-SE
Redcap
0
Highwall O pen
Creek
O p e n For e st
2000
180
Fore st
Shr ub land 190
Close d Gr
assland 0
O p e n For e st
2050 For
e stSE- PL
1850
Shr ub land
2100 Close d
O pen
Fore st
For e st
0 PL-SE
220
18
Shrub land
00
26 25 30 29 28
O pen
27 26
For
e stShrub land
5,862,000
5,862,000
O pen
Fore st Close d
Gr
assland Fore st
2150
1750
PL-SE
185
O p e n For e st
0
Shr ub land
2100
175
2050 0
2000
R23 R22 1950 1700

1950
486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
MacKenzie Redcap Project - End Land Use Plan - Figure 6.4-5

±
Hinton
!
Robb
y End Land Use
!
The m ap sand m ap d at aar e pr ovid e d ‘asis’wit hout CRO Mine Pe r
m itBound ar Highwall Foot
wall
any guar ante e ,repr e se ntation,c ond it ion orwar r
ant y
!
0 250 500 1,
000
of any kind ,e it he re xp r e ss,im p lie d ,orst atutor y. Close d For
e st O p e n For
e st Re c laim e d Cont
our(
10m int
erval) m
Te c k Re sour c e sLim it e d assum e sno liab ilit y wit h
re sp e c tto any r e lianc e t he use rp lac e sin t he m ap s Cadomin End PitLake Rip ar
ian Wat
erc our
se DATE: MI
NEO PERATI O N:
and m ap d at a,and t he use rassum e st he e ntire risk 3/
23/
2018 Car
d inalRive r
!
ast ot he truth,ac c ur ac y,c ur r

e nc y,orc om p le t e ne ss Mountain
of the infor m at ion c ont aine d in t he m ap sand m ap Cree SCALE: CO O RDI
NATESYSTEM:
d ata. Community
! 1:
25,
1N
Doc um e ntPat
h:K:
\Ac t
ive Pr
oje c t
s2017\AP17-
00051t
o 17-
00100\17-
00054\Figur
e s\C_and _R\2018Ap p lic at
ion\Fig 6.
4-5MKRC End Land Use Plan 17-
00054.
m xd
486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
1900
R23 R22
20
00
Me
2000
0
ow
180
ad
1900 Cr e e
k 2100
5,866,000
5,866,000
0
0
1900
2200
200
190
21
0 0
18
00
00 e 2300
ek
18 Cr
ie
nz
Ke
M ac
2000
1850 1800
2 190 1 6 5 4 3 2
0
1900
1750
175 17
0 0
170 0
0
17
1750
17 0
0
0
0
5
18
0
0
190
0
T46 T46
1800
17
0
1800
17
50 23
17 00
1750
5 0
1750 22
T45
Creek
00
00
T45
19
20 21
Ho L i ttl e
00
00
18
m er
00
0
18
20
0 1
1850 1800 00
8
00
00
185 21
18
0
0
00
5,864,000
5,864,000
1800
190
00
19
18 18
5 0 5 0
35 36 31 32 33 34 35
18
0 0
1900
1850
18
5 0
0
180
0
190 End Pit 18 1900
La ke 5 0
16
180
5 0
0 0
18
1700
17
5
Redcap
0
0
Creek
180
18
2000
0 0
2100
18
0 5
220 0
26 25 30 29 28 27 26
5,862,000
5,862,000
1800
1750
2100
19
00
2000
20
00
R23 R22
1700
486,000 488,000 490,000 492,000 494,000
MacKenzie Redcap Project - Reclaimed Landscape Drainage - Figure 6.4-6

±
Hinton
!
Robb
!
The m a ps a nd m a p d a t a a re provid e d ‘a s is ’wit hout CR O Mine Pe rm itBound a ry Dis t
urba nce Bound a ry R e cla im e d Cont
our (
10m I
nte rva l) Dra ina g e Dire ct
ion
a nyg ua ra nt e e ,re pre s e ntat ion,cond it ion or wa rra nt y
!
0 250 500 1,
000
of a nykind ,e it he r e xpre s s ,im plie d ,or s tat utory . End PitLa ke Wa t
e rcours e m
Te ck R e s ource s Lim it e d a s s um e s no lia bilitywit h
re s pe ctto a nyre lia nce t he us e r pla ce s in t he m a ps Cadomin DATE: MI
NEOPER ATI ON:
a nd m a p d a ta ,a nd t he us e r a s s um e s t he e nt ire ris k 3/
23/
2018 Ca rd ina lR ive r
!
as t ot he t ruth,a ccura cy ,curre ncy ,or com ple t e ne s s Mountain

of t he inform a t ion cont a ine d in t he m a ps a nd m a p Cree SCALE: COOR DI
NATESYSTEM:
dat a. Community
! 1:
25,
1N
Docum e ntPa t
h:K:
\Act
ive Proje ct
s 2017\
AP17-
00051t
o 17-
00100\
17-
00054\
Fig ure s \
C_ a nd _ R \
2018Applica t
ion\
Fig 6.
4-6R e cla im e d La nd s ca pe Dra ina g e 17-
00054.
m xd
Section 7 Approval Amendments
Required
March 2018
Table of Contents
Page
7 Approval Amendments Required ..................................................................................... 7-1
7.1 Coal Conservation Act .............................................................................................. 7-1
7.2 Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act ...................................................... 7-5
7.3 Water Act .................................................................................................................. 7-5
7.4 Public Lands Act ....................................................................................................... 7-6
List of Tables
Page
Table 7.1-1 Administrative Boundaries for Pit Licences ........................................................ 7-2
Table 7.1-2 Administrative Boundaries for Dump Licences ................................................... 7-3
Table 7.4-1 Lands Required for MSL Amendment ................................................................ 7-6

March 2018
7 Approval Amendments Required

Cardinal River Coals Ltd. is the holder of the following regulatory approvals for the existing Cheviot Coal
Mine:
• Mine Permit – C2003-4A;
• Mine Licence – C2010-11;

• Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) Approvals No. 0046972-01-00,
0046972-01-01 and 0046972-01-02;
• Water Act Approval No. 00205213-00-00 (fence-line Cheviot); and
• Mineral Surface Lease (MSL) No. 0041321.

Cardinal River Coals Ltd. requests that the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) issue the following
amendments and licences pursuant to the Coal Conservation Act, Environmental Protection and
Enhancement Act, Water Act, and Public Lands Act:
• Coal Conservation Act Mine Permit C2003-4A: to amend the approval to include numerous pit
and dump licences for the proposed MKRC extension to the Cheviot Coal Mine;
• EPEA Approval No. 46972-01-00 (as amended): to amend the approval to include construction,
operation and reclamation of the proposed MKRC extension to the Cheviot Coal Mine;
• Water Act Fence-line Approval No. 00205213-00-00 (as amended): to amend the fence-line
Water Act approval to include water related activities for the proposed MKRC extension,
including:
• diversion of the upper tributaries to Redcap Creek;
• pit dewatering and groundwater diversion;

• construction and operation of three sedimentation ponds;
• construction and operation of temporary wastewater handling facilities including contact

water ditches, sumps, pumps and pipelines; and
• one end pit lake.
• Public Lands Act MSL No. 0041321: to amendment to incorporate 2,282 ha of additional land
into the MSL for the MKRC extension.
7.1 Coal Conservation Act
Under Mine Permit C2003-4A new Pit and Dump Licences will be required for the Project. Cardinal River
Coals Ltd. is requesting pit licences for pits MK1, MK2, MK3, MK4 and RC1 to 5 (Table 7.1-1;
Figure 3.1-1). Cardinal River Coals Ltd. is also requesting dump licences for ex-pit dumps RCEX,
MK3EX1 and MK3EX2 (Table 7.1-2; Figure 3.1-2).

March 2018
Table 7.1-1 Administrative Boundaries for Pit Licences
MacKenzie 1 (MK1) Pit

8 NW, SW
7
046-23 W5M 1
5, 6 NW, NE
10, 11, 12 SW, SE
15
045-22 W5M 31
14 NE
2 SW
046-22 W5M 6 3
4 NE, SE
8 NE
9, 15
045-22 W5M 32 10, 14 NW, NE, SE
13 NE
16 SW
2 SW
3 SW, NW, SE
5
4
046-22 W5M 5 SW, SE
1 SE, NW, NE
6 7 NE, SE
8
15 NE, SE
31
16
13
045-22 W5M
14 NW, SW
32
12 NW, NE
11 NW

March 2018
Redcap 1 to 5 (RC1 to RC5) Pits

7 NW, NE
8 NW
9 SW, NW
27
10, 11, 13-15
12 NW, NE, SE
16 SW
14 NE
045-22 W5M 28
15, 16
1-3, 5-8, 10-12
4 NE
9 SW, SE
33
13 SE, NE
14 NW, SW, SE
15 SW
Table 7.1-2 Administrative Boundaries for Dump Licences
Redcap External (RCEX) Dump

2, 8 NW
3,4 NW, NE
5, 6, 10-15
27
7 NE, NE, SW
9 NW, SW
16 SW
1 NW, NE
045-22 W5M
7, 10 NE, SE
28
8, 9, 15, 16
14 NE
1-3, 5-8, 10-12
4 NE
33
9 SW, SE
13 NE, SE

March 2018
14 NW, SW, SE
15 SW
2 SW, SE, NW
34 3-5
6 SW, SE
MacKenzie 3 External 1 (MK3EX1) Dump
14 NE
31
15, 16
11 NW
045-22 W5M
12 NE, NW
32
13
14 NW, SW
3 NW, SW
5 4
046-22 W5M 5 SW, SE
1-4, 8
6
7 NE, SE
1 NE
5, 6 NW, NE
046-23 W5M 1
7, 8
11, 12 SW, SE
MacKenzie 3 External 2 (MK3EX2) Dump
8 NE
9, 10, 15
045-22 W5M 32
11, 14 SE, NE
16 SW
2 SW
046-22 W5M 5
3 SE

March 2018
7.2 Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act
Changes to the existing EPEA Approval 46972-01-00 (as amended) required to support development of
the Project include the following sections of the Approval:
Section 1.1 Definitions - Section 1.1.2 (i) Modify this section to include the following changes (red):
"Cheviot Coal Mine Development" means the disturbance limits associated with the
Cheviot Creek Pit, Prospect Development, CC1 technical modification, Cheviot Haul
Road, McLeod-Harris, Upper Harris Extension, MacKenzie Redcap and subsequent
amendments, located within portions of: Section 36 Townships 45 Range 24; Sections
28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 of Township 45 Range 23; Sections 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33,
and 34 of Township 45 Range 22; Sections 1, 12, 24 and 36 of Township 46 Range 24;
Sections 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 18, 19, 30 and 31 of Township 46 Range 23; and Sections 4,5
and 6 of Township 46 Range 22; all West of the 5th Meridian, as further described in the
application 012-46972 and this application #.
Section 2.6 Selenium Management - Section 2.6.1 should be amended to include: The approval holder
shall submit a Revised Selenium Management Plan, for the MacKenzie Redcap and affected tributaries,
to the Director by January 1, 2019.
Section 4.2 Mine Wastewater – Section 4.2.2 should be amended to include the MacKenzie Settling Pond
(MKPO), Little Homer Settling Pond (LHPO), and Redcap Creek Settling Pond (RCPO) (Major Ponds).
Section 4.2 Mine Wastewater – Table 4.2-AA should be amended to add the following waterbodies
MacKenzie Creek, Redcap Creek and Cardinal River.
No other changes or additions to the EPEA Approval will be required as a result of the Project.
7.3 Water Act
Cardinal River Coals Ltd. requests an amendment to the current Water Act Fence-line Approval No.
00205213-00-00 (as amended) to accommodate the construction, operation and reclamation of the
Project. The total area will be the extent of the proposed MSL boundary and equivalent to approximately
2,282 ha. A change to the most recent amendment No. 00205213-00-07 should include:
• diversion of the upper tributaries to Redcap Creek (including freshwater interceptor ponds, and
clean water diversion ditches);
• pit dewatering and groundwater diversion;

• construction and operation of sedimentation ponds;
• construction and operation of temporary wastewater handling facilities including contact water
ditches, sumps, pumps and pipelines; and
• one end pit lake.
In addition, Cardinal River Coals Ltd. requests revisions to the definition of “Fenceline” in the Water Act
Approval such that it reads as follows:

March 2018
“Fenceline” means the boundaries of the lands noted as MSL 0041321 approved boundary and proposed
MSL amendment” that includes portions of Sections 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34 of Township 45 Range 22
West of the 5th Meridian, portions of Sections 35, 36 of Township 45 Range 23 West of the 5th Meridian,
portions of Sections 4, 5, 6 of Township 46 Range 22 West of the 5th Meridian and portions of Section 1 of
Township 46 Range 23 West of the 5th Meridian.
The components involved in the operational water management plan are discussed in detail in
Section 3.4. The components involved in the reclamation and decommissioning of the mine are found in
Section 6.0.
Copies of the completed Water Act Application Forms for the requested amendment are provided in
Appendix 2.
7.4 Public Lands Act
Cardinal River Coals Ltd. requests an amendment to MSL 0041321 to accommodate the Project. The
additional area required for the MSL amendment is listed in Table 7.4-1 (Figure 1.0-4). The increase in
total area requested is 2,282 ha.
A copy of the Public Lands Act Application Form is provided in Appendix 2.
Table 7.4-1 Lands Required for MSL Amendment
4 NW, NE, SW
6 ½ NW, ½ SW
26
12 SW, NW, ½ NE, ½ SE
045-22 W5M 13 ¼ NW, SW
28 1, 2, 5-16
27, 31, 32, 33
1-7, 12
34 8, 13 SW
11 NW, SW, SE
35 1, 2-8
045-23 W5M
36 1-8, 9, 16

March 2018
4 2, 3, 4
1-7, 12
5
046-22 W5M 11, 13 SW, SE
1, 2-12
6
13-16 SW, SE
1, 8, 9
046-23 W5M 1
16 SW, SE

March 2018
Section 8 References
March 2018
8 References
Acoustical Consultants Ltd (aci). 2010. Noise Impact Assessment for the McLeod Harris Development (aci
2010);
Soil Quality Criteria Working Group (SQCWG). 1987. Soil Quality Criteria Relative to Disturbance and
Reclamation (Reprinted 2004). Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Alberta Athabasca Rainbow Trout Recovery Team (AARTRT). 2014. Alberta Athabasca Rainbow Trout
Recovery Plan, 2014-2019. Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, Alberta
Species at Risk Recovery Plan No. 36. Edmonton, AB. 111 pp.
Alberta Climate Information Service (ACIS). 2018 Current and Historical Alberta Weather Station Data Viewer.
Accessed online at: http://agriculture.alberta.ca/acis/alberta-weather-data-viewer.jsp Accessed January
2018
Alberta Energy Regulator (AER). 1983. Directive 061: How to Apply for Government Approval of Coal Projects
in Alberta (formerly Guide 2). Published by Energy Resource Conservation Board, Calgary, Alberta, Aug
1983.
Alberta Energy Regulator (AER). 2007. Directive 038: Noise Control, February 16, 2007, Published by Energy
Resources Conservation Board, Calgary, Alberta, Accessed March 2018 at:
http://www.aer.ca/documents/directives/Directive038.pdf
Alberta Energy Regulator (AER). 2014a. Alberta Coal Mining Wastewater Guidelines. March 2014. Available
online at: https://www.aer.ca/documents/applications/EPEA_ABCoalMiningWastewaterGuidelines.pdf
Alberta Energy Regulator (AER). 2014b. Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act Guide to Content for
Energy Project Applications. Accessed January 2018 at:
https://www.aer.ca/documents/applications/EPEA_GuideEnergyProjectApplications.pdf
Alberta Energy Regulator (AER). 2015. AER’s Joint Operating Procedure for First Nations Consultation on
Energy Resource Activities, Accessed March 2018 at:
http://www.aer.ca/documents/actregs/JointOperatingProcedures.pdf
Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP). 2006. Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings Map (made under the
Water Act and the Water (Ministerial) Regulation). Queen’s Printer for Alberta.
Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP). 2015a. Alberta Wild Species General Status Listing.
http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/species-at-risk/wild-species-status-search.aspx. Accessed January 9,
2018.
Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP). 2015b. Fish Species at Risk Resources. Accessed March 13, 2017 from
http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/species-at-risk/species-at-risk-publications-web-
resources/fish/default.aspx

March 2018
Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP). 2017a. Airdata Warehouse. Accessed in May 2017. Available at:
http://airdata.alberta.ca/
Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP). 2017b. Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives and Guidelines Summary.
Issued in June 2017. http://aep.alberta.ca/air/legislation-and-policy/ambient-air-quality-
objectives/documents/AAQO-Summary-Jun29-2017.pdf
Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP). 2017c. Alberta Water Well Information Database. Accessed November
2017. http://aep.alberta.ca/water/reports-data/alberta-water-well-information-database/
Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP). 2017d. Alberta Wetland Policy Implementation. Available at:
http://aep.alberta.ca/water/programs-and-services/wetlands/alberta-wetland-policy-implementation.aspx.
Accessed November 2017.
Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP). 2017e. Fish and Wildlife Management Information System (FWMIS).
Retrieved March 9, 2017 from
https://maps.srd.alberta.ca/FWIMT_Pub/Viewer/?TermsOfUseRequired=true&Viewer=FWIMT_Pub
Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP). 2018. Public Land Use Zones - Coal Branch., Available online at:
http://aep.alberta.ca/recreation-public-use/recreation-on-public-land/public-land-use-zones/coal-branch-
pluz.aspx. Accessed on January 25, 2018.
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD). 2015. Alberta Wetland Classification
system. Water Policy Branch, Policy and Planning Division, Edmonton, AB.
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD). 2013a. Air Quality Model Guideline.
Effective October 1st, 2013. Prepared by Air Policy Section.
https://extranet.gov.ab.ca/env/infocentre/info/library/8908.pdf
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD). 2013b. Using Air Quality Objectives in
Industrial Dispersion Modelling and Individual Industrial Site Monitoring. Revised October 1st, 2013.
Prepared by Air Policy Section.
https://open.alberta.ca/publications/9781460112922
Alberta Environment (AE). 2000. Whitehorse Wildland Park Management Plan. Alberta Environment, Natural
Resources Service,2000. ISBN: 0778506789. Available online at:
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/201592
Alberta Forestry Lands and Wildlife (AFLW). 1990. Coal Branch Sub-regional Integrated Resource Plan.
Energy/Forestry, Lands and Wildlife, Pub. No. I/294. Edmonton AB. 91pp.
Alberta Forestry, Lands & Wildlife (AFLW). 1994. Coal Branch Access Management Plan. Edmonton, AB.
Alberta Parks. 2017a. Tracking and Watch Lists. Available at: https://www.albertaparks.ca/
albertaparksca/management-land-use/alberta-conservation-information-management-system-
acims/tracking-watch-lists/. Accessed June and November 2017.

March 2018
Alberta Parks. 2017b. Standard Subnational Conservation Status Ranks. Available at:
https://www.albertaparks.ca/albertaparksca/management-land-use/alberta-conservation-information-
management-system-acims/tracking-watch-lists/species-conservation-ranks/. Accessed June 2017.
Allan, J.H. 1996. Impact Assessment and Mitigation for Fisheries Resources for the Cheviot Mine Project.
Report of Pisces Environmental Consulting Services Ltd. to Cardinal River Coals Ltd., Hinton, Alberta.
48 pp.
Allan, J.H., D.M. Townsend and D. O’Callaghan. 1995. Fisheries Resources in the Cheviot Mine Development
Study Area. Report of Pisces Environmental Consulting Services Ltd. to Cardinal River Coals Ltd.,
Hinton, Alberta. 91 pp. + App.
Andres D. et al, 1987. Hydrological, Thermal, Sediment, and Channel Regimes of the Tri-Creeks Experimental
Basin. Forest Research Branch, Alberta Energy and Natural Resources. Report no. SWE - 87/01.
Barnes, R.G., 1978. Hydrogeology of the Brazeau-Canoe River Area, Alberta. Report 77-5. Alberta Research
Council. 1978.
Beckingham, J.D., I.G.W. Corns, and J.H. Archibald. 1996. Field Guide to Ecosites of West-Central Alberta.
Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC.
BGC Engineering Inc., 2014. 2013 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Summary Report, Cardinal River
Operations. March 2014.
Bighorn Environmental Design Ltd. 1996. Cumulative effects and environmental assessment of the proposed
Cheviot Mine development: ungulates, small mammals, avifauna, amphibians. In Cardinal River Coals
Ltd. 1996 Cheviot Mine Project Application, Appendix 33, Volume VIII. Submitted to the Energy Utilities
Board, Calgary AB. 278pp.
BIOS Environmental Research and Planning Associates. 1996. Cheviot Mine Project: specific and cumulative
effects analysis of mammalian carnivores. Appendix 34 in Cardinal River Coals Ltd. Cheviot Mine
Project Application.
Baron Kennedy Lyzum & Associates (BKL) 1996 An Environmental Noise Assessment, Appendix 41, Volume X
in Cheviot EIA
Bow Corridor Ecosystem Advisory Group. March 1998. Wildlife Corridor and Habitat Patch Guidelines for the
Bow Valley. Prepared for: Town of Canmore, Municipal District of Bighorn, Banff National Park, Alberta
Environmental Protection and Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development.
British Columbia Ministry of Environment (BCMOE). 2014. British Columbia Ambient Air Quality Objectives.
Prepared by Environmental Standard Branch, updated October 2014.
http://www.bcairquality.ca/reports/pdfs/aqotable.pdf
British Columbia Ministry of Environment (BCMOE). 2015. Technical Guidance 7. Environmental Management
Act. Assessing the Design, Size, and Operation pf Sediment Ponds Used in Mining. Available online
from: http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/waste-management/industrial-

March 2018
waste/industrialwaste/mining-smelt-
energy/assessing_design_size_and_operation_of_sediment_ponds.pdf
Bronmark, C. and L. Hansson. 2005. The Biology of Lakes and Ponds. New York, Oxford University Press.
Brook, J.R., T.F. Dann and R.T. Burnett. 1997. The Relationship Among TSP, PM10 and PM2.5. Inorganic
Constituents of Atmospheric Particulate Matter at Multiple Canadian Locations. J. Air & Waste Manage.
Assoc. 47: 2-19.
Buckmaster, G., M. Todd, K. Smith, R. Bonar, B. Beck. J. Beck, and R. Quinlan. 1999. Elk Winter Foraging HSI
Model, Version 5. Foothills Model Forest, Hinton, AB.
Canada Species At Risk Act (SARA). 2018. Species at Risk Public Registry. Available at:
http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca Accessed: January 9, 2018.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2012. Guidance Document on Achievement
Determination Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards for Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone.
Document ID: PM 1482.
Cardinal River Coals Ltd. (CRC). 1979. 51-B-2 North Wall Dewatering Wells.
Cardinal River Coals Ltd. (CRC). 1996. Cheviot Mine Project Application. Submitted to AENV and EUB in 1996.
Application #960313 and 960314.
Chapman, P.M., H. Bailey et al. 2000. Toxicity of total dissolved solids associated with two mine effluents to
chironomid larvae and early life stages of rainbow trout. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 19(1):
210-214.
Cirrus Consultants (Cirrus). 1996. Cheviot Mine Project Application – Air Quality Evaluation
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2018. Available at:
http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Accessed: January 9, 2018.
Canadian Dam Association (CDA). 2013. Dam Safety Guidelines 2007 (2013 Edition). Available online from:
http://www.cda.ca/MainEN/Publications/Dam_Safety/MainEN/CDA/Publications_Pages/Dam_Safety.as
px?hkey=ddf876bd-dec0-4674-910a-6bfa40b10b4f
Cristescu, B., G.B. Stenhouse, and M.S. Boyce. 2015. Grizzly Bear Diet Shifting on Reclaimed Mines. Global
Ecology and conservation 4:207-220.
Cristescu, B., G.B. Stenhouse, M. Symbaluk, S.C. Nielsen and M. Boyce. 2016. Wildlife Habitat Selection on
Landscapes with Industrial Disturbances. Environmental Conservation 43:327-336.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 1995. Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen
Guideline. 28 pp.

March 2018
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2016a. Athabasca Rainbow Trout status. Accessed March
7, 2018 from http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/profiles-profils/rainbow_trout-truite_arcenciel-
eng.html
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2016b. Bull Trout (Western Arctic populations &
Saskatchewan-Nelson Rivers populations). Accessed March 7, 2018 from http://www.dfo-
mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/sara-lep/identify-eng.html
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2016c. Projects near water. Accessed March 13, 2018
from www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/index-eng.html
Dunster, J., and K. Dunster. 1996. Dictionary of Natural Resource Management. UBC Press. Vancouver BC.
363pp.
EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. 1976. Groundwater Conditions at 51-C-1 Baseline, Cardinal River Coal Mine.
Prepared for Cardinal River Coals Ltd. by EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd., Edmonton Alberta.
EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. 1978. Appraisal of Dewatering Requirements at Pit 51-B-2. Prepared for
Cardinal River Coals Ltd. by EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd., Edmonton Alberta.
EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. 1979. Hydrogeology of the Luscar Freehold Area. Prepared for Cardinal
River Coals. Ltd. by EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd., Edmonton Alberta.
Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC). 2017a. General Nesting Periods of Migratory Birds in
Canada. Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/avoiding-harm-
migratory-birds/general-nesting-periods.html#_01 Last modified: May 25, 2017. Accessed: October 25,
2017.
Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC). 2017b. Timing of Nesting of Migratory Birds in Canada.
Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/avoiding-harm-migratory-
birds/technical-information-risk-factors.html#_02 Last modified: May 25, 2017.
Fedkenhaur, A.J., L.W. Knapik and D.G. Walker, 1987. Minesoil and landscape reclamation of the coal mines in
Alberta’s mountains and foothills. Reclamation research advisory committee (RRTAC).
Fiera Biological Consulting Ltd. (Fiera). 2014. Environmentally Significant Areas in Alberta: 2014 Update. Report
prepared for the Government of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. Fiera Biological Consulting Report Number
1305. Pp. 51
Giller, P.S. and B. Malmqvist. 1998. The Biology of Streams and Rivers. New York, Oxford University Press.
296 pp.
Golder Associates (Golder). 2017. Prefeasibility Engineering Design – Water Management Plan, Report #
1779204, Prepared for Teck Coal Dec 2017.
Government of Alberta (GoA). 1976. A Coal Development Policy for Alberta. Department of Energy and Natural
Resources, June 15, 1976. Pp. 38.

March 2018
Government of Alberta (GoA). 1984. A Policy for Resource Management of the Eastern Slopes, Revised
1984.ISB# 0-86499-067-7. Pp. 29.
Government of Alberta (GoA). 1999. Dam and Canal Safety Guidelines. Revised March 1999. Available online
at:
http://www.nswa.ab.ca/sites/default/files/6294%20Dam%20%26%20Canal%20Safety%20Guidelines.pd
f
Government of Alberta (GoA). 2010. Weed Control Regulation of the Weed Control Act. Alberta Regulation
19/2010. Published by Alberta’s Queen’s Printer, Edmonton, Alberta.
Government of Alberta (GoA). 2013a. Coal Conservation Act. Province of Alberta Revised Statutes of Alberta
2000, Chapter C-17, Current as of June 17, 2013, Alberta Queen’s Printer: Edmonton, Alberta
Government of Alberta (GoA). 2013b. Government of Alberta’s Policy on Consultation with First Nations on
Land and Natural Resource Management. Website accessed 22/06/2017 available at
http://www.indigenous.alberta.ca/policy-guidelines.cfm
Government of Alberta (GoA). 2013c. Luscar & Gregg River Mines Land Management Plan – Regional
Integrated Decision. Available online at: https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/luscar-gregg-river-mines-land-
management-plan-regional-integrated-decision/resource/7310f9f6-b15e-47b6-b086-b60198a111f9
Accessed February 2018.
Government of Alberta (GoA). 2013d. Standards and Guidelines for Municipal Waterworks, Wastewater and
Storm Drainage Systems. Available online at: http://aep.alberta.ca/water/programs-and-
services/drinkingwater/legislation/documents/Part5-StormwaterManagementGuidelines-2013.pdf
Government of Alberta (GoA). 2014a. Alberta Government. 2014. Coal Branch Public Land Use Zone. Coal
Branch access map available at: http://aep.alberta.ca/recreation-public-use/recreation-on-public-
land/public-land-use-zones/coal-branch-pluz.aspx. Accessed: March 3, 2018.
Government of Alberta (GoA). 2014b. Government of Alberta’s Guidelines on Consultation with First Nations on
Land and Natural Resource Management/ Website accessed 19/01/2018 available at
http://www.indigenous.alberta.ca/policy-guidelines.cfm>
Government of Alberta (GoA). 2016. Government of Alberta’s Proponent Guide to First Nations and Métis
Settlements Consultation Procedures. Website accessed 22/06/2017 available at
http://indigenous.alberta.ca/proponent-guide.cfm>
Government of Alberta (GoA). 2017a. 2017 Alberta Guide to Hunting Regulations, General Regulations.
Published by Sports Scene Publications Inc., Edmonton AB. Avaiable at:
http://albertaregulations.ca/huntingregs/genregs.html
Government of Alberta (GoA). 2017b. Activities Designation Regulation, Environmental Protection and
Enhancement Act, Province of Alberta, Alberta Regulation 276/2003, With amendments up to and
including 125/2017 Alberta Queen’s Printer: Edmonton, Alberta

March 2018
Government of Alberta (GoA). 2017c. Indigenous Consultation Policies and Guidelines. Website accessed
22/06/2017 available at http://www.indigenous.alberta.ca/policy-guidelines.cfm>
Government of Canada. 1994. Migratory Bird Convention Act. Available at: http://laws-
lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/m-7.01/. Accessed: January 9, 2018.
Graham, K. and G. Stenhouse. 2014. Home Range, Movements, and Denning Chronology of the Grizzly Bear
(Ursus arctos) in West-central Alberta. The Canadian Field-Naturalist. Vol. 128(3):223-234.
Grindal, S.D., and R.M. Brigham. 1998. Short-term Effects of Small-scale Habitat Disturbance on Activity by
Insectivorous Bats. Journal of Wildlife Management 62: 996-1003.
Groundwater Consultants Group, 1977a. Hydrogeology of the 51-C Baseline. Prepared for Cardinal River Coals
Ltd. by Groundwater Consultants Group, St. Albert, Alberta.
Groundwater Consultants Group, 1977b. Piezometer and Dewatering Well Installation, Pit 51-C-1. Prepared for
Cardinal River Coals Ltd. by Groundwater Consultants Group, St. Albert, Alberta.
Hackbarth Environmental Consulting Ltd. 1999. MacKenzie Creek – Hydrogeologic Review. Prepared for
Cardinal River Coals Ltd. Edmonton, Alberta. June 22, 1999.
Hatfield Consultants (Hatfield). 2008. Coal Valley Mine: An Evaluation of Existing End-Pit Lakes, Prepared for
Coal Valley Resources Inc.
Hatfield Consultants (Hatfield). 2014. Macrophyte and Bathymetry Surveys in End-Pit Lakes in the Coal Valley
Mine Area. Prepared for Coal Valley Resources Inc.
Kansas, J.L. 2005. Grizzly Bears and Mining in the Cheviot Region-Retrospective Analysis. Prepared for Elk
Valley Coal Corporation, Cardinal River Operations, Hinton, AB. Prepared by URSUS Ecosystem
Management Ltd., Calgary, AB.
Lemay T.G. 2003. Chemical and Physical Hydrogeology of Coal, Mixed Coal-Sandstone and Sandstone
Aquifers from Coal Bearing Formations in the Alberta Plains Region, Alberta. Alberta Geological
Survey. EUB/AGS Earth Sciences Report 2003-04.
Lotic (Lotic Environmental Ltd.) 2013. Teck Coal Ltd. Calcite Monitoring Plan. Field Manual. Prepared by Lotic
Environmental Ltd. September 2013. 11 pp.
Lowther, P.E., C.C. Rimmer, B. Kessel, S.L. Johnson and W.G. Ellison. 2001. Gray-cheeked Thrush (Catharus
minimus), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America (P. G. Rodewald, editor). Cornell Lab of
Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, USA. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.591.
Matrix Solutions Inc. (Matrix) 2017. 2017 Groundwater Monitoring Well Installation and Baseline Groundwater
Monitoring Program. Prepared for Teck Coal Limited. Calgary, Alberta. December 2017.
Matrix Solutions Inc. 2017. MacKenzie Redcap Development: Hydrogeology Assessment. Prepared for Teck
Coal limited. December 2017.

March 2018
McPhail, J.D. & J.S. Baxter. 1996. A review of Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) life-history and habitat use in
relation to compensation and improvement opportunities. University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
MLM Groundwater Engineering, 1981. Groundwater Investigation Mary Gregg Lake. Prepared for Cardinal River
Coals Ltd. by MLM Groundwater Engineering, St. Albert, Alberta.
Munro, R.H.M, S.E. Nielsen, M.H. Price, G.B. Stenhouse, and M.S. Boyce. 2006. Seasonal and Diel Patterns of
Grizzly Bear Diet and Activity in West-central Alberta. J. Mammal. 87 1112-1121.
Nielsen, S.E. 2004. Habitat Ecology, Conservation, and Projected Population Viability of Grizzly Bears (Ursus
arctos L) in West-central Alberta, Canada. PhD Thesis. Department of Biological Sciences, University of
Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Omni-McCann Consultants Ltd., 2010. Hydrogeological Review McLeod-Harris Development. Prepared for Teck
Coal Ltd. Cardinal River Operations. January 2010.
Omni-McCann Consultants Ltd., 2011a. Teck Coal Ltd. Cardinal River Operations Luscar Mine Groundwater
Monitoring Plan. Prepared for Teck June 2011.
Omni-McCann Consultants Ltd., 2011b. Teck Coal Ltd. Cardinal River Operations Cheviot Mine Groundwater
Monitoring Plan. Prepared for Teck April 2011.
Omni-McCann Consultants Ltd., 2012. Teck Coal Ltd. Groundwater Monitoring Systems at Cheviot and Luscar
Mine Areas. Prepared for Teck September 2012.
Omni-McCann Consultants Ltd., 2017. Cheviot Mine Groundwater Monitoring Plan (Revised). Prepared for Teck
Coal Cardinal River Operations. March 2017.
Paragon Soil and Environmental Consulting Inc. (Paragon). 2011. Cheviot Seeding Trial Monitoring Plots at
Cardinal River Operations 2011 Results. 41 pp.
Paragon Soil and Environmental Consulting Inc (Paragon). 2012. Cheviot Seeding Trial Monitoring Plots at
Paragon Soil and Environmental Consulting Inc. (Paragon).2017. Cheviot Seeding Trial Monitoring Plots at
Cardinal River Operations 2017 Results.

March 2018
Parks Canada. 2010. Jasper National Park of Canada – Management Plan. Available online at:
https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/ab/jasper/info/plan/plandirecteur-managementplan. Accessed January
25, 2018.
Pattie D.L. and R.S. Hoffman. 1990. Mammals of the North American Parks and Prairies. ISBN 0-9694482-0-1.
Pigeon, K.E., S.E. Nielsen, G.B. Stenhouse, S.D. Côté. 2014. Den Selection by Grizzly Bears on a Managed
Landscape. Journal of Mammalogy 95(3):559-571.
Pisces Environmental Consulting Services Ltd. 2017. Historical document review and baseline fisheries
monitoring program for proposed mining activities within the MacKenzie and Redcap Creek drainages
located on the Teck Coal Ltd. Cardinal River Operations Cheviot coal mine. Report of Pisces
Environmental Consulting Services Ltd. to Teck Coal, Cardinal River Operations, Hinton, Alberta. 37 pp.
Piteau Engineering Ltd (Piteau). 1983. Hydrogeological Assessment for Geotechnical and Environmental
Review of Proposed 50-B-5 Pit. Prepared for Cardinal River Coals Ltd. Luscar, Alberta July, 1983.
Piteau Engineering Ltd (Piteau). 1995a. Hydrogeological Conditions in the Cheviot Mine Project Area. Prepared
for Cardinal River Coals Ltd. Calgary, Alberta. December 1995.
Piteau Engineering Ltd (Piteau). 1995b. Environmental Impact Assessment - Groundwater Cheviot Mine Project.
Prepared for Cardinal River Coals Ltd. Calgary, Alberta. December 1995.
Piteau Engineering Ltd (Piteau). 1995c. Assessment of Possible Effects of the 50-A8 Pit Development on the
Cadomin Area Groundwater Users. Prepared for Cardinal River Coals Ltd. by Piteau Engineering Ltd.
Calgary, Alberta. December 1995.
Piteau Engineering Ltd (Piteau). 1997. Groundwater sampling program in the Cheviot Mine Project Area (1997).
Prepared for Elk Valley Coal Corp. CRO September, 1997.
Piteau Engineering Ltd (Piteau). 1998. Aquifer Test Program Cheviot Underground Workings. Prepared for Elk
Valley Coal Corp. CRO April 1998.
Piteau Engineering Ltd (Piteau). 2010. Hydrogeological Review. Appendix 4.3 in TCL (2010): Applications to
Alberta Environment and Energy Resources Conservation Board for: Amendment to EPEA Approval
#46972; Amendment to Fence-line Water Act Approval #00205213; Pit and Dump Licenses under Mine
Permit #C2003-4. McLeod-Harris Development.
Rasmussen, J.B., S. Peterson, et al. 2007. Report to the selenium working group on the Selenium Fish Science
Panel (SEFSP) workshop. Hinton, Alberta, Canada.
Robertson, G.J. and R. Ian Goudie. 1999. Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus), version 2.0. In The Birds of
North America (P.G. Rodewald, editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, USA.
https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.466
Romito, T., K. Smith, B. Beck, J. Beck, M. Todd, R. Bonar, and R. Quinlan. 1999. Moose Winter Habitat HSI
Model, Version 5. Foothills Model Forest. Hinton, AB.

March 2018
Root (1976). Physical environment of an abandoned strip mine near Cadomin Alberta. Bulletin 34. Alberta
Research Council. http://ags.aer.ca/document/BUL/BUL_034.PDF
Russell, W.B., and G.H. LaRoi. 1986. Natural Vegetation and Ecology of Abandoned Coal-mined Land, Rocky
Mountain Foothills, Alberta, Canada. Canadian Journal of Botany 64:1286-1298.
Schwab, B.L. 2003. Graph Theoretic Methods of Examining Landscape Connectivity and Spatial Movement
Patterns: Application to the FMF Grizzly Bear Research Project. M.Sc. Thesis. Department of
Geography, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB.
Sentar Consultants Ltd. 1993. Hydrogeological Investigation, Proposed Pit 50-A8. Prepared for Cardinal River
Coals Ltd. by Sentar Consultants Ltd. Edmonton, Alberta.
Sonnenberg, R.S. 2011. Development of aquatic communities in high-altitude mine pit lake systems of west-
central Alberta. University of Lethbridge. Lethbridge, AB. Thesis. 175 pp. + App.
SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc., December 2010. Selenium Geochemistry and Water Quality Predictions. Phase
3 – Implementation. 2010 Status Report Cardinal River Operations. Draft.
Stanley Industrial Consultants Ltd. 1990. Environmental Impact Assessment for the “A” Baseline Extension
Hydrogeology. Prepared for Cardinal River Coals Ltd. by Stanley Associates Engineering Ltd.
Edmonton, Alberta.
Stanley Industrial Consultants Ltd. 1991. Groundwater Monitoring Program, Hamlet of Cadomin. Prepared for
Cardinal River Coals Ltd. by Stanley Associates Engineering Ltd. Edmonton, Alberta.
Stednick, J. D. and C.A. Troendle, 2004. Water yield and timber harvesting practices in the subalpine forests of
the Central Rocky Mountains. Chapter 7. In: A Century of Forest and Wildland Watershed lessons. G.G.
Ice and J.D. Stednick Editors. Society of American Foresters.
Stednick, John D., 1996. Monitoring the Effects of Timber Harvest on Annual Water Yield. Journal of Hydrology.
176:79-95.
Stekoll, M.S., W.W. Smoker, et al. 2009. Response of the early developmental stages of hatchery reared
salmonids to major ions in a simulated mine effluent. Aquaculture 298(1-2): 172-181.
Stenhouse, G.B., J. Boulanger, M. Efford, S. Rovang, T. McKay, A. Sorenson, and K. Graham. 2015. Estimates
of Grizzly Bear Population Size and Density for the 2014 Alberta Yellowhead Population Unit (BMA3)
and South Jasper National Park Inventory Project. fRI Research., Hinton, AB 64pp.
Stevens S. and J. Duval. 2005. Ecology of Grizzly Bears in the Cheviot, Luscar and Gregg River Mine Areas
(1999-2004). Submitted to Elk Valley Coal Corporation, Cardinal River Operations and Foothills Model
Forest Grizzly Bear Research Project. 111 pp.
Strong, W.L. 2000. Vegetation Development on Reclaimed Lands in the Coal Valley Mine of Western Alberta,
Canada. Canadian Journal of Botany 78:110-118.

March 2018
Symbaluk, M.D. 2008. Testing Landscape Modeling Approaches for Environmental Impact Assessment of
Mining Land Use on Grizzly Bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) in the Foothills Region of West Central
Alberta. MSc, Environment and Management, Royal Roads University, Victoria, BC.
Szmigielski, J.T. 2015. Characterizing a Groundwater System Downgradient of a Coal Mine Waste Rock Dump,
Elk Valley, British Columbia, Canada. MSc. Thesis, Department of Geological Sciences, University of
Saskatchewan.
Taylor, E.B. 2017 Analysis of genetic variation in Mackenzie Creek, Alberta, Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss), UBC, Vancouver, BC. pp. 8.
Teck Coal Limited (Teck). 2009. Grizzly Bear 10-year Management Plan for the Cheviot Mine Permit Area.
Prepared by Teck Coal Limited, Cardinal River Operations, Hinton, AB. 50pp.
Teck Coal Limited (Teck). 2010a. McLeod-Harris Development. Amendment to EPEA Approval #46972;
Amendment to Fence-line Water Act Approval #00205213; Pit and Dump Licenses under Mine Permit
#C2003-4. Submitted by Teck Coal Limited, Cardinal River Operations, January 31, 2010.
Teck Coal Limited (Teck). 2010b. Teck’s Sustainability Strategy
Teck Coal Limited (Teck). 2011. Air Quality Assessment for Teck Coal Ltd. Cardinal River Operations Cheviot
Mine Site. Prepared by Millennium EMS Solutions Ltd.
Teck Coal Limited (Teck). 2014. Cardinal River Operations, Selenium Management Plan. April 2014. Submitted
to Alberta Energy Regulator.
Teck Coal Limited (Teck). 2015. Bird Guidance. Internal document dated December 23, 2015.
Teck Coal Limited (Teck). 2016. Sustainability Report, Accessed http://www.teck.com/media/Teck-2016-

Sustainability-Report.pdf
Teck Coal Limited (Teck). 2017a. Cheviot Wildlife Management and Monitoring Plan, Cardinal River Operations
March 28, 2017. As per Approval 46972-01-02.
Teck Coal Limited (Teck). 2017b. Groundwater Monitoring Summary Report: Cardinal River Operations.
Prepared by Teck March 2017.
Teck Coal Limited (Teck). 2017c. Selenium Management Plan. June 2017 Cardinal River Operations
UMA Engineering Ltd. 1992. Mountain Park Lease Groundwater Assessment Program Interim Report. Prepared
for Cardinal River Coals Ltd. by UMA Engineering Ltd. Edmonton, Alberta.
Wali, M.K. 1999. Ecological Succession and the Rehabilitation of Disturbed Terrestrial Ecosystems. Plant Soil
213:195-220.
Walker, David G, 2005. Project summary 1994-2004 soil reconstruction and revegetation demonstration trials
Cheviot mine project. Prepared for Elk Valley Coal Corp, Cardinal River Operations.

March 2018
Walker, David G., 2004. Project summary, Soil reconstruction and revegetation, demonstration trials, Cheviot
mine project.

March 2018

Cheviot Coal Mine Mackenzie Redcap Project

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Cheviot Coal Mine Mackenzie Redcap Project

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Cheviot Coal Mine Mackenzie Redcap Project

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Cheviot Coal Mine

MacKenzie Redcap Project

Joint Application for Amendments to Approvals under the

Amendment to EPEA Approval #46972

Teck Coal Limited

Teck Resources Limited

5.8 Soil and Terrain ....................................................................................................5-55

Appendix 1 Existing Approvals

Teck Resources Limited

Teck Resources Limited Page 1-i

Teck Resources Limited Page 1-1

Table 1.0-1 Summary of MKRC Project Footprint Components

Footprint Component Area (ha)

Clean Water Infrastructure 7.9

MK1 Pit 3.4

Haulroad and Access Roads 45.3

Teck Resources Limited Page 1-2

Sedimentation Ponds (MKPO, LHPO and RCPO) 9.9

1.1 Project Background

1.2 Project Proponent

Corporate Registered Company Name

Teck Coal Limited

Mailing Address of Head Office (Alberta)

Teck Coal Limited

Teck Resources Limited Page 1-3

Phone, Fax, and Email Contact Information

Hinton General Office Line Phone (780) 692-5100

Marc Symbaluk, MSc, PAg.

Authorization of Application for Approval by Owner/Agent

Date: March 29, 2018

Marc Symbaluk, MSc, PAg.

1.3 Project Overview

Teck Resources Limited Page 1-4

1.4 Regional Planning Requirements

There are several regional initiatives within this region as follows:

• Coal Development Policy (Government of Alberta [GoA] 1976);

• Coal Branch Access Management Plan (AFLW 1994);

• Jasper National Park Management Plan (Parks Canada 2010);

1.5 Regional Setting

Teck Resources Limited Page 1-5

1.6 Project Regulatory Approval Process

• EUB replaced Permit C2000-37 with C2003-4 (2003);

• Alberta Environment and EUB approval to develop Prospect Pits (2007);

Teck Resources Limited Page 1-6

• application for McLeod-Harris Pits development (2010);

• application for Renewal of Luscar Mine EPEA (2010);

• Luscar EPEA Renewal granted by ESRD (2011);

• CCA Cheviot Mine Permit Amendment C2003-4A issued by ERCB (2013).

• application for UHEA (2015); and

1.6.1 Existing Approvals

• Mine Permit C2003-4A (Cheviot Mine);

• Mine Licence C2010-11 (McLeod-Harris Pits);

• Mine Licence C2010-12 (McLeod-Harris Dumps);

• Mine Licence C2010-11 (Upper Harris Pits);

• EPEA Approvals 0046972-01-00 (Cheviot), 0046972-01-01 (McLeod-Harris amendment),

• Water Act Licence 00226852-01-00 (water well);

• MSL No. 041321; and

• MSL No. 040889 (Cheviot Haulroad).

Teck Resources Limited Page 1-7

These Approvals and Licences are presented in Appendix 1.

1.6.2 Approvals and Amendments Sought

• amendment to EPEA Approval No. 0046972-01-00, as amended;