Fording River Operations: The Swift Project Description
Submitted to:
BC Environmental Assessment Office 1st Floor 836 Yates Street PO Box 9426 Stn Prov Govt Victoria, BC, V8W 9V1
Pursuant to:
British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act
Submitted by:
Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations
April 2011
Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 PROPONENT INFORMATION ...... 1 1.1 Key Proponent Contacts ...... 1 2 PROJECT INFORMATION ...... 2 2.1 Location ...... 2 2.2 Project History and Overview ...... 2 2.3 Deposit Geology and Resource Characterization ...... 6 2.3.1 Stratigraphy ...... 6 2.3.2 Structure ...... 8 2.4 Components and Infrastructure ...... 10 2.4.1 Conceptual Mine Plan and Schedule ...... 10 2.4.2 On-Site Infrastructure ...... 22 2.4.3 Existing Off-Site Infrastructure ...... 24 2.5 Waste Management ...... 26 2.5.1 Mine Waste Disposal ...... 26 2.5.2 Mine Water Management ...... 27 2.6 Environmental Management ...... 28 2.7 Mine Reclamation, Closure and Monitoring...... 29 2.8 Alternatives ...... 30 3 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ...... 32 3.1 Physical Environment ...... 32 3.1.1 Geology ...... 32 3.1.2 Soils ...... 32 3.1.3 Hydrology ...... 33 3.1.4 Water Quality ...... 33 3.1.5 Air Quality ...... 33 3.1.6 Noise ...... 34 3.2 Biological Environment ...... 34 3.2.1 Biogeoclimatic Zones and Ecosystems ...... 34 3.2.2 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...... 36 3.2.3 Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 37 3.2.4 Environmentally Sensitive Areas ...... 39 3.2.5 Species at Risk ...... 42 3.3 Human Environment ...... 44 3.3.1 Heritage Resources ...... 44 3.3.2 Land Use and Tenure...... 44 3.3.3 Socio-Economics ...... 46 3.3.4 Aboriginal, Commercial and Recreational Fishery and Fishing Areas ...... 47 4 POTENTIAL PROJECT-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTIONS ...... 48 5 CONSULTATION ...... 53 5.1 First Nations ...... 53 5.2 Public and Agencies ...... 54 5.3 Consultation Planning ...... 54 6 SUSTAINABILITY ...... 56 7 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS AND REGULATORY TRIGGERS ...... 57 7.1.1 British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act ...... 57 7.1.2 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act ...... 57 7.1.3 Key Provincial and Municipal Permits and Approvals ...... 58 7.1.4 Proposed Environmental Assessment Schedule ...... 60
April 2011 - i - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
8 REFERENCES CITED ...... 61
TABLES
Table 1: Fording River Stratigraphy ...... 7 Table 2: Representative Conceptual Mine Phases for the Swift Project ...... 13 Table 3: Federally Designated Species That May Occur Within the Project Area ...... 43 Table 4: Preliminary Identification of Potential Project-Environment Interactions ...... 49 Table 5: Permits and Approvals Likely Required for the Swift Project ...... 59 Table 6: Proposed Environmental Assessment Schedule ...... 60
FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Location ...... 3 Figure 2: Project Footprint and Existing Fording River Operations ...... 4 Figure 3: Conceptual Mine Sequence Year 1 ...... 14 Figure 4: Conceptual Mine Sequence Year 5 ...... 15 Figure 5: Conceptual Mine Sequence Year 10 ...... 16 Figure 6: Conceptual Mine Sequence Year 15 ...... 17 Figure 7: Conceptual Mine Sequence Year 20 ...... 18 Figure 8: Conceptual Mine Sequence Year 25 ...... 19 Figure 9: Completion of Mining Year 30 Through Final Reclamation ...... 20 Figure 10: Environmentally Sensitive Areas Local Scale ...... 40 Figure 11: Environmentally Sensitive Areas Regional Scale ...... 41
APPENDICES
Appendix A Description of Existing Fording River Operations Process Plant Appendix B Scientific Names of Species Cited Appendix C British Columbia Conservation Data Centre Species and Ecosystems at Risk Information Appendix D Summary of the Swift Project Area Coal Tenures and Land Ownership Appendix E Review of Potential for Federal Triggers Appendix F Natural Resources Canada and the Explosives Act in the Context of Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Questionaire
- ii - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
ACRONYMS AIA Archaeological Impact Assessment AOA Archaeological Overview Assessment ATV All-terrain vehicle BC British Columbia BCEAA British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act CCR Coarse coal reject CDC Conservation Data Centre CBM Coal Bed Methane CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Act COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Species in Canada CP Canadian Pacific DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada EA Environmental Assessment EAC Environmental Assessment Certificate EAO Environmental Assessment Office e.g. for example EMS Environmental Management System EnCana EnCana Oil & Gas Partnership ERDZ Enhanced Resource Development Zone ESSF Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir ESSFdk Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir dry cool ESSFdkp Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir dry parkland ESSFdkw Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir dry woodland EVO Elkview Operations FRO Fording River Operations GHG Greenhouse Gas GIS Geographic Information System HADD Harmful alteration, disruption or destruction HCA Heritage Conservation Act HSRC Health Safety and Reclamation Code i.e. that is ISO International Organization for Standardization KNC Ktunaxa Nation Council LSA local study area LCO Line Creek Operations LOM Life of Mine plan
- iii - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
LRP Lake Ridge Pit MEM Ministry of Energy and Mines MOE Ministry of Environment MPMO Major Projects Management Office MS Mountane Spruce MSdk Montane Spruce dry cool NNL No-Net Loss
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide OGC Oil and Gas Commission PM Particulate Matter
PM2.5 Particulate matter less than 2.5 μm (micrometres) in diameter
PM10 Particulate matter less than 10 μm (micrometres) in diameter PSL Permissible Sound Level RDEK Regional District of East Kootenay ROW right of way SARA Species at Risk Act
SO2 Sulphur Dioxide Storm Cat Storm Cat Energy Corporation Teck Teck Coal Limited TEM Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping the Project the Swift Project TSP Total Suspended Particulate WCT Westslope Cutthroat Trout
- iv - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
UNITS degree > greater than < less than % percent dBA A-weighted decibel Ha hectare km kilometre km2 square kilometre kV kilovolts m metre m3 cubic metre m/m metre per metre masl metres above sea level Mmtcc million metric tonnes of clean coal t/d tonnes per day tph tonnes per hour V volts m micrometres
- v - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
1 PROPONENT INFORMATION
Teck Coal Limited, a division of Teck Resources Ltd., is the leading North American producer of steelmaking coal. The company (Teck) operates six open-pit mines in western Canada: Cardinal River, Coal Mountain, Line Creek, Greenhills, Elkview and Fording River. Five of these mines are in the Elk Valley of southeastern British Columbia (BC); Cardinal River is in west-central Alberta. Together they account for annual production capacity in excess of 25 million tonnes of high-grade metallurgical coal.
The extension of the Fording River Operations (FRO) is the subject of this Project Description, which has been prepared in accordance with the guidance documents administered by the BC Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) and the Major Projects Management Office (MPMO). The Project is referred to as the Swift Project (the Project).
1.1 Key Proponent Contacts The Proponent of the Project is:
Teck Coal Limited Suite 1000, 205 - 9th Avenue SE Calgary, Alberta T2G 0R3 Telephone: 403.767.8500 Fax: 403.265.8794 Website: www.teck.com
Contact information for Teck’s Senior Vice President, Coal:
Ian Kilgour, Senior Vice President, Coal Suite 3300, Bentall 5 550 Burrard Street Vancouver, BC V6C 0B3 Telephone: 604.699.4000 Fax: 604.699.4750 Email: [email protected]
For the purposes of the environmental assessment (EA) for the Project, the principal contact person is:
Laura Bevan-Griffin, Permitting Lead PO Box 100 Elkford, BC V0B 1H0 Telephone: 250.865-5184 Fax: 250.865.5165 Email: [email protected]
April 2011 - 1 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
2 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Location
The Project is located within the East Kootenay region in southeastern BC (Figure 1). The Project lies within existing operating areas and on areas immediately west, south and north of the active FRO open-pit mining areas (Figure 2). The centre of the Project footprint is located at approximately 50° 11’ 36.2” north (N) latitude and 114° 54’ 49.2” west (W) longitude. The Project area is located in the Fording River drainage basin, a tributary of the Elk River (Figure 2). This area forms part of the Front Ranges of the Canadian Rockies, with elevations reaching over 2,450 metres above sea level (masl).
The Project footprint will encompass the east facing slopes of the Greenhills Range. The Project area is located on both fee simple land owned by Teck, and on Crown land coal leases held by Teck. Access to the Project area is north via Highway 43 (Elk Valley Highway) from Sparwood to Elkford and then north on the Fording Mine Road.
2.2 Project History and Overview Mining of metallurgical coal in the region began in the late 1890s at the Coal Creek Mine near Fernie, BC and continued throughout the 1900s. A focus on open-pit mining practices in the early 1970s resulted in development of the five active mines in the Elk Valley, all of which transitioned to Teck Coal Limited in mid-2008.
Operations at Fording River mine began in 1971 after the successful application to the Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM) for the initial development of the original Eagle and Greenhills pits. These developments on the lower slopes of Eagle Mountain to the east and the Greenhills Range to the west were authorized under permit C-3. The environmental baseline assessment for this project was completed by the BC Research Council with reclamation research carried out by Trail Research (a division of Cominco Ltd.) in the late 1960s.
An application to amend the existing MEM approval was submitted in 1981 for an expansion to the original Eagle Mountain development. An environmental assessment was conducted by BC Research. The existing permit has since had several amendments as new operating areas and supporting infrastructure have been required. To date the mine has produced approximately 212 million metric tonnes of primarily metallurgical coal for sale to various customers around the world.
April 2011 - 2 - 580000 600000 620000 640000 660000 680000 700000 720000
YUKON NORTHWEST 22 TERRITORY TERRITORIES 5580000 5580000
FORDING RIVER CANADA
COLUMBIA Fording River LAKE ELK RIVER Operations BRITISH ALBERTAIVER COLUMBIAWHITE R 5560000 5560000 Greenhills Operations
Elkford DRY CREEK
Furman
5540000 Line Creek 5540000 Premier Lake UNITED STATES Operations Skookumchuck OF AMERICA
43 22 BRITISH COLUMBIA ALBERTA
5520000 Ta Ta C re ek 5520000 Wasa BULL RIVER Elkview Elk Prairie Operations Sparwood
95A
Kimberley Crowsnest Pass Coleman OLDMAN Chapman Camp 3 RESERVOIR Marysville Frank Fort Steele Blairmore 5500000 Bellevue 5500000 Lundbreck Hosmer Cowley Wycliffe St. Eugene KOOTENAY RIVER Hillcrest Mission Corbin Old Town Fernie Cranbrook Baker Coal Mountain Beaver Mines Rockyview Bull River Cokato Operations Mayook 3 5480000 5480000 Lumberton Wardner Jaffray Galloway
Pecten
Elko Moyie LAKE Baynes 5460000 KOOCANUSA Lake 5460000
Kragmont
Grasmere 5440000 5440000
580000 600000 620000 640000 660000 680000 700000 720000 LEGEND 15 0 15 COMMUNITY COAL MINING OPERATION EAST KOOTENAY REGIONAL DISTRICT PROJECT LOCATION SCALE 1:800,000 KILOMETRES FIRST NATIONS RESERVE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY PROVINCIAL PARK PROJECT PRIMARY HIGHWAY WATERBODY FORDING RIVER OPERATIONS SECONDARY HIGHWAY MUNICIPAL DISTRICT THE SWIFT PROJECT ROAD ELKFORD MUNICIPAL DISTRICT TITLE WATERCOURSE SPARWOOD MUNICIPAL DISTRICT BRITISH COLUMBIA - ALBERTA BORDER PROJECT LOCATION REFERENCE Provincial and Municipal boundaries, cities and transportation data obtained from ESRI and DMTI. PROJECT NO. 09-1349-1007 SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0 First Nations Reserves obtained from Geogratis. Protected areas obtained from GeoGratis and LRDW. DESIGN CW 07 Jun. 2010 GIS DR 05 Apr. 2011 Hydrography data obtained from IHS Energy. Imagery obtained from WorldSat International. CHECK LH 07 Apr. 2011 FIGURE: 1 Projection: UTM Zone 11 Datum: NAD 83 REVIEW SDL 07 Apr. 2011 I:\2009\09-1349\09-1349-1007\Mapping\MXD\ProjectDescription\PD-GHN-001-GIS_ProjectLocation.mxd 648000 652000 656000 660000
Mount Tuxford 5572000 5572000
EK E R C E RN BO OS
BRITT CREEK
FORDING RIVER
Henretta Ridge 5568000 HENRETTA CREEK 5568000
MCQUARRIE CREEK M O O R E Britt Creek Spur C R
E
E
K T Greenhills Range U ELK RIVER R N C R LAKE MOUNTAIN LAKE E E K Mount Turnbull LAKE MOUNTAIN CREEK FISH POND CREEK CLODE CREEK HAROLD CREEK 5564000 5564000
CHANDREA CREEK K E Eagle Mountain E R C Plant EK N E CRE O Site OR AS KM J NORTH C A EK TAILINGS L RE B C POND E K BROWNIE CREEK A L HEATHER CREEK B
SOUTH ELK RIVER TAILINGS POND KILMARNOCK CREEK Greenhills Range 5560000 5560000
SHANDLEY CREEK
NORTH FORK Castle Mountain
MIDDLE FORK SWIFT CREEK
SOUTH FORK
FORDING RIVER Greenhills CATARACT CREEK Operations
CHAUNCEY CREEK
5556000 648000 652000 656000 660000 5556000
LEGEND 202 CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY SCALE 1:90,000 KILOMETRES MAJOR WATERCOURSE MINOR WATERCOURSE PROJECT TRANSMISSION LINE FORDING RIVER OPERATIONS CURRENT PERMITTED AREA THE SWIFT PROJECT EXISTING STOCKPILE TITLE PROPOSED PROJECT FOOTPRINT WATERBODY PROJECT FOOTPRINT AND EXISTING FORDING RIVER OPERATIONS PROJECT NO. 09-1349-1007 SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0 REFERENCE DESIGN CW 14 Jun. 2010 1: 50,000 scale hydrography and elevation data obtained from GeoGratis.Transmission line data obtained GIS DR 07 Apr. 2011 from BCTC and Geogratis. Transportation data obtained from DMTI. CHECK LH 07 Apr. 2011 FIGURE: 2 Projection: UTM Zone 11 Datum: NAD 83 REVIEW SDL 07 Apr. 2011 I:\2009\09-1349\09-1349-1007\Mapping\MXD\ProjectDescription\PD-GHN-002-GIS_ProjectFootprintExistingOperations.mxd Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
Today, FRO supports about 1,078 employees and contributes significantly to the local economies of Sparwood, Elkford, Crowsnest Pass and Fernie through employment, purchases in those communities, and through a formal mine-property tax sharing pool which contributes $9 million annually to the three Elk Valley Communities and the Regional District of East Kootenay (RDEK) Area A. Permitted reserves in the existing FRO operational areas will sustain FRO until 2020 with declining production after 2014. To sustain the current workforce and meet market demands for metallurgical coal into the future, the development of new reserves within the areas adjacent to the existing FRO is required.
The reserves in the proposed Project area have been under evaluation for several years. The Project area is previously disturbed by mining, gas exploration, and timber harvesting. The Project area is located immediately north of Teck’s Greenhills Operations and west of the FRO plant site, shop and warehouse complex. The Project area is situated on and adjacent to areas mined by FRO between 1971 and 1993. As an extension of the current operations, the Project will mine the same coal deposits being extracted by existing mining operations, and will use the existing mine facilities to process and load the coal. The location of the proposed development in relation to current operations and the surrounding area is shown in Figures 1 and 2.
It is estimated that the proposed Project will provide an aggregate total of approximately 175 million metric tonnes of processed (clean) coal (Mmtcc) and will be a critical part of product blends for the next 25 years. The proposed development will generate approximately 1,500 million cubic metres (m3) of waste rock. Waste rock will be placed to the north and south of the pit excavations. As well, using a phased development approach, a considerable portion of the waste material (approximately 35%) will be used to backfill the new excavations. The conceptual plan for development of the Project will result in a mining footprint approximately 12 kilometres (km) long by 3 km wide and totalling an area of approximately 2,800 hectares (ha), consisting of approximately:
1,600 ha of area previously permitted for mining activity; and 1,200 ha of new operating areas, some of which have been previously disturbed by timber harvesting, gas exploration and access construction operations.
The Project area will include the following:
transportation and electrical transmission infrastructure for coal and waste hauls, pit access and transmission line right-of-ways; change in right-of-way for main site power transmission line; mine pit excavations; marshalling and laydown areas for mine equipment;
April 2011 - 5 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
waste spoils both in current operating areas, south below the spoils of Greenhills Operations, and north on the Britt Creek flats; surface water management systems including outfalls and other drainage structures; and coal stockpile and sorting areas.
The Project will also use existing infrastructure in place at FRO including waste and coal haul roads, mine access roads, coal processing facilities, the Canadian Pacific (CP) railway line and load out loop, explosive storage and delivery systems, and office facilities.
The estimated capital cost (investment amount) for the Swift Project is $12,500,000. It is anticipated that the Swift Project will use the existing FRO labour force. The number of jobs predicted for the construction and operations phases are:
34 person years for the construction phase; and 15,000 person years for the operation phase.
The existing FRO is capable of operating at approximately 30,000 metric tonnes of clean coal per day. The maximum capacity of the operational facilities is approximately 10 million metric tonnes annually (e.g. 28,600/day x 350 annual operating days). As noted previously, the Swift Project represents a supply of new coal reserves to sustain the existing operation at current production levels. The Project will not require additional plant capacity beyond its current design and approved operating conditions, and will not result in an increase to the operational productive capacity of FRO (refer to Section 2.4.3).
2.3 Deposit Geology and Resource Characterization
2.3.1 Stratigraphy
The general stratigraphic succession on the FRO property is summarized in Table 1.
April 2011 - 6 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
Table 1: Fording River Stratigraphy Period Litho-Stratigraphic Units Principal Rock Types Recent colluvium Quaternary clay, silt, sand, gravel, cobbles Lower massive bedded sandstones and Blairmore Group Cretaceous conglomerates sandstone, siltstone, shale, mudstones, Elk Formation chert pebble conglomerate, minor coal sandstone, siltstone, shale, mudstones, Mist Mountain Formation thick coal seams Lower Moose Mountain medium to coarse-grained quartz-chert Cretaceous Kootenay Member sandstone to Upper Group Jurassic Morrisey Formation Weary Ridge fine to coarse-grained, slight ferruginous Member quartz-chert sandstone
Jurassic Fernie Formation shale, siltstone, fine-grained sandstone Spray River Formation sandy shale, shale quartzite Triassic Rocky Mountain Formation quartzite Mississippian Rundle Group limestone
The oldest rocks present on the FRO property are the Rundle Group limestone, located on the west bank of the Fording River, near the southern property boundary. They are in faulted contact with the Kootenay Group to the west, and unconformable contact with Rocky Mountain Formation quartzites to the north. The latter are best exposed on the eastern slope of the Brownie Creek valley.
The Fernie Formation shales occur throughout the area, generally along the sides of the valleys on the lower flanks of the mountains. The shales are recessive and, generally poorly exposed. However, good exposures of Fernie Formation strata occur on the lower western slopes of Eagle Mountain in some creek drainages. The Fernie Formation is in conformable contact with the Morrissey Formation through the “Passage Beds,” which are a transitional zone from marine to non-marine sedimentation.
The Morrissey Formation, which is the “basal sandstone” of the Kootenay Group, is a prominent cliff-forming marker horizon in many locations. On the Fording River property, the top of the Moose Mountain member (Morrissey Formation) is in sharp contact with 010 seam, the lowermost bed of the Mist Mountain Formation.
The Mist Mountain Formation contains all of the economic coal seams, and is the most widely occurring formation on the FRO property. This economically important formation is an interbedded sequence of sandstones, siltstones, silty
April 2011 - 7 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
shales, mudstones, and medium to high volatile bituminous coal seams. The volatile content of the coal increases up section, with decreasing rank. Lenticular sandstones comprise about one-third of the Mist Mountain sediments at Fording River, but very few laterally extensive sandstone beds exist.
The sandstone above and below seam 040 and above 090, are the most persistent units, and also are often cliff-forming marker horizons.
The Mist Mountain Formation is generally overlain conformably by strata of the Elk Formation. On the FRO property, this formation is commonly a succession of sandstones, siltstones, shales, mudstones, chert pebble conglomerates, and sporadic, thin, high volatile bituminous coal seams. The coal seams are characterized by high alginate content and referred to as “Needle” coal. The Elk Formation is observed near the tops of the mountains, mainly along the east side of the Elk Valley on the Greenhills Range, and northward to the Mount Tuxford areas.
The top of the Elk Formation marks the upper boundary of the Kootenay Group, which is uncomformably overlain by the basal member of the Blairmore Group. This thick bedded, cliff-forming sandstone and conglomerate unit is observed on the upper slopes of Mount Tuxford.
2.3.2 Structure
After deposition, the sediments were involved in the mountain-building movements of the late Cretaceous to early Tertiary Laramide orogeny. The major structural features of the FRO property are the north-south trending synclines with near horizontal to steep westerly dipping thrust faults, and a few high-angle normal faults. Some of the thrust faults were probably folded late in the tectonic cycle.
The major fold structures began to form early in the tectonic cycle. In the current mining area, two asymmetric synclines are evident: the Greenhills Syncline to the west, and the Alexander Creek Syncline to the east of the Fording River.
The thrust faulting (i.e., the Ewin Pass and Brownie Ridge thrusts) was probably contemporaneous with the later stages of folding. The intervening anticline was then faulted (Erickson Fault), and eroded.
The Alexander Creek Syncline can be traced from the southern property boundary on Castle Mountain to the northern end of the property on Weary Ridge. The strata of the west limb, on the west face of Eagle Mountain, dip easterly at 20 to 25 degrees (°), decreasing gradually to zero as the axis is approached. The east limb; however, attains a 20° westerly dip within a much shorter (500 metres) distance of the axis. This asymmetry is possibly due, at
April 2011 - 8 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
least in part, to the influence of the Ewin Pass Thrust which subcrops 600 to 800 metres (m) east of the synclinal axis.
Further to the east, on Brownie Ridge, the strata dip westerly at a mean of 42°. The Brownie Ridge Thrust, which subcrops near the crest of the ridge, probably contributes to this steepening.
Within the mining area of Eagle Mountain, the axis of the Alexander Creek Syncline plunges to the north at an average of 4°. Turnbull Mountain exhibits a localized series of en echelon fold structure, plunging both to the north and to the south. These subsidiary folds may be related to thrust faulting. From the south end of Mount Tuxford, the synclinal axis continues north-northwest along the base of Mount Veits and into the Elk River Valley near Aldridge Creek.
On Mount Tuxford, the beds exposed are those of the Elk Formation and the overlying (non-coal bearing) Cadomin Formation. The area has not been extensively explored. The stratigraphic sequence of the east limb, in the more extensively explored Mist Mountain strata near Aldridge Creek (Elco property), closely resembles the east limb strata found on Henretta Ridge, 10 km to the south.
On the northwest corner of Eagle Mountain, the lower Kootenay-upper Fernie section is the locus for a zone of near horizontal thrust faulting. The effect is to cause a double repetition of the lower coal seams and basal sandstone on the west synclinal limb. This fault zone is synclinal in form and continuous with the Ewin Pass Thrust zone found in the east limb.
The Greenhills Syncline in the mining area is essentially a “mirror-image” of the Alexander Creek structure. The east limb of the asymmetric syncline dips westerly at 15 to 25°, except in areas near the Erickson Fault, where 45 to 55° dips are common. The west limb exhibits much steeper dips, commonly in the 35 to 45° range. The Greenhills Syncline plunges northward (340 to 350°), at less than 5°, and then thins out and seems to end to the north in the area of the Osborne Creek Depression.
The Erickson Fault, which locally runs along the base of the Greenhills Range, west of the Fording River, is one of the major regional faults. From south to north, this westerly dipping (40 to 70°) normal fault, brings Mist Mountain strata progressively into contact with Rundle, Rock Mountain, Spray River, Fernie and Morrissey strata. The downthrown block is to the west.
Near the south end of Lake Mountain, the Erickson Faults begins to “splay” into two zones. The main fault runs along the eastern margin of Lake Mountain, and the subsidiary fault runs to the west and appears to thin out and end northward. The steep northward dip exhibited in the Lake Mountain strata could be due to influence from these flanking “splays” of the fault. The flat-lying region to the
April 2011 - 9 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
north of Lake Mountain (Osborne Creek Depression area) is completely void of outcrop, and the Erickson Fault has not been traced either through or to the north of this area.
2.4 Components and Infrastructure
2.4.1 Conceptual Mine Plan and Schedule
A conceptual development plan and schedule for the Swift Project was completed in 2010. Incorporating the Project into the life of mine (LOM) plan allows the FRO to blend coals required to meet metallurgical coal production requirements through to the year 2040. The plan considers:
balancing pit design, production sequencing and market demand estimations to achieve steady employment roles; maintaining mine economics through waste haul and strip ratio considerations; using backfilling of mined pits as a means of reducing the footprint of the Project as well as optimizing waste hauls; sequencing spoiling to minimize disturbance and maximize reclamation opportunities; allowing for a balanced product release; and techniques of spoil design that will lessen the impact of rock waste disposal on water quality measures such as selenium.
The following provides a general description of the Project and the conceptual schedule for its implementation. The components of the mine plan and schedule outlined below may be subject to modification at the stage of final engineering design, construction and operations.
The strip ratio (i.e., the ratio of the volume of overburden or waste rock moved relative to the tonnage of coal produced) for the Project ranges from 15:1 in the early years and slowly decreases to 5:1 in the final year. For the majority of the Project, the strip ratio is approximately 8.5:1. Waste haul distance will be as short as possible to minimize haul truck operating times to reduce mining costs and greenhouse gas (GHG) generation. The waste rock haul distance for the Project ranges from 5 km when there is nearby access to the dumps but increases up to 16 km at the end of the Project when material will be hauled out of the pit bottoms.
April 2011 - 10 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
The Project will be mined with traditional truck and shovel techniques currently being used in open-pit mining. Various sizes of electric shovels are planned to mine the deposit: The current FRO fleet of excavators consists of:
three 55-cubic yard (42 m3) shovels; and four 72-cubic yard (55 m3) shovels.
For planning purposes, it is assumed that up to three of these units will be provided from the existing fleet to mine in the Swift Project area.
Two front-end loaders from the existing fleet of five will also be used to mine waste rock and coal from the Project.
A fleet of 320-ton and 240-ton trucks will be used to haul waste rock and coal, respectively. In the initial start up phase of production, approximately 15 trucks will be provided from the existing fleet of approximately 50 trucks. Through the life of the mine, FRO production will shift from existing operating areas as they are exhausted to newer areas like the Swift Project. The number of trucks allocated from the overall site fleet to the Project increases in step with this. The number of trucks required will also increase due to future increases in the haul distances between the pits and spoils. For Project planning purposes, it is assumed that the maximum number of trucks required will peak at 50. Various support equipment such as tracked dozers, rubber-tired dozers, and excavators will be drawn from the existing fleet or be added as necessary.
2.4.1.1 Development of Pits
The Project will be developed in several phases that incorporate portions of the Swift Project area over a planned development schedule of 30 years.
The Project has been sequenced over four phases. Site preparation is scheduled to begin in the year 2013, subject to receipt of regulatory approvals. Mining is planned to begin in the first phase of the Swift Project in the area of the old Shandley Pit and the second phase in the former Swift Pit in 2013. Phase 3 begins in year 5 and Phase 4 begins in year 12 of the Project. Development continues until the planned end of the Project in 2040.
Highwalls are designed with 65 degree face angles, and are double-benched with a 10-m safety berm. Road widths are designed at 28-m running surface and sufficient widths to accommodate legal berm heights.
The ultimate footprint of the pits is approximately:
Phase 1 – 1,300 m by 500 m; Phase 2 – pushback to the south of 1,500 m by 1,200 m;
April 2011 - 11 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
Phase 3 – pushback of Phase 1 to the north of 300 m and to the west of 900 m; and Phase 4 – pushback of Phase 3 to the north of 2,400 m by 1,600m.
In Phase 1 and 2, operations will encounter a historic domestic landfill site, tailings that had been dredged into previous mining excavations, and waste rock that is currently in a state of combustion. Investigations will guide how this material is mined and spoiled such that risks to personnel and environment are mitigated.
At its deepest point, the pit excavation will be approximately 300 m lower than the elevation of the Fording River. Potential implications of this geometry will be investigated and associated management plans will be developed to minimize effects to surface streams.
2.4.1.2 Development of Spoils
In the initial stages of the Project, waste spoils will be developed on the Britt Creek Flats as well as to the south, adjacent to the Fording River and below the inactive spoils of the Greenhills Operations. As mining progresses to the north, spoils will advance east over the Turnbull Spoil that is currently under construction on the west side of the Fording River. The South Spoil will be extended northward in a series of backfill spoils as Phase 1, 2 and Phase 3 pits are exhausted.
The proposed ultimate configuration of the South and North spoils reach heights of 200 to 300 m. Construction of the external spoils will be from the bottom-up by placing the lower lifts first, then progressing up-slope with each subsequent lift. The in-pit spoils will generally be constructed top-down along the footwall slopes on the east side of the pits, with spoils end-dumped from the crest of the spoil. The spoils will consist of unsorted rehandle, blasted waste rock, and coarse coal reject material.
The proposed spoil configurations have been designed with final overall slopes of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical, and the spoil toes generally located away from major works or environmental features. Roads in spoils and accesses are primarily fill constructions and have been designed for a minimum 30-m running width again with accommodation of necessary berms.
An outline of conceptual Project activities is presented in Table 2. The conceptual mine sequence is illustrated in Figures 3 through 9.
April 2011 - 12 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
Table 2: Representative Conceptual Mine Phases for the Swift Project Year Description Timber and brush within the footprint of first North and South spoils and accesses are cleared, topsoil stockpiled. Access to top of Phase 1 is rehabilitated. Access road to top of Phase 2 established. Small sub-pit in the area of Phase 4, known as Phase 4X, is prepared. Mining upper benches of Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 4X begins; majority of material Period 1 hauled to north spoil. Year 1 Some Phase 1 material is used to rehabilitate accesses to south on the east edge of the development. Uppermost benches of Phase 2 are spoiled to west spoil, in upper Swift Creek. At the same time, some material from lower benches of Phase 2 is accessed to use for toe berm in south spoil area. Toe berm will be completed over two years. North Tailings Pond and other structures modified to serve as settling ponds and ditchworks. Phase 1 and Phase 2 mining continues; material hauled north and south. As spoils and accesses expand, further clearing and topsoil salvage is done. Period 2 Phase 4X mining complete; waste from lower benches of pit used to build toe berm Year 5 across Lake Mountain Creek. Phase 3 mining begins; material hauled to north spoil. Britt Creek Spur, the 138 kV line, is moved outside north spoil footprint. Phase 1 mining complete. Material from lower benches of Phase 1 and Phase 2 establish first backfill spoil on Period 3 Phase 1 footwall. Year 10 Phase 2 and Phase 3 mining continues; material hauled north and south. Lake Mountain Lake has been filled in. Phase 2 mining complete. Phase 3 mining continues; hauling to Phase 1 and 2 backfill spoil. Period 4 South spoil is complete. Year 15 Phase 4 mining begins; material is hauled to north. Lake Mountain Creek is prepped for mining; pumping out remaining water, hauling out saturated material. Phase 3 and Phase 4 mining continues. Period 5 Material hauled to south backfill spoils as well as north. Year 20 Small expansion to laydown area at pumpshed built with Phase 4 waste. Period 6 Phase 3 and Phase 4 mining continues. Year 25 Material hauled to south backfill spoils as well as north. Period 7 Phase 3 and Phase 4 mining complete. Year 30 Reclamation activities continue.
April 2011 - 13 - 650000 655000
Fording River
Henretta Creek
McQuarrie Cre
North Spoil 1890 Lift Fording River
Lake Mountain Lake 5565000 5565000
Road to North Spoil Phase 4x
Clode Creek Lake Mountain Creek Mountain Lake Boneyard Coal Haul Road d Proposed Lees Lake Sedimentation Control )"B Main Office Phase 1 North Tailings Pond 1805 Bench Plant Site Proposed North Pond Sedimentation Control
Kilmarnock Creek South Tailings Pond Phase 2 Casino Creek 1865 Bench Phase 2 1760 Bench 5560000 5560000
Kilmarnock Creek
West Spoil 1890 Lift
Swift Creek
South Spoil
1640 Toe Berm Fording River
Elk River Cataract Creek
650000 655000 LEGEND 00.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Kilometers ³ )"B Breaker Facility Existing Water Management Permit C-3 (2010) PROJECT d Sunshine Power Station Proposed Water Management Active Pits FORDING RIVER OPERATIONS Major Streams Lake Active Lifts THE SWIFT PROJECT
Existing Powerline Wetland TITLE (138KV Site Conceptual Mine Sequence Electrical Feed) Year 1 SCALE 1:60,000 SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 1 DESIGN SD 22 Feb. 2011 REFERENCE GIS AB 5 Apr. 2011 CHECK SD 5 Apr. 2011 FIGURE: 3 REVIEW LBG 5 Apr. 2011 \\Tcgis\data\Operations\FRO\Projects\2011\Swift\MXD\Period1.mxd 650000 655000
Fording River
Henretta Creek
McQuarrie Cre North Spoil 1910 Lift
Fording River 1780 Toe Berm 5565000 5565000
North Spoil
1970 Lift Clode Creek Lake Mountain Creek Mountain Lake
Phase 3 d Access Ramp )"B Main Office NTP Plant Site Phase 1 East Edge Spoil 1595 Bench 1700 Elevation Phase 3 2030 Bench Kilmarnock Creek STP
Phase 2 East Spoil Casino Creek 1700 Bench 1740 Elevation 5560000 5560000
Kilmarnock Creek
Toe Berm & 1720 Lift Complete South Spoil 1800 Lift Fording River
Elk River
650000 655000 LEGEND 00.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 ³ Kilometers )"B Breaker Facility Existing Water Management Permit C-3 (2010) PROJECT d Sunshine Power Station Proposed Water Management Active Pits FORDING RIVER OPERATIONS THE SWIFT PROJECT Major Streams Lake Active Lifts Existing Powerline Wetland Active Reclamation TITLE Conceptual Mine Sequence New Powerline ROW Year 5 SCALE 1:60,000 SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 1 DESIGN SD 22 Feb. 2011 REFERENCE GIS AB 5 Apr. 2011 CHECK SD 5 Apr. 2011 FIGURE: 4 REVIEW LBG 5 Apr. 2011 \\Tcgis\data\Operations\FRO\Projects\2011\Swift\MXD\Period2.mxd 650000 655000
Fording River
North Spoil 1910 Lift Henretta Creek
McQuarrie Cre
Fording River Lower North Spoil Ramp 5565000 5565000
North Spoil Clode Creek
2000 Lift Lake Mountain Creek Mountain Lake d Phase 1 Complete )"B Main Office NTP Plant Site Phase 1 Backfill 1715 Elevation Phase 3 1855 Bench Kilmarnock Creek STP
Casino Creek 5560000 5560000
Phase 2 Kilmarnock Creek 1580 Bench
South Spoil Fording River 1895 Lift Elk River
650000 655000 LEGEND 00.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 ³ Kilometers )"B Breaker Facility Existing Water Management Permit C-3 (2010) PROJECT d Sunshine Power Station Proposed Water Management Active Pits FORDING RIVER OPERATIONS Major Streams Lake Active Lifts THE SWIFT PROJECT Existing Powerline Wetland Active Reclamation TITLE New Powerline Completed Reclamation Conceptual Mine Sequence Year 10 SCALE 1:60,000 SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 1 DESIGN SD 22 Feb. 2011 REFERENCE GIS AB 5 Apr. 2011 CHECK SD 5 Apr. 2011 FIGURE: 5 REVIEW LBG 5 Apr. 2011 \\Tcgis\data\Operations\FRO\Projects\2011\Swift\MXD\Period3.mxd 650000 655000
Fording River
Henretta Creek North Spoil 1940 Lift
McQuarrie Creek
Fording River Lake Mountain Ridge Access 5565000 5565000
Phase 4 1760 Bench
Clode Creek Lake Mountain Creek Dewatering 1760
Elevation Lake Mountain Creek Mountain Lake d
)"B Main Office Phase 1 Backfill 1750 NTP Plant Site
Phase 2 Complete Phase 3 1745 Bench Kilmarnock Creek STP
Casino Creek
Phase 2 Backfill 5560000 1800 Lift 5560000 Kilmarnock Creek
1895 Lift
Fording River
650000 655000 LEGEND 00.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 ³ Kilometers )"B Breaker Facility Existing Water Management Permit C-3 (2010) PROJECT d FORDING RIVER OPERATIONS Sunshine Power Station Proposed Water Management Active Pits THE SWIFT PROJECT Major Streams Lake Active Lifts TITLE Existing Powerline Wetland Active Reclamation Conceptual Mine Sequence New Powerline Completed Reclamation Year 15 SCALE 1:60,000 SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 1 DESIGN SD 22 Feb. 2011 REFERENCE GIS AB 5 Apr. 2011 CHECK SD 5 Apr. 2011 FIGURE: 6 REVIEW LBG 5 Apr. 2011 \\Tcgis\data\Operations\FRO\Projects\2011\Swift\MXD\Period4.mxd 650000 655000
Fording River
Henretta Creek North Spoil 1970 Lift
McQuarrie Creek
Fording River 5565000 5565000
Phase 4 Clode Creek 1700 Elevation Pumpshed Laydown Area
d
)"B Main Office NTP Phase 3 Plant Site 1500 Elevation
Kilmarnock Creek Phase 2 Backfill STP
1825 Lift Casino Creek 5560000 5560000
Kilmarnock Creek
Fording River
Elk River
650000 655000 LEGEND 00.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 ³ Kilometers )"B Breaker Facility Existing Water Management Permit C-3 (2010) PROJECT d Sunshine Power Station Proposed Water Management Active Pits FORDING RIVER OPERATIONS Major Streams Lake Active Lifts THE SWIFT PROJECT
Existing Powerline Wetland Active Reclamation TITLE New Powerline Completed Reclamation Conceptual Mine Sequence Year 20 SCALE 1:60,000 SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 1 DESIGN SD 22 Feb. 2011 REFERENCE GIS AB 5 Apr. 2011 CHECK SD 5 Apr. 2011 FIGURE: 7 REVIEW LBG 5 Apr. 2011 \\Tcgis\data\Operations\FRO\Projects\2011\Swift\MXD\Period5.mxd 650000 655000
Fording River
Henretta Creek North Spoil 2000 Lift
McQuarrie Creek
Fording River 5565000 5565000
Clode Creek
Phase 4 1610 Bench
d
)"B Main Office NTP Phase 3 Plant Site 1550 Bench
Kilmarnock Creek Phase 2 Backfill STP
1855 Lift Casino Creek 5560000 5560000
Kilmarnock Creek
Fording River
Elk River
650000 655000 LEGEND 00.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 ³ Kilometers )"B Breaker Facility Existing Water Management Permit C-3 (2010) PROJECT FORDING RIVER OPERATIONS d Sunshine Power Station Proposed Water Management Active Pits Major Streams Lake Active Lifts THE SWIFT PROJECT Existing Powerline Wetland Active Reclamation TITLE New Powerline Completed Reclamation Conceptual Mine Sequence Year 25 SCALE 1:60,000 SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 1 DESIGN SD 22 Feb. 2011 REFERENCE GIS AB 5 Apr. 2011 CHECK SD 5 Apr. 2011 FIGURE: 8 REVIEW LBG 5 Apr. 2011 \\Tcgis\data\Operations\FRO\Projects\2011\Swift\MXD\Period6.mxd 650000 655000
Fording River
Henretta Creek North Spoil 2030 Lift
McQuarrie C
Fording River 5565000 5565000 Phase 4 Backfill 1805 Lift
Clode Creek
d
)"B Main Office NTP Plant Site
Kilmarnock Creek Phase 3 Backfill STP 1840 Lift Casino Creek 5560000 5560000
Kilmarnock Creek
Fording River
Elk River
650000 655000 LEGEND 00.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Kilometers ³ )"B Breaker Facility Existing Water Management Permit C-3 (2010) PROJECT d Sunshine Power Station Proposed Water Management Active Reclamation FORDING RIVER OPERATIONS Major Streams Lake Completed Reclamation THE SWIFT PROJECT Existing Powerline Wetland TITLE New Powerline Completion of Mining Year 30 Through Final Reclamation SCALE 1:60,000 SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 1 DESIGN SD 22 Feb. 2011 REFERENCE GIS AB 5 Apr. 2011 CHECK SD 5 Apr. 2011 FIGURE: 9 REVIEW LBG 5 Apr. 2011 \\Tcgis\data\Operations\FRO\Projects\2011\Swift\MXD\Period7.mxd Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
2.4.1.3 Development of Infrastructure
2.4.1.3.1 Toe Berms
It is anticipated that two main toe berms will be built as part of the spoil development. The first toe berm will be built in the first two years of production at the base of the south spoil complex (Figure 3). A ramp will be established with rehandled waste down to the spoil base area. Blasted waste will be used to construct a toe berm approximately 30 m in height in a north-south trending direction. Structures will be put in place to maintain unimpeded flow of Swift and Cataract creeks.
The second structure will be established across Lake Mountain Creek, north of the eventual Phase 4 north highwall (Figure 4). The berm will function to provide toe stability for the north spoils in this area but also to reverse the flow of Lake Mountain Creek to the north, away from the pit developments.
2.4.1.3.2 Access Roads
In general, most roads will be developed over existing accesses using fill design where material is added to improve the width and/or grade. For example, the first Phase 2 access road will require dozing part of a dormant spoil to the north and south to gain access to the upper benches of this pit.
However, the Phase 3 access road will require some cut and fill design to climb to the 2,150 m elevation where the mining will first start. As above, minimum road widths will be observed. The ultimate widths will be dependent upon the equipment used in some of these pioneering phases.
2.4.1.3.3 Laydown Areas and Coal Stockpiles
A wide area known as Lees Lake stockpile area is currently in use. It is expected that this area will be more heavily used in the early stages of the Project. Other stockpiles may be established at the 1,700 m elevation west of the North Tailings Pond. Another area that will be developed is north of the current Pump Shed/Truck Box Laydown area. It is anticipated that this area will be developed later in the Project as Phase 4 is developed. Some laydown areas currently in use will have to be moved or changed as mining develops. Other interim laydown or stockpiles will be developed on spoils as they are built where and when it is practical to do so. This plan will continue to be developed as input from other studies is received.
2.4.1.3.4 Topsoil Stockpiles
As pits and spoils are developed it is expected that, where practicable, topsoil will be recovered. When possible, topsoil will be hauled directly to areas already
April 2011 - 21 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
prepared for placement of organic cover material. However, because direct placement will not always be possible, topsoil will also be stored in various locations until reclamation areas become available. Engineering work will determine the optimal places to store this material; locations outside the Project area that are near future reclamation areas in other parts of the currently permitted footprint of FRO may also be used.
2.4.2 On-Site Infrastructure This section provides an overview of the new or upgraded facilities that are required for the Swift Project. Facilities that will not change as a result of the Project but are located at the existing FRO are summarized in Section 2.4.3 (Existing Off-site Infrastructure).
Although the proposed development will use existing FRO infrastructure to the extent possible, the addition of some facilities will be required to support operations. In all cases, opportunities to re-use and relocate existing facilities to support the Project from the existing operations will be the first consideration, including: fuelling station, marshalling sites, haul roads, power lines and water management facilities. The following sub-sections briefly outline the infrastructure required for the development of the Project and the sources of atmospheric emissions.
2.4.2.1 Fuelling Station
A portable fuelling and maintenance station will be required near the Project development. The station will include a double walled “enviro tank” for diesel fuel with a capacity less than 100,000 litres, and a combination oil and grease lubrication trailer. This station will be constructed as per FRO’s standard procedures, and will be designed and constructed with a liner to reduce ground impacts from potential leaks, capture leaks and to control drainage in and around the area.
2.4.2.2 Haul Roads
Haul roads will be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the BC Health Safety and Reclamation Code (HSRC; Ministry Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources 2008) and will include a 30- to 40-m-wide running surface, an interior ditch structure to divert surface water runoff in accordance with the drainage plan, and a safety berm.
2.4.2.3 Power Lines
Supplying power to the equipment and ancillary facilities will involve power lines, portable field substations and power cables to the equipment. Power to the site is currently brought from the Kan-Elk transmission line via the Britt Creek spur. This power is reduced from 138 kilovolts (kV) transmission voltage, to 13.8 kV
April 2011 - 22 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
distribution voltage at the existing Sunshine Power Substation located near the Project area.
Power to the Project area will be provided by 13.8 kV distribution power lines from Teck’s substation to portable field substations, or “switch gears”. The primary power lines will be run through a substation within the Project area to reduce power to the 7,200 volts (V) required by Project equipment. The equipment will be serviced through several switch gears that allow a main feed to the switch and the option to “plug” several units in at the output. Switch gears from the existing operation will be re-used for the Project.
Power lines will parallel existing road rights-of-way in most cases. There are also existing powerlines in the Project area that can be used. Where required, power poles may be established off the existing road structures. In many cases, the disturbance will be within the planned mining footprint and will be removed as mining progresses. Substations to reduce the line voltage to that required by the equipment or facility will be located on flat pads established on the road edges. A portion of the 138kV transmission Britt Creek spur will need to be re-routed to accommodate spoiling activity in year 6 of the Project. Another portion of the spur line will be moved before mining in Phase 4 begins.
2.4.2.4 Water Management Facilities
Surface water control structures will be developed as determined by the surface water management plan/water quality design objectives. Typically this will involve settling ponds to remove suspended solids from surface runoff. It is expected that in addition to the existing facilities at FRO, a phased system of water management facilities will be constructed to direct water away from active mining areas and to treat mine-influenced waters. Settling ponds will be designed by registered professional engineers.
2.4.2.5 Domestic Landfill
The domestic landfill that is currently permitted and used by the FRO will be mined out as part of the Swift Project. Teck is in the process of identifying a new location for a landfill and will be seeking approval for the new location when identified.
2.4.2.6 Coal Haul
Coal mined from the Swift Project will be hauled via 240-ton haul trucks to the existing FRO breaker facility located at the existing plant site. This breaker is currently in use at the existing operations. The breaker and associated conveyor system will then be used to transport the raw coal to the existing Process Plant (refer to Section 2.4.3).
April 2011 - 23 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
The operational engineering groups will also be investigating opportunities for improvements to the proposed mine operation process. The potential for operation and environmental benefits for conveyance systems will be analyzed. Alternatives being considered to transport coal to the existing truck haul include:
hauling coal with the truck fleet; transporting coal using a new conveyor system; new breaker; and/or some combination of the above.
2.4.2.7 Atmospheric Emissions
Sources of atmospheric emissions from the Swift Project include:
surface mining; placement of waste rock; development of coal stockpiles; and construction and operation of transportation and utility corridors (including truck hauling of coal to the plant breaker facility).
The mechanisms for air emissions anticipated for the activities listed above include:
blasting; drilling; bulldozing of coal; bulldozing of overburden; shovel and loader loading waste haul truck at pit; truck unloading waste rock at dump; shovel and loader loading raw coal haul truck at pit; truck unloading raw coal to hopper stockpile; hopper stockpile; operation of the truck fleet; operation of diesel-fuelled equipment (including water trucks); grading; scraping; and travel along unpaved roads (including haul trucks).
No new immobile point emission sources are proposed as part of the Project.
2.4.3 Existing Off-Site Infrastructure This section provides an overview of the facilities located at the existing FRO that will not change as a result of the Project in addition to those that are located off- site from the existing FRO.
April 2011 - 24 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
2.4.3.1 Process Plant
Coal mined from the Project area will be hauled, processed and shipped to market using existing infrastructure currently in use at FRO. These permitted facilities have sufficient capacity to handle coal mined from the Project because the existing mining operations will ramp down production at about the same time as mining in the Swift Project area begins. Accordingly, no new off-site infrastructure or increase in capacity of the Process Plant beyond what it is currently approved is proposed for the Project. A description of how coal from the Project will be processed and shipped (is provided for information purposes only in Appendix A). The existing facilities for loading, transporting, and processing coal are not considered within the scope of the Swift Project.
2.4.3.2 Access
As discussed in Section 2.1, access to the Project area for the purposes of construction and operation of the mine will be via Highway 43 and Fording River Mine Road to the existing FRO, and then along proposed new haul roads as described in Section 2.4.2.
2.4.3.3 Power
As noted in Section 2.4.2, electrical power to the Project area will be provided from the existing infrastructure associated with the FRO (e.g., 13.8 kV power lines from the existing substation).
2.4.3.4 Potable Water
Potable water is currently drawn from a series of wells on the east side of the Fording River near the toe of the Turnbull Bridge. No changes to this source are proposed as a result of the Project.
2.4.3.5 Domestic Water Treatment
Domestic water is piped to a series of lined aeration cells for treatment and is then subsequently discharged to ground through three unlined settlement and exfiltration ponds. No changes to this facility are proposed as a result of the Project.
2.4.3.6 Maintenance Shop, Warehouse, Dry Change and Office Facilities
Current infrastructure is situated on the east side of the Fording River. With the exception of the new Dry Change building (2010) and a recent shop expansion (2002), most infrastructure has been in place for over 20 years. While some construction may occur in the near future due to larger or more equipment coming into the fleet, no facilities construction is proposed for the Project.
April 2011 - 25 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
2.4.3.7 Explosives
Explosives used for development of the Project will be stored in licensed facilities currently in use at FRO.
2.4.3.8 Processing and Coal Stockpiles
The existing plant (as described in Appendix A) and clean and raw coal stockpiles have sufficient capacity for the production of 10 million clean tonnes of coal annually. Modifications to these facilities are not planned as a result of the Project.
2.4.3.9 Rail Loop and Loading Facilities
The rail line was established in 1971 to facilitate transportation of coal to the main CP line and, from there, on to port facilities east and west. No change to the rail loop or loading facilities will be made as a result of the Project.
2.5 Waste Management
2.5.1 Mine Waste Disposal Waste rock generated from mining will be hauled by 320-ton class diesel electric haul trucks to waste dumps located around and within the pit development as discussed in Section 2.4.
Waste generated during coal processing, i.e., coarse coal reject (CCR) and tailings, will be disposed using 240-ton class trucks and pumping, respectively. Coarse coal reject will be hauled to specially permitted dumps or blended with mine waste in permitted waste spoils. Tailings will be pumped to the South Tailings Pond or future approved disposal facilities.
Non-hazardous solid wastes such as rubber hoses, metals, plastics and paper generated as a result of the Project will be managed through the existing FRO waste management program. This program allows for the disposal of a variety of waste into waste collection drums. The wastes are picked up by a contractor, sorted and sent through a variety of waste streams that maximize recycling and minimize sending solid waste to landfills. The program employs the “cradle to grave” concept of waste tracking to maintain compliance and consistency with waste streams. Internal auditing of compliance is a key component of the program.
Liquid wastes generated as a result of the Project will be collected and either re- used within the mining process, or disposed of at an appropriate on-site or off- site facility. For example, some waste oils are re-used in the blasting process to minimize the use of diesel fuel, while others are shipped off-site for processing and disposal at approved facilities.
April 2011 - 26 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
Domestic wastes will be managed through an Environmental Management Act permit and disposed of in approved locations.
2.5.2 Mine Water Management Discharge water quality limits for the existing FRO is set through an Environmental Management Permit, PE–424, administered by the Ministry of Environment (MOE) and discharge and receiving water quality is reported in both quarterly and annual water reports. It is anticipated that this permit will need to be amended to incorporate changes in mine-affected surface water discharge associated with the Project.
As with the existing FRO, settling ponds are anticipated to be the only containment structures required to maintain water quality. No tailings dams or other like storage facilities are proposed. The long-range water management objective is to provide a drainage pattern that will sustain itself in perpetuity without maintenance. Coarse waste rock will naturally segregate and accumulate at the base of the dumps, facilitating water flow through the main waste spoil structures. The reclamation program will consider long-term erosion and other water quality concerns. Measures will be implemented to mitigate potential adverse effects. Erosion control and site drainage will be maintained and monitored by site personnel and will be carried out in accordance with FRO’s internal procedures.
Selenium management plans to monitor and assess risks and manage selenium release have been developed by Teck in consultation with the Elk Valley Selenium Task Force and appropriate governing agencies. Research into the behaviour of selenium in the coal extraction process is continuing and several significant selenium investigation studies are being conducted at the existing FRO mine site. The site-specific Teck Fording River Operations 2010 Selenium Management Plan (Teck 2010a) includes monitoring to determine success measures and future options to ensure that continual improvement is an integral component of the plan.
Teck also recently commissioned the Strategic Advisory Panel on Selenium Management (the Panel). The goal of the Panel is to provide independent, expert advice and assistance by producing a strategic plan for the sustainable management of selenium at Teck’s operations. The Panel, which first met in January 2010, has three objectives:
1. develop recommendations for a selenium strategic management plan that integrates the environmental, social, and business opportunities and risks associated with selenium management;
2. develop a conceptual implementation plan for the strategy; and
April 2011 - 27 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
3. further advise on the implementation of the strategic plan at individual operations.
The Panel produced a report entitled The Way Forward: A Strategic Plan for the Management of Selenium at Teck Coal Operations on June 30, 2010, fulfilling the first objective above (Strategic Advisory Panel on Selenium Management 2010). The report provides a strategy to reverse the increasing trend of selenium loadings in the Elk Valley. It recommends that additional analysis be completed to develop site-specific implementation plans for selenium management. Teck is developing site-specific implementation plans that are expected to be completed in 2011 for all operations, including FRO. The site-specific implementation plan for FRO will be incorporated into annual updates to the Fording River Operations Selenium Management Plan.
The Swift Project currently incorporates two key recommendations of the Panel, including:
maximizing backfill of waste rock into mined out pits; and avoiding placement of waste rock in cross valley fills.
Teck is also undertaking two engineering feasibility studies for active water treatment; one at Kilmarnock Creek (FRO) and another at West Line Creek at Line Creek Operations (LCO). These two projects are specifically aimed at reducing selenium loadings within the Elk River watershed.
Once the site-specific implementation plan for reducing selenium loadings at FRO is completed in 2011, additional selenium management measures that are identified will be incorporated into the Swift Project. The EA for the Swift Project will incorporate all available results from the site-specific implementation plans at FRO and Teck’s other Elk Valley operations, recognizing that implementation of the Panel recommendations for selenium management will be a long-term process that will extend beyond on the time-frame of the Swift Project EA.
2.6 Environmental Management The FRO administers an in-house Environmental Management System (EMS). The system has been accredited since 2001 and is registered within the requirements of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14001: 2004 framework. Activities are implemented and maintained to provide effective environmental management of all FRO coal mining and processing activities within the operations tenure. The Environmental Management System Manual (Teck 2008), which conforms to the ISO 14001: 2004 standard, provides a guide to the system and identifies where different components of the system can be located. All related procedures, the EMS manual, forms and other documents are warehoused in digital format accessible at the operation. Teck’s Environmental Policy is also posted on the company intranet site and at the FRO
April 2011 - 28 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
gatehouse for public viewing. The Project operations will be undertaken in accordance with FRO’s in-house EMS.
2.7 Mine Reclamation, Closure and Monitoring The FRO is committed to reclaiming disturbed areas to return the land-base to self-sustaining conditions through recontouring and revegetation. The final reclamation plan for the Swift Project will be guided by site and regional research and experience as well as consultation with communities of interest. Future landscape modification and revegetation practices will likely be similar to those currently used at FRO and other proven practices in use at Teck mines in the Elk Valley. These practices are consistent with the requirements of the current legislation and requirements of FRO’s existing Permit C-3 and its various amendments. Innovation in reclamation has been a cornerstone of FRO practice since inception and will be encouraged throughout the Project and used in conjunction with proven techniques.
Reclamation is an integral part of mining activities and is a primary component of effects management at FRO. The reclamation plan at FRO is intended to progressively reclaim areas over the life of the operation as they become available (i.e., when it is safe and once there is no future mining or other planned re-disturbance in the area). The goal of reclamation is to establish sustainable, diverse and functional landscapes that, on a property average basis, are equal to or greater than the capability which existed before mining. These landscapes consider not only the planned end land use but also the manner in which they fit into adjacent undisturbed landscapes and are based on pre-mining biophysical evaluations and Canada Land Inventory site ratings. Permit C-3 authorizes the reclamation of disturbed lands at the existing FRO to end land uses of forestry, wildlife, and aquatic and riparian habitat. By planning for these end land use objectives, other activities such as hiking, camping, wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, skiing and snowmobiling also become potential uses. The planned mosaic of open and treed areas across post-mining landscapes will greatly enhance these recreational opportunities.
Reclamation research is necessary to develop successful operational reclamation plans as well as to advance the science of reclamation (Smyth 2002). The results of this research are used to develop effective reclamation programs to satisfy both short- and long-term reclamation objectives. The FRO has a history of commissioning reclamation research dating back to 1969 when initial environmental and reclamation evaluations were conducted by Trail Research.
April 2011 - 29 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
The ongoing FRO reclamation research program is based on the two main components of capability and sustainability, as briefly outlined below:
Capability monitoring to demonstrate the reclaimed landscape is being managed to meet the end land use objectives. Attributes such as productivity, thermal, and refuge cover and existence and percent cover of vegetation will be monitored. Assessment of off-site adjacent areas will be used to benchmark the expectations for these parameters. Sustainability monitoring will be conducted on both forage and treed areas to assess the sustainability of the reclaimed landforms. Forage will be assessed for above ground biomass production, stand level species composition, foliar nutrition and metals uptake. These metrics will provide information on site vigour, nutrient cycling, diversity and productivity. The treed areas will be assessed for growth, stocking, density and foliar nutrients. This will enable an assessment of relative stand health as compared to regulatory requirements governed by the Ministry of Forests and Range.
The FRO is using a combination of computer-aided classification of remote sensing (satellite) imagery and ground-based sampling programs as an effective method to measure success of reclamation and to satisfy the definition of “reclaimed” as described by current legislation. The goal is to establish a means to determine parameters and criteria for monitoring and judging the success of reclamation efforts, with the end objective of releasing Teck from obligations and bonding requirements.
Opportunities for riparian habitat will exist in and around the settling ponds and diversion structures developed as a result of mining. Efforts will be made to provide a habitat complex suitable for a variety of species at these important sites. Riparian habitat may also be considered in pit bottoms that will not be backfilled. Riparian and aquatic areas are assessed based on metrics such as food production, cover, stability of structures and substrate suitability. Studies completed in the Eastern Slopes of Alberta (Luscar Ltd. 1994) have documented success in establishing this habitat component. Guidelines for development of end pit lakes are available (Alberta Environment 2004).
2.8 Alternatives Several alternatives and optimizations have already been included in the conceptual design for the Project. The design has included the following:
extensive analysis of multiple pit sizes or shells given acceptable economic factors and engineering limitations or constraints; investigation of the effect of alternative mine phase sequencing on the overall disturbance footprint; feasibility of reclamation on end gradients and topography;
April 2011 - 30 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
appraisal of various pit backfilling options; limiting the northern extent of the spoils on the Britt Creek Flats; limiting the southern extent of waste rock dumps in the Swift and Cataract drainages; assessing the impact of a change in the east toe limits for the southern spoils to maintain the existing Swift and Cataract Settling Ponds intact; determining feasibility of structured waste placement for spoil stability; and various final spoil slope configurations, including lower final slope angles that might facilitate compaction and topdressing.
Teck is also analyzing additional alternatives to investigate the environmental, social and technical merits of various alternative facilities and demonstrate the preferred Project case. Options being considered through the analysis of alternatives may include, but will not necessarily be limited to the following:
the “no project” alternative; mine spoil disposal locations and designs; mine pit configurations; location of haul roads; coal conveyor systems and/or installation of a new breaker; and water management strategies to meet water quality objectives.
April 2011 - 31 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
3 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT As part of the EA process being undertaken by Teck, baseline studies will be conducted to characterize the existing environment. These studies will incorporate environmental data that has been collected in and around the Project area prior to and during the development of the existing FRO, as well as new data that is being collected during field programs conducted in 2010, and those that will be conducted in 2011. Baseline programs being undertaken for the Swift Project EA will focus on acquiring sufficient information to assess the potential environmental and socio-economic effects of the Project.
The following section provides an overview of the existing environment based on available data. For the purposes of this discussion, the Project area refers to the proposed Project footprint (Figure 2) unless otherwise stated.
3.1 Physical Environment
3.1.1 Geology Refer to Section 2.3 for a description of the existing geology.
The bedrock geology for the Project area and vicinity is composed of sedimentary rock belonging to the Kootenay and Fernie formations. The Kootenay Formation is positioned in the upper third of the Greenhills Ridge and is underlain by the Fernie Formation. All three members of the Kootenay Formation are present. The coal-bearing member of the formation is positioned between the Moose Mountain member, at the base of the Kootenay formation and the Elk Member which forms a cap on some of the ridges (Kaiser Resources Limited 1980).
The surficial geology of the Project area is complex. At higher elevations, the surficial geology is dominated by colluvial veneers and blankets. The upper west slopes of the Greenhills Range are dissected by avalanche chutes. Morainal deposits are present on the lower eastern and western slopes. Fluvial deposits are present in the valley bottom of the Fording River valley; isolated glaciofluvial deposits also may be present (Ryder 1981). Anthropogenic substrates are present in the currently developed portion of the Project area.
3.1.2 Soils The soils in the Project area are influenced strongly by topographic relief, parent materials, local climate, and vegetation. In general, Brunisols develop on relatively coarse-textured parent materials at low to mid-elevations while Humo-Ferric Podzols and Ferro-Humic Podzols occur on moderately steep slopes at mid to high elevations on medium to coarse-textured colluvial or morainal deposits. Brunisolic Gray Luvisols occur at mid to lower elevations on fine-textured morainal and fluvial parent materials. Regosols occur as shallow
April 2011 - 32 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
lithic soils at high elevations (Lacelle 1990). Mesisols may be present in association with graminoid fens in the area.
3.1.3 Hydrology The Project area is located on the eastern side of the Greenhills Range. All of the small creeks in the Project area are tributaries of the Fording River, which flows generally south and discharges to the Elk River. The Elk River flows generally southwest and discharges to Lake Koocanusa, about 100 km downstream of the mouth of the Fording River.
The topography of the upper watersheds of most of the local creeks along the Greenhills Range is steep with slopes up to 0.25 metres per metre (m/m) (25 percent [%]). The upper watersheds of these creeks are relatively undisturbed by mining, but the lower reaches in the Project area are modified as a result of historical mining activity. The upper watersheds in the Swift Pit and North Spoil area are relatively undisturbed. Elevations within the upper Fording River watershed range from approximately 1,580 masl in the Fording River valley to 3,044 masl at Courcelette Peak in the High Rock Ranges.
3.1.4 Water Quality The Project area includes Cataract Creek, Swift Creek, Lake Mountain Creek and the Fording River. Cataract Creek, Swift Creek and Lake Mountain Creek all drain to the Fording River and have existing mining developments within their watersheds, including rock drains in the creeks. Water quality data collected by Teck has shown that water quality in these creeks can be generally characterized as slightly alkaline with concentrations of nitrate, sulphate and selenium that are higher than in creeks without mining development (Teck 2010b).
Water quality in the Fording River upstream of existing operations is slightly alkaline with low nutrient and trace element concentrations. Nitrate, selenium and sulphate concentrations increase in the river downstream of Cataract, Swift and Lake Mountain creeks, but concentrations within the Fording River are lower than those observed in these smaller mine-affected tributaries.
3.1.5 Air Quality
Air emissions from a coal mine include particulate matter (PM), sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and greenhouse gases (GHGs). The PM emissions arise from numerous mining activities such as drilling, blasting, and material handling. The SO2 and NO2 emissions are produced by the combustion of fossil fuels in vehicles, equipment and coal dryers. Sources of GHGs at a coal mine include fossil fuel combustion as well as fugitive coal bed methane.
Existing air quality data at FRO includes dustfall and hi-volume total suspended particulate matter (TSP) measurements. The FRO collects dustfall samples at
April 2011 - 33 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
four locations and operates two TSP monitors. Other existing air quality data collected in the vicinity of FRO includes dustfall, TSP, and particulate matter less than 10 micrometres ( m) in diameter (PM10) measurements collected by Greenhills Operations to the south.
Meteorology in the vicinity of FRO has been observed at two meteorological stations, one of which is operated by FRO and the other by Environment Canada. Other recent meteorological observations collected in the region include four meteorological stations maintained by Elkview Operations (EVO) about 50 km to the south of the Project area. Line Creek Operations (LCO) also operates two meteorological stations; however, the data collected by these two stations is incomplete and work is underway to address these data gaps.
3.1.6 Noise
The Project includes noise-generating activities such as coal extraction, material handling and stockpiling. Potential noise sources from mining activities associated with the Project include but are not limited to shovels, haul trucks, drills, blasting activities, and auxiliary equipment.
Noise data have been collected from the process plants, open pit mine activities and ambient environment for EVO and LCO and may be applicable to the Project. Noise data from these operations are being reviewed and assessed for applicability for use in the Swift Project EA.
British Columbia Noise Control Best Practices Guidelines (OGC 2009) developed by the BC Oil and Gas Commission (OGC) establish reasonable levels around industrial facilities to minimize the impact of resource developments on the sound environment. The OGC ambient noise requirement established for remote areas will be adopted for the Project. The typical ambient noise level for a rural area is designated as 35 A-weighted decibel dBA. The OGC requires that a facility not exceed a sound level of 40 dBA equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) at 1.5 km from its boundary in the absence of existing nearby noise-sensitive human receptors. In the case that sensitive receptors are within 1.5 km of the facilities a permissible sound level (PSL) is determined for the nearest or most impacted dwelling.
3.2 Biological Environment Scientific names of species cited in the following sections are provided in Appendix B.
3.2.1 Biogeoclimatic Zones and Ecosystems The Project area is situated within two biogeoclimatic zones: Montane Spruce (MS) and Engelmann Spruce – Subalpine Fire (ESSF).
April 2011 - 34 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
The Montane Spruce, dry cool (MSdk1) subzone occupies lower slopes and valley bottoms in the Rocky Mountains (and within the preliminary terrestrial local study area [LSA]) at elevations ranging from 1,100 m to 1,650 m (Hope et al. 1991). The climate of this subzone is characterized by warm, dry summers and cold winters with light snowfall that accumulates as a shallow snowpack. The growing season is sufficiently warm and dry such that soil moisture deficits can occur. The lack of soil moisture and frost are important vegetation growth-limiting factors.
The MSdk1 is a transitional zone in which white spruce is common, rather than Engelmann spruce. The zonal vegetation of the MSdk is characterized by climax stands dominated by hybrid white spruce, subalpine fir, and minor amounts of Douglas-fir and western larch. False azalea, Utah honeysuckle, soopalallie, and falsebox are the prominent shrub species. The herb layer frequently contains grouseberry, twinflower, pinegrass and heart-leaved arnica. Red-stemmed feather moss and step moss are the dominant moss species (Braumandi and Curran 2002). One of the most distinctive features of the MSdk landscape is the extensive, young and maturing seral stands of lodgepole pine that have formed following wildfire.
The Engelmann Spruce – Subalpine Fir, dry cool (ESSFdk1) zone occurs on the upper slopes of the Rocky Mountains. The terrain is mountainous and often steep and rugged (Braumandi and Curran 1992). The ESSFdk1 has relatively cold, short winters and a snowy continental climate (Coupé et al. 1991). The ESSFdk1 zone typically has closed canopy forests at lower elevations (ESSFdk1) and open canopy forests (ESSdkw) and subalpine parklands (ESSFdkp) at higher elevations. The Engelmann Spruce – Subalpine Fir parkland (ESSFdkp) is common at higher elevations in the East Kootenays. The subalpine parkland is characterized by patches of trees within a matrix dominated by herbaceous species and low stature shrubs.
Climax zonal sites (ecosystems) are characterized by stands that contain subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce. The prominent shrubs are false azalea and black huckleberry. The herbs include grouseberry, low bilberry, heart-leaved arnica, and one-leaved foamflower (Braumandi and Curran 1992). Engelmann spruce, which has greater longevity, is typically the dominant canopy species in mature stands while subalpine fir is prominent in the understorey. Subalpine fir dominates in moister areas whereas lodgepole pine dominates in drier sites at maturity. Lodgepole pine forms extensive seral stage forests following fire.
Subalpine meadows, where the soil remains moist throughout the growing season, contain a large number of herbaceous species such as subalpine daisy, common red paintbrush, western meadowrue, sitka valerian, and Indian hellebore.
April 2011 - 35 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
Subalpine grasslands in the ESSFdk1 are associated with steep, south-facing slopes. The prominent species in these ecosystems are rough fescue, Idaho fescue, interior bluegrass, diverse-leaved cinquefoil, and yellow beard-tongue.
3.2.2 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Seasonal or permanent wildlife residents that may inhabit the Project area include four ungulates, three felids, two bears, two canid species, several weasel family members, and many species of small mammal. A variety of migratory and year-round resident birds are present as well. Migratory bird species include a large number of neo-tropical migrants such as ruby-crowned kinglet, yellow-bellied sapsucker, dark-eyed junco, varied thrush, and yellow-rumped warbler that breed in the coniferous forest of the preliminary terrestrial LSA in the summer months. Year-round resident birds include the common raven, black-capped chickadee, Clark’s nutcracker, spruce grouse, dusky grouse, and northern goshawk (Saunders 1995).
The conifer forests of the MSdk1, ESSFdk1, and ESSFdkw provide the common habitat for wildlife such as red squirrel, snowshoe hare, marten, pine siskin and Clark’s nutcracker. The extensive seral stands of lodgepole pine provide summer and fall range for moose and mule deer, with good thermal and hiding cover in the dense regeneration thickets (Westar Mining Limited 1992). Birds, such as the three-toed woodpecker that forage on bark-inhabiting insects are common in the pine forests.
The avalanche tracks that occur within the ESSFdk1 provide important summer range for ungulates and are also important spring and summer habitats for grizzly bears and black bears (Fording Coal Limited 1996).
The meadows and steep-sloped grasslands associated with the ESSFdkw subzone provide valuable forage for Rocky Mountain elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, mule deer, moose, black bear, and grizzly bear. Columbian ground squirrel and golden-mantled ground squirrel are the common small mammals in these habitats. Bird species typically associated with this subzone include fox sparrow, American robin, dusky grouse, rufous hummingbird, and red-tailed hawk (Smyth et al. 2010).
American dipper, spotted sandpiper, and harlequin ducks may be present in riparian habitats within the preliminary terrestrial LSA as well. American dipper may be a year-round resident while harlequin duck, if present, would be a summer resident species.
Amphibians such as Columbia spotted frog, western toad, and long-toed salamander may be present in riparian and wetland areas within the preliminary terrestrial LSA.
April 2011 - 36 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
3.2.3 Fish and Fish Habitat The FRO is located in the upper reaches of the Fording River drainage. The Fording River originates in the Rocky Mountains of British Columbia between the Greenhills and High Rock Ranges and flows to the southwest where it joins the Elk River between Elkford and Sparwood, BC. The river is about 75 km long and drains an area of about 618.8 square kilometres (km2). Josephine Falls and a series of cascades located about 30 km downstream pose a barrier to upstream fish movement. Major tributaries of the Fording River upstream of Josephine Falls include Dry Creek, Ewin Creek, Todhunter Creek, Chauncey Creek, Kilmarnock Creek, Clode Creek and Henretta Creek, all of which drain into the Fording River from the east.
In addition to the major tributaries, numerous high-gradient first and second order streams enter the upper Fording River from both mountain ranges that parallel the river on the west and east. Typically tributary streams have very steep (greater than 30%) gradients in their headwaters, steep to moderately steep gradients in the middle reaches, and shallow gradients in the lower reaches near their confluence with the main stem rivers. Studies undertaken in the upper Elk Valley (Interior Reforestation 2000) indicate that streams with low (less than 7%) to moderate (7 to 15%) gradients and with defined channels and riffle pool or cascade morphology are likely to be fish bearing, whereas streams lacking a defined channel in their lower reaches and steep (greater than 30%) gradients are likely to be devoid of fish. As the Fording River is a tributary of the Elk River, and only the Greenhills Range separates the upper Elk Valley and the upper Fording River, it is reasonable to assume that similar physical factors (i.e., channel morphology and gradient) affect fish distributions in tributaries of the upper Fording River.
Westslope cutthroat trout (WCT) were introduced into the Fording River upstream of Josephine falls between 1928 and 1941 and are the only large-bodied fish species reported to be present in the upper Fording River drainage. Numerous fish studies using a variety of fishing gear have been undertaken at various locations within the upper Fording River. No fish species other than WCT have ever been observed or captured during those studies. Given the fishing effort expended it is reasonable to believe the WCT are the only fish species present in the Fording River upstream of Josephine Falls.
Watercourses within the boundaries of FRO include:
Fording River; Kilmarnock Creek; Blake Creek; Clode Creek; Fish Pond Creek; Turn Creek;
April 2011 - 37 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
Henretta Creek; Brownie Creek; Several small unnamed watercourses; Lake Mountain Creek; Harold Creek; Chandra Creek; Jason Creek; Heather Creek; Shandley Creek; Swift Creek (including North, Middle and South Forks); Cataract Creek; and Blackmore Creek.
Westslope cutthroat trout (WCT) have been reported in the Fording River, Kilmarnock Creek, Clode Creek (Clode Ponds), Fish Pond Creek, Henretta Creek, Lake Mountain Creek and the lower reach of Swift Creek.
All of the streams within the boundaries of the FRO have been altered to accommodate mining activities over the life of the mine. Some streams have been relocated, some have been converted to rock drains, while other streams have been fragmented by spoil storage and pit development.
In addition, habitat restoration and enhancement projects have been undertaken on the property to re-establish or improve fish habitat in the reclaimed Henretta Creek Channel, Fish Pond Creek, Clode Creek and the Fording River. The restoration and enhancement projects are located on the east and south sides of the FRO property and will not be affected by the Project.
On the west side of the Fording River in the vicinity of the Project area, WCT have only been reported in Lake Mountain Creek and the first reach of Swift Creek (approximately 300 m). Migratory barriers near the confluences of Swift Creek and Cataract Creek with the Fording River prevent upstream movement of fish, and no fish have been captured upstream of these barriers.
Although a culvert installed under a haul road about 150 m upstream of the Lake Mountain Creek confluence with the Fording River prevents upstream movement of fish from the Fording River, WCT are present upstream of the culvert. Upstream of the haul road, Lake Mountain Creek consists of three reaches separated by barriers that impede upstream or downstream movement of fish. The reach upstream of the haul road culvert (i.e., Reach 2) is approximately 500 m long and includes a pond known as the North Greenhills Catch Basin. Three culverts at the upstream end of the reach prevent upstream movement of fish, although downstream movement is possible. Westslope cutthroat trout (WCT) have been captured in Reach 2. The third reach of Lake Mountain Creek extends approximately 1.4 km upstream of the culverts to a rock drain that
April 2011 - 38 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
prevents upstream and downstream movement of fish. Westslope cutthroat trout have also been captured in this reach.
Reach 4 of Lake Mountain Creek is approximately 500 m long and is bounded by the rock drain at the downstream end and Mountain Lake at the upstream end. Although WCT were captured in Reach 4, however no fish were captured in Mountain Lake. The presence of fish upstream of the culvert separating Lake Mountain Creek from the Fording River indicates that spawning and overwintering habitat is present in the upper reaches of Lake Mountain Creek. Although upstream movement from Reach 1 to 3 is prevented by culverts, downstream movement of fish is still possible. The WCT in Reach 4 are completely isolated from the downstream reaches.
3.2.4 Environmentally Sensitive Areas To identify environmentally sensitive areas in BC, datasets available from the Land and Resources Data Warehouse (Integrated Land Management Bureau 2010) were reviewed to identify whether the following features, as defined by Integrated Land Management Bureau, were mapped near the Project area:
wetlands; wildlife habitat areas; national and provincial parks and other protected areas (including forest administration special protection areas); approved fisheries sensitive watersheds; and ungulate winter range.
Those features that were identified within the area are denoted on Figures 10 and 11. Only those features that were identified within the area of the figure are included.
For the province of Alberta, datasets published by IHS Energy (IHS 2008) were reviewed. Areas defined as ‘critical wildlife’ and ‘prime protection’ have been included on Figure 11. Features defined as wetlands, national parks, provincial parks and protected areas available through Geogratis (NRCAN 2010) are also depicted on Figure 11.
National wildlife areas, migratory bird sanctuaries and/or marine wildlife areas as designated and mapped by Environment Canada (Hinterland Who’s Who 2010) were not identified near the Project area, and are therefore not represented on Figures 10 and 11. Similarly, no priority areas under Environment Canada’s ecosystem initiatives are near the Project area (Environment Canada 2011).
April 2011 - 39 - 648000 652000 656000 660000
Mount Tuxford 5572000 5572000
EK E R C E RN BO OS
BRITT CREEK
FORDING RIVER
5568000 Henretta Ridge HENRETTA CREEK 5568000
MCQUARRIE CREEK M O O R E Britt Creek Spur C R
E
E
K T U Greenhills Range R ELK RIVER N C LAKE MOUNTAIN LAKE R E E K
LAKE MOUNTAIN CREEK Mount Turnbull FISH POND CREEK CLODE CREEK HAROLD CREEK 5564000 5564000
CHANDREA CREEK K E Eagle Mountain E R K C Plant EE N CR SO NORTH Site E A R J TAILINGS O M EK POND K RE C C A E L K BROWNIE CREEK
B A L B HEATHER CREEK
SOUTH ELK RIVER TAILINGS KILMARNOCK CREEK Greenhills Range POND 5560000 5560000
SHANDLEY CREEK
NORTH FORK Castle Mountain
MIDDLE FORK SWIFT CREEK
SOUTH FORK
FORDING RIVER
Greenhills CATARACT CREEK Operations
CHAUNCEY CREEK
648000 652000 656000 660000
LEGEND 202 CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA SCALE 1:90,000 KILOMETRES MAJOR WATERCOURSE UNGULATE WINTER RANGE MINOR WATERCOURSE PROJECT TRANSMISSION LINE FORDING RIVER OPERATIONS CURRENT PERMITTED AREA THE SWIFT PROJECT PROPOSED PROJECT FOOTPRINT TITLE WATERBODY WETLAND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS LOCAL SCALE PROJECT NO. 09-1349-1007 SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0 REFERENCE DESIGN CW 14 Jun. 2010 1: 50,000 scale hydrography and elevation data obtained from GeoGratis. Transmission line data obtained GIS DR 07 Apr. 2011 from BCTC and Geogratis. Transportation data obtained from DMTI. Ungulate winter range data obtained CHECK LH 07 Apr. 2011 FIGURE: 10 from LRDW. Projection: UTM Zone 11 Datum: NAD 83 REVIEW SDL 07 Apr. 2011 I:\2009\09-1349\09-1349-1007\Mapping\MXD\ProjectDescription\PD-GHN-010-GIS_EnvironSensitiveLocal.mxd 620000 640000 660000 680000 700000 720000
22
WHITE RIVER
FORDING RIVER 5580000 5580000
ELK RIVER Fording River Operations 5560000 5560000 Greenhills Operations
DRY CREEK BRITISH COLUMBIA Elkford ALBERTA 5540000 5540000
BULL RIVER Line Creek Operations
43 22 5520000 5520000
Elk Prairie Elkview Sparwood Operations
Crowsnest Pass Coleman 3 Blairmore
5500000 Frank OLDMAN RESEVOIR 5500000 Bellevue Lundbreck KOOTENAY RIVER Hosmer Hillcrest
Corbin Baker Fernie Beaver Coal Mountain Mines Operations Bull River Cokato Mayook 3 5480000 5480000
Wardner Jaffray Galloway
LAKE Elko KOOCANUSA 5460000 5460000 Baynes Lake
620000 640000 660000 680000 700000 720000
LEGEND 15 0 15 COMMUNITY COAL MINING OPERATION FIRST NATIONS RESERVE SCALE 1:650,000 KILOMETRES PROJECT LOCATION OTHER PROTECTED AREA PROJECT CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY PROVINCIAL PARK FORDING RIVER OPERATIONS PRIMARY HIGHWAY WATERBODY SECONDARY HIGHWAY WETLAND THE SWIFT PROJECT ROAD ALBERTA CRITICAL WILDLIFE AREA CRITICAL WILDLIFE TRANSMISSION LINE TITLE WATERCOURSE PRIME PROTECTION ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS BRITISH COLUMBIA - ALBERTA BORDER ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS UNGULATE WINTER RANGE REGIONAL SCALE WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS REFERENCE PROJECT NO. 09-1349-1007 SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0 Provincial boundaries, cities and transportation data obtained from ESRI and DMTI. First Nations Reserves obtained DESIGN CW 14 Jun. 2010 from GeoGratis. Protected areas obtained from Government of Alberta IHS Energy. Hydrography and Critical Wildlife GIS DR 05 Apr. 2011 Area data obtained from IHS Energy. Ungulate winter range obtained from LRDW. Transmission line data obtained from CHECK LH 07 Apr. 2011 FIGURE: 11 REVIEW SDL 07 Apr. 2011
I:\2009\09-1349\09-1349-1007\Mapping\MXD\ProjectDescription\PD-GHN-011-GIS_EnvironSensitiveRegional.mxd BCTC and Geogratis. Projection: UTM Zone 11 Datum: NAD 83 Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
A sensitive ecosystem map depicting features such as wetlands or other environmentally sensitive areas will be presented in the Environment Assessment Certificate (EAC) Application for the Project. At the aquatic and terrestrial local study area scale, these will be based on terrestrial ecosystem mapping (TEM) and input from various field surveys.
3.2.5 Species at Risk A search of BC Conservation Data Centre (CDC) records was conducted for the Project area using the CDC Mapping Service tool (CDC 2010a) and the BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer tool (CDC 2010b). Based on CDC records, the following “element occurrences” for rare and endangered species have been recorded in the general vicinity of the Project area (CDC 2010a; Appendix C):
ID 3404: Curly sedge – provincially blue-listed; ID 7932: Sweet-flowered Fairy-candelabra – provincially blue-listed; ID 1814: Parry’s Townsendia– provincially red-listed; ID 2398: Wyoming Kitten-tails – provincially blue-listed; and ID 21316: Badger – provincially Red-listed and federally listed as Endangered on Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA).
A search of the CDC Species and Ecosystems Explorer for the Rocky Mountain Forest District, and ESSF and MS Biogeoclimatic Zones produced 180 listings of provincially designated, red-listed or blue-listed and legally designated species (CDC 2011b; Appendix C), including:
3 fish species (3 blue-listed); 21 bird species (5 red-listed, 8 blue-listed, 6 yellow-listed, and 2 no status); 13 mammal species (4 red-listed, 6 blue-listed, 1yellow-listed, and 2 no status); 24 invertebrate species (4 red-listed and 20 blue-listed); 84 vascular plant species (27 red-listed and 57 blue-listed); and 35 moss and lichen species (8 red-listed and 27 blue-listed).
No provincially red- or blue-listed ecosystems at risk were identified for the Project area (CDC 2010b; Appendix C).
Of the above-noted provincially designated red- and blue-listed species, 13 federally-listed species were identified (Table 3).
April 2011 - 42 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
Table 3: Federally Designated Species That May Occur Within the Project Area Federal Status Provincial Species Scientific Name (COSEWIC/SARA) Status Fish Westslope cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi Special Concern / Schedule 1 Blue(a) Birds Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum Special Concern / No Schedule Red(b) Short-eared owl Asio flammeus Special Concern / Schedule 3 Blue Flammulated owl Otus flammeolus Special Concern / Schedule 1 Blue Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor Threatened / Schedule 1 Yellow(c) Williamson’s sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroides nataliae Endangered / Schedule 1 Red Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi Threatened / Schedule 1 Blue Rusty blackbird Euphagus carolinus Special Concern / Schedule 1 Blue Mammals Wolverine Gulo gulo luscus Special Concern / No Schedule Blue Badger Taxidea taxus Endangered / Schedule 1 Red Grizzly bear Ursus arctos Special concern / No Schedule Blue Caribou Rangifer tarandus pop. 1 Threatened / Schedule 1 Red Invertebrates Monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus Special Concern / Schedule 1 Blue Vascular Plants Whitebark pine Pinus albicaulis Endangered / No Schedule Blue
(a) Blue List: List of ecological communities, and indigenous species and subspecies of special concern (formerly vulnerable) in British Columbia. (b) Red List: List of ecological communities, and indigenous species and subspecies that are extirpated, endangered or threatened in British Columbia. Red-listed species and sub-species may be legally designated as, or may be considered candidates for legal designations as Extirpated, Endangered or Threatened under the Wildlife Act. Not all Red-listed taxa will necessarily become formally designated. Placing taxa on these lists flags them as being at risk and requiring investigation. (c) Yellow List: List of ecological communities and indigenous species that are not at risk in British Columbia. (British Columbia Ministry of Environment 2010). COSEWIC: Committee on the Status of Endangered Species in Canada; SARA: Species at Risk Act.
Of the 13 species identified in Table 3, the following five species are federally protected under Schedule 1 of SARA:
common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor); williamson’s flycatcher (Sphyrapicus thryoides nataliae); olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi); badger (Taxidea taxus); and caribou (Rangifer tarandus pop. 1).
Although Schedule 1 lists other designations in addition to endangered, threatened and extirpated (i.e., Special Concern), the prohibitions of the act do not apply to these species (e.g., westslope cutthroat trout). The Species at Risk Act (SARA) typically only applies on federal land (Government of Canada 2003), with the exception of aquatic (i.e., fish) species and migratory birds also listed in
April 2011 - 43 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
the federal Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (Government of Canada 1994). However, in some circumstances, the federal prohibitions could be applied to other species on private or provincial Crown land if it is deemed that provincial or voluntary measures do not adequately protect a species and its residence.
3.3 Human Environment
3.3.1 Heritage Resources The Project area is located within the asserted traditional territory of member bands of the Ktunaxa Nation. The area has been subject to an Archaeological Overview Assessment (AOA) (Choquette 2010), consisting of a background synthesis of available data as well as map and aerial photograph analysis. Eleven landform-based geographic information system (GIS) polygons were mapped within the Project area as having potential to contain archaeological sites, each with a 100 m buffer zone. The archaeological potential of the polygons is based on criteria derived from pre-contact land and resource use models developed by Choquette for the middle Elk River drainage area and the southern Canadian Rocky Mountains.
The polygons of archaeological potential represent areas where archaeological resources may be adversely affected by developments involving ground disturbance or capping with spoil. As such, they represent areas that will be subject to more intensive archaeological field investigation in the form of an Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) pursuant to Section 14 of the BC Heritage Conservation Act (HCA; Government of British Columbia 1996a). Upon groundtruthing of the high potential polygons, additional areas may be identified which require assessment.
3.3.2 Land Use and Tenure The Project will be located on fee simple land owned by Teck as well as on Crown land on coal leases held by Teck. The coal leases, coal exploration licences, freehold Crown grants and mineral titles held by Teck are listed in Appendix D.
Timber resources in the Project area include a Crown timber harvest land base, private forest lands managed by Tembec Industries, and fee simple land held by Teck.
Storm Cat Energy Corporation (Storm Cat) has coal bed methane (CBM) rights underlying Crown and Teck fee simple land by virtue of petroleum and natural gas dispositions, and a Petroleum and Natural Gas Lease between Teck (as lessor) and Storm Cat (as lessee). As such, Teck and Storm Cat have a Multiple Mineral Development Agreement to allow for concurrent development of the CBM and coal, as well as to facilitate the resolution of disputes that may arise between them. Storm Cat and Teck also had a road use agreement in place to
April 2011 - 44 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
use Teck’s roads to gain access to well sites directly north of the existing FRO. These agreements were originally set up with EnCana Oil & Gas Partnership (EnCana) but transferred to Storm Cat on October 1, 2006.
In July 1992, the BC Legislature created the Commissioner on Resource and Environment Act. In 1994, the East Kootenay Land-Use Plan was recommended by the Commission on Resource and Environment. This plan detailed a variety of land use objectives within the region, including those dedicated for commercial resource development. The Swift Project is planned to occur on lands dedicated by the Commission of Resource Environment for resource use and development (CORE 1994).
Under the Kootenay Boundary Land Use Plan (KBLUP 1997), the Project area is within the Cranbrook Resource Management Zone of the Coal Enhanced Resource Development Zone (ERDZ) C-E01. Lands designated as ERDZ indicate the suitability or potential of those lands for relatively intensive resource development activities, aimed primarily at regional economic development and community and work force stability. The Coal ERDZs are located exclusively in the East Kootenays and encompass areas of known coal reserves, existing coal mining facilities and infrastructure, as well as areas for potential expansion. The Coal ERDZ designation signifies an assurance of long-term security of access and tenures to these lands for coal mining exploration and development purposes.
For the purposes of administering the Wildlife Act (Government of British Columbia 1996b) and BC Hunting and Fishing Regulations, the province is divided into Resource Management Units. The Project area is located in Resource Management Region 4 (Kootenay Region) within Management Unit 4-23. Although several commercial guides and outfitters operate in the Kootenay Region, there are no guiding tenures within the Project area. The nearest guiding tenure is located about 3 km north and 6 km west of the existing FRO. Several no shooting and no hunting areas are located near the Project area or on Teck property. All persons (including hunters) must have permission to access Teck property. Members of local hunting clubs hunt for elk, deer, moose (limited entry hunting only) and sheep near the Project area. Limited entry hunting permits are also available for grizzly and mountain goat, and hunting for upland game birds is permitted within Management Unit 4-23 (i.e., outside restricted areas).
Fishing opportunities are limited within and adjacent to the Project area due to access restrictions associated with the existing FRO.
Numerous informal motorized access recreation routes are located throughout the Kootenay Region. At least two all-terrain vehicle (ATV) trails are used by ATV clubs on private land owned by Teck; the trails provide access to the previous Fording Fire Lookout site, and the Storm Cat operating area north of
April 2011 - 45 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
FRO. The first trail begins south of Britt Creek and extends into the Greenhills Range for nearly 10 km. The second trail also begins south of Britt Creek and runs for about 5 km in a southeasterly direction toward the Project area. Teck and Storm Cat maintain these roads and the public has been allowed access to some of them both by ATV and by other vehicular traffic.
Local members of the Elkford ATV Club also use a pipeline route that runs through the Greenhills Operations property 11 km south of the Project area. The club has group rides along this route twice a year and contacts Teck to discuss the dates and the number of riders expected. Continued public access to areas near the proposed Project operating areas may need to be restricted to maintain appropriate safety zones.
Teck proposes to develop a land use plan for the Project consistent with other planning initiatives and bylaws in the East Kootenay Region including, but not limited to:
the East Kootenay Land Use Plan (CORE 1994); the Kootenay Boundary Higher Level Plan (Integrated Land Management Bureau 2002); the Southern Rocky Mountain Management Plan (Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management 2003); and RDEK Elk Valley Zoning Bylaw No. 829 (RDEK 1990).
3.3.3 Socio-Economics The Project is located in the Regional District of East Kootenay (RDEK) (population 55,485) and in the asserted traditional territory of the Ktunaxa Nation. The communities of Fernie (population 4,217), Sparwood (population 3,618), Elkford (population 2,463) and Crowsnest Pass, Alberta (population 5,749) are near the Project, with Elkford being the closest community to the mine.
The existing FRO directly employs 1,078 people, the majority of whom are from the local communities in the Elk Valley area, and contributes to the local and provincial economy and tax base. The Project will extend the life of the mine operations at Fording River beyond 2020, thereby helping to meet market demands for metallurgical coal, when existing operations would otherwise begin to decline. It is anticipated that the direct and indirect employment and economic benefits associated with the existing FRO will be sustained as a result of the proposed Project developments. It is also possible that the proposed expansion into these operating areas will result in an overall net increase in revenue opportunities.
Coal has been mined in the Elk Valley since 1898 with the Elk Valley coalfield being one of the major coal producing areas in Canada. The Elk Valley area has diversified its economy over the past 10 years, particularly in the tourism sector.
April 2011 - 46 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
The community of Fernie has expanded its economic base to include tourism, whereas some of the smaller communities of Sparwood and Elkford continue to depend on coal mining.
3.3.4 Aboriginal, Commercial and Recreational Fishery and Fishing Areas As indicated in Section 3.3.2 fishing opportunities are limited within the Project area due to access restrictions associated with the existing FRO.
There is no known subsistence fishing undertaken by First Nations and no commercial fishing is undertaken in the Fording River. Teck is currently consulting with interested First Nations regarding the need for a Traditional Use Study for the Project area. Identification of potential subsistence fishing will be included as part of such a study, if undertaken, and through First Nations consultation activities.
April 2011 - 47 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
4 POTENTIAL PROJECT-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTIONS As described above, development of the Project will involve the construction and operation of various mine components and infrastructure. The main activities associated with construction, operation and closure of the Project include the following:
open-pit mining; development and operation of coal stockpiles; placement of waste rock spoils in existing previously disturbed areas as well as greenfield sites in the Fording River watershed; development and operation of surface water management systems; construction and operation of mine infrastructure to support the Project (e.g., development of haul roads and a marshalling area; establishing a new route for the Britt Creek spur transmission line; and relocation of existing fuelling stations to the new Project area); transportation of raw coal to the existing breaker facility; and reclamation and closure of the Swift Project area.
Potential effects of the Project to the biophysical and socio-economic environments will be assessed as part of the EAC Application (refer to Section 7 for discussion on the EA process). Potential project-environment interactions that may lead to effects based on preliminary analysis and professional judgment of the EA team are outlined in Table 4.
April 2011 - 48 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
Table 4: Preliminary Identification of Potential Project-Environment Interactions Environment Issue / Potential Effect Examples of Potential Mitigation Measures Component Physical Environment Implementation of an environmental Loss of soil profile and changes to terrain from vegetation removal, management plan that incorporates appropriate overburden removal, storage of waste rock and development of open-pit management practices for soil erosion control Geology, Soils mine. and soil contamination mitigation. and Terrain Changes to soil quality due to changes in soil chemical and physical Implementation of a reclamation and closure characteristics during mining and reclamation activities. plan incorporating targeted end land use objectives. Development and implementation of groundwater management and monitoring plans Changes to groundwater quality and alternation of groundwater regime Hydrogeology during construction and operation. from interaction with groundwater table and/or changes to topography. Implementation of a reclamation and closure plan, including a drainage closure plan. Changes in flow regime in Cataract, Swift and Lake Mountain creeks and Fording River. Development and implementation of surface water management plans during construction Erosion/deposition associated with changes in surface water flow regime. and operation. Changes in sediment loading in Cataract, Swift and Lake Mountain Hydrology and Implementation of a reclamation and closure creeks and Fording River. Water Quality plan, including a drainage closure plan. Changes in water quality in Cataract, Swift and Lake Mountain creeks Implementation of a selenium management plan and Fording River resulting from geochemical loading of selenium and to limit the release of selenium from current other water quality constituents from waste rock spoils and reject piles. and/or planned waste rock spoils. Changes in groundwater/surface water interactions. Fugitive dust emissions from material handling and processing can result in (1) increases in ambient particulate matter concentrations that can Implementation of an air quality and dust control negatively affect human and wildlife health and (2) increases in dustfall plan. deposition that can affect vegetation and waterbodies Use of cyclones and wet scrubbers for Combustion emissions from vehicles and equipment can result in particulate collection. Air Quality, Noise increases in ambient concentrations of nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide and Vibrations Efficient operation of the vehicle fleet, and other contaminants that can negatively affect human health and equipment and the coal dryer to minimize GHG vegetation, emissions. Increases in greenhouse gas emissions have the potential to affect Use of noise minimization equipment where climate change. appropriate. Noise and/or vibrations from blasting, vehicles and Project activities.
April 2011 - 49 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
Table 4: Preliminary Identification of Potential Project-Environment Interactions (continued) Environment Issue / Potential Effect Examples of Potential Mitigation Measures Component Biological Environment Direct loss of vegetation and wildlife habitat. Sensory disturbance of wildlife. Implementation of appropriate management Disruption of wildlife movement patterns in regional landscape. practices and environmental management Direct mortality to wildlife due to vehicle-wildlife collisions. plans. Health effects on vegetation and wildlife due to changes in air, water and Minimize Project interaction with wildlife. Terrestrial Resources soil quality. Minimize mine footprint through phased Increased wildlife habitat and protection for certain species. operation and progressive reclamation. Heath effects to aquatic resources (e.g., water birds and amphibians) due Implementation of a reclamation and closure to changes in water quality. plan incorporating targeted end use objectives Direct loss of riparian habitats affecting water bird and amphibians that (e.g., wildlife habitat). use lentic and lotic environments. Implementation of appropriate management Changes in and/or direct loss of aquatic habitat resulting from placement practices and environmental management of waste rock, changes in sediment loading and stream flows, and plans. excavation of Lake Mountain Creek. Maintenance of stream flows and habitat values Aquatic Changes in and/or direct loss of aquatic habitat resulting from deposition where possible. Resources of calcite. Habitat compensation for unavoidable loss of Health effects to aquatic resources (e.g., fish) due to changes in water fish habitat, if required. quality. Implement drainage closure plan consistent with end land-use objectives.
April 2011 - 50 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
Table 4: Preliminary Identification of Potential Project-Environment Interactions (continued) Environment Issue / Potential Effect Examples of Potential Mitigation Measures Component Human Environment Effects to archaeological resources due to land clearing, mining, logging Conduct archaeological impact assessment and Archaeology and spoiling of waste rock. implement management plans. Community management planning with First Nations and stakeholders to address provision of services and effects to community health and well-being. Effects on aboriginal interests from changes to the physical and biological Identify First Nations interests and Project- environment. related effects. Changes to and/or maintenance of community and individual health and Seek input on recreational access and end land well-being. use objectives. Provincial and local economic stimulus. Implement reclamation and closure plans Socio-Economics Employment, income, local revenue generation and gross domestic consistent with end land use objectives. and Land Use product effects. Skills inventory, training and skills development. Worker and public health and safety. Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Use Changes to wage and non-wage economy from hunting, trapping, and Studies. gathering. Memorandums of Understanding and Changes to traditional and recreational land and resource use. Participation Agreements with First Nations. Employee Health and Safety Plans. Employment planning Planning for local procurement of goods and services Human and Terrestrial Wildlife Health
Increased particulate matter concentrations (i.e., PM2.5 and PM10), which may cause health risk to local communities. Implementation of an air quality and dust control Human and Deposition of dust to plants and soil, which can result in uptake of metals plan (as needed). Terrestrial Wildlife and PAHs from coal dust to plants which are then consumed by people Health and wildlife. Implementation of a storm water runoff control plan (as needed). Water runoff may contribute metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) to downstream waterbodies.
April 2011 - 51 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
To address the above issues, studies will be conducted to meet the environmental planning and assessment requirements of the BC Environmental Assessment Act (BCEAA) and, if required, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), as well as permitting requirements of regulatory agencies such as the Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and others as may be necessary. The environmental studies will have the following components:
air quality; noise and vibrations; geochemistry; hydrogeology; surface water hydrology; water and sediment quality; surficial geology, soils and terrain; fish and fish habitat; vegetation; wildlife and wildlife habitat; archaeology; land use and tenure; socio-economics; and human and wildlife terrestrial health.
April 2011 - 52 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
5 CONSULTATION 5.1 First Nations The proposed Project is located within the asserted traditional territory of the Ktunaxa Nation, as represented by the Ktunaxa Nation Council (KNC), which is comprised of four member groups: ?Akisq’nuk First Nation (formerly the Columbia Lake First Nation, Windermere), St. Mary’s First Nation (Cranbrook), Tobacco Plains Indian Band (Grasmere) and Lower Kootenay Indian Band (Creston).
Contact information for the Ktunaxa Nation is as follows: Ktunaxa Nation Council Kathryn Teneese Chair, KNC 7468 Mission Road Cranbrook, BC V1C 7E5 Phone: 250.489.2464 Fax: 250.489.2438 Ray Warden (Teck’s primary KNC contact) Director, Lands and Resources Phone: 250.417.4022 Fax: 250.489.2438 E-mail: [email protected] Member First Nations of the KNC:
?Akisq’nuk First Nation Chief Lorne Shovar PO Box 130 Windermere, BC V0B 1L0 Phone: 250.342.6301 Fax: 250.342.9693 St. Mary’s First Nation Chief Cheryl Casimer 7470 Mission Road Cranbrook, BC V1C 7E5 Phone: 250.426.5717 Fax: 250.426.8935
April 2011 - 53 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
Tobacco Plains Indian Band Chief Mary Mahseelah PO Box 76 Grasmere, BC V0B 1R0 Phone: 250.887.3461 Fax: 250.887.3424 E-mail: [email protected] Lower Kootenay Indian Band Chief Jason Louie 830 Simon Road Creston, BC V0B 1G2 Phone: 250.428.4428 Fax: 250.428.7686
As operator of the existing FRO, Teck has been working with the KNC to address issues and concerns relating to its existing operations in the Elk Valley. This working relationship was formalized through a protocol agreement on November 1, 2007. Under this agreement, Teck and the KNC have developed and implemented annual work plans to address issues and concerns, including how to build capacity within the KNC through training, education, employment and procurement opportunities. A Consultation Agreement was formalized with the KNC on June 14, 2010. That agreement outlines the approach to relationship development and will result in agreement on the level and nature of consultation activities related to specific EA or permitting projects.
Representatives from KNC were provided with an overview of the Swift Project at a meeting on October 30, 2008. Teck continues to engage the KNC through ongoing meetings and communications, and will continue to work with First Nations to identify and address concerns and build strong and mutually beneficial working relationships.
5.2 Public and Agencies The Kootenay Mine Development Review Committee was given an overview presentation of the plans to develop the Project at meetings held at FRO on June 24, 2008. This committee is made up of provincial and federal regulatory bodies and, although not present at the June 24 meetings, the KNC. Also present at the meetings were representatives of the BC EAO.
5.3 Consultation Planning First Nations and Public Consultation plans are being developed for the FRO Project EA. The consultation programs are being designed with the intent of meeting all EA consultation requirements.
April 2011 - 54 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
The fundamental objective of the consultation programs will be for First Nations, regulatory agencies, key stakeholders and members of the public to have the opportunity for meaningful input into:
issue identification; baseline characterization programs; and review of key EA documents, including the draft Application Information Requirements, the EAC Application and Environmental Management Plans.
April 2011 - 55 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
6 SUSTAINABILITY A major part of the success of Teck is due to its commitment to sustainability and continual improvement through environmental stewardship, a commitment to the communities where it operates, recognition of the First Nations within whose traditional territories the company’s mines operate in and an ongoing focus on the health and safety of its employees. For Teck, pursuing sustainability includes operating viable sustainable operations; demonstrating excellence in safety, health and environmental performance; fostering sustainable communities, including valuing First Nations interests; and maintaining responsive, transparent and ethical corporate governance. Fording River Operations won the 2007 British Columbia Mining and Sustainability Award presented in February 2008 by the Ministry of Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources and the Mining Association of British Columbia.
Teck recognizes personal safety as a core business value. The success of Teck safety programs is reflected in the company’s improving safety record and includes attaining notable milestones in the industry and receiving numerous awards including BC’s 2009 John Ash Safety Award for attaining the lowest injury frequency for any large open-pit mine in BC working one million person hours or more.
Leadership in sound environmental management remains a core value of the organization. Commitment to environmental performance is evident in the success of reclamation programs which begin with science and research-based foundations that result in attaining end land use values that are sustainable into the future. Environmental management consistency is assured through registration with internationally recognized standards like ISO14001-2004. Currently all six of Teck’s operating coal operations (including the five in the Elk Valley) are ISO14001-2004 registered.
Mining and sustainability are crucial to the future of Teck. The company is committed to meeting the needs of the communities in which it operates, while maintaining a healthy environment and a vibrant economy for present and future generations.
April 2011 - 56 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
7 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS AND REGULATORY TRIGGERS
7.1.1 British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act According to Part 3 of the Reviewable Project Regulation, modification of an existing coal mine meets the threshold for an EA under the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act (BCEAA) if the mine facility will have a production capacity of greater than or equal to ( ) 250,000 tonnes/year of clean coal or raw coal or a combination of both clean coal and raw coal, and the modification will result in the disturbance of:
at least 750 hectares of land not previously permitted for disturbance; or an area of land that was not previously permitted for disturbance and that is at least 50% of the area of land that was previously permitted for disturbance at the existing facility.
With a production capacity of 10 million tonnes/year and a planned new disturbance of approximately 1,200 ha, the Project meets the threshold specified in the regulation and requires an EA pursuant to the Act. Consequently, it is anticipated that an EA and an application for an EAC under the BCEAA will be required for the Project.
7.1.2 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Proposed projects and activities are subject to an EA and regulatory review under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) whenever a federal authority has a specified decision-making responsibility in relation to a project, known as a “trigger”. Specifically, the CEAA is triggered whenever one or more of the following conditions apply:
a federal authority provides a license, permit, approval or authorization that is identified in the Law List Regulations that enables a project to be carried out; the federal government provides financial assistance to a proponent to enable a project to be carried out; a federal authority sells, leases, or otherwise transfers control or administration of federal land to enable a project to be carried out; or a federal authority is the proponent.
The Project is not expected to occupy federal land, is not expected to use federal funding and a federal agency is not the proponent of the Project. Accordingly, the only CEAA triggers associated with the Project would result from the requirement for a federal permit, authorization or approval. Responses to key questions identified by federal agencies when evaluating the potential for a CEAA triggers are provided in Appendix E. Based on this review it is anticipated
April 2011 - 57 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
that an authorization from DFO under Section 35(2) of the federal Fisheries Act (Government of Canada 1985a) may be required for the placement of waste rock in the upper reaches of the Swift and Cataract drainages, the placement of waste rock in Lake Mountain Lake, and the excavation of a portion of Lake Mountain Creek.
Existing crossings of the Fording River will be used to access the Project area and no new crossings are proposed. A review of the applicability of the Navigable Waters Protection Act (Government of Canada 1985b) indicates the streams in the Project area fall within a Minor Waters classification and therefore no trigger is anticipated.
The questionnaire entitled Natural Resources Canada and the Explosive Act in the Context of Canadian Environmental Assessment Act has been completed for the Project and is included in Appendix F. The existing licenses under the Explosives Act are not expected to require modifications as a result of the Swift Project.
The Comprehensive Study List Regulations under CEAA were reviewed for their applicability to the proposed Project. The regulations indicate that a comprehensive study is required if:
the proposed expansion of an existing coal mine would result in an increase in its coal production capacity of 50 percent or more, or 1,500 t/d or more, if the increase would raise the total coal production capacity to 3,000 t/d or more.
According to these regulations, the Swift Project would not require a comprehensive study because the Project will not result in an increase to the total coal production capacity of FRO. It is expected that if the Project triggers regulatory review under the CEAA, it would undergo a screening-level review.
It is the responsibility of the federal authority(ies) to determine whether the CEAA is triggered and, if so, the EA requirements for the Project. This Project Description is intended to assist in that determination. If a review under the CEAA is triggered, it is expected that the BCEAO will lead a harmonized review of the Project under the Canada – British Columbia Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation (Government of Canada and Government of British Columbia 2004).
7.1.3 Key Provincial and Municipal Permits and Approvals Key provincial and municipal permits and approvals that may be required for the Project include, but are not limited to, those identified in Table 5.
April 2011 - 58 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
Table 5: Permits and Approvals Likely Required for the Swift Project Legislation Responsible Agency Requirement Provincial A permit under the Mines Act and Section 10 of its related Health Safety and Reclamation Code will be the key permit driving planning and approval for development. A mine plan and reclamation program Ministry of Energy and will be submitted to the MEM regional manager in Mines Act Mines accordance with the code that outlines the design, construction, operation and closure parameters of the proposed project as well as land uses, protection and reclamation plans and other information that the MEM determines relevant. Coal Lease to allow large-scale mining operations. A Ministry of Energy and coal lease is required when an operation moves to its Coal Act Mines production phase. The boundaries of a lease must conform to the boundaries of coal license locations. Forest Act, Forest Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Range Occupant License to Cut. Applies to use of Crown land and Natural Resource Practices Act, in Provincial forest or wilderness areas where there will Operations, South Central Forest Practices be site clearing, access clearance and development. District Manager Code Ministry of Environment, Environmental Waste Discharge Authorization for the generation of Environmental Protection Management Act liquid, gaseous or solid waste. Division Crown Land License of Occupation required for any Integrated Land Land Act construction and operation activities on Crown Land Management Bureau outside the Coal Lease area. Ministry of Forests, Lands, Heritage Heritage Investigation Permit to conduct systematic and Natural Resource Conservation Act data recovery to mitigate development impacts (should Operations (Archaeology (Section 14) any be identified) Branch) Ministry of Forests, Lands, Heritage and Natural Resource Heritage Alteration Permit to remove and/or relocate a Conservation Act Operations (Archaeology cultural resource or artifact (should any be identified). (Section 12) Branch) Municipal The existing operations associated with the Fording River Mine are zoned “Heavy Industrial” under the Regional District of RDEK Elk Valley Zoning Bylaw No. 829. The Project is East Kootenay Elk East Kootenay Regional proposed for land that is currently zoned “Rural Valley Zoning District Resource”. Mineral and hydrocarbon extraction is Bylaw No. 829 permitted in Heavy Industrial Zones but not in Rural Resource Zones. A zoning by-law amendment is likely required for the proposed Project.
Teck will consult with provincial and federal regulatory agencies to identify, make application for and comply with all relevant federal and provincial permits, approvals and requirements.
April 2011 - 59 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
7.1.4 Proposed Environmental Assessment Schedule The proposed schedule for major EA activities and milestones is presented in Table 6.
Table 6: Proposed Environmental Assessment Schedule Proposed Completion Date Activity or Milestone Gap analysis on baseline data and develop detailed work plans for 2010 characterization of existing environment and EA (completed). Initiate studies to characterize existing environment. Submit Project Description to BCEAO for review and circulation. Preliminary consultation with First Nations, key stakeholders and government agencies. January to May 2011 BC EAO issues Section 10 Procedural Order confirming the Project will undergo review under BCEAA. Decision from federal agencies regarding CEAA. BC EAO Working Group established. Development of Draft Application Information Requirements. Meetings with BCEAO and Working Group on proposed EA Application Information Requirements. BC EAO issues Section 11 Procedural Order outlining the scope, procedures and methods for the EA. Submission of the Draft Application Information Requirements to the May 2011 to March 2012 BC EAO. Public Review on the Draft Application Information Requirements. First round of public and First Nations consultation on the Project. Respond to comments on Draft Application Information Requirements. BC EAO approval of Application Information Requirements. Ongoing consultation with Working Group on EA status and results. Prepare detailed EA in accordance with approved Application Information Requirements. Submit EAC Application for 30-day EAC Screening by BC EAO Working Group. April 2012 Submit Mines Act permit application and other relevant permit applications for concurrent review with the EAC Application. Ongoing consultation efforts and activities. EAC Application for BCEAO 180-day Regulatory Review. Public review of EAC Application. April to December 2012 Preparation of Assessment Report by BC EAO coordinated with any federal assessments required under CEAA. Submit assessment for ministerial review. December to March 2013 Decision on EAC and Mines Act permit.
April 2011 - 60 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
8 REFERENCES CITED
Alberta Environment. 2004. Guidelines for Lake Development at Coal Mine Operations in the Mountains and Foothills of the Northern East Slope. End Pit Lake Working Group. Edmonton, AB.
British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2010. Glossary. Available at: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/atrisk/glossary.html Accessed December 12, 2010.
Braumandi, T. and G. Curran. 2002. Land Management Handbook No. 20: A Field Guide to Site Interpretation for the Nelson Forest Region. MoF Research Branch. Vancouver, BC.
CDC (British Columbia Conservation Data Centre). 2011a. Endangered Species and Ecosystems: Mapped Known Locations of Species and Ecological Communities at Risk. Available at: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cdc/ Accessed April 2011
CDC (British Columbia Conservation Data Centre). 2011b. BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer. Available at: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cdc/. Accessed April 2011.
CORE (Commission on Resources and Environment). 1994. East Kootenay Land Use Plan. October 1994, 160 pp.
Choquette, Wayne. 2010. Archaeological Overview Assessment of proposed Greenhills North and Lake Mountain expansion projects.
Coupé, R., A.C. Stewart and B.M. Wikeem. 1991. Chapter 15: Engelmann Spruce – Subalpine Fir Zone. Ecosystems of British Columbia. (D.V. Meidinger and J. Pojar, Editors). Research Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria. pp. 223-236.
Environment Canada. 2011. Ecosystem Initiatives. Available at: http://www.ec.gc.ca/nature/default.asp?lang=En&n=2C63408C-1 Accessed April 2011.
Fording Coal Limited. 1996. Fording Greenhills Operations Cougar South/Main Pits and West Spoil Project Report. Volume 1. Text. Prepared by Fording Coal Limited – Greenhills Operations, Elkford. 247 pp.
Government of British Columbia. 1996a. Heritage Conservation Act. [RSBC 1996] Chapter 187. Victoria, BC.
April 2011 - 61 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
Government of British Columbia. 1996b. Wildlife Act. [RSBC 1996] Chapter 488. Victoria, BC.
Government of Canada. 1985a. Fisheries Act. (RSC 1985, c F-14). Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Ottawa, ON.
Government of Canada. 1985b. Navigable Waters Protection Act. (RSC 1985, c N-22). Transport Canada. Ottawa, ON.
Government of Canada. 1994. Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994. (S.C. 1994, c.22). Environment Canada. Ottawa, ON.
Government of Canada. 2003. Species at Risk Act (SARA). Environment Canada. Ottawa, ON.
Government of Canada and Government of British Columbia. 2004. Canada- British Columbia Agreement for Environmental Assessment Cooperation. Signed by the Honourable David Anderson, Minister of the Environment, Government of Canada and the Honourable George Abbott, Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, Government of British Columbia on March 11, 2004.
Hinterland Who’s Who. 2010. Environment Canada’s Protected Areas Network. Available at: http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?pid=0&id=231&cid=4 Accessed April 2011.
Hope, G.D., W.R. Mitchell, D.A. Lloyd, W.L. Harper and B.M. Wikeem. 1991. Chapter 12: Montane Spruce Zone. Ecosystems of British Columbia. (D.V. Meidinger and J. Pojar, Editors). Research Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC. pp. 183-194.
IHS (IHS Energy). 2008. IHS Environmental Data. Critical wildlife and prime protection datasets consisting of wildlife referral information regarding moose, goats, sheep and other ungulates compiled from Alberta regional maps: Athabasca Forest Area, Marten Hills Land Management Area, Northern East Slopes Region, Northwest Boreal Region, Rocky Clearwater Region, Southern East Slopes Region, Waterways Forest Area and two Integrated Resource Plans.
Interior Reforestation (Interior Reforestation Co. Ltd.). 2000. Reconnaissance (1:20,000) Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory of the Upper Elk Watershed WSC: 349-248100 Phases IV to VI. Report prepared for Crestbrook Forest Industries Ltd. by Interior Reforestation Co. Ltd. Cranbrook, B.C.
April 2011 - 62 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
Integrated Land Management Bureau. 2002. Kootenay Boundary Higher Level Plan. Available at: http://www.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/slrp/lrmp/cranbrook/ kootenay/legaldocuments/higher_level_order.html. Accessed July 2009.
Integrated Land Management Bureau. 2010. Land and Resource Data Warehouse. Available at: http://www.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/lrdw/. Government of British Columbia.
Kaiser Resources Limited. 1980. Greenhills Coal Project Stage I. Environmental Assessment. Prepared for Kaiser Resources Limited by BC Research, Vancouver. 176 pp.
KBLUP (Kootenay Inter-Agency Management Committee). 1997. Kootenay- Boundary Land Use Plan Implementation Strategy. Integrated Land Management Bureau, Government of British Columbia.
Lacelle, L.E.H. 1990. Biophysical Resources of the East Kootenay Area: Soils. Wildlife Technical Monograph TM-1. Report No. 20. British Columbia Soil Survey. Habitat Inventory Section, Wildlife Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Environment. Victoria, BC. 359 pp.
Luscar Ltd. 1994. Development of Sport Fisheries in Lakes Created by Coal Mining Operations in the Eastern Slopes. A report prepared by Pisces Environmental Consulting Services Ltd. And Bighorn Environmental Design Ltd for Luscar Ltd. 151 pp.
Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. 2008. Heath, Safety and Reclamation Code for Mines in British Columbia (HSRC). Mining and Minerals Division. Victoria, BC. Available at: http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/Mining/HealthandSafety/Documents/HSRC200 8.pdf. Accessed April 2010.
Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. 2003. Southern Rocky Mountain Management Plan.
MPMO (Major Project Management Office). 2008. Guide to Preparing a Project Description for a Major Resource Project. Available at: http://www.mpmo- bggp.gc.ca/desc/pdf/guide-eng.pdf. Accessed April 2011.
NRCAN (Natural Resources Canada). 2008. Natural Resources Canada and the Explosives Act in the Context of Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Questionnaire. October 2008.
April 2011 - 63 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
NRCAN (Natural Resources Canada). 2010. GeoGratis data portal provided by the Earth Sciences Sector of NRCAN. Datasets including Alberta Parks and Protected Area provided by Alberta Natural Heritage Information Centre (2007); Federal and Provincial Protected Areas in Canada (2006); and 1:50,000 National Topographic Survey data from the National Topographic Data Base.
OGC (Oil & Gas Commission). 2009. British Columbia Noise Control Best Practices Guideline. March 2009. Available at: http://www.ogc.gov.bc.ca/documents/BC%20Noise%20Control%20Best% 20Management%20Practices%20Guideline%20March%202009.pdf.
RDEK (Regional District of East Kootenay). 1990. Elk Valley Zoning Bylaw No. 829 Consolidation. Last updated January 9, 2009.
Ryder, J.M. 1981. Biophysical Resources of the East Kootenay Area: Terrain. APD Bulletin 7. Terrestrial Studies Branch, Assessment and Planning Division, Province of British Columbia Ministry of Environment. Victoria, BC. 153 pp.
Saunders, E.J. 1995. Bird Inventory, Cougar South / Main Pits and West Spoil Development. Prepared for Fording Coal Limited – Greenhills Mine by Sandpiper Environmental Consultants, Lethbridge. 29 pp.
Smyth, C.R. 2002. Mining Reclamation Course ER329-Summer Studies 2002. University of Victoria, Victoria, BC. 225 pp.
Smyth, C.R., D.P. Paton, S. Anderson and K. Day. 2010. Biophysical Assessment for the Phase 6 Extension. Prepared for Teck Coal Limited – Greenhills Operations by Matrix Solutions Incorporated, Calgary, AB. 145 pp.
Strategic Advisory Panel on Selenium Management. 2010. A Strategic Plan for the Management of Selenium at Teck Coal Operations. Available at: http://www.swansonenviro.ca/StrategicAdvisoryPanelFinalReport063010.p df?request=get-document&doi=10.1897/1551- 3793(2006)2%5B302%3ASAOLOE%5D2.0.CO;2. Accessed April 2011.
Teck. 2008. Environmental Management System Manual. Internal Document.
Teck. (Teck Coal Limited). 2010a. Fording River Operations 2010 Selenium Management Plan. April 2010.
Teck. 2010b. 2009 Annual Water Quality Report: Permit No. PE-00424. Fording River Operations. Submitted to BC Ministry of Environment. March 2010.
April 2011 - 64 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
Westar Mining Limited. 1992. Greenhills Mine Application for a Mine Development Certificate Falcon 2 Pit Expansion. Prepared by Westar Mining Limited, Elkford, BC. 75 pp.
April 2011 - 65 - APPENDIX A
Description of Existing Fording River Operations Process Plant
April 2011 Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
Description of Existing Fording River Operations Process Plant
Coal processing occurs at the process plant and associated facilities. The capacity of this facility is approximately 10,000,000 tonnes of clean coal per year, based on a 65 percent (%) yield with minimal downtime for scheduled maintenance.
Coal from the mine areas is transported to a rotary breaker located upstream of the plant. The coarser coal is broken down by a rotating breaker drum equipped with fixed steel plates equipped with 100.6 millimetre (mm) diameter openings. Material ejected from the end of the breaker drum consists of waste rock, and this is stockpiled for disposal in waste dumps. Material passing through the 100.6 mm openings is considered raw coal and is directed to conveyors that can alternately stack the coal on a raw coal bench or feed the coal into a raw coal bin. From this raw coal bin, variable speed belt feeders introduce the coal to the plant via two separate raw coal conveyors. Typical raw coal feed rates into the plant range from 1,700 to 2,000 tonnes per hour (tph). The breaker building and raw coal bin are both equipped with a baghouse-type dust collection system.
Upon entering the plant, the raw coal is mixed with water and passed over two vibratory screens. The oversize from this screen consists of 100.6 mm x 38.1 mm raw coal that is further reduced to less than 38.1 mm in size via two double-roll sizers. The undersize from the vibratory screen is combined with the sizer product and directed towards further size classification, where 10 multi-angle vibratory screens are used to size the raw coal into +0.75 mm and -0.75 mm streams. The 38.1 mm x 0.75 mm raw coal is then mixed with an appropriate ratio of finely ground magnetite and water, which is pumped to six 762-mm-diameter heavy media cyclones for processing. These heavy media cyclones separate the feed material into refuse stream and clean coal that is further dewatered. During this dewatering stage, accomplished with a mix of sieve bends, flat sieves, multi-angle and flat vibratory screens, the magnetite is rinsed from the material for recovery and re-use.
All material less than 0.75 mm is pumped as slurry through up to 36 water-only cyclones of 381 mm diameter. The product overflow from these is further sized into +/-0.3 mm fractions over fine wire sieve bends. The 0.75 mm x 0.3 mm clean coal from this stream is considered a clean product and is directed for further dewatering in large-diameter thickeners and screen-bowl centrifuges. The -0.3 mm material passing through the fine wire sieve bends requires further processing, and is directed to a series of 28.3 cubic metre (m3) and 8.5 m3 conventional flotation cells. The refuse underflow from the water-only cyclones is also further reprocessed, across 48 compound spirals.
April 2011 - 1 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
Flotation concentrate product is further dewatered in a large-diameter thickener and screen–bowl centrifuges. Flotation refuse (tailings) is thickened in a separate large-diameter thickener and sent to a 7-disc, 3.2-metre (m)-diameter vacuum filter for dewatering. The spirals separate their feed material into a clean product, intermediate product (middlings), and refuse product (tailings). The middlings can be directed to either the clean product or refuse product, depending on ash content.
All refuse streams, consisting of dewatered flotation tailings, spiral tailings and heavy media cyclone refuse are directed to a refuse (reject) bin for disposal in waste dumps via haul trucks. All clean coal streams, consisting of dewatered fine sieve bend oversize, flotation concentrate, spiral concentrate, and heavy media cyclone clean product is directed for further drying.
The drying process is completed using a fluidized bed thermal dryer, using pulverized coal and natural gas for heating. From here, dryer product can be stored according to needs in a 20,000-tonne capacity covered stockpile, a 15,000 tonne silo, or a 500,000-tonne external stockpile. Clean coal is loaded onto unit trains of up to 124 cars. Each train is capable of carrying up to about 14,000 tonnes. A cyclone and wet-scrubber system is used to control dust and particulate emissions at the dryer. A solution of water and polymer is sprayed on top of railcars to minimize dust emissions en route to ports and customers. Trains destined for ports in Vancouver are re-sprayed at the approximate halfway point to the ports as well.
The majority of train shipments are directed for shipment out of Roberts Bank and Neptune terminals near Vancouver for eventual shipment to overseas customers. A smaller number of trains are also directed to continental customers, via a terminal in Thunder Bay for shipping across the Great Lakes, or trains delivered directly to the customer’s site.
The plant has a closed water circle, so under normal operating circumstances only relatively clean overflow streams from various processes are directed to a large fines settling impoundment (tailings pond). Decanted water from one end of this impoundment is pumped back to the plant as required. Additional water from well sources is also used as make-up. Surface water from within the footprint of the process plant area is directed to the tailings pond. No water from the process plant or process plant footprint is discharged to surrounding waterbodies.
April 2011 - 2 - APPENDIX B
Scientific Names of Species Cited
April 2011 Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
Table B-1: Scientific Names of Species Cited Species Cited Scientific Name Amphibians Columbia spotted frog Rana luteiventris Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Western toad Bufo boreas Birds American dipper Cinclus mexicanus American robin Turdus migratorius Black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapillus Clark's nutcracker Nucifraga columbiana Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor Common raven Corvus corax Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis Dusky grouse Dendragapus obscurus Flammulated owl Otus flammeolus Fox sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla Harlequin duck Histrionicus histrionicus Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus Pine siskin Carduelis pinus Rusty blackbird Euphagus carolinus Short-eared owl Asio flammeus Spotted sandpiper Actitus macularia Spruce grouse Falcipennis canadensis Three-toad woodpecker Picoides tridactylus Varied thrush Ixoreus naevius Williamson’s sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroides nataliae Yellow-bellied sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata Fish Westslope cutthroat Oncorhynchus clarkia lewisi Invertebrates Monarch Danaus plexippus Mammals Badger Taxidea taxus Black bear Ursus americanus Caribou Rangifer tarandus Columbian ground squirrel Spermophilus columbianus Golden-mantled ground squirrel Spermophilus lateralis Grizzly bear Ursus arctos Marten Martes americana Moose Alces americanus Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus
April 2011 - 1 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
Table B-1: Scientific Names of Species Cited (continued) Species Cited Scientific Name Red squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis Rocky Mountain elk Cervus canadensis Snowshoe hare Lepus americanus Wolverine Gulo gulo luscus Vegetation Black huckleberry Vaccinium membranaceum Common red paintbrush Castilleja miniata Curly sedge Carex rupestris drummondiana Diverse-leaved cinquefoil Potentilla diversifolia Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii Engelmann spruce Picea engelmannii False azalea Menziesia ferruginea Falsebox Paxistima myrsinites Grouseberry Vaccinium scoparium Heart-leaved arnica Arnica cordifolia Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis Indian hellebore Veratrum viride Interior bluegrass Poa interior Lodgepole pine Pinus contorta Low bilberry Vaccinium myrtillus One-leaved foamflower Tiarella unifoliata Parry’s townsendia Townsendia parryi Pinegrass Calamagrostis rubescens Red-stemmed feather moss Pleurozium schreberi Rough fescue Festuca campestris Sitka valerian Valeriana sitchensis Soopalallie Shepherdia canadensis Step moss Hylocomium splendins Subalpine daisy Erigeron peregrinus Subalpine fir Abies lasiocarpa Sweet-flowered fairy-candelabra Androsace chamaejasme lehmanniana Twinflower Linnaea borealis Utah honeysuckle Lonicera utahensis Western larch Larix occidentalis Western meadowrue Thalictrum occidentale White spruce Picea glauca Whitebark pine Pinus albicaulis Wyoming kitten-tails Besseya wyomingensis Yellow beard-tongue Penstemon confertus
April 2011 - 2 - APPENDIX C
British Columbia Conservation Data Centre Species and Ecosystems at Risk Information
April 2011
BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer Search Results (Printer-friendly) Page 1of7
BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer Search Results Status
Scientific Name English Name RISC Code Provincial BC List COSEWIC Global CF Priority
Oncorhynchus clarkii Cutthroat Trout, F-ONCL-LE S3 (2004) Blue SC (2006) G4T3 2 lewisi lewisi subspecies (2003)
Salvelinus confluentus Bull Trout F-SACO S3 (2004) Blue G3 (2003) 2
Salvelinus malma Dolly Varden F-SAMA S3S4 (2004) Blue G5 (2000) 2
Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron, B-GBHE-HE S3B,S4N Blue G5T5 2 herodias herodias subspecies (2009) (2000)
Botaurus lentiginosus American Bittern B-AMBI S3B (2010) Blue G4 (1996) 2
Buteo swainsoni Swainson's Hawk B-SWHA S2B (2009) Red G5 (1996) 2
Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier B-NOHA S4B (2009) Yellow NAR (1993) G5 (2008) 2
Haliaeetus Bald Eagle B-BAEA S5B,S5N Yellow NAR (1984) G5 (2005) 6 leucocephalus (2009)
Falco mexicanus Prairie Falcon B-PRFA S2B (2005) Red NAR (1996) G5 (1996) 2
Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon B-PEFA S3B (2005) No Status SC (2007) G4 (2000) 2
Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon, B-PEFA-AN S2B (2005) Red SC (2007) G4T4 2 anatum anatum subspecies (2006)
Grus canadensis Sandhill Crane B-SACR S4B (2009) Yellow NAR (1979) G5 (1996) 5
Recurvirostra American Avocet B-AMAV S2B (2005) Red G5 (1996) 2 americana
Chlidonias niger Black Tern B-BLTE S4B (2009) Yellow NAR (1996) G4 (1996) 3
Aegolius funereus Boreal Owl B-BOOW S4 (2009) Yellow NAR (1995) G5 (1996) 3
Asio flammeus Short-eared Owl B-SEOW S3B,S2N Blue SC (2008) G5 (2008) 2 (2009)
Otus flammeolus Flammulated Owl B-FLOW S3S4B (2005) Blue SC (2010) G4 (2000) 2
Chordeiles minor Common B-CONI S4B (2010) Yellow T (2007) G5 (2009) 2 Nighthawk
Sphyrapicus Williamson's B-WISA S3B (2005) No Status E (2005) G5 (1996) 2 thyroideus Sapsucker
Sphyrapicus Williamson's B-WISA-NA S1S2B (2005) Red E (2005) G5TU 1 thyroideus nataliae Sapsucker, nataliae (1997) subspecies
Contopus cooperi Olive-sided B-OSFL S3S4B (2009) Blue T (2007) G4 (2008) 2 Flycatcher
Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow B-BASW S3S4B (2009) Blue G5 (1996) 2
Ammodramus leconteii Le Conte's Sparrow B-LCSP S3S4B (2009) Blue G4 (1999) 4
Euphagus carolinus Rusty Blackbird B-RUBL S3S4B (2005) Blue SC (2006) G4 (2008) 2
Neotamias minimus Least Chipmunk, M-NEMI-OR S3 (2006) Blue G5T3 3 oreocetes oreocetes (1996) subspecies
Neotamias minimus Least Chipmunk, M-NEMI-SE S1 (2006) Red G5T1T3 1 selkirki selkirki subspecies (1994)
Neotamias ruficaudus Red-tailed M-NERU-RU S2 (2006) Red G5T5 3 ruficaudus Chipmunk, (1997) ruficaudus subspecies
http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/results.do 4/1/2011 BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer Search Results (Printer-friendly) Page 2of7
Myodes gapperi galei Southern Red- M-MYGA-GA S3S4 (2006) Blue G5TNRQ 4 backed Vole, galei subspecies
Canis lupus Grey Wolf M-CALU S4 (2006) Yellow NAR (1999) G4 (2006) 3
Gulo gulo Wolverine M-GUGU S3 (2006) No Status SC (2003) G4 (2005) 2
Gulo gulo luscus Wolverine, luscus M-GUGU-LU S3 (2006) Blue SC (2003) G4T4 2 subspecies (1996)
Martes pennanti Fisher M-MAPE S2S3 (2006) Blue G5 (2005) 2
Taxidea taxus American Badger M-TATA S1 (2006) Red E (2000) G5 (2005) 1
Ursus arctos Grizzly Bear M-URAR S3 (2006) Blue SC (2002) G4 (2000) 2
Rangifer tarandus Caribou M-RATA S3S4 (2006) No Status G5 (2006) 2
Rangifer tarandus pop. Caribou (southern M-RATA-01 S1 (2010) Red T (2000) G5T2Q 2 1 mountain (2002) population)
Ovis canadensis Bighorn Sheep M-OVCA S3 (2010) Blue G4 (2008) 3
Epargyreus clarus Silver-spotted IL-EPACLA S3 (2006) Blue G5 (2009) 4 Skipper
Epargyreus clarus Silver-spotted IL-EPACLA-CL S3 (2006) Blue G5T5 4 clarus Skipper, clarus (2003) subspecies
Hesperia nevada Nevada Skipper IL-HESNEV S3S4 (2006) Blue G5 (2006) 2
Polites themistocles Tawny-edged IL-POLTHE-TH S3 (2006) Blue G5TNR 4 themistocles Skipper, themistocles subspecies
Pyrgus communis Checkered Skipper IL-PYRCOM S3 (2006) Blue G5 (2009) 4
Papilio machaon dodi Old World IL-PAPMAC-DO S1 (2006) Red G5T4T5 2 Swallowtail, dodi (2003) subspecies
Colias meadii Mead's Sulphur IL-COLMEA S3 (2006) Blue G4G5 3 (2009)
Colias pelidne Pelidne Sulphur IL-COLPEL S3 (2006) Blue G5 (2009) 4
Lycaena dione Dione Copper IL-LYCDIO S2 (2006) Red G5 (1998) 3
Lycaena hyllus Bronze Copper IL-LYCHYL S3 (2006) Blue G4G5 4 (2009)
Boloria alberta Albert's Fritillary IL-BOLALB S3 (2006) Blue G3 (2009) 2
Chlosyne whitneyi Rockslide IL-CHLWHI S3S4 (2006) Blue G4G5 3 Checkerspot (1998)
Danaus plexippus Monarch IL-DANPLE S3B (2006) Blue SC (2010) G5 (2010) 2
Euphydryas gillettii Gillette's IL-EUPGIL S2 (2006) Red G3 (2009) 2 Checkerspot
Oeneis jutta Jutta Arctic, IL-OENJUT-CH S3 (2006) Blue G5T4Q 4 chermocki chermocki (1999) subspecies
Speyeria aphrodite Aphrodite Fritillary, IL-SPEAPH-MA S3 (2006) Blue G5T5 4 manitoba manitoba (1998) subspecies
Speyeria aphrodite Aphrodite Fritillary, IL-SPEAPH-WH S2S3 (2006) Blue G5T4 2 whitehousei whitehousei (2001) subspecies
http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/results.do 4/1/2011 BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer Search Results (Printer-friendly) Page 3of7
Speyeria mormonia Mormon Fritillary, IL-SPEMOR-EU S1S3 (2006) Red G5TNR 2 eurynome eurynome subspecies
Oreohelix strigosa Rocky IM-ORESTR S3S4 (2008) Blue G5Q 4 Mountainsnail (2002)
Oreohelix subrudis Subalpine IM-ORESUB S3S4 (2008) Blue G5 (2002) 4 Mountainsnail
Hemphillia camelus Pale Jumping-slug IM-HEMCAM S3 (2008) Blue G4 (2006) 2
Magnipelta mycophaga Magnum Mantleslug IM-MAGMYC S2S3 (2008) Blue G3 (2006) 2
Pristiloma chersinella Black-footed IM-PRICHE S3S4 (2008) Blue G3G4 2 Tightcoil (2004)
Cryptomastix mullani Coeur d'Alene IM-CRYMUL S3S5 (2008) Blue G4 (2005) 4 Oregonian
Botrychium ascendens upswept moonwort BOTRASC S2 (2002) Red G2G3 1 (2003)
Botrychium dainty moonwort BOTRCRE S2S3 (2001) Blue G3 (2004) 2 crenulatum
Botrychium simplex least moonwort BOTRSIM S2S3 (2000) Blue G5 (1998) 3
Botrychium spoon-shaped BOTRSPA S1 (2000) Red G3 (2008) 2 spathulatum moonwort
Isoetes howellii Howell's quillwort ISOEHOW S1 (2000) Red G4G5 2 (1998)
Pellaea gastonyi Gastony's cliff- PELLGAS S2S3 (2007) Blue G2G3 2 brake (2006)
Pinus albicaulis whitebark pine PINUALB S3? (2007) Blue E (2010) G3G4 3 (2008)
Pinus flexilis limber pine PINUFLE S3 (2008) Blue G4 (2010) 2
Agoseris lackschewitzii pink agoseris AGOSLAC S2S3 (2000) Blue G4 (1997) 2
Androsace sweet-flowered ANDRCHA1 S2S3 (2001) Blue G5T5 3 chamaejasme ssp. fairy-candelabra (1991) lehmanniana
Anemone canadensis Canada anemone ANEMCAN S2S3 (2000) Blue G5 (1984) 3
Arabis lemmonii var. Lemmon's ARABLEM1 S2S3 (2001) Blue G5T4? 3 drepanoloba rockcress (1996)
Arenaria low sandwort ARENLON S1S3 (2006) Red G3G4Q 2 longipedunculata (2006)
Artemisia ludoviciana western mugwort ARTELUD2 S2S3 (2001) Blue G5T3T5 2 ssp. incompta (2003)
Astragalus bourgovii Bourgeau's milk- ASTRBOU S3 (2001) Blue G5 (1985) 4 vetch
Astragalus ground plum ASTRCRA S1 (2002) Red G5 (1986) 2 crassicarpus
Astragalus Drummond's milk- ASTRDRU S1 (2002) Red G5 (1986) 2 drummondii vetch
Astragalus vexilliflexus bent-flowered milk- ASTRVEX1 S2S3 (2000) Blue G4T4 3 var. vexilliflexus vetch (2002)
Besseya wyomingensis Wyoming kitten- BESSWYO S2S3 (2000) Blue G5 (2006) 3 tails
Brickellia grandiflora large-flowered BRICGRA S1 (2000) Red NAR (1996) G5 (1986) 2 brickellia
http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/results.do 4/1/2011 BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer Search Results (Printer-friendly) Page 4of7
Castilleja cusickii Cusick's paintbrush CASTCUS S1 (2000) Red G4G5 2 (1992)
Castilleja gracillima slender paintbrush CASTGRA S2S3 (2006) Blue G3G4Q 2 (1999)
Cirsium scariosum var. elk thistle CIRSSCA S1S3 (2005) Red G5T5? 2 scariosum (2009)
Cryptantha ambigua obscure cryptantha CRYPAMB S3 (2006) Blue G4 (1988) 4
Delphinium bicolor Montana larkspur DELPBIC1 S2S3 (2000) Blue G4G5T4T5 3 ssp. bicolor (2002)
Delphinium Sutherland's DELPSUT S2S3 (2001) Blue GNR 3 sutherlandii larkspur
Draba densifolia Nuttall's draba DRABDEN S2S3 (2001) Blue G5 (1990) 2
Draba lactea milky draba DRABLAC S2S3 (2000) Blue G4 (1995) 3
Epilobium smooth willowherb EPILGLA1 S2S3 (2000) Blue G5T4T5 3 glaberrimum ssp. (2004) fastigiatum
Epilobium leptocarpum small-fruited EPILLEP S2S3 (2000) Blue G5 (1984) 3 willowherb
Epilobium Rocky Mountain EPILSAX S1S3 (2005) Red G5 (1984) 2 saximontanum willowherb
Eriogonum androsace ERIOAND S1S3 (2005) Red G4G5 2 androsaceum buckwheat (1991)
Gaura coccinea scarlet gaura GAURCOC S1 (2000) Red G5 (1990) 2
Gayophytum humile dwarf groundsmoke GAYOHUM S2S3 (2000) Blue G5 (1990) 2
Gentiana calycosa mountain bog GENTCAL S2S3 (2000) Blue G4 (1988) 3 gentian
Hypericum scouleri western St. John's- HYPESCO1 S2S3 (2000) Blue G5T3T5 3 ssp. nortoniae wort (2002)
Leptosiphon northern linanthus LEPTSEP S3 (2006) Blue G5 (1990) 4 septentrionalis
Lewisia triphylla three-leaved lewisia LEWITRI S2S3 (2001) Blue G4? 3 (1991)
Lomatium sandbergii Sandberg's desert- LOMASAN S2S3 (2000) Blue G4 (1992) 3 parsley
Lomatium triternatum nine-leaved desert- LOMATRI1 S2 (2001) Red G5T3T5 2 ssp. platycarpum parsley (2002)
Lupinus arbustus ssp. Montana lupine LUPIARU2 S1 (2000) Red G5T2T3 2 pseudoparviflorus (2004)
Lupinus bingenensis Suksdorf's lupine LUPIBIN1 S2 (2007) Red G4G5TNR 3 var. subsaccatus
Mimulus breviflorus short-flowered MIMUBRV S1 (2003) Red G4 (1984) 1 monkey-flower
Packera contermina highalpine PACKCON S2S3 (2000) Blue G3 (2006) 3 butterweed
Papaver pygmaeum dwarf poppy PAPAPYG S2 (2003) Red G3 (1997) 2
Penstemon nitidus shining penstemon PENSNIT1 S1 (2000) Red G5T5 2 var. nitidus (2002)
Phacelia lyallii Lyall's phacelia PHACLYA S2S3 (2000) Blue G3 (2002) 3
Physaria didymocarpa common twinpod PHYSDID1 S2S3 (2000) Blue G5T4 3 var. didymocarpa (1994)
http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/results.do 4/1/2011 BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer Search Results (Printer-friendly) Page 5of7
Plantago canescens arctic plantain PLANCAN S1S3 (2005) Red G4G5 2 (1991)
Plantago eriopoda alkali plantain PLANERI S3 (2008) Blue G5 (1996) 4
Polemonium elegans elegant Jacob's- POLEELE S2S3 (2000) Blue G4 (1988) 3 ladder
Polygonum austiniae Austin's knotweed POLYAUS S2S3 (2001) Blue G5T4 3 (1991)
Polygonum Engelmann's POLYENG S2S3 (2001) Blue G3G5 2 engelmannii knotweed (2007)
Potentilla diversifolia diverse-leaved POTEDIV2 S2S3 (2000) Blue G5T4 3 var. perdissecta cinquefoil (1994)
Potentilla nivea var. five-leaved POTENIV2 S2S3 (2000) Blue G5T4 3 pentaphylla cinquefoil (1988)
Potentilla ovina var. sheep cinquefoil POTEOVI1 S2S3 (2000) Blue G5?T5? 3 ovina (2000)
Prenanthes sagittata arrow-leaved PRENSAG S1 (2000) Red G3G4 1 rattlesnake-root (1994)
Salix boothii Booth's willow SALIBOO S2S3 (2000) Blue G5 (1993) 2
Senecio hydrophiloides sweet-marsh SENEHYR S1 (2000) Red G4G5 2 butterweed (2001)
Senecio megacephalus large-headed SENEMEG S2S3 (2000) Blue G4 (2006) 2 groundsel
Silene drummondii Drummond's SILEDRU1 S3 (2001) Blue G5T5 4 var. drummondii campion (1997)
Sphaeralcea coccinea scarlet globe- SPHACOC S1 (2000) Red G5? 2 mallow (2003)
Stellaria obtusa blunt-sepaled STELOBT S2S3 (2000) Blue G5 (1990) 2 starwort
Thalictrum purple meadowrue THALDAS S2S3 (2001) Blue G5 (1985) 2 dasycarpum
Thermopsis prairie golden bean THERRHO S1 (2000) Red G5 (1988) 2 rhombifolia
Townsendia parryi Parry's townsendia TOWNPAR S1 (2000) Red G4? 2 (1988)
Veronica catenata pink water VEROCAT S1 (2000) Red G5 (1984) 1 speedwell
Carex geyeri elk sedge CAREGEY S3 (2002) Blue G5 (1986) 2
Carex lenticularis var. Enander's sedge CARELEN1 S2S3 (2001) Blue G5T3 3 dolia (2008)
Carex lenticularis var. lakeshore sedge CARELEN3 S2 (2000) Red G5T5 3 lenticularis (1988)
Carex paysonis Payson's sedge CAREPAY S2S3 (2001) Blue G4 (1995) 3
Carex rostrata swollen beaked CAREROT S2S3 (2000) Blue G5 (1984) 3 sedge
Carex scoparia pointed broom CARESCO S2S3 (2000) Blue G5 (1984) 2 sedge
Carex sychnocephala many-headed CARESYC S3 (2001) Blue G4 (1988) 2 sedge
Eleocharis elliptica Slender spike-rush ELEOELL S2S3 (2004) Blue G5 (1984) 3
Eleocharis rostellata beaked spike-rush ELEOROS S2S3 (2000) Blue G5 (2000) 3
http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/results.do 4/1/2011 BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer Search Results (Printer-friendly) Page 6of7
Festuca minutiflora little fescue FESTMIN S2S3 (2000) Blue G5 (1993) 3
Juncus arcticus ssp. arctic rush JUNCARC1 S2S3 (2000) Blue G5T4T5 3 alaskanus (2005)
Juncus confusus Colorado rush JUNCCON S1 (2000) Red G5 (1987) 1
Melica spectabilis purple oniongrass MELISPE S2S3 (2000) Blue G5 (1988) 3
Muhlenbergia marsh muhly MUHLGLO S3 (2002) Blue G5 (1997) 4 glomerata
Stuckenia vaginata sheathing STUCVAG S2S3 (2001) Blue G5 (1995) 3 pondweed
Trichophorum dwarf clubrush TRICPUM S2S3 (2000) Blue G5 (1997) 3 pumilum
Trisetum wolfii Wolf's trisetum TRISWOL S2S3 (2001) Blue G4 (1988) 3
Aongstroemia longipes AONGLON S2S3 Blue G3G5 3 (2000)
Atrichum tenellum ATRITEN S1S3 (2000) Red G4G5 2 (1991)
Brachythecium BRACGRO S2S3 Blue G3G5 3 groenlandicum (2000)
Bryobrittonia longipes BRYOLON S2S3 Blue G3 (2011) 3
Bryum turbinatum BRYUTUR S2S3 Blue G5 (1991) 3
Bryum uliginosum BRYUULI S1S3 (2000) Red G3G5 2 (1991)
Campylium hispidulum CAMPHIP S2S3 Blue G4G5 3 (1991)
Cynodontium tenellum CYNOTEN S2S3 Blue G3G5Q 3 (2000)
Dichelyma falcatum DICHFAL S2S3 Blue G4G5 3 (1991)
Dicranum fragilifolium DICRFRA S2S3 Blue G4G5 3 (1991)
Didymodon DIDYSUB S2S3 Blue GU (2000) 3 subandreaeoides
Drepanocladus DREPCRA S2S3 Blue G3G5 3 crassicostatus (2000)
Encalypta spathulata ENCASPA S1S3 (2000) Red G3 (2011) 2
Eucladium EUCLVER S2S3 Blue G4 (1998) 3 verticillatum
Grimmia affinis GRIMAFF S2S3 Blue G4G5 3 (1991)
Hypnum pratense HYPNPRA S2S3 Blue G5 (1996) 3
Mnium arizonicum MNIUARI S1S3 (2000) Red G5? 2 (1996)
Orthotrichum affine ORTHAFF S2S3 Blue G3G5 3 (1991)
Orthotrichum alpestre ORTHALP S2S3 Blue G4G5 3 (1991)
Orthotrichum pallens ORTHPAL S2S3 Blue G5 (1991) 2
Philonotis fontana var. PHILFON4 S2S3 Blue G5T4T5 3 pumila (1991)
http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/results.do 4/1/2011 BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer Search Results (Printer-friendly) Page 7of7
Physcomitrium PHYSPYR S2S3 Blue G5 (1991) 2 pyriforme
Pohlia atropurpurea POHLATR S2S3 Blue G4G5 2 (1991)
Pohlia filum POHLFIU S2S3 Blue G4G5 3 (1991)
Pohlia longicolla POHLLOG S1S3 (2000) Red G4G5 2 (1991)
Pohlia obtusifolia POHLOBT S2S3 Blue G2G4 3 (2000)
Racomitrium RACOPYG S1S3 (2000) Red GU (2000) 2 pygmaeum
Rhizomnium RHIZPUN S1S3 (2000) Red G5 (1991) 2 punctatum
Schistidium agassizii SCHIAGA S2S3 Blue G3G5 2 (1991)
Schistidium atrichum SCHIATR S1S3 (2000) Red GNRQ 2
Schistidium robustum SCHIROB S2S3 Blue GNR 2
Seligeria campylopoda SELICAM S2S3 Blue G3G5 2 (1991)
Tayloria lingulata TAYLLIN S2S3 Blue G3G5 3 (1991)
Timmia megapolitana TIMMMEG S2S3 (2000) Blue G5 (1991) 2
Tortella inclinata TORTINC S2S3 Blue G4G5 3 (1991)
Search Summary Time Fri Apr 01 10:33:12 PDT 2011 Performed Results 180 records. Search Species Group:Plants & Animals Criteria AND Forest Districts:Rocky Mountain Forest District (DRM) ( Restricted to Red, Blue, and Legally designated species ) AND BGC Zone:ESSF, MS Sort Order:Phylogenetic Ascending Notes 1. Citation: B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2011. BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer. B.C. Minist. of Environ. Victoria, B.C. Available: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed Apr 1, 2011).
2. Forest District, MoE Region, Regional District and habitat lists are restricted to species that breed in the Forest District, MoE Region, Regional District or habitat (i.e., species will not be placed on lists where they occur only as migrants).
Modify Search | New Search | Results
http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/results.do 4/1/2011 BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer Search Results (Printer-friendly) Page 1of3
BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer Search Results Status Biogeoclimatic Scientific Name English Name Units Provincial BC List Global CF Priority
Abies lasiocarpa / subalpine fir / false ESSFdk1/05 S5 (2001) Yellow GNR 6 Menziesia ferruginea / azalea / common ESSFdk1/06 Equisetum arvense horsetail
Abies lasiocarpa / subalpine fir / false ESSFdk1/04 S5 (2001) Yellow GNR 6 Menziesia ferruginea - azalea - soopolallie Shepherdia canadensis
Abies lasiocarpa / subalpine fir / false ESSFdk1/01 S5 (2001) Yellow GNR 6 Menziesia ferruginea / azalea / three-leaved Tiarella trifoliata foamflower
Abies lasiocarpa / subalpine fir / false ESSFdk1/03 S5 (2001) Yellow GNR 6 Menziesia ferruginea / azalea / grouseberry Vaccinium scoparium
Carex utriculata - Carex beaked sedge - BWBSdk1/Wm01 S4 (2004) Yellow G4 4 aquatilis water sedge BWBSdk2/Wf01 BWBSmw2/Wm01 ESSFdc3/Wf01 ESSFdk1/Wf01 ESSFdk2/Wf01 ESSFdv d/Wm01 ESSFdv/Wm01 ESSFmc/Wf01 ESSFmc/Wm01 ESSFmw/Wf01 ESSFmw/Wm01 ESSFwc1/Wf01 ESSFwk1/Wf01 ESSFxc/Wf01 ESSFxc/Wm01 ESSFxv1/Wf01 ESSFxv2/Wf01 ESSFxv2/Wm01 ICHmc1/Wm01 ICHmc2/Wm01 ICHmk1/08 ICHmk1/Wf01 ICHvc/Wf01 ICHwc/Wf01 ICHwk1/Wm01 ICHwk2/Wm01 IDFdk1/Wm01 IDFdk2/Wm01 IDFdk3/Wf01 IDFdk3/Wm01 IDFdk4/Wf01 MHmm2/Wf01 MSdc1/Wf01 MSdc1/Wm01 MSdc1d/Wf01 MSdc1d/Wm01 MSdc2/Wm01 MSdk/Wm01 MSdm1/Wf01 MSdm1/Wm01 MSdm2/Wf01 MSdm2/Wm01 MSdm3/Wm01 MSdm3w/Wm01 MSmw1/Wf01 MSmw2/Wf01 MSxk/Wf01 MSxk/Wm01 MSxv/Wf01 MSxv/Wm01
http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/results.do 4/1/2011 BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer Search Results (Printer-friendly) Page 2of3
PPxh1/Wm01 SBPSdc/Wm01 SBPSxc/Wm01 SBSdk/Wm01 SBSdw1/Wm01 SBSdw3/Wm01 SBSmc2/Wm01 SBSmk1/Wm01 SBSmk2/Wm01 SBSvk/Wm01 SBSwk1/Wm01
Danthonia intermedia timber oatgrass ESSFdk SNR Yellow G2G3 2 Herbaceous Vegetation Herbaceous ESSFdkp Vegetation ESSFwc1 ESSFwcp ICHmk1 IMA MHmmp MSdk
Dryas octopetala var. white mountain- BAFA SNR Yellow GNR 4 hookeriana Dwarf avens Dwarf BWBSdk1 Shrubland Shrubland CMA ESSFdk ESSFdkp ESSFwc1 ESSFwcp ESSFxv1 ESSFxv2 ICHmk1 IMA MHmmp MSdk SBSwk2 SWB SWBmk
Luetkea pectinata partridge-foot ESSFdk SNR Yellow GNR 4 Herbaceous Vegetation Herbaceous ESSFdkp Vegetation ESSFwc1 ESSFwcp ICHmk1 IMA MSdk
Pseudotsuga menziesii / Douglas-fir / Douglas ESSFdk1/02 S5 (2001) Yellow GNR 6 Acer glabrum - maple - soopolallie Shepherdia canadensis
Salix barrattiana Dwarf Barratt's willow BAFA SNR Yellow GNR 4 Shrubland Dwarf Shrubland ESSFdk ESSFdkp ESSFwc1 ESSFwcp IMA SBSwk2 SWBmk
Search Summary Time Fri Apr 01 10:54:23 PDT 2011 Performed Results 10 records. Search Ecological Communities Criteria AND Forest Districts:Rocky Mountain Forest District (DRM) AND BGC Zone, Subzone, Variant, Phase:ESSFdk1, ESSFdkp, ESSFdkw, MSdk1 Sort Order:Scientific Name Ascending Notes 1. Citation: B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2011. BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer. B.C. Minist. of Environ. Victoria, B.C. Available: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed Apr 1, 2011).
2. Biogeoclimatic Site Unit(s): This column indicates the BGC unit(s) on which each ecological community is
http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/results.do 4/1/2011 BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer Search Results (Printer-friendly) Page 3of3
known to occur (future inventories may indicate range extensions). The two digit number following the slash (01 andup)indicatesthattheecologicalcommunityoccursonasiteseriesthatispartoftheB.C.MinistryofForests (MOF) site series classification (see MOF Regional Field Guides to Site Identification and Interpretation for more information). A two digit number of '00' indicates that the ecological community occurs on a site unit that is not part of the MOF site series classification but is recognized from other vegetation and site classifications, and ecosystem mapping projects.
Modify Search | New Search | Results
http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/results.do 4/1/2011 APPENDIX D
Summary of the Swift Project Area Coal Tenures and Land Ownership
April 2011 Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
Table D-1: The Swift Project Area Coal Leases Area(a) Prospect Area Name Tenure Map Number Status [ha] Greenhills Range Lease 1 389275 082J016 Good Standing 2011.01.01 1,009 Greenhills Range Lease 2 389282 082J016 Good Standing 2011.05.19 2,250 Greenhills Range Lease 5 389285 082J016 Good Standing 2011.03.17 644 Greenhills Range Lease 16 389310 082J016 Good Standing 2011.05.09 2,859 Greenhills Range Lease 17 389311 082J016 Good Standing 2011.05.09 8,180 (a) The area of the licence may extend beyond the Project footprint. Some portions of the Project area are also on fee simple land owned by Teck Coal Limited. ha = hectare.
Table D-2: The Swift Project Area Coal Exploration Licences Area License No. [ha] 327978 259 327990 259 327991 259 327993 259 327995 259 927996 259 927999 259 328000 259 328674 259 417067 259 417068 259 ha = hectare.
April 2011 - 1 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
Table D-3: The Swift Project Area Freehold Crown Grants District Lot Number Plan Number 3422 NW 1/2 & E 1/2 3423 ALL 3424 ALL 6047 ALL 6048 ALL 6049 ALL 6050 ALL 6051 ALL 6635 W 1/2 6821 ALL 6822 W 1/2 6823 E 1/2 6824 W 1/2 6825 E 1/2 6980 W 1/2 OF W 1/2 Total Area (ha) 2,968 ha = hectare.
Table D-4: The Swift Project Area Mineral Titles Area Teck Coal Interest Tenure Number Owner Number Mapsheet [ha] [%] 389275 145963 082J016 1009 100 389282 145963 082J016 2250 100 389285 145963 082J016 644 100 389290 145963 082J016 1096 100 389310 145963 082J016 2859 100 389311 145963 082J016 8180 100 389312 145963 082J016 1298 100 416886 145963 082J016 518 100 417067 145963 082J017 259 100 417068 145963 082J027 259 100 ha = hectare; % percent.
April 2011 - 2 - APPENDIX E
Review of Potential for Federal Triggers
April 2011 Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
Table E-1: Review of Potential for Federal Triggers FRO If Yes, Provide This Act Evaluation Question Information Provided Response Information Would this Project involve any of the following activities: Dredge or fill operations which would result in the disposal of Canadian dredged material at seas? Environmental No Not applicable. Not applicable. Protection Act Seafloor disturbance and/or the disposal of any substance at seas? Disposal of any other substance into marine waters? Describe what The presence of westslope cutthroat trout has been Are fish (including aquatic species at measures are being documented in the Fording River and in Lake Mountain risk) present at the site, upstream, or Yes contemplated to Creek. Swift Creek is fish bearing only in the lower reach downstream? avoid or mitigate (downstream of the proposed Project). Cataract Creek is impacts. non-fish bearing. Describe what Waste rock placement in Swift and Cataract creeks is measures are being Is fish habitat present at the site, limited to the upper reaches of the streams and existing Yes contemplated to upstream, or downstream? sediment catchment ponds remain intact (upstream of fish avoid or mitigate bearing reaches and downstream of the Project). Waste impacts. rock placed in streams will form rock drains which will be Will any of the components or designed to facilitate water flow through the structures. activities associated with the Project Open pits and water management facilities will be Fisheries Act affect fish and/or fish habitat in any of designed to minimize flow regime alterations in the the following ways? In each case, Fording River. Reclamation and closure planning will explain why: include long-term erosion and water quality objectives Interfere with the passage of fish? Describe what designed to mitigate potential effects. Result in the mortality to fish by measures are being Teck will seek Authorization pursuant to Section 35(2) of means other than fishing? Yes contemplated to the Fisheries Act for any works or undertakings likely to Affect the flow or level of fish- avoid or mitigate result in a HADD of fish habitat. In keeping with the frequent waters such that fish impacts. guiding principle of No Net Loss (NNL) outlined in the and/or fish habitat may be Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) Policy for the Management impacts? of Fish Habitat Teck will implement measures to Cause the harmful alternation, compensate for any HADD that will occur. The disruption or destruction (HADD) compensation measures will be developed in consultation of fish habitat? with DFO, Provincial regulatory agencies, First Nations.
April 2011 - 1 - Teck Coal Limited – Fording River Operations: The Swift Project
Table E-1: Review of Potential for Federal Triggers (continued) FRO If Yes, Provide This Act Evaluation Question Information Provided Response Information Does the development involve the Metal Mining proposed deposit in waters frequented Not applicable. Coal mines do not fall under the Effluent by fish of effluent or waste rock as No Not applicable. jurisdiction of the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations Regulations provided for under the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations? Is a factory to Explosives kept and/or stored on–site will: make explosives be for exclusive use at the Fording River Operations required at or (FRO) mine site; near the site? will be used and stored in accordance with the BC Will this Project Mines Regulation Act; Will the Project involve the use an existing Explosives Act manufacture and storage of Yes will be stored within an existing licensed explosives factory licence explosives? storage facility; and for its operation? there is no requirement to modify existing licenses for Will a temporary the Project. explosives Refer to Appendix F for a completed Natural Resources factory be used Canada and the Explosives Act in the Context of for the Project? Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Questionnaire. The watercourses are classified as Are new works or undertakings minor navigable proposed to take place in, on, over, waters as defined by Yes Not applicable. under, through or across any the Minor Works and Navigable navigable water? Waters (Navigable Waters Waters Protection Protection Act Act) Order Are existing works that were not previously authorized under the Navigable Waters Protection Act to be No Not applicable. Not applicable. modified on a watercourse or water body? Note: Table adapted from the Guide to Preparing a Project Description for a Major Resource Project (Major Projects Management Office [MPMO] 2008).
April 2011 - 2 - APPENDIX F
Natural Resources Canada and the Explosives Act in the Context of Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Questionnaire
April 2011
Natural Resources Canada and the Explosives Act in the Context of Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
Natural Resources Canada’s involvement in environmental assessment among others, results from the application of certain Acts under the authority of the federal Minister of Natural Resources. One of these Acts that can trigger the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is the Explosives Act which regulates the manufacturing, testing, sale, storage, transportation and importation of explosives as well as the use of fireworks.
Specifically, by virtue of this Act, Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) could become involved in the environmental assessment (EA) of projects by issuing, if required, a licence for the manufacture (i.e., factory) and/or storage (i.e., magazine) of explosives (Section 7(1)(a) of the Explosives Act).
The issuance of such a licence could be subject to federal EA requirements under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). Under CEAA, an EA requires that all environmental effects of a project be taken into consideration before a decision is made concerning its implementation.
Steps 1 and 2 of this questionnaire are intended to assist project proponents and NRCan in determining whether a licence under Section 7(1)(a) of the Explosives Act is required and whether this triggers an EA under the CEAA. Step 3 provides additional guidance on NRCan’s EA requirements should one be required.
Step 1
Will explosives be used? Yes No
If the answer is “Yes” please proceed to Step 2 by answering the following questions on explosives which would help NRCan determine its responsibilities under the CEAA:
Step 2
1. Identify the project title, location and proponent name. Project Title: The Swift Project Location: 45 kms north of Sparwood B.C. along Hwy#43 Proponent Name: Teck Coal Limited Suite 1000, 205 - 9th Avenue SE Calgary, Alberta T2G 0R3 Telephone: 403.767.8500 Fax: 403.265.8794
Proponent Contact: Laura Bevan-Griffin Permitting Lead PO Box 100 Elkford, BC V0B 1H0 Telephone: 250.865-5184 Fax: 250.865.5165 Email: [email protected]
October 2008 - 1 -
2. Description of the production of explosives.
Is a factory to make explosives required at or near the site? Please explain a. Z No, a factory to make explosives will not be required. Will this project use an existing factory license for its operations? Please explain a. Z Yes, the existing operations have a licensed magazine and facility that will be utilized by the project. Will a temporary explosives factory be used for the project? Please explain b. Z No, a temporary explosive factory will not be required.
3. Description of the storage of explosives
Is a magazine(s) to store explosives required at or near the site? Please describe (i.e., footprint, type of storage structure, site access, other ancillary works) c. Z No, the existing licensed magazine(s) will be utilized.
Based on the answers to the above questions, NRCan may require an environmental assessment under CEAA for the project before issuing a licence for the manufacture and/or storage of explosives. THE PROPONENT WILL BE INFORMED BY NRCAN OR ANOTHER FEDERAL AUTHORITY ON WHETHER AN EA WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE EXPLOSIVE FACTORY/MAGAZINES.
If an EA is required, please proceed to Step 3 for explosive-related information that will need to be included in the environmental assessment.
Step 3
Environmental Assessment Information Requirements
The following information is required for completing the environmental assessment of the factory/magazines:
Explosives to be manufactured (typically ammonium nitrate fuel oil (ANFO) and/or emulsion/watergel). Note that if the proponent initially specifies ANFO and decides to add emulsion as the project proposal is further developed, the potential environmental effects of the project are not likely to be affected, as effluents and other aspects relevant to the assessment will not change. Maximum quantity of explosives at each facility. Infrastructures for manufacturing or storing explosive should be identified and include: explosives and innovation systems magazines, fuel storage, ammonium nitrate storage, maintenance/wash area, process vehicles and their parking area, any offices, warehouses, buildings, etc. Specified location (i.e., detailed site plan) of the various components of the facilities, with distances to vulnerable features such as dwellings, roads, camps, railways, bodies of water, etc. The proponent needs to demonstrate that safety distances required by the Explosives Regulatory Division (ERD) of NRCan have been considered and met. Fuel and ammonium nitrate storage plans. Storage of ammonium nitrate is to be in conformance with ERD guidelines. Liquid effluent disposal plans. Evaluation of worst case scenario (i.e. accidental explosion). Spill contingency plans. Details on any temporary explosive facilities to be used for starting the project must be provided, giving the same information requirements above. The temporary installations are often required before the other facilities can be put in place and as such are often more problematic for location, containment, etc.
October 2008 - 2 -
Please refer to the NRCan Explosives Regulatory Division website for information on licensing, minimum distances requirements, etc., at http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/mms/explosif/index.htm.
a An Explosive Factory Licence is required for manufacturing facilities for explosives. A licensed facility can be a fixed site for the manufacture of blasting explosives, ammunition or fireworks, etc., or, in the case of bulk explosives, it can be the base of operations with the facilities necessary to clean, decontaminate and repair vehicles that mix and or deliver explosives directly down the borehole. If there is an existing licensed explosive factory that can serve as the base of operations for the project, then a new factory licence is not required. b Temporary factory sites are licensed factory sites that move with the construction of roads, hydro lines or pipelines, or are of short duration, such as some construction projects (e.g., air fields). Such sites must be supported by existing, licensed base factories equipped to properly service the process vehicles that would be located at the temporary site. A licence for a temporary factory is granted when the proponent has provided evidence that the site is truly temporary in nature. c A magazine is defined under the Explosives Act as any building, storehouse, structure or place in which any explosive is kept or stored. Please see the Explosives Act for exceptions.
October 2008 - 3 -