Fort McKay First Nation
Our File No. INDU-0817-0625-0206 June 29, 2012
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Regulatory Approvals Center 9th Floor, 9820 – 106 Street Edmonton, Alberta T5K 2J6 emails: [email protected] [email protected]
Attention: Pat Marriott, Director, Regulatory Approvals, Northern Region
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 160 Elgin Street, 22nd floor Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3 email: [email protected]
Attention: Carolyn Dunn (Panel Manager)
Dear Pat and Carolyn,
Re: Teck Resources Limited proposed Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Water Act (File No. 00303079) and EPEA (File No. 001-00247548) Applications ERCB Application No. 1709793 Fort McKay Technical Reviews
The Fort McKay Sustainability Department is writing to you on behalf of the Community of Fort McKay, including the Fort McKay First Nation and the Fort McKay Métis Community. We are writing with respect to Teck Resources Limited’s (Teck) proposed Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project (the Project). The proposed Project is: located within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory and is within an actively used area relatively close to this Community that is important for Fort McKay’s traditional land use and values including but not limited to cultural/spiritual sites and values, habitation sites (e.g. historic and currently used cabins, gathering places), wildlife habitat/ecological values (including critical areas for woodland caribou, wolf, bison, moose, fisher, marten and porcupine), transportation routes and trails, and an important family hunting area; the Main Development Area (MDA) is about 51 km north of the Community of Fort McKay and 40 km east of Fort McKay First Nation’s reserve at Gardiner/Moose Lake (IR 174A);
Working for a Better Tomorrow Page 2 Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency June 29, 2012
the South Development Area (SDA) is located about 38 km north of the community of Fort McKay about 42 km east of Fort McKay First Nation’s reserve at Namur/Buffalo Lake (IR 174B); within the planning area defined in the Moose Lake Access Management Planning Area – Terms of Reference (GOA 2003) near Fort McKay community member traplines (the project is directly east of RFMA #879, northeast of RFMA#94 and west and across the Athabasca River form RFMA #1661. Traplines are an import traditional land use area). Fort McKay is a directly affected party and this project is of interest and concern to Fort McKay. Fort McKay’s Statement of Concern was submitted to Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD) on June 4, 2012. At that time we had indicated that our detailed technical review would follow within a month. Please accept the attached two documents as our technical reviews of the Applications. One focuses on the environmental, health and land use aspects of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) and Application and the other focuses on the socio-economic aspects. As noted previously, the Fort McKay Sustainability Department (FMSD) is in the process of consulting with community members and leadership regarding the Project. Community consultation focus group sessions took place in March and early April 2012. The FMSD is in the process of compiling and synthesizing information and input obtained from community consultation sessions and meeting with leadership to discuss the results. Additional questions and concerns might arise from these sessions. We will discuss the outcomes of these consultations with Teck, Alberta and Canada, as needed. Consultation with Teck In the meantime, the FMSD looks forward to a response from Teck to the concerns and requests raised in our technical reviews. We are willing to meet with Teck to identify means to avoid, minimize or offset the adverse project-specific impacts of the Project. Request for Consultation with Alberta and Canada To date, no consultation process has been developed by Alberta for the taking up of land for mining and other development within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory. Fort McKay has an outstanding request to Alberta for consultation on the cumulative impacts of oil sands development and measures required to avoid and accommodate impacts to its rights and interests. This includes an outstanding request since 2003 for a Moose Lake access management plan. To date, no direct consultation has occurred between Alberta and Fort McKay regarding the Frontier Project. Canada has initiated consultation with Fort McKay regarding the Frontier Project; however, the Aboriginal Consultation Plan requires modification in order to meet the Crown’s duty to consult and to meet Fort McKay’s needs. Consultation with Fort McKay by Canada needs to take into account the existing level of impacts on Fort McKay, include concrete measure by which Canada will demonstratively integrate Fort McKay’s concerns in its decision-making and include a substantive process to develop mutually agreeable measures to avoid or accommodate impacts on Fort McKay’s right. Further, there is still no process by which Canada consults with Fort McKay regarding cumulative impacts of the taking up of land for oil sands development and the impacts of industrialization on the majority of Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory. Some effects of the Frontier Project will not be avoidable and will be permanent, particularly the contribution of the Project to cumulative effects including the cumulative loss of land use opportunities.
Working for a Better Tomorrow Page 3 Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency June 29, 2012
Consultation and accommodation measures are therefore required from Alberta and Canada. Fort McKay requests that: i. Alberta and Canada meet with Fort McKay regarding how they will address the concerns identified in the project-specific TLUS and possible mitigation and accommodation measures to address impacts on Fort McKay’s Aboriginal and Treaty rights; ii. Alberta and Canada, in cooperation with Fort McKay, set aside land for the specific purpose of preserving opportunities for culturally relevant TLU; and iii. at the end of the review of the Application, we request that Alberta and Canada advise Fort McKay how its concerns were incorporated in any project-related decisions or otherwise dealt with. Summary
In summary, Fort McKay has attached its detailed technical reviews which describe in detail Fort McKay’s concerns and requests regarding this project. We look forward to discussing these reviews as well as specific community concerns that were raised in Fort McKay in focus group meetings with Teck, Alberta and Canada, respectively, and determining if the impacts of this project on Fort McKay can be mitigated, offset or accommodated.
Sincerely,
Daniel Stuckless, Manager, Environmental Affairs Fort McKay Sustainability Department
Enclosure cc: Fort McKay First Nation Chief and Council Ron Quintal, President, Fort McKay Métis Community Alvaro Pinto, Director, Fort McKay Sustainability Department Margaret Luker, Regulatory Coordinator, Fort McKay Sustainability Department Jeffery O’Donnell, Executive Director, Fort McKay Métis Community Ian MacKenzie, Regulatory Manager, Teck Resources Limited Janais Turuk, Community Relations, Teck Resources Limited Sheila Risbud, Crown Consultation Coordinator, CEAA Michelle Camilleri, Project Manager, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Marek Janowicz, Fisheries and Oceans Canada Tim Burggraaff, Resource Management Advisor, SREM Aboriginal Affairs Branch Amit Banerjee, Regional Approvals Manager, ESRD Ammar Baig, In Situ Oil Sands and Coal Branch, ERCB Corinne Kristensen, Acting Team Leader, Environmental Assessment, AEW Andrea Larson, Manager, Oil Sands and Coal Mining, ERCB Amanda Black, Oil Sands and Coal Mining, ERCB
Working for a Better Tomorrow INDU‐0817‐0625‐0206
Fort McKay’s Review of Teck Resources Ltd. Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Integrated Application
Review prepared for: Fort McKay Sustainability Department
Prepared by: Lori Adamache, Adamache Consulting Inc. Towagh Behr, Integral Ecology Group Ltd. Dr. Shanti Berryman, Integral Ecology Group Ltd. Ron Bothe, Bothe & Associates Inc. Dr. John Dennis, SolAero Ltd. John Errington, John C. Errington and Associates Ltd. Peter Evans, EnerNorth Consulting Ann Garibaldi, Integral Ecology Group Ltd. Doug Geller, Western Water Associates Ltd. Lorne Gould, Gould Environmental Ltd Marie Lagimodiere, Lagimodiere Finigan Inc. Natalie Melashenko, Adelante Consulting Dr. Brenda Miskimmin, Summit Environmental Consultants Inc. David Spink, Pravid Environmental Inc. June 2012
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
1.1 Reviewers ...... 1 1.2 Review Approach ...... 1 1.3 Disclaimer ...... 2 1.4 Review and Validation of Key Issues ...... 2 1.5 Community Consultation ...... 2 1.6 Cummulative Impacts to Treaty and Aboriginal rights...... 3
2. PROJECT OVERVIEW ...... 4
3. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ...... 9
3.1 Introduction ...... 9 3.2 Overall Concerns and Requests ...... 10
4. ACCESS MANAGEMENT ...... 17
4.1 Access Management Key Concerns and Requests ...... 17 4.2 Access Management Key Concerns and Requests Summary ...... 18
5. TRADITIONAL LAND USE ...... 20
5.1 Introduction ...... 20 5.2 Project Results ...... 20 5.3 Project Conclusions ...... 22 5.4 Traditional Land Use Key Concerns and Requests Summary ...... 23
6. WILDLIFE ...... 30
6.1 Wildlife Assessment ...... 30 6.2 Mitigation and Monitoring ...... 31 6.3 Wildlife Key Concerns and Requests ...... 32
7. NOISE ...... 54
7.1 Context ...... 54 7.2 Noise Impact Assessment Methodology and Findings ...... 54 7.3 Noise Key Concerns and Requests Summary ...... 57
8. AIR QUALITY...... 59
8.1 Air Assessment Approach and Methodologies ...... 59 8.2 Air Quality Key Concerns and Requests ...... 61
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐i‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
8.3 Odours ...... 85 8.4 Air Quality Key Concerns and Requests Summary ...... 97
9. GROUNDWATER ...... 105
9.1 Groundwater Impacts ...... 105 9.2 Groundwater Assessment ...... 106 9.3 Groundwater Key Concerns and Requests ...... 107
10. HYDROLOGY/SURFACE WATER ...... 116
10.1 Surface Water Impacts ...... 116 10.2 Surface Water Assessment ...... 116 10.3 Surface Water Key Concerns and Requests ...... 116
11. WATER QUALITY, FISH AND FISH HABITAT ...... 123
11.1 Impacts to Water Quality and Fish Habitat ...... 123 11.2 Water Quality and Fish Habitat Assessment ...... 124 11.3 Water Quality Key Concerns and Requests ...... 125 11.4 Fish Habitat Key Concerns and Requests ...... 131
12. TERRAIN AND SOILS ...... 137
12.1 Introduction ...... 137 12.2 Soil Disturbance ...... 137 12.3 Potential Acid Input (PAI) Modelling ...... 137 12.4 Soils and Terrain Key Concerns and Requests ...... 139
13. VEGETATION AND WETLANDS ...... 140
13.1 Introduction ...... 140 13.2 Baseline Vegetation ...... 142 13.3 Ecosite and Wetland Classification and Mapping ...... 143 13.4 Traditional‐Use Plant Potential ...... 143 13.5 Rare Plants and Rare Plant Communities ...... 146 13.6 Invasive and Non‐native Species ...... 147 13.7 Old‐Growth Forests ...... 148 13.8 Air Pollution Effects on Vegetation ...... 149 13.9 Biodiversity ...... 150 13.10 Vegetation and Wetlands Key Concerns and Request Summary ...... 152
14. BIODIVERSITY ...... 156
14.1 Biodiversity Assessment ...... 156 14.2 Biodiversity Key Concerns and Requests ...... 156
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐ii‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
15. HUMAN HEALTH ...... 160
15.1 Human Health Assessment ...... 160 15.2 Challenge to Conservative Assumptions within the Project’s HHRA ...... 161 15.3 Human Health Key Concerns and Requests Summary ...... 163 15.4 HHRA and Increased Health Risks Identified ...... 164 15.5 Overall Conclusions from the HHRA ...... 166 15.6 Human Health Impact Assessment ...... 167
16. PALÆONTOLOGY ...... 174
16.1 Study Scope ...... 174 16.2 Field Investigation Process and Results ...... 174 16.3 Palæontology Key Concerns and Requests Summary ...... 176
17. HISTORICAL RESOURCES ...... 178
17.1 Introduction ...... 178 17.2 HRIA Study Scope and Approach ...... 178 17.3 Comments on Study Completion and Future Investigations ...... 180 17.4 Historical Resources Impact Assessment Key Concerns and Requests Summary ...... 182
18. VISUAL ÆSTHETICS ...... 184
18.1 Introduction ...... 184 18.2 Approach ...... 185 18.3 Visual Æsthetics Key Concerns and Requests Summary ...... 187
19. LAND AND RESOURCE USE ...... 190
19.1 Introduction ...... 190 19.2 Approach ...... 191 19.3 Land and Resource Use Key Concerns and Requests ...... 192
20. TAILINGS MANAGEMENT ...... 197
20.1 Introduction ...... 197 20.2 Tailings Directive ...... 197 20.3 Proposed Tailings Management System ...... 198 20.4 Tailings Placement ...... 199 20.5 Conclusions and Possible Issues ...... 200
21. CONSERVATION AND RECLAMATION PLAN ...... 202
21.1 Overall Reclamation Planning ...... 202
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐iii‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
21.2 Reclamation Planning Key Concerns and Requests ...... 202 21.3 Equivalent Land Capability ...... 204 21.4 Wetlands ...... 206 21.5 End Pit Lakes ...... 209 21.6 Soils ...... 210 21.7 Revegetation Planning ...... 212 21.8 Wildlife Habitat ...... 213 21.9 Reclamation Monitoring, Certification and Security ...... 213
22. BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 220
Tables
Table 3‐1: Cumulative Effects’ Overall Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table ...... 15 Table 4‐1: Access Management Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table ...... 18 Table 5‐1: Traditional Land Use Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table...... 28 Table 6‐1: Wildlife Indicators and the Results of Verification with LSA Survey Data ...... 33 Table 6‐2: Potental Wildlife Species at Risk ...... 38 Table 6‐3: Wildlife Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table ...... 48 Table 7‐1: Noise Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table ...... 57 Table 8‐1: Air issues related to the Frontier Project ...... 59 Table 8‐2: Emission Point Sources Planned As Part of the Frontier Project ...... 64 Table 8‐3: Projected Emissions – Criteria Air Contaminants from the Teck Frontier Project ...... 66 Table 8‐4: Comparison – Projected Emissions from the Frontier Project Relative to Estimated Emissions from Other Oil Sands Mine Projects ...... 68 Table 8‐5: Regional Base Case Emission Estimate Comparison Based on Recent EIAs and Other Emission Inventory Estimates ...... 70 Table 8‐6: Regional Planned Development Case Emission Estimate Comparison Based on Recent EIAs and Other Emission Inventory Estimates ...... 70 Table 8‐7: Previous Planned Development Case Regional Emission estimates Compared to the Frontier EIA Current and PDC Regional Emissions ...... 71 Table 8‐8: Teck Fronter EIA Odour Thresholds to TCEQ or Nagata (2003) Odour Thresholds ‐ Comparison ...... 88 Table 8‐9: STP EIA Odour Thresholds to TCEQ or Nagata (2003) Odour Thresholds – Comparison ...... 89
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐iv‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Table 8‐10: Possible Odourous Compounds of Interest in the Fort McMurray region based on Fort McKay’s Odour Event Canister Sampling Program ...... 90 Table 8‐11: Measured and Predicted Hydrocarbons and Criteria Air Contaminants Levels Assessed in the Teck Frontier EIA Relative to Odour Thresholds (Red) and those Compounds that Might Contribute to Odour Events in Fort McKay (Blue) ...... 92 Table 8‐12: Air Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table ...... 97 Table 9‐1: Hydrogeology/Groundwater Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table ...... 113 Table 10‐1: Average Year River Water to Bitumen Ratio ...... 118 Table 10‐2: Maximum Allowable Withdrawal Rate from Oil Sands Developments ...... 119 Table 10‐3: Hydrology/Surface Water Quality Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table ...... 121 Table 11‐1: Water Quality Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table ...... 129 Table 11‐2: Fish Habitat Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table ...... 135 Table 12‐1: Soils and Terrain Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table ...... 139 Table 13‐1: Vegetation and Wetlands Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table ...... 152 Table 14‐1: Biodiversity Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table ...... 158 Table 15‐1: Human Health Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table ...... 172 Table 16‐1: Palæontology Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table ...... 176 Table 17‐1: Historical Resources Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table ...... 182 Table 18‐1: Visual Aesthetics Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table ...... 188 Table 19‐1: Land and Resource Use Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table ...... 196 Table 20‐1: Tailings Management Plan Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table ...... 201 Table 21‐1: Conservation and Reclamation Plan Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table ...... 214
Appendices Appendix A – EIA Summary Review Table
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐v‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
1. INTRODUCTION This review of Teck Resources Ltd.’s (Teck) Frontier Oil Sands Mine Application for Approval was done by the Fort McKay Technical Team on behalf of the Fort McKay Sustainability Department, representing the Fort McKay First Nation and the Fort McKay Métis Community. We reviewed the Application for Approval of the Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project that was filed by Teck in November 2011 to Alberta Environment and Water and the Energy Resources Conservation Board (Teck Resources Ltd. 2011).
1.1 Reviewers The review was coordinated by Marie Lagimodiere (Lagimodiere Finigan Inc.). Specific components were reviewed by the following individuals:
David Spink, Pravid Environmental Inc. – air quality Lori Adamache, Adamache Consulting Inc. – air quality Ron Bothe, Bothe & Associates Inc. – hydrology Doug Geller, Western Water Consultants Inc. – hydrogeology Dr. John Dennis, SolAero Ltd. – noise and human health Dr. Brenda Miskimmin, Summit Environmental Consultants Ltd. – water quality, fish and fish habitat Lorne Gould, Gould Environmental Ltd – wildlife, wildlife health John Errington, John C. Errington and Associates Ltd. – tailings management Ann Garibaldi, Integral Ecology Group Ltd. – traditional land use, access management Peter Evans, EverNorth Consulting – visual aesthetics, land and resource use Bjorn Simonsen, Bastion Group Heritage Consultants – historical resources, palaeontology Dr. Shanti Berryman, Integral Ecology Group Ltd. and Natalie Melashenko, Adelante Consulting – soils, vegetation and wetlands, cumulative effects, conservation & reclamation plan, biodiversity
1.2 Review Approach Our review of the application is based on our understanding of the Community of Fort McKay’s key concerns. It is focused on the environmental and traditional land use implications of impacts associated with the project with respect to air, water, land, wildlife, health and Fort McKay’s opportunities for traditional use of the land. Our approach follows three steps:
Summarize the results of the assessment and assess the completeness of the data and the appropriateness of the analysis presented in the application, Assess the environmental consequences and possible mitigation, Provide requests based on our understanding of the key concerns of the Community of Fort McKay.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐1‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
To enable easy tracking of issues we have numbered in [square brackets] comments and their associated requests, should the Project proceed. These requests are also presented in summary tables with Fort McKay’s key concerns. The category column of the tables indicates the potential path forward to address the issue. Categories are as follows:
Regulatory –Fort McKay’s request to the regulators , including information requests, regulatory requirements and approval conditions (if the project is ultimately approved; and Response – a deficiency or question on which Fort McKay requests that a response or additional information from Teck is provided to Fort McKay and the regulators, prior to the application being deemed completed by the regulators.
1.3 Disclaimer This report is submitted to the Fort McKay Sustainability Department for their use for such purposes as:
assisting the Community to understand the potential impacts of the Project to their Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and support Leadership in making meaningful decisions concerns the project; consulting with Teck regarding project‐specific mitigation; and consulting with the governments of Alberta and Canada regarding potential impacts on Fort McKay’s interests and treaty and aboriginal rights. Consultation with Community members is not concluded, and consultation with Teck and the governments of Alberta and Canada is required. The requests regarding project‐specific mitigation are preliminary and not intended to imply Community consent or acquiesance to the Project. Requests are made in the event regulatory approval is given for this project and are made without prejudice to Fort McKay's position regarding project approval.
1.4 Review and Validation of Key Issues The Fort McKay Sustainability Department has reviewed and validated the key concerns and requests described in this review prior to its submission.
1.5 Community Consultation Note that the Fort McKay Sustainability Department is in the process of consulting with community members and leadership regarding this project. Community consultation focus group sessions took place in March and early April 2012. The Sustainability Department is in the process of compiling and synthesizing information and input obtained from community consultation sessions and meeting with leadership to discuss this information. Additional questions and
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐2‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
concerns raised during these consultations will be communicated to Teck, Alberta and Canada, as needed in the near future.
1.6 Cummulative Impacts to Treaty and Aboriginal rights To date, no consultation process has been developed by Alberta for the taking up of land for mining and other development within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory. Fort McKay has an outstanding request to Alberta for consultation on the cumulative impacts of oil sands development and measures required to avoid and accommodate impacts to its rights and interests. This includes an outstanding request since 2003 for a Moose Lake access management plan. To date, no direct consultation has occurred between Alberta and Fort McKay. Canada has initiated consultation with Fort McKay regarding the Frontier Project; however, the Aboriginal Consultation Plan requires modification in order to meet the Crown’s duty to consult and to meet Fort McKay’s needs. Consultation with Fort McKay by Canada needs to take into account the existing level of impacts on Fort McKay, include concrete measure by which Canada will demonstratively integrate Fort McKay’s concerns in its decision‐making and include a substantive process to develop mutually agreeable measures to avoid or accommodate impacts on Fort McKay’s right. Further, there is still no process by which Canada consults with Fort McKay regarding cumulative impacts of the taking up of land for oil sands development and the impacts of industrialization on the majority of Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory and this needs to be addressed through a Consultation Team being appointed – one with the authority to address the serious effects of Teck’s Frontier Project combined with other oil sands projects. Community members have expressed concerns and objections to new development, including mines and new access (e.g., roads and bridges), in their Traditional Territory unless, and until, measures are developed to mitigate and accommodate for the impacts including, but not limited to, protecting Fort McKay’s reserves at Namur and Gardiner Lakes and its traditional land use in the surrounding areas. Please see requests in sections 3, 4 and 5 and throughout this review that address these objections and issues.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐3‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
2. PROJECT OVERVIEW Teck Resources Limited (Teck) and SilverBirch Energy Corporation (SilverBirch) were equal owners of the proposed Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project (Frontier Project). In January 2012, Teck took over the Frontier Project and how has sole responsibility for it. The Frontier Project (Project) is planned to produce at a nominal rate of 44,100 m³/cd (or about 227,000 barrels per calendar day) of partially deasphalted bitumen from a phased surface mining development. First production is expected to start in 2021; the Project is expected to produce 450 Mm³ (2.8 billion barrels) of partially deasphalted bitumen. The Project is comprised of two development areas, a main development area (MDA) and a south development area (SDA), which are located on separate leases. The MDA is inland from the Athabasca River, whereas the SDA borders on the Athabasca River escarpment. The Birch Mountains are to the west of the project area as are Fort McKay First Nation’s reserves at Gardiner/Moose (IR174A) and Namur/Buffalo lakes (IR174B). The proposed Shell Pierre River Mine Project is adjacent to the proposed Frontier Project, with facilities located to the south and east: the PRM main development area is south of the SDA, the PRM tailings facility is between the SDA and the MDA and Shell’s proposed fish habitat compensation lake is east of the MDA near the Athabasca River. See Figure 2‐1 for an overview of the Teck Frontier Project, the Shell Pierre River Mine Project and adjacent Fort McKay traplines. The proposed Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project is:
located within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory and is an actively used area relatively close to this Community that is important for Fort McKay’s traditional land use and values including but not limited to cultural/spiritual sites and values, habitation sites (e.g., historic and currently used cabins, gathering places), wildlife habitat/ecological values (including critical areas for woodland caribou, wolf, bison, moose, fisher, marten and porcupine), transportation routes and trails, and an important family hunting area; the MDA is about 51 km north of the Community of Fort McKay and 40 km east of Fort McKay First Nation’s reserve at Gardiner/Moose Lake (IR 174A); the SDA is located about 38 km north of the Community of Fort McKay about 42 km east of Fort McKay First Nation’s reserve at Namur/Buffalo Lake (IR 174B); within the planning area defined in the Moose Lake Access Management Planning Area – Terms of Reference (GOA 2003)1; and
1 Fort McKay has been seeking to develop with ESRD an access management plan since 2002. A formal Terms of Reference were developed (2003) and a planning area defined. See Fort McKay’s concerns and requests regarding access management: Request [172] and Request [174] in this review.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐4‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review Map 6: Teck Frontier Project (Mine)
North Pit EDA 5 Legend Traplines Existing Road Lakes RMS G RMS F Cutlines Winter Road Streams
TLDA 1 Teck Frontier Project Area Elements RMS C Access Main Pit Conceptual Fish Habitat Compensation Lake Project Fish Habitat Compensation Lake Dyke Construction RMS B ETA 1 CSTA (O EDA 1 External Disposal Area RMS A External Tailings Area - Coarse Sand Tailings
ETA 1 TTA (DDA) External Tailings Area - Thickened Tailings Plant Infrastructure Site Pit Ex-Pit Off-stream Plant Site and Facilities Dyke Storage Pond AthabascaCoffey River Lodge Lake Reclamation Material Stockpile Aerodrome River Water Intake Pipeline (RWI) EDA 2 River Water s Thin Lift Drying Area (TLDA) RMS D r s Intake Site TL#1661 do e rri c Co c A A D Min e -S TL#850 A D Asphalt Creek M Existing and Approved Developments Crooked 6 - Imperial Kearl Project (Mine) - 345,000 bpd Lake 11 - Suncor Fort Hills Oil Sands Project (Mine) - 190,000 bpd RMS E TLDA 2 Winter Road Planned Developments EDA 3 ETA 2 I - Shell Pierre River Mine Project (Mine) - 200,000 bpd Plant Site EDA 4
Equinox Pit ´ Moose Lake Camp Kilometers !H I 01 2 4 6 8 AB SK ( !H Fort Pierre River McKay !H Fort McClelland 1:180,000 McMurray Lake Projection: NAD 83 UTM Zone 12N
)11 TL#94 TL#2137 Produced by: CloverPoint Cartographics Printing Date: Mar 19 2012 For: Integral Ecology Group Fort McKay Métis Nation Cultural Data Sources: Fort McKay First Nation Hwy 63 )6 P:\Projects\11024_IEG_TUS_Fort_McKay\Working Basemap Data Sources: Government of Canada \Consultation_Maps_2012\Fort_McKay_Map_6_11x17.mxd
near Fort McKay Community member traplines (the project is directly east of RFMA #879, northeast of RFMA#94 and west and across the Athabasca River form RFMA #1661—traplines are an important traditional land‐use area).
The Project will be developed in four phases: Phases 1 through 3 in the MDA and Phase 4 in the SDA. Teck foresees increasing the predicted nomal production rate to about 300,000 bbl/cd through bottlenecking and technical innovation. Phase 1 first oil is expected in 2021, with subsequent Phase 2 and 3 first oils occuring every following three years after. End‐of‐mine life is predicted as 2054 for the MDA and 2057 for the SDA. Phase 1 through 3 MDA components include:
Main and North pits ore preparation plant plant site containing plant utilities, bitumen extraction, tailings preparation and bitumen froth treatment external tailings area divided into coarse sand tailings area and a thickened tailings area thin lift drying area for processing fluid fine tailings external disposal areas for mine overburden and interburden waste and dry fines in‐pit tailings areas for coarse sand and thickened tailings (when sufficient in‐ pit space is available) in‐pit disposal areas for mine overburden and interburden waste and dried fines (when in‐pit space is available) reclamation material stockpiles river water intake at the Athabasca River and associated water pipeline off‐stream storage pond for contingency water supply infrastructure including: o lodging for construction and operation accommodation o aerodrome o access road o energy corridor for electric power, natural gas, diluted bitument product transportation fish habitat compensation lake.
Phase 4 SDA project components include:
Equinox pit ore preparation plant plant site containing plant utilities and bitumen extraction tailings preparation (bitumen froth will be transferred to the MDA for treatment)
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐7‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
MDA‐SDA Corridor (for light vehicle and heavy equipment haul roads, electric power, natural gas, water and bitumen froth pieplines, bitumen froth and water) external tailings area for recombined tailings disposal in‐pit tailings area for recombined tailings disposal (when sufficient in‐pit space is available) thin lift drying area for processing fluid fine tailings external disposal areas for mine overburden and interburden waste and dried fines in‐pit disposal areas for mine overburden and interburden waste and dried fines (when in‐pit space is available) reclamation material stockpiles.
Teck plans to access the site via Highway 63 along the east side of the Athabasca River and to cross the Athabasca River using Shell’s planned Pierre River Mine bridge.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐8‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
3. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
3.1 Introduction Project development will directly disturb the Project Development Area [PDA; 29,335 hectares (ha)] due to the following Project components and activities: mine pits, ore preparation and bitumen facilities, tailings and overburden disposal areas, utilities, infrastructure facilities, aerodome and access road. The local study area (LSA; 48,958 ha) includes 277.8 ha of existing disturbance. This existing disturbance is primarily composed of anthropogenic disturbance related to cutlines. Teck used three assessment cases to complete the EIA: Base Case, Application Case and Planned Development Case. The Base Case includes developments currently operating or under construction, activities approved but not yet constructed, or those likely to be approved in the near future but that have not yet been constructed.2 The Application Case includes developments included in the Base Case and the disturbance associated with the Project’s construction and operation. The Planned Development Case includes developments and activities identified in the Application Case as well as developments that are reasonably foreseeable.3 Temporal snapshots were defined to assess local and regional changes, reflecting differing environmental conditions and project activities. The pre‐development (pre‐1965) and existing (i.e., baseline) snapshots were used to define environmental reference conditions. Teck indicates that pre‐development conditions were described where feasible to represent a generalized temporal snapshot from pre‐1965, prior to oil sands development activity. For terrestrial disciplines, pre‐development conditions were generated from 2008 data by assigning soils and vegetation types to all existing visible surface disturbances on the landscape. Where available, pre‐development landscape information from previous EIAs was used to identify vegetation types. If information was not available, disturbance areas were assigned soils and vegetation types based on either adjacent soils and vegetation types or soils and vegetation occurrence and distribution in areas with similar surficial geology.
[1] Base Case Fort McKay is concerned that Teck’s Base Case, which includes existing, approved and likely to be approved projects assumes certain projects will be approved that are still in the regulatory process (examples of substantial projects that are not yet approved but are included in the Base Case are the Dover Commercial Project – a 250,000 bpd SAGD project and the Pierre River Mine Project – a 200,000 bpd mine located adjacent to the proposed Frontier Mine). Fort McKay’s view is that it is
2 see project list in Volume 3, Appendix 1C, Table 1C‐2 3 see project list in Volume 3, Appendix 1C, Table 1C‐3
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐9‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
totally inappropriate to include unapproved projects in the Base Case. It assumes that several major projects that are likely to undergo hearings will be approved and that cannot be determined until the regulatory process is complete. Even if these projects are approved, there might be changes to the projects required, they might not receive corporate sanction or conditions of approval might influence the project’s effects. Further, comparison of the Application to a falsely expanded Base Case will show the project’s effects as relatively smaller compared to the large disturbance or emissions in the Base Case, thereby minimizing the project’s assessed impacts. Inclusion of “likely to be approved projects” is inconsistent with the Guide to Preparing Envionmental Impact Assessment Reports in Alberta (AENV).
[1] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to remove “likely to be approved projects” from the Base Case and put them in the Planned Development Case and reassess impacts for all relevant environmental and land use components.
We discuss this issue further in this review, as it relates to specific environmental components and traditional land use (see Requests [57], [61], [85], [120] and [121].
3.2 Overall Concerns and Requests There are two major issues related to the Project that are of key concern to Fort McKay: 1) Contribution to cumulative environmental and related effects in Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory; and, 2) Contribution to the cumulative effects of new access that is opened within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory and the extent to which this new access and cumulative effects continue to impact Fort Mckay’s current and future generations’ traditional livelihood, living existence, culture and traditional economy
Cumulative Effects of Industrial Development in Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory In order to form a proper understanding of the industrial development cumulative effects in Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory, a number of metrics need to be examined in concert. For example: Existing and approved projects within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory, as of 2007, accounted for approximately 166,000 ha of direct disturbance (Fort McKay Industry Relations Corporation (IRC) 2010). This disturbance occurs disproportionately in the moderate and intensively used areas of Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory. More importantly, half (or 89,000 ha) of this disturbance is located in close proximity to the Community of Fort McKay (within this forty‐
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐10‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
township area that includes the Community of Fort McKay and many areas of high use and value to Fort McKay (e.g., Athabasca River corridor, Muskeg and Steepbank Rivers), which magnifies the adverse effects of these disturbances on Fort McKay’s land‐use opportunities, and on the ecosystems that support these opportunities. Undisturbed areas in Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory are located at a greater distance from the Community, which limits utility of these lands by Community members. Land disturbance associated with the proposed Frontier Project is approximately 29,335 ha, which will substantially add to the disturbance in Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory. In fact, the proposed Frontier Project is located within the forty‐township area that Fort McKay used for its assessment of terrestrial effects in the Fort McKay Specific Assesment. The 29,335 ha of the Frontier Project will increase disturbance within this key area around the community by a full one‐ third from 89,000 to 118,335 ha. The existing disturbance in Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory on the west side of the Athabasca River associated with approved oil sands development near the Project includes:
MacKay OPCO MacKay Pilot and Commercial Project Suncor MacKay River Project and Expansion Suncor Lease 86/17, Fee Lot 2, and Voyageur Dover SAGD Vapex Syncrude Canada Ltd. Mildred Lake Mine and upgrading Value Creation Inc./BP Terre de Grace Pilot Total Joslyn North Mine Canadian Natural Resources Limited Horizon Mine Sunshine Oilsands Ltd West Ells SAGD (recently approved) Southern Pacific STP McKay Thermal Phase 1
Proposed oil sands development on the west side of the Athabasca River, would further increase disturbance in Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory. These include the following:
Dover Operating Corp. Commercial project Athabasca Oil Corporation Leduc TAGD project Athabasca Oil Corporation Dover Clastics Project Sunshine Oilsands Ltd.’s Legend Lake and Thickwood Projects Marathon Oil Birchwood SAGD Demonstration Project Suncor Voyageur South Shell Pierre River Mine
The fundamental concern for Fort McKay is the cumulative effects of all industrial disturbances in Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory. The incremental disturbance contributions to Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory are of great concern to the
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐11‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Community and Teck did not complete a comparison of the Application Case or Planned Development Case to pre‐development baseline conditions in Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory. From Fort McKay’s perspective Teck’s assessment is deficient since it does not use appropriate baselines for assessment (pre‐ development and current) and therefore does not provide a sufficient or realistic assessment of project‐specific and cumulative impacts. Fort McKay Community members are in intimate and constant contact with industrial development effects on their land base, and each new development contributes to the cumulative effects in the Traditional Territory. The Community’s experiences and observations are supported by alternative, credible approaches to assessing cumulative industrial development effects in the region, such as the Cumulative Environmental Management Association, Sustainable Ecosystems Working Group’s Terrestrial Ecosystems Management Framework (TEMF), which found virtually every modelled environmental indicator in a state of current or projected decline (Cumulative Environmental Management Association 2008). Fort McKay has demonstrated significant adverse impacts of industrial disturbances in their Traditional Territory on local ecosystems, on traditional land‐use opportunities, and on the community’s cultural heritage in the Fort McKay Specific Assessment (Fort McKay Industry Relations Corporation (IRC) 2010). The critical issue in Fort McKay’s view is the profound discrepancy between standard Industrial Application, Environmental Impact Assessment and Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA) methodologies, as reflected in the Frontier Project EIA, and the on‐the‐ground experience of people living in these “study areas” in combination with data from empirical studies, such as recent moose surveys (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2009). In this context, the Project’s application for approval fails to provide any meaningful evaluation of how Teck’s proposed development, along with other existing industrial operators, will affect traditional land‐use opportunities and ecological health in Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory. In addition, the practice of defining all existing industrial disturbance at the time of application as a component of “baseline pre‐disturbance conditions” fails to recognize that Fort McKay’s point of reference for cumulative effects assessment is a “regional pre‐disturbance” case. The methodology utilized by Teck to estimate the pre‐development conditions snapshot is inadequate. Firstly, the assumptions applied to estimating the pre‐development conditions for soils and vegetation introduce too much uncertainty in the actual pre‐development conditions to provide a meaningful representation of the effects of the Application or Planned Development Cases on pre‐develoment conditions in Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory. Secondly, the Application Case and the Planned Development Case were compared to the pre‐development conditions snapshot for select indicators and not all indicators. Fort McKay has demonstrated that it is possible and effective to conduct an environmental assessment comparing to a Pre‐Development and Current Case (see Fort McKay Specific Assessment, Fort McKay IRC 2010).
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐12‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Teck states that the cumulative effects assessment relative to a pre‐development conditions snapshot is not typical in EIAs and that the results of Teck’s cumulative effects assessment considering pre‐development conditions for some key indicators predicted a high environmental consequence, whereas in previous EIAs with similar levels of development low to moderate environmental consequences were predicted (Teck Resources Ltd. 2011).4 This observation by Teck supports Fort McKay’s position that previous applications for development were conducted using inadequate cumulative effects assessment methods and have not adequately quantified the true cumulative effects of development in Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory. The limitations in the proponent’s approach to define the pre‐development conditions snapshot and to only compare the Application and Planned Development Cases to the pre‐development conditions snapshot for a subset of indicators perpetuates findings of non‐significant contributions to cumulative effects, as all project effects are measured against the “baseline” backdrop of substantial disturbance. Thus, regional ecosystems function and health, and the traditional land uses that depend on these ecosystems, are substantially eroded, without anyone claiming to have had a significant effect. More crucially, the fundamental purpose of the assessment is undermined: to identify the likely adverse consequences of a project so that they can be avoided or managed appropriately to ensure the sustainability of the environment. Note that Fort McKay’s position on the need for cumulative‐effects assessment against a pre‐disturbance baseline is an approach supported by Environment Canada and the recent Joint Review Panel for the Joslyn North Mine, and by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), which states at s. 16(1) (a), in relation to projects to be included in the cumulative‐effects assessment: “any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the project in combination with other projects or activities that have been (emphasis ours) or will be carried out.”
[2] Pre‐development Baseline
[2] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck is required by ESRD and CEAA to re‐do the:
i. terrestrial pre‐development case using more rigorous methods, such as a combination of airphoto or mapped information with modelling to determine how natural disturbance would have affected the pre‐industrial landscape. Teck should also use available pre‐industrial data as well; and
4 Volume 1, Section 18.2.13, p. 18‐20
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐13‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
ii. terrestrial environmental assessment using a pre‐industrial development case (i.e., pre‐1960) as a basis to assess the Base, Application Case and Planned Development Cases for all indicators to provide an adequate assessment of the Project’s effects in Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory. (Teck used the pre‐ development conditions snapshot in the EIA to compare the three assessment cases to the pre‐development conditions for some but not all key indicators.)
[3] – [4] Cumulative Effects Monitoring and Assessment on Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory As per the discussion on cumulative effects above, Fort McKay has the following requests:
[3] Request
Fort McKay requests that Alberta and Canada develop and implement, in cooperation with Fort McKay, an integrated, scientifically valid, and transparent system for assessing and monitoring cumulative environmental impacts. This system should include monitoring to measure environmental performance and impacts predicted in Industrial Applications and EIAs, and incorporate resources essential to maintaining traditional land use.
[4] Request
Fort McKay requests that Alberta conduct (or provide sufficient funding for Fort McKay to conduct) a cumulative‐effects assessment of all existing, approved and likely development and assess impacts on Fort McKay’s rights so that constructive and decisive measures can be developed to address cumulative effects within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory.
[5] Follow‐up
[5] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to develop and implement, in collaboration with Fort McKay, follow‐up programs and monitoring that specifically determine if the EIA projections and assumptions are valid and accurate and if proposed mitigation is effective.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐14‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay also requests that Alberta and Canada, in collaboration with Fort McKay develop and implement regional follow‐up programs that examine the validity of regional industrial application and EIA projections (many of which are done with similar models and assumptions) and the validity of commonly used mitigation measures and technology. The follow‐up programs should include a feedback loop to adjust required industrial application and EIA methods (e.g., through industrial application and EIA Terms of Reference (ToR), monitoring programs, mitigation measures and technologies, approval conditions and regional policies.
Table 3‐1: Cumulative Effects’ Overall Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [1] Base Case Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to remove Response “likely to be approved projects” from the Base Case and Regulatory put them in the Planned Development Case and reassess impacts for all relevant environmental and land use components. [2] Pre‐ Teck should be required by ESRD and CEAA to re‐do the: Response development i) terrestrial pre‐development case using more Regulatory Baseline rigorous methods such as a combination of airphoto or mapped information with modelling to determine how natural disturbance would have affected the pre‐industrial landscape. Teck should also use available pre‐industrial data as well; and ii) terrestrial environmental assessment using a pre‐ industrial development case (i.e., pre‐1960) as a basis to assess the Base, Application Case and Planned Development Cases for all indicators to provide an adequate assessment of the Project’s effects in Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory. (Teck used the pre‐development conditions snapshot in the EIA to compare the three assessment cases to the pre‐development conditions for some but not all key indicators.) [3] Cumulative Fort McKay requests that Alberta and Canada develop and Regulatory Effects on Fort implement, in cooperation with Fort McKay, an integrated, McKay’s scientifically valid, and transparent system for assessing Traditional and monitoring cumulative environmental impacts. This Territory system should include monitoring to measure environmental performance and impacts predicted in Industrial Applications and EIAs, and incorporate resources essential to maintaining traditional land use.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐15‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [4] Cumulative Fort McKay requests that Alberta conduct (or provide Regulatory Effects on Fort sufficient funding for Fort McKay to conduct) a McKay’s cumulative‐effects assessment of all existing, approved Traditional and likely development and assess impacts on Fort Territory McKay’s rights so that constructive and decisive measures can be developed to address cumulative effects within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory. [5] EIA Follow‐up Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to develop and Regulatory implement, in collaboration with Fort McKay, follow‐up programs and monitoring that specifically determine if the Industrial Application projections and assumptions are valid and accurate and if proposed mitigation is effective. Fort McKay also requests that Albertad an Canada, in collaboration with Fort McKay develop and implement regional follow‐up programs that examine the validity of regional Industrial Application and EIA projections (many of which are done with similar models and assumptions) and the validity of commonly used mitigation measures and technology. The follow‐up programs should include a feedback loop to adjust required Industrial Application and EIA methods (e.g. through Industrail Application and EIA ToR), monitoring programs, mitigation measures and technologies, approval conditions and regional policies.
*Request Categories: Regulatory – Fort McKay’s request to the regulators, including information requests, regulatory requirements and approval conditions (if the project is ultimately approved). Response – a deficiency or question on which Fort McKay requests that a response of additional information from Teck is provided to Fort McKay and the regulators, prior to the application being deemed complete by the regulators.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐16‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
4. ACCESS MANAGEMENT
4.1 Access Management Key Concerns and Requests
[6] – [8] Increased Access to Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory Road access to the project will be via Highway 63 north from Fort McMurray to the Fort Chipewyan road. The Athabasca River bridge crossing proposed by the Shell Pierre River Mine project will be used to cross to the west side of the river. From the bridge, an all‐weather access road will proceed north along the west bank of the Athabasca River to the MDA plant site. About 21 km of new road will be required. The route for the 21 km access road to the Project will create access to the northern portion of Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory in an area that has previously been largely inaccessible by motorized ground vehicles (Fort McKay Industry Relations Corporation (IRC) 2010). The new all‐weather access road will likely substantially increase access into the general area in proximity to the Project, and will therefore affect ecological and traditional‐use values far beyond the direct project‐footprint effects addressed in this application. Teck states that the Government of Alberta might advance the concepts postulated under the Comprehensive Regional Infrastructure Sustainability Plan, which could require Teck to construct road access to the Project using Option 6 described in the EIA. Under Option 6, the access road would cross the Athabasca River near the Kearl project river water intake and then north to the MDA plant site. Teck proposes in the EIA that an access management plan will mitigate project effects relating to access concerns identified by the Community of Fort McKay. In order for Fort McKay to determine if mitigation is sufficient, a draft project‐specific access management plan is required. Fort McKay has been seeking to develop with ESRD an access management plan since 2002. A formal ToR were developed (2003) and a planning area defined. The Frontier Project is located within the planning area defined for the Moose Lake access management plan (GoA 2003). ESRD (formerly ASRD) initiated a process with Fort McKay and industry to develop the Moose Lake AMP but stopped it in 2007. Fort McKay has repeatedly asked ASRD to work with Fort McKay to develop the AMP, but ASRD has not advanced this work. Further, Fort McKay has not been consulted by GoA on the Comprehensive Regional Infrastructure Plan (CRISP).
[6] Request
Fort McKay requests that the regulators take into account that the EIA submitted does not assess the indirect and additional impacts of the Project from the new and improved linear access that might be developed as part of the Comprehensive Regional Infrastructure Sustainability Plan (CRISP).
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐17‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[7] Request
Fort McKay requests that:
i. Alberta and Canada negotiate consultation and accommodation agreements with Fort McKay to address and limit cumulative impacts in Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory, and to accommodate Fort McKay’s rights and interests; and ii. Alberta collaborate with Fort McKay in an access management plan development for this area in accordance with the ToR previously developed by Fort McKay, Alberta and industry for a “Moose Lake Access Management Plan” (note that the proposed Frontier Project is within the landbase identified in the Moose Lake Access ToR); and iii. it is meaningfully consulted on the implementation of the Comprehensive Regional Infrastructure Sustainability Plan (CRISP).
[8] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck provides a draft project‐specific access management plan and that this plan is developed with the participation of the Community of Fort McKay.
4.2 Access Management Key Concerns and Requests Summary
Table 4‐1: Access Management Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table
Fort McKay Key Number Requests Category* Concern(s) [6] Increased Access to Fort McKay requests that the regulators take into Regulatory Fort McKay’s account that the EIA submitted does not assess the Traditional indirect and additional impacts of the Project from the Territory new and improved linear access that might be developed as part of the Comprehensive Regional Infrastructure SustainabilityP). Plan (CRIS
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐18‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay Key Number Requests Category* Concern(s) [7] Increased Access to Fort McKay requests that: Regulatory Fort McKay’s i) Alberta and Canada negotiate consultation Traditional and accommodation agreements with Fort Territory McKay to address and limit cumulative impacts in Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory, and to accommodate Fort McKay’s rights and interests; and ii) Alberta collaborate with Fort McKay in an access management plan development for this area in accordance with the ToR previously developed by Fort McKay, Alberta and industry for a “Moose Lake Access Management Plan” (note that the proposed Frontier Project is within the landbase identified in the Moose Lake Access ToR); and iii) it is meaningfully consulted on the implementation of the Comprehensive Regional Infrastructure Sustainability Plan (CRISP). [8] Increased Access to Fort McKay requests that Teck provides a draft access Response Fort McKay’s management plan and that this plan is developed with Traditional the participation of the Community of Fort McKay. Territory
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – Fort McKay’s request to the regulators, including information requests, regulatory requirements and approval conditions (if the project is ultimately approved). Response – a deficiency or question on which Fort McKay requests that a response of additional information from Teck is provided to Fort McKay and the regulators, prior to the application being deemed complete by the regulators.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐19‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
5. TRADITIONAL LAND USE
5.1 Introduction The Fort McKay Sustainability Department (FMSD) conducted a Community– guided Traditional Land Use Study (TLUS) for Teck and Silverbirch (now Teck) Frontier Project (the Project). The TLU had three key objectives: 1) identify past, present and prospective traditional use values in the Local Study Area (LSA) to assist the FMSD in assessing the potential effects of the proposed Project; 2) build capacity within the Community of Fort McKay to conduct TLUS; and, 3) assess potential Project‐specific effects and the Project’s contribution to cumulative effects on the Treaty and Aboriginal rights and interests of the Community of Fort McKay. This report was provided to Teck prior to completion of their Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for inclusion in their application. The Community‐guided TLUS met the Project Terms of Reference (ToR) and was designed to inform Teck of the Community’s assessment of the Project’s development effects on Fort McKay’s traditional land use opportunities and Treaty and Aboriginal Rights. Fort McKay and Teck agreed that Fort McKay’s TLUS would be included in the Project application as a stand‐alone report and that Teck would not extract portions of Fort McKay’s study for use in Teck’s TLU assessment. Below is a summary of the results and conclusions of Fort McKay’s TLU.
5.2 Project Results More than 164 site‐specific traditional use values were identified within the TLUS LSA. The traditional use values include but are not limited to the following: The TLU study showed extensive use of the project development areas including six cultural or spiritual locations (burial sites, an historic site and an area of key importance in a traditional story and one specific landscape value).
There are at least 25 habitation values (including historic cabin locations, old cabins, currently used cabins, gathering places, campsites and camping areas).
Eighty‐four subsistence values including places for hunting, fishing, drying meat, gathering eggs, harvesting wood, picking berries and gathering medicinal plants).
There is an important family hunting area (Boucher family) in the project area – about 16% of this area would be impacted by the Frontier project and 47% from the combined effects of the Frontier Project, CNRL Horizon Mine and the
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐20‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
proposed Pierre River Mine; as well access will be blocked and it would take hours more travel to access the area.
No formal Registered Fur Management Areas (RFMAs) that are registered to Fort McKay community members overlap the project area. However, there are three Fort McKay traplines that are near the project: #850, #94 and #2457. Also, the TLUS documented four historic traplines and at least 34 specific trapping sites within the Project area.
Seven key wildlife habitat or ecological values, including critical areas for caribou, wolf, bison, fisher, marten and porcupine habitat were documented in the LSA, as were transportation routes including a total of 850 km of traditional trails.
The Community‐guided TLUS drew on the Community concerns recorded in TLUS interviews and workshops, along with the indicators and assessment results of the Fort McKay Specific Assessment (Fort McKay Industry Relations Corporation (IRC) 2010) to assess the Project’s potential effects. Interview respondents and other Community members discussed specific concerns with the Project’s potential effects as well as mitigation strategies to reduce or partially offset the loss to Fort McKay’s traditional land‐use values and Treaty or Aboriginal rights. The potential effects of the Project were assessed based on shared Community concerns as well as discussions with Fort McKay’s technical team and Sustainability Department staff regarding the key issues associated with the Project. Key Community concerns for both the Project and cumulative effects include:
Water: negative development effects on water quantity and quality; Wildlife: negative development effects on wildlife (including changes in wildlife composition, loss of habitat); Noise: complaints about noise related to oil sands development (increased noise and its impacts on humans and wildlife); Air: negative effects of development on air (air quality, dust); Vegetation: negative development effects on vegetation (changes in composition); Changes in Access: changes in access due to oil sands development (increased non‐Aboriginal access, vandalism, competition for resources and change in access routes); Fish: negative development effects on fish (changes in fish abundance, habitat); Cultural Knowledge Transmission: reduced cultural knowledge transmission due to socio‐economic changes, access and land loss due to oil sands development (and changes in social structure; lost opportunities to share knowledge, changes in Community values and other social effects); Direct Loss of Land: direct land loss due to oil sands development (including key cultural sites – e.g., hunting areas, traplines, gravesites, traditional trails);
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐21‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Community Health and Stress: reduced Community health and increased stress due to socio‐economic and environmental changes brought on by oil sands development; Reclamation: community scepticism regarding the potential success of oil sands reclamation, concern about lack of current demonstrated reclamation and suggestions for improvement; and Consultation and Community Involvement: community concerns with the inadequacy of government and industry consultation and Community involvement activities.
In addition to the above concerns, a number of Community members were particularly concerned about the potential impacts to the Boucher family hunting area. This hunting area is 80,805 ha in size and described in Section 4.2.3.1 of the Fort McKay TLUS. Due to the geographic location of existing (CNRL Horizon Project) and proposed (Shell’s Pierre River mine and Teck’s Frontier mine) development taking place in the Boucher family5 hunting area both Project‐specific and cumulative effects affect the hunting area. The Boucher family is acutely aware of the potential impacts of all three projects to their hunting area. When considered individually, members of the Boucher Family believe each of the mines (including the Teck Frontier Project) negatively affects the hunting area. When the three mines are considered cumulatively, the impact increases. The area of the Frontier Project (plus 200 m buffer6) that intersects the hunting area is 13,273 ha or approximately 16% of the hunting area. The resulting estimate of total area lost from the Boucher hunting area due to the CNRL, proposed Shell Pierre River mine and the Teck Frontier projects, through both direct and indirect effects is 37,651 ha or approximately 47% of the hunting area.
5.3 Project Conclusions The determination of the significance of Project‐related effects has been conducted according to the criteria detailed in Section 5.1.1 of Fort McKay’s TLUS. These criteria state that Project effects are considered significant if they meet three criteria: 1) are clearly distinguishable; 2) result in substantial changes in the overall use of lands or resources; and, 3) likely to result in strong concern in the Community.
5 In this report the “Boucher Family” refers to Community members related to Jerry Boucher and does not necessarily include everyone in the Community with the last name Boucher or Bouchier. 6 Research indicates that buffers for moose around oil sands development should be 200 m wide to provide for security and allow avoidance of disturbance (Lorne Gould Pers. Comm. July 14, 2011).
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐22‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
4) At this time, available evidence suggests that, on average the Project‐related effects identified in this study are negative, local or regional, long‐term or permanent, and high magnitude.
Significance of these effects is considered according to these criteria as follows: 1) It is anticipated that Project effects will be clearly distinguishable; 2) Project‐related changes to Fort McKay lands or resources of having an additional oil sands mine 38 km (SDA) and 51 km (MDA) from the Hamlet of Fort McKay will be “substantial” for the whole Community, and especially for the families who hunt, trap and were born within the LSA; 3) The degree to which the FMFN Community has expressed strong concern about any additional oil sands developments in their Traditional Territory, the proximity of the Project to the Hamlet of Fort McKay, the size of the Project’s footprint and Community perceptions of likely Project effects result in strong concern in the Community. Fort McKay does not consider Teck’s proposed mitigation measures outlined in Section 6 of the EIA to be to be adequate mitigation to substantially reduce or ameliorate Project effects on Fort McKay’s Treaty and Aboriginal rights. Therefore, as stated in the Fort McKay’s TLUS:
In that absence of adequate mitigation and accommodation measures, the preliminary results of the assessment of the Frontier Project effects on the Treaty and Aboriginal rights of the Community of Fort McKay are considered significant by the Fort McKay Sustainability Department.
5.4 Traditional Land Use Key Concerns and Requests Summary Teck indicates that “potential effects to traditional land uses resulting from the Project will be mitigated primarily through access management and reclamation”.7 While Fort McKay believes that both access management and reclamation are important and valuable mitigation options, Fort McKay does not believe that these actions alone will be able to fully mitigate Project impacts to TLU.
[9] – [10] Reclamation Teck’s mine‐related land disturbance, even when accounting for reclamation, will result in a minimum of two to three generations of Fort McKay Community members without access to significant portions of their Traditional Territory. Even at closure, reclamation activities will not result in a landscape that resembles pre‐ disturbance conditions. Teck claims that “although restoration will likely extend beyond the lifetimes of current users, traditional land use potential will be returned
7 Section 6.5.7, p. 6‐22
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐23‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
to the PAA”.8 While recently reclaimed sites might be on a trajectory toward recovering biological diversity and function at the time reclamation certification is granted, they will likely not be suitable for a pre‐disturbance range of traditional activities. This further extends the duration of impact beyond the estimate of two to three generations. Without access to the land for two to three generations cultural knowledge transmission and people’s connection to the land is severely and permanently impacted. Fort McKay disagrees with Teck’s conclusion that “with reclamation of the Project, the decline in traditional use potential will be reversible”.9 Rather, people need safe access to biologically rich, ecologically functional land to carry out traditional activities and this requires large areas of land, free from disturbance, that support culturally valued species. Areas disturbed by the Project will no longer be available for traditional purposes during the operational phase of the Projects, and ability to reclaim these sites for traditional purposes remains unknown. The near‐term and long‐term impacts on cultural land use opportunities are significant as a result of the Project, particularly when combined with other project developments taking place within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory. While Fort McKay welcomes opportunities to offset and reduce impacts through collaboration with Teck, the available information indicates that significant adverse residual impacts are inevitable.
[9] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck and Alberta consult with Fort McKay regarding options to minimize or offset the adverse project‐specific impacts of the Frontier Project on Aboriginal traditional use and Treaty and Aboriginal rights and the loss of key cultural and traditional use areas that would be affected by the Project.
Teck indicates that “potentially affected Aboriginal communities will be consulted in the establishment of criteria to determine reclamation success”. Fort McKay supports this and would like to formalize a process with Teck that would outline how Community input would be part of criteria development. Teck also indicates that it will participate in CEMA, CONRAD and Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute (ABMI).
8 Section 6.7, p. 6‐46 9 Section 6.7, p. 6‐46
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐24‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[10] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck formalizes a process with Fort McKay outlining how Community input would be part of reclamation criteria development for the Teck Frontier mine, if the Project is approved
Fort McKay also requests that Teck supports Aboriginal involvement in developing reclamation criteria in regional committees and research organizations.
[11] Trapper Access and Consultation Road access to the project will be via Highway 63 north from Fort McMurray to the Fort Chipewyan road. The Athabasca River bridge crossing proposed by the Shell Pierre River Mine project will be used to cross to the west side of the river. From the bridge, an all‐weather access road will proceed north along the west bank of the Athabasca River to the MDA plant site. About 21 km of new road will be required. See Section 16 Access for additional comments and requests regarding access. Maintaining access to traplines by trapline holders and increased access to the area by non‐Community members are ongoing concerns to Fort McKay Community members. Fort McKay supports Teck’s commitment to facilitate trappers and other traditional harvesters through the Project area and to compensate affected trappers following industry standards. Fort McKay would like to formalize both of these commitments with Teck.
[11] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck establishes access management plans, in collaboration with the FMSD, to facilitate Fort McKay Community member access to traplines and other traditional‐use areas throughout the life of the mine.
Fort McKay would like to confirm that Teck will continue ongoing consultation with both affected trappers and their family members (e.g., RFMA # 0850) throughout the life of the project.
TLUS Assessment Teck indicates 10that its TLUS will assess “potential effects of the Project on areas used for traditional land use by First Nations and Metis groups around the Project”. However, Teck’s TUS does not provide any concluding statements or overall assessment of the impacts of the Project on Traditional Land Use.
10 Section 6.1
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐25‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[12] TUS Inclusion in the EIA Fort McKay and Teck agreed that Fort McKay’s TLUS would be included in the main body of Teck’s Project application as a stand‐alone section. Fort McKay also requested that Teck not extract components of Fort McKay’s TLUS in their own TLU assessment; rather, Fort McKay preferred that their TLUS was kept intact so that study findings are situated within the study context. However, Fort McKay’s TLUS is located in Appendix 6A and there is only one reference to Fort McKay’s TLUS in Teck’s TLU assessment (which doesn’t indicate where Fort McKay’s TLUS is in the application). As is, it is very easy to overlook Fort McKay’s TLUS and therefore give it less weight and consideration than Teck’s TLU assessment. Given that the two studies have very different conclusions (Fort McKay’s conclusion is significant adverse impacts on TLU and Teck’s does not have a conclusion), Fort McKay does not find this acceptable.
[12] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck submits a letter to ESRD, ERCB, CEAA and the Joint Review Panel (if one is created) for the Teck Frontier Mine, highlighting Fort McKay’s TLUS and its conclusions.
[13] – [15] Cumulative Effects Assessment Tecks states that “no planned developments are expected to alter the LSA or interact with the Project. As such, an effects analysis on traditional land uses was not completed for the PDC”.11 However, Shell’s Pierre River Mine will interact with Teck’s Frontier Mine in the LSA (and RSA) and impact TLU. Fort McKay clearly articulates the cumulative impact of planned development, including the Pierre River Mine, to the Boucher Family Hunting Area,12 other traditional land uses13 and cultural heritage.14 A number of mitigation measures were suggested in the Fort McKay TLUS to reduce the effects of the Frontier Project on Fort McKay TLU values, Treaty and Aboriginal rights. As noted in the TLUS, Fort McKay requests a meeting with Teck to discuss the Project‐specific mitigation measures (which has not yet taken place). Recommendations in this review do not replace the desire of the FMSD to meet with Teck to discuss the mitigation strategies developed through the Community‐ guided TLUS. Fort McKay will also provide Teck with a summary of community consultation feedback on issues, concerns and potential mitigation measures. However, the Community‐guided TLUS findings also indicate that a number of the Project‐effects are not fully mitigatable by the proponent; therefore post‐
11 Section 6.5.5 Planned Development Case, P. 6‐21 12 see Fort McKay TLU for the Frontier Project Section 5.2.2.1 13 see Fort McKay TLU for the Frontier Project Section 5.3 14 see Fort McKay IRC 2010
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐26‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
mitigation residual effects of the Project will add to the already significant and adverse cumulative regional effects of development. See also Fort McKay’s cumulative effects discussion in Section 6 of the TUS.
[13] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck revises its conclusions that there are no cumulative effects on Fort McKay from the Frontier Project and Planned Developments and identify with Fort McKay mitigation measures, beyond those that it has already stated to avoid, minimize or off‐set cumulative impacts.
[14] Request
Some effects of the Frontier Project will not be avoidable and will be permanent, particularly the contribution of the Project to cumulative effects including the cumulative loss of land use opportunities. Consultation and accommodation measures are therefore required from Alberta and Canada. Fort McKay requests that:
i. Alberta and Canada meet with Fort McKay regarding how they will address the concerns identified in the project‐specific TLUS and possible mitigation and accommodation measures to address impacts on Fort McKay’s Aboriginal and Treaty rights; ii. Alberta and Canada, in cooperation with Fort McKay, set aside land for the specific purpose of preserving opportunities for culturally relevant TLU; and iii. at the end of the review of the Application, we request that Alberta and Canada advise Fort McKay how its concerns were incorporated in any project‐related decisions or otherwise dealt with.
[15] Request
Fort McKay requests that, should the Project be approved, Alberta consult with Fort McKay during Project implementation to assess and manage residual effects.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐27‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Table 5‐1: Traditional Land Use Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table Fort McKay Key Number Requests Category* Concern(s) [9] Impacts on Fort McKay requests that Teck and Alberta consult with Response traditional land Fort McKay regarding options to minimize or offset the Regulatory use adverse adverse project‐specific impacts of the Frontier Project on Aboriginal traditional use and treaty and aboriginal rights and the loss of key cultural and traditional uset areas tha would be affected by the Project. [10] Reclamation Fort McKay requests that Teck formalizes a process with Response Fort McKay outlining how Community input would be part of reclamation criteria development for the Teck Frontier mine, if the project is approved. Fort McKay also requests that Teck supports Aboriginal involvement in developing reclamation criteria in regional committees and research organizations. [11] Trapper access Fort McKay requests that Teck to establish access Response management plans, in collaboration with the FMSD, to facilitate Fort McKay Community member access to traplines and other traditional‐use areas throughout the life of the mine. Fort McKay would like to confirm that Teck will continue ongoing consultation with both affected trappers and their family members (e.g., RFMA # 0850) throughout the life of the project. [12] Inclusion of the Fort McKay requests that Teck submits a letter to ESRD, Response TLUS in the EIA ERCB, CEAA and the Joint Review Panel (if one is created) for the Teck Frontier Mine highlighting Fort McKay’s TLUS and its conclusions. [13] Cumulative Fort McKay requests that Teck revise its conclusions that Response Effects there are no cumulative effects on Fort McKay from the Assessment Frontier Project and Planned Developments and identify with Fort McKay mitigation measures, beyond those that it has already stated to avoid, minimize or off‐set cumulative impacts.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐28‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay Key Number Requests Category* Concern(s) [14] Residual Some effects of the Frontier Project will not be avoidable Regulatory Project‐specific and will be permanent, particularly the contribution of Effects and the project to cumulative effects including the cumulative Cumulative loss of land use opportunities. Consultation and Effects accommodation measures are therefore required from Alberta and Canada. Fort McKay requests that: i) that Alberta and Canada meet with Fort McKay regarding how it will address the concerns identified in the project‐specific TLUS and possible mitigation and accommodation measures to address impacts on Fort McKay’s aboriginal and treaty rights; ii) in cooperation with Fort McKay, set aside land for the specific purpose of preserving opportunities for culturally relevant TLU; and iii) at the end of Alberta and Canada’s review of the Application, we request that Alberta and Canada advise Fort McKay how its concerns were incorporated in any project‐related decisions or otherwise dealt with. [15] Residual Effects Fort McKay requests that, should the Project be Regulatory approved, that Alberta consults with Fort McKay during Project implementation to assess and manage residual effects and unexpected impacts, and the need for adaptative management.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – Fort McKay’s request to the regulators, including information requests, regulatory requirements and approval conditions (if the project is ultimately approved). Response – a deficiency or question on which Fort McKay requests that a response of additional information from Teck is provided to Fort McKay and the regulators, prior to the application being deemed complete by the regulators.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐29‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
6. WILDLIFE
6.1 Wildlife Assessment The local study area (LSA) selected to assess wildlife impacts for the Project was 48,958 ha in area.15 The Project’s cumulative effects on wildlife were assessed in a regional study area (RSA) that was 1,195,560 ha in area.16 This review is based on information included in the wildlife sections of the Project application that was completed in September 2011. Teck measured impacts using several different scenarios that included: Existing, Base Case, Application Case, and Planned Development Cases.17 Teck also measured impacts to habitat from a Predevelopment Scenario to Existing using range in natural variation (RNV).18 The appropriateness of the cases (e.g., project inclusion) is discussed in Section 3 of this review. Teck indicates that most impacts are reversible (except for yellow rail, short‐eared owls, and western toads). The duration of impacts are either ranked as medium (one to 60 years) or long (over 60 years). A medium duration of rating of one to 60 years is meaningless because it covers a time period range from a loss of little traditional knowledge (one year) to approximately three generations of knowledge. Fort McKay disagrees with this rating scale for duration. In the Fort McKay Specific Assessment we used a scale as follows: under 3 years (short‐term), three to 20 years (medium‐term), over 20 years (long‐term).
[16] Impact Assessment Scale
[16] Request
Fort McKay requests that the regulators require Teck to re‐do the wildlife assessment using a more valid scale for duration; a duration of one to 60 years cannot be considered “medium” when this timeframe covers three generations.
Teck has identified the following Project effects on wildlife for assessment:19
change in habitat availability; change in landscape connectivity; change in regional wildlife populations; change in mortality risk (direct and indirect); and
15 Section 4.3.1.1 16 Section 4.3.1.2 17 Table 18.5‐16 and Table 18.5‐17 18 Table 4‐8a 19 Table 4‐1
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐30‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
change in wildlife health.
To assess the effects on wildlife, Teck focused on several species that were selected for various reasons such as regulatory status (e.g., yellow rail, olive‐sided flycatcher) and importance to First Nations Communities (e.g., beaver, moose, wood bison). The wildlife species used to assess impacts are referred to as Key Indicator Resources (KIRs) in this review. The wildlife species selected as KIRs by Teck were: Wood bison Short‐eared Owl Moose Common Nighthawk Black Bear Olive‐sided Flycatcher Fisher Canada Warbler Canada Lynx Rusty Blackbird Beaver Waterfowl Northern Goshawk Western Toad Yellow Rail Teck developed and used habitat suitability models20 to assess impacts to KIR habitat (e.g., habitat alteration and connectivity). Changes in population and mortality were discussed and supported with literature and data. Wildlife health impacts were predicted using a Screening‐level Wildlife Risk Assessment.21 To determine wildlife use in the LSA and develop and verify habitat models, Teck collected data by completing the wildlife surveys listed below. The wildlife surveys were completed from 2005 to 2010 and included:
Winter track counts; Aerial ungulate surveys; Pellet group surveys; Nocturnal bat surveys; Nocturnal owl surveys; Raptor surveys; Breeding bird surveys; and Yellow rail and Sora surveys.
6.2 Mitigation and Monitoring Teck proposed the following mitigation activities to reduce wildlife impacts:22
focus on reclamation to establish wildlife habitat. Teck indicated that they will focus on aggressive reclamation of linear disturbances;
20 Volume 6; Appendix 4 21 Volume 7; Appendix 2D 22 Section 4.5.3
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐31‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
use species‐specific habitat requirements determined from field studies, particularly for species at risk (i.e., SARA‐listed species), to provide input into closure planning;
identify and avoid relevant high‐quality habitat for species at risk (including critical habitat if identified), using Environment Canada‐recommended setback distances, where possible;
avoid sensitive wildlife habitat when discovered and reduce noise to below 48 dbA at known residences of SARA‐listed species when discovered;
avoid clearing during the migratory bird breeding season as recommended by Environment Canada;
protect wildlife from harassment (i.e., minimizing wildlife‐human interactions);
collaborate with the Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute; and
conduct monitoring and research on species at risk to gather information on the efficacy of mitigation and adaptive environmental management.
Teck has committed to involvement with CEMA, CONRAD and the ABMI for monitoring on the regional scale. To assess impacts on a local scale, Teck states that they will develop a wildlife monitoring program to assess the effects of the Project on species at risk. If effects on these species are detected additional mitigation will be added. Teck will be consistent with applicable management and recovery plans for SARA‐listed species.
6.3 Wildlife Key Concerns and Requests
[17] Traditional Environmental Knowledge (TEK) Hunting and trapping is an integral part of the traditional livelihoods for many Fort McKay residents. Therefore, natural ecosystems and wildlife populations preservation is an important component to help maintain a healthy community. Fort McKay Community members are particularly concerned about impacts to species that are of key cultural importance or are known to be diminishing within their traditional lands; this includes but is not limited to moose, caribou, bison and furbearers.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐32‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[17] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to develop a Mitigation and Offset Plan for wildlife within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory that includes key species of interest to Fort McKay for exercise of its Aboriginal and Treaty rights and that Fort McKay is consulted in the development and implementation of the plan. See below for comments and requests regarding specific species.
[18] – [26] Wildlife Assessment Teck indicated that the RSA would capture the farthest measurable direct effects associated with the Project that were directly relevant to wildlife. Teck indicates that the RSA reflects emissions (NO₂) that might impact wildlife habitat. Fort McKay is concerned that the Teck RSA was too small and that since it did not include areas north of the Project that this did not allow the assessment of wildlife impacts measurement (e.g., from changes in access, legal and illegal hunting, water quality) to important wildlife refuges (e.g., Wood Buffalo National Park) located north of the Project RSA.
[18] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck revises its assessment and includes areas further to the north of the Project (up to and including Wood Buffalo National Park) in the wildlife cumulative effects assessment.
Teck used habitat models to assess wildlife impacts as a result of the Project.23 Teck attempted to verify the habitat models developed for the Project using data collected in the LSA. The results of the verification are provided in Table 6‐1.
Table 6‐1: Wildlife Indicators and the Results of Verification with LSA Survey Data Key Indicator Resource Verification Results (number of observation Wood Bison Verified (n=76) Moose Verified (n=282) Black Bear Not verified (insufficient data) Fisher Not verified statistically (n=58) Canada Lynx Verified (n=274) American Beaver Not verified; no field surveys completed Northern Goshawk Not verified (n=2) Yellow Rail Not verified (n=1)
23 Volume 6: Appendix 4A
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐33‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Key Indicator Resource Verification Results (number of observation Short‐eared Owl Not verified (n=2) Common Nighthawk Not verified; survey planned for 2012 Olive‐sided Flycatcher Not verified (n=2); survey planned for 2012 Canada Warbler Not verified (n=3); survey planned for 2012 Rusty Blackbird Not verified; survey planned for 2012 Waterfowl Not verified; survey planned for 2012 Western Toad Not verified; survey planned for 2012.
Beaver The beaver is a cultural keystone species for Fort McKay. Teck predicts that effects due to changes in habitat availability for beaver were predicted to have low environment consequence for existing conditions and all assessment Cases.24 The duration of impacts is predicted to be medium (one year to approximately 60 years). However, Teck predicted a 10.9% beaver habitat loss from pre‐ development to existing. This finding confirms the findings of the Fort McKay Specific Assessment that showed a significant loss of beaver habitat in the oil sands region within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory (Fort McKay Industry Relations Corporation (IRC) 2010). Teck selected the beaver as a KIR for impact assessment but did not complete surveys to determine the beaver population or density in the LSA. Teck also did not verify the beaver habitat model.
[19] Request
Fort McKay requests that a baseline beaver survey is completed (suitable for habitat model verification), that the beaver impact assessment is re‐done after modeling is completed, and that Teck is required to develop a Wildlife Mitigation Offset Plan to address impacts on beaver and other furbearers.
Wildlife Corridor The Project is between the Birch Mountains and Marguerite Wildland Provincial Parks. The Project and other developments will act as a barrier to wildlife movement (e.g., moose and black bear) between these parks. A potential wildlife corridor is present between the north and south portions of the Project.
24 Volume 1, Table 18.5‐16
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐34‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[20] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to develop and maintain a wildlife corridor between the north and south areas of the Project and verifies its effectiveness.
Habitat Suitability Modeling Teck completed habitat suitability models on several KIRs but many of the models were not verified. Teck indicated that wildlife surveys would be completed in 2012 to collect data for model verification. Fort McKay is concerned that Teck will not be able to obtain sufficient data in one field season for verification of several habitat models.
[21] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck provides a copy of the wildlife data collected in 2012, describes the verification process for the habitat models and results of habitat predications compared with wildlife observations, and provides a description of model modifications made as a result. Fort McKay requests that the regulators require this information before the Application is deemed complete.
If sufficient data for model verification (i.e., statistically significant) is not obtained in the 2012 field season then Teck should be required to present a plan indicating how it will collect sufficient data and the wildlife assessment and mitigation plans will be re‐evaluated as needed.
Teck developed and used a habitat model for “waterfowl”. This is too broad a species group to develop a meaningful model (e.g., highly variable nesting and food requirements) (Muir, et al. 2011).
[22] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to develop a species‐specific model that is more specific and relevant to the Community. A more appropriate habitat suitability model should be developed (e.g., on mallards).
Wildlife Community Dynamics Teck has not assessed changes to the wildlife community. For example, there is concern about changes in predator‐prey dynamics in the oil sands region (e.g., population of coyotes and white‐tailed deer) and its impact on woodland caribou.
[23] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck:
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐35‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
i. assesses the potential for changes in the wildlife communities due to changes in predator‐prey dynamics; and ii. independently or collaboratively, monitors changes in the wildlife community in the oil sands region.
Wood Bison Teck assessed environmental impacts on wood bison. The following is a summary of Teck’s conclusions: Effects due to changes in landscape connectivity for wood bison are predicted to be low environment consequence for Existing conditions and Base Case. For Application Case and Project Development Case the environmental consequence is predicted to be moderate.25 The duration of impacts is predicted to be medium (one year to approximately 60 years).
Effects due to changes in habitat availability for wood bison were predicted to have moderate environment consequence for existing conditions. For the Base Case a low environmental consequence, Application Case a low/moderate environmental consequence and moderate environmental consequence for the Project Development Case. The Low environmental consequence is because effects are considered to be reversible based on the ability to reclaim habitat.26 The duration of impacts is predicted to be medium (one year to approximately 60 years). Fort McKay disagrees that a range from one to 60 years is medium, when 60 years represents three generations of Fort McKay people; an impact of 60 years must be considered long‐term. Teck compared change in habitat availability from pre‐development to existing conditions. Teck predicts a loss of 13.2% of moderate and high quality wood bison habitat in the RSA.27 Wood bison populations are unique and might need to be managed because of potential for disease transfer (brucellosis) and inter‐breeding (e.g., breeding of plains or wood hybrids and genetically pure wood bison herds).
[24] Request
Fort McKay requests that:
i. Teck is required to develop a monitoring and mitigation plan for wood bison (as part of the Wildlife Mitigation Offset Plan); and
25 Volume 1, Table 18.5‐17 26 Volume 1, Table 18.5‐16 27 Table 4‐8a
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐36‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
ii. Fort McKay is consulted by ESRD and involved in management decisions and actions required for wood bison.
Moose The following is a summary of Teck’s assessment of impacts on moose: Effects due to changes in landscape connectivity for moose are predicted to be a high environment consequence for existing conditions. For the Base Case, Application Case and Project Development Case the environmental consequence is predicted to be low. The low environmental consequence is because effects are considered by Teck to be reversible.28 The duration of impacts is predicted to be medium (one year to approximately 60 years). Fort McKay disagrees that one to 60 years is an appropriate ‘medium’ timeframe and that the effects are reversible.
Effects due to changes in habitat availability were predicted to have moderate environment consequence for existing conditions. For the Base Case, Application Case, and Project Development Case a low environmental consequence was predicted. The predicted effects are considered reversible based on the ability to reclaim habitat.29 The duration of impacts is predicted to be medium (one year to approximately 60 years). Fort McKay’s view is that the duration of impacts will have significant impacts to moose populations (i.e., extirpation) and the loss of traditional knowledge.
Teck compared change in habitat availability from pre‐development to existing conditions. Teck predicted a loss of 36.8% of moderate‐ and high‐quality moose habitat in the RSA.30
Fort McKay is very concerned about moose populations in their Traditional Territory. In 2010 moose surveys in Wildlife Management Unit 531 (WMU 531) indicated a significant reduction in the moose populations since previous surveys (ASRD 2009). In addition, Dover completed a population viability assessment (PVA) that predicted declines and possible extirpation of moose populations in the area (Dover 2010). As well, based on Teck’s own assessment, it appears that significant impacts to moose habitat (and populations) have occurred between pre‐development and present. Therefore, any further impacts on moose from Base Case developments that are not yet built, from the Frontier Project, and planned developments need to be classified as high, adverse and significant given that there
28 Volume 1, Table 18.5‐17 29 Volume 1, Table 18.5‐16 30 Table 4‐8a
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐37‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
is already a declining population and that modeling (Dover 2010) predicts that if current trends are not reversed that moose will be extirpated from the area. Teck did not complete a population viability assessment (PVA) on any of the wildlife KIRs. Teck indicated that there was insufficient information available to complete this analysis. Fort McKay is aware of PVAs that have been used by operators in the oil sands region to predict population changes (e.g., Shell Canada Limited and Dover Operating Corp.). A PVA might predict changes in moose population through the Project operation and closure (e.g., over 60 years).
[25] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to complete a PVA on moose for the RSA and that the Application is not deemed complete until this is done.
[26] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck is required by the regulatory authorities as a condition of project approvals, to develop a Wildlife Mitigation Offset Plan to address adverse impacts to wildlife including, but not limited to, moose and to consult with Fort McKay on the plan. The Wildlife Mitigation Offset Plan should require conservation offsets within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory, i.e., land preserved for wildlife habitat and populations and Fort McKay’s traditional use, habitat enhancement and restoration (e.g., from the Athabasca Landscape Team (2009) and other measures).
Also see Fort McKay’s requests to Alberta for consultation and accommodation of the cumulative impacts of development [166], [13] and [14]. The likely extirpation of moose and caribou underscores the need for Alberta to consult with and accommodate impacts on Fort McKay prior to further projects being built.
[27] – [29] Species at Risk There are many wildlife species of concern that have been identified by the governments of Canada and Alberta:
Table 6‐2: Potental Wildlife Species at Risk
Wildlife Species Risk or Sensitivity According to: Canadian toad May Be at Risk Alberta Sustainable Resource Development [ASRD] Western toad Sensitive ASRD
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐38‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Wildlife Species Risk or Sensitivity According to: Special Concern Commitee on the Statutus of Endangered Wildlife in Canada [COSEWIC], and Species at Risk Act (SARA) Schedule 1; Horned grebe Sensitive ASRD Special Concern COSEWIC Peregrine falcon At Risk ASRD Special Concern COSEWIC, and SARA Schedule 1 Yellow rail Special Concern COSEWIC, and SARA Schedule 1 Short‐eared owl May be at Risk ASRD Special Concern COSEWIC; SARA Schedule 3 Common nighthawk Threatened COSEWIC, and SARA Schedule 1 Canada warbler Threatened COSEWIC, and SARA Schedule 1 Olive‐sided flycatcher Threatened COSEWIC, and SARA Schedule 1 Rusty blackbird Special Concern COSEWIC, and SARA Schedule 1 Barn swallow Threatened COSEWIC Northern long‐eared May be at Risk ASRD bat Wolverine May be at Risk ASRD Special Concern COSEWIC Woodland caribou At Risk ASRD Threatened COSEWIC, and SARA Schedule 1 Teck did not assess impacts to horned grebe, barn swallow, and wolverine. These species are not SARA‐listed but are listed by COSEWIC. It is reasonable to predict these species will become SARA‐listed in the near future.
[27] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck completes an impact assessment on wildlife species (i.e., designated at risk by COSEWIC) that are reasonably likely to become SARA‐ listed in the near future.
Teck identified several wildlife species at risk in the Project area. Species at risk like yellow rail, Canada warbler, common nighthawk, rusty black bird, and olive‐
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐39‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
sided flycatcher are listed under SARA Schedule 1. SARA makes it an offence in Sections 32 and 33 to:31
Damage or destroy the residence of one or more individuals of a listed endangered or threatened species or of a listed extirpated species if a recovery strategy has recommended its reintroduction.
A residence is defined as “a dwelling‐place, such as a den, nest or other similar area or place that is occupied or habitually occupied by one or more individuals during all or part of their life cycles, including breeding, rearing, staging, wintering, feeding or hibernating.” There are many habitat types that are used for breeding and rearing by SARA‐listed wildlife species that will be impacted by the Project. For example, Yellow rails breed in wetlands; rusty blackbirds are associated with wetlands, Canada warblers use areas near water, and olive‐sided flycatcher use areas adjacent to wetlands (Federation of Alberta Naturalists (FAN) 2007).
[28] Request
Many SARA‐listed wildlife species use habitat types found in the Project area. Fort McKay requests more details on how Teck will protect the “residence” of SARA Schedule 1‐listed wildlife species inhabiting the Project.
Caribou Woodland caribou populations in Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory are rated as “very unlikely or unlikely non self‐sustaining” populations (Environment Canada 2011). The Richardson, Caribou Mountains and Red Earth populations have been specifically identified as important to maintain connectivity between caribou populations. Connectivity between local populations has been identified as essential to achieve conservation goals by maintaining genetic diversity and providing sufficiently large ranges that allow adaption to changes in the environment (e.g., climate change). Environment Canada indicates that ranges (e.g., critical habitat) do not need to be physically connected but are close enough to allow caribou to move between ranges with a reasonable likelihood of survival. Environment Canada states that the habitat between caribou ranges needs to be managed to allow caribou survival (Environment Canada 2011). Teck did not include woodland caribou as a wildlife species for assessment. Teck argued that woodland caribou were excluded because they were absent or infrequent visitors to the Project area.32 Fort McKay disagrees with this approach because of the location of the Project between known caribou populations and the continuing decline of caribou population in the Fort McKay Traditional Territory
31 www.registrelep.gc.ca/archives/Guide_e.cfm#13 32 Section 4.3.3.1
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐40‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
(EC 2011 and CEMA 2008). Teck should have included woodland caribou in the wildlife assessment.
[29] Request
The Project is located between the Red Earth and Richardson woodland caribou populations. The Project might have an adverse effect on connectivity between these caribou populations (see Request [20]) Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to assess Project effects on woodland caribou prior to the Application being deemed complete.
Fort McKay requests that no project Approvals are issued for projects within critical caribou habitat and zones of influence of potential impacts to carbou (e.g. areas that are important for critical habitat connectivity) until action plans are developed to protect caribou and they are evaluated for effectiveness.
[30] – [35] Wildlife Health Assessment Teck completed a Screening‐level Wildlife Risk Assessment to predict health effects on wildlife.33 Fort McKay concerns and requests regarding the screening‐ level risk assessment are below. The Terms of Reference (ToR) require that Teck completes a wildlife health assessment on all KIRs (list provided) above.34 Many of the KIRs are species of concern (e.g., threatened), have low population densities (e.g., yellow rails), unique habitats (e.g., boreal forest), and have a combination of terrestrial and aquatic diets (e.g., moose). Teck completed a very generic Screening‐level Wildlife Risk Assessment.
[30] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck provides scientific evidence showing that a Screening–level Wildlife Risk Assessment is appropriate for the KIRs that Teck selected.
The Screening‐level Wildlife Risk Assessment uses avian and mammalian parameters to assess wildlife impacts. The Assessment does not address impacts to amphibians. The ToR requires that a wildlife health assessment is completed on all KIRs (i.e., Western Toad).
33 Volume 7: Appendix 2D 34 Volume 6: Section 4.2.1
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐41‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[31] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to complete a wildlife health assessment on amphibians since amphibians were not addressed in the wildlife health assessment.
The Screening‐level Wildlife Risk Assessment predicts low impacts to wildlife.35 Teck predicted levels of mercury of 0.000005 mg/L in water and soil.36 In the Surface Water Quality Section, Teck predicts mercury levels of 1 mg/kg to accumulate in fish.37
[32] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to predict the levels of mercury that would accumulate in the wildlife that eat fish (e.g., otter, some species of waterfowl).
Fish in the habitat compensation lake are predicted to accumulate mercury levels of 1 mg/kg.38
[33] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to determine if any other animal species (e.g., long‐lived invertebrates) will bio‐accumulate mercury at levels that exceed safe levels.
Odours from oil sands operations have an effect on human populations in Fort McKay. Odours were not considered in the wildlife assessments.
[34] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to assess the effects of odours on wildlife.
Some adverse effects from oil sands operations have been found in bird species. Indirect exposure to the tailings materials also might be impacting wildlife. Gentes et al. (2007a, 2007b, 2006) studied the effects of exposure to oil sands process materials on wild tree swallows. Tree swallows breeding adjacent to a wetland
35 Volume 7, Appendix 2D 36 Table 2D‐7 37 Volume 5, Section 4 38 Volume 5, Section 4
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐42‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
that had never received mine tailings (Poplar Creek Reservoir) were compared to those breeding adjacent to wetlands that had last received mine tailings in 1993 (Demo Pond), 2001 (Natural Wetland), or were continuing to receive mine tailings (Consolidated Tailings Wetland). Nestlings raised in wetlands that had or were receiving mine tailings had elevated levels of the thyroid hormones triiodothyronine (T3) and thyroxine (T4; Gentes, McNabb et al. 2007), increased hepatic detoxification activity (Gentes, Waldner et al. 2006), and lower masses (Gentes, Waldner et al. 2006) compared to those nestlings raised in the Poplar Creek Reservoir. The lower masses of the nestlings likely contributed to increased mortality during a breeding season of poor weather compared to the nestlings in the Poplar Creek Reservoir. The authors cautioned that limiting biomonitoring to the pre‐fledgling stage could underestimate the effects of exposure to contaminants (Gentes, Waldner et al. 2006). Research has shown impacts from tailings‐affected water. The effects can be very subtle as shown above.
[35] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to assess and monitor the potential effects of tailings effluent on wildlife.
[36] – [42] Mitigation for Species at Risk Fort McKay’s view is that it is of primary importance in wildlife impact mitigation that a Wildlife Mitigation Offset Plan is developed that includes conservation areas for wildlife and other major strategies to address wildlife impacts (see Request [104]). This is needed for both key cultural species (e.g. moose, beaver, furbearers) and species at risk. Teck has not provided a comprehensive Wildlife Mitigation and Offset Plan for species at risk, but instead has idenfied several species‐specific mitigation measures. While these might be appropriate they are not sufficient to ensure that species‐at‐risk populations are protected.
[36] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to develop a Wildlife Mitigation and Offset Plan that encompasses and addresses impacts on both key cultural species and species at risk and that the plan includes conservation areas and comprehensive monitoring for effectiveness. Further, Fort McKay requests that it is consulted on the development and implementation of this plan.
Teck has indicated that they will use species‐specific habitat requirements of SARA‐listed wildlife species from field studies to guide reclamation. Muir et al. (2011) indicates that verification data should be local (e.g., within an oil sands region).
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐43‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[37] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to determine the local habitat requirements for species with large ranges (i.e., yellow rail).
Teck has committed to mitigating noise impact on wildlife species at risk (e.g., birds); however, finding the residence of rare wildlife species (i.e., most SARA‐ listed species) is very difficult.
[38] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck maps a noise contour map of 48 dbA (e.g., Figure 2‐2 only has 45 and 50 dbA contours) to determine areas of noise impact and assess potential noise impacts on species at risk and provide a mitigation plan.
Many bird species that inhabit the oil sands region are non‐migratory.
[39] Request
Fort McKay requests that the regulators require that any clearing occurs prior to nest initiation of early nesting species such as great‐horned owls, great gray owls and gray jays.
Teck has committed to reducing wildlife harassment; however, humans can harm wildlife in ways that are not considered harassment and Teck has not provided details on how it will mitigate human disturbance.
[40] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck describes the mitigation measures that it plans to use to mitigate human disturbance on wildlife and its plans to monitor effectiveness.
Teck has committed to collaboration with the ABMI. Fort McKay believes that the ABMI does important wildlife monitoring; however, there are many other organizations conducting wildlife monitoring and research in the oil sands region and monitoring through ABMI might not be sufficient, especially at the local scale.
[41] Request
Fort McKay requests that in addition to ABMI, that Teck is required to conduct wildlife biodiversity monitoring at a local scale and that traditional wildlife species and communites are included as indicators.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐44‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Tailings Ponds Impacts on Wildlife In 2008 approximately 1,600 ducks were killed when they landed in a Syncrude Canada tailings pond. As a result Syncrude Canada was charged and convicted. A Court order required that the Research on Avian Protection Project (RAPP) was formed. This project was developed to increase bird protection in the oil sands region. The four goals of RAPP are as follows: 1) Collect information on bird use and deterrence practices in the oil sands region and review avian deterrents in other industries. 2) Complete field studies and analysis of data. 3) Integrate data with monitoring protocols. 4) Identify best practices for oil sands region.
[42] Request
Fort McKay is very concerned about tailings ponds and the effects on wildlife in the oil sands region. Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to incorporate the findings of the Research on Avian Protection Project (RAPP) in the development, operation, and monitoring of wildlife deterrent systems.
[43] – [46] Monitoring Plan Fort McKay expects that Teck mitigates the Project’s impacts; however, mitigation effectiveness is often uncertain (e.g., reclamation). To assess mitigation effectiveness a comprehensive and scientifically rigorous monitoring plan must be developed and implemented. Fort McKay realizes that, in some cases, it might be unrealistic for Teck to determine mitigation effectiveness on its own. In these instances, Teck should partner with regulators, scientists and other operators to jointly assess mitigation.
[43] Request
A Wildlife Mitigation Offset Plan should be developed by Teck and along with it a comprehensive monitoring plan that evaluates the effectiveness of the plan in addressing impacts on wildlife populations. Fort McKay should be consulted regarding the design of the monitoring plan and the species, populations and habitats to be monitored. Also, see Requests [3] to [5] regarding regional cumulatived effects monitoring, assessment and follow‐up program for the Project.
The Project should be monitored for species at risk during construction and operation by a wildlife biologist. Observed species at risk should be reported to an ESRD or CWS wildlife biologist and Teck should be prepared to modify operations based on advice from ESRD (e.g., stop activities when species of concern are near).
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐45‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[44] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to engage a wildlife biologist to monitor species at risk during construction and operation. Teck should be prepared to modify operations based on advice from ESRD (e.g., stop activities when species of concern are near).
Teck will monitor species at risk and implement additional mitigation if these species are detected.39 It is important to monitor species at risk because they are vulnerable.
[45] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to monitor more common species (e.g., Tennessee warbler and boreal chorus frog) along with species at risk (e.g., olive‐ sided flycatcher and western toad). It will be easier to obtain sufficient data on more common species for statistical analysis allowing the detection of population changes as a result of the Project.
Teck indicated that it would be considering Aboriginal community concerns in wildlife mitigation and monitoring programs.40 A specific concern was regarding the successful recolonization of disturbed landscapes.
[46] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to use the methods for monitoring wildlife on reclaimed areas developed by the CEMA Wildlife Task Group (Hawkes and Tuttle 2011).
[47] Keeping Clean Areas Clean Fort McKay is concerned about the accumulation of contaminants in the environment and impacts to wildlife health from incidents such as chemical and fuel spills. Fort McKay is also concerned about contaminated soil and potential impacts to wildlife (e.g., bioaccumulation).
[47] Request
Fort McKay requests that, in the event of a fuel or chemical spill, that Teck is required to clean up to meet Alberta Tier 1 criteria (Alberta Environment 2009).
39 Section 4.5.23.2 40 Section 4.8.9.2
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐46‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[48] – [50] Cumulative Effects Fort McKay is concerned about changes in the wildlife community since oil sands development began. Wildlife species that Fort McKay relies on for exercise of its Aboriginal and Treaty rights are being adversely affected by impacts to habitat quantity and quality. The Fort McKay Specific Assessment demonstrated that there are high impacts due to existing and approved project impacts to moose, beaver, Canada lynx and fisher marten habitat within a forty‐township area near the Community and within historically mapped high‐ and moderate‐use areas that encompass the proposed Frontier Project. Since the time of the Fort McKay Specific Assessment (2007 data), additional projects have been approved, disclosed, or are in the regulatory process and this has heightened Fort McKay’s concerns and further increased potential wildlife impacts. Modeling completed for the Terrestrial Ecosystem Management Framework (TEMF) in 2008 found that some wildlife indicators were already below or at the lower limit of their natural range of variation (e.g., fisher, caribou, moose and black bear). The TEMF report indicated that aggressive steps needed to be taken immediately to preserve those indicators in the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo (RMWB). The TEMF modeling demonstrated that the density of linear features (e.g., pipeline rights‐of‐way (RoW) and seismic lines) is a primary driver of declines in these wildlife indicators. TEMF predicts that this trend will continue unless changes to land use are made in oil sands regions. TEMF recommendations included establishing protected zones representing 20% to 40% of the RMWB, aggressive management of off‐highway vehicle access, and improving and accelerating reclamation of the land (Cumulative Environmental Management Association 2008). The TEMF recommendations have not been actively addressed in land use management for the oil sands, and as a result, Fort McKay expects that these wildlife indicators will continue to decline with increased development The Frontier Project is large and would have direct and substantial effects on wildlife habitat and populations in Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory. Further, Fort McKay has clearly demonstrated in its project‐specific TLUS41 that the area of the proposed Project is highly used and valued for wildlife harvesting and in particular for moose hunting. Teck’s contribution to cumulative effects should be addressed through a Wildlife Mitigation and Offset Plan as discussed above. Fort McKay’s concerns regarding impacts on wildlife populations and continuing and increasing loss of ability to excercise their Treaty and Aboriginal rights are valid.
41 Application, Appendix 6B
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐47‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[48] Request
Fort McKay requests that regulators immediately implement the recommendations in the Terrestrial Ecosystem Management Framework (TEMF) as critical to maintaining wildlife populations (Cumulative Environmental Management Association 2008). Fort McKay’s view is that the TEMF is a balanced regional framework and should be implemented instead of the draft Lower Athabasca Regional Plan (LARP).
[49] Request
Fort McKay requests that Alberta immediately takes measures in consultation with Fort McKay to address cumulative impacts on wildlife, prior to any further project approvals. See Fort McKay’s submission on the draft Land Use Plan for the Lower Athabasca River for detailed mitigation and accommodation recommendations (submitted to Alberta June 6, 2011).
[50] Request
Fort McKay requests that ESRD immediately develops, in consultation with the Community, a regional monitoring program for wildlife, including annual wildlife surveys and use this information to determine if EIA predictions and assumptions are valid and accurate and to develop and assess mitigation measures.
Table 6‐3: Wildlife Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table
Fort McKay Key Number Requests Category* Concern(s)s [16] Impact Fort McKay requests that the regulators require Teck to Response assessment re‐do the wildlife assessment using a more valid scale Regulatory scale for duration; a duration of 1 to 60 years cannot be considered “medium” when this timeframe covers three generations. [17] Traditional Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to develop a Regulatory Environmental Mitigation and Offset Plan for wildlife within Fort Response Knowledge McKay’s Traditional Territory that addresses impacts to key species of interest to Fort McKay for exercise of its aboriginal and treaty rights and that Fort McKay is consulted in the development and implementation of the plan. See below for comments and requests regarding specific species.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐48‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay Key Number Requests Category* Concern(s)s [18] Wildlife Fort McKay requests that Teck includes revise its Regulatory Assessment assessment to include areas further to the north of the Response Project (up to and including Wood Buffalo National Park) in the wildlife cumulative effects assessment. [19] Wildlife Fort McKay requests that a baseline beaver survey is Regulatory Assessment ‐ completed (suitable for habitat model verification), that Response beaver the beaver impact assessment is re‐done after modeling is completed, and that the Application is not deemed complete until this is done. Teck is required to develop a Wildlife Mitigation Offset Plan to address impacts on beaver and other furbearers. [20] Wildlife Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to develop Regulatory Assessment – and maintain a wildlife corridor between the north and Response wildlife south areas of the Project. corridors [21] Wildlife Fort McKay requests that Teck provides a copy of the Regulatory Assessment – wildlife data collected in 2012, describes the verification Response habitat models process for the habitat models and results of habitat predications compared with wildlife observations, and provides a description of model modifications made as a result. Fort McKay requests that the regulators require this information before the Application is deemed complete. [22] Wildlife Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to develop a Assessment – species‐specific model that is more specific and relevant habitat models to the Community. A more appropriate habitat suitability model should be developed (e.g., on mallards). [23] Wildlife Fort McKay requests that Teck: Regulatory Assessment – i) assesses the potential for changes in the wildlife Response community communities due to changes in predator‐prey dynamics dynamics; and ii) independently or collaboratively, monitors changes in the wildlife community in the oil sands region. [24] Wildlife Fort McKay requests that: Regulatory Assessment – i) Teck is required to develop a monitoring and Response wood bison mitigation plan for wood bison (as part of the Agreement Wildlife Mitigaiton Offset Plan); and ii) Fort McKay is consulted by ESRD and involved in management decisions and actions required for wood bison.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐49‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay Key Number Requests Category* Concern(s)s [25] Wildlife Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to complete a Regulatory Assessment ‐ PVA on moose for the RSA and that the Application is Response moose not deemed complete until this is done. [26] Wildlife Fort McKay requests that Teck is required by the Regulatory Assessment ‐ regulatory authorities as a condition of project Response moose approvals, to develop a Wildlife Mitigation Offset Plan to address adverse impacts to wildlife including, but not limited to, moose and to consult with Fort McKay on the plan. The Wildlife Mitigation Offset Plan should require conservation offsets within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory, i.e., land preserved for wildlife habitat and populations and Fort McKay’s traditional use, habitat enhancement and restoration (e.g., from the Athabasca Landscape Team (2009) and other measures). Also see Fort McKay’s requests to Alberta for consultation and accommodation of the cumulative impacts of development [183], [14] and [15]. The likely extirpation of moose and caribou underscores the need for Alberta to consult with and accommodate impacts on Fort McKay prior to further projects being built. [27] Species at Risk Fort McKay requests that Teck completes an impact Regulatory assessment on wildlife species (i.e., designated at risk by Response COSEWIC) that are reasonably likely to become SARA‐ listed in the near future. [28] Species at Risk Many SARA‐listed wildlife species use habitat types Regulatory found in the Project area. Fort McKay requests more Response details on how Teck will protect the “residence” of SARA Schedule 1‐listed wildlife species inhabiting the Project. [29] Species at Risk – The Project is located between the Red Earth and Regulatory woodland Richardson woodland caribou populations. The Project Response caribou might have an adverse effect on connectivity between these caribou populations (see Request [20]) Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to assess Project effects on woodland caribou prior to the Application being deemed complete. Fort McKay requests that no project Approvals are issued for projects within critical caribou habitat and zones of influence of potential impacts to carbou (e.g. areas that are important for critical habitat connectivity) until action plans are developed to protect caribou and they are evaluated for effectiveness.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐50‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay Key Number Requests Category* Concern(s)s [30] Wildlife Health Fort McKay requests that Teck provides scientific Regulatory evidence showing that a Screening‐level Wildlife Risk Response Assessment is appropriate for the KIRs that Teck selected. [31] Wildlife Health Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to complete a Regulatory wildlife health assessment on amphibians since Response amphibians were not addressed in the wildlife health assessment. [32] Wildlife Health Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to predict the Regulatory levels of mercury that would accumulate in the wildlife Response that eat fish (e.g., otter, some species of waterfowl). [33] Wildlife Health Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to determine Regulatory if any other animal species (e.g., long‐lived Response invertebrates) will bio‐accumulate mercury at levels that exceed safe levels. [34] Wildlife Health Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to assess the Regulatory effects of odours on wildlife. Response Agreement [35] Wildlife Health Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to assess and Regulatory monitor the potential effects of tailings effluent on Response wildlife. [36] Mitigation – Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to develop a Regulatory species at risk Wildlife Mitigation and Offset Plan that encompasses Response and addresses impacts on both key cultural species and species at risk and that the plan includes conservation areas and comprehensive monitoring for effectiveness. Further, Fort McKay requests that it is consulted on the development and implementation of this plan. [37] Mitigation – Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to determine Regulatory species at risk the local habitat requirements for species with large Response ranges (i.e., yellow rail). [38] Mitigation – Fort McKay requests that Teck maps a noise contour Regulatory species at risk map of 48 dbA (e.g., Figure 2‐2 only has 45 and 50 dbA Response contours) to determine areas of noise impact and assess potential noise impacts on species at risk and provide a mitigation plan. [39] Mitigation for Fort McKay requests that the regulators require that any Regulatory Species at Risk clearing occurs prior to nest initiation of early nesting Response species such as great‐horned owls, great gray owls and gray jays.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐51‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay Key Number Requests Category* Concern(s)s [40] Mitigation for Fort McKay requests that Teck describes the mitigation Regulatory Species at Risk measures that it plans to use to mitigate human Response disturbance on wildlife and its plans to monitor effectiveness. [41] Biodiversity Fort McKay requests that in addition to ABMI, that Teck Regulatory monitoring is required to conduct wildlife biodiversity monitoring at Response a local scale and that traditional wildlife species and communites are included as indicators. [42] Mitigation – Fort McKay is very concerned about tailings ponds and Regulatory tailings ponds the effects on wildlife in the oil sands region. Fort McKay Response and waterfowl requests that Teck is required to incorporate the findings of the Research on Avian Protection Project (RAPP) in the development, operation, and monitoring of wildlife deterrent systems. [43] Monitoring Plan A Wildlife Mitigation Offset Plan should be developed Regulatory by Teck and along with it a comprehensive monitoring Response plan that evaluates the effectiveness of the plan in addressing impacts on wildlife populations. Fort McKay should be consulted regarding the design of the monitoring plan and the species, populations and habitats to be monitored. Also, see Requests [3] to [5] regarding regional cumulatived effects monitoring, assessment and follow‐up program for the Project. [44] Monitoring Plan Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to engage a Regulatory wildlife biologist to monitor species at risk during Response construction and operation. Teck should be prepared to modify operations based on advice from ESRD (e.g., stop activities when species of concern are near). [45] Monitoring Plan Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to monitor Regulatory more common species (e.g., Tennessee warbler and Response boreal chorus frog) along with species at risk (e.g., olive‐ sided flycatcher and western toad). It will be easier to obtain sufficient data on more common species for statistical analysis allowing the detection of population changes as a result of the Project. [46] Monitoring Plan Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to use the Regulatory methods for monitoring wildlife on reclaimed areas Response developed by the CEMA Wildlife Task Group (Hawkes and Tuttle 2011). [47] Keeping Clean Fort McKay requests that, in the event of a fuel or Regulatory Areas Clean chemical spill, that Teck is required to clean up to meet Response Alberta Tier 1 criteria (Alberta Environment 2009).
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐52‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay Key Number Requests Category* Concern(s)s [48] Cumulative F Fort McKay requests that regulators immediately Regulatory Effects implement the recommendations in the Terrestrial Ecosystem Management Framework (TEMF) as critical to maintaining wildlife populations (Cumulative Environmental Management Association 2008). Fort McKay’s view is that the TEMF is a balanced regional framework and should be implemented instead of the draft Lower Athabasca Regional Plan (LARP). [49] Cumulative Fort McKay requests that Alberta immediately takes Regulatory Effects measures in consultation with Fort McKay to address cumulative impacts on wildlife, prior to any further project approvals. See Fort McKay’s submission on the draft Land Use Plan for the Lower Athabasca River for detailed mitigation and accommodation recommendations (submitted toe Alberta Jun 6, 2011). [50] Cumulative Fort McKay requests that ESRD immediately develops, in Regulatory Effects consultation with the Community, a regional monitoring program for wildlife, including annual wildlife surveys and use this information to determine if EIA predictions and assumptions are valid and accurate and to develop and assess mitigation measures.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – Fort McKay’s request to the regulators, including information requests, regulatory requirements and approval conditions (if the project is ultimately approved). Response – a deficiency or question on which Fort McKay requests that a response of additional information from Teck is provided to Fort McKay and the regulators, prior to the application being deemed complete by the regulators.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐53‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
7. NOISE
7.1 Context The Teck Frontier Project will use open pit mining to recover oil sands and produce partially desaphalted bitumen from the area. To enable bitumen extraction and subsequent saleable product processing, Teck proposes locating the following components on the project site:
mining areas; tailings, overburden and reclamation disposal or storage areas; bitumen processing facilities and associated pumping, piping, solvent and diluent storage and other related tankage and chemical storage work;s tailings management; water intake from the Athabasca River; off stream water storage (three to four months’ reserve capacity); a compensation lake; utilities: o water and wastewater treatment o cogeneration (heat and electricity) o steam and hot water boilers and heaters
infrastructure facilities o utility and pipeline corridors o camp accommodations for construction workers and operational staff o an aerodrome o an access road o on‐site landfills Many of these facilities are noise emissions sources. The EIA and application provide Project information and assessments on the type and amount of noise emissions and the potential impacts on human receptors in the vicinity of the Project.
7.2 Noise Impact Assessment Methodology and Findings The Frontier EIA noise section describes a typical noise assessment using modeled noise emission and transmission to determine whether excessive noise emission will results from Project construction and operation according to ERCB Directive 038. The noise assessment seems adequately addressed and executed, and addresses predicted noise emissions from construction and operation of the mine itself and also includes an assessment of airplane noise associated with the Project aerodrome. The noise assessment concludes that excessive noise is not expected to be associated with the Project.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐54‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Tonal Noise Teck recognized the need to investigate tonal noise under Directive 03842 but this is only low‐frequency noise. Teck did not include an assessment of other frequencies of tonal noise in its noise assessment (e.g., the high‐frequency noise of back‐up beepers). Since this proposed development is located on Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory, and since the potential for noise impacts from this and other developments in the region is a concern to Fort McKay, the lack of a frequency‐ based noise impacts assessment is a concern
[51] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck conducts an assessment of tonal noise, pure tone or narrow frequency band emissions.
[52] Noise Impacts at Trappers Cabins The Community of Fort McKay is concerned that the Project will lead to audible noise. Noise from the Project is not expected to be audible from the Community of Fort McKay, as modelling demonstrates the Project noise emissions are sufficiently low, and sufficiently far away that the contribution to noise levels in the Community of Fort McKay will be inaudible. The noise assessment also argues that overall noise levels at nearby trapper cabins (R1‐R8; Figure 2.2) comply with Directive 038 and therefore should not be affected. While this might be true from modelled noise levels in overall dBA levels (i.e., total noise) the project might still be 'audible' from trapper cabins R1‐R8 if there were discrete narrow‐frequency emissions (e.g., back up beepers or warning sirens) from the Project. Consideration of narrow‐frequency band emissions was not presented as part of the noise assessment.
[52] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck determines whether audible noise from narrow‐ frequency bands from the Project will be audible at trapper cabins R1‐R8. If noise is predicted to be audible at Fort McKay trapper’s cabins, Teck should be required to mitigate the impacts.
[53] – [54] Aircraft Noise Teck has undertaken noise modelling to predict impact of noise associated with the Aerodrome. The Noise assessment presents convincing data that the noise from aircraft take‐off or landing will not be audible within the Community of Fort McKay due simply to distance between the Community and the Project aerodrome.
42 Section 2.3.1.2
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐55‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
However, aircraft flying over the Community of Fort McKay will be audible from within the community.43 Mitigation of this impact is presented that includes alternate flight paths use, avoiding flying over the Community of Fort McKay. However it is not clear how often the flight paths and how many airplanes would be expected to overfly the Community of Fort McKay.
[53] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck:
i. confirms the frequency of aircraft expected to overfly the Community of Fort McKay, and ii. clarifies how promotion of flight patterns avoiding the Community of Fort McKay will be ensured.
The noise assessment makes clear that the area of Fort McKay Indian Reserve #174C and the trapper cabins R1‐R8 adjacent to the Project will be impacted by noise from the aerodrome during flyover, approach and take‐off.
[54] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck consults with Fort McKay regarding mitigation and offsets to address the impacts of aircraft noise from the Frontier Project.
[55] Clarity on Time for Prompt Management The noise assessment highlights that the mitigation measures for noise control are “complaint driven” and that any complaints from stakeholders including Fort McKay Community members will be managed and promptly addressed.44
[55] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck provides clarity on what timelines are meant by noise concerns raised by Fort McKay Community members being promptly addressed and what options Teck has available to address noise concerns.
Fort McKay requests that Teck consults with Fort McKay to develop a noise complaint support system that will necessitate prompt documentation and a response from Teck.
43 Table 2‐5 44 Section 2.5.8
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐56‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[56] Best Practice The Best Practices Section of ERCB directive 038 states that:45
Licensees are encouraged to adopt and incorporate a best practices approach to noise management into their maintenance and operating procedures. This might include such things as taking regular fence‐line measurements to determine if there are any significant changes to sound emanating from the facility and improving notification measures to neighbors of a planned noisy event.
Though noise modeling results indicated that no additional operation factors needed to be incorporated and specific additional noise mitigation measures are not required, Teck stated: 46
Best management practices will be incorporated into the Project design, construction, maintenance, and operating procedures to reduce noise disturbances where reasonably practical.
However, nowhere in the Acoustics section of the EIA does Teck provide specific examples of what best practices are planned to be implemented.
[56] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck provides specific examples of what best practices will be implemented to ensure its commitment to reduce and control noise emissions.
7.3 Noise Key Concerns and Requests Summary
Table 7‐1: Noise Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [51] Noise Fort McKay requests that Teck conducts an assessment of Response assessment tonal noise, pure tone or narrow‐frequency band emissions. [52] Tonal noise at Fort McKay requests that Teck determines whether Response cabins audible noise from narrow‐frequency bands from the project will be audible at trapper cabins R1‐R8. If noise is predicted to be audible at Fort McKay trapper’s cabins, Teck should be required to mitigate the impacts.
45 Section 1.2.4 46 Section 2.5.8.3
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐57‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [53] Aircraft noise Fort McKay requests that Teck: Response i) confirms the frequency of aircraft expected to overfly the Community of Fort McKay, and ii) clarifies how promotion of flight patterns avoiding the Community of Fort McKay will be ensured. [54] Aircraft noise Fort McKay requests that Teck consults with Fort McKay Response regarding mitigation and offsets to address the impacts of aircraft noise from the Project. [55] Clarity on time Fort McKay requests that Teck provides clarity on what Response for prompt timelines are meant by noise concerns raised by Fort management McKay community members being promptly addressed and what options Teck has available to address noise concerns. Fort McKay requests that Teck consults with Fort McKay to develop a noise complaint support system that will necessitate prompt documentation and a response from Teck. [56] Best practices Fort McKay requests that Teck provides specific examples Response of what best practices will be implemented to ensure its commitment to reduce and control noise emissions.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – Fort McKay’s request to the regulators, including information requests, regulatory requirements and approval conditions (if the project is ultimately approved). Response – a deficiency or question on which Fort McKay requests that a response of additional information from Teck is provided to Fort McKay and the regulators, prior to the application being deemed complete by the regulators.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐58‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
8. AIR QUALITY
8.1 Air Assessment Approach and Methodologies The following is an assessment of, and comments on, the air assessment approach and methodologies used by Teck to assess the air‐related impacts of the proposed Frontier Project.
8.1.1 Air Issues47 Teck has identified potential air emission‐related impacts associated with the proposed Frontier Project. These are summarized in Table 8‐1.
Table 8‐1: Air issues related to the Frontier Project
Air Related Impact Parameter and Emissions Ambient Air • Nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) as a result of emissions of oxides of nitrogen Concentrations (NOχ) (Air quality) • Sulphur dioxide (SO₂) from emissions of sulphur oxides • Particulate matter smaller than 2.5 µm (PM₂.₅) as a result of combustion and processing emissions • Carbon monoxide (CO) resulting from combustion processes • Ground level ozone (O₃) formation from volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and NOx emissions Health and Odours • VOC emissions • CO emissions • Reduced sulphur compound emissions (total reduced sulphur (TRS), included hydrogen sulphide (H₂S) Acid Deposition • SO₂ • NOχ Nitrogen • NOχ Deposition (leading to eutrophication) Visibility • Regional haze precursors (PM, NOχ, SO₂, VOCs, water vapour) Trace compound • Polycyclic Aromatic Carbons (PACs) and metals (impact on aquatic deposition ecosystems) Greenhouse Gases • Carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions mainly, other hydrocarbons
The list in Table 8‐1 is comprehensive; therefore, the air issue topics of relevance to Fort McKay are covered in the Frontier EIA and regulatory application.
47 Volume 4, Tables 1‐1 and 3‐6
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐59‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
8.1.2 Air Study Areas48 The LSA and RSAs and air modeling domain used to assess air emission and air quality impacts are considered appropriate for a project this size and provide the information necessary for Fort McKay to assess air impacts within Fort McKay and on its Traditional Territory. The LSA includes key areas of concern to Fort McKay community members. Located within the LSA are the Community of Fort McKay and most of the Moose Lake area (which includes Fort McKay First Nation’s reserves IR174A, IR174B at Namur/Buffalo and Gardiner/Moose lakes). Some traplines (registered fur management areas; RFMAs) registered to Fort McKay community members are included with the LSA. All of these areas are included within the Project’s RSA. Teck conducted a detailed assessment of potential air quality‐related impacts at J. Boucher’s cabin located in RFMA #850). Fort McKay appreciates the level of detail of the air assessment on this cabin locatation. There are some concerns regarding the findings, which are discussed further in the section on odours (Section 8.3).
8.1.3 Assessment Cases In its review of previous oil sands project EIA Terms of Reference and EIAs, Fort McKay has stated that assessments must include both a background (Pre‐ development) and Current Case49 if the true cumulative effects of development on air quality and air‐related impacts are to be understood. The impacts of the current development in the area can be compared to the baseline, application and planned development assessment scenarios. It is important to Fort McKay to understand the expected magnitude of the changes from the background (Pre‐development) and Current Cases to get a true picture of the impacts that regional developments have had, are having, and might have on the environment in the future. Base, Application and Planned Development cases represent predicted or possible scenarios, whereas Background (Pre‐ development) and Current Cases are real scenarios. These real scenarios can be used to validate and benchmark past and future predictions. Fort McKay requested that Teck includes the pre‐development and current development assessment cases in its EIA. Teck has included assessment, reference and snapshot cases that cover:
a Base Case (existing plus approved projects plus those likely to be approved in the near future); an Applicaton Case (the Base Case plus the project);
48 Volume 4, Sections 1.1.2 and 3.3.1 49 Volume 4, Sections 1.1.3, 1.1.4, and 3.3.2.2
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐60‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
a Planned Development Case (PDC; the Applicaton Case plus announced or planned projects); a Pre‐development Case (pre‐1965); a Current Case (current operating projects and current impacts – 2010); and a Snapshot Case (when air emissions from the project are expected to be at their peak – 2034).
8.2 Air Quality Key Concerns and Requests
[57] Assessment Approach Fort McKay appreciates that Teck provided the Pre‐development and Current Cases. By providing these cases, past, current and future air emission impacts on Fort McKay and in the region can be more appropriately assessed. Fort McKay community members can better understand how oil sands development has progressed and what impacts future development might have on their air quality and associated health and environmental issues. Fort McKay’s view is that Pre‐ Development and Current cases should be the ‘baselines’ upon which the project and other oil sands developments are assessed. Fort McKay is concerned that the Base Case includes “likely to be approved in the near future” projects. Since the Base Case is used to measure the relative magnitude or significance of the project in an incremental or cummualitive context, the larger the Base Case the less significant the relative impacts of the proposed project appear; therefore, it is Fort McKay’s view that the Base Case should only include existing and approved projects.
[57] Request
Fort McKay requests that regulators require:
i. all oil sands project EIAs for proposed projects north of Fort McMurray to include both Pre‐development and Current Case assessments;50 ii. Teck to model the Base Case with only existing and approved projects; and iii. Teck to compare the Planned Development Case, Application and re‐modelled Base Case against the Current and Pre‐development cases (i.e., the Current and Pre‐development cases should be the ‘baseline’ against which the existing, approved, planned developments and the Project should be assessed).
50 Note: The pre‐development case developed by Teck could be used by other proponents. The current case for future projects would need to be provided.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐61‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[58] Air Quality Criteria The emission criteria listed are considered to represent the current “minimum” regulatory requirements that apply to emission sources from the proposed Frontier Project.51 In its review of previous oil sands project EIAs and applications, Fort McKay has noted that it expects companies to go beyond these “minimum” requirements and apply best available technology economically achievable (BATEA) to all significant emission sources. This position is in line with provincial requirements established in the Industrial Release Limits Policy (Alberta Environment 2000). Fort McKay notes that the recent Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel Environmental and Health Impacts of Canada’s Oil Sands Industry Report (Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel 2010) makes a similar recommendation (see page 106 of report). The EIA52 also cites the Royal Society Report recommendation regarding emission control requirements and identifies Fort McKay’s expectation that BATEA is used to manage emissions.53 The issue of the specific air emissions management requirements that Fort McKay is requesting for the Frontier Project are discussed further in Section 8 of this review.
Air Quality Guidelines54 In its reviews of previous oil sands project EIAs and applications, Fort McKay has consistently outlined its view that current Federal and Provincial ambient air quality objectives are not fully protective of health and the environment. Fort McKay has also indicated that the objectives are not intended to be used as pollute‐ up‐to limits. Despite this, the Provincial and Federal objectives continue to be used by proponents as benchmarks of good air quality and as acceptable pollute‐up‐to levels. It is Fort McKay’s interpretation that the Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives (AAAQOs) are intended to serve as compliance limits (Alberta Environment 2011). The AAAQOs are the maximum air quality levels that are acceptable in the vicinity of industrial emission sources and they are not intended to be used as a measure of acceptable general air quality. For these reasons Fort McKay has developed its own air quality criteria and targets that it considers provide a good level of health and environmental protection. It is Fort McKay’s position that these are criteria and targets that industrial facilities in the region must be designed to meet. Fort McKay was pleased that the Frontier Project EIA included the Fort McKay air quality criteria and targets and expects that future project EIAs and applications will include these criteria. However, more importantly, Fort McKay expects that its criteria and targets will be used in decision‐making with respect to emissions management or project acceptability.
51 Volume 4, Section 3.2.3 52 Volume 4, Section 3.2.5.1 53 Volume4, Section 3.2.5.2 54 Volume 4, Section 3.2.4
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐62‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[58] Request
Fort McKay requests that regulators:
i. require all oil sands project EIAs for proposed projects north of Fort McMurray to compare air emission predictions to Fort McKay’s air quality criteria and targets; ii. note that in Volume 4, Section 3, Table 3‐4 no benzene criteria is listed for Fort McKay but Fort McKay proposes a three‐year running annual average benzene criteria of 1 µg/m³. Fort McKay therefore requests a revision of the assessment using this benzene criteria; and iii. require that air impacts of the proposed Frontier Project and any future proposed projects use Fort McKay’s air quality criteria and targets to assess the adequacy of air emission mitigation measures and project acceptability.
[59] – [60] Modeling and Assessment Methodology55 The modeling approach used in the assessment was described as representing “best modeling practice” and as such Fort McKay agrees with the statement in Section 3.3.4.2 that: “The U.S. EPA (2005) indicates that the application of regulatory dispersion models is viewed as a “best estimate” approach and that this approach should be viewed as acceptable to the decision maker.” Fort McKay therefore expects that air quality modeling predictions from this EIA are used to guide decision making regarding the acceptability of this Project and emission control requirements. Emission controls applied to the Project must be consistent with current provincial policy such as the “Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives and Guidelines Summary” (Alberta Environment 2011), the “Using Ambient Air Quality Objectives in Industrial Dispersion Modelling and Individual Industrial Site Monitoring” (Alberta Environment 2011) and the “Industrial Release Limits Policy” (Alberta Environment 2000). In terms of assessment methodology, Fort McKay notes that, like previous oil sands project EIAs, the Frontier Project EIA indicates that “…ambient criteria are not applicable within the development area.” Since oil sands projects occupy very large areas of land, all of which are not subject to disturbance, it is Fort McKay’s expectations that any significant “undisturbed” areas within the overall project development area are maintained in their natural state. This includes ensuring that ambient air quality and acid and nitrogen deposition levels are maintained below levels that will adversely impact these undisturbed areas. Applicable ambient air quality and deposition vegetation protection criteria should apply to these undisturbed areas within the project development area.
55 Volume 4, Sections 3.3.2.1 and 3.3.4
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐63‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[59] Request
Fort McKay requests that regulators:
i. treat air quality modelling predictions in the EIA as best estimates and therefore use them to guide decision making regarding the acceptability of this Project and emission control requirements; and ii. require Teck to meet applicable vegetation protection criteria for air quality, nitrogen and acid deposition rates on undisturbed areas of the Project development area.
[60] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck delineates the undisturbed area within the project development area and the predicted ambient air quality and nitrogen and acid deposition in these areas and that Teck assesses the impact of this air quality and deposition on the ecosystems within these undisturbed areas.
[61] Project Emissions56 The Project does not include any on‐site upgrading. The air emissions associated with the Project will be generated through mining activities and processing the partially deasphalted bitumen. Despite the limited processing of the bitumen, Teck will increase emissions of criteria air contaminants in the region. The major continuous air emission point sources from the project are listed in Table 8‐2.
Table 8‐2: Emission Point Sources Planned As Part of the Frontier Project
Emission rate per piece of Emission Source Count Size equipment (NOχ t/d from application) Natural gas fired cogeneration 2 1248 GJin/h GT 2.61 units (gas turbine and heat 956 GJin/h HRSG recovery steam generator) Natural gas fired auxiliary steam 5 749 GJin/h 0.467 boilers Natural gas fired once through 7 160 GJin/h 0.100 steam generators (OTSG) Natural gas fired once through 1 86.9 GJin/h 0.054 steam generator (OTSG) Natural gas fired heaters 6 28.3 GJin/h 0.018
56 Volume 4, Section 3.4, and Appendix 3A
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐64‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Emission rate per piece of Emission Source Count Size equipment (NOχ t/d from application) Natural gas fired heaters 2 17.7 GJin/h 0.011 Once Through Hot Water 2 374 GJin/h 0.234 Generators (OTHWG) The emission rates listed in Table 8‐2 were modeled as part of the air impacts assessment. These are considered the worst‐case scenario as they reflect the expected compliance limit associated with the specific equipment. It is Fort McKay’s expectation that projects build to the intent of the Interim Emissions Guidelines for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOχ) for New Boilers, Heaters and Turbines using Gaseous Fuels for Oil Sands Region in the Rural Municipality of Wood Buffalo North of Fort McMurray based on a review of Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA) (Alberta Environment 2007), which means performance targets emission rates are the expected “normal” operating mode. This will mean that the actual NOχ emissions from the stationary equipment will be much lower than cited in the application. In addition to the continuous point sources, there will be intermittent emissions from:
emergency diesel electrical power generators – twelve, ranging from 1 to 14 GJin/h; diesel fire pumps – six, ranging from 2 to 3 GJin/h; flares; and space heaters.
Area sources associated with the mining project will include:
mine fleet and other mobile equipment (including five 50 m³ diesel hydraulic shovels and 144‐363 t haulers); tailings ponds; mine faces; and fugitive plant emission sources.
Table 8‐3 summarizes the major emission types from the proposed project and the emissions relative to current regional emission and Base Case emissions. Table 8‐3 indicates that the Project will result in significant increases in emissions when compared to the Current Case (current operating projects and current impacts – 2010).” There will also be increases in CO and VOC emissions from the Project relative to the Base Case. The comparison to Current Case was done by us for the purposes of this review since while Teck prepared a Current Case emissions scenario it did not compare its Project emissions to the Current Case. To better capture the relative impacts, the impact comparisons within the assessment should include a comparison of the Application Case to the Current
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐65‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Table 8‐3: Projected Emissions – Criteria Air Contaminants from the Teck Frontier Project
Sulphur Dioxide Nitrogen Oxides Carbon Monoxide Particulate Matter Volatile Organic Total Reduced Project Emissions57 (SO2) (NOx) (CO) (PM2.5) Compounds (VOCs) Sulphur (TRS) Projected Emissions (t/d) 1.46 19.29 45.8 0.842 83.05 0.485
Major Source(s) Almost all from ~ 50% from stacks ~ 55% from stacks ~ 85% from stacks ~ 70% from ~ 60% from stacks (boilers, heaters (boilers, heaters (boilers, heaters tailings tailings and cogen units) and cogen units) and cogen units) management area management area and ~50% from and 44% from and 15% from and 25% from and 39% from mine fleet mine fleet mine fleet mine mine Emissions Relative to Current (2010 0.4% 6.2% 15.8% 4.7% 33% 8.5% data) Regional Emissions58 Contribution to Total Regional 0.4% 2.8% 5.7% 2.2% 13.2% 4.4% Emissions – Base Case
57 A comparison of major process sources for these emissions and the Project’s contribution to projected total regional emissions. 58 Fort McKay calculated the Project’s emissions relative to the Current Case for the purposes of this review. While Teck produced a Current Case emissions scenario in the environmental assessment it did not compare or assess the Project’s emissions relative to the Current Case. Fort McKay has requested that Teck is required to assess project effects against both the Current Case and Pre‐development Case; see Request [61].
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐66‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Case (i.e., 2010 emissions). When an emissions increase due to the Project is compared to the Base Case, it does not give a full picture of the impacts from all of the currently approved projects. This is particularly evident in comparing the areas that will be subject to higher acid deposition or nitrogen deposition. The Project will increase the area above a certain loading compared to the existing case, but the Frontier Project, in addition to those already approved (and in Teck’s Base Case, “likely to be approved projects”), more than doubles the areas being impacted by acid or nitrogen deposition. This is a significant increase in how Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory is impacted if all projects proceed. It further justifies the need to incorporate best available emissions controls and to have management plans and policies in development. The “Current” to “Base Case” comparison in the relative magnitude of a project’s emissions highlights how the expanding Base Case emission inventory results in a new project’s emissions appearing to have less significance, especially in this situation where Teck has included what they call “likely to be approved” projects such as Shell’s Pierre River Mine and the Dover OPCO Dover Commercial Project. This is misleading since it is the magnitude of a project’s emissions that determine its absolute impact on air quality and deposition. See Section 3.1 for a related discussion and request regarding Fort McKay’s concerns as to how Teck defined the Base Case.
[61] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to compare the Application, Base Case (re‐modelled to include on existing and approved) and Planned Development Cases to the Current Case (2010 data) and to the Pre‐Development Case (pre‐ 1965).
Table 8‐4 compares the proposed emissions from the Frontier Project to emission estimates provided in the EIAs for other oil sands mining projects in the region. The emissions are also calculated on a per‐10,000‐bpd‐of‐production basis to allow a relative comparison of emission intensities. In general the Frontier Project has emission intensities similar to other recently proposed oil sands mines in the region. It is recognized that some of the differences in emission intensities might be the result of different methodologies used to estimate mine fleet and area sources (tailing ponds and mine faces).
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐67‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Table 8‐4: Comparison – Projected Emissions from the Frontier Project Relative to Estimated Emissions from Other Oil Sands Mine Projects
Project and Proposed Project Emissions (tonnes/day) and Emissions on a per 10,000 bpd Basis (shown in brackets; Note: all data taken from the project EIA and regulatory applications for these projects Emission Type Shell Jackpine Mine Shell Muskeg River Total Joslyn N. Shell Pierre River Teck Frontier – Phase 1 Mine Expansion Mine Mine Project Project (200,000 bpd) (120,000 bpd) (100,000 bpd) (200,000 bpd) (277,000 bpd)
SO2 0.22 (0.01) 0.4 (0.033) 0.01 (0.001) 4.10* (0.20) 1.46 (0.053) NOx 18.85 (0.94) 14.3 (1.19) 7.5 (0.75) 12.45* (6.22) 19.29 (0.70) CO 12.63 (0.63) 10.1 (0.84) 6.9 (0.69) 13.31 (6.66) 45.8 (1.65)
PM2.5 0.89 (0.045) 0.5 (0.042) 0.26 (0.026) 0.51 (0.026) 0.842 (0.030) VOC 18.06 (0.90) 13 (1.08) 46 (4.6) 17.39 (8.70) 83.05 (3.0) 0.01 (H S) TRS 0.09 (0.0045) 0.1 (0.008) Not provided 2 0.485 (0.017) (0.0005)
* Note: Shell proposed asphaltene fired cogeneration unit which results in higher SO2, NOx and PM2.5 emissions, but subsequently has decided to implement natural gas cogeneration
In general, Fort McKay expects that the emission intensities of new projects will be less than emission intensities for existing projects. Fort McKay also expects that emission estimates in EIAs and project applications will be validated by actual emission monitoring once the project is operational. Project approvals and federal follow‐up requirements should include conditions requiring operators to measure and report actual compared to predicted emissions. Adjustments to approvals conditions might be warranted if emissions are higher than what were projected in the EIA or application. The following excerpt from a recent Federal monitoring plan report for the region provides support for this position (Environment Canada 2011):
“Performance Monitoring is site/facility‐specific and would be conducted after development has occurred. This type of monitoring would be used, for instance, to verify and/or validate whether predictions made through Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process were accurate. Currently little performance monitoring is conducted and the indicators and parameters used during the EIA eprocess hav little to no connection to the local accumulated state and effects monitoring discussed above. It is critical that performance monitoring be conducted or there will be no mechanism to improve ability to predict impacts of specific developments or to identify whether EIA predictions were accurate”.
Although this statement is focused on impacts, it is necessary to have the quantity and composition of air emissions characterized if the impacts of these emissions are to be assessed.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐68‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[62] Request
Fort McKay requests that regulators:
i. acknowledge that the Frontier Project will be a significant source of air emissions, and make regulatory decisions that ensure pollution prevention and emission minimization principles are applied; ii. require emission estimates used in the EIA and application for the Frontier Project to be validated against actual project emissions at various stages and that this assessment is provided to Fort McKay (approval conditions are tools to ensure this occurs); and iii. include conditions in approvals for the Frontier Project and for other new and renewed applications for projects that the annual report contains the Project’s emission intensities for SO₂, NOχ, VOCs, CO, PM₂.₅ and TRS. iv. set a continuous improvement target in emission intensities for the Frontier Project in its initial approval and in any subsequent approval renewals.
[63] Regional Emissions59 Every EIA uses a slightly different approach for estimating regional emissions from existing and approved and planned projects. This makes cumulative effects assessments difficult. For essentially the same Base Case or Planned Development Case scenarios, emission estimates can vary significantly. The modeling domain for each project varies and, depending on when the EIA or application was prepared, there can be variability in the number of projects and their respective emissions. The emission estimates in this EIA and application are well documented and rationalized. The emission estimates are considered to represent reasonable and somewhat conservative (depending on the contaminant) emission estimates for the Base and the Planned Development Case (PDC). Table 8‐5 and Table 8‐6 provide a comparison of Base Case and PDC regional emission estimates from recent EIAs and regional initiatives. These tables indicate that emission estimates for NOχ, VOCs and CO can vary significantly for essentially the same development scenario. As well, Teck included several projects in its Base Case that it terms “likely to be approved” (including Pierre River Mine, Jackpine Mine Expansion, Dover Commercial), and hence has substantially higher emissions for the Base Case than other projects. The Air Working Group in CEMA is currently developing regional emission inventory preparation protocols and inventories for use in the application of the Regional Acid Deposition Management and Ozone Management Frameworks (Cumulative Environmental Management Association 2012). Preliminary regional emission inventory estimates from this work are shown in Table 8‐5 and Table 8‐6
59 Volume 4, Section 3.4, and Appendix 3A
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐69‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Table 8‐5: Regional Base Case Emission Estimate Comparison Based on Recent EIAs and Other Emission Inventory Estimates
Emission Estimates for Baseline Case (existing + approved projects) (tonnes/day) Shell Pierre R. Parameter Mine & Jackpine Dover OPCO Ivanhoe Tamarack Total Joslyn North Teck Frontier Mine CEMA Emission AENV Inventory Mine Exp. (Dec. 2010) (Oct. 2010) Mine (Feb. 2010) Project60 Inventory Project (Dec. 2007) Sulphur Dioxide 274 219 247 225 253 351 290 Nitrogen Oxides 483 411 508 412 510 684 521 Carbon Monoxide 420 412 419 390 ‐ 804 659 Volatile Organic 682 ‐ 585 580 ‐ 627 248 Compounds Particulate Matter 31.2 31 31 29.6 ‐ 38.5 23.05 (2.5 µm) Total reduced 7.7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10.9 ‐ Sulphur (TRS)
Table 8‐6: Regional Planned Development Case Emission Estimate Comparison Based on Recent EIAs and Other Emission Inventory Estimates
Emission Estimates for Planned Development Case (tonnes/day) Shell Pierre R. Parameter Mine & Jackpine Dover OPCO (Dec. Ivanhoe Tamarack Total Joslyn North Teck Frontier CEMA Emission AENV Inventory Mine Exp. 2010) (Oct. 2010) Mine (Feb. 2010) Mine Project Inventory Project (Dec. 2007) Sulphur Dioxide 323 245 279 253 302 370 312 Nitrogen Oxides 634 507 606 457 696 738 568 Carbon Monoxide 511 609 513 510 ‐ 881 710 Volatile Organic 880 643 764 ‐ 769 274 Compounds PM (2.5 µm) 39.4 37 39.24 34.5 ‐ 41.0 26.6 TRS 9.3 11.77
60 Note that Teck defined Base Case differently than previous EIAs; Teck included “likely to be approved projects” in its Base Case scenario.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐70‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
and are generally lower than EIA estimates. The CEMA work reflects the use of the latest actual emission data from various sources (e.g., mines and tailings ponds) and anticipated mine fleet turnover to lower emitting equipment. 61 These differences in emission estimates for Base Case and PDC scenarios highlight the need for an approach to define RSAs, identify PDC projects and estimate regional emissions that is consistent and has the buy‐in of all regional stakeholders. Without this buy‐in, the associated emission impact modeling will be subject to challenges and lack general credibility.
Regional Emissions Fort McKay notes that many EIAs in the past have downplayed the predicted impacts associated with the PDC on the basis that many of the planned projects would not likely proceed. Table 8‐7 provides the PDC emission estimate from the Shell Jackpine Mine EIA (May 2002) and compares these 2002 PDC emissions to the current regional emissions and Teck’s projected PDC emissions.
Table 8‐7: Previous Planned Development Case Regional Emission estimates Compared to the Frontier EIA Current and PDC Regional Emissions
Project and Emission Estimates (tonnes/day) Shell Jackpine Mine Teck Frontier Mine Parameter Teck Frontier Mine EIA (May 2002) PDC Project Current Regional PDC Regional Emissions Regional Emissions Emissions Sulphur Dioxide 447 310 370 Nitrogen Oxides 441 364 738 Carbon Monoxide 310 290 881 Volatile Organic 709 249 769 Compounds Particulate Matter (2.5 µm) 32.7 18.09 41.0 Total reduced Sulphur (TRS) 4 5.7 11.77 The emission estimates in this table indicate that the 2002 PDC emission estimates for NOχ and CO have almost already been reached (close to current regional emissions). PDC emission estimates for most parameters have increased significantly since 2002. This highlights the need to ensure that emissions are effectively managed and that it is recognized that emission forecasts might actually underestimate future actual emissions.
61 Alberta Environment Emission Inventory (prepared in 2009)
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐71‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[63] Request
Fort McKay requests that regulators:
i. consult with Fort McKay regarding standardization of approaches for estimating air emissions; ii. develop standardized air modeling domains and standardized approaches for estimating air emissions and require all companies preparing regulatory applications to use these approaches. These standards or guidelines would be refined through an ongoing emission validation process62; iii. prior to any project approvals, meet with Fort McKay to consider, review and establish BATEA standards and the use of Fort McKay’s air, odour and PM emission standards or international standards; and iv. acknowledge that Planned Development Case emission estimates might not adequately reflect the total future emissions for some parameters and in fact might be underestimates. This needs to be taken into account when establishing emission management requirements for the Frontier Project.
Mitigation Measures63 Teck indicates that their Frontier Project Application Case includes emission mitigation measures.64 This is taken to mean that the emission estimates included in the application reflect emission control technologies use. Teck commits to employing BATEA for the project.65 The application does not, however, include details of all of the emission control technologies to be employed by the Project. Fort McKay expects that projects on its Traditional Territory use BATEA. To conduct an assessment as to whether the appropriate technologies have been selected, details of the control technologies need to be specified. The ToR66 state that Teck is required to discuss:
“…control technologies used to minimize air emissions such as sulphur dioxide (SO₂), hydrogen sulphide (H₂S), oxides of nitrogen (NOχ), greenhouse gases, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), particulate matter (PMx), carbon monoxide (CO) and ammonia (NH₃).”
62 Note: The CEMA Air Working Group is in the process of developing such a protocol. It is recommended that consideration is given to requiring this protocol to be used in future EIA air quality modeling. 63 Volume 4, Section 3.4.1.3 64 Volume 1, Section 18.2.10 65 Volume 1, Section 18.3.4.3 66 Volume 4, Section 3.2.1
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐72‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
The control technologies to be used were only described in very general terms. This is highlighted in the various emissions sources assessments. NOχ emissions are expected to increase significantly from the current operating case. A recent study conducted by McLinden et al. showed the increased NOχ intensity in the region over the past few years (McLinden et al. 2012). Fort McKay is surrounded by point and mobile sources and therefore is experiencing the effects of increased NO₂ in the region. If the regional NOχ emissions are anticipated to more than double,67 the air quality in Fort McKay will be further impacted by higher levels of NO₂ and particulate matter. It is necessary, therefore, to ensure that NOχ emissions are minimized through the application of best control technology and management plans are identified to help curb the impacts on local air quality. Cumulative NOχ emissions and the resultant ambient NO₂ concentration are of particular concern to the Community of Fort McKay.
[64] – [67] NOχ: Mine Fleet The Frontier Project application estimates that NOχ emissions from the mine fleet will make up approximately half of the Project’s total predicted NOχ emissions. The mine fleet is comprised of a variety of mining equipment, but heavy haulers make up the largest proportion (estimated 144 – 363 t heavy haulers of the total 279 equipment count).68 The application has stated that vehicles compliant with Tier IV emission standards would be purchased by Teck provided they are commercially available.69 The assessment outlines the NOχ emission standards that will be required for Tier IV vehicles.70 To estimate the NOχ emissions contributed by the mine fleet, the assessment used the assumed mine fleet composition including horsepower rating and associated emission standards. It then compensated for operational time and variability in load during operation (application of a load factor).71 The assessment also states that the estimated emissions were increased by 15% to account for potential future debottlenecking. The predicted mine fleet emissions represent a reasonable estimate of actual emissions that might be expected from the mine fleet during the peak production period. There might be some conservatism in the use of a debottlenecking assumption, but it is otherwise a reasonable estimate of actual emissions. Emission testing has been conducted by the Wood Buffalo Environmental Association (WBEA) through the Terrestrial Environmental Effects Monitoring (TEEM) program (as indicated in the Application) to develop “real world” emission
67 Tables 3A‐4, 3A‐6 and 3A‐7 68 Volume 1, Section 4.7, Table 4.7 69 Volume 1, Section 14.4.1.2 70 Appendix Volume 4, Table 3A‐73 71 Appendix Volume 4, Section 3A.4.3
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐73‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
factors. These emission factors already include the load factor as they are measured during actual operation. The load factor and time factor estimates do not represent the worst‐case scenario, but rather an estimate of actual emissions. This is a different approach than has been used for point source emission estimates, where the full compliance limits were used and all units were assumed to be in operation at all times. This assessment, similar to other assessments, uses a more realistic approach to estimating mine fleet emissions and a more conservative approach to estimating NOχ and PM point source emissions. There is currently no guidance provided by regulators to ensure consistent approaches to emission estimates.
[64] Request
Fort McKay requests that regulators provide requirements to proponents including Teck, to achieve consistency in how point and mobile emissions are estimated so that the point does not represent the worst case, while mobile estimates represent an estimate of actual.
Two emission estimates for the Base Cases were developed for NOχ emissions. One assumed that only some of the mine fleets in the Lower Athabasca Region were converted to Tier IV, while the second assumed that all of the mine fleets were Tier IV compliant. This assessment showed that there would be a 33% reduction in NOχ and a 75% reduction in PM₂.₅ if all of the mine fleet was converted to Tier IV standards.72 The commercial availability and supply of Tier IV vehicles has been cited as a challenge for current operators resulting in only a few being in operation. If the Tier IV vehicles are not available at the time of the Project’s construction and procurement, Fort McKay expects that, as a minimum, the more stringent Tier IV requirements still be met. This might mean that retrofit or post‐combustion devices must be installed on those vehicles that do not meet the more stringent requirements. In addition, the emission standards for engines are constantly changing and updated. Should further updates occur to the emission standards for NOχ for mine fleet vehicles, it is expected that Teck commits to meeting the most stringent requirements in effect. This is consistent with current EPEA approval clauses.
[65] Request
Fort McKay requests that:
i. Teck is required to meet the most stringent requirements in place, at a minimum, at the time of Project procurement and construction; and
72 Volume 4, Section 3.4.6
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐74‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
ii. if Tier IV vehicles are not commercially available, at a minimum, all vehicles meet the emission requirements even if this means post‐combustion device installation on vehicles.
NOχ emissions for heavy haulers in Canada (Environment Canada 2012) are based on USEPA Regulations (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2004). The USEPA NOχ emissions for vehicles greater than 750 hp in size that will apply after 2015 are 2.6 g NOχ/hp‐hr.73 For vehicles less than 750 hp the NOχ limit is 0.3 g NOχ/hp‐hr. The largest vehicles are predicted to contribute the most significant portion of NOχ from the mine fleet. If their emission standards were equivalent to next class below (560 to 750 hp), the NOχ emission standards for the heavy haulers would be reduced by greater than 80%. If both sizes of vehicles use similar post‐combustion devices to control their NOχ emissions, there does not appear to be a technical reason as to why the largest heavy haulers would not be able to meet the more stringent requirements. This is something that needs to be considered for future emission standards. Fort McKay believes that an opportunity exists to reduce NOχ emissions from mine fleets. Mine fleets represent a significant source (approximately 25% to 30%) of regional NOχ emissions (Cumulative Environmental Management Association 2012) and the Teck Frontier Mine Oil Sands Project will have mine fleet NOχ emissions of approximately 10 t/d. To put these mine fleet NOχ emissions into perspective, 10t/d of NOχ is put into passenger vehicle equivalents as follows:
the new (2007) USEPA NOχ limits for passenger and light duty vehicles (< 6000 lbs GVW) is a fleet NOχ emission rate of 0.07 g NOχ/mile (Delphi Automotive LLP 2011/2012) one passenger vehicle travelling at 30 mph continuously for one day would emit 50.4 g NOχ/d it would therefore take ~200,000 passenger vehicles going 30 mph for 24 hours to emit 10 t/day of NOχ
This highlights how significant mine fleets and particularly heavy haulers are in terms of NOχ emissions. In setting NOχ limits for greater than 750 hp mobile units the USEPA noted that (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2004):
“We note that the magnitude of NOX reductions determined in the final rule analysis is somewhat less than what was reported in the proposal’s preamble and RIA, especially in the later years when the fleet has mostly turned over to Tier 4 designs. The greater part of this is due to the fact that we have deferred setting a long‐term NOX standard for mobile machinery over 750 horsepower to a later
73This size category includes heavy haulers – which are in the 3500 to 4000 hp range.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐75‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
action. When this future action is completed, we would expect roughly equivalent reductions between the proposal and the overall final program, though there are some other effects reflected in the differing NOX reductions as well, due to updated modeling assumptions and the adjusted NOX standards levels for engines over 750 horsepower.”
The USEPA also noted that:
“The long‐term NOX standard for engines not used in generator sets (mobile machinery) will be addressed in a future action (we are currently considering such an action in the 2007 time frame).”
This action has not occurred with the result that less stringent NOχ emissions are being applied to NOχ emissions from heavy haulers. Individual companies indicate that they do not have the market influence to get manufacturers to produce customized vehicles. Fort McKay does not accept this argument and believes that working collectively with heavy hauler manufacturers mining companies could get lower NOχ emitting vehicles. Another option that Fort McKay has proposed is to apply retrofit NOχ emission controls on purchased and existing heavy hauler units. In this regard Environment Canada (Environment Canda 2008) had a study conducted looking at retrofit possibilities for heavy haulers. The following is an excerpt from that report:
“The authors could not uncover evidence of prior retrofit activity on large mining trucks, but many of these technologies, in particular SCR in combination with a DOC or DPF, have previously been applied to many diesel engines greater than 2,000 hp used for stationary power generation, and to power marine vesselsd an locomotives. Virtually all of these technologies are considered technically viable for application to large mining trucks. In addition, at least one engine manufacturer is already conducting validation tests of new, cleaner replacement engines installed in older mining trucks used in Alberta.
The application of these technologies to large mining trucks could provide significant and cost effective reductions of both NOx and PM from the oil sands mining truck fleet. The authors investigated two retrofit/upgrade scenarios that can reduce NOx emissions by 40% or more compared to projected 2015 baseline levels. Under these scenarios total NOx emissions from the mining truck fleet could be reduced by 40,000 – 65,000 tonnes and total PM emissions could be reduced by 700 – 2,500 tonnes over a 12 year period from 2012 to 2024, compared to projected baseline emissions. The net present value of total costs over the same time period (capital and on‐going operating costs) for these scenarios ranged from $113 million to $181 million. The average cost of emissions reductions achieved by these scenarios ranged from $1,600 ‐ $3,400/tonne for NOx and $9,400 ‐ $30,000/tonne for PM.”
Fort McKay acknowledges that some testing and evaluation would be required to determine the practicality of retrofit NOχ controls but no companies have indicated willingness to test and evaluate such technologies.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐76‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay’s conclusion, based on the above, is that industry is not prepared to go beyond minimum requirements in terms of NOχ emissions from heavy haulers despite the fact that there might be opportunities to achieve significant mine fleet NOχ emission reductions. Fort McKay is therefore requesting that regulators require that Teck and other mining companies seriously explore these opportunities. Regulatory standards can and do cause technology advancement.
[66] Request
Fort McKay requests that Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development imposes NOχ limits on heavy haulers giving industry sufficient notice to develop and aquire the required equipment from the manufacturers.
[67] Request
Fort McKay requests that regulators challenge mine fleet manufacturers to provide specific justification as to why they are not able to meet the more stringent requirements for heavy haulers. This justification should be provided to Fort McKay, to ensure that BATEA is actually being achieved for the most significant contributor to the mine fleet emissions.
[68] – [69] NOχ: Boilers and Heaters The application states that the Frontier Project will use natural gas as the fuel source for boilers, heaters and steam generators required for bitumen extraction and processing. Natural gas produces the lowest amount of NOχ. The application acknowledges Interim Emissions Guidelines for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOχ) for New Boilers, Heaters and Turbines using Gaseous Fuels for Oil Sands Region in the Rural Municipality of Wood Buffalo North of Fort McMurray based on a review of Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA) as the applicable standard limiting the NOχ emissions from the sources (Alberta Environment 2007). This policy states that “design, selection and operation should meet the performance targets”. Unlike the emission estimate for the mobile sources, the application estimates that the boilers and heaters are in operation and emitting at their compliance limit all of the time. In other words, Teck estimated the worst‐case scenario for stationary sources and a realistic scenario for mobile sources. While it is an accepted approach to model the worst‐case scenario, the performance targets are expected to be achieved in accordance with the terms specified in the interim policy. Recent approvals (example Total’s Joslyn North Oil Sands Processing Plant #228044) have clauses that stipulate that the performance targets are the expectation, and that companies must test equipment to meet those performance targets. If they are not able to meet the performance targets, they must provide a plan to achieve the performance targets to the regulators.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐77‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
The performance targets specified in the Interim Emissions Guidelines for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOχ) for New Boilers, Heaters and Turbines using Gaseous Fuels for Oil Sands Region in the Rural Municipality of Wood Buffalo North of Fort McMurray based on a review of Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA) are equivalent to approximately 30% of compliance limit for NOχ for boilers and heaters (Alberta Environment 2007).
[68] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck:
i. clarifies if it plans to meet the intent of the Interim Emissions Guidelines for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOχ) for New Boilers, Heaters and Turbines using Gaseous Fuels for Oil Sands Region in the Rural Municipality of Wood Buffalo North of Fort McMurray based on a review of Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA) performance targets for the design, purchase and operation of boilers, heaters and steam generators covered by the policy; ii. verifies the type of technology specified for the boilers, heaters and steam generators to achieve the performance targets outlined in the Interim Emissions Guidelines for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOχ) for New Boilers, Heaters and Turbines using Gaseous Fuels for Oil Sands Region in the Rural Municipality of Wood Buffalo North of Fort McMurray based on a review of Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA) and provides justification for this technology satisfying BATEA requirements; and iii. provides the testing data to demonstrate performance targets achievement results to Fort McKay.
[69] Request
Fort McKay requests that regulators:
i. stipulate in approval conditions the requirements for testing and demonstrating achievement of the performance targets; and ii. set the performance targets to be applicable for those equipment types that fall under the Interim Emissions Guidelines for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOχ) for New Boilers, Heaters and Turbines using Gaseous Fuels for Oil Sands Region in the Rural Municipality of Wood Buffalo North of Fort McMurray based on a review of Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA).
General information was provided on the combustion technology being used in fired equipment:74
74 Volume 4, Section 3.8.1
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐78‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Selection of dry low NOX 1+ technology to reduce emissions from major combustion fired equipment.
However, the application states:75
Mitigation measures to reduce utility NOX emissions include low NOX burners for all heaters, boilers and steam generators and ultra‐low NOX combustors for the turbines.
Fort McKay reviews project applications to assess whether proponents are employing best management practices and specifying BATEA. To do this effectively, the applications must specify what control technology they are using for their equipment. The two statements above do not provide justification as to what constitutes BATEA nor do the statements provide sufficient or consistent information regarding the type of technology. For these reasons, it is not possible to verify if BATEA has been selected for natural‐gas fired equipment. There is no description for what constitutes “major combustion fired equipment”.
[70] NOχ: Cogeneration and Heat Recovery Steam Generation The estimated emissions from the cogeneration units are 2.61 t/d for each of the two planned units (5.22 t/d total). Teck, therefore, is applying for a project that anticipates their cogeneration units to produce approximately 27% of the total 19.29 t/d NOχ predicted from the entire project. These units are considered significant NOχ emissions sources and need to have the appropriate emission control technology applied. The application states the cogeneration units will use DLN 1+ emission control technology:76
“Using dry low NOχ 1+ technology to reduce emissions and increase the efficiency of the cogeneration plant (i.e., as opposed to selective catalytic reduction, which is an energy‐consuming ‘scrubber’ process).”
In the application, Teck acknowledges two options were reviewed as part of the process (discussed in two non‐consensus reports by CASA). There was no description in the application regarding the relative costs and advantages to each technology. To validate whether BATEA has been selected for the gas turbine and heat recovery steam generator, a more detailed justification of the chosen emission control technology should have been provided as part of the application. Since natural gas will be used as the fuel source for cogeneration, the Interim Emissions Guidelines for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOχ) for New Boilers, Heaters and Turbines using Gaseous Fuels for Oil Sands Region in the Rural Municipality of Wood Buffalo North of Fort McMurray based on a review of Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA) is considered the applicable standard limiting the NOχ
75 Volume 1, Section 14.4.2.1 76 Volume 4, Section 3.4.1.3
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐79‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
emissions from these sources (Alberta Environment 2007). This policy states that “design, selection and operation should meet the performance targets”. Other intermittent NOχ emission sources (diesel‐powered emergency generators and fire water pumps) are expected to be minor. Fort McKay does expect that all emission sources meet the applicable emission standards and that BATEA is employed. No information has been provided on the Project’s intermittent NOχ emission sources.
[70] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck provides more detailed justification for DLN 1+ as BATEA for the cogeneration unit as opposed to SCR. Fort McKay also requests that Teck demonstrates that the performance targets will be achieved as outlined in the Interim Emissions Guidelines for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOχ) for New Boilers, Heaters and Turbines using Gaseous Fuels for Oil Sands Region in the Rural Municipality of Wood Buffalo North of Fort McMurray based on a review of Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA) by its choice of technology.
Fort McKay requests that Teck provides information on intermittent NOχ emission sources and demonstrates how these sources will meet applicable emission standards, and show how they have applied BATEA.
[71] SO₂: All sources Teck predicts that maximum SO₂ concentrations will be 3.2 to 3.6 times less than the AAAQO.77 Fort McKay’s 24‐hour criteria of 20 µg/m³ (based on WHO) is exceeded (predictions in 32 to 33 µg/m³) and Fort McKay’s annual target of 6 µg/m³ is slightly exceeded (predictions ~6.2 µg/m³). Therefore cumulative effects of regional SO₂ emissions are an issue that needs to be addressed (World Health Organization 2006). The application states that SO₂ emissions will result from natural gas combustion in the boilers, heaters, steam generators and cogeneration units as well as SO₂ generated from diesel fuel consumption in the mine fleets. The emission estimates for SO₂ from natural gas combustion are considered conservative as the maximum sulphur content in pipeline quality natural gas was used on a continuous basis. In addition, there might be some SO₂ emitted as a result of combustion of H₂S generated through processing, and recovered through the VRU. This is expected to be minor, but was not estimated as part of the application.
77 Volume 4, Section 3.4.6
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐80‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[71] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck determines how much H₂S might be generated and recovered through the VRU to understand the potential for odours during upset conditions.
[72] Particulate Matter: All sources of Emissions Particulate matter sources from the Project will include combustion sources, mine fleet emissions, mining activities and fugitive emissions. Particulate matter precursors include VOC, NOχ and SO₂ emissions. Teck interprets the results of its assessment as follows:78
“When all mine fleets are assumed to adopt the more stringent Tier IV emissions standards, the maximum predicted 1‐hour PM₂.₅ values marginally exceed the 1‐hour. The CWS is not predicted to be exceeded. The maximum predicted PM₂.5 concentrations decrease by 40% to 50% relative to the assumption of mixed Tier I, II, III and IV emission standard fleets.”
A number of exceedances of Fort McKay’s PM₂.₅ criteria and targets under both mine fleet scenarios are predicted and 1‐hour and 24‐hour AAAQOs are also exceeded under both mine fleet cases. Therefore cumulative effects of regional PM emissions are an issue that needs to be addressed. The Application predicts that there will be exceedances of the PM₂.₅ AAAQG and AAAQO that might be attributable to the Frontier Project. The modeling shows that the predicted exceedances are expected close to the project areas and might be due to mine fleets. The predictions are downplayed by the use of the modeling assumption that the mine fleets will consist of all tiers of vehicles while the proponents anticipate that all mine fleets will meet Tier IV by the time the Frontier Project is operational. Almost all EIAs predict PM₂.₅ exceedances yet project approvals do not require additional PM₂.₅ emission mitigation, which raises questions regarding the purpose and use of AAAQOs and modeling. The Canada‐Wide Standard for PM notes that (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment 2000):
“The long‐term air quality management goal for PM and ozone is to minimize the risks of these pollutants to human health and the environment. However, recent scientific evidence indicates that there is no apparent lower threshold for the effects of these two pollutants on human health.”
This highlights the need for “keeping clean areas clean” as reflected in Fort McKay’s air quality targets. The assessment shows the need to have a management plan in place to address the cumulative impacts of all of the mine fleet vehicles. Not only will new vehicles be
78 Volume 4, Section 3.6.4.6
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐81‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
required to meet the higher standard, but there must also be a plan in place to address the existing mine fleet as described above for NOχ emissions. Particulate matter should be addressed though emission controls and BATEA of mine fleet emissions, boilers heaters and cogeneration equipment as discussed in requests [66] to [72]. Teck also assessed selected metals emissions and their resultant ambient concentrations. The results interpretation is also presented:79
“Maximum predicted metal concentrations are 122 to 4,728 times less than the respective AAAQO.”
Lack of easily accessible and useable data on regional metal emissions and metal levels (gaseous and particulate bound) in ambient air make it difficult to provide informed comments on the predictions and conclusions. The credibility and usefulness of model predictions depends on the availability of actual emission and air quality data to validate model predictions and to ensure that all the relevant elements and compounds are addressed. This is not possible as the data is not available.
[72] Request
Fort McKay requests that regulators require monitoring and measurement through their monitoring and research programs to understand the cumulative effects of metals emissions and provide that data to regional stakeholders, including Fort McKay.
[73] Fugitive Emissions, VOCs and TRS The ToR require that Teck discuss:80
“…fugitive emission control technology to detect, measure and control emissions and odours from equipment leaks…”
While the inclusion of a source monitoring and reporting program is discussed in general terms in the application, the technology that will be used to detect and measure emissions and odours was not specified. This is a deficiency in the application. The application estimates that the most significant source of VOC emissions will originate from tailings management. The next most significant source of VOC emissions is expected to be from the mine face. Fort McKay agrees with the assessment that these are likely the most significant sources of VOC emissions. The emissions from the tailings ponds and mine face are based on emission factors and
79 Volume 4, Section 3.6.4.6 80 Volume 4, Section 3.2.1
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐82‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
estimates from existing facilities. Mitigation discussed to minimize tailing pond emissions included diluent losses minimization to less than 4 volumes/1000 volumes of diluent.81 This diluent loss target has been in place for several years for other mining operations. With continuous improvement, Fort McKay expects that Teck would minimize the diluent losses to less than the specified target. In the assessment, Teck interprets that the “maximum predicted reduced sulphur concentrations are 1.4 and 4.2 times less than the respective AAAQO”. While this might be true, the actual hydrogen sulphide levels in Fort McKay have often exceeded the AAAQOs as noted in the EIA. A key issue with respect to reduced sulphur compounds is that there are only AAAQOs for two compounds (hydrogen sulphide and carbon disulphide). Limiting assessments to only those compounds covered by AAAQOs creates the potential to miss significant impacts from other reduced‐sulphur compounds. There is limited information on individual reduced‐sulphur compound emissions and ambient air quality levels. Fort McKay’s odour event sampling has identified many other reduced‐sulphur compounds (see Section 8.3 on odours in this review for a listing of these compounds). The conclusions regarding reduced sulphur compounds therefore need to be considered in this context. The impacts of many reduced‐ sulphur compounds were not assessed.
[73] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck:
i. identifies what technology it will use to detect and measure emissions and odours from equipment leaks, including tailings ponds and mine faces, and supply that information to Fort McKay to verify that the appropriate technology is employed; and ii. the regulators review current practices regarding mimimizing diluent loss, provide that information to Fort McKay for review and comment and revise the standard diluent loss volume (currently 4 volumes/1000 volumes) to reflect a more up‐to‐date standard and continuous improvement.
[74] Flaring and Upsets The ToR require that Teck discusses “emergency flaring scenarios (e.g., frequency and duration) and proposed measures to ensure flaring events are minimized”. The application states that the largest upset for flaring is anticipated to be due to cooling water failure.82 This will result in produced gases flaring containing sulphur compounds, and will generate SO₂ emissions. Fort McKay is concerned with the predicted frequency of these upsets. The application states:
81 Volume 4, Section 3.4.1.3 82 Appendix 3A, Section 3A.2.3.2
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐83‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
“Frequency of flaring due to cooling water failure is expected to occur once per week.”
If the designed reliability of the cooling water system is such that it is expected to fail on a weekly basis, this raises questions as to whether it is designed using the best practices. Process upsets are expected, but expecting weekly failures does not meet best practices or fulfill the ToR requirement to discuss how this flaring would be minimized.
[74] Request
Teck expects the largest potential upset for flaring to be associated with weekly cooling water failures. Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to improve its cooling water system design to a higher reliability and to show how the design will meet the requirements of “best practices”.
[75] – [76] Continuous Improvement The application states that:83
“A continual improvement framework will be adopted to examine opportunities during the advanced design stage and during the operation stage to further reduce or manage emissions.”
In addition, the application outlines what Teck expects to do with respect to continual improvement.84 This includes participation in organizations and research to reduce emissions and advance energy efficiency and technology “in an effort to outperform regulations.” Once projects and emission rates are approved, justification of changes to reduce emissions or new technology implementation becomes more difficult. Fort McKay recognizes that challenge but requests that Teck commits to implementing the best technology available at the time of construction and as opportunities occur through the lifetime of the Project. Continual improvement plans must be meaningful and result in environmental benefits.
[75] Request
Fort McKay requests that regulators require Teck to develop a continuous improvement plan and that it is an integral part of the approval process.
83 Volume 4, Section 3.8.1 84 Volume 4, Section 3.4.1.3
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐84‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[76] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck:
i. is required to implement the best available technology at the time of construction and through equipment replacement (capital stock turnover) throughout the life of the Project; and ii. reports progress towards continuous improvement plans implementation and environmental benefits achieved.
8.3 Odours The information reviewed in this section refers to odour85 and health‐related substances as well as Odours. The application states:
“Ambient concentrations in communities are of potential interest as high ambient concentrations are associated with adverse human health effects and odour events.”
It should be noted that “high” is a relative term that can be misleading in this context. Due to the proximity of the Community to the sources of odour‐causing substances, the ambient concentrations will be “low”, but might be in sufficient concentration to create odours and qualit‐ of‐life impacts. Assessments must acknowledge that sub part per million and sub part per billion levels of some compounds or mixtures of compounds can create odours. The use of the phrase “high ambient concentrations” in this context is not appropriate. The Application and EIA for the Frontier Project included a more extensive list and detailed review of odour‐causing emissions than in prior EIAs. While Fort McKay appreciates the additional efforts to characterize and estimate odour‐causing emissions, there are still some concerns with the approach. Teck acknowledges that the AAAQOs do not necessarily indicate whether an odour will be detected. AAAQOs are a regulatory tool, and are not necessarily indicative of a point where impacts might be occurring.
[77] – [79] Odourous Emissions The application states that because the Frontier Project does not have an upgrader, the potential for odourous emissions is expected to be relatively low.86 However, a significant source of VOC and TRS emissions (odourous compounds) are existing tailings ponds. There will be tailings ponds as part of this Project. In addition, Teck indicates that it anticipates the tailings pond and mine face emissions to be major sources of TRS and VOCs. Teck lists 58.5 t/d of VOC emissions is expected from the
85 Volume 4, Section 3.6.4 and 3.6.4.3 86 Volume 4, Section 3.8.2
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐85‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
tailings ponds (70% of the project total) and 0.293 t/d TRS (60% of project total TRS) to come from tailings ponds.87 The reference condition for existing emission sources indicates that for the existing case, tailing areas are the largest contributor to VOCs (49% of existing total) and TRS compounds (53% of existing total).88 For the existing case, 123.1 t/d of VOCs (248.92 t/d total) are estimated to come from tailings areas, while 2.83 t/d of TRS (5.87 t/d total) from tailings. This information indicates that the Project does have the potential to increase the occurrence of odours as both VOCs and TRS can contribute to odours. Fort McKay believes that more mitigation measures need to be in place to control potential odour‐causing substances emissions. There are issues and shortcomings in the regional assessment and management of odour issues that need to be addressed urgently. Therefore, until Fort McKay has confidence that companies are taking all reasonable measures to control odourous emissions, and that regional odour issues are being adequately addressed, Fort McKay cannot support any more oil sands‐related projects on its Traditional Territory.
Odour Assessment The application examines predicted health‐ and odour‐related air contaminants concentration relative to ambient air quality objectives and criteria and odour thresholds.89 This evaluation includes assessing predicted ambient concentrations in relation to Fort McKay’s air quality criteria and targets. This is a very positive step in that it provides EIA information that allows the community to assess potential project and cumulative impacts to community‐based criteria. The health and odour assessment covers criteria air contaminants, e.g., SO₂, NO₂, CO and PM₂.₅ and a number of hydrocarbon and reduced‐sulphur compounds. Many of these compounds are potentially odourous either singly, or in combination, depending on their concentration. Odours within Fort McKay, and on Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory, are a major concern to the Community and significantly impact enjoyment and quality of life. Odours also result in associated concerns among community members regarding the impacts of both odourous and non‐odourous compounds on human health, on wildlife and on the environment in general. Regarding regional odours, the 2010 Royal Society on Oil Sands indicated that (Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel 2010):
87 Volume 4, Table 3‐9 88 Volume 4, introductory summary, Section 3.4.2 and Table 3‐10 89 Volume 4, Section 3.6.4
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐86‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
“Resolution of the odour problems being caused by oil sands developments is clearly necessary.”
The report also indicated that:
“Although odour has often been considered a nuisance rather than a health effect, chronic odours become a burden on community well‐being which ultimately leads to stress with the possibility of associated health effects.”
The Community’s issues and concerns regarding odours are discussed in detail in the Fort McKay Specific Assessment (Fort McKay Industry Relations Corporation (IRC) 2010), which outlines the following expectations regarding regional odours:
there should be no detectable odours in the Community under normal industrial operating conditions, odour episodes under industrial upset conditions are of short duration and do not create a severe nuisance problem and never represent a health risk, and odours on Fort McKay Traditional Territory outside development areas are very infrequent.
The EIA identifies these expectations.90 Fort McKay therefore appreciates Teck’s efforts to assess emissions impact, and other regional emissions, on odours in the community using Fort McKay’s odour related criteria and targets. Fort McKay acknowledges that assessing multiple emission sources’ potential odour impacts, each consisting of multiple potential odourants, is challenging. In this regard it is Fort McKay’s view that the Teck assessment likely significantly underestimates the impact of both its and other operators’ emissions on potential local and regional odour issues. The reasons for this are: 1) Odour Thresholds: The odour thresholds used in the EIA are generally higher and in some cases much higher than currently recognized and scientifically defensible odour threshold values. 2) Odour Assessment: The comparison of predicted single compound concentrations to an odour threshold for that compound and using that as a measure of whether or not the compound will create an odour potential fails to consider the effect of mixtures of odourants, which tend to be additive in effect particularly at lower concentrations. 3) Odourous Compounds: The assessment deals only with certain odourous compounds and, based on other regional project EIAs and on monitoring conducted by Fort McKay, there is a much longer list of potentially odourous compounds being emitted in the region (Spink and Dennis 2010).
90 Volume 4, Section 3.2.5.2
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐87‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Odour Thresholds In terms of the odour thresholds used in the EIA, it appears that some of these values are much higher than values that are recognized as being based on rigorous standardized testing protocols such as those used by Nagata (Nagata 2003). The issue of odour threshold reliability and reproducibility has been addressed by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 2010). Table 8‐8 compares the odour thresholds used in the EIA versus those from TCEQ or Nagata. Note: where TCEQ has a “final” odour effect screening level (ESL) it is often based on Nagata.
Table 8‐8: Teck Fronter EIA Odour Thresholds to TCEQ or Nagata (2003) Odour Thresholds ‐ Comparison
Odour Chemical Threshold Molecular EIA Odour Ratio EIA/ Abstract from TCEQ Compound(s) Weight Threshold (TCEQ or Service CAS) "final" or (MW) (ug/m³) Nagata) # Nagata (µg/m³)* Carbon Disulphide 75‐15‐0 76.14 495 654 0.0 Hydrogen Sulphide 7783‐06‐04 34.05 11.5 0.6 19.2 Methyl Mercaptan 74‐93‐1 48.11 0.8 0.14 5.7 Ethyl Mercaptan 75‐08‐1 62.13 1.4 0.022 63.6 Thiophenes (use 110‐02‐1 84.14 486 1.9 255.8 thiophene)
* The TCEQ Final Values were used when available and if not then the Nagata (2003) value was used
Table 8‐8 indicates that, for most of the odourants assessed in the EIA, high to very high odour threshold were used. The impacts associated with hydrogen sulphide and thiophenes are therefore likely significantly underestimated and the possible impacts of compounds like mercaptans discounted. When determining potential odour impacts, scientifically defensible odour thresholds should be used. AAAQOs are regulatory instruments not impact determination criteria. The acceptability of impacts can be considered relative to AAAQOs but cannot be used, as “no impact level” since Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development has indicated that AAAQOs do not represent “safe” or “no impact levels” (Clean Air Strategic Alliance 2009). In summary, for odour impact determinations to be meaningful, Level 1 odour thresholds like those from Nagata need to be used in EIAs (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 2010).
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐88‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Mixtures In terms of odour assessments, the use of a single‐compound‐by‐single‐compound approach fails to recognize that at lower concentrations, i.e., at or below threshold levels, odourants effects can be additive (Cometto‐Muniz, Cain and Abraham 2004) (Kim and Park 2008). For example Schiffman et al. in a study on odours from swine operations noted that (Schiffman, Bennett and Raymer 2001):
“The compounds identified were diverse, and included many acids, alcohols, aldehydes, amides, amines, aromatics, esters, ethers, fixed gases, halogenated hydrocarbons, hydrocarbons, ketones, nitriles, other nitrogen‐containing compounds, phenols, sulfur‐containing compounds, steroids, and other compounds. The vast majority of these compounds were present at concentrations below published odor and irritation thresholds. Yet human assessments indicated that odors (and irritant sensations) in the immediate vicinity of the swine houses (and even at distances beyond 1000ft) were strong. Comparison of the findings from chemical and human assessment points to the importance of the cumulative effects of hundreds of compounds in producing odor and irritation downwind of swine operations.”
The variety of aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons, ketones, aldehydes and reduced‐sulphur compounds associated with oil sands operations creates a similar type situation in the Fort McMurray area. Therefore any potential odour impacts assessment must consider cumulative effects of all odourants.
Odourants The number of potential odourants, and odourant groups, assessed in the EIA was relatively short. Some previous EIAs and Fort McKay’s odour event monitoring program have identified a number of possible odourant compounds that were not included in this EIA. Table 8‐9 is the list of odourants assessed in the STP McKay Thermal Project – Phase 2 (Southern Pacific Resource Corp. 2011).
Table 8‐9: STP EIA Odour Thresholds to TCEQ or Nagata (2003) Odour Thresholds – Comparison
EIA Odour Threshold Compound(s) CAS # MW (µg/m³) 1‐3‐ Butadiene 106‐99‐0 54.09 352 2‐Methyl Napthalene 91‐57‐6 142.2 58 1‐3 Butadiene 106‐99‐0 54.09 352 2‐Methyl Napthalene 91‐57‐6 142.2 58 Acenaphthene 83‐32‐9 154.21 5048 Acetaldehyde 75‐07‐0 44.05 90 Acrolein 107‐02‐8 56.06 370 Aromatics C9‐C16 440
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐89‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
EIA Odour Threshold Compound(s) CAS # MW (µg/m³) Benzene 71‐43‐2 78.11 38400 C5‐C8 Aliphatics 86000 C9‐C18 Aliphatics 3700 Carbon Disulphide 75‐15‐0 76.14 30 Carbon Monoxide 630‐08‐0 28.01 Dichlorobenzene (use 1,4 for 106‐46‐7 147.01 1000 odour threshold) Ethylbenzene 100‐41‐4 106.16 9982 Formaldehyde 50‐00‐0 30.03 1018 Hydrogen Sulphide 7783‐06‐04 34.05 14 Mercaptans (CAS# based on 74‐93‐1 48.11 11 methyl) Napthalene 91‐20‐3 128.16 440 n‐Hexane 110‐54‐3 86.17 457300 Nitrogen Dioxide 10102‐44‐0 46.01 400 Sulphur Dioxide 7446‐09‐5 64.07 2900 Thiophenes (use thiophene) 110‐02‐1 84.14 1000 Toluene 108‐88‐3 92.13 10900 Xylenes (use para for odour 106‐42‐3 106.16 4800 threshold)
* The TCEQ Final Values were used when available and if not then the Nagata (2003) value was used
The compounds that have been detected by Fort McKay in at least one odour event sampling at a level above 0.1 of a “screening level” odour threshold are shown in Table 8‐10. The “screening levels” used are largely based on TCEQ (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 2010) or Nagata (Nagata 2003), consistent with the above discussion on appropriate selection of odour thresholds.
Table 8‐10: Possible Odourous Compounds of Interest in the Fort McMurray region based on Fort McKay’s Odour Event Canister Sampling Program
Max. Conc./Odour Compound Name CAS Mol Formula Units Measured Threshold Concentration 2 ethyl hexanol 104‐76‐7 C₈H₁₈O ppbv 17.40 0.12 2,5‐dimethyl 638‐02‐8 C₆H₈S ppbv 0.2 0.36 Thiophene
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐90‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Max. Conc./Odour Compound Name CAS Mol Formula Units Measured Threshold Concentration 2‐methyl Thiophene 554‐14‐3 C₅H₆S ppbv 0.72 1.3 3‐methyl Thiophene 616‐44‐4 C₅H₆S ppbv 0.24 0.43 Acetaldehyde 75‐07‐0 C₂H₄O ppbv 1.06 1.33 Acrolein 107‐02‐8 C3H₄O ppbv 5.87 1.63 Allyl sulphide 592‐88‐1 C₆H₁₀S ppbv 0.11 5.5 Benzene, 1‐ethyl‐2‐ 611‐14‐3 C₇H₁₄ ppbv 0.48 1.23 methyl‐ Carbon disulphide 75‐15‐0 C₂S₂ ppbv 2.26 0.28 Carbonyl sulphide 463‐58‐1 COS ppbv 2.11 0.04 Dimethyl disulphide 624‐92‐0 C₂H₆S₂ ppbv 12.9 64.5 Dimethyl sulphide 75‐18‐3 C₂H₆S ppbv 0.33 0.33 Hydrogen sulphide 7783‐06‐4 H₂S ppbv 10.2 25 Isoprene 78‐79‐5 C₅H₈ ppbv 2.15 0.43 Methyl ethyl ketone 78‐93‐3 C₄H₈O ppbv 1.91 0.22 Naphthalene 91‐20‐3 C₁₀H₈ ppbv 25.2 0.66 Nonanal 124‐19‐6 C₉H₁₈O ppbv 0.28 0.12 Thiophene 110‐02‐1 C₄H₄S ppbv 0.08 0.14
*10 Sampling Events (20‐10 minute canister samples) May 11, 2010 to May 24, 2011 in Fort McKay during odour events
As part of this review, the measured and predicted hydrocarbon levels that were assessed in the Teck Frontier EIA, along with the measured and predicted SO₂ and NO₂ levels, were compared to TCEQ (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 2010) or Nagata (Nagata 2003) odour thresholds. This comparison is shown in Table 8‐11. The comparison demonstrates the potential for acetylaldhyde to be a significant odourant and for NO₂, SO₂ and styrene to possibly contribute to odours. This information is presented to illustrate that there appear to be many compounds that have the potential to contribute to regional odours based on both currently measured and on predicted future levels associated with oil sands development. This highlights the need to identify all significant regional emission sources, to characterize these sources, and to develop strategies to minimize the odourants in these sources. In conclusion, while it is recognized that conducting odour analysis requires information on the characteristics of possible odourous emission sources, which is lacking in the region, EIAs need to identify that this is a deficiency and likely results in odour impacts underestimates.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐91‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Table 8‐11: Measured and Predicted Hydrocarbons and Criteria Air Contaminants Levels Assessed in the Teck Frontier EIA Relative to Odour Thresholds (Red) and those Compounds that Might Contribute to Odour Events in Fort McKay (Blue)
Model Odour predicted Threshold Model 1‐hour conc x TCEQ final Measured 3 Minute Predicted 1 2.6 to give 3 or Nagata Conc. Conc. 3 Minute hour conc. min prediction 3 Minute Predicted Compound CAS # MW (µg/m³)* µg/m³** (µg/m³)*** Conc./OT (µg/m³) **** Conc./OT average 7.4 46.176 25.7 Acetaldehyde 75‐07‐0 44.05 1.8 7.440 19.3 10.7 maxima 17.3 107.952 60.0 average 1 6.24 0.001 Benzene 71‐43‐2 78.11 8700 3.340 8.7 0.001 maxima 8.8 54.912 0.006 average 0.3 1.872 0.003 Ethylbenzene 100‐41‐4 106.16 740 4.040 10.5 0.014 maxima 1.7 10.608 0.014 average 0.6 3.744 0.006 Formaldehyde 50‐00‐0 30.03 620 4.000 10.4 0.017 maxima 1 6.24 0.010 average 0.9 5.616 0.001 n‐Hexane 110‐54‐3 86.17 5286 36.300 94.4 0.018 maxima 9.6 59.904 0.011 maximum Nitrogen Dioxide 10102‐44‐0 46.01 226 100 260 1.15 154.000 400.4 1.8 (hourly) maximum Sulphur Dioxide 7446‐09‐5 64.07 2280 481 1250.6 0.55 125.000 325.0 0.143 (hourly) average 0.3 1.872 0.017 Styrene 100‐42‐5 104.15 110 0.012 0.03 0.0003 maxima 3.5 21.84 0.20 average 1 6.24 0.010 Toluene 108‐88‐3 92.13 640 22.000 57.2 0.089 maxima 6.2 38.688 0.060 Xylenes (use para average 1.2 7.488 0.030 for odour 106‐42‐3 106.16 250 36.700 95.4 0.382 threshold) maxima 6.2 38.688 0.155
* The TCEQ Final Values were used when available and if not then the Nagata (2003) value was used
Teck Energy Telephone Lake Project ‐92‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Based on the results from Fort McKay’s odour event monitoring program, it has been the case that on most occasions all measured compounds were below odour thresholds yet odours were often very strong, highlighting the issue of the additive effect of individual odourants. As part of the ToR, Teck was required to discuss any impacts to air quality, including odours, for “local residents and actively used cabins”. While an assessment was done for J. Boucher’s cabin, the odour assessment approach used in the analysis performed by Teck should be consistent with the recommendations included herein.
[77] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to:
i. re‐do the odour impact assessment using the TCEQ and Nagata (2003) odour thresholds outlined in Table 8‐11, that it expands the list of odourants assessed, and that it uses one of the additive effect approaches outlined by Kim and Park (2008) to assess cumulative impacts of individual odourants; and ii. undertake source and fugitive emissions monitoring and ambient monitoring to verify its predictions regarding odourant emissions and their impact from the Frontier Mine Project.
[78] Request
Fort McKay requests that regulators:
i. provide project applicants with a standardized list of odourants and related odour thresholds to be used in odour assessments and guidance on how to consider mixtures of odourants; and ii. require, and companies undertake, odour‐related source and ambient air monitoring to improve modeling related to odours and to guide effective odour management.
It is Fort McKay’s expectation that the Community will not experience oil sands‐ related odours except under unavoidable upset conditions or rare meteorological conditions and that the level and frequency of odours in its Traditional Territory, including its reserve lands, will not adversely impact Community members’ use and enjoyment of these lands. Fort McKay envisions a project, led by regulators and supported by Teck, which collects, collates and publishes all hydrocarbon and reduced‐sulphur monitoring data that has been generated to date related to mine faces, tailings ponds and fugitive bitumen processing and upgrading emissions. Fort McKay would like the opportunity review this information to identify information gaps and help devise a strategy to address these gaps. This program
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐93‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
would be developed by regional stakeholders and implemented by regulators and companies. Fort McKay is open to this activity being a task of CEMA’s Air Working Group.
[79] Request
Fort McKay requests that the regulators collect, collate and publish all hydrocarbon and reduced‐sulphur monitoring data that has been generated to date related to mine faces, tailings ponds and fugitive bitumen processing and upgrading emissions. Fort McKay requests the opportunity to review this information to identify information gaps and have input on devising a strategy to address these gaps.
The application also states that it will support “regional odour monitoring and reporting protocols outlined by WBEA”. Fort McKay is not aware of any WBEA odour reporting or protocols in the region. The community is becoming more active in community‐based odour monitoring and reporting. As such, Fort McKay requests that Teck supports their community‐based monitoring efforts to better understand and facilitate odour emissions management in the area.
[80] Visibility or Regional Haze Teck assessed regional visibility impacts.91 The approach used to assess regional visibility or haze is useful as it is an attempt to understand the long‐range visibility impacts due to cumulative haze precursors (such as VOC, SO₂, PM₂.₅, NOχ). In the pre‐development case, it is very likely that the visibility was only impaired by localized emissions or wildfires. In the existing emissions case, or current operations of the mining and processing facilities, Teck assessed that the regional visibility for the most part would be either excellent or impaired slightly. As haze precursors emissions are anticipated to increase, regional visibility is expected to further deteriorate. The assessment indicates that while there will likely be an impact to regional visibility, it is not anticipated that this will be a significant change from the existing case throughout the region. Regional haze increases will be a concern for the people living in the area, specifically the community members of Fort McKay. While the assessment developed a “first order” approximation of the impacts to regional haze, it demonstrates how the cumulative emissions will impact regional visibility. A regulatory tool should be implemented to manage the impacts to regional haze. This would include management for emissions that are precursors to regional haze. It is noted in the assessment that it is not a regulatory requirement to conduct regional visibility as was done for this Project. While stack plumes visibility is an
91 Volume 4, Section 3.6.9
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐94‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
impact to the area, regional haze or regional visibility impairment might become an issue due to the cumulative impacts of haze precursor emissions. Project visibility and regional haze assessments should be a measure used for future assessments. Currently, there is no visibility monitoring device active in the local airshed. To provide some information to understand the impacts to regional haze, it is recommended that visibility monitors are used.
[80] Request
Fort McKay requests that regulators:
i. require regional haze or visibility monitoring within the region to determine how emissions from the development are impacting visibility; and ii. lead the development of a regulatory tool with input from Fort McKay, that will enable comparison of monitoring information and input into management of emissions of precursors.
Monitoring and Management92
[81] – [82] Ambient Air Monitoring The assessment states that the air monitoring stations are located on a north‐south bias due to access limitations.93 While this is true to an extent, the air monitoring stations were sited mainly for compliance monitoring and the development of facilities has been along the Athabasca River. Meteorological data assessment in the region also showed a strong channeling of wind along the river valley. South‐ to‐north winds dominate during certain times of the year, and at other times north‐to‐south winds dominate. The air monitoring stations are, therefore, situated to monitor emissions from the facilities in the region. Teck describes its intentions for ambient monitoring along with its participation in regional committees (CEMA, WBEA).94 The application states that it might be required to have a continuous air monitoring station as part of its EPEA approval and will support air quality monitoring within the region. Consultation on the location and parameters to be monitored by the station(s) will include Alberta and possibly WBEA. While Fort McKay supports air quality monitoring within the region and is currently a member of WBEA, Fort McKay expects to be consulted directly to ensure its specific monitoring needs are addressed. This is currently not done through the local airshed. As this project is on Fort McKay Traditional Territory and will have an influence on local and regional air quality, Fort McKay requests
92 Volume 4, Section 3.7 and Volume 1, Sections 14.4.3 and 14.11.6 93 Volume 4, Section 3.5.3 94 Volume 4, Section 3.7.1.2
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐95‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
that they are directly consulted regarding the final location of the continuous air monitoring station(s). No information was provided in the application regarding passive or deposition monitoring, which is also Fort McKay’s expectation. While the dominant wind direction in the area is from the south, and direct impacts to the Community from the Frontier Project are expected to be relatively low, the application identifies significant Noχ emissions, and increasing emissions of odour‐causing substances. A continuous air monitoring station should include continuous monitoring of NO₂, NO, NOχ, O₃, PM₂.₅, NMHC, THC, TRS and meteorological parameters. Capability for intermittent sampling for VOCs and TRS should also be required.
[81] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck:
i. provides, and the Government of Alberta require, an attribution‐based continuous monitoring station as part of the Frontier Project; ii. provides a continuous air monitoring station to monitor NO, NO₂, NOχ, SO₂, TRS, NMHC, THC, PM₂.₅, O₃, and typical meteorological parameters (wind speed, wind direction, temperature, relative humidity); iii. provides passive monitoring for acid deposition, nitrogen deposition; and iv. commits to direct consultation with Fort McKay on the location and parameters to be monitored at any continuous air monitoring stations located on Fort McKay Traditional Territory.
[82] Request
Fort McKay requests that the regulators directly consult with Fort McKay and Teck as to the location of any compliance or attribution air monitoring stations.
[83] Source Monitoring The application states the source monitoring requirements that Teck expects to implement for the Project.95 Continuous emission monitoring and stack testing requirements for NOχ are planned to comply with the provincial stack monitoring and testing codes and approval conditions. Information regarding the NOχ emissions from the boilers and heater must be reported as part of the approval requirements to demonstrate compliance with emission limits. Fort McKay has requested that Teck achieves the performance targets as outlined in the Interim
95 Volume 4, Section 3.7.1.2
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐96‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Emissions Guidelines for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOχ) for New Boilers, Heaters and Turbines using Gaseous Fuels for Oil Sands Region in the Rural Municipality of Wood Buffalo North of Fort McMurray based on a review of Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA) (Alberta Environment 2007). To ensure that every attempt has been made to achieve those performance targets, Fort McKay will request the results of the boiler and heater emission testing. For point sources and mobile mine fleets, the source monitoring outlined in the application meets the Community’s expectations. In addition, the application outlines monitoring that it is anticipating for area sources that include the tailings ponds and mine face. This information will be helpful for Fort McKay to understand how the emissions estimates modeled as part of the assessment compare to actual operating emission monitoring results.
[83] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck provides results of the:
i. CEMS and stack tests to demonstrate compliance with approval limits and to verify that Teck is striving to achieve performance targets outlined in their approval; and ii. emission surveys for VOCs and sulphur compounds from mine faces and tailings ponds; this will be used to assess actual versus predicted emissions from these sources.
8.4 Air Quality Key Concerns and Requests Summary
Table 8‐12: Air Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [57] Assessment Fort McKay requests that regulators require: Regulatory Approach i) regulators require all oil sands project EIAs for proposed projects north of Fort McMurray to include both Pre‐development and Current Case assessments. ii) Teck to model the Base Case with only existing and approved projects. iii) Teck to compare the Planned Development Case, Application and re‐modelled Base Case against the Current and Pre‐development cases (i.e. the Current and Pre‐development cases should be the ‘baseline’ against which the existing, approved, planned developments and the Project should be assessed against.)
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐97‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [58] Air Quality Fort McKay requests that regulators: Regulatory Criteria i) require all oil sands project EIAs for proposed projects north of Fort McMurray to compare predicted air emissions to Fort McKay’s air quality
criteria and targets;
ii) note that in Table 3‐4, Vol. 4, Section 3 no benzene criteria is listed for Fort McKay but Fort McKay proposes a three‐year running annual average benzene criteria of 1 µg/m³. Fort McKay therefore requests a revision of the assessment using this benzene criteria; and
iii) require that air impacts of the proposed Frontier Response Project and any future proposed projects use Fort McKay’s air quality criteria and targets to assess the adequacy of air emission mitigation measures and project acceptability. [59] Modeling and Fort McKay requests that regulators: Regulatory Assessment i) treat air quality modelling predictions in the EIA as Methodology best estimates and therefore use them to guide decision‐making regarding the acceptability of this project and emission control requirements; and ii) require Teck to meet applicable vegetation protection criteria for air quality, nitrogen and acid deposition rates on undisturbed areas of the Frontier project development area. [60] Modeling and Fort McKay requests that Teck delineates the undisturbed Response Assessment area within the project development area and the Methodology predicted ambient air quality and nitrogen and acid deposition in these areas and that Teck assess the impact of this air quality and deposition on the ecosystems within these undisturbed areas. [61] Assessment Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to compare the Response Cases Application and Base Cases to the Current Case (2010 emissions data) and to the Pre‐Development Case (pre‐ 1965). [62] Project Fort McKay requests that regulators: Emissions i) acknowledge that the Frontier Project will be a significant source of air emissions, and make regulatory decisions that ensure pollution prevention and emission minimization principles are applied;
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐98‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [62] Project ii) require emission estimates used in the EIA and (cont’d) Emissions application for the Frontier Project to be validated (cont’d) against actual project emissions at various stages and that this assessment is provided to Fort McKay; approval conditions are tools to ensure this occurs; and iii) include conditions in approvals for the Frontier Project and for other new and renewed applications for projects that the annual report contains the project’s emission intensities for SO₂, NOχ, VOCs, CO, PM₂.₅ and TRS. iv) set a continuous improvement target in emission intensities for the Frontier Project in its initial approval and in any subsequent approval renewals. [63] Regional Fort McKay requests that regulators: Regulatory Emissions i) consult with Fort McKay regarding standardization of approaches for estimating air emissions ii) Develop standardized air modeling domains and standardized approaches for estimating air emissions and require all companies preparing regulatory applications to use these approaches. These standards or guidelines would be refined through an ongoing emission validation process; iii) prior to any project approvals, meeting with Fort McKay to consider, review and establish BATEA standards and the use of Fort McKay’s air, odour and PM emission standards or international standards; and iv) acknowledge that Planned Development Case emission estimates might not adequately reflect the total future emissions for some parameters and in fact might be underestimates. This needs to be taken into account when establishing emission management requirements for the Frontier Project.
[64] NOχ and PM2.5: Fort McKay requests that regulators provide requirements Regulator Mine Fleet to proponents including Teck to achieve consistency in how point and mobile emissions are estimated so that the point does not represent the worst case, while mobile estimates represent an estimate of actual.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐99‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s)
[65] NOχ and PM2.5: Fort McKay requests that: Regulatory Mine Fleet i) Teck is required to meet the most stringent Response requirements in place, at a minimum, at the time of project procurement and construction; and ii) if Tier IV vehicles are not commercially available, at a minimum, all vehicles meet the emission requirements even if this means post‐combustion device installation on vehicles.
[66] NOχ 5: Mine Fort McKay requests that Alberta Environment and Regulatory Fleet Sustainable Resource Development impose NOχ limits on heavy haulers giving industry sufficient notice to develop and aquire the required equipment from the manufacturers. [67] NOχ: Mine Fort McKay requests that regulators challenge mine fleet Regulatory Fleet manufacturers to provide specific justification as to why they are not able to meet the more stringent requirements for heavy haulers. This justification should be provided to Fort McKay, to ensure that BATEA is actually being achieved for the most significant contributor to the mine fleet emissions. [68] NOχ: Boilers Fort McKay requests that Teck: and Heaters i) Teck clarifies if it plans to meet the intent of the Interim Emissions Guidelines for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOχ) for New Boilers, Heaters and Turbines using Gaseous Fuels for Oil Sands Region in the Rural Municipality of Wood Buffalo North of Fort McMurray based on a review of Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA) performance targets for the design, purchase and operation of boilers, heaters and steam generators covered by the policy; ii) verifies the type of technology specified for the boilers, heaters, and steam generators to achieve the performance targets outlined in the Interim Emissions Guidelines for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOχ) for New Boilers, Heaters and Turbines using Gaseous Fuels for Oil Sands Region in the Rural Municipality of Wood Buffalo North of Fort McMurray based on a review of Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA) and provide justification for this technology satisfying BATEA requirements; and
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐100‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [68] NOχ: Boilers iii) provides the testing data to demonstrate (cont’d) and Heaters performance targets achievement results to Fort (cont’d) McKay. [69] NOχ: Boilers Fort McKay requests that regulators: and Heaters i) stipulate in approval conditions the requirements for testing and demonstrating achievement of the performance targets; and ii) set the performance targets to be applicable for those equipment that fall under the Interim Emissions Guidelines for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOχ) for New Boilers, Heaters and Turbines using Gaseous Fuels for Oil Sands Region in the Rural Municipality of Wood Buffalo North of Fort McMurray based on a review of Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA). [70] NOχ: Fort McKay requests that Teck provides more detailed Response Cogeneration justification for DLN 1+ as BATEA for the cogeneration unit and Heat as opposed to SCR. Fort McKay also requests that Teck Recovery demonstrate that the performance targets will be Steam achieved as outlined in the Interim Emissions Guidelines Generation for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOχ) for New Boilers, Heaters and Turbines using Gaseous Fuels for Oil Sands Region in the Rural Municipality of Wood Buffalo North of Fort McMurray based on a review of Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA) by its choice of technology. Fort Mckay requests that Teck provides information on intermittent NOX emission sources and demonstrate how these sources will meet applicable emission standards, and show how they have applied BATEA. [71] SO₂: All Fort McKay requests that Teck determines how much H₂S sources might be generated and recovered through the VRU to understand the potential for odours during upset conditions. [72] Particulate Fort McKay requests that regulators require monitoring Matter: All and measurement through their monitoring and research sources of programs to understand the cumulative effects of metals Emissions emissions and provide that data to regional stakeholders, including Fort McKay.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐101‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [73] Fugitive Fort McKay requests that: Emissions, i) Teck identifies what technology it will use to VOCs and TRS detect and measure emissions and odours from equipment leaks, including tailings ponds and mine faces, and supply that information to Fort McKay to verify that the appropriate technology is employed; and ii) the regulators review current practice regarding mimimizing diluent loss, provide that information to Fort McKay for review and comment, and revise the standard diluent loss volume (currently 4 volumes/1000 volumes ) to reflect a more up‐to‐ date standard and continuous improvement. [74] Flaring and Teck expects the largest potential upset for flaring to be Response upsets associated with weekly cooling water failures. Fort McKay Regulatory requests that Teck is required to improve its cooling water system design to a higher reliability and to show how the design will meet the requirements of “best practices”. [75] Continuous Fort McKay requests that regulators require Teck to Regulatory Improvement develop a continuous improvement plan and that it is an integral part of the approval process. [76] Continuous Fort McKay requests that Teck: Response Improvement i) is required to implement the best available Regulatory technology at the time of construction and through equipment replacement (capital stock turnover) throughout the life of the project; and ii) reports progress towards continuous improvement plans implementation and environmental benefits achieved. [77] Odourous Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to redo: Response Emissions i) the odour impact assessment using the TCEQ and Regulatory Nagata (2003) odour thresholds outlined in Table 8‐11, and that it expands the list of odourants assessed, and that it uses one of the additive effect approaches outlined bym Ki and Park (2008) to assess cumulative impacts of individual odourants; and ii) undertakes source and fugitive emissions monitoring and ambient monitoring to verify its predictions regarding odourant emissions and their impact from the Frontier Mine Projects.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐102‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [78] Odourous Fort McKay requests that regulators: Regulatory Emissions i) provide project applicants with a standardized list of odourants and related odour thresholds to be used in odour assessments and guidance on how to consider mixtures of odourants; and ii) require, and companies undertake, odour‐related source and ambient air monitoring to improve modeling related to odours and to guide effective odour management. [79] Odourous Fort McKay requests that the regulators collect, collate Regulatory Emissions and publish all hydrocarbon and reduced sulphur monitoring data that has been generated to date related to mine faces, tailings ponds and fugitive bitumen processing and upgrading emissions. Fort McKay requests the opportunity to review this information to identify informations gap and have input on devising a strategy to address these gaps. [80] Visibility or Fort McKay requests that regulators: Regulatory Regional Haze i) require regional haze or visibility monitoring within the region to determine how emissions from the development are impacting visibility; and ii) lead the development of a regulatory tool with input from Fort McKay, that will enable comparison on monitoring informationd an input into management of emissions of precursors. [81] Ambient Air Fort McKay requests that Teck: Response Monitoring i) provides, and the Government of Alberta requires, Regulatory an attribution‐based continuous monitoring station as part of the Frontier Project; ii) provides a continuous air monitoring station to monitor NO, NO₂, NOχ, SO₂, TRS, NMHC, THC, PM₂.₅, O₃, and typical meteorological parameters (wind speed, wind direction, temperature, relative humidity); iii) provides passive monitoring for acid deposition, nitrogen deposition; and iv) commits to direct consultation with Fort McKay on the location and parameters to be monitored at any continuous air monitoring stations located on Fort McKay Traditional Territory.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐103‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [82] Ambient Air Fort McKay requests that the regulators directly consult Regulatory Monitoring with Fort McKay and Teck as to the location of any compliance or attribution air monitoring stations. [83] Source Fort McKay requests that Teck provides results of the: Response Monitoring v) CEMS and stack tests to demonstrate compliance with approval limits and to verify that Teck is striving to achieve performance targets outlined in their approval; and vi) emission surveys for VOCs and sulphur compounds from mine faces and tailings ponds; this will be used to assess actual versus predicted emissions from these sources.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – Fort McKay’s request to the regulators, including information requests, regulatory requirements and approval conditions (if the project is ultimately approved). Response – a deficiency or question on which Fort McKay requests that a response of additional information from Teck is provided to Fort McKay and the regulators, prior to the application being deemed complete by the regulators.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐104‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
9. GROUNDWATER
9.1 Groundwater Impacts The Project proposes to extract bitumen from the Cretaceous McMurray Formation, a sandstone rock unit that underlies the Clearwater and Grand Rapids Formations, with the 20 to 25 m thick bitumen zone buried at a depth between approximately 50 and 70 m below ground surface (bgs) throughout most of the proposed mine area. The operational life of the mine spans the years 2021 to 2057, with closure to be completed by 2068. The facilities in and around the Main and North pits are termed the Main Development Area (MDA), while the areas proximal to the Equinox Pit are termed the South Development Area (SDA). Project water supply is proposed to come from the Athabasca River as the makeup source (70 Mm³ annually), extracted basal (McMurray) aquifer groundwater that will be added to the closed‐circuit process water, and recycled water including storm runoff. After being extracted for depressurization purposes [the main purpose of basal water sands (BWS) use], BWS water will be used in oil sands processing. Four sections in the EIA and application concern groundwater related topics. Chapter 2 of Volume 2 provides the baseline groundwater assessment, while the Groundwater Section 2 of Volume 5 provides the impact assessment for groundwater. Further groundwater–related information is found in portions of Volume 1 (Application). Waste disposal includes Class II and III landfills and disposal of domestic wastewater generated at the Project. The Frontier Mine is a major surface mining project, with a total Project footprint of 24,140 ha and with a 50‐year operational life extending from approximately 2020 to 2070 including final closure and reclamation. Closure activities are proposed to be coordinated with the nearby Shell Pierre River Mine (PRM) project located immediately south. With regard to groundwater resources, a notable feature of this Project is the proposed use of permeable tailings ponds, seepage from which will be actively controlled through the use of constructed subsurface hydraulic barriers coupled with hydraulic control wells. This conceived system’s performance is assessed in the EIA with the aid of a numerical groundwater flow model coupled with a solute transport code. The groundwater‐related concerns on this Project are similar to other mining operations and include the following specific activities:
the aquifer’s physical removal or draining within the overburden to facilitate mining—this will include the removal of aquifers or portions of aquifers containing non‐saline groundwater and aquifers connected to surface water,
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐105‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
the use of water wells and other methods to dewater surficial aquifers, to facilitate mining, the use of water wells to depressurize the Basal Aquifer to facilitate mining, and the seepage of process‐affected water from external and in‐pit tailings ponds into shallow groundwater and surface water, including seepage that might migrate towards proposed fish habitat compensation lakes located east of the MDA.
The potential groundwater effects associated with the above activities include:
potential effects due to surface disturbance and operations on roads, waste disposal, waste storage, and other facilities; potential releases to the surface and shallow subsurface from surface facilities and associated water quality impacts; drawdown of surficial aquifers and connected wetlands and surface water bodies and effects to those parts of the ecosystem relying on groundwater; changes in groundwater quality due to seepage from tailings ponds; changes in groundwater flow patterns, volume of groundwater discharging to surface water, change in volume of groundwater stored in aquifers and surface water inducement to recharge aquifers; and long‐term changes in groundwater recharge and discharge resulting from large scale landscape disturbance.
9.2 Groundwater Assessment Teck spent several years investigating local groundwater resources and compiling information from the surrounding region including PRM. As of 2010, there were 83 piezometers (monitoring wells) located in the Project area, with approximately half completed in shallow surficial deposits and the remaining wells completed in deeper surficial, intra‐orebody McMurray, BWS and the Waterways Formation (Devonian). Teck also installed and tested two BWS source wells. About 90% of the piezometers are in the MDA, with the remaining located around the SDA. Although the local study area (LSA) encompasses the nearby Pierre River Mine, Teck does not appear to have cited the Fort McKay Specific Assessment (FMSA), which was conducted by Fort McKay and included assessments of the impacts of the Pierre River Mine and Jackpine Mine Expansion (Fort McKay Industry Relations Corporation (IRC) 2010). Nor did Teck consider within the Frontier Project Groundwater Assessment the key groundwater indicators found in that document. In the FMSA Fort McKay included indicators for drawdown (for example, the 1.0 m drawdown contour is indicative of near‐certain effects requiring mitigation, and 0.1 to 1.0 m drawdown is considered as indicative of likely effects that might require mitigation; see request [89] below, which requests mapping and calculation of the area of drawdown overlaid on Fort McKay’s TLU maps).
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐106‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
The FMSA is mentioned in the Traditional Use section of Volume 1 but there is little information pertaining to groundwater in that section of Volume 1 The hydrogeologic sequence is typical of the mineable area west of the Athabasca River and is comprised of the following units from oldest to youngest: 1) the eroded top of the Devonian sequence, which includes the Slave Point and Waterways Formations; and in the RSA the Devonian section includes both aquifers and aquitards; the Waterways underlies the Project in the LSA; 2) the McMurray Formation, which contains bitumen; portions of the lower McMurray are water saturated (i.e., basal water sand); where present, the basal aquifer appears to be non‐saline; there are also water‐bearing lenses of sand within the ore body (Middle McMurray); 3) the Clearwater Formation; (aquitard); composed of shale and siltstone; in places the Wabiskaw D sand of the lower Clearwater also contains bitumen; 4) Quaternary sediments including undifferentiated glacial deposits and buried channels and glacial surficial deposits (contains aquifers and aquitards); and 5) Post‐glacial (Recent or Holocene) fluvial fan deposits containing permeable saturated sand (aquifer). The Project lies to the east of the zero‐edge boundary of the Cretaceous Grand Rapids Formation. The Quaternary deposits include a previously unmapped buried channel that runs along the western part of the Project area, aligned north to south, and reportedly filled with clay. The Holocene fluvial fan deposits thicken across the Project area from west to east and contain non‐saline groundwater that is thought to discharge to the Athabasca River and other local waterbodies. Groundwater within the McMurray Formation includes intro‐ore body pockets of groundwater, and discontinuous zones of basal water sands (BWS) that are described as occurring in pods occupying the topographic lows on top of the eroded Devonian bedrock surface. Beneath the northern area (MDA) the BWS might be transitional between non‐saline to saline, and exhibits TDS values from 2,000 to 4,000 mg/L locally, to saline with TDS values to 10,000 mg/L. In the southern area (SDA), the BWS is highly saline with TDS values in the 90,000 mg/L range. Natural groundwater quality in the BWS includes naphthenic acids, petroleum hydrocarbons and low levels of PAHs as seen in other parts of the oil sands region.
9.3 Groundwater Key Concerns and Requests
[84] Basal Aquifer Depressurization / Dewatering Teck presents the conceptual model for groundwater occurrence in the McMurray Basal Water Sands (BWS) Aquifer as being constrained within hydrologically isolated “pods” that have weak to no connection to shallower groundwater or
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐107‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
surface water. Forecast dewatering of the BWS reaches 90 m in places and ranges from 30 m to 70 m throughout most of the mine footprint. In the baseline information, hydrogeochemical information suggests that the BWS is quite variable in terms of its connection to surface sources of groundwater recharge. As noted above, TDS values might be less than 4,000 mg/L in the MDA while TDS values are much higher in the SDA. Teck states that following dewatering and mine closure, groundwater levels in the BWS will slowly recover to pre‐development conditions, although it is unclear how recharge will occur to the BWS. Presumably, this would be from downward migration of fresh groundwater or infiltrated surface water including possibly process‐affected water within the Project area. Fort McKay is concerned that the extensive pumping of the BWS might have effects that cannot be adequately assessed at the scale of the regional groundwater flow model used in the assessment and that some of the BWS to be extracted might be classified as non‐saline. Fort McKay’s view with regard to non‐saline groundwater use, whether it is for makeup, utility, or for dewatering purposes, is that its use should be minimized and when unavoidable, carefully monitored for potential effects. Another concern of Fort McKay’s with regard to pit dewatering is whether there is a risk of an unexpectedly high inflow of saline groundwater from geologic units underlying the BWS, such as apparently occurred at the Muskeg River Mine. The origin of the highly saline water in the BWS in the SDA bears further investigation and whether or not this suggests a hydraulic connection to a potentially productive saline aquifer at depth that could overwhelm pit dewatering operations.
[84] Request
Fort McKay requests that:
i. Teck provides documentation explaining how water levels in the BWS will recover following dewatering if portions of the aquifer are isolated from surface recharge. If this recovery will occur as seepage from pit lakes or other features of the mine‐altered landscape, then this should be made clearer in the assessment; ii. Teck explains its adaptive management response if portions of the BWS are found to be non‐saline; for example, demonstrate a plan for how non‐saline groundwater extracted for dewatering purposes would be returned to the environment as opposed to used in oil sands processing; iii. in keeping with ii above, Teck is required by ESRD to return non‐saline groundwater to the environment instead of using it for makeup water or process water.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐108‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
iv. Teck provides information on the origin of highly saline BWS groundwater in the SDA and whether or not the possible connection with deeper (Devonian) saline aquifers has been investigated and assessed for potential risk of high inflow into the Equinox pit during pit dewatering operations.
[85] Traditional Groundwater Use and Pre‐Development Baseline Teck does not discuss or document traditional use within the context of the groundwater assessment. The Traditional Use study provided in Volume I documents, among other things, the fact that the eastern portion of the LSA is a high‐use area for traditional medicinal plant and berry harvesting, but there is no comment on whether or not drawdown or seepage effects have the potential to disrupt or adversely affect such traditional uses. Fort McKay has found on other projects that it is useful to overlay groundwater simulation data, for example, drawdown contours on a map showing TLU sites or traditional‐use features such as berry harvesting areas, including the location of any groundwater–dependent ecosystems such as fens. The pre‐development baseline for groundwater is not described and instead is taken to be the current (2010) condition. This might or might not be supported by a regional analysis. Slide #33 from the January 25, 2012 meeting between Teck and Fort McKay describes the TK approach with regard to groundwater. It is not clear what conclusions are drawn from this information in the EIA.
[85] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck:
i. provides a composite map showing predicted groundwater contours according to their snapshots including full build‐out with overlays showing TLU sites or values and other important traditional use features (using the TLU map from Fort McKays TLUS study; Appendix 6B); ii. assesses whether or not traditional land use such as medicinal plant or berry harvesting has the potential to be adversely affected by changes in the groundwater environment, and if so, proposes mitigation measures; and iii. provides the basis of definition for the pre‐development groundwater baseline condition for the Project.
[86] Use of a RSA Scale Groundwater Model when effects are predicted only for the LSA Teck applied an RSA‐scale groundwater flow model with a domain of 140 × 150 km to evaluate potential effects from dewatering, and also to assess solute transport downgradient of tailings disposal facilities. The regional model grid has 500 × 500 m cell dimensions, except in the LSA, where the grid has 200 m cell spacings. Surficial aquifer residual water levels (observed versus predicted) in
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐109‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
the calibrated model are such that the model over‐predicts water levels in places up to approximately 15 m and under‐predicts in other areas up to approximately 10 m, in a region where annual water level fluctuation is typically a few metres. Larger residuals are indicated for the McMurray Formation. Project effects are predicted by the model to be limited to the LSA. Therefore, it is possible that a LSA‐scale groundwater flow model with a more refined calibration data set with a better match between observed and predicted water levels, and finer‐scale discretization and appropriate boundary conditions could be used in predicting and assessing effects on a more local as opposed to a regional scale. The adoption of a local scale model, with a domain of approximately ¹/₁₀ that of the RSA model could be considered for the operating phase of the project and the model could be populated and refined using data collecting during assessment and performance monitoring of both the dewatering and seepage control well systems. The cell spacing of 200 × 200 m is used in the solute transport analysis in a medium where advective contaminant transport might be in the range of 1 m to 10 m per year.
[86] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck:
i. is required by ESRD to develop and adopt a local‐scale groundwater flow model with a finer grid spacing to use during Project operations and in developing this model, provides better calibration of water levels in surficial and McMurray aquifers; and ii. uses data derived during groundwater monitoring and operation of dewatering and seepage control systems to refine and update the model and compare results to predictions made by the model.
[87] Tailings Seepage Control Teck proposes to store process‐affected tailings in several external disposal areas, including ETA‐1, ETA‐2, EDA‐3 and EDA‐4. Due to the permeable nature of the underlying materials, seepage will occur from the tailings facilities, and so Teck has proposed a system to capture process‐affected seepage utilizing a combination of hydraulic and physical controls. Receptors located downgradient of the disposal areas and the hydraulic control barrier system include two proposed fish habitat compensation lakes and the Athabasca River. The closer of the two lakes is about 2 km east of ETA‐1 along the east side of the MDA, while the Athabasca River is about 6 km away. The main feature of the seepage control system is the placement of several lineal kilometres of vertical hydraulic barrier in the MDA and the SDA. The barriers would be composed of a bentonite‐based slurry with a hydraulic conductivity on the order of 10‐¹⁰ m/sec. The barrier would be bound on the tailings facility
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐110‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
(upgradient) side by a row of extraction wells intended to capture the bulk of the seepage. The barrier system would fully penetrate the upper surficial aquifer. The barrier wells would direct the captured seepage to the proposed closed‐circuit process water system. System performance monitoring would be accomplished with downgradient groundwater monitoring wells. Teck’s baseline assessment indicates the natural groundwater velocity in the aquifer is on the order of 10 m per year, such that in a time period of 50 years (i.e., 2020 to 2070), any process‐ affected seepage not captured by the hydraulic control system could potentially migrate on the order of 500 m toward the receptors; however, a reduction in source concentrations is predicted by a solute transport model. Such reduction is predicted to be in the range of 30% but it is not clear whether or not water quality guidelines would be exceeded, and if so, by how much, and what further mitigations might be necessary with regard to process‐affected seepage that is not captured by the control system.
[87] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck:
i. consults with Fort McKay on its seepage control system development, including plans for monitoring the performance of the barrier, the barrier wells and any resulting seepage; ii. jointly monitor seepage with Fort McKay and provide assistance with capacity development for community‐based monitoring; iii. is required by the regulators to develop contingency plans and potential mitigation in case the barrier walls of the External Tailings Areas do not perform as anticipated in preventing seepage to groundwater and surface waters; and iv. clarifies whether or not relative concentrations as predicted by the solute transport model might exceed applicable guidelines or other anticipated water quality limits to be determined in the groundwater management plan (see also below).
[88] Request
Fort McKay requests that the regulators not to approve the tailings pond and the compansation lakes at the proposed locations and that Teck is required to reconfigure the layout to ensure that process‐affected seepage to the Athabasca River and any proposed compensation lakes will be prevented.
[89] Groundwater Monitoring and Management Plan Teck proposes to develop a project‐specific Groundwater Monitoring and Response Plan and proposes to use a yet‐to‐be‐specified monitoring plan that will
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐111‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
be developed after the Project is approved. No reference was noted in the review that anticipates the requirement in the regional Groundwater Management Framework to develop a project‐specific Groundwater Management Plan that would include, among other details, project‐specific water quality triggers and limits. Monitoring plans need to be able to consider the pre‐development condition and also data gaps with respect to groundwater quality and quantity and a statistics‐ based approach to tracking water quality trends. Further, Teck indicates that when there are multiple data points available for water quality that the average will be taken as the representative value. There is question as to whether this simplified approach is appropriate when more sophisticated statistical techniques are available and described in other monitoring documents, for example the Phase 1 regional monitoring framework (CEMA 2008), which describes the use of upper and lower control limits and statistical charting. In addition to addressing the need for a data set for baseline or pre‐development groundwater chemistry in potentially affected aquifers, the project‐specific Groundwater Management Plan should be organized around monitoring and assessing potential effects from these activities: 1) groundwater withdrawal including dewatering of BWS and surficial aquifers; 2) tailings disposal area seepage control system monitoring; and 3) monitoring for potential effects from surface facilities, including but not limited to landfills and wastewater disposal areas.
[89] Request
Fort McKay requests that:
i. Teck consults with Fort McKay regarding the development of the detailed Groundwater Management Plan for the Project and fully engage Fort McKay in all groundwater monitoring activities; ii. Teck develops a Groundwater Management Plan that provides specific rationale for the selection of monitoring well sites, the distance between these sites and the potential sources of water quality effects, and further details on how groundwater monitoring will be integrated with surface water monitoring; iii. the Groundwater Management Plan developed by Teck justifies a project‐ specific groundwater response plan; and identifies the proposed process to establish triggers and limits for groundwater; iv. Teck provides annual comprehensive groundwater monitoring reports to Fort McKay, including raw data collected from groundwater monitoring; and v. Teck integrates surface water and groundwater monitoring when and where needed during the life of the Project as well as the post‐closure period.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐112‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Table 9‐1: Hydrogeology/Groundwater Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table
Fort McKay Key Number Requests Category Concern(s) [84] Basal Aquifer Fort McKay requests that: Response Depressurization i) Teck provides documentation explaining how Regulatory and Pit water levels in the BWS will recover following Dewatering dewatering if portions of the aquifer are isolated from surface recharge. If this recovery will occur as seepage from pit lakes or other features of the mine‐altered landscape, then this should be made clearer in the assessment; ii) Teck explains its adaptive management response if portions of the BWS are found to be non‐saline; for example, demonstrate a plan for how non‐saline groundwater extracted for dewatering purposes would be returned to the environment as opposed to use in oil sands processing; iii) in keeping with ii above, Teck is required by ESRD to return non‐saline groundwater to the environment instead of using it for makeup water or process water. iv) Teck provides information on the origin of highly saline BWS groundwater in the SDA and whether or not the possible connection with deeper (Devonian) saline aquifers has been investigated and assessed for potential risk of high inflow into the Equinox pit during pit dewatering operations. [85] Traditional Fort McKay requests that: Response Groundwater i) Teck provides a composite map showing Use and Pre‐ predicted groundwater contours according to Development its snapshots including full build‐out with Basline overlays showing TLU sites or values and other important traditional use features (using the TLU map from Fort McKay’s TLUS study; Appendix 6B; ii) assesses whether or not traditional land use such as medicinal plant or berry harvesting have the potential to be adversely affected by changes in the groundwater environment, and if so, proposes mitigation measures; and iii) Teck provides the basis of definition for the pre‐development groundwater baseline condition for the Project.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐113‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay Key Number Requests Category Concern(s) [86] Use of RSA scale Fort McKay requests that Teck: Response groundwater i) is required by ESRD to develop and adopt a Regulatory model local‐scale groundwater flow model with a finer grid spacing to use during project operations and in developing this model, provide better calibration of water levels in surficial and McMurray aquifers; and ii) uses data derived during groundwater monitoring and operation of dewatering and seepage control systems to refine and update the model and compare results to predictions made by the model. [87] Tailings seepage Fort McKay requests that Teck: Response control i) agrees to consult with Fort McKay on the Regulatory development of its seepage control system including plans for monitoring the performance of the barrier, the barrier wells, and any resulting seepage; ii) jointly monitor seepage with Fort McKay and provide assistance with capacity development for community‐based monitoring; iii) is required by the regulators to develop contingency plans and potential mitigation in case the barrier walls of the External Tailings Areas do not perform as anticipated in preventing seepage to groundwater and surface waters; and iv) clarifies whether or not relative concentrations as predicted by the solute transport model might exceed applicable guidelines or other anticipated water quality limits to be determined in the groundwater management plan (see also below). [88] Potential impacts Fort McKay requests that the regulators not to approve Regulatory of seepage the tailings pond and the compansation lakes at the Response proposed locations and that Teck is required to reconfigure the layout to ensure that process‐affected seepage to the Athabasca River and any proposed compensation lakes will be prevented.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐114‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay Key Number Requests Category Concern(s) [89] Groundwater Fort McKay requests that: Response Monitoring and i) Teck consults with Fort McKay regarding the Regulatory Management development of the detailed Groundwater Plan Management Plan for the project and fully engage Fort McKay in all groundwater monitoring activities; ii) Teck develops a Groundwater Management Plan that provides specific rationale for the selection of monitoring well sites, the distance between these sites and the potential sources of water quality effects, and further details on how groundwater monitoring will be integrated with surface water monitoring. iii) the Groundwater Management Plan developed by Teck proposes and justifies a project‐specific groundwater response plan; and identifies the proposed process to establish triggers and limits for groundwater. iv) Teck provides annual comprehensive groundwater monitoring reports to Fort McKay, including raw data collected from groundwater monitoring; v) Teck integrates the monitoring of surface water and groundwater when and where needed during the life of the project as well as the post‐ closure period.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – Fort McKay’s request to the regulators, including information requests, regulatory requirements and approval conditions (if the project is ultimately approved). Response – a deficiency or question on which Fort McKay requests that a response of additional information from Teck is provided to Fort McKay and the regulators, prior to the application being deemed complete by the regulators.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐115‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
10. HYDROLOGY/SURFACE WATER
10.1 Surface Water Impacts The Project’s surface water assessment main focus is water withdrawal from the Athabasca River. Teck states that it will fully comply with the Athabasca River Water Management Framework – Phase 1, which provides a basis of the necessary environmental protection measures and safeguards. Teck proposes to build between 90 and 120 days of off‐stream storage to ensure this happens. Several pit lakes will form part of the closure landscape. Teck indicates that the pit lakes will contain no solid tailings; tailings cap water will be transferred to the pit lake at closure.
10.2 Surface Water Assessment Teck has presented a thorough environmental assessment of the Frontier Project’s impact on surface water. One omission in the Athabasca River water industrial use assessment is that the Nexen Long Lake water supply from the Clearwater River was not part of the analysis. Regulators have indicated that this project falls within the Athabasca River Water Management Framework.
10.3 Surface Water Key Concerns and Requests
[90] – [96] Athabasca River Water Use Teck estimates its peak annual withdrawal volume to be 71.5 Mm³. The maximum withdrawal rate is 4.2 m³/s and is based on having access to Athabasca River water during only the seven months of open‐water and a pump service factor of 90%. This will allow Teck to meet the Athabasca River Water Management Framework Phase 1 requirements. Teck states that during periods when withdrawal from the Athabasca River is restricted, makeup water will be supplied from the off‐stream storage pond (OSSP). From 2020 to 2036, the OSSP will be located in the pit north of the ore‐ preparation plant (OPP). During 2037 to 2057 the OSSP will be excavated to the south of ETA‐1. This latter pond will form part of the closure water landscape. The active OSSP storage volume varies as follows:
7.5 Mm³ from 2021 to 2024 16.5 Mm³ from 2024 to 2027 22.0 Mm³ from 2027 to 2038 19.0 Mm³ thereafter
Teck indicates that this represents between 90 and 120 days of storage. Teck also states that the water supply pipeline will be buried below the frost line so withdrawals from the Athabasca River might be completely stopped without compromising the pipeline during winter months.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐116‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[90] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck confirms that the OSSP volume will be able to supply 100% of the make‐up water demands from November to March during years where withdrawal is restricted. In particular, Teck is requested to clarify if this volume is based on it participating in sharing arrangements of the Suncor and Syncrude water licences with other oil sands projects, as is the current practice in the Phase 1 Water Management Framework.
The Project is one of the undisclosed projects used by the Phase 2 Framework Committee (P2FC) to assess future oil sands water needs and related environmental protection requirements. The P2FC recommendations are currently before the regulators. It is important that Teck incorporates flexibility in its designs to be able to readily accommodate any future Water Management Frameworks.
[91] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck indicates whether or not its annual withdrawal volume, and maximum withdrawal rate, and the OSSP volume would need to change if the Phase 2 Framework Committee recommendations were adopted by the regulators and if so, to what.
[92] Request
Fort McKay requests that ESRD and Fisheries and Oceans implement the Phase 2 Framework prior to issuing any further oil sands approvals.
Annual water demand was discussed by the P2FC in their report as follows:
“Annual water demand was calculated for 1 in 100 year dry conditions when low flows would prevail. Water forecasts from each of the companies were collated and the resulting cumulative demand as a function of time was calculated. The results show that the bitumen weighted average demand is 2.4 barrels of water per barrel of bitumen produced. This balance includes expected efficiency gains with increased recycle rates from tailings management with mine maturity. In simple terms, mines with consolidated or non‐segregated tailings will tend to have a river‐water: bitumen ratio of about four during the initial years and two or less after water from tailings consolidation is recycled back into the operation. Other tailings depositional methods, such as ‘dry tailings,’ or non‐aqueous extraction technologies might improve these efficiencies in time. In the interim however, it is assumed that the current commercial extraction technologies will continue to be used to 2030.” [Phase 2 Framework Committee Report, January 2010]
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐117‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Table 10‐1 identifies the cumulative bitumen production and Athabasca River make‐up water requirements for various years. The cumulative bitumen production and the total annual river make‐up water requirement are provided by Teck. The resulting river‐water‐to‐bitumen ratio ranges from a low of 2.25 in 2027 to a high of 4.08 during early start‐up in 2021.
Table 10‐1: Average Year River Water to Bitumen Ratio
Cumulative Bitumen Production Total Annual River Average Year River Make‐up Water Year Water to Bitumen 1 Requirement (m³/cd) (Mm³/year) Ratio (Mm³/year)2 2021 11,900 4.3 13.1 3.05 2024 25,200 9.2 37.5 4.08 2027 37,800 13.8 31.0 2.25 2030 44,100 16.1 42.4 2.63
1 Table 4.1‐1 Phased Development ‐ Volume 1: Project Description 2 Table 7.11‐1 Annual Water Balance – Average Operating and Hydrologic conditions – Volume 1: Project Description
The start‐up ratio of 3.05:4.08 of average barrel of water demand per barrel of bitumen produced is comparable to the typical start‐up ratio of 4.0 reported by industry. The average barrel of water demand per barrel of bitumen produced is from 2027 to 2030 is comparable to the long‐term 2.4 ratio provided to the P2FC by industry. Athabasca River water make‐up stays relatively constant from 2030 through to the year 2045, ranging from a high of 44.0 Mm³ in 2031 to a low of 33.9 Mm³ in 2042. In the Glossary Teck defines recycle water as a combination of reclaimed water and river water makeup. In Table 7.11‐2 recycle water appears to be simply reclaimed water as river water make‐up is identified separately.
[93] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck clarifies the use of the term “recycle water”.
A review of Teck’s annual water balance shows that recovered tailings water release is a component of recycle water. The amount starts in 2021 at 0.6 Mm³ and increases to 12.3 Mm³ in 2024, 20.0 Mm³ in 2027 and 33.1 Mm³ in 2030. Tailings release water recycling peaks at 48.8 Mm³ in 2046. The average industry water demand to bitumen ratio of 2 or less after the mine matures and tailings consolidation is recycled back into the operation is not reflected in Teck’s make‐up water requirement.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐118‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[94] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck provides the reclaimed water rate as a percentage of total process water used, for each year of the project.
[95] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck explains why its annual Athabasca River water withdrawal does not decrease to a river‐water to bitumen ratio of 2 or less as available tailings recycle water increases, as reported to the P2FC by other oil sands mining companies.
Teck presented an evaluation of the existing and approved and likely to be approved oil sands projects, along with the Frontier Project and planned development projects. The Nexen Long Lake water source project on the Clearwater River is missing from Teck’s analyses. Regulators have stated that this project falls under the Water Management Framework for the Athabasca River. The maximum water withdrawal allowed to be taken from the Athabasca River Water Management Framework (Phase 1) is 34.0 m³/s during Yellow and Red conditions. The P2FC Phase 2 recommendations reduce this maximum value to 29.0 m³/s. This change accounts for the industry‐wide requirement for 90 days of water storage at full build‐out under Phase 2 withdrawal limits. The total maximum allowable withdrawal rate shown in Table 10‐2 is 35.14 m³/s. This exceeds the Phase 1 allowable maximum withdrawal.
Table 10‐2: Maximum Allowable Withdrawal Rate from Oil Sands Developments
Oil Sands Developments Maximum Allowable Withdrawal Rate (m³/s) Existing1 15.23 Approved and likely to be approved2 12.39 Nexen Long Lake 0.29 Frontier Project 4.20 Planned Development3 2.73 Total 35.14
1 Syncrude, Suncor, Shell Muskeg River, CNRL Horizon, Shell Jackpine Phase 1 2 Fort Hills, Kearl, JME, PRM, Joslyn North 3 Northern Lights, Joslyn South
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐119‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[96] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck comments on the ability of oil sands developments to continue to meet their water needs from the Athabasca River in the Application and Planned Development Case under both the existing Phase 1 Framework and the proposed Phase 2 Framework.
[97] – [98] Surface Water Management Teck is seeking approvals for a number of surface water activities including:
muskeg drainage and overburden dewatering; withdrawing, diverting and impounding surface and groundwater for use; constructing, operating and reclaiming an external and in‐pit tailings areas; constructing water containment structures; constructing water course crossing; and diverting surface waters and streams around the project.
Teck states that to facilitate watershed protection it will contain mine‐affected and process‐affected water in a closed‐circuit system, facilitate progressive reclamation through adoption of tailings technologist and construct earth structures that conform to Canadian Dam Safety guidelines. Teck indicates that tailings ponds are designed for the probable maximum precipitation event to prevent overtopping. Teck also indicates that all plant site surface runoff water is contained and is not discharged off site up to the 1‐in‐100 year design flood event. Teck considers the likelihood and consequences of an overflow from the process‐affected ditches to be low. Teck further states that the impact on receiving waters will be low as these streams will already be in flood conditions. There is a 1% chance in each year that this design flood would be exceeded. More significantly there is a 35% chance that the 1‐in‐100 year event will be equalled or exceeded at least once in the 43 years from start of construction to the end of mining. This is not low.
[97] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck is required by ESRD to develop a contingency plan for testing and addressing any clean‐up of water that might enter the regional watersheds through an unplanned release from their stormwater facilities and that Fort McKay has an opportunity to review and comment on the plan prior to the Application being deemed complete.
Teck states that there will be no solid tailings in the pit lakes, just water. At closure there is no plan to transfer tailings to pit lakes however tailings cap water will be transferred. Teck plans to fill pit lakes from local runoff and the Athabasca River.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐120‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[98] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to fill pit lakes only from the Athabasca River, and that local streams are directed around a pit lake until its water levels and water quality are acceptable for it to be connected to the watershed.
Teck indicates that open‐water areas will increase due to its operation, reflecting the presence of pit lakes at closure. The drainage pattern and runoff characteristics of the reclaimed areas will be different from the natural drainage system, resulting in changes to flow and water levels in the receiving waters. Flows in watercourses are predicted to be marginally reduced at closure. Teck states that the flow changes in the Redclay Creek channel would not affect the sustainability of their fish habitat compensation lake nor the Pierre River Mine fish habitat compensation lake. Predicted changes to Ronald Lake water levels are considered to be negligible compared to the normal seasonal variation in Ronald Lake water levels.
Table 10‐3: Hydrology/Surface Water Quality Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [90] Athabasca Fort McKay requests that Teck confirms that the OSSP Response River Water volume will be able to supply 100% of the make‐up water Use demands from November to March during years where withdrawal is restricted. In particular, Teck is requested to clarify if this volume is based on their participating in sharing arrangements of the Suncor and Syncrude water licences with other oils sands projects, as is the current practice in the Phase 1 Water Management Framework. [91] Athabasca Fort McKay requests that Teck indicates whether or not Response River Water their annual withdrawal volume, and maximum Use withdrawal rate, and the OSSP volume would need to change if the Phase 2 Framework Committee recommendations were adopted by the regulators and if so to what. [92] Phase 2 Fort McKay requests that ESRD and Fisheries and Oceans Regulatory Framework implement the Phase 2 Framework prior to issuing any further oil sands approvals. [93] Athabasca Fort McKay requests that Teck clarifies the use of the term Response River Water “recycle water”. Use [94] Athabasca Fort McKay requests that Teck provides the reclaimed Response River Water water rate as a percentage of total process water used for Use each year of the project.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐121‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [95] Athabasca Fort McKay requests that Teck explains why its annual Response River Water Athabasca River water withdrawal does not decrease to a Use river‐water to bitumen ratio of 2 or less as available tailings recycle water increases, as reported to the P2FC by other oil sands mining companies. [96] Athabasca Fort McKay requests that Teck comments on the ability of Response River Water all oil sands developments to continue to meet their water Use needs from the Athabasca River in the Application Case and Planned Development Case under both the existing Phase 1 Framework and the proposed Phase 2 Framework. [97] Surface Water Fort McKay requests that Teck is required by ESRD to Response Management develop a contingency plan for testing and addressing any Regulatory clean‐up of water that might enter the regional watersheds through an unplanned release from their stormwater facilities and that Fort McKay has an opportunity to review and comment on the plan, prior to the Application being deemed complete. [98] Surface Water Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to fill pit lakes Response Management only from the Athabasca River and that local streams are Regulatory directed around a pit lake until its water levels and water quality are acceptable for it to be connected to the watershed.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – Fort McKay’s request to the regulators, including information requests, regulatory requirements and approval conditions (if the project is ultimately approved). Response – a deficiency or question on which Fort McKay requests that a response of additional information from Teck is provided to Fort McKay and the regulators, prior to the application being deemed complete by the regulators.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐122‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
11. WATER QUALITY, FISH AND FISH HABITAT
11.1 Impacts to Water Quality and Fish Habitat The lease for the proposed Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project (Project) is located approximately 110 km north of Fort McMurray on the west side of the Athabasca River near the Birch Mountains. The Project is planned to produce 44,100 m³/d of bitumen from a surface mining development, with first production expected in 2021. The Project connects with and greatly expands the development area that is proposed by Shell for the Pierre River Mine. Volume 5 of the Integrated Application (“the application”) and accompanying appendices describe background and water‐related information, including cumulative impacts (Application Case). Sections 4 and 5 covered surface water quality and fish habitat components (together sometimes referred to as aquatic resources). Impacts to water quality and fish habitat could be caused by:
suspended sediments released to lakes and watercourses during construction and other project phases; accidental materials and substances releases during all project phases that might have negative effects on water quality; muskeg and overburden dewatering, and releases into several local watersheds and the Athabasca River; mine areas closed‐circuiting resulting in containing as well as diverting natural runoff water; process‐affected seepages from back‐filled mine pits and tailings disposal areas, and potential accumulation by aquatic biota; pit lake releases to surface waters (including Ronald Lake) and residual contamination within pit lake sediments; disturbance or elimination of waterbodies and watercourses resulting in lost fish and fish habitat, fishing opportunities, traditional uses and aboriginal fisheries; aerial emissions from fleet vehicles, fugitive dust, and other sources resulting in fallout to runoff areas, snowpacks and directly to surface waters; and increased public or worker access and resulting additional fishing pressure.
The following watercourses and waterbodies are among those that will be affected by the Project:
Athabasca River, Redclay Creek, Big Creek, Eymundson Creek, Pierre River, Asphalt Creek, and numerous unnamed creeks; Ronald Lake, Unnamed Lake 1 (Oakley Lake), Unnamed Lake 2 (Small Sandy Lake), Unnamed Waterbody 6 (Crooked Lake), Redclay Lake (PRM’s proposed habitat compensation lake), and numerous other unnamed waterbodies.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐123‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Some of the above watercourses and waterbodies support large‐bodied fish and most of them support small‐bodied forage fish. Fish habitat compensation is proposed but will be fully described in separate future applications to DFO. Mitigation proposed by Teck to reduce the effects of the Project to aquatic resources includes:
recycling process‐affected waters and runoff during operations; perimeter ditches and wells to capture and retain seepage and runoff; settling ponds that have oil‐separation capability; wetlands to assist with biological remediation and particulate settling in reclamation waters before discharge; excluding solid tailings (MFT) from pit lakes; low permeability barriers to limit seepage of process‐affected waters from the Project area; constructing suitable fish habitat within all diversion channels, including retaining connectivity to the Athabasca River whenever possible; and a variety of best management practices.
The following first sections of this review describe the overall water quality and fish habitat components assessments, and then separately identify the key concerns and requests for each.
11.2 Water Quality and Fish Habitat Assessment The water quality and fish habitat assessment was reasonably well done, with attention to additional details like aerial deposition, effort to provide pre‐ development information, and identification or separation of impacts from the various assessment cases. Surface water quality, fish surveys and habitat field studies were undertaken in the local study area (LSA) on watercourses upstream and downstream of the Project footprint. The Frontier Project is a very large project that will add to the substantial impacts from the proposed Shell Pierre River Mine which is located adjacent to the Frontier Project in the Athabasca River valley. In most cases Teck predicted that the Project’s impacts would be minimal following mitigation and compensation, which is difficult to accept given the Project’s size. Large waterbodies (pit lakes) will ultimately cover many square kilometers of land that is currently occupied by streams, muskeg and small lakes. Some of Fort McKay’s concerns include seepage, deposition of contaminants on water and snowpacks, use of lakes and wetlands as polishing ponds, pit lake residual toxicity, dismissal of existing CCME guidelines as too conservative, derivation of chronic effects benchmarks without safety factors, dismissal of Teck’s own predictions of guideline exceedances, and lost access to aboriginal fishing areas.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐124‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
11.3 Water Quality Key Concerns and Requests
[99] Process Water Seepage The Application described seepage capture in perimeter ditches and wells and return to the tailings areas. While this is the accepted operational practice, Fort McKay is concerned about seepage during the later phases when seepage flows would be directed to wetlands and reclamation lakes prior to discharge. It isn’t clear whether these wetlands and lakes are in addition to pit lakes because there is no description of their design or location in relation to the Athabasca River, tributaries or other uncontaminated systems. Evidence is lacking that contaminated seepage would be adequately treated in wetlands that might have weather‐dependent short‐water residence times.
[99] Request
Fort McKay requests that:
i. Teck provides additional information about the design and location of proposed treatment wetlands and lakes, including plans for ensuring that contaminated sediments and water will not be harmful to migratory waterfowl and any resident aquatic biota; ii. Teck provides contingency plans and potential mitigation if the barrier walls of the External Tailings Areas do not perform as anticipated in preventing seepage to groundwater and surface waters; and iii. the regulators do not deem the Application complete until Teck provides this information and it has been reviewed by Fort McKay and the regulators.
[100] Aerial emissions and Deposition Fort McKay is pleased to see that Teck addressed aerial emissions and potential for the Project to result in local deposition of metals and PAHs. Teck plans to validate its model once ESRD and Environment Canada’s snowpack survey data are available.
[100] Request
Fort McKay requests that they are consulted once government data for aerial deposition are available and used in depositional model validation. Fort McKay also requests that Teck includes snowpack surveys of metals and PAHs in their future monitoring plans.
[101] Large Unnamed Lakes 1 (Oakley) and 2 (Small Sandy) Two large natural lakes will not be eliminated by the Project, but will be surrounded by the development and will be used as settling basins for high
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐125‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
suspended sediment runoff from the project. UNL#1 (locally called Oakley) is a 130 ha lake that supports forage fish and will contain high sediment concentrations of unknown quality due to its use as a polishing pond. The water and sediment quality of this lake are likely to be degraded with metals and organic contaminants. While the lakes were included in the fish habitat compensation plans, they will be lost to Fort McKay for traditional uses (habitation and water collection sites).
[101] Request
Fort McKay objects to Teck’s proposal to use natural lakes as polishing ponds and requests that Teck is required to revise its water management plan and is not allowed to use Oakley and Sandy lakes as polishing ponds.
If ESRD contemplates the approval of the use of natural lakes as polishing ponds , then Fort McKay requests that any discharges downstream (outside) of the Project area from Unnamed lakes 1 and 2 are monitored for total and dissolved metals and PAHs in addition to suspended solids. Fort McKay also requests consultation about the loss of traditional use areas in the area of Oakley (UNL#1), Small Sandy (UNL#2) and Crooked Lake (UNWB#6) and that Teck is required to develop a Mitigation and Offset Plan with Fort McKay.
[102] Pit Lake Residual Toxicity and Research The Project plans at least four large pit lakes for the reclamation landscape. In addition to oil sands process‐affected water and Athabasca River water, flows of local tributaries will be used as source water for pit lakes. Pit lake outflows will be monitored, and the company believes that pit lakes will become viable aquatic ecosystems. Pit lake outflows will be directed to Ronald Lake, the fish habitat compensation lake and various tributaries of the Athabasca River. While water quality will be tested, there is a lack of research on pit lake sediments, which could remain contaminated despite the lack of solid tailings directly added to the lakes. Furthermore, there is a lack of discussion in the application about high levels of naphthenic acids that are expected to occur in Central Pit Lake B water. The pit lakes might in fact support aquatic biota, but whether a healthy ecosystem will result remains unproven.
[102] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck:
i. is required to participate in pit lake research, including studies of bottom sediments and possible contaminants transfer through the aquatic food chain, as well as bioturbation and wind‐induced resuspension of sediments. ii. provides further discussion about the fate and transport of napthenic acids and PAHs over time in their pit lakes, notably in Central Pit Lake B.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐126‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
iii. is required to test the tailings cap water to ensure it is of a suitable standard before transferring it to a pit lake; and iv. is required to develop a contingency water management plan in case the tailings cap water does not develop to a suitable standard or the pit lakes do not work as predicted for managing or treating tailings cap water and reclamation runoff.
[103] Use of Chronic Effect Benchmarks Teck provided detailed discussion, calculation and derivation of chronic effect benchmarks (CEBs).96 In some cases, it chose to accept CCME water quality guidelines, but in other cases calculated CEBs where it believed CCME guidelines either did not apply to its site or were considered too conservative. CEBs are less conservative than guidelines because they are typically based on the lowest toxicity test result without the application of a safety factor, or in some cases based on species sensitivity distributions (SSDs). For example, the arsenic, cadmium, zinc and every PAH guideline were dismissed as too conservative, and CEBs for beryllium, vanadium and total phenolics were re‐calculated based on lab results without safety factors.97 Very relevant to oil sands water toxicity, a CEB for naphthenic acids was suggested as 1 mg/L even though a high quality toxicity study indicated a concentration of 1.7 mg/L using oil sands water extract caused serious damage to fish gills (Nero et al. 2006). While in some cases, the approach to deriving regionally‐relevant CEBs might be valid, there is little support for dismissing more protective CCME guidelines or for accepting newly derived CEBs in the absence of report peer review.
[103] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck accepts, and ESRD uses to evaluate the Project, published CCME guidelines for all substances for which they are available until such time as CCME or another government environmental agency approves the newly derived CEBs presented by the company.
Fort McKay requests that Teck applies a safety factor to their derived CEBs wherever they are based on the lowest result of a single toxicity test. In particular, Teck should apply a safety factor of at least 10× to its calculation of the suggested labile naphthenic acid CEB of 1 mg/L.
Fort McKay requests that Teck describes and provides their rationale for using an amended standardized method for calculating SSDs.
96 Section 5 Appendix 4B 97 Section 5, Table 4B‐17 Appendix 4B
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐127‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[104] Predicted Guideline Exceedances Disregarded In a number of cases where predicted water quality parameters exceed water quality guidelines, Teck dismisses its own predictions as over‐estimates. For example, Teck states: “Potential effects resulting from elevated aluminum, cadmium, iron, molybdenum and strontium levels might be over‐estimated, because of the conservative assumptions used to complete the assessment.” It isn’t clear why Teck presents their results if the intent was to dismiss them as an over‐ estimate in every case where an exceedance was predicted.
[104] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck:
i. accepts its own predictions of guideline exceedances, and provides an assessment of the potential impacts to aquatic biota for each of these substances; ii. discusses the limitations of its dataset for establishing natural variability, and related predictive power where sample numbers are low (e.g., single samples, single season); and iii. that the Application is not deemed complete until this information is provided by Teck and reviewed by Fort McKay and the regulators.
[105] Monitoring to Validate Predictions Monitoring plans to validate predictions made in the EIA are required.
[105] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck:
i. develops a monitoring plan designed to validate EIA assessment predictions for water quality and aquatic resources and evaluates the effectiveness of mitigation; ii. consults with Fort McKay prior to the development of aquatic monitoring plans and prior to any approvals being issued for the Project; and iii. is required by ERSD to fund and participate in a Community‐Based Monitoring Program.
[106] Whole Effluent Toxicity Whole effluent toxicity (WET) tests are normally based on tests using water or sediments from specific project sites. Teck presents WET predictions calculated from individual toxicity levels, and does not consider the toxicity of mixtures of contaminants or substances without guidelines (e.g., naphthenic acids). Teck does
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐128‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
not discuss an intention to validate its predictions by doing authentic WET testing with whole effluents.
[106] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to provide plans to complete whole effluent toxicity tests to validate their predictions that are based on single substances or other methods.
Table 11‐1: Water Quality Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table
Fort McKay Key Number Requests Category* Concern(s) [99] Seepage of Fort McKay request that: Response process affected i) Teck provides additional information about the Regulatory waters to design and location of proposed treatment uncontaminated wetlands and lakes, including plans for ensuring local waters that contaminated sediments and water will not be harmful to migratory waterfowl and any resident aquatic biota; ii) Teck provides contingency plans and potential mitigation if the barrier walls of the External Tailings Areas do not perform as anticipated in preventing seepage to groundwater and surface waters; and iii) the regulators do not deem the Application complete until Teck provides this information and it has been reviewed by Fort McKay and the regulators. [100] Aerial emissions Fort McKay requests that they are consulted once Response and fallout to local government data for aerial deposition are available and snowpack and used in depositional model validation. Fort McKay also surface waters requests that Teck includes snowpack surveys of metals and PAHs in its future monitoring plans. [101] Use of large Fort McKay objects to Teck’s proposal to use natural Response unnamed lakes as lakes as polishing ponds and requests that Teck is Regulatory settling basins and required to revise its water management plan and is potential not allowed to use Oakly and Sandy lakes as polishing downstream ponds. contamination; If ESRD contemplates the approval of the use of natural Loss of traditional lakes as polishing ponds, Fort McKay requests that any use lakes discharges downstream (outside) of the project area from Unnamed lakes 1 and 2 are monitored for total and dissolved metals and PAHs in addition to suspended solids.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐129‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay Key Number Requests Category* Concern(s) [101] Use of large Fort McKay requests consultation about the loss of Response (cont’d) unnamed lakes as traditional use areas in the area of Oakley (UNL#1), Regulatory settling basins and Small Sandy (UNL#2) and Crooked Lake (UNWB#6) and potential that a mitigation and offset plan is developed with Fort downstream McKay. contamination; Loss of traditional use lakes (cont’d) [102] Participation in pit Fort McKay requests that Teck: Response lake research, pit i) is required to participate in pit lake research, Regulatory lake sediment including studies of bottom sediments and toxicity possible transfer of contaminants through the aquatic food chain, as well bioturbation and wind‐induced resuspension of sediments; ii) provides further discussion about the fate and transport of napthenic acids and PAHs over time in their pit lakes, notably in Central Pit Lake B; and iii) is required to test the tailings cap water to ensure it is of a suitable standard before transferring it to a pit lake; and iv) is required to develop a contingency water management plan in case the tailings cap water does not develop to a suitable standard and/or the pit lakes do not work as predicted for managing/treating tailings cap water and reclamation runoff. [103] Dismissal of CCME Fort McKay requests that Teck: Regulatory guidelines and i) accepts, and ESRD uses to evaluate the Project, Response derivation of published CCME guidelines for all substances chronic effects for which they are available until such time as benchmarks CCME or another government environmental agency approves the newly derived CEBs presented by the company; ii) applies a safety factor to their derived CEBs wherever they are based on the lowest result of a single toxicity test. In particular, Teck should apply a safety factor of at least 10X to its calculation of the suggested labile naphthenic acid CEB of 1 mg/L; and iii) describes and provides their rationale for using an amended standardized method for calculating SSDs.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐130‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay Key Number Requests Category* Concern(s) [104] Disregarding their Fort McKay requests that Teck: Response own predicted i) accepts its own predictions of guideline Regulatory guideline exceedances, and provides an assessment of exceedances, the potential impacts to aquatic biota for each calling them of these substances. “over‐estimates” ii) discusses the limitations of its dataset for establishing natural variability, and related predictive power where sample numbers are low (e.g., single samples, single season); and iii) the Application is not deemed complete until this information is provided by Teck and reviewed by Fort McKay and the regulators. [105] Monitoring plans Fort McKay requests that Teck: Response to follow i) develops a monitoring plan designed to Regulatory validate EIA assessment predictions for water quality and aquatic resources and evaluates the effectiveness of mitigation; ii) consults with Fort McKay prior to the development of aquatic monitoring plans and prior to any approvals being issued for the project; and iii) is required by ERSD to fund and participate in a Community‐Based Monitoring Program. [106] Whole effluent Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to provide Response toxicity tests plans to complete whole effluent toxicity tests to Regulatory based on an validate their predictions that are based on single unconventional substances or other methods. method
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – Fort McKay’s request to the regulators, including information requests, regulatory requirements and approval conditions (if the project is ultimately approved). Response – a deficiency or question on which Fort McKay requests that a response of additional information from Teck is provided to Fort McKay and the regulators, prior to the application being deemed complete by the regulators.
11.4 Fish Habitat Key Concerns and Requests
[107] Commitment to Fish Habitat Compensation There has been some media attention about the potential for changes to the federal Fisheries Act.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐131‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[107] Request
Fort McKay asserts that ‘fish habitat compensation’ as implemented under the DFO’s Fish Habitat Policy is not sufficient to mitigate, offset or accommodate for losses to Fort McKay’s traditional use areas, aboriginal fisheries and impacts on Fort McKay’s Aboriginal rights. Notwithstanding, Fort McKay requests that DFO consult with Fort McKay regarding fish habitat compensation plans. Fort McKay’s preference is for fish habitat to be enhanced in degraded areas or habitats or fish populations that are under stress are enhanced or stocked rather than constructing compensation lakes, which impacts terrestrial habitat that is important to Fort McKay for traditional use.
[108] Use of Compensation Lake as a Polishing System The Application Case as presented indicates that pit lake waters are likely to be discharged to its fish habitat compensation lake. Pit lakes have not yet been demonstrated to fully treat oil sands process‐affected water, in part because toxicity data are not available for all possible contaminants that might occur at various states of degradation.
[108] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck presents alternative options for compensation lake source water and for pit lake management and that the regulators do not allow a plan that involves discharging end pit lake water into a fish habitat compensation lake.
[109] Loss of Fishing Opportunities and Access The Community of Fort McKay will lose access to the land, waters and Aboriginal fisheries due to the Frontier Mine mining as well as cumulative effects from the combination of the Frontier Mine and the proposed Pierre River Mine Projects:
the Frontier Project will eliminate watercourses as the mine progresses: the headwaters of three Unnamed Creeks (tributaries to Ronald Lake), upper Redclay Creek, Asphalt Creek and all of Eymundson Creek and its tributaries; some waterbodies will be isolated within the Frontier Mine footprint and will be lost to traditional use: Oakley (UNL#1), Small Sandy (UNL#2) and Crooked Lake (UNWB#6); access to upstream areas of numerous watercourses will be restricted as the mine advances—the Frontier Application indicates that the mine operators would “restrict potential access by recreational fishers”; the proposed Shell Pierre River Mine would eliminate portions of the Pierre River, Asphalt, Eymundson, Big and Redclay creeks; the cumulative direct effects of the Frontier Mine and the proposed Pierre River mine will result in substantial cumulative loss of fishing areas and fish
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐132‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
habitat in the Athabasca River valley on the west side of Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory; there are potential impacts to the Athbasca River from the Frontier Mine due to process‐affected water seepage, future end pit lake discharge, potential for catastrophic events (e.g., tailings pond failure, rupture of a pipeline on the bridge crossing the Athbasca River), impacts on the Athabasca River from construction and operation of the bridge (which is proposed for the Shell Pierre River Mine but which Teck plans to use for this Project) – impacting opportunities to fish from the Athabasca River due to very realistic concerns about contamination or potential contamination of fish quality.
[109] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck consults with Fort McKay about gaining access to important traditional‐use areas, including habitation sites located near watercourses and waterbodies in the area. If access is not feasible, Fort McKay requests consultation about alternative mitigation and offset options for pursuing traditional water‐related activities in a way and in areas that are meaningful to them.
Loss of and/or contamination of fish bearing habitats has a direct impact on traditional livelihoods. Fort McKay requests that Teck develop a Mitigaiton and Offset Plan with Fort McKay within Fort McKay’s that addresses loss of fish habitats, loss of access to fishing areas and contamination of fish bearing waters. The Mitigation and Offset Plan, should include preservation of fish habitats within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory and fish habitat enhancement projects with Fort Mckay on locations that will identify.
[110] Request
Fort McKay requests consultation with Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) regarding mitigation and accommodation for loss of aboriginal fishing and fishing opportunities.
[111] Loss of Invertebrate Drift in Stream Reaches near Athabasca River With the many tributaries that will be closed‐circuited and the high volume of flows that will be cut off from the Athabasca River for about a 50 km distance along the River, invertebrate food to resident fish will be reduced. This potential cumulative impact has not been addressed, studied or modeled.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐133‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[111] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck assesses the importance of invertebrate drift along tributaries and at their confluence with the Athabasca River, and predicts the implications of lost invertebrate fish food for the length of the River as impacted under the Application Case.
[112] Fish Tissue Tainting Teck predicts that the Project will have negligible effects on potential tainting concentrations in all receiving waters in the LSA and RSA. The tainting prediction does not yield any significant information if there is no identification and quantification of the suspected chemical. Teck refers to an experiment by Koning and Hrudey that suggested alkylated benzenes, phenols, cresols and organic sulphur compounds might be causing the taint (Koning and Hrudey 1992). However, none of these substances were further discussed with respect to qualitative or quantitative predictions about tainting. Rather, the tainting potential unit (TPU) approach was used in a manner similar to predicting toxicity. The problem with this approach is that diluting a sample does not necessarily ensure that it won’t present off flavours later on after longer‐term exposure and uptake, especially if the tainting is the result of a persistent component that can be bioconcentrated.
[112] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck:
i. provides a list of substances that it considers to cause fish tainting; and ii. provides an assessment about the potential for fish tainting caused by the presence of tainting compounds at low levels for a long period of exposure as might occur in the Frontier Project area; and iii. is required by the regulators to develop and implement a tainting monitoring program.
[114] Increased Fishing/Angling Pressure Teck indicates that there is limited sport fishing potential in the LSA streams, and that no incidences of angling were observed in the LSA. Teck did observe angling at Ronald Lake but indicates that access to this area will not be enhanced due to the Project. Teck’s conclusion is the increased fishing pressure is not an issue associated with the Frontier Project. Teck states that Project personnel will be prohibited from fishing while working on the Project. While there might be limited recreational fishing directly in the LSA there is recreational fishing within the region and the increased number of people in the region and in camps associated with the Project (peak of 4000 personel during
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐134‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
construction, 2,500 during operations) and other planned developments is likely to lead to in an increase in recreational use in the region and within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory, including fishing.
[113] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck provide Fort McKay with a copy of its fishing and hunting policies for staff and contractors and consult with Fort McKay regarding this.
[114] Request
Fort McKay requests that ESRD consults with Fort McKay regarding fisheries population management and access management within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory including the area of the Frontier Project.
Table 11‐2: Fish Habitat Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [107] Fish habitat Fort McKay asserts that ‘fish habitat compensation’ as Response compensation implemented under the DFO’s Fish Habitat Policy is not plans sufficient to mitigate, offset or accommodate for losses to Fort McKay’s traditional use areas, Aboriginal fisheries and impacts on Fort McKay’s Aboriginal rights. Notwithstanding, Fort McKay requests that DFOt consul with Fort McKay regarding fish habitat compensation plans. Fort McKay’s preference is for fish habitat to be enhanced in degraded areas or habitats or fish populations that are under stress are enhanced or stocked rather than constructing compensation lakes, which impacts terrestrial habitat that is important to Fort McKay for traditional use. [108] Plans to use Fort McKay requests that Teck presents alternative options Response compensation for compensation lake source water and for pit lake Regulatory lake as a management and that the regulators do not allow a plan polishing that involves discharging end pit lake water into a fish system habitat compensation lake. [109] Lost fishing Fort McKay requests that Teck consults with Fort McKay Response opportunities about gaining access to important traditional use areas, and access including habitation sites located near watercourses and waterbodies in the area. If access is not feasible, Fort McKay requests consultation about alternative options for pursuing traditional water‐related activities in a way that is meaningful to them.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐135‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [109] Lost fishing Loss of and/or contamination of fish bearing habitats has a Response (cont’d) opportunities direct impact on traditional livelihoods. Fort McKay and access requests that Teck develop a Mitigaiton and Offset Plan (cont’d) with Fort McKay within Fort McKay’s that addresses loss of fish habitats, loss of access to fishing areas and contamination of fish bearing waters. The Mitigation and Offset Plan should include preservation of fish habitats within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory and fish habitat enhancement projects determined in consultation with Fort McKay. [110] Lost fishing Fort McKay requests further consultation with Fisheries and Regulatory opportunities Oceans (DFO) regarding habitat compensation options and and access mitigation and accommodation for loss of Aboriginal fishing and fishing opportunities. [111] Loss of Fort McKay requests that Teck discusses the importance of Response invertebrate invertebrate drift along tributaries and at their confluence fish food to fish with the Athabasca River, and predicts the implications of in tributaries lost invertebrate fish food for the length of River as and Athabasca impacted under the Application Case. River [112] Fish tainting Fort McKay requests that Teck: Regulatory i) provides a list of substances that it considers to cause fish tainting; ii) provides further discussion about the potential taint caused by the presence of tainting compounds at low levels for a long period of exposure as might occur in their project area; and iii) is required by the regulators to develop and implement a tainting monitoring program. [113] Fishing Fort McKay requests that Teck provides Fort McKay with a Response pressure copy of its fishing and hunting policies for staff and contractors and consults with Fort McKay regarding this. [114] Fishing Fort McKay requests that ESRD consults with Fort McKay Regulatory pressure regarding fisheries population management and access management within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory and including the area of the Frontier Project.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – Fort McKay’s request to the regulators, including information requests, regulatory requirements and approval conditions (if the project is ultimately approved). Response – a deficiency or question on which Fort McKay requests that a response of additional information from Teck is provided to Fort McKay and the regulators, prior to the application being deemed complete by the regulators.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐136‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
12. TERRAIN AND SOILS
12.1 Introduction Soil issues are addressed in conjunction with review of the Closure, Conservation and Reclamation (C&R) Plan (Section 21), as they are primarily relevant to project reclamation. This section provides a summary of the project disturbance area (PDA) for soils.
12.2 Soil Disturbance The Project’s PDA is 29,335 ha. Approximately 92.4% of the PDA is covered by mineral soils and 7.3% by organic soils. The mineral soils are comprised of 45% gleysols, 22% regisols, 16% brunisols and 10% luvisols. The post‐closure landscape of the PDA will be significantly transformed by the construction of end pit lakes and the permament removal of several peat‐based wetland cover classes associated with the organic soil series. The EIA predicts an increase in the Class 5 rating of the Land Capability Classification System on the post‐closure landscape due to the construction of the end pit lakes (3,183 ha). The C&R Plan does not present any reclamation plans to re‐establish the organic soil series to support peat‐based wetland cover classes re‐ establishment. Existing disturbance to soils in the Land local study area (LSA) covers 277.8 ha and appears to be associated with cutlines (type of disturbance is not described in EIA). Teck states that existing disturbance in the PDA will be reclaimed during progressive reclamation efforts. Direct soil effects from the Project will be from land disturbance, soil handling, soil replacement and acidifying air emissions.
12.3 Potential Acid Input (PAI) Modelling The potential for soil acidification in Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory has not been adequately assessed. The methods used in the soil acidification assessment are not consistent with the Acid Deposition Management Framework (ADMF) (Cumulative Environmental Management Association 2004) modelling approach, nor have they been applied (or validated elsewhere) and are therefore subject to considerable uncertainty. Dynamic biogeochemical models are necessary to predict changes in soil and soil solution chemistry. Recent work suggests an acidification risk for acid‐sensitive soils (e.g., brunisols; Whitfield et al. 2010) due to critical load exceedance (acid deposition in excess of the critical load) across a larger geographic area than considered when using the PAI isopleths.98 This includes sites at risk of acidification on Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory. The results presented in the EIA assume uniform deposition across the isopleths, and uniform soil character
98 Note that the definition of critical load in the EIA is incorrect, as critical loads are independent of time.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐137‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
within each soil class, neither of which is appropriate. It has been shown that weathering rates, which are the primary determinant of acid sensitivity vary widely within (as well as among) soil series (Trent University 2010). Finally, AMEC (2009) found inconsistencies in the soil polygons on the AOSERP soil map, and therefore mapped soil data might not accurately reflect the true soils character (AMEC Earth and Environmental 2009). Soil acidification assessments should be improved through the use of soil data specific to the study area in question.
[115] – [117] Soil Acidification Assessment
[115] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to re‐do the soil acidification assessment using a modelling approach consistent with the Acid Deposition Management Framework and that the Application is not deemed complete until this is done and Fort McKay and the regulators have reviewed and commented on the assessment.
[116] Request
Fort McKay requests that ESRD revise the requirements for soil acidification assessments in EIA Terms of Reference for oil sands projects to use a modelling approach consistent with the Acid Deposition Management Framework.
Teck notes in the EIA that critical loads were determined for soil series using historical data collected approximately 30 years ago. The critical loads assume that current soils in the PAI study area have the same base cation pool as the samples collected 30 years ago. Teck states this assumption is not valid as effects from PAI have been observed in the upper soil profile (i.e., LFH layer: depth of the uppermost layer of organic soil). This is of particular concern to Fort McKay for two reasons: 1) the majority of soils in the PDA are upland mineral soils and LFH is a critical component for re‐establishing biodiversity using direct placement; and, 2) stockpiled mineral soils will be subject to acidifying deposition throughout mining operations.
[117] Request
Fort McKay requests that Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development require as part of any operating approval that Teck participates in regional initiatives to collect current soil data regarding acidification.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐138‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[118] Pre‐development Conditions The soil acidification assessment did not compare existing conditions to the pre‐ development (pre‐1965) conditions snapshot or compare the Application or Planned Development Case to the pre‐development conditions snapshot.
[118] Request
Fort McKay requests that regulators require Teck to assess Base Case, Application Case and Planned Development Case against pre‐development conditions (pre‐ 1965) for the soil acidification assessment.
12.4 Soils and Terrain Key Concerns and Requests Soils and Terrain‐specific requests related to reclamation are covered in the Conservation and Reclamation section (Section 21 of this review).
Table 12‐1: Soils and Terrain Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table Fort McKay Number Requests Category Key Concerns [115] Soil Fort McKay requests that Teck redoes the soil acidification Response acidification assessment using a modelling approach consistent with the assessment Acid Deposition Management Framework and that the Application is not deemed complete until this is done and Fort McKay and the regulators have reviewed and commented on the assessment. [116] Soil Fort McKay requests that Alberta Environment and Regulatory acidification Sustainable Resources revises the requirements for soil assessment acidification assessments in EIA Terms of Reference for oil sands projects to use a modelling approach consistent with the Acid Deposition Management Framework. [117] Soil Fort McKay requests that Alberta Environment and Regulatory acidification Sustainable Resources require as part of any operating assessment approval that Teck participates in regional initiatives to collect current soil data regarding acidification. [118] Pre‐ Fort McKay requests that regulators require proponents of Regulatory development EIAs to assess Base Case, Application Case and Planned conditions Development Case against pre‐development conditions (pre 1965) for soil acidification assessments. Soil and terrain‐specific recommendations relating to reclamation for the Project are covered in the Conservation and Reclamation section (Section 21 of this review).
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – Fort McKay’s request to the regulators, including information requests, regulatory requirements and approval conditions (if the project is ultimately approved). Response – a deficiency or question on which Fort McKay requests that a response of additional information from Teck is provided to Fort McKay and the regulators, prior to the application being deemed complete by the regulators.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐139‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
13. VEGETATION AND WETLANDS
13.1 Introduction The potential effects to vegetation will primarily be related to direct disturbance and the associated effects of land‐clearing for Project construction. The Project will have two development areas, each with a plant site: the main development area (MDA) and the south development area (SDA). Key infrastructure features in the two development areas include the two plant sites, administration support facilities (lodges), and trans‐boundary infrastructure (all‐weather access road, aerodrome, utility corridor, water intake at the Athabasca). Vegetation will also be impacted by indirect disturbance related to surficial groundwater drawdown caused by Project construction and operation, and by air emissions through changes in soil chemistry. The local study area (LSA) is 49,958 ha and includes the Project Development Area (PDA; 29,335 ha), the Project Assessment Area (PAA; 33,125 ha) and an additional 500 m buffer around the PAA. The PDA is where known soil disturbance will occur due to Project construction and operation. The PAA is the area where vegetation impacts are expected to occur and is larger than the PDA as some vegetation clearing activities are still unknown.
Project Impact Assessment Cases In the Application, all baseline vegetation surveys and vegetation Project impact assessments were made for the LSA. Vegetation impacts from the Project are assessed by comparing the Base Case to the Application Case (both at maximum build‐out)99 and both at the LSA scale. The Base Case includes developments currently operating, under construction, approved, or likely to be approved in the near future (see project list).100 The Application Case is comprised of the Base Case with the addition of the Frontier Project. Maximum build‐out occurs when the Frontier Project has reached maximum land disturbance (in 2057). This assessment approach is confusing and it is very difficult to determine direct Project impacts as a result. The result of this assessment approach is:
all impact assessments to vegetation are made at the LSA level, rather than assessing the actual Project impacts in the PDA or PAA where direct effects are expected to occur; the magnitude of direct Project impacts are diluted, as the LSA is much larger than PDA and PAA;
99 Volume 6, Table 3‐14 100 Volume 3, Appendix 1C, Table 1C‐2
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐140‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
the Project impacts are further complicated by the fact that Teck is including adjacent company disturbance in their Base Case, based on a maximum build‐ out scenario that is hypothetical and will likely change; and finally, there is no means to actually compare the impacts of the Project directly (in the PDA) to the existing baseline conditions except where conceptual closure ecosite phases for the PDA are compared to the existing areal extent in the PDA,101 but this is not considered in their environmental assessment).
Nowhere in the Application is there data that would allow a Project impacts evaluation by comparing the PAA to existing conditions (i.e., a Current Case). As a result of this assessment approach, at the LSA level, it is not possible to determine the direct Project impacts to vegetation and there is no means to compare direct Project impacts to the existing baseline conditions. The approach used for the vegetation assessment was not well presented and was difficult to follow in the Application. There was no specific reporting on direct impacts to vegetation in the PAA or PDA. Therefore, Fort McKay concludes that the vegetation assessment is not valid and needs to be redone. Since Teck did not provide clear assessment of Project‐specific vegetation impacts in the vegetation assessment, for the purposes of our technical review of Teck’s Application we have used Table 13.6‐6 from the conservation and reclamation section of Volume 1, which provides a comparison of the PDA (at closure) to existing conditions (2008) within the PDA and LSA. This comparison, where available, was used in our technical review to evaluate the effects of the Project on vegetation (assessment cases were used to evaluate biodiversity and air emissions and the LSA data was used to evaluate old‐growth and rare plants). The Project’s cumulative impacts to vegetation are addressed in Section 3 of our review.
[119] Assessment Cases
[119] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck provides vegetation data for the PAA as a reference point to compare the impacts of the Project to existing baseline conditions. The PAA was established as greater than the PDA to achieve a more conservative assessment of vegetation impacts, as some of the Project disturbance is not yet fully planned. Fort McKay requests that the Application is not deemed complete until this assessment is provided and Fort McKay and the regulators have reviewed and commented on it.
101 Volume 1, Section 13, Table 13.6‐6
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐141‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[120] – [121] Pre‐development Reference Conditions A pre‐development (pre‐disturbance) reference condition snapshot was also considered in the Application. Pre‐development conditions were generated by essentially dissolving current disturbance off the study area, based on 2008 data. Disturbed areas were then assigned soil and vegetation types based on adjacent land or areas with similar surficial geology. The assumption was that this landscape was representative of a pre‐industrial development reference point.
[120] Request
Fort McKay requests that, in addition to its current methodology, Teck includes simulations of natural disturbance on the landscape (i.e., fire) to more accurately represent the natural variation of soil and vegetation types that might have been present in the pre‐development landscape (i.e., pre‐1965). Teck should also integrate historical data to form a more accurate picture of the pre‐industrial development conditions. Further, the vegetation project assessments should be directly related to pre‐industrial disturbance conditions, rather than using Base Case or the existing landscape as a reference point. Fort McKay requests that the update of the pre‐disturbance conditions is completed prior to the Application being deemed complete.
[121] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck compares all Project effects assessments to pre‐ development conditions, as per the request above and that the Application is not deemed complete until this is done and has been reviewed and commented on by Fort McKay and the regulators. The assessment cases provided in the Application do not provide a comprehensive comparison of all of the Project effects to pre‐ development conditions.
13.2 Baseline Vegetation Baseline vegetation in the LSA was established both through field surveys and historical data use. Field survey efforts were stratified by vegetation types in the LSA, and sampling intensity in these vegetation types was proportional to vegetation density types in the LSA. Two field surveys types were completed within the LSA from 2005 to 2010: plot‐based vegetation surveys and visual checks. Plot‐based surveys (581 in total) characterized vascular species (trees, shrubs, forbs, grasses sedges and rushes). Bryophytes (non‐vascular plants) were surveyed as part of the rare plant surveys. On‐the‐ground and helicopter visual checks (303 total) were completed to both develop vegetation maps and ground‐ truth mapping data. Visual checks are not vegetation surveys. Historical data sources were used to develop the vegetation baseline for the LSA. Some historical data contained information on both vascular plants and
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐142‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
bryophytes. Site‐specific historical data included data from the Shell Pierre River Mine (PRM) project environmental impact assessment (EIA), Alberta Conservation Information Management Centre (ACIMS), and Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Inventory (ABMI). Vegetation mapping data was from Alberta Vegetation Inventory (AVI), Alberta Pacific Forest Industries Inc. and from the PRM project environmental impact assessment.
13.3 Ecosite and Wetland Classification and Mapping The Project Development Area is located in the Central Mixedwood Subregion of the Boreal Forest Natural Region. The Central Mixedwood Natural Subregion is characterized by upland forests comprised of pure aspen stands and mixedwood stands of aspen and white spruce, or lodgepole pine and jack pine. Short, cool summers and long cold winters characterize the climate in the area. Based on existing conditions, uplands (ecosites a‐h, upland shrubland and graminoid) comprise 47.9% (14,037 ha) of the PDA. Nineteen upland types were identified, and are dominated by the aspen low‐bush cranberry ecosite phase (d1), covering 17.1% of the PDA (5,016 ha). At project closure there will be a permanent increase of 22.8% (6,717 ha) of uplands within the PDA. Based on existing conditions, wetlands comprise 48.5% (14,240 ha) of the PDA (based on the Alberta Wetland Inventory classification), 13.2% (3880 ha) of which are organic wetlands. Ten wetland types were identified within the PDA and include bogs, fens, swamps, marshes and shallow open water. Wooded swamps (STNNCs and STNNhs) are the dominant wetland type, comprising 25.1% (7,367 ha) of the existing PDA.102 At project closure, there will be a permanent loss of 29.4% (8,668 ha) of wetlands within the PDA,103 which includes all organic wetlands as well as all forested (SFNNcs and SFNNHs) and wooded (STNNcs and STNNhs) swamps.
13.4 Traditional‐Use Plant Potential Traditional plants were surveyed in the LSA as part of the plot‐based vegetation surveys from 2005 to 2010 in the spring, summer, late summer and fall. Surveys targeted specifically at traditional plant habitat were not completed in the LSA or RSA. A potential‐effects qualitative assessment on traditional plants used for consumption, medicinal or spiritual purposes was completed within the LSA based on traditional knowledge of plant areas and locations and a literature review.104 Traditional plant potential was assessed for the RSA only. A traditional plant species list was developed from previous project assessments in the Athabasca Oil
102 Volume 6, Figure 3‐8 103 Volume 6, Figure 3‐12 104 Volume 2, Tables 13‐1 and 13‐2
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐143‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Sands Region, including Raymond Cardinal (2009), Fort McKay IRC (2009) and Fort McKay (1995). A traditional plant‐use potential was assigned to vegetation cover classes based on traditional plants observed during vegetation field surveys as well as plant species known for traditional use. Traditional plant potential was then calculated to assess the potential for land re‐establishment to support traditional species in the RSA. A cumulative effects assessment (PDC) was not completed for traditional land use even though other developments are planned within the RSA.105 Within the RSA, high traditional plant use potential is expected to decline by 2%, moderate traditional plant potential to decline by 1% and low traditional plant potential to decline by less than 1%. With reclamation, the decline in traditional plant potential in upland ecosites is considered reversible. Traditional plants associated with wetland classes will be eliminated from the PDA. Teck also provided funding for the Fort McKay First Nation and Mikisew Cree First Nation to undertake TLU and TK studies related to the Project, and Teck indicates that results from these studies will help to inform Project planning. However, it is not clear how results from these studies will be integrated into Project planning, specifically. No oil sands operator has yet demonstrated successful return of plant communities and ecosystems supporting traditional uses. The C&R Plan does not provide adequate information describing how native species, especially shrub and groundcover species will be re‐established on post‐reclamation areas targeted to upland ecosites or organic wetlands. Further, Teck indicates that reclamation on tailings sands will likely result in novel ecosystems that differ from baseline conditions. These novel ecosystems will represent “new” vegetation types in the landscape. Fort McKay is concerned about the cumulative effects of development on wetlands supporting traditional‐use plant species because Teck anticipates permanently eliminating 29.4% (8,668 ha) of the wetlands in the PDA at project closure. It is Fort McKay’s concern, supported by scientific knowledge and observations of reclamation results to date, that Project development will have a significant and long‐standing negative impact on the presence of traditional‐use plants in the study area.
[122] – [124] Fort McKay TK and TLU Studies
[122] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck provides a formal plan that describes how it will protect and reclaim traditional plant species.
105 Volume 8, Section 6.5.5
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐144‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[123] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to complete an on‐the‐ground traditional plant survey for the LSA and specifically report Project effects to traditional plants in both the PDA and PAA and that the Application is not deemed complete until this is done.
[124] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck completes a cumulative effects assessment, PDC, for traditional land use within the RSA, and that this assessment includes the Shell Pierre River Mine Project as part of the PDC and that the Application is not deemed complete until this is done.
[125] – [126] Novel Ecosystems Teck states that most reclaimed oil sands sites are developing into ecosystems with similar plant communities compared to those at baseline. However, Teck cites research collected on long‐term monitoring plots summarized by Rowland et al. (2009) suggesting that reclaimed tailings sands will likely transition to novel ecosystems that do not resemble baseline conditions (Rowland et al. 2009). The Fort Hills approval (Approval No. 151469‐00‐01) and other oil sands mine approvals (Suncor, Syncrude, Canadian Natural Resources Ltd., Shell, Imperial Oil and Total) state that:
“The approval holder shall reclaim the land so that the reclaimed soils and landforms are capable of supporting a self‐sustaining, locally common boreal forest, regardless of the end land use.”
The Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region 2nd Edition (Alberta Environment 2010) state that the goals for reclamation are:
“1. That reclaimed plant communities should have species characteristic of native plant communities in the oil sands region.
2. That trends of vegetation community and structure development on reclaimed landscapes should be similar to native plant communities in the oil sands region.
3. That reclaimed ecosystems should have developmental trajectories that satisfy land‐use objectives, and have characteristics that provide resilience against natural disturbance events.”
Existing oil sands mine operations are required to comply with the Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region 2nd Edition (Alberta Environment 2010) as part of the EPEA approvals. Based on this
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐145‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
regulatory context, the establishment of novel ecosystems on reclaimed lands is not an option. Fort McKay is concerned that an adaptive monitoring framework is not in place to effectively assess reclamation practices success to ensure that: 1) the reclamation requirements stated in operating approvals are achieved; and, 2) management actions are defined and implemented to address specific situations where reclamation practices are not achieving reclamation targets as required by the EPEA approvals and the Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region 2nd Edition (Alberta Environment 2010).
[125] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to develop a monitoring program to assess reclamation success on tailings sands specifically, to determine if there is indeed a conversion of these sites to novel ecosystems following reclamation. This program would monitor tailings sands reclamation and develop strategies to mitigate the development of novel ecosystems by identifying management actions to achieve the reclamation requirements outlined in the EPEA approvals and the Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region 2nd Edition.
[126] Request
Fort McKay requests that the Government of Alberta, as part of a regulatory approval, ensures that Teck is required to reclaim the land so that the reclaimed soils and landforms are capable of supporting a self‐sustaining, locally common boreal forest, regardless of the end land use and to implement reclamation practices that will achieve the reclamation goals outlined in the Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region 2nd Edition.
See Requests under Wetlands in the C&R Section (Section 21.2) that address Fort McKay’s concerns regarding Teck’s wetland reclamation plan and assumptions.
13.5 Rare Plants and Rare Plant Communities Rare plant surveys were conducted in the LSA as a component of plot‐based vegetation surveys from 2005 to 2010 in the spring, summer, late summer and fall. Rare vascular plant surveys involved random meander walks through vegetation plots by senior botanists. Bryophytes were sampled by targeting all microhabitats within vegetation plots. Historical rare plant data from the following sources were also used: PRM project EIA, ACIMS and ABMI. No lichen surveys were conducted as part of the rare plant surveys.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐146‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Nine rare vascular plants and 27 rare bryophytes species were identified in the LSA.106 Five rare vascular plants and 20 rare bryophytes will be eliminated from the LSA at Project closure. Teck did not specifically report the number of rare plants that will be impacted in the PDA or PAA. One rare ecological community, river alder/ostrich fern shrubland was documented within the LSA, and will not be affected directly or indirectly by the Project as it is located outside of the PDA and PAA.
[127] Rare Plant Surveys
[127] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck completes a lichen survey as part of the rare plant vegetation plot surveys as some lichen species from this region are listed in the Species at Risk Act.
13.6 Invasive and Non‐native Species
[128] Non‐native and Invasive Species Plan and Monitoring One noxious weed, Ranunculus acris, and ten other non‐native invasive species107 were found in the PDA. Fort McKay expects that increased surface disturbance and road traffic could lead to establishment and spread of non‐native and invasive species, which might have an impact on the overall ecological integrity of the area. Teck indicated that a formal weed control program would be developed as part of their C&R Plan; however, this plan is not described in the application. A vegetation monitoring program for the LSA could help to control non‐native and invasive species establishment during the Project’s construction, operation, reclamation and closure phases.
[128] Request
Fort McKay requests that ESRD requires Teck to implement a monitoring and control program for non‐native and invasive species during the Project’s construction, operation, reclamation and closure phases to ensure that these species do not invade disturbed sites and compete with native species.
[129] – [130] Non‐native and Invasive Species Control and Erosion Control Teck indicates that when natural revegetation is insufficient, reclamation material stockpiles might be seeded with approved seed mixes. Fort McKay is concerned that agronomic species from seed mixes have the potential to persist in the
106 Volume 6, Table 3.18 107 Volume 2, Table 8‐12
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐147‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
vegetation communities of reclaimed sites, altering vegetation community composition. Fort McKay suggests that only native seed mixes are used to prevent the establishment of and invasion by agronomic grasses.
[129] Request
Fort McKay requests that ESRD requires Teck to avoid seed mixes use for erosion control to reduce the potential for introducing persistent grass species and to ensure that the natural recovery of vegetation communities on site is returned to those of pre‐disturbance conditions. Furthermore, BMP 15 in Alberta Environment and Water (2012) indicates that the use of seed mixes should be avoided to preserve propagule diversity and integrity. If a seed mix is used, Fort McKay requests that the seed mix contain only native species local to the Project area.
[130] Request
Fort McKay requests that the return of the site to pre‐disturbance conditions is included as a condition of any approvals issued for the Project. See also reclamation and certification requests in Section 21.2.
13.7 Old‐Growth Forests
[131] – [132] Natural Successional Processes Teck estimated the extent and distribution of old‐growth forests in the LSA using composition and age‐based assessment criteria. Alberta Vegetation Inventory (AVI) stand origin data (1997) were used to identify forest stands meeting the criteria for each forest type. Teck estimated old‐growth forests in the RSA using Spot 5XS multispectral imagery and GIS. Based on AVI stand origin data, 9.6 % (4,697.2 ha) of the existing LSA is classified as old growth. Teck states that 60.7 % (2,774 ha) of the old growth in the LSA will be removed due to Project development at Project closure. Additionally, no old growth will be present in the PAA at maximum build‐out in 2057.
[131] Request
Fort McKay requests that research and studies are conducted to understand forest establishment on reclaimed landscapes, and to develop models for predicting landscape patterns and reclamation trajectories. Fort McKay believes these types of studies can be used to develop guidance to assist in regional reclamation planning.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐148‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[132] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck evaluates if old‐growth forests will develop in the reclaimed and undisturbed areas of the study area, based on available literature, research and other case studies.
13.8 Air Pollution Effects on Vegetation Air emissions impacts on vegetation were evaluated in the RSA only as the air emission cumulative impacts were addressed. Air emissions can affect vegetation by altering species’ health, resulting in increased or decreased growth rates and loss of sensitive species. Air emissions can impact vegetation directly through fumigation (NO₂, SO₂), fertilization (N‐deposition), and smothering (dust) as well as indirectly through changes in soil chemistry due to potential acid input (PAI) and dust. Fort McKay community members are concerned that air pollutant deposition might pose a danger to the safety of traditional foods for consumption. Various data sources were used to evaluate air emissions in the RSA including RSA vegetation cover class data and air emissions modeling results.108 Literature and regulatory guidelines were used to define critical loads for nitrogen, NO₂ and SO₂ and sensitive vegetation cover classes were evaluated relative to these critical loads. PAI indirect effects were assessed by evaluating vegetation cover classes in areas where sensitive soils exist (see Soils Section 12). When comparing the Application Case to pre‐development, SO₂ fumigation is projected to affect 0.1% of the vegetated land within the RSA and no vegetation cover classes are expected to exceed more than 20% of critical levels. NO₂ emissions will affect 4% of the vegetated land, and no vegetation cover classes are predicted to exceed 20% of critical levels. Nitrogen deposition will affect 18% of the vegetated land within the RSA. Coniferous‐Jack pine leading forests is the cover class most affected by nitrogen deposition; 39.5 % of coniferous‐Jack pine ecosites will exceed critical loads at Application Case. These effects are considered long‐term, but generally reversible. According to Teck, SO₂ and NO₂ emissions are considered reversible based on long‐term observations in Europe, where sensitive species recovered over time with improvements in air quality. Teck considers nitrogen deposition reversible in the RSA, as this has been demonstrated in other regions. These claims are not substantiated by literature and more information is needed to determine whether the assessment is appropriate.
108 Section 3, Volume 4
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐149‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[133] – [134] Monitoring Air Emissions
[133] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to support and participate in regional monitoring (i.e., Terrestrial Environment Effects Monitoring Program and biodiversity monitoring) to monitor potential effects of air emissions on vegetation resources.
[134] Request
Fort McKay requests that Alberta and Canada consult with Fort McKay regarding the governance, design and implementation of the World Class Monitoring System with regard to air, land and water monitoring and the inclusion of community‐ based monitoring.
[135] – [136] Air Emissions Impacts Reversibility
[135] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck provides scientific support (in the form of literature citations or studies) regarding their assessment of SO₂, NO₂ and nitrogen deposition impacts to vegetation as “reversible” over the long‐term within the RSA. Further, Fort McKay requests that Teck explains how results from studies of air pollution effects in Europe transfer to the boreal systems of northeastern Alberta.
[136] Request
Fort McKay is concerned about air pollution effects to vegetation during and following Project operation, and requests that Teck is required to implement a monitoring program to understand nitrogen and sulphur deposition and effects to vegetation and soils in the LSA throughout the duration of the mine operation.
13.9 Biodiversity Biodiversity was evaluated by changes to the vegetation landscape, community and species diversity. Species diversity was assessed by vegetation type using the following metrics: total number of vascular species, number of unique vascular species (defined as present in one ecosite phase or wetland class), and number of rare vascular and bryophyte species. Within the LSA, 636 vegetation species were identified: 451 vascular plants and 185 bryophytes. Ninety vascular species were unique to one ecosite phase or wetland class. The majority of unique species occurrences were located in the
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐150‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
marshes (MONG) wetland class. The majority of rare species (17, mainly bryophytes) were found in shrubby swamps (SONS) and forested and wooded coniferous swamps. Within the LSA, 38% (243) of the vegetation species are predicted to be removed by the Project. Five rare vascular plants and 20 rare bryophyte species will be lost in the LSA. Landscape diversity and patch metrics of vegetation types were assessed by using a vegetation map that was based on SPOT 5XS multispectral imagery (2008) and GIS to map plant communities within the RSA. Structural stage data within the RSA were generated from information provided by the Lower Athabasca Regional Advisory Council (2010). The EIA provides a detailed analysis of the assumptions used in modelling landscape diversity both for pre‐development and assessment cases detailed in the introduction.109 Changes in landscape diversity are a result of the removal or loss of certain vegetation types, mainly organic wetlands, from the PDA and the transformation of the landscape to more upland cover classes (which increase in area) and fewer wetlands (organic wetlands are eliminated from the PDA). Overall, this change results in a landscape with larger upland vegetation patches, fewer wetland patches and lower overall landscape diversity. These changes in landscape diversity, driven by the current inability of industry to reclaim disturbed organic wetlands, will lead to the creation of a more homogenous landscape, only fully being reclaimed in the ‘far future’110 when project‐induced fragmentation declines. Community diversity was assessed in both the LSA and RSA. In the LSA, the following metrics were used to predict changes in community diversity: ecosite phase, wetlands classes, structural stage including old growth, and rare and special plant communities. The following data sources were also used: LSA ecosite phase, wetland class, structural stage and AVI data, RSA vegetation cover class and structural stage data, ACIMS rare ecological community database, PRM project vegetation data (Shell Canada Ltd. 2007), ABMI program vegetation data (ABMI 2011, Internet site), and Project field work (2005‐2010). At closure, within the LSA, upland ecosite phases increase by 20.2% (4904.5 ha), and wetland classes decrease by 50.8% (10,297 ha), including a decline of 4,512.6 ha of organic wetlands. Marshes and shrubby swamps will be the only wetlands reclaimed. Additionally, no old growth will be present in the PAA at maximum build‐out (2057). Fort McKay’s perspective is that these changes are a significant loss in biodiversity in the LSA.
109 Volume 6, Section 3.5.5.3 110 Volume 6, Section 3.5.8
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐151‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[137] Landscape disturbance
[137] Request
Fort McKay requests that the regulators develop meaningful criteria to assess ecosystems and landscapes disturbance and establish thresholds for disturbance that consider long‐term effects on biodiversity, traditional land use, economic forests, rare plants and rare plant communities and wetland destruction or degradation in Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory, in consultation with Fort McKay.
13.10 Vegetation and Wetlands Key Concerns and Request Summary
Table 13‐1: Vegetation and Wetlands Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [119] Assessment Fort McKay requests that Teck provides vegetation data Response Cases for the PAA as a reference point to compare the impacts Regulatory of the Project to existing baseline conditions. The PAA was established as greater than the Project footprint to achieve a more conservative assessment of vegetation impacts, as some of the Frontier Project disturbance is not yet fully planned. Fort McKay requests that the Application is not deemed complete until this assessment is provided and Fort McKay and the regulators have reviewed and commented on it. [120] Pre‐ Fort McKay requests that in addition to its current Response Development methodology, Teck includes simulations of natural Regulatory Reference disturbance on the landscape (i.e., fire) to more accurately Conditions represent the natural variation of soil and vegetation types that might have been present in the pre‐development landscape (i.e., pre‐1965). Teck should also integrate historical data to form a more accurate picture of the pre‐ industrial development conditions. Further, the vegetation project assessments should be directly related to pre‐ industrial disturbance conditions, rather than using Base Case or the existing landscape as a reference point. Fort McKay requests that the update of the pre‐disturbance conditions is completed prior to the Application being deemed complete.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐152‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [121] Pre‐ Fort McKay requests that Teck compares all Project effects Response Development assessments to pre‐development conditions, as per the Regulatory Reference request above and that the Application is not deemed Conditions complete until this is done and has been reviewed and comments on by Fort McKay and the regulators. The assessment cases provided in the Application do not provide a comprehensive comparison of all of the Project effects to pre‐development conditions. [122] Fort McKay TK Fort McKay requests that Teck provides a formal plan as to Response and TLU how it will protect and reclaim traditional use species. Studies [123] Fort McKay TK Fort McKay requests that Teck completes an on‐the‐ Response and TLU ground traditional plant survey for the LSA, and specifically Regulatory Studies report project effects to traditional plants in both the PDA and PAA and that the Application is not deemed complete until this is done. [124] Fort McKay TK Fort McKay requests that Teck completes a cumulative Response and TLU effects assessment, PDC, for traditional land use within the Regulatory Studies RSA, and that this assessment include the Shell Pierre River Mine Project as part of the PDC and that the Application is not deemed complete until this. is done [125] Novel Fort McKay requests that Teck develops a monitoring Response Ecosystems program to assess the success of reclamation on tailings Regulatory sands specifically, to determine if there is indeed a conversion of these sites to novel ecosystems following reclamation. This program will monitor tailings sands reclamation and develop strategies to mitigate the development of novel ecosystems by identifying management actions to achieve the reclamation requirements outlined in the EPEA approvals and the Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region 2nd Edition. [126] Novel Fort McKay requests that the Government of Alberta, as Response Ecosystems part of a regulatory approval, ensures that Teck is required Regulatory to reclaim the land so that the reclaimed soils and landforms are capable of supporting a self‐sustaining, locally common boreal forest, regardless of the end land use and to implement reclamation practices that will achieve the reclamation goals outlined in the Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region 2nd Edition.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐153‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [127] Rare Plant Fort McKay requests that Teck completes a lichen survey Response Surveys as part of the rare plant vegetation plot surveys as some lichen species from this region are listed in the Species at Risk Act. [128] Non‐native and Fort McKay requests that ESRD requires Teck to Regulatory Invasive implement a monitoring and control program for non‐ Species Plan native and invasive species during the construction, and Monitoring operation, reclamation and closure phases of the project to ensure that these species do not invade disturbed sites and compete with native species. [129] Non‐native and Fort McKay requests that ESRD requires Teck to avoid the Regulatory Invasive use of seed mixes for erosion control to reduce the Species Control potential for introducing persistent grass species and to and Erosion ensure that the natural recovery of vegetation Control communities on site is returned to those of pre‐ disturbance conditions. Furthermore, BMP 15 in Alberta Environment and Water (2012) indicates that the use of seed mixes should be avoided to preserve propagule diversity and integrity. If a seed mix is used, Fort McKay requests that the seed mix contain only native species local to the project area. [130] Non‐native and Fort McKay requests that the return of the site to pre‐ Regulatory Invasive disturbance conditions is included as a condition of any Species Control approvals issued for the Project. See also reclamation and and Erosion certification requests in Section 21.2. Control [131] Natural Fort McKay requests that research and studies are Regulatory successional conducted to understand forest establishment on processes reclaimed landscapes, and to develop models for predicting landscape patterns and reclamation trajectories. Fort McKay believes these types of studies can be used to develop guidance to assist in regional reclamation planning. [132] Natural Fort McKay requests that Teck evaluates if old‐growth Response successional forests will develop in the undisturbed areas of the study processes area as predicted, based on available literature, research and other case studies. [133] Monitoring Air Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to support and Response Emissions participate in regional monitoring (i.e., Terrestrial Regulatory Environment Effects Monitoring Program and biodiversity monitoring) to monitor potential effects of air emissions on vegetation resources.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐154‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [134] Monitoring Air Fort McKay requests that Alberta and Canada consult with Regulatory Emissions Fort McKay regarding the governance, design and implementation of the World Class Monitoring System with regard to air, land and water monitoring and the inclusion of community‐based monitoring. [135] Reversibility of Fort McKay requests that Teck provides scientific support Regulatory Air Emissions (in the form of literature citations and/or studies) Impacts regarding their assessment of SO2, NO2, and nitrogen deposition impacts to vegetation as “reversible” over the long‐term within the RSA. Further, Fort McKay requests that Teck explains how results from studies of air pollution effects in Europe transfer to the boreal systems of northeastern Alberta. [136] Reversibility of Fort McKay is concerned about air pollution effects to Response Air Emissions vegetation during and following the Frontier Project Regulatory Impacts operation, and requests that Teck implements a monitoring program to understand nitrogen and sulphur deposition and effects to vegetation and soils in the LSA throughout the duration of the mine operation. [137] Landscape Fort McKay requests that the regulators develop Regulatory Disturbance meaningful criteria to assess disturbance of ecosystems and landscapes and establish thresholds for disturbance that consider long term effects on biodiversity, traditional land use, economic forests, rare plants and rare plant communities and wetland destruction or degradation in the Fort McKay Traditional Lands, in consultation with Fort McKay.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – Fort McKay’s request to the regulators, including information requests, regulatory requirements and approval conditions (if the project is ultimately approved). Response – a deficiency or question on which Fort McKay requests that a response of additional information from Teck is provided to Fort McKay and the regulators, prior to the application being deemed complete by the regulators.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐155‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
14. BIODIVERSITY
14.1 Biodiversity Assessment The Project application does not include an assessment of the Project effects on biodiversity indicators in a separate chapter of the EIA. Fort McKay is concerned that the application contains insufficient information regarding the potential effects to biodiversity in the study area.
14.2 Biodiversity Key Concerns and Requests
[138] Biodiversity Potential The C&R Plan does not adequately describe how biodiversity potential will be monitored in the PDA to determine if the development and reclamation practices applied to disturbed lands are affecting biodiversity potential in the undisturbed adjacent areas. Two recent reports prepared for CEMA (Kirk, Schieck and Eaton 2009) recommend using an experimental design based on the reference‐condition approach for monitoring reclamation areas to evaluate the re‐establishment of biodiversity on the post‐reclamation landscape (Ciborowski et al. 2011). The information in these reports could be applied to develop a monitoring program of the reclamation areas using the reference‐condition approach. The C&R Plan does not adequately describe how the Community of Fort McKay will be effectively involved in decision‐making related to the reclamation for re‐ establishing biodiversity, which supports traditional land uses. Fort McKay is interested in identifying and defining how traditional knowledge might contribute to effective reclamation planning for biodiversity potential on the post‐reclamation landscape.
[138] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to establish a biodiversity monitoring program based on a reference‐condition approach, to collect data on undisturbed areas and reclaimed areas in order to quantify how similar conditions and successional patterns on reclaimed landscapes are to the natural landscape.
Ecosystem Diversity Old‐growth forest vegetation types will be reduced on the post‐reclamation landscape. As described in more detail in the review of the Vegetation and Wetlands section (Section 13), Fort McKay is concerned with the predicted changes to ecosystem diversity and distribution on the post‐reclamation landscape. See Requests [125] – [126] regarding natural successional processes.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐156‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[139] – [141] Reclamation Success Teck provides insufficient information describing how reclamation will be conducted to restore soil properties and ecological functions within terrestrial habitats to support successional patterns on reclaimed landscape that are similar to the natural landscape. The C&R Plan does not adequately describe how biodiversity potential will be re‐established on the post‐reclamation landscape. Teck does not plan to re‐establish peat‐based wetlands classes in the closure landscape. Fort McKay is concerned that wetland reclamation is not included in the C&R Plan because there will be a substantial change in habitat and species diversity related to the permanent loss of organic wetland habitat.
[139] Request
Fort McKay requests that the regulators ensure the effects of the Project and the cumulative effects of regional development on biodiversity are assessed:
i. with the assumption that reclamation does not prove completely successful at returning a suite of native plant and animal species to the project‐area landscape; ii. during the time period the study area is “functionally” unreclaimed – that is, during the time period that the Project footprint features are unreclaimed, plus the subsequent period until return of ecological function and form similar to pre‐disturbance conditions can be conclusively demonstrated; and, iii. that the application is not deemed complete until this work is done.
[140] Request
Fort McKay requests that the regulators ensure through protected areas, access management and other management tools identified in the TEMF and by Fort McKay in its submissions regarding the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan (November 7, 2010 and June 6, 2011), that sufficient habitat and wildlife populations are maintained to allow the repopulation of reclaimed areas. Where these tools or mitigation measures are to be adopted within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory, Fort McKay requests that it is involved in development, implementation, and evaluation of these measures.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐157‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[141] Request
Fort McKay requests that, as an approval condition, Teck is required to demonstrate a vigourous commitment to plan for biodiversity restoration in its reclamation program, and within two years of approval to develop a work plan to accomplish this objective, in co‐operation with regional committees that allow for Fort McKay’s detailed and meaningful involvement and input or other forums, acceptable to Fort McKay.
Biodiversity and the reclamation of industrial disturbances are core issues at the Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA). Teck should be required to participate in those working groups that are developing related management tools.
Cumulative Effects on Biodiversity It is difficult for all parties to assess or discuss the significance of the Project or cumulative effects without regional objectives based on some understanding of threshold levels or environmental carrying capacity. Objectives and thresholds need to be developed for a meaningful regional area (or set of areas). For Fort McKay, it would be useful if this area(s) corresponded to their traditional use areas, and levels of intensity of use within these areas (see Fort McKay’s Request [189] in Section 21.4 and Request [3] in Section 3.2 Overall Requests and Concerns).
Table 14‐1: Biodiversity Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table
Fort McKay Key Number Requests Category* Concern(s) [138] Biodiversity Fort McKay requests that Teck establishes a biodiversity Regulatory Potential monitoring program based on a reference‐condition approach, to collect data on undisturbed areas and reclaimed areas in order to quantify how similar conditions and successional patterns on reclaimed landscapes are to the natural landscape. [139] Reclamation Fort McKay requests that the regulators ensure the effects Regulatory Success of the Project and the cumulative effects of regional development on biodiversity are assessed: i) with the assumption that reclamation does not prove completely successful at returning a suite of native plant and animal species to the project‐area landscape;
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐158‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay Key Number Requests Category* Concern(s) [139] Reclamation ii) during the time period the study area is Regulatory (cont’d) Success “functionally” unreclaimed – that is, during the (cont’d) time period that Project footprint features are unreclaimed, plus the subsequent period until return of ecological function and form similar to pre‐disturbance conditions can be conclusively demonstrated; and iii) that the application is not deemed complete until this work is done. [140] Reclamation Fort McKay requests that the regulators ensure through Regulatory Success protected areas, access management and other management tools identified in the TEMF and by Fort McKay in its submissions regarding the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan (November 7, 2010 and June 6, 2011), that sufficient habitat and wildlife populations are maintained to allow the repopulation of reclaimed areas. Where these tools or mitigation measures are to be adopted within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory, Fort McKay requests that it is involved in development, implementation, and evaluation of these measures. [141] Reclamation Fort McKay requests that, as an approval condition, Teck is Regulatory Success required to demonstrate a vigourous commitment to plan Agreement for biodiversity restoration in its reclamation program, and within two years of approval to develop a work plan to accomplish this objective, in co‐operation with regional committees that allow for Fort McKay’s detailed and meaningful involvement and input or other forums, acceptable to Fort McKay.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – Fort McKay’s request to the regulators, including information requests, regulatory requirements and approval conditions (if the project is ultimately approved). Response – a deficiency or question on which Fort McKay requests that a response of additional information from Teck is provided to Fort McKay and the regulators, prior to the application being deemed complete by the regulators.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐159‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
15. HUMAN HEALTH
15.1 Human Health Assessment The EIA condenses the key issues relating to human health into four key questions that were developed to address them and focus the HHRA on these issues of concern.111 These questions are: 1) HH1: could short‐term (acute) inhalation of air emission from the Frontier Project, in combination with operating, approved and planned oil sands developments, result in adverse human health effects? 2) HH2: Could long‐term (chronic) inhalation of air emission from the Frontier Project, in combination with operating, approved and planned oil sands developments, result in adverse human health effects? 3) HH3: Could the Frontier Project in combination with operating, approved and planned oil sands developments, result in long‐term (chronic) health effects from all possible routes of exposure combined (i.e. drinking water, soil contact, skin contact, country food ingestion, fish consumption, air inhalation)? 4) HH4: Could air emission from the Frontier Project under upset or emergency conditions result in adverse human health effects? The EIA adopts an approach to the HHRA that includes identified chemicals expected to be emitted from the Project during construction and operation,112 and models their emission concentration and resulting exposure to humans through inhalation, absorption and ingestion directly through contaminated air and water and indirectly through consumption of contaminated wild foods.113 It then compares the overall dose with published limits of exposure related to ‘acute’ and ‘chronic’ exposures that are assumed to be ‘safe’ limits114 with regard to human health, with the aim of assessing health ‘risk’ related to the exposure. Further, the HHRA undertakes this for four groupings of humans115 selected to have different exposure profiles and wild food consumption rates, including:116
recreational group; residential group; cabin group; and Aboriginal group.
111 Section 2.4.4 112 Volume 7 and related Appendices 2A through 2E 113 HHRA Section 5.3.1.10 114 HHRA Section 5.4 115 HHRA Section 5.3.3 116 HHRA Tables 5.3‐4 and 5.3‐5
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐160‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
The HHRA undertakes this process with three assessment cases:117
Baseline Case; Application Case; and Planned Development Case.
These three scenarios allow demonstration of pollution contribution to the overall Project within the existing contamination that has already occurred and will occur from approved developments and “likely to be approved developments” (Base Case), the Base Case plus the Project, and the expected future contamination once this and other projects have occurred (Planned Development). In addition, the Project also includes reference conditions of pre‐1965 Development and Existing (2010) development.118 This basic overall approach has been used before in assessing regional impacts (except for including unapproved projects in the Base Case) on human health in the province of Alberta. It reflects a process that would be expected to result in a low or negligible health risk because of the way the overall ToR are interpreted. However this risk assessment process, though involved and well established in the regional Alberta HHRA regulatory paradigm, is limited and does not take into account potential major health impacts that are related to the proposed Project. The ToR need not be so narrowly interpreted. This review challenges the process assumptions and limitations and presents a more comprehensive Health Impact Assessment approach.
15.2 Challenge to Conservative Assumptions within the Project’s HHRA Within the HHRA, a series of steps are sequentially followed in order to estimate human health risk. These sequential steps include: 1) identifying chemicals likely to be contained within the industrial emissions; 2) estimating emission concentrations to various media (mainly air), but also to water and ground and bioaccumulation in wild foods including animals and plants; 3) estimating dilution rates; 4) estimating exposure doses (inhalation, ingestion, absorption); 5) estimating ‘safe’ exposure limits – these are often derived from a combination of sources from Canada, US, Europe and international organizations (e.g., WHO), and are more often than not based on occupational exposure risks relating to health and safety of the work‐force;
117 Section 2.3.2 118 Section 2.3.4
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐161‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
6) estimating risk to human health from individual chemical and chemical group exposures; and 7) estimating risk to human health from exposure to mixtures of chemicals. These various estimates are made throughout each step of the HHRA process. Estimates are needed because the HHRA process incorporates many unknowns and uncertainties. HHRA is not an exact science; it is more a best‐guess prediction based on the known science of the day. Because of the consequences of getting a HHRA wrong, conservatism should be built into responsible HHRA as a priority. As with all traditional HHRA there are a great many estimated factors to take into account before concluding the presence or absence of significant risk to human health. Because health risk assessment is an imprecise science, conservative safety factors are built into the process. For example:
extrapolating toxicity data between chemicals of similar molecular structure and therefore assumed similar toxicity (itself often a leap of faith); extrapolating toxicity data from laboratory animal test species to human beings; and extrapolating healthy‐worker health‐based limits to the general population (including young, old and sick).
Safety factors are needed to “offset” the potential of synergistic interaction between chemicals, which might have a disproportionately high impact on health, compared to chemicals acting in simply an additive manner. Ideally, a conservative risk assessment will introduce large safety factors such as 10‐fold or 100‐fold to err well on the side of caution and promote conservatism. However, the realities of multiple estimates often preclude use of larger, more desirable, safety factors as they inevitably lead to a high provisional risk estimate. Thus, there is pressure to adopt smaller safety factors within the step‐by‐step approach to HHRA (e.g., two‐, three‐, or five‐fold). The choice of what safety factors to incorporate is a controversial one, as higher or lower adopted factors can easily lead to different conclusions on estimated health risk. The choice of what safety factor to use is influenced by the viewpoint and purpose driving the risk assessment. For example, an environmental or public health group might opt for higher safety factors to be employed to ensure public health protection is more likely to be achieved, whereas industry (and some elements of government) proponents might argue for lower safety factors to be used to help ensure industrial developments are approved. The fact that this EIA is undertaken on behalf of industry cannot be ignored in reviewing and evaluating the choice of safety factors incorporated within the HHRA process. HHRA is an imprecise science as evidenced by many well accepted uncertainties used within the HHRA derivation, including:
estimating underlying emissions, dilutions and exposure estimations;
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐162‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
lack of human epidemiological data on exposure effect; knowledge gaps in toxicity of common chemicals; large knowledge gaps in toxicity of uncommon chemicals, leading to uncertainties in use of chemical surrogates; uncertainties in the extrapolation of toxicity data for individual chemicals to exposure matrices involving many hundreds of different chemicals; potential for synergism between different chemical moieties as they interact with human biochemistry; and low‐fold and high‐fold safety factors selection within the HHRA process and the necessity to balance pressures to ensure public safety with the perceived need for industrial development.
Given this background, it is clear that western science is not able to define human health risk with certainty and precision. Therefore, HHRA can be usefully viewed as less of precise science and more as an educated guess, often biased by the purpose of the risk assessment, which attempts to estimate the real risk to human health from variable exposures to complex matrices of industrial chemicals. It is good HHRA practice to err on the side of caution and safety when assumptions are made. The same conservative philosophy should be maintained in interpreting HHRA and summarizing conclusions – otherwise public health and safety is not served. With this background, the overall conclusion of the HHRA embodied in the EIA dismisses the underlying uncertainty of the HHRA. The HHRA presents a biased view of the extent of its imbedded conservatism. The HHRA promotes certain assumptions that appear to lead to increased conservatism in the HHRA, while seemingly sidelining discussion concerning assumptions made within the HHRA that do not promote conservatism.
15.3 Human Health Key Concerns and Requests Summary
[142] Chemical Mixtures and Synergism The HHRA includes consideration only of potential additive effects in its assessment of chemical mixture.119 There is no consideration of potential synergistic effects between the identified chemicals. The absence of any reference to synergism does not support the ‘conservative’ nature claimed to have been adopted throughout this HHRA.
119 Section 5A‐4.1
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐163‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[142] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck presents clear justification for not including potential synergism in their HHRA and comments on whether potential synergism could occur within the identified C of C and other chemicals already present in the regional air and water sheds and further explains how the exclusion of synergism supports conservatism in its HHRA approach.
15.4 HHRA and Increased Health Risks Identified In general the HHRA was conducted in a comprehensive and competent manner, using conventional risk assessment processes albeit within a narrow interpretation of the ToR. The HHRA concludes that overall emissions from the Project alone, and in combination with emission from other sources, are not expected to result in adverse health effects in the oil sands region. Further, the HHRA concludes that cumulative environmental risks associated with the additional projects and activities planned for the region are not expected to result in adverse health effects. However, the HHRA does highlight that some modeled emissions are of greater concern than others, and cannot be too readily dismissed. Among these are acute inhalation health risks from PM₂.₅, NO₂ and acrolein, and chronic inhalation health risks from PM₂₅ and acrolein. Some data relied upon in the HHRA for assessing potential acrolein health impacts is addressed below.
[143] – [145] Acrolein HHRA within the EIA The HHRA addresses120 the findings indicating Risk Quotient indices above 1 for acute and chronic exposure to acrolein in a number of instances. However, the HHRA argues that the overall health impacts from acrolein exposure should be low based on four assumptions – one of which references a 2005 Golder Associates report: In a study conducted by Golder Associates (Golder 2005) to monitor air quality for acrolein near Fort McKay, Fort McMurray and various active mining projects, all concentrations of acrolein were determined to be less than the analytical detection limit. It was concluded that the overall acrolein concentrations in the study area were low (Golder Associates 2005). Closer inspection reveals that the 2005 Golder report was titled ‘Acrolein Monitoring in the Oil Sands Region’. There are serious and critical errors in both the fundamental science within the 2005 Golder report and Shell’s interpretation of the findings of the 2005 Golder report.
120 Section 2.20.1.1
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐164‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Critical errors in the 2005 Golder Report The 2005 Golder report contains 23 pages that introduce and summarizes laboratory results from dozens of airborne acrolein measurements taken in the oil sands region between June 13 and July 2, 2005. All laboratory results were reported as ‘BDL’ or Below Detection Limit. These BDL values were quoted in units of ‘µg’ (e.g., 0.15 µg or 2.00 µg). This, in and of itself, does not imply airborne acrolein was necessarily low, as this would very much depend on the sampled volume of air. For example, on Page 13 of the Golder 2005 report, Table 1 indicates that an acrolein sample taken at the Suncor Borealis Camp had a ‘BDL’ laboratory result with a detection limit of 2.00 µg. The sampling time was 256 minutes at a flow rate of 2.0 L/minute, yielding a calculated sample volume of 512 L – this equates to 0.512 m³. In order to determine what airborne concentration this detection limit might imply one must divide the detection limit, in this case 2.00 µg, with the sample volume, in this case 0.512 m³ as follows: 2.00 3.9 0.512
3.9 µg/m³ would be the implied airborne detectable concentration of acrolein. The 2005 Golder report did not carry out calculations for any of the airborne detection equivalent concentrations. Nor did the 2005 Golder report explore the important consequences of not calculating these concentrations. This calculation can be readily repeated for all the data points presented in the 2005 Golder report. In comparison, the US EPA reference concentration value used in the HHRA is 0.02 µg/m³. Thus the USEPA exposure limit is two to three orders of magnitude BELOW the calculated minimal detectable concentration limits embodied in the 2005 Golder report. This implies that the limitations in laboratory detection limits embodied in the design of 2005 Golder report, from the very start, insured that little if any detectable amounts of acrolein would be found in the sampling program unless values were very high—up to 1,000 times the accepted safe limit! Thus the 2005 Golder report is critically flawed and its contents are at best meaningless, and at worst misleading. For example, it is possible the actual acrolein concentrations is more than 10‐fold the EPA limit and the Golder 2005 report was not designed to detect this exceedance. It is difficult to justify any rationale explaining why these values were not calculated and compared to established limits within the 2005 Golder report. The 2005 Golder report should not have made any conclusions whatsoever in relation to airborne concentrations of acrolein in the oil sands – the report basically contains meaningless information embodied in ‘non‐detects’ without any meaningful exploration of what the ‘non‐detects’ might be hiding. Finally, it is a lesson in caution in relying on non peer‐reviewed reports. It should raise questions with the regulators as to whether the necessary internal control systems are in place in major consulting firms providing a substantial volume of
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐165‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
reports on the impacts of oil sands development intended to be relied upon by government agencies and the public. The 2005 Golder report is relied upon by Teck as an important piece of scientific monitoring conducted in the oil sands for airborne acrolein concentrations. Teck should have critically reviewed such an important reference before relying on its flawed contents within its HHRA. A cursory read of the 2005 Golder report by someone knowledgeable in the field should have uncovered these critical limitations. The main finding of the 2005 Golder report is summarized in the final sentence of the executive summary as follows:
‘’The results of this monitoring program, where all of the samples were below detection limits, suggest that the assumptions made with respect to possible acrolein emissions … are likely very conservative.’’
However, as discussed above, examination of content within the Golder 2005 report contradicts the conclusion of its executive summary. The 2005 Golder report findings are essentially meaningless and tell us very little about airborne concentrations of acrolein in the region.
[143] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck re‐evaluates the integrity of the measurements contained in the 2005 Golder report, and the validity of its conclusions, and amends the acrolein section of the HHRA.
[144] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck rewrites its HHRA for acrolein with particular attention to a more realistic statement of conservatism, which accepts that conservatism is not as inherently strong in its HHRA as it claims to be.
[145] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck reviews the other non‐peer reviewed reports relied upon in the EIA and assesses them for reliability and validity.
15.5 Overall Conclusions from the HHRA The overall HHRA conclusions from the proposed Project are summarized in Section 2.11, and state that low health risks might be associated with NO₂, PM₂.₅ and acrolein. Nonetheless, the proposed Project does contribute to greater emissions in the region, and this in conjunction with current and future overall industrial development will slowly but progressively impact human health. Routine monitoring of pollutant levels in and around the Community of Fort
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐166‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
McKay would provide information as to whether emission and exposure modeling systems are valid and whether direct inhalation exposure and indirect exposure through ingestion of contaminated wildlife and plants present low health risk. Section 2.11.4 summarizes Teck responses to key questions from the HHRA (Table 2‐49). Though the HHRA concludes responses to each of these questions complete, this reviewer challenges the narrow interpretation of human health and risks to human health from the proposed project. Key Question (Table 2‐49) Response (Table 2‐49) Remaining concern HH1: could short‐term (acute) The short‐term potential risks Adverse Human Health inhalation of air emission from the associated with inhalation exposure risks too narrowly Frontier Project, in combination to the COPCs from the project and interpreted with operating, approved and other sources are considered to be planned oil sands developments, low. In the communities in the LSA, result in adverse human health the potential for adverse health effects? risks are low HH2: Could long‐term (chronic) The long‐term potential health risks Adverse Human Health inhalation of air emission from the associated with the inhalation risks too narrowly Frontier Project, in combination exposure to the Project and other interpreted with operating, approved and sources are considered to be planned oil sands developments, negligible to low. result in adverse human health effects? HH3: Could the Frontier Project in The potential long‐term health risks Adverse Human Health combination with operating, associated with exposures to the risks too narrowly approved and planned oil sands COPCs via multiple‐pathways of interpreted developments, result in long‐term exposure are generally considered (chronic) health effects from all to be low for all locations. possible routes of exposure combined (i.e. drinking water, sol contact, skin contact, country food ingestion, fish consumption, air inhalation)? HH4: Could air emission from the Ground level air concentrations Adverse Human Health Frontier Project under associated with the upset scenarios risks too narrowly upset/emergency conditions result are not expected to result in interpreted in adverse human health effects? adverse health effects. The limitations and restricted view of health impacts inherent within the HHRA are addressed in the next section.
15.6 Human Health Impact Assessment Within the Community of Fort McKay there exists many long‐standing health problems, which community members have voiced and at various times have associated with industrial development. Further, additional social problems, exacerbation of existing ones and profound cultural change and impacts are linked
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐167‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
to the rapid industrialization of the area, various factors that the Community has no control over (e.g., influx of people, traffic and camps) and the pace of change. These are documented and available, for example, within the Fort McKay Health Strategy (Fort McKay 2007). Following are some of the concerns expressed by Community members in relation to health and industry (Fort McKay 2007):
traffic safety in and around the Community, on Highway 63 and on industrial access roads; access to traditional lands and impacts of the influx of non‐aboriginal people within traditional lands causing safety concerns, conflict, vandalism, competion for resources; direct impacts of air quality changes, odours, and water quality on health; stress associated with concerns about pollution and its potential effects on health, in particular concerns about cancer and asthma; a widely held belief in the Community that wild foods (berries, vegetation, wildlife and fish) are more and more contaminated due to pollution from industry; limited access to medical, wellness, and other services; education; existing addictions and the increased availability of drugs; impacts on cultural heritage from industry‐related stressors (see Fort McKay Specific Cultural Heritage Assessment, Fort McKay IRC 2010); a disconnection between elder and youth, between leaders and community members, due to a loss of traditional cultural practices and associated values and a growing disconnection between the land and its people; and overall impacts on Community wellbeing and health.
At recent Community meetings (September/October 2011, and March/April 2012), one of which specifically included consultation on the Frontier Project similar concerns about the impacts of industry, including Teck, on health were raised by Community members in focus groups that represent different demographics within the Community (e.g., youth, adults, elders, genders, family groups). Health concerns about the impact of industry are similar to those listed above from the Fort McKay Health Strategy (Fort McKay IRC 2007) and include but are not limited to direct impacts from pollution, concerns about long‐term illness associated with pollution (e.g., asthma, cancer), impacts on wildlife and vegetation quality, stress, traffic, safety, addictions, water quality, culture, and community wellbeing. The Socio‐ecomomic Impact Assessment Review also has discussion about the above issues and connection to industrial development including the proposed Frontier Project (Molstad and Anderson 2012).
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐168‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
The HHRA is limited because Teck chose to limit the human health risk assessment to only a single determinant of health – namely the physical environment, and the presence and quantity of pollution. There are other determinants of health including diet, mental wellbeing, and strength of family, culture and community. Widespread fear that cumulative industrial emissions are contaminating Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory as more and more industry comes into their region, results in decreased land use leading to cultural erosion, which in turn leads to stress in individuals, family and the community. This upset promotes negative health impacts including poor diet (obesity, diabetes and other illnesses), substance abuse, depression and mental illness and suicide. In fact, all these major health issues are related to each other, and all are indirectly linked to industrial development and rapid socio‐cultural change – of which the proposed Project is only the latest contributor, among many. These major health issues within the Community of Fort McKay are not addressed in the current HHRA. If these issues were addressed in the HHRA, these issues could be better understood and accepted as linked to industrial development, and efforts could be made to mitigate these health impacts – for example, through more effective communication on the facts about wild food contamination and cultural promotion through culture and youth camps. However, these ‘indirect’ but most significant health impacts on the Community of Fort McKay are not identified in the HHRA, and hence ignored within the HHRA. Thus, the HHRA is severely limited as it:
does not consider the health impacts and concerns generated by the Community of Fort McKay; and fails to look at the broader determinants of health impacts associated with their proposed development, instead concentrating only on the physical environment.
Human health is not solely related to the presence or absence of toxic chemicals in the environment. Medical textbooks will define health in relation to key determinants. These include the following:121
Income and Social Status Social Support Networks Education and Literacy Employment/Working Conditions Social Environments Physical Environments Personal Health Practices and Coping Skills
121 italicized bullets include website links for more information
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐169‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Healthy Child Development Biology and Genetic Endowment Health Services Gender Culture Mental Wellbeing – including stress
Within the EIA the primary stated purpose of the Frontier Mine Project HHRA is to estimate the likely health impact on human health from the Project. For the sake of argument, let’s accept at face value the HHRA conclusions (which can never have absolute certainty) that there seem to be few acute or long‐term health risks associated with predicted exposures to chemicals emitted from the Project and inhaled, ingested, or absorbed by Fort McKay community members. The general public at large and Fort McKay community members in particular, have persistent concerns over their health relating to regional development of industry that are intimately connected with Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory. It would be unreasonable to expect any community in the air‐ and water shed of the proposed Project not to be concerned. These concerns are evident in listening to Fort McKay community members. Community members are under considerable stress because of rapid industrial development within their traditional lands, cultural shift, and fear of the effects of air, water, and land pollution on their health, as well as the effects of consuming contaminated wild foods. This fear has been fed by various reports recently distributed through Alberta media including:
increased rare cancers within the Fort Chipewyan community brought to the attention of the press and since confirmed by a review undertaken by the Alberta Cancer Board, and more recently highlighted in a CBC Nature of Things documentary; high arsenic levels in moose‐meat; tailing ponds contamination and mortality of migrating wildfowl; contaminated water and health effects; and lack of effective provincial government oversight and recent acknowledgement by federal and provisional expert panels of the inadequacy of current monitoring and detection of impacts.
These and other issues continually emerge, highlighting an association with industrial development and its increased pollution and human and environmental ill health. Discussions with many community members indicate that there is real fear within the community about widely reported health issues and contaminated wildlife. Aboriginal community members rely on land use as an anchor to their traditional culture. Harvesting traditional foods has been, and remains, a fundamental part of community identity. The sense of community and culture reinforced by traditional
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐170‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
food harvesting and sharing runs deep in the Community of Fort McKay, as it does with many Aboriginal peoples in Canada. The serious concerns within the Community relating to the health of the land, water, air and wildlife act to increase stress within individuals, between family members, and within the community at large. Stress is very much related to health (blood pressure, mental wellbeing, social and cultural stability). Examining all health determinants is an unconventional addition in the current Project’s EIA and HHRA. Nonetheless, stress and associated wider health determinants are a valid and important consideration that should not be ignored. The health determinants listed above cannot be disputed. The impact the planned Project has on these health determinants has not been assessed as part of the HHRA. Interviews with Fort McKay community members would be expected to reveal serious concerns over industrial development in general and the human health impact of all regional industrial developments including Teck’s proposed Frontier Mine Project. These concerns are affecting and will continue to affect the mental and physical health of Fort McKay individuals, family groups and the wider Community of Fort McKay. Assessment of these wider health effects within the HHRA can be guided by the general principal and use of adopting conservative safety factors inherent in responsible HHRA when the underlying science is unknown or poorly understood. The Community of Fort McKay will be constantly reminded of the physical presence of the proposed Frontier Mine Project project during construction and operation. Prudent HHRA should lead to the ‘conservative’ conclusion that the very presence of this large industrial development adjacent to Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory, and contributing to the air shed and watershed of the Fort McKay community will impact health. Further, prudent health risk assessment leads to adopting conservative assumptions erring on the side of caution. Without any objective assessment, prudent conservatism would lead to the conclusions that wider health impacts from the Project would be negative. Other national and international organizations recognize the wider more holistic approach relating industrial development to health impacts beyond simply examining chemical emissions. These organizations include US CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2011), the World Health Organization (World Health Organization 2011), as well as Health Canada (Health Canada 2010) and the Public Health Agency of Canada. This more comprehensive approach is becoming commonly named as a ‘Health Impact Assessment’ and is progressively being developed and applied throughout the world (Hebert et al. 2012). The use of HIAs in the oil and gas industry is well established and its underlying principles and methodology is supported by the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA) and the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (OGP) who jointly published A Guide to Health Impact Assessments in 2005 (International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association 2005).
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐171‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
To date, much effort has been put behind documenting a paper‐based HHRA. Correspondingly little effort has been devoted to a communication plan with provision of evidence to ensure Fort McKay community members have secure knowledge they will be ‘safe’. Within the HHRA, there appears to be no plan for effective communication to the Community of Fort McKay that would ensure they feel safe, or at least feel as safe as they can reasonably expect to with such major adjacent industrial developments. [146] Health Impact Assessment
[146] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to use a holistic approach to human health risk assessment that addresses community comments and concerns (note that the EIA ToR specify that any health issues raised by stakeholders need to be taken into account in the assessment of health). Fort McKay also requests that the human health assessment is revised to include a risk assessment on the likely health impacts of the Frontier Project on all determinants of health (list above) and that the application is not deemed complete until this is done.
Table 15‐1: Human Health Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table
Fort McKay Key Number Requests Category* Concern(s) [142] Synergism Fort McKay requests that Teck presents clear justification for Regulatory not including potential synergism in their HHRA and comment Response whether potential synergism could occur within the identified CofC and other chemicals already present in the regional air and water sheds and further explain how the exclusion of synergism supports conservatism in their HHRA approach. [143] Acrolein Fort McKay requests that Teck re‐evaluates the integrity of the Response measurements contained in the 2005 Golder report, and validity of its conclusions, and amends the acrolein section of the HHRA. [144] Acrolein Fort McKay requests that Teck rewrites its HHRA for acrolein Response with particular attention to a more realistic statement of conservatism, which accepts that conservatism is not as inherently strong in their HHRA as the HHRA claims. [145] Non peer Fort McKay requests that Teck reviews the other non peer‐ Response reviewed reviewed reports relied upon in the EIA and assesses them for reports reliability and validity.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐172‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay Key Number Requests Category* Concern(s) [146] Health Impact Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to use a holistic Response Assessment approach to human health risk assessment that addresses Regulatory Incomplete community comments and concerns (note that the EIA ToR specify that any health issues raised by stakeholders need to be taken into account in the assessment of health). Fort McKay also requests that the human health assessment is revised to include a risk assessment on the likely health impacts of the Frontier project on all determinants of health (list provided in the health review) and that the application is not deemed complete until this is done.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – Fort McKay’s request to the regulators, including information requests, regulatory requirements and approval conditions (if the project is ultimately approved). Response – a deficiency or question on which Fort McKay requests that a response of additional information from Teck is provided to Fort McKay and the regulators, prior to the application being deemed complete by the regulators.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐173‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
16. PALÆONTOLOGY
16.1 Study Scope
[147] Palæontological Study Standards This study was carried out within existing Government of Alberta guidelines and Terms of Reference (ToR) for such studies. These are clearly outlined in the Volume 8 summary report. Similar to the Historical Resources Study, these indicate that the palæontology assessment followed the general requirements of Alberta Environment and Water and Alberta Culture and Community Spirit (ACCS). However, Fort McKay has reservations about the scope and extent of the field‐ related work that was carried out in the course of this study and recommends that Teck is asked to provide assurances that the study followed normal palæontogical investigation procedures and requirements, as required under the conditions of Permits 2007‐06 and 2008, issued under the Alberta Resources Act.
[147] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck provides assurance that the palæontological assessment was carried out in accordance with accepted standards for such investigations within the Province of Alberta.
[148] Palæontological Study Area The Palæontology Study field investigation was preceded by a detailed literature review of reports and other sources of information from earlier studies within the Project’s local and regional areas. Following this, the study’s field component focused on the same Project Disturbance Area (PDA) as the Historical Resources study team, with the PDA covering 29,335 ha of land.
[148] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck clarifies the actual size and area of the Palæontological Resources Study area.
16.2 Field Investigation Process and Results
[149] Palæontological Study Lead Two‐seasons of field surveys were carried out by the palæontology team, but unfortunately the two summary reports did not state who comprised the field team members, or the name of the company who conducted the study. This would have been a useful inclusion at the beginning of the study reports, especially since our reviewers wanted to check the credentials of the study’s principals.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐174‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[149] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck indicates who carried out the Project’s palæontological study. This was not clear in the study.
[150] Resource Significance A description of what constitutes “palæontological resources” is included at the beginning of the summary report.122 However, this does not include megafauna from the Pleistocene era (such as horses, mastadons, camels and other now extinct species). Similar to the way the Historical Resources described archaeological sites, these reports also say that “Palæontological sites are nonrenewable and are susceptible to alteration, damage and destruction by developments”.123 This makes them vulnerable to impact, especially by large land‐altering projects such as the Frontier Project. These resources are protected from disturbance by the Alberta Historical Resources Act and can only be disturbed under a valid permit issued under this Act.
[150] Request
The palæontological report contains inconsistent and confusing information regarding the results of the in‐field palæontological investigation. Fort McKay requests that Teck provides additional information on how resource signficance was determined.
[151] – [152] In‐field Examination The Palæontological study’s field component focused on areas of exposed bedrock outcrops, especially along major watercourses. This represents a greatly reduced in‐field sampling area when compared to the Historic Resources study, which was discussed earlier in this report. This reduced study area might account for the seemingly low incidence of palæontological sites discovered in the course of the in‐ field study, with this being only “…five fossil sites in the Clearwater and Shaftesbury formations…”124 All identified sites were given a high to medium heritage value. Since there is little information in the reviewed reports about why large areas of potential Project impact were not subjected to a field examination, Fort McKay requests that Teck clarifies the rationale for how specific study areas for the Palæontological Resources component were determined.
122 Baseline Report, Section 10 123 Volume 2, Section 10, p. 10‐2 124 Volume 2: Baseline Studies , Section 10, p. 10‐8
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐175‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[151] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck provides the rationale for how certain areas were, or were not, subjected to in‐field palæontologiocal examination needs given the seemingly short amount of field examination that was carried out.
We also note that neither of the two reviewed reports makes any reference to sub‐ surface examinations by means of shovel testing or other sub‐surface examination method. The lack of any sub‐surface testing means that only areas of existing exposure were examined implying that there was no potential for buried palæontological resources. Yet, the palæontology summary reports both conclude that the study area has “…a high palaeontological potential in the palaeontological survey area…” even though no palæontological finds of any significance were found within the focus PDA. This is followed by the seemingly contradictory statement that:
“The palaeontological field surveys completed in 2007 and 2008 provide adequate coverage for the assessment of the project. No other surveys are planned.”125
[152] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck explains why the in‐field examinations only included surface exposures and why no sub‐surface field investigations were carried out.
In our view, the above are conflicting statements and Fort McKay has reservations about the study conclusion that no further palæontology study is required.
16.3 Palæontology Key Concerns and Requests Summary
Table 16‐1: Palæontology Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table Fort McKay Key Number Requests Category* Concern(s) [147] Paleontological Fort McKay requests that Teck provides assurances that Response study standards the palæontological assessment was carried out in accordance with accepted standards for such investigations within the Province of Alberta. [148] Palæontological Fort McKay requests that Teck clarifies the actual size and Response study area area of the Palaeontological Resources Study area.
125 Volume 2; Baseline Studies, Summuary Section 10.4
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐176‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay Key Number Requests Category* Concern(s) [149] Paleontological Fort McKay requests that Teck indicates who carried out Response study lead the palæontological study for the proposed project. This was not clear in the study. [150] Resource The palæontological report contains inconsistent and Response significance confusing information regarding the results of the in‐field palæontological investigation. Fort McKay requests that Teck provides additional information on how resource signficance was determined. [151] In‐field Fort McKay requests that Teck provides the rationale for Response examination how certain areas were, or were not, subjected to in‐field palæontologiocal examination needs given the seemingly short amount of field examination that was carried out. [152] In‐field Fort McKay requests that Teck explains why the in‐field Response examination examinations only included surface exposures and why no sub‐surface field investigations were carried out.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – Fort McKay’s request to the regulators, including information requests, regulatory requirements and approval conditions (if the project is ultimately approved). Response – a deficiency or question on which Fort McKay requests that a response of additional information from Teck is provided to Fort McKay and the regulators, prior to the application being deemed complete by the regulators.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐177‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
17. HISTORICAL RESOURCES
17.1 Introduction Our review was limited to two summary reports since the full FMA 2010 Historical Resources assessment report for this Project was not available to Fort McKay.126 Although the two reports totaled only 19 pages of text, plus references and two maps, they did provide sufficient content to get a good sense of the scope and results of what appears to have been a substantial Historical Resources Impact Assessment (HRIA) study carried out for the Project. The HRIA study was conducted by FMA Heritage Resource Consultants Ltd. and the field investigation was authorized under an Alberta Culture and Community Spirit Permit issued in 2010 under the Alberta Historical Resources Act. The FMA study followed and built on the results of three previous HRIA studies that were carried out for the Frontier Project in 2007 and 2009. It is Fort McKay’s understanding that the FMA 2010 report is currently being reviewed by Alberta Culture and Community Spirit staff.
[153] Request
Fort McKay requests that the Archaeological Survey of Alberta’s Culture and Community Spirit provide the HRIA for the Teck Frontier project and all future development projects taking place within Fort McKay Traditional Territory as soon as they are available. This information is required for Fort McKay to complete a review of the potential development impacts on the historic, paleontological and traditional land use values within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory.
Fort McKay requests that Alberta Culture and Community Spirit consult with Fort McKay regarding protection of historic, palæontological and traditional land use values within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory.
17.2 HRIA Study Scope and Approach
[154] Historical Resources Study Area The HRIA assessment followed the ToR for such studies, as outlined in the Government of Alberta’s ToR outlined specifically for the Frontier Project study. This included consultation with Alberta Culture and Community Spirit (ACCS) staff to determine their requirements for an HRIA study within potential project impact lands, followed by an extensive background literature review focusing on both the Local Study Area (LSA) and the larger Regional Study Area (RSA).
126 Volume 2; Baseline Studies, Section 11: Historical Resources and Volume 8: People and Places ,Section 3
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐178‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
However, the HRIA also focused on a specific area referred to in the reports as the Project Disturbance Area (PDA), described as a 29,335 ha area that corresponds to “… the anticipated limit of disturbance at the completion of operations in 2057”.127 This area is shown on Figure 3‐1 of the Volume 8 People and Places report. This same map shows the general locations of archæological and other historical resources sites within the PDA. In the vegetation assessment Teck indicates that the Project Assessment Area (PAA), which is larger than the PDA is the area where vegetation impacts are expected to occur, since some vegetation clearing activities are still unknown. Fort McKay would like clarification as to how Teck plans to assess historical resources in areas that are not yet defined for clearing.
[154] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck clarifies the size of the various HR study areas and if areas within the 10 km buffer zone of the general study area were subjected to in‐field examinations.
Fort McKay requests that Teck clarifies how and when it will assess potential historical resources within the PAA areas that are not yet defined for clearing.
[155] Documented HR sites The same report notes that a total of 153 “…archaeological and historic period sites were located and investigated…” in the course of the HRIA study. It is also noted that almost all of these “sites” are archæological in nature (totaling 151 out of the 153 sites investigated). It should be noted that we found some inconsistencies in the overall numbers of sites reported in the two reports. For example, although 140 sites are recommended for future mitigation, only 103 are identified as being located within the PDA but the report does not explain what happened to the other 37 sites. We also note that in a later section of the report, only 94 sites are recommended for mitigation. Teck needs to clarify these discrepancies. Given this confusion regarding the number of sites requiring future mitigation, we must accept that the FMA 2010 study report recommends follow‐up mitigation‐ level archæological investigations at 140 sites for now. This assessment is based on FMA’s site evaluation scheme, which found that all 140 sites have a “…perceived high value and interpretive potential…” and since their contents and context “…indicate the additional investigation will contribute to the archaeological knowledge of Alberta”.128 In our view, this seems a very high number of archæological sites deemed to have “high” archæological valuebased on our experience with similar HRIA projects elsewhere. For us to verify this further
127 Volume 8 – People and Places, Section 3, p. 3‐4 128 Volume 8, Section 3, p. 3‐6
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐179‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
would require a detailed assessment of the FMA site evaluation scheme, which unfortunately is not provided in either of the two Historical Resources report provided to us.
[155] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck clarifies the actual number of documented Historic Resources sites (which are mainly archæological site types). In particular, it is not clear how many archæological site locations require future mitigation study.
[156] Archæological site significance Any future evaluation of site significance must include the Community of Fort McKay. Although this focus should be on areas and sites that are still to be examined in the course of additional Historic Resources assessment studies in areas yet to be investigated, it should also apply to sites that have already been documented. This is of particular importance since the FMA site evaluation process, as briefly presented in the reviewed reports, appears to be based entirely on the notion that sites are only significant from an archæological perspective. A more inclusive site evaluation scheme that includes both archæological and local community values would be preferable.
[156] Request
The criteria used for determining archæological site significance are unclear. Fort McKay requests that Teck explains the significance criteria in more detail.
17.3 Comments on Study Completion and Future Investigations
[157] Follow‐up Historical Resources Studies Our review noted a number of gaps in the study’s scope carried out to date. For example, it is not clear if the FMA study included field examinations within a 10‐km project buffer zone. This needs further clarification and confirmation by Teck. The reviewed reports also indicate that a number of potential impact areas have not been examined in detail, or not at all, since they are currently unknown. These include, but are not limited to:
access roads and other project access infrastructure; camp and associated developments; overburden stockpiles; creek diversion and water intake and distribution works; pipeline alignments; and bitumen processing areas.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐180‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[157] Request
Historical Resources and related studies carried out in the past, including the latest FMA study from 2010, indicate that additional studies will likely be required. This information is important since it will form the basis for any meaningful cumulative effects assessment for the Project. Fort McKay requests that Teck provides updates and findings from any additional studies that are conducted in follow up to the HR study for the Project application.
All such infrastructure development areas might require Project‐specific historical resources investigation or mitigation work in the future and the Project reports should have included a comprehensive plan for historical resources investigation within areas of future infrastructure development. Without this information it is not possible to predict what the true cumulative effects on historical resources will be over the life of the proposed development. This information – even if not firm at this time – should be included in a long‐term Historical Resources Management and Mitigation Plan that is yet to be developed. This Plan must also include a process for dealing with accidental and fortuitous findings of historical resources during the Operational Stage of the Project, as well as during the Land Reclamation Stage. A plan for when and how to conduct in‐field archæological monitoring of ongoing project developments must also be worked out and Protocol Agreements between the Community of Fort McKay and other communities who might have legitimate interests in the proposed development areas must also be concluded.
[158] Historical Resources Development Schedule Finally, plans and agreements on how historical resources sites will be mitigated, the level of local community involvement in all future mitigation work, as well as agreements relating to where and how archæological documentation materials and artifact collections will be stored and displayed, must be concluded prior to the Operational Stage of the Frontier Project.
[158] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck provides Fort McKay with a detailed Development Schedule and list of specific developments and ancillary projects that might need additional historical resources assessment, in advance of any such developments taking place.
It should be noted that the report indicates that the FMA study has recommended that a “…historical resources management plan will be implemented to track the status of studies and correspondence with the ACCS, including Historical Resources
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐181‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Act clearance for Project components and for historical resources sites”.129 However, little detail is provided about what should be included in such a plan and when this will be developed.
[159] Historical Resources Management Plan Teck is required to prepare a Historical Resources Management Plan for both the short and the long term. This Plan will include how and when follow‐up archæological and other historical resources studies, mitigation and protection actions are to be carried out.
[159] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck develops a Historical Resources Management Plan in cooperation with Fort McKay. This Plan will include how and when follow‐up archaeological and other historical resources study, mitigation and protection actions are to be carried out.
Fort McKay also requests that Teck provide a database of all historical resources locations and descriptions to Fort McKay, provide the necessary resources for start‐up and continued operation of the database, and assist Fort McKay in establishing an historical resources collections storage and documentation facility.
17.4 Historical Resources Impact Assessment Key Concerns and Requests Summary
Table 17‐1: Historical Resources Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [153] HRIA Fort McKay requests that the Archæological Survey of Regulatory Alberta’s Culture and Community Spirit provide the HRIA for the Teck Frontier project and all future development projects taking place within Fort McKay Traditional Territory as soon as they are available. This information is required for Fort McKay to complete a review of the potential development impacts on the historic, palæontological and traditional land use values within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory. Fort McKay requests that Alberta Culture and Community Spirit consult with Fort McKay regarding protection of historic, palæontological and traditional land use values within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory.
129 Volume 8 People and Places, Section 3
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐182‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [154] HR Study Area Fort McKay requests that Teck clarifies the size of the Response various HR study areas and if areas within the 10‐km buffer zone of the general study area were subjected to in‐field examinations. Fort McKay requests that Teck clarifies how and when it will assess potential historical resources within the PAA areas that are not yet defined for clearing. [155] Documented Fort McKay requests that Teck clarifies the actual number of Response HR sites documented Historic Resources sites (which are mainly archæological site types). In particular, it is not clear how many archæological site locations require future mitigation study. [156] Archaeological The criteria used for determining archæological site Response site significance are unclear. Fort McKay requests that Teck significance explains the significance criteria in more detail. [157] Follow up HR Historical Resources and related studies carried out in the Response studies past; including the latest FMA study from 2010, indicate that additional studies will likely be required. This information is important since it will form the basis for any meaningful cumulative effect assessment for the project. Fort McKay requests that Teck provides updates and findings from any additional studies that are conducted in follow up to the HR study for the Frontier application. [158] HR Fort McKay requests that Teck provides the FMSD with a Response development detailed Development Schedule and list of specific schedule developments and ancillary projects that might need additional historical resources assessment, in advance of any such developments taking place. [159] Historical Fort McKay requests that Teck develops a Historical Response Resources Resources Management Plan in cooperation with Fort management McKay. This Plan will include how and when follow‐up plan archaeological and other historical resources study, mitigation and protection actions are to be carried out. Fort McKay also requests that Teck provide a database of all historical resources locations and descriptions to Fort McKay, provide the necessary resources for start‐up and continued operation of the database, and assist Fort McKay in establishing an historical resources collections storage and documentation facility.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – Fort McKay’s request to the regulators, including information requests, regulatory requirements and approval conditions (if the project is ultimately approved). Response – a deficiency or question on which Fort McKay requests that a response of additional information from Teck is provided to Fort McKay and the regulators, prior to the application being deemed complete by the regulators.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐183‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
18. VISUAL ÆSTHETICS
18.1 Introduction The EIA includes a visual æsthetic impacts assessment, which follows the structure of other sections of the document. The EIA identifies the methods Teck deployed to assess visual æsthetic impacts; discusses the rationale for the scope of the study; describes the spatial and temporal boundaries of the visual æsthetics assessment, as well as the key indicators and how they were chosen; and finally, it offers an assessment of the Project’s visual æsthetic impacts. The assessment’s scope goes beyond what is prescribed in the Project’s ToR (Government of Alberta 2009), where only a discussion of æsthetics is called for. Teck indicates that it followed regulatory and public inputs—including draft plans of regional planning committees; the Draft Lower Athabasca Regional Plan (Government of Alberta 2011); the Fort McMurrayAthabasca Oil Sands Subregional Integrated Resource Plan (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2011); and CEMA website—as well as engagement with Aboriginal and non‐Aboriginal communities. Teck indicates that visual æsthetic concerns were expressed during the engagement process with potentially affected Aboriginal communities, including concerns that the Project might be visible to a viewer in Fort McKay, at nearby sacred sites and trappers cabins, and to people travelling along the Athabasca River (particularly the water intake pipe). From these and other inputs, Teck developed a number of key issues related to changes in visual æsthetics, applicable from construction, through operation, to closure. The assessment proceeded on the following basis:
“Elevated Project components could be visible at certain receptor locations and could affect visual characteristics;”
“Changes in topography associated with the closure landscape will be visible from a number of receptor locations and will affect visual characteristics.”130
Teck notes that the study area’s geography is flat to undulating. Topography provides some barriers to visibility west of the Birch Mountains and between river valleys, and forest cover offers some further protection from visibility in some areas. The Project will be visible at long distances from high vantage points, along the Athabasca River, or where there are breaks or large cuts in vegetation.
130 Table 5.1, p. 5‐3
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐184‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
18.2 Approach
[160] Pre‐Development Baseline Visual æsthetic issues were proposed to be examined in the context of a Base Case (existing, approved and “likely to be approved” developments), an Application Case (Base Case with the proposed Project factored in), and a Planned Development Case (comprising Base Case, the proposed project, and reasonably foreseeable projects). Teck noted that they did not produce a base‐case scenario, but rolled it instead into the Applicaton Case assessment. Already existing and nearby proposed mines such as the Shell Pierre River Mine facility were included in the application phase analysis. In addition, Teck used temporal conditions of present (c. 2008), maximum build‐out year (Year 37), and closure (Year 48).
[160] Request
Fort McKay considers it crucial to include a pre‐development baseline assessment to understand the full range and scope of visual æsthetic impacts experienced by Community members due to regional development. Therefore, Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to include a Pre‐development Case and to assess the impacts of the Project against pre‐development conditions.
[161] Key Indicators Key indicators included line of sight and 3‐D viewshed simulations considered against a number of receptors, locales and sites from which an observer might have particular concerns about the visibility of the Project. Teck indicated that receptor location choice was based on feedback from consultation with affected communities. In addition, the receptors align with those used in the air quality, acoustic and human health assessments. They include locations within the communities of Fort McKay, Fort Chipewyan and Fort McMurray, as well as four historic cabins, two trapping cabins and one sacred story place. One of the cabins, VP7 Trapper Cabin, appears to be associated with a trapline registered to a Fort McKay Community member (RFMA #0850). The trapline is adjacent to the Project, and figures prominently in the visual æsthetics assessment. Teck undertook a desktop, GIS‐based viewshed modeling analysis of lines of sight visibility from key locales (receptors) in the study area, at maximum build‐out and at closure. Teck indicated that resource use and TLUS data were incorporated into the assessment.
[161] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck provides a clear indication of how it incorporated TLUS data and resource use into the Visual Æsthetic assessment.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐185‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[162] Project Visibility Assessment results are presented in a series of maps showing areas of visibility from each of the nine receptors in the development context only. Teck predicted that the Project, while not visible from Fort McKay, will be visible on flat ground between the Birch Mountains and the Athabasca River; and at higher elevations on the east side of the river. Teck predicted that Project components will be seen at visual receptor 7, a trapper’s cabin ; along a 1.7 km stretch of the Athabasca River, and, potentially, along 26 km of the Fort Chipewyan winter road and 10 km of the Canterra road. Teck’s results appear to suggest that Project components will be visible from various places within registered trapline #0850.
[162] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck consults with the trapline holder over adverse impacts to the enjoyment of his trapline and cabin and mitigation.
Teck indicated that “[T]here is potential for the Project to degrade the visual aesthetics and reduce cultural and outdoor recreational use in what people might expect to be wilderness areas.”131 Teck proposed several mitigation strategies to reduce Project impacts on visual æsthetics, including: 1) to use vegetation to promote smooth boundaries between development boundaries; 2) to create natural contours during the reclamation process; and 3) in response to Aboriginal community concerns about the visibility of the Project when travelling the river, while at camps, or in Fort McKay, Teck proposed to use construction materials that reduce contrast and assist buildings to blend into the landscape. Teck proposed no monitoring but suggested that complaints will be kept in a special log, and representatives will follow‐up with the complainant.
[163] Requests
Fort McKay requests that Teck discusses with the Fort McKay Sustainability Department the process for Community members to submit complaints and how Teck will provide responses to those complaints.
Given the semi‐quantitative method used in the analysis, Teck rated its confidence in the visual æsthetic model as moderate.
131 Section 5.5.1, p. 5‐8
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐186‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
From Fort McKay’s perspective the visual changes associated with the Project would adversely affect its use and enjoyment of the land, negatively impacting traditional land use opportunities.
18.3 Visual Æsthetics Key Concerns and Requests Summary
[164] Visual Æsthetics and Culture The rationale behind, and methodology for, a visual æsthetic impact assessment implies the presence of a human subject and vantage point. Despite the thoroughness of the current assessment, there is no attempt to link the results of the visual æsthetic assessment to other human, socio‐economic and cultural aspects of the EIA.
[164] Request
Fort McKay requests that the regulators require Teck to provide an assessment of the impacts of visual changes due to the mine on traditional land use and culture, and human health (from a holistic ecosystem perspective).
[165] Community Engagement Teck did not describe whether or how consultation with potentially impacted communities informed the visual æsthetic assessment.
[165] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck describes or reiterates engagement undertaken concerning the Project’s design in the visual æsthetic section.
[166] Impacts Changes in the viewscape of the area is likely to adversely impact Fort McKay members’ traditional use and enjoyment of the land, especially in those areas from where, Teck predicts, the project will be visible.
[166] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck consult with Fort McKay regarding mitigation, monitoring and offsets for impacts of visual æsthetics.
[167] – [168] Mitigation and Monitoring Forestry and vegetation are key aspects of Teck’s proposed mitigation of adverse visual and æsthetic effects. However, there is no linkage between the discussion of forestry in the Lands and Resource section.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐187‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[167] Request
Fort McKay requests that the regulators require Teck to differentiate between mitigating factors that are stable (topography) and those that are highly variable (forest cover) and might be affected by other land use activities (e.g. forest harvesting) and describe its plans for adapting mitigation to address changes in land use.
[168] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to monitor the visual æsthetic impacts of the Project, compare the results against the assessment predictions, and assess the effectiveness of mitigation measures, especially given the moderate confidence in its own assessment model.
Table 18‐1: Visual Aesthetics Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table
Fort McKay Key Number Requests Category* Concern(s) [160] Pre‐ Fort McKay considers it crucial to include a pre‐ Response Development development baseline assessment to understand the full Regulatory Baseline range and scope of visual æsthetic impacts experienced by Community members due to regional development. Therefore, Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to include a Pre‐development Case and to assess the impacts of the Project against pre‐development conditions. [161] Key Indicators Fort McKay requests that Teck provides a clear indication of Response how it incorporated TLUS data and resource use into the Visual Aesthetic assessment. [163] Project Teck’s results appear to suggest that Project components Response Visibility will be visible from various places within registered trapline RFMA #0850. Fort McKay requests that Teck consults with the trapline holder and mitigate adverse impacts to the enjoyment and use of his trapline and cabin. [164] Visual Fort McKay requests that the regulators require Teck to Response Aesthetics and provide an assessment of the impacts of visual changes due Regulatory Culture to the mine on traditional land use and culture, and human health (from a holistic ecosystem perspective). [165] Community Fort McKay requests that Teck describes or reiterates Response Engagement engagement undertaken concerning the Project’s design in the visual æsthetic section. [166] Visual Fort McKay requests that Teck consult with Fort McKay Response Aesthetics regarding mitigation, monitoring and offsets for impacts of Impacts visual æsthetics.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐188‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay Key Number Requests Category* Concern(s) [167] Mitigation and Fort McKay requests that the regulators require Teck to Regulatory monitoring differentiate between mitigating factors that are stable Response (topography) and those that are highly variable (forest cover) and might be affected by other land use activities (e.g. forest harvesting) and describe its plans for adapting mitigation to address changes in land use. [168] Mitigation and Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to monitor the Regulatory monitoring visual æsthetic impacts of the Project, compare the results against the assessment predictions, and assess the effectiveness of mitigation measures, especially given the moderate confidence in its own assessment model.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – Fort McKay’s request to the regulators, including information requests, regulatory requirements and approval conditions (if the project is ultimately approved). Response – a deficiency or question on which Fort McKay requests that a response of additional information from Teck is provided to Fort McKay and the regulators, prior to the application being deemed complete by the regulators.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐189‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
19. LAND AND RESOURCE USE
19.1 Introduction The Resource Use Assessment examines the Project’s impacts on the following resource uses:
aggregate and mineral resources; forestry; hunting and trapping; angling; designated parks and protected areas; environmentally significant areas (ESAs); and recreation and tourism.
Teck indicates that the section follows the ToR (Government of Alberta 2009) as well as input from affected Aboriginal communities and regulators, and considers also guidance from The Draft Lower Athabasca Regional Plan (Government of Alberta 2011); and the FortMcMurrayAthabasca Oil Sands Subregional Integrated Resource Plan (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2011). In addition, Teck incorporated, where it deemed appropriate, the mandates of various regional committees or other groups and agencies including the Oil Sands Developers Group (OSDG), Reclamation Working Group of CEMA, Sustainable Ecosystems Working Group of CEMA, the Lower Athabasca Regional Advisory Council (RAC) and the Fort McMurray‐Athabasca Oil Sands Subregional Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). Finally, the requirements laid out in the ToR included the following:
Identify current land uses of oil and gas industry, agriculture, forestry, tourism, and traditional activities; Identify and map all nearby Crown land; Identify all unique or special sites or features, such as parks; Identify relevant land‐use polices or resource initiatives; Identify potential Project impacts on land uses, such as impacts to unique sites, changes in public or Aboriginal access; impacts on aggregate resources, impacts on forest harvesting resources, and impacts to regional land activities, public access, and aboriginal land use; Discuss mitigation strategies on access management, other land use and aggregate reserves; and Describe residual Project effects on land use and resources, and any monitoring programs.
According to Teck, consultation with public and interested stakeholders identified concerns about Project‐induced changes in land use and resource capability. Consultation with Aboriginal communities (statements are not ascribed to a specific community) identified a number of other concerns, of which Teck provided a few examples:
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐190‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Likelihood that the Project might impede access to, or impact the environment of, Namur (Buffalo) and Gardiner (Moose) Lakes—important traditional use areas; Possibility that the Project might facilitate greater access of the Birch Mountains to non‐Aboriginal sports hunters; Likelihood that the Project will facilitate new access while impeding existing and future access to areas important for the exercise of traditional use; and Impacts upon populations of keystone large game species such as caribou, bison, moose and deer.
Through input gathered from public and Aboriginal engagements, Teck described a series of “key issues” throughout the Project’s temporal life, around which it sets its impact assessment on lands and resources. These include the following:
changes in land use capability and resource use (construction, operation, closure); disturbance to existing land and resource use activities (construction, closure); and consistency with land and resource use goals, objectives, and policies (all phases).
Teck indicated that it chose local and regional study areas for the resource use assessment in order to better examine cumulative effects from the Project and other developments, but based them on other discipline study boundaries: the resource use shares a Local Study Area boundary with the terrestrial components.132 The analysis in turn makes use of the PDA (Project Disturbance Area) and PAA (Project Assessment Area) area.
19.2 Approach Resource Use impacts were examined in the context of a Base Case (existing, approved and “likely to be approvd” developments), an Application Case (Base Case plus the proposed Project factored in), and a Planned Development Case (comprising current developments, the proposed project, and reasonably foreseeable projects). In addition, Teck used temporal conditions of present (c. 2008), maximum build‐out year (Year 37), and closure (Year 48). Key indicators and measurable parameters (issues which could be quantified) were chosen for each of the examining questions concerning the Project’s effects on resource use and its consistency with existing land‐use plans. Measurable parameters included:
management plan goals (Project consistency with management plan goals); aggregate volume (Project effects on aggregate and mineral resources);
132 a 48,958‐ha zone where effects are likely to be concentrated, and can be predicted with reasonable accuracy
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐191‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
timber volume and timber productivity; land capability (effects on forestry); wildlife habitat quality for big game, and area to be removed by Project (effects on guiding, hunting, and trapping); parks and protected areas (effects on parks and protected areas); effects on environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs) aerial extent; and number of recreation sites (effects on recreation and tourism).
Teck indicated medium confidence in the effects assessment on resource use, citing inherent challenges posed by the nature of the baseline data and lack of confidence in the success of Project mitigations given uncertainties around climate change, for instance.
19.3 Land and Resource Use Key Concerns and Requests Below is a summary of the current existing conditions and potential impacts as described by Teck.
[169] Aggregate and Mineral Resources There are no operating aggregate pits or mines in the LSA. Teck indicated that aggregate sources are in short supply in the area. Fort Hills Energy Corp. holds an active surface materials exploration (SME) disposition in the LSA to explore for aggregate. In addition, two companies, Hammerstone Corporation and Athabasca Minerals hold several active mineral permits in the LSA. There are currently three developments proposed in the RSA. Teck indicated that it believes the three aggregate development projects are able to assist in meeting the demand for oil producers in the area. Teck will consult with potentially affected leaseholders in the area. Teck indicated it will conserve aggregate on the Project.
[169] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck follows reclamation suggestions outlined in Fort McKay’s TUS and Reclamation and Closure planning review.
[170] – [171] Forestry The LSA falls within two Forest Management Units, FMU 15 and 10, the former comprising 71% of the LSA. Al‐Pac holds the deciduous rights and Northland Forest Products the coniferous in FMU A15. In FMU A10, Northland Forest Products hold coniferous timber rights through two license dispositions (the deciduous rights are unallocated). In addition, Northland Forest Products hold two Licenses of Occupation for logging roads in the LSA. Teck proposes to mitigate the effects of Project‐related clearing of timber by developing an Integrated Land Management strategy in cooperation with Al‐Pac, Northland Forest Products, and ESRD; Teck anticipates that Al‐Pac and Northland Forest Products will harvest merchantable timber within the LSA. Teck proposes to consult with ESRD to ensure unallocated timber is accounted for and salvaged.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐192‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Teck indicates that reclamation will return the LSA “to equivalent land capability for forestry and meet reforestation standards”.
[170] Request
Fort McKay requests that the regulators require Teck to include Fort McKay in any discussions toward the creation of an ILM‐related to forestry within the LSA.
[171] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck provides additional information regarding how the harvest of merchantable timber within the LSA might interact with visual æsthetics predictions.
[172] – [175] Hunting and Trapping The LSA is located within the wider Birch Mountains Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) 531. It is bordered by Wood Buffalo National Park to the north. Four registered fur management areas (RFMAs) and trapping areas (RTAs) intersect portions of the LSA. Hunted species include white‐tailed deer, mule deer, moose, and black bear, as well as various small game, upland game birds, and waterfowl. There are a number of open seasons for furbearers, including beaver, fisher, fox, lynx and marten. Teck indicates that the LSA contains both moderate to high suitability habitat for moose and bear, the most desirable big‐game animals. Moderate to high wood bison habitat also occurs, and the Ronald Lake Wood Bison herd occurs throughout the LSA. The nearest caribou herd to the LSA is the Audet Herd, located approximately 19 km east of the LSA. Three outfitting companies have carried out hunts in the LSA but Teck reports that only one, Double Diamond Wilderness Hunts, uses areas of the LSA frequently. Teck indicates that there is a small amount of moderate and high suitability habitat for both beaver and fisher in the LSA, the two most targeted species. Teck again identified one cabin in the LSA—and an additional seven cabins just beyond the LSA boundaries. Teck indicated the cabin within the LSA (located within RFMA 1275) is “not inhabited by trappers or other individuals on a permanent basis, but rather are temporary cabins that are used infrequently”. It is not clear in the document how Teck comes to this conclusion. Teck indicated that the Project, from Base Case to closure, will result in temporary loss (out to year 37) throughout the RSA for wildlife habitat and trapping habitat, amounting to 2% of WMU 531. This will not, in Teck’s view, amount to a substantial reduction in hunting. Teck also predicts increases in wildlife mortality resulting from increased access during construction and operation. Note Teck’s assessment does not take into account Aboriginal hunting and loss of
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐193‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
opportunities to hunt elsewhere due to direct and indirect impacts (such as access restrictions) of existing and proposed development that impact Fort McKay. Teck predicts decreases in habitat availability for black bear, waterfowl, and fisher, with increases in suitable habitat for moose, wood, bison, and beaver. Teck indicates it will consult with aboriginal communities to monitor reclamation of the PDA. Teck indicates that it will consult with trapline holders within the LSA concerning impacts to their trapline areas. Teck indicated that the trapper’s cabin “may be relocated as part of the mitigations for the Project in consultation with the leaseholder”. Teck states that it will consult with affected Aboriginal communities concerning possible Project impacts on the Ronald Lake bison herd.
[172] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck consults with Fort McKay about a Wildlife Mitigation Offset Plan, wildlife population and habitat monitoring, evaluation of the success of mitigation measures and then provides opportunities for inclusion of Fort McKay’s input during the life of the Project. See Wildlife‐related requests in Section 6.
[173] Request
Fort McKay requests that ESRD conducts annual wildlife population surveys and consults with Fort McKay regarding wildlife management within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory including limits on non‐Aboriginal recreational harvest of wildlife.
[174] Request
Fort McKay requests that the regulators require Teck to consult with Fort McKay concerning the project‐specific Access Management Plan. See Access related requests in Section 4.
[175] Request
Fort McKay requests that ESRD consults with Fort McKay regarding back‐country related issues such as the issuing of outfitters licences, who these are issued to, the locations of bait stations, camps and other outfitter activities.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐194‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Sport Fishing Although there are numerous documented fishing sites and uses within the RSA, Teck indicates there is little game fish habitat within the LSA, and little sport fishing activity. Teck does not mention anything about fishing in Namur and Gardiner Lakes, for, while not in the LSA, they are located only 50 km away. There is currently no direct road access to these lakes but there is one fly‐in fishing camp on the lake. These lakes are important Aboriginal fisheries for Fort McKay and are very culturally important to the community and are key areas to practice traditional activities including fishing. Fort McKay is concerned about cumulative increases in population in the region due to the Frontier Project and other existing, approved and planned developments and that this might increase sport fishing within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory.
[176] Request:
Fort McKay requests that ESRD conducts annual fish surveys of Namur and Gardiner lakes and consults with Fort McKay regarding fisheries management within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory including non‐Aoriginal fishing limits in areas of important cultural and traditional use.
Parks and Protected Areas Teck indicates there is no link between the Project and parks or protected areas. There are no parks in the LSA.
Environmentally Significant Areas Teck indicates that the LSA overlaps with a small area of ESA 692, an area along the Athabasca River. Teck predicts that an area comprising 0.55% of ESA 692 will be directly or indirectly disturbed by the Project. As mitigation, Teck states that the affected habitat will be reclaimed. Teck indicates its activity, after completion and implementation of mitigation measures, will be consistent with the goals of the Fort McMurrayAthabasca Oil Sands Subregional IRP. Teck argues that the process of the Project EIA fulfills the purpose of identifying ESAs.
Recreation and Tourism Teck states that there are no formal recreational facilities within the LSA. However, a private dispossession held by the RMWB for an access road provides entry and access through the LSA to backwoods recreational activities in the western parts of the LSA. Teck indicates that recreational activities with the LSA might include the following: boating, canoeing, and kayaking; ATV or quadding and snowmobiling; birdwatching, wildlife viewing, plant studies, and photography. Teck indicates that the Project will temporarily disrupt informal recreational activities in the LSA. Teck states that the post‐reclaimed landscape will support activities currently undertaken in the LSA.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐195‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Table 19‐1: Land and Resource Use Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table Fort McKay Key Number Requests Category* Concern(s) [169] Aggregate and Fort McKay requests that Teck follows reclamation Response Mineral suggestions outlined in Fort McKay’s TUS and Resources Reclamation and Closure planning review. [170] Forestry Fort McKay requests that the regulators require Teck to Response include Fort McKay in any discussions toward the Request creation of an ILM related to forestry within the LSA. [171] Forestry and Fort McKay requests that Teck provides additional Response Visual information regarding how the harvest of merchantable Aesthetics timber within the LSA might interact with visual æsthetics Interactions prediction. [172] Hunting and Fort McKay requests that Teck consults with Fort McKay Response Trapping about a Wildlife Mitigation Offset Plan, wildlife population and habitat monitoring, evaluation of the success of mitigation measures and then provides opportunities for inclusion of Fort McKay’s input during the life of the Project. See Wildlife related requests in Section 6. [173] Hunting and Fort McKay requests that ESRD conducts annual wildlife Regulatory Trapping population surveys and consults with Fort McKay regarding wildlife management within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory including limits on non‐Aboriginal recreational harvest of wildlife. [174] Access Fort McKay requests that the regulators require Teck to Regulatory consult with Fort McKay concerning the Access Response Management Plan. See Access related requests in Section 4. [175] Hunting and Fort McKay requests that ESRD consulta with Fort McKay Regulatory outfitters regarding back‐country related issues such as the issuing of outfitters licences, who these are issued to, the locations of bait stations, camps and other outfitter activities. [176] Sport fishing Fort McKay requests that ESRD conducts annual fish Regulatory surveys of Namur and Gardiner lakes and consults with Fort McKay regarding fisheries management within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory including limits on non‐ Aboriginal fishing in areas of important cultural and traditional use.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – Fort McKay’s request to the regulators, including information requests, regulatory requirements and approval conditions (if the project is ultimately approved). Response – a deficiency or question on which Fort McKay requests that a response of additional information from Teck is provided to Fort McKay and the regulators, prior to the application being deemed complete by the regulators.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐196‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
20. TAILINGS MANAGEMENT
20.1 Introduction The Project will be one of the first new oil sands operations to be designed following Tailings Directive 074, which was issued in February 2009. The Tailings Directive was issued by the ERCB in order to reduce and ultimately avoid the buildup of fluid fine tailings (FFT) on the landscape. Fort McKay very much applauded the issuance of the Tailings Directive as Fort McKay had long advocated for avoiding the use of large tailings impoundments containing fine tailings, which either required further treatment or were to be abandoned with a relatively thin water cover. Instead, Fort McKay’s tailings management preference is for dry tailings that could be covered with soils and revegetated. As well as reducing the quantity of process water stored in tailing impoundments on site, two other important aspects of dry tailings would be:
a reduction in the area of disturbance, especially the amount of land occupied by external tailings areas—the volume of dry tailings would be much less than a tailings mass of only 30% solids and the remainder, would be water; and the use of dry tailings would allow tailings impoundments to be revegetated much more quickly than otherwise.
The following review assesses the Project’s tailings management strategies in light of the Tailings Directive.
20.2 Tailings Directive Directive 074 contains the following overall objectives:
to minimize and eventually eliminate long‐term fluid tailings storage in the reclamation landscape; to create a trafficable landscape at the earliest opportunity to facilitate progressive reclamation; to eliminate or reduce fluid tailings containment in an external tailings disposal area during operations; to reduce stored process‐affected waste water volumes on site; to maximize intermediate process water recycle to increase energy efficiency and reduce fresh water import; to minimize resource sterilization associated with tailings ponds; and to ensure that the liability for tailings is managed through tailings ponds reclamation.
The directive specifically requires operators to:
reduce fluid tailings through the capture of at least 50% of the fines, but not including the fines that are already captured with the sands fraction;
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐197‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
capture the fines in dedicated disposal areas (DDAs); and form and manage these DDAs.
DDAs must be formed in a manner that ensures trafficable deposits. The performance criteria are based on the strength of the deposit. The following criteria must be achieved annually:
minimum un‐drained shear strength of 5 kilopascals (kPa) for the material deposited in the previous year; removal or remediation of material deposited in the previous year that does not meet the 5 kPa requirement; and reclamation‐ready within five years after active deposition has ceased. The deposit will have the strength, stability, and structure necessary to establish a trafficable surface. The trafficable surface layer must have a minimum un‐ drained shear strength of 10 kPa.
20.3 Proposed Tailings Management System Teck states that:
“It is planned to meet the intent of directive 074 and tailings management plans will continue to be adapted in concert with industry tailings management practices to achieve that objective.”
Tailings management includes tailings preparation using hydro‐cyclones, thickeners and tailings hydro‐transport to disposal areas. Considerable jargon and acronyms have been developed to describe different classes of tailings materials which are described below. Coarse sand tailings – CST: produced from underflow from the hydro‐cyclones. Hydro‐cyclones are used to separate coarse sand from the finer materials. This underflow contains water, most of the coarse sand, some of the fines and residual bitumen. This coarse fraction is important as it can be used as an inexpensive material for dyke construction. When deposited, water and a portion of the fines will segregate.
Thickened tailings – TT: after bitumen recovery, the overflow from the hydro‐ cyclones is processed by adding flocculent. This process recovers warm water and provides a TT stream. The TT stream is “expected” to contain a high fines concentration and form a non‐segregating deposit that releases additional water, consolidates and forms a reclaimable surface “over time”. Note the words “expected” and “over time”.
Off‐spec TT: for contingency purposes, it has been assumed that a portion of the TT will segregate upon deposition, to form FFT or fluid fine tailings.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐198‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Recombined tailings – RCT: CST and TT streams combination. RCT will be used in the south development area because of adjacent lease restrictions. Some of this material is expected to segregate upon deposition.
Froth treatment tailings – FTT: generated by the froth treatment process and yields fine and coarse solids, water, rejected asphaltenes and low levels of process solvent. Fine solids that are not captured in the FTT are expected to form fluid fine tailings.
Fluid fine tailings – FFT: fine tailings segregated from coarse sand upon the deposition of CST, RCT, FTT and off‐spec TT will end up as FFT. After two to three years the FFT dewater to about 30% solids. This will then require further treatment to form terrestrially reclaimable deposits.
Dried fines: is the term to represent the materials crated by FFT treatment in the thin lift drying (TLD) process.
Dedicated disposal area – DDA: is an area dedicated to fine tailings deposition and capture using a technology or a suite of technologies. Teck has designated the TT impoundments and the TLD areas as DDAs.
The following is the basis of Frontier’s tailings management strategy:
extraction tailings will be classified using hydro‐cyclones; the hydro‐cyclone underflow (i.e., CST) will be used mainly for tailings dyke construction and for sand capping the thickened tailings disposal areas during reclamation; the hydrocyclone overflow will be directed to a thickener to generate TT; froth treatment tailings will be disposed of in the CST area of the external tailings area ETA1 for the life of the Project; because of space restrictions in the SDA, the CST and TT will be recombined, forming recombined tailings (RCT)—it is expected the RCT will segregate upon deposition; fine tailings (FFT) that are not captured in CST, RCT, TT or FTT deposits will be managed using the thin lift drying process; and FFT inventory for the MDA will be managed to store approximately 50 to 80 Mm³ and 10 to 20 Mm³ in the SDA—this storage period will allow time for mature fine tailings (30% solids) to be developed prior to drying.
20.4 Tailings Placement CST and TT will be placed separately, initially in an external tailings area and then in a pit. Froth treatment tailings will be placed in the external CST disposal area. The TT cells have been designated as the DDAs.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐199‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
In the south development area CST and TT will be recombined as RCT and placed initially in an external tailings area then in a pit. These RCT cells have also been designated as a DDA. FFT will form as a result of CST, TT and RCT disposal and will be treated by thin lift drying (TLD), then re‐handled. As well as the TT disposal areas the TLD areas will be designated as DDAs.
20.5 Conclusions and Possible Issues As a general conclusion, Teck appears to have a well‐designed tailings management system that looks to be achievable. Likley tailings management technologies will improve during the coming years, and the system currently proposed will need to be updated and improved as mining progresses. Some of the specific conclusions and possible issues are described below.
Compliance with Tailings Directive 074, Fines Capture Teck has considered a variety of tailings management options in order to comply with the directive. It has chosen to use thickened tailings (TT) and thin lift drying (TLD) and expects to be able to capture the majority of the fine fraction and to place them in DDAs. On average, by using TT and TLD it will be capturing between 58% and 83% of the fine tailings. In the final years of operation FFT inventory will be reduced to zero. However, as with most new technologies, there will be risk that the operations will fail to meet their design specifications. Nevertheless, the approach that thickens the fine tailings stream immediately has huge advantages in that it allows hot water to be recycled in the plant, potentially saving large energy costs. As a result, there is a large incentive to make this system work.
Compliance with Tailings Directive 074, Tailings Strength Teck admits that there might be a problem with achieving the required strength of 5 kPa after one year. Whether this will prove to be a major impediment and result in a delay in the DDA’s final reclamation will need to be determined but is unlikely to be ascertained until operations have commenced. It is likely that the TT layers strength will be improved by the pressure caused by successive thickened tailings layers, or the sand cap that will be placed during reclamation.
Operational Refinement The plans are currently subject to operational refinement. The polymer for both the TT and FFT drying is selected on a preliminary basis and is subject to further review. There has been very little experience with RCT. Teck expects that the CST and TT might segregate on deposition and there is some uncertainty what effect this will have on tailings strength.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐200‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Improved Reclamation Pace One of the tailings directive’s main features is to create a DDA that can be reclaimed more quickly than has occurred in the past and to reduce the mine’s footprint, as it will avoid having large quantities of FFT remaining on the landscape. Although this is happening relative to conventional tailings management approaches, the external TT DDA will not be reclaimed until 2037. This is certainly an improvement on conventional tailings, where the impoundment for FFT would not have been reclaimed until further tailings treatment had occurred.
Smaller Tailings Footprint It is safe to assume that the proposed external tailings facilities size will be considerably smaller than if a “conventional” tailings pond to contain fluid fine tailings had been used. Nevertheless, the proposed external TT cell is still very large, measuring approximately 4 km ×4 km (about 16 km²).
[177] Tailings Management
[177] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck is required by the regulators to develop a contingency plan for tailings management in case the plan does not work as anticipated.
Table 20‐1: Tailings Management Plan Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table
Fort McKay Key Number Requests Category* Concern(s) [177] Tailings Fort McKay requests that Teck is required by the Response management regulators to develop a contingency plan for tailings Regulatory management in case the plan does not work as anticipated.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐201‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
21. CONSERVATION AND RECLAMATION PLAN
21.1 Overall Reclamation Planning The Project will add 29,335 ha of direct disturbance to the area west of the Athabasca River, north of the hamlet of Fort McKay. Teck presents a conceptual Closure, Conservation and Reclamation (C&R) plan for reclamation activities on the proposed Project during construction and operations and following closure of the facility. The C&R Plan covers the project disturbance area (PDA), including the mine pits, ore preparation and bitumen facilities, tailings and overburden disposal areas, utilities, infrastructure facilities, aerodome and access road. The C&R Plan addresses existing disturbance, where that disturbance is affected by the PDA and where reclamation will occur. Reclamation planning for the Project is of great interest to Fort McKay, as the PDA is within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory and Fort McKay is the primary long‐ term land user and a highly affected stakeholder in the proposed PDA. For these reasons, Fort McKay is extremely concerned with the protection and restoration of ecological integrity within the Frontier PDA. The C&R plan contains insufficient planning detail on:
specifics on how traditional land‐use values will be incorporated into the reclamation planning process, and how these values will be returned to the post‐closure landscape; and, how successful reclamation of organic wetlands will be achieved.
These topics are addressed in more detail below. In addition, despite all the work conducted to date by industry and government in the Athabasca oil sands region, there remains significant uncertainty about the cumulative effects of industrial development in this region, and about how to best manage and mitigate these effects.
21.2 Reclamation Planning Key Concerns and Requests
[178] – [179] Pace and Detail of Reclamation Schedule and Planning Teck states that the Project will be developed and reclaimed progressively over time. Vegetation clearing is predicted to begin in 2014 and intial reclamation activities are scheduled to begin in 2022. More intensive reclamation is scheduled to begin in 2029 and to continue until the completion of filling the end pit lakes in 2067. Teck states that the geology of the Project controls the mine plan and associated overburden handling and tailings placement strategy. These constraints and the size of the PDA contribute to the spatial and temporal limits defined by Teck (e.g., Teck states the first overburden landform will not be fully constructed and available for reclamation until the 2031 to 2035 interval).
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐202‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Based on the annual and cumulative reclamation schedule presented,133 32% of the PDA will have been reclaimed by 2057 (the year mining activities are scheduled to end). The remaining 68% of the land disturbance is scheduled to be reclaimed post‐mining. Given the abundance of mineral soils in the PDA, Teck should devise a reclamation strategy that maximizes opportunities for direct placement of these soils. If more than half the planned reclamation for the Project is scheduled to occur after mining activities have ceased, direct placement opportunities will be eliminated for extensive areas of reclamation. Rapid reclamation of disturbed areas is of critical concern to Fort McKay. Also, reclamation of exploration disturbances (i.e., existing or baseline disturbance) in the PDA, whether or not they are covered by this application, should be undertaken as rapidly as possible, to encourage recolonization of native species.
[178] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to increase the pace of reclamation in order to realize opportunities for direct placement of surface soil materials.
[179] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck consults with Fort McKay regarding any potential shifts in surface disturbances within the PDA from the planned locations and that the appropriate regulatory bodies request assessment of cumulative effects due to shifts in the planned locations and associated disturbances.
[180] – [181] Adaptive Management Framework Teck states in the C&R Plan that the benefits of the progressive reclamation strategy proposed include a feedback‐loop approach, which will allow for continual application, analysis and improvement of techniques with time. This feedback loop is considered to be an adaptive management aspect of the reclamation program. Teck states that specific key performance indicators consistent with those used in CEMA’s regional initiatives, evaluation criteria based on the protocols implemented by the Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Program, and clearly defined performance benchmarks against which to measure characteristics for each key indicator will be included in the adapative management aspect of the reclamation program.
133 Volume 1, Table 13.5‐7
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐203‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[180] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to participate in regional initiatives specific to the development and quantification of key performance indicators for the purposes of defining an adaptive management framework for progressive reclamation in the Athabasca oil sands region.
Teck states that progressive reclamation of the Project and other developments in the RSA, as well as proposed initiatives for expansion of protected areas (i.e., Lower Athabasca Regional Plan) will mitigate the cumulative effects predicted for landscape diversity. The total active footprint for all oil sands mining activities as of December 31, 2010 was 71,497 ha (Government of Alberta 2010, Internet Site). Of this total disturbance, only 104 ha of reclaimed land have been certified in the thirty plus years of oil sands mining in northeastern Alberta. Furthermore, the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan is currently on hold and there is considerable uncertainty regarding the plan’s approval by the Government of Alberta. It is essential that an adaptive management framework is defined to improve reclamation outcomes and to facilitate integrated closure planning for oil sands mines to address the cumulative effects of development on landscape diversity in Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory.
[181] Request
Fort McKay requests that an adaptive management framework for progressive reclamation and closure plan integration for oil sands mines is developed on a priority basis. Fort McKay requests the opportunity to participate in its development. This could be done through CEMA or equivalent multi‐stakeholder association with sectoral balance acceptable to Fort McKay.
21.3 Equivalent Land Capability
Incorporate TEK into Reclamation Planning Teck indicates that the developed lands will be reclaimed to equivalent land capability to what was present before Project development (i.e., Base Case). It is Fort McKay’s view that a blanket application of equivalent land‐capability concepts (based on a reference point of forest fibre production, and an attendant linear view of soils and associated ecosystems as “better” and “worse”) is not a useful concept for application to landscapes, including substantial areas of organic wetlands, particularly when 7.3% of the PDA affects organic soils. Fort McKay is much more concerned with protecting ecosystem integrity and reclaming ecological diversity in the PDA and with the capability of the post‐ reclamation landscape to support traditional uses. Fort McKay is concerned that the C&R Plan does not adequately describe how the biological, physical and chemical processes that support land capability re‐establishment for traditional uses will be restored to the post‐reclamation landscape.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐204‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Traditional land‐use opportunities will be reduced or eliminated in the PDA and within the RSA, and it is not clear how traditional land‐use values will be addressed throughout the reclamation planning process.
[182] – [184] Incorporate Traditional Land Use Values into Reclamation Plans It is essential to Fort McKay Community members that reclamation plans contain sufficient detail discussing how biological, ecological and landscape parameters in a reclaimed landscape will support traditional land‐use values. Furthermore, Fort McKay community members would like to be a part of the process of developing reclamation certification criteria and long‐term monitoring through Community‐ based participatory research methods. Fort McKay has identified Cultural Keystone Species (CKS) – species with high cultural salience that play an important role in Community identity, these species include: moose (Alces alces), beaver (Castor canadensis), ratroot (Acorus americanus), bog cranberry (Oxycoccus oxycoccus), lowbush cranberry (Viburnum edule) and blueberry (multiple species). Fort McKay would like these species and their habitat to be expressly considered during reclamation planning and Teck should indicate to Fort McKay how this will be done.
[182] Request
Fort McKay requests that:
i. Teck describes how land will be reclaimed for traditional purposes, including which plant species and animal habitats will be targeted; and ii. ESRD requires this information for all reclamation plans in Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory.
[183] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck is required by ESRD to develop C&R Plans that include explicit planning and methods to reclaim for traditional land use and the return of traditional‐use species to the disturbed landscape, as per the 2nd edition of the Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region (Alberta Environment 2010), and as updated periodically.
[184] Request
Fort McKay requests that Alberta, in consultation with Fort McKay, develops and implements criteria and mandatory requirements for reclamation and certification that will support traditional land use by Fort McKay.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐205‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Teck states that organic deposits occupy a relatively small area (7.3%) within the PDA and constitute a minor component of the reclamation materials. Teck indicates the organic soils will be used as a component of reconstructed soils for the near shore areas of pit lakes and other internal lakes. Based on these reclamation practices, the application states that reclaimed areas will achieve equivalent land capability to what was present before Project development (i.e., Base Case). Fort McKay is concerned that the establishment of ecosystems supporting traditional‐use plant species in the post‐reclamation land‐ cover classes might not occur within the Project’s life. There is no research from existing reclaimed areas in the Athabasca oil sands region demonstrating that these areas are capable of supporting traditional land uses. Fort McKay is concerned with the disturbance to organic soils. Much of the proposed PDA directly overlies organic soils (7.3% of the PDA) and Teck does not present any plans outlining reclamation activities to re‐establish peat‐based ecosystems. There is no demonstrated research indicating that disturbed deep peat in these conditions would recover naturally to a functioning bog or fen ecosystem. As a result, Fort McKay views disturbance to deep peat areas as a significant, permanent long‐term net loss to the traditional land‐use capability of the PDA.
21.4 Wetlands Fort McKay places a high value on organic wetland ecosystems (or muskeg) and is concerned about removal of these ecosystems through Teck’s development, both through direct disturbance and the inability to replace pre‐disturbance conditions through reclamation, and through potential disruption of surface or subsurface water movement. The associated changes to land capability evaluated in the application are applicable to commercial forestry only. The C&R Plan does not adequately describe how land capability for wetland areas supporting traditional uses will be re‐ established.
[185] – [187] Wetland Reclamation Planning & Research Organic soils comprise 7.3% of the PDA. These soils are imporant to regional ecology and to Fort McKays traditional land uses.
[185] Request
Fort McKay requests that the regulators require Teck to replace organic soils and associated wetlands cover classes in reclamation, including returning plant communities similar to those found in pre‐disturbance wetlands, and that this requirement is reflected in regulated operating conditions (e.g., approvals).
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐206‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[186] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck develops further detail on reclamation planning for organic wetlands that specifically addresses the wetland types eliminated in the PDA (i.e., non‐patterned, open graminoid fens [FONG] and non‐patterned, wooded fens with no internal lawns [FTNN]) as targets for reclamation, and how their successful reclamation will be achieved. As part of this wetland reclamation plan, Teck should refer to literature or cases where reclamation success in organic wetlands in similar conditions has been achieved.
[187] Request
Fort McKay requests that Environment and Sustainable Resources requires Teck to conduct wetland reclamation research as a condition of any operating approval issued for the project.
[188] – [189] Best Management Practices Development Two recent publications have conducted a gap analysis to identify research requirements for improving peatlands reclamation techniques (Osko 2010) and recommended best management practices for peatlands reclamation in the oil sands region (Graf 2009). In addition, two peer‐reviewed journal articles have recently described the effects of disturbance on peatlands in the oil sands (Rooney, Bayley and Schindler 2012) and the urgent need to address wetlands reclamation issues in the oil sands (Foote 2012).
[188] Request
Fort McKay requests that the regulators ensure that research projects are initiated to follow up on the reclamation gap analysis to aid in best management practices development for peatland reclamation.
Fort McKay also requests that existing research data describing peatland reclamation techniques are compiled into a guidance document presenting best management practices for re‐establishing land capability (i.e., biological, physical and chemical processes required to support end land uses) of peatlands in post‐ reclamation landscapes in the oil sands region.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐207‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[189] Request
Fort McKay requests that best management practices development for peatlands reclamation are completed in a regional multi‐stakeholder group such as CEMA or other alternative acceptable to Fort McKay that allows for participation of Fort McKay members or their designated representatives.
[190] – [191] Monitoring Wetlands and Hydrology Teck presented conceptual layouts of proposed closure drainage plans for the PDA. The drainages are integrated with closure drainage systems at the Shell Pierre River Mine project. In addition, there is a discussion of a geomorphic drainage channel design, which will replicate natural systems and attempt to mimic the dynamic variability and self‐healing capability of natural drainage systems. The discussion also recognizes the importance of beaver and the possible use of design features that would mimic the action of beavers until they become established. Design features for pit lakes will also include provisions to prevent overtopping in the case of beaver dams blocking the outlet in future. In addition, the plan discusses the concepts for the design of aquatic and fish habitat but again, no details are provided.
[190] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck confirms that agreements are in place with Shell (proposed Pierre River Mine project) for coordinated long‐term drainage control.
One aspect of the Project development not adequately addressed in the vegetation and C&R Plan is the potential project effects on surface and shallow‐subsurface hydrology, which might alter vegetation communities—particularly wetlands— beyond the direct effects of disturbance in the PDA. The C&R Plan does not adequately describe how hydrological processes alteration in the PDA might affect the ecological integrity of adjacent ecosystems. Additionally, the C&R Plan does not provide for any re‐establishment of peat‐based wetlands or the potential for them to be reclaimed to their pre‐disturbance habitat.
[191] Request
Fort McKay requests that any operating approvals granted for the Project include clauses requiring Teck to monitor wetland communities adjacent to the PDA for any effects of hydrologic alterations, such as interruption of surface or shallow subsurface water flows. This would include surface drainage monitoring, shallow groundwater disruption, groundwater draw‐down, and any soil and vegetation response to these mechanisms. Fort McKay requests inclusion in development and review of these monitoring programs.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐208‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[192] Monitoring Indirect Effects on Wetlands
[192] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck designs and implements a program to monitor the potential effects of surface water disturbance, including changes to water quantity and quality, on off‐site wetlands.
Fort McKay also requests that Teck implements a program to mitigate for potential effects to wetlands caused by changes to hydrologic conditions.
21.5 End Pit Lakes
[193] Water Quality Parameters Teck proposes to establish four end pit lakes at the Project. The C&R plan states that the pit lakes will not store tailings and will become productive features of the closure landscape. The pit lakes will be filled with water from the Athabasca River because the stream diversion system in the PDA must remain in place to maintain flows in the downstream receiving waters. Following end of production in the MDA, the tailings pond area water cap (about 27 Mm³) will be pumped into the central pit lake A. Teck has carried out water‐ quality modelling of these pit lakes and has concluded that most parameters are low and typically lower than water‐quality guidelines. Nevertheless, some substances are predicted to exceed water‐quality guidelines or have higher concentrations than the observed concentrations in the natural lakes. Fort McKay opposes the deposition of tailings into end pit lakes as a method of long‐term tailings storage.
[193] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck determines the levels of water‐quality parameters necessary to achieve reclamation certification for fish habitat, estimate the time required to achieve these levels and design material placement and drainage systems accordingly.
[194] Additional Drainage Features Teck states that four smaller lakes will be included as features of the closure drainage system. These four lakes are located near the tailings disposal areas identified as ETA1 and ETA2 in the C&R Plan. Teck states this feature will enhance the biological diversity of the closure landscape. Fort McKay rejects the value‐ laden statement that the inclusion of four smaller lakes in the closure landscape will “enhance” the biological diversity at closure. The inclusion of end pit lakes and four smaller lakes as features at closure introduces 3,183 ha (11% of PDA) of open water into the PDA following mining.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐209‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Wetland communities comprise 30% (8,668 ha) of the PDA. Based on the mine plan and revegetation plan, four wetland community types will be permanently removed from the PDA (wooded bogs [BFNN and BTNN], non‐patterned, open graminoid fens [FONG] and non‐patterned, wooded fens with no internal lawns [FTNN]). From Fort McKay’s point of view, biodiversity at closure will be drastically different than pre‐disturbance conditions and not enhanced by the presence of four small lakes.
[194] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck evaluates how to re‐establish equivalent biodiversity on the closure landscape with particular attention to landscape diversity and wetland community diversity.
21.6 Soils
[195] Soil Salvage and Replacement Teck presents proposed reconstructed soil profiles for upland ecosites and near‐ shore areas of end pit lakes and internal lakes. The mass soil balance presented in the EIA indicates that there is an excess of soils available for reclamation. Teck indicates that it will salvage and directly place upland soils whenever practical to do so, however, no detailed timing and scheduling is provided in the Application.
[195] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to:
i. prepare a more detailed plan for scheduling and direct placement of upland soils; ii. ensure a professional soil scientist will be on staff to schedule topsoil salvage and direct placement activity and closely plan and monitor work as soil salvage and replacement occurs; and iii. investigate the potential for direct placement of organic soils in locations with high potential for peatland development.
[196] – [197] Stock Pile – Plant Propagules Teck plans to stockpile salvaged soil separately to prevent mixing of topsoil, upper subsoil and lower subsoil. Reclamation research in the region has shown that the viability of propagule banks in salvaged topsoil will decrease in proportion to the duration of storage and the size (internal volume) of the stockpile. It is of great importance to Fort McKay that the diversity of native species propagules in the stockpiles is maintained, to increase native species recovery following soil replacement. The Best Management Practices for Conservation of Reclamation
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐210‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Materials in the Mineable Oil Sands Region of Alberta (Alberta Environment and Water 2012) recommends best management practices for stockpile construction and propagule preservation with specific reference to upland surface soils.
[196] Request
Fort McKay requests that ESRD requires Teck to minimize the volume‐to‐surface‐ area ratio of all soil stockpiles to improve longevity of seed propagules over time and requires Teck to implement best management practices for upland surface soil stockpile construction as part of an operating approval.
[197] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck provides further information on how the preservation of native species propagules in stockpiles will be accomplished and that Teck does not assume natural revegetation will occur with any soil that has been stockpiled longer than one year as seed propagules will not be viable (Alberta Environment 2010, Alberta Environment and Water 2012).
[198] Borrow Pits and Excavations Teck indicates that no granular deposits that meet the ESRD classification have been identified in the PDA and that granular resources required for Project construction will be sourced off‐lease.
[198] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck provides any updated information regarding granular resources in the lease, if available, to Fort McKay for review.
[199] – [200] Overburden Materials Teck states that suitable quality lower subsoil and suitable quality overburden volumes are present in the PDA. Teck proposes an alternative approach to other mining operations’ overburden salvage in the EIA. A supplemental overburden delineation program is planned for the winter of 2012 to improve the resolution of the locations, depths and areas of suitable reclamation materials to refine the overburden handling plan.
[199] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck provides more details regarding the overburden handling plan and any additional overburden characteristics identified during the winter 2012 overburden delineation program.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐211‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[200] Request
Fort McKay requests that ESRD requires Teck to follow the Best Management Practices for Conservation of Reclamation Materials in the Mineable Oil Sands Region of Alberta (Alberta Environment and Water 2012) for developing the overburden handling plan and to require Teck to identify unsuitable materials and sequester these materials accordingly.
[201] Mulch Removal Teck states that non‐merchantable timber and slash (i.e., coarse woody debris) will be used, to the appropriate degree, as rollback to prevent exposed soil erosion and as padding for temporary roads. In consultation with ESRD, some of the material will be burned. Teck will not incorporate this material into reclamation material stockpiles as it can have adverse effects on soil nutrient ratios (i.e., carbon: nitrogen). Where non‐merchantable timber is chipped, it will be used in a way consistent with applicable guidelines.134 Other disposal options will be investigated, where practical.
[201] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck consults the Best Management Practices for Conservation of Reclamation Materials in the Mineable Oil Sands Region of Alberta (Alberta Environment and Water 2012) for developing a coarse woody debris schedule and management strategy.
21.7 Revegetation Planning
[202] Revegetation Guidelines Teck indicates revegetation procedures will follow the Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region 2nd Edition (Alberta Environment 2010) and the Guideline for Wetland Establishment on Reclaimed Oil Sands Leases (Alberta Environment 2008). In 2010, Alberta Environment released the second edition of the Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region 2nd Edition (Alberta Environment 2010), which was developed by the Terrestrial Sub‐group of CEMA. In the second edition, planting prescriptions for the post‐reclamation terrestrial ecosites are presented for tree species to target commercial forest and wildlife habitat end land‐use objectives.
134 ESRD’s Industry Directive 2009‐01: Management of Wood Chips on Public Land, External Directive (ASRD 2009)
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐212‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[202] Request
Fort McKay was intimately involved in the development of the Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region 2nd Edition (Alberta Environment 2010), and requests that Teck is required, through the operating approval, to follow these guidelines, specifically including the use of indicators in this guideline document for evaluation of reclamation or revegetation success.
21.8 Wildlife Habitat
[203] Wildlife Habitat Reclamation Wildlife habitat should be one of the primary reclamation objectives in the Teck C&R plan. During the Project’s construction, operation and decommissioning the temporary loss of wildlife habitat from direct disturbance in the PDA, combined with the indirect effects of Project activity and increased access and access features, will result in a local effect on wildlife. The time to wildlife habitat reclamation that is effective could be substantial, resulting in loss of wildlife habitat for longer than the Project’s 37‐year life. The Project will result in overall habitat loss and reduced habitat effectiveness for wildlife during the life of the Project and following closure, and in particular there will be a loss of organic wetland habitat.
[203] Request
Fort McKay requests that Teck develops reclamation planning for wildlife habitat for key species important to Fort McKay (e.g., Fort McKay’s identified Cultural Keystone Species, moose and beaver) and provide special consideration for preservation and reclamation of organic wetland habitat (or muskeg).
21.9 Reclamation Monitoring, Certification and Security
Community Capacity for Reclamation Monitoring Teck mentions reclamation monitoring in the Application, but do not discuss the proposed monitoring program to evaluate return of traditional land‐use values on the reclaimed landscape. Fort McKay is the primary long‐term land user and a highly affected stakeholder in the proposed PDA. For these reasons, Fort McKay is extremely concerned with the protection and restoration of ecological integrity within the PDA and requests that the Community is provided the opportunity to participate in reclamation monitoring to gain an understanding of how reclamation techniques are achieving the re‐establishment of land capability to support traditional land uses.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐213‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[204] – [205] Reclaimed Lands Certification Given the location of the Project in Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory, Fort McKay has great interest in the reclamation certification process.
[204] Request
Fort McKay requests that the regulators ensure Fort McKay’s participation in reclamation certification application reviews and site inspections, and obtain Fort McKay’s consent to any reclamation certification within its traditional territority.
[205] Request
Fort McKay requests that reclamation certification is not granted until such time as it can be conclusively demonstrated that ecosystem recovery is on a trajectory acceptable to Fort McKay, Teck and the regulators.
[206] Reclamation Security Reclamation security deposits with the government help ensure that reclamation will be completed, and provide Fort McKay with confidence that Teck is committed to and can fund all costs associated with reclamation and remediation.
[206] Request
Fort McKay requests the opportunity to review a reclamation plan with associated costs and proposed security deposit to understand if the reclamation security is sufficient for the Frontier Project.
Table 21‐1: Conservation and Reclamation Plan Key Concerns and Requests Summary Table
Fort McKay Key Number Requests Category* Concern(s) [178] Pace and Detail Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to increase Response of Reclamation the pace of reclamation at the Frontier Project in order Regulatory Schedule and to realize opportunities for direct placement of surface Planning soil materials. [179] Pace and Detail Fort McKay requests that Teck consults with Fort Response of Reclamation McKay regarding any potential shifts in surface Schedule and disturbances within the PDA from the planned Planning locations and that the appropriate regulatory bodies request assessment of cumulative effects due to shifts in the planned locations and associated disturbances.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐214‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay Key Number Requests Category* Concern(s) [180] Adaptive Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to Regulatory Management participate in regional initiatives specific to the Response Framework development and quantification of key performance indicators for the purposes of defining an adaptive management framework for progressive reclamation in the Athabasca oil sands region. [181] Adaptive Fort McKay requests that an adaptive management Regulatory Management framework for progressive reclamation and closure Framework plan integration for oil sands mines is developed on a priority basis. Fort McKay requests the opportunity to participate in its development. This could be done through CEMA or equivalent multi‐stakeholder association with sectoral balance acceptable to Fort McKay. [182] Incorporate Fort McKay requests that: Regulatory Traditional Land i) Teck describes how land will be reclaimed for Use Values into traditional purposes, including which plant Reclamation species and animal habitats will be targeted; Plans and ii) ESRD requires such information for all reclamation plans in Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory. [183] Incorporate Fort McKay requests that ESRD requires Teck to Regulatory Traditional Land develop C&R Plans that include explicit planning and Response Use Values into methods to reclaim for traditional land use and the Reclamation return of traditional‐use species to the disturbed Plans landscape, as per the 2nd edition of the Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region, and as updated periodically. Fort McKay wishes to be involved and collaborate in this program throughout Project reclamation, and requests support to develop capacity for indigenous research and monitoring programs. [184] Incorporate Fort McKay requests that Alberta, in consultation with Regulatory Traditional Land Fort McKay, develops and implements criteria and Use Values into mandatory requirements for reclamation and Reclamation certification that will support traditional land use by Plans Fort McKay.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐215‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
[185] Wetland Fort McKay requests that the regulators require Teck Regulatory Reclamation to replace organic soils and associated wetlands cover Planning classes in their reclamation, including returning plant communities similar to those found in pre‐disturbance wetlands, and that this requirement is reflected in regulated operating conditions (e.g., approvals). [186] Wetland Fort McKay requests that Teck develops further detail Agreement Reclamation on reclamation planning for organic wetlands that Planning specifically addresses the wetland types eliminated in the PDA (i.e., non‐patterned, open graminoid fens [FONG] and non‐patterned, wooded fens with no internal lawns [FTNN]) as targets for reclamation, and how their successful reclamation will be achieved. As part of this wetland reclamation plan, Teck should refer to literature or cases where reclamation success in organic wetlands in similar conditions has been achieved. [187] Wetland Fort McKay requests that ESRD requires Teck to Regulatory Reclamation conduct wetland reclamation research as a condition Planning of any operating approval issued for the project. [188] Best Fort McKay requests that the regulators ensure that Regulatory Management research projects are initiated to follow up on the Practices reclamation gap analysis to aid in best management Development practices development for peatland reclamation. Fort McKay also requests that existing research data describing peatland reclamation techniques are compiled into a guidance document presenting best management practices for re‐establishing land capability (i.e., biological, physical and chemical processes required to support end land uses) of peatlands in post‐reclamation landscapes in the oil sands region. [189] Best Fort McKay requests that best management practices Agreement Management development for peatlands reclamation are completed Regulatory Practices in a regional multi‐stakeholder group such as CEMA or Development other alternative acceptable to Fort McKay that allows for participation of Fort McKay members or their designated representatives. [190] Monitoring Fort McKay requests that Teck confirms that Response Wetlands and agreements are in place with Shell (Pierre River Mine Regulatory Hydrology project) for coordinated long‐term drainage control.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐216‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay Key Number Requests Category* Concern(s) [191] Monitoring Fort McKay requests that any operating approvals Response Wetlands and granted for the Project include clauses requiring Teck Regulatory Hydrology to monitor wetland communities adjacent to the PDA for any effects of hydrologic alterations, such as interruption of surface or shallow subsurface water flows. This would include surface drainage monitoring, shallow groundwater disruption, groundwater draw‐ down, and any soil and vegetation response to these mechanisms. Fort McKay requests inclusion in development and review of these monitoring programs. [192] Monitoring Fort McKay requests that Teck designs and implements Response Indirect Effects a program to monitor the potential effects of surface of Wetlands water disturbance, including changes to water quantity and quality, on off‐site wetlands. Fort McKay also requests that Teck implements a program to mitigate for potential effects to wetlands caused by changes to hydrologic conditions. [193] End Pit Lakes Fort McKay opposes the deposition of tailings into end Response pit lakes as a method of long‐term tailings storage. In addition, Fort McKay requests that Teck determines the levels of water‐quality parameters necessary to achieve reclamation certification for fish habitat, estimates the time required to achieve these levels and designs their material placement and drainage systems accordingly. [194] Additional Fort McKay requests that Teck evaluates how to re‐ Response Drainage establish equivalent biodiversity on the closure Features landscape with particular attention to landscape diversity and wetland community diversity. [195] Soil Salvage and Fort McKay requests that Teck: Response Replacement i) prepares a more detailed plan for scheduling Regulatory and direct placement of upland soils; ii) ensures a professional soil scientist will be on staff to schedule topsoil salvage and direct placement activity and closely plan and monitor work as soil salvage and replacement occurs; and iii) investigates the potential for direct placement of organic soils in locations with high potential for peatland development.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐217‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay Key Number Requests Category* Concern(s) [196] Stock Pile – Plant Fort McKay requests that ESRD requires Teck to Response Propagules minimize the volume‐to‐surface‐area ratio of all soil stockpiles to improve longevity of seed propagules over time and Teck is required to implement best management practices for upland surface soil stockpile construction as part of an operating approval. [197] Stock Pile – Plant Fort McKay requests that Teck provides further Response Propagules information on how the preservation of native species propagules in stockpiles will be accomplished and that Teck does not assume natural revegetation will occur with any soil that has been stockpiled longer than one year as seed propagules will not be viable. [198] Borrow Pits and Fort McKay requests that Teck provides any updated Excavation information regarding granular resources in the lease, Response if available, to Fort McKay for review. [199] Overburden Fort McKay requests that Teck provides more details to Materials Fort McKay regarding the overburden handling plan and any additional overburden characteristics Response identified during the winter 2012 overburden delineation program. [200] Overburden Fort McKay requests that ESRD requires Teck to follow Materials the Best Management Practices for Conservation of Reclamation Materials in the Mineable Oil Sands Region of Alberta for developing the overburden Regulatory handling plan and to requires Teck to identify unsuitable materials and sequester these materials accordingly. [201] Mulch Removal Fort McKay requests that Teck consults the Best Management Practices for Conservation of Response Reclamation Materials in the Mineable Oil Sands Region of Alberta for developing a coarse woody debris Regulatory schedule and management strategy. [202] Revegetation Fort McKay was intimately involved in the Response Guidelines development of the Guidelines for Reclamation to Regulatory Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region 2nd Edition, and requests that Teck is required, through the operating approval, to follow these guidelines, specifically including the use of indicators in this guideline documentr fo evaluation of reclamation or revegetation success.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐218‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay Key Number Requests Category* Concern(s) [203] Wildlife Habitat Fort McKay requests that Teck develops reclamation Response Reclamation planning for wildlife habitat for key species important to Fort McKay (e.g., Fort McKay’s identified Cultural Keystone Species, moose and beaver) and provide special consideration for preservation and reclamation of organic wetland habitat (or muskeg). [204] Reclaimed Lands Fort McKay requests that the regulators ensure Fort Response Certification McKay’s participation in reclamation certification Regulatory application reviews and site inspections, and obtain Fort McKay’s consent to any reclamation certification within its traditional territority. [205] Certification of Fort McKay requests that Alberta obtains Fort McKay’s Regulatory Reclaimed Sites approval prior to any reclamation certification. [206] Reclamation Fort McKay requests the opportunity to review a Response Security reclamation plan with associated costs and proposed security deposit to understand if the reclamation security is sufficient for the Frontier project.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – Fort McKay’s request to the regulators, including information requests, regulatory requirements and approval conditions (if the project is ultimately approved). Response – a deficiency or question on which Fort McKay requests that a response of additional information from Teck is provided to Fort McKay and the regulators, prior to the application being deemed complete by the regulators.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐219‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
22. BIBLIOGRAPHY Alberta Environment. Alberta Interim Emission Guidelines for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) for New Boilers, Heaters and Turbines using NonGaseous Fuels for the Oil Sands Region. Guideline, Alberta Environment, Government of Alberta, 2007. Alberta Environment. Alberta Tier 1 Soil and Groundwater Remediation Guidelines. . Edmonton: Government of Alberta, 2009. —. "Ambient Air Quality Objectives." Government of Alberta Environment. 2011. http://environment.alberta.ca/0994.html. Alberta Environment and Water. Best Management Practices for Conservation of Reclamation Materials in the Mineable Oil Sands Region of Alberta. Fort McMurray, AB: Prepared by MacKenzie, D. for the Terrestrial Subgroup, Best Management Practices Task Group of the Reclamation Working Group of the Cumulative Environmental Management Association, 2012. Alberta Environment. "Approval Program Interim Policy, OSEMD‐00‐PP2." Government of Alberta Environment , Oil Sands Environmental Management Division. December 14, 2007. http://www.environment.alberta.ca/documents/Oil‐ Sands_Interim_Emission_Guidelines.pdf. Alberta Environment. "Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region." Guideline, 2010. —. "Industrial Release Limits Policy." Government of Alberta Environment. January 1, 2000. http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/6970.pdf. —. "Using Ambient Air Quality Objectives in Industrial Dispersion Modelling and Individual Industrial Site Monitoring." Government of Alberta. 2011. http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/8114.pdf. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. "Fort McMurray‐Athabasca oil Sands Subregional Integrated Resource Plan." Government of Alberta. 2011. http://www.srd.alberta.ca/LandsForests/LandusePlanning/documents/Integrated ResourcePlan‐FortMcMurrayAthabascaOilSandsSubregional‐2002.pdf. —. "WMU 531 ‐ Aerial Moose (Alces alces) Survey." Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. November 2009. http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/documents_staticpost/cearref_37519/44867/f.pdf. AMEC Earth and Environmental. "Properties of sensitive soils in the Athabasca Oil Sands Area, Alberta." Cumulative Environmental Management Association Report 2007‐ 0022, 2009, 68 pp.marie Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. "Canada‐wide Standards for Particulate Matter (PM) and Ozone." CCME. June 1, 2000. http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/pmozone_standard_e.pdf. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Health Impact Assessment." Healthy Places. January 24, 2011. http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/hia.htm.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐220‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Ciborowski, J.J.H., M. Kang, D. Raab, S.E. Bayley, and A.L. Foote. Synthesis: Applying the Reference Condition Approach for Monitoring Reclamation Areas in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region – Draft Report. Fort McMurray: Cumulative Environmental Management Association, 2011. Clean Air Strategic Alliance. "Priority Setting Workshop Proceedings." Clean Air Strategic Alliance. March 1, 2009. http://www.casahome.org/Projects/CompletedProjects/PrioritySettingWorkshop.a spx. Cometto‐Muniz, J.E., W.S. Cain, and M.H. Abraham. "Detection of Single and Mixed VOCs by Smell and Sensory Irritation." Indoor Air 2004:14 (Suppl 8), 2004: 108‐117. Cumulative Environmental Management Association. Lower Athabasca Region Source and Emission Inventory. Draft, Air Working Group, Stantec Consulting Ltd., ENVIRON International Corporation and Clearstone Engineering Ltd., 2012. —. "Recommendations for the Acid Deposition Management Framework for the Oil Sands Region of North‐Eastern Alberta." CEMA: Studying Cumulative Effects in Wood Buffalo. February 1, 2004. http://cemaonline.ca/cema‐recommendations/acid‐ deposition.html. Cumulative Environmental Management Association. Terrestrial Ecosystem Management Framework for the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo. Sustainable Ecosystem Working Group, Cumulative Environmental Management Association, 2008. Delphi Automotive LLP. "Worldwide Emission Standards: Passenger Cars and Light Duty Vehicles." 2011/2012. http://delphi.com/pdf/emissions/Delphi‐Passenger‐Car‐ Light‐Duty‐Truck‐Emissions‐Brochure‐2011‐2012.pdf. Dover Operating Corp. "Application for Approval of the Dover Commercial Project." Application for Approval, 2010. Environment Canada. "Lower Athabasca Water Quality Monitoring Program Phase 1." Environment Canada. March 22, 2011. http://www.ec.gc.ca/Content/C/C/D/CCD671FE‐57FE‐4030‐B205‐ 9478C7640982/WQMP_ENG.pdf. —. "Off‐Road Compression‐Ignition Engine Emission Regulations." Vers. (SOR/2005‐32). Environment Canada. 2012. http://www.ec.gc.ca/lcpe‐ cepa/eng/regulations/detailReg.cfm?intReg=88. Environment Canada. Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou, Boreal population (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series., Ottawa: Environment Canada, 2011, vi + 55 pp. Environment Canda. Evaluation of Vehicle Emissions Reduction Options for the Oil Sands Mining Fleet. M.J. Bradley and Associates, 2008. Federation of Alberta Naturalists (FAN). "The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Alberta." 2007, 626 pp.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐221‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Fort McKay Country Food Availability Study. Fort McMurray Field Office: Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, 2009. Foote, Lee. "Threshold Considerations and Wetland Reclamation in Alberta's Mineable Oil Sands." Ecology and Society, 2012, 17(1): 35 ed.: 11. Fort McKay Industry Relations Corporation (IRC). Fort McKay Specific Assessment. Assessment, Fort McMurray: Fort McKay Industry Relations Corporation, 2010. Fort McKay Industry Relations Corporation. Healing the Earth Strategy Draft. Fort McMurray: Fort McKay First Nation, 2010. Gentes, M., A. McNabb, C. Waldner, and J.E.G. Smits. "Increased Thyroid Hormone Levels in Tree Swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) on Reclaimed Wetlands of the Athabasca Oil Sands." Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol 53 (2007): 287–292. Gentes, M., C. Waldner, Z. Papp, and J. Smits. "Effects of Exposure to Naphthenic Acids in Tree Swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) on the Athabasca Oil Sands, Alberta, Canada." Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part A, no. 70 (2007): 1182–1190. Gentes, M., C. Waldner, Z. Papp, and J.E.G. Smits. "Effects of oil sands tailings compounds and harsh weather on mortality rates, growth and detoxification efforts in nestling tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor)." Environmental Pollution 142 (2006): 24‐33. Golder Associates. “Acrolein Monitoring in the Oil Sands Region.” Calgary, 2005. Government of Alberta. "Lower Athabasca Regional Plan." LandUse Framework. 2011. https://landuse.alberta.ca/RegionalPlans/LowerAthabascaRegion/Pages/default.as px. —. "Terms of Reference for Developing the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan." Government of Alberta, July 2009. Graf, M. Literature Review on the Restoration of Alberta’s Boreal Wetlands Affected by Oil, Gas and In Situ Oil Sands Development. Prepared for Ducks Unlimited Canada, 2009. Harris, M.L. Guideline for Wetland Establishment on Reclaimed Oil Sands Leases (2nd edition). Lorax Environmental for the Wetlands and Aquatics Subgroup of the Reclamation Working Group, Alberta Environment, Fort McMurray: Cumulative Environmental Management Association, 2008. Hawkes, V.C., and K.N. Tuttle. Early successional wildlife monitoring on reclaimed plots in the oil sands region; Year 1. Unpublished annual report, CEMA – The Reclamation Working Group (RWG), Fort McMurray, Sidney: LGL Limited environmental research associates, 2011, 51 + Appendices. Health Canada. "Environmental Health Assessment ‐ Publications." Health Canada. September 17, 2010. http://www.hc‐sc.gc.ca/ewh‐semt/pubs/eval/index_e.html. Hebert, K.A., A.M. Wendel, S.K. Kennedy, and A.L. Dannenberg. Health Impact Assessment: A comparison of 45 local, national, and international guidelines. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 34, 2012, 74‐82.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐222‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association. "A guide to health impact assessments in the oil and gas industry." International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA). 2005. http://www.ipieca.org/publication/health‐impact‐assessments. Kim, K. H., and S. Y. Park. "A Comparitive Analysis of Malodor Samples between Direct (Olfactometry) and Indirect (Instrumental) Methods." Atmospheric Environment, 2008, 42 ed.: 5061‐5070. Kirk, D.A., J. Schieck, and B. Eaton. Biodiversity Review for the Guidelines to Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Alberta Oil Sands. Fort McMurray: Prepared for the Cumulative Environmental Management Association, 2009. Koning, C.W., and S.E. Hrudey. "Sensory and chemical characterization of fish tainted by exposure to oil sand wastewaters." Water Science and Technology, 1992, 25 ed.: 27‐ 34. McLinden, C.A., et al. "Air Quality over the Canadian Oil Sands: A first assessment using satellite observations." Geophys. Res. Lett. L4804, doi: 10.1029/2011GL050273 (2012): 39. Muir, J.E., V.C. Hawkes, K.N. Tuttle, and T. Mochiz. Synthesis of Habitat Models used in the Oil Sands Region. Unpublished report, LGL Report EA3259, CEMA – The Reclamation Working Group, Fort McMurray, Sidney: LGL Limited environmental research associates, 2011, 34 + Appendices. Nagata, Y. "Measurement of Odor Threshold by Triangle Odor Bag Method." Japan Ministry of the Environment Odor Measurement Review. 2003. http://www.env.go.jp/en/air/odor/olfactory_mm/04ref_2.pdf. Nero, V., A. Farwell, L.E. Lee, T. Van Meer, M.D. MacKinnon, and D.G. Dixon. "The effects of salinity on naphthenic acid toxicity to yellow perch: gill and liver histopathology." Environ. Saf. 65(2), 2006: 252‐64. Osko, T. A Gap Analysis of Knowledge and Practices for Reclaiming Disturbances Associated with In Situ Oil Sands and Conventional Oil & Gas Exploration on Wetlands in Northern Alberta. Fort McMurray: Prepared for the Cumulative Environmental Management Association, 2010. Rooney, Rebecca C., Suzanne E. Bayley, and David W. Schindler. "Oil Sands Mining and Reclamation Cause Massive Loss of Peatland and Stored Carbon." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Stanford: National Academy of Sciences, 2012. 4933‐ 4937. Rowland, S.M., C.E. Prescott, S.J. Grayston, S.A. Quideau, and G.E. Bradfield. "Recreating a functional forest soil in reclamation oil sands in northern Alberta: an approach for measuring success in ecological restoration." Journal of Environmental Quality 38 (2009): 1580‐1590. Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel. "Environmental and Health Impacts of Canada's Oil Sands Industry." The Royal Society of Canada, Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada. December 2010.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐223‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
http://www.rsc.ca/documents/expert/RSC%20report%20complete%20secured% 209Mb.pdf. Schiffman, S.S., J.L. Bennett, and J.H. Raymer. "Quantification of Odors and Odorants from Swing Operations in North Carolina." Agriculture and Forest Meteorology 108, 2001: 213‐240. Southern Pacific Resource Corp. STP McKay Thermal Project Phase 2. Application for Approval, Calgary: Southern Pacific Resource Corp., 2011. Spink, D., and J. Dennis. "Odour Event Air Quality Monitoring in the Community of Fort McKay: A Report on the Fort McKay IRC Odour Event Canister Sampling Program: Background and May 11 and June 1, 2010 ‐ Odour Sampling Results." Fort McKay, November 2010. Teck Resources Ltd. Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project. Application for Approval, Calgary: Teck Resources Ltd. and SilverBirch Energy Corporation, 2011. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. "Interim Guidelines for Setting Odor‐Based Effects Screening Levels." Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Air, Land and Water. May 28, 2010. http://ww.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/implementation/tox/esl/guidelines/odor. pdf. Trent University. "Uncertainty‐based modelling of soil chemical response to acidic deposition. ." Final Report, Trent University, 2010, 11 pp. United States Environmental Protection Agency. "Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel." United States Environmental Protection Agency. June 29, 2004. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐2004‐06‐29/pdf/04‐11293.pdf. Whitfield, C.J., J. Aherne, S.A. Watmough, and M. McDonald. "Estimating the sensitivity of forest soils to acid deposition in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region." Canada. J. Limnol., 2010, 69 (Suppl. 1) ed.: 201–208. World Health Organization. "Health Impact Assessment ‐ Promoting health across all sectors of activity." Health Impact Assessment (HIA). 2011. http://www.who.int/hia/en/. —. "WHO Air Quality Guidelines for Particulate Matter, Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide: Global Update 2005. Summary of Risk Assessment." 2006. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2006/WHO_SDE_PHE_OEH_06.02_eng.pdf.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐224‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review
Fort McKay’s Review of Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. Teck Energy Telephone Lake Project Application for Approval
Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) Cumulative Effects [1] Base Case Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to remove “likely to be approved projects” from the Response Base Case and put them in the Planned Development Case and reassess impacts for all relevant Regulatory environmental and land use components. [2] Pre‐ Teck should be required by ESRD and CEAA to re‐do the: Response development i) terrestrial pre‐development case using more rigorous methods such as a combination of Regulatory Baseline airphoto or mapped information with modelling to determine how natural disturbance would have affected the pre‐industrial landscape. Teck should also use available pre‐ industrial data as well; and ii) terrestrial environmental assessment using a pre‐industrial development case (i.e., pre‐ 1960) as a basis to assess the Base, Application Case and Planned Development Cases for all indicators to provide an adequate assessment of the Project’s effects in Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory. (Teck used the pre‐development conditions snapshot in the EIA to compare the three assessment cases to the pre‐development conditions for some but not all key indicators.) [3] Cumulative Fort McKay requests that Alberta and Canada develop and implement, in cooperation with Fort Regulatory Effects on Fort McKay, an integrated, scientifically valid, and transparent system for assessing and monitoring McKay’s cumulative environmental impacts. This system should include monitoring to measure Traditional environmental performance and impacts predicted in Industrial Applications and EIAs, and Territory incorporate resources essential to maintaining traditional land use. [4] Cumulative Fort McKay requests that Alberta conduct (or provide sufficient funding for Fort McKay to conduct) Regulatory Effects on Fort a cumulative‐effects assessment of all existing, approved and likely development and assess McKay’s impacts on Fort McKay’s rights so that constructive and decisive measures can be developed to Traditional address cumulative effects within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory. Territory
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Ai‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [5] EIA Follow‐up Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to develop and implement, in collaboration with Fort Regulatory McKay, follow‐up programs and monitoring that specifically determine if the Industrial Application projections and assumptions are valid and accurate and if proposed mitigation is effective. Fort McKay also requests that Albertad an Canada, in collaboration with Fort McKay develop and implement regional follow‐up programs that examine the validity of regional Industrial Application and EIA projections (many of which are done with similar models and assumptions) and the validity of commonly used mitigation measures and technology. The follow‐up programs should include a feedback loop to adjust required Industrial Application and EIA methods (e.g. through Industrail Application and EIA ToR), monitoring programs, mitigation measures and technologies, approval conditions and regional policies. Access Management [6] Increased Fort McKay requests that the regulators take into account that the EIA submitted does not assess Regulatory Access to Fort the indirect and additional impacts of the Project from the new and improved linear access that McKay’s might be developed as part of the Comprehensive Regional Infrastructure Sustainability Plan Traditional (CRISP). Territory [7] Increased Fort McKay requests that: Regulatory Access to Fort i) Alberta and Canada negotiate consultation and accommodation agreements with Fort McKay’s McKay to address and limit cumulative impacts in Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory, and Traditional to accommodate Fort McKay’s rights and interests; and Territory ii) Alberta collaborate with Fort McKay in an access management plan development for this area in accordance with the ToR previously developed by Fort McKay, Alberta and industry for a “Moose Lake Access Management Plan” (note that the proposed Frontier Project is within the landbase identified in the Moose Lake Access ToR); and iii) it is meaningfully consulted on the implementation of the Comprehensive Regional Infrastructure Sustainability Plan (CRISP).
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Aii‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [8] Increased Fort McKay requests that Teck provides a draft access management plan and that this plan is Response Access to Fort developed with the participation of the Community of Fort McKay. McKay’s Traditional Territory Traditional Land Use [9] Impacts on Fort McKay requests that Teck and Alberta consult with Fort McKay regarding options to minimize Response traditional land or offset the adverse adverse project‐specific impacts of the Frontier Project on Aboriginal Regulatory use traditional use and treaty and aboriginal rights and the loss of key cultural and traditional use areas that would be affected by the Project. [10] Reclamation Fort McKay requests that Teck formalizes a process with Fort McKay outlining how Community Response input would be part of reclamation criteria development for the Teck Frontier mine, if the project is approved. Fort McKay also requests that Teck supports Aboriginal involvement in developing reclamation criteria in regional committees and research organizations. [11] Trapper access Fort McKay requests that Teck to establish access management plans, in collaboration with the Response FMSD, to facilitate Fort McKay Community member access to traplines and other traditional‐use areas throughout the life of the mine. Fort McKay would like to confirm that Teck will continue ongoing consultation with both affected trappers and their family members (e.g., RFMA # 0850) throughout the life of the project. [12] Inclusion of the Fort McKay requests that Teck submits a letter to ESRD, ERCB, CEAA and the Joint Review Panel (if Response TLUS in the EIA one is created) for the Teck Frontier Mine highlighting Fort McKay’s TLUS and its conclusions. [13] Cumulative Fort McKay requests that Teck revise its conclusions that there are no cumulative effects on Fort Response Effects McKay from the Frontier Project and Planned Developments and identify with Fort McKay Assessment mitigation measures, beyond those that it has already stated to avoid, minimize or off‐set cumulative impacts.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Aiii‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [14] Residual Some effects of the Frontier Project will not be avoidable and will be permanent, particularly the Regulatory Project‐specific contribution of the project to cumulative effects including the cumulative loss of land use Effects and opportunities. Consultation and accommodation measures are therefore required from Alberta Cumulative and Canada. Fort McKay requests that: Effects i) that Alberta and Canada meet with Fort McKay regarding how it will address the concerns identified in the project‐specific TLUS and possible mitigation and accommodation measures to address impacts on Fort McKay’s aboriginal and treaty rights; ii) in cooperation with Fort McKay, set aside land efor th specific purpose of preserving opportunities for culturally relevant TLU; and iii) at the end of Alberta and Canada’s review of the Application, we request that Alberta and Canada advise Fort McKay how its concerns were incorporated in any project‐related decisions or otherwise dealt with. [15] Residual Fort McKay requests that, should the Project be approved, that Alberta consults with Fort McKay Regulatory Effects during Project implementation to assess and manage residual effects and unexpected impacts, and the need for adaptative management. Wildlife [16] Impact Fort McKay requests that the regulators require Teck to re‐do the wildlife assessment using a more Response assessment valid scale for duration; a duration of 1 to 60 years cannot be considered “medium” when this Regulatory scale timeframe covers three generations. [17] Traditional Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to develop a Mitigation and Offset Plan for wildlife Regulatory Environmental within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory that addresses impacts to key species of interest to Fort Response Knowledge McKay for exercise of its aboriginal and treaty rights and that Fort McKay is consulted in the development and implementation of the plan. See below for comments and requests regarding specific species. [18] Wildlife Fort McKay requests that Teck includes revise its assessment to include areas further to the north Regulatory Assessment of the Project (up to and including Wood Buffalo National Park) in the wildlife cumulative effects Response assessment.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Aiv‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [19] Wildlife Fort McKay requests that a baseline beaver survey is completed (suitable for habitat model Regulatory Assessment ‐ verification), that the beaver impact assessment is re‐done after modeling is completed, and that Response beaver the Application is not deemed complete until this is done. Teck is required to develop a Wildlife Mitigation Offset Plan to address impacts on beaver and other furbearers. [20] Wildlife Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to develop and maintain a wildlife corridor between the Regulatory Assessment – north and south areas of the Project. Response wildlife corridors [21] Wildlife Fort McKay requests that Teck provides a copy of the wildlife data collected in 2012, describes the Regulatory Assessment – verification process for the habitat models and results of habitat predications compared with Response habitat models wildlife observations, and provides a description of model modifications made as a result. Fort McKay requests that the regulators require this information before the Application is deemed complete. [22] Wildlife Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to develop a species‐specific model that is more specific Assessment – and relevant to the Community. A more appropriate habitat suitability model should be developed habitat models (e.g., on mallards). [23] Wildlife Fort McKay requests that Teck: Regulatory Assessment – i) assesses the potential for changes in the wildlife communities due to changes in predator‐ Response community prey dynamics; and dynamics ii) independently or collaboratively, monitors changes in the wildlife community in the oil sands region. [24] Wildlife Fort McKay requests that: Regulatory Assessment – i) Teck is required to develop a monitoring and mitigation plan for wood bison (as part of the Response wood bison Wildlife Mitigaiton Offset Plan); and Agreement ii) Fort McKay is consulted by ESRD and involved in management decisions and actions required for wood bison.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Av‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [25] Wildlife Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to complete a PVA on moose for the RSA and that the Regulatory Assessment ‐ Application is not deemed complete until this is done. Response moose [26] Wildlife Fort McKay requests that Teck is required by the regulatory authorities as a condition of project Regulatory Assessment ‐ approvals, to develop a Wildlife Mitigation Offset Plan to address adverse impacts to wildlife Response moose including, but not limited to, moose and to consult with Fort McKay on the plan. The Wildlife Mitigation Offset Plan should require conservation offsets within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory, i.e., land preserved for wildlife habitat and populations and Fort McKay’s traditional use, habitat enhancement and restoration (e.g., from the Athabasca Landscape Team (2009) and other measures). Also see Fort McKay’s requests to Alberta for consultation and accommodation of the cumulative impacts of development [183], [14] and [15]. The likely extirpation of moose and caribou underscores the need for Alberta to consult with and accommodate impacts on Fort McKay prior to further projects being built. [27] Species at Risk Fort McKay requests that Teck completes an impact assessment on wildlife species (i.e., Regulatory designated at risk by COSEWIC) that are reasonably likely to become SARA‐listed in the near future. Response [28] Species at Risk Many SARA‐listed wildlife species use habitat types found in the Project area. Fort McKay requests Regulatory more details on how Teck will protect the “residence” of SARA Schedule 1‐listed wildlife species Response inhabiting the Project. [29] Species at Risk The Project is located between the Red Earth and Richardson woodland caribou populations. The Regulatory – woodland Project might have an adverse effect on connectivity between these caribou populations (see Response caribou Request [20]) Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to assess Project effects on woodland caribou prior to the Application being deemed complete. Fort McKay requests that no project Approvals are issued for projects within critical caribou habitat and zones of influence of potential impacts to carbou (e.g. areas that are important for critical habitat connectivity) until action plans are developed to protect caribou and they are evaluated for effectiveness.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Avi‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [30] Wildlife Health Fort McKay requests that Teck provides scientific evidence showing that a Screening‐level Wildlife Regulatory Risk Assessment is appropriate for the KIRs that Teck selected. Response [31] Wildlife Health Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to complete a wildlife health assessment on amphibians Regulatory since amphibians were not addressed in the wildlife health assessment. Response [32] Wildlife Health Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to predict the levels of mercury that would accumulate Regulatory in the wildlife that eat fish (e.g., otter, some species of waterfowl). Response [33] Wildlife Health Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to determine if any other animal species (e.g., long‐lived Regulatory invertebrates) will bio‐accumulate mercury at levels that exceed safe levels. Response [34] Wildlife Health Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to assess the effects of odours on wildlife. Regulatory Response [35] Wildlife Health Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to assess and monitor the potential effects of tailings Regulatory effluent on wildlife. Response [36] Mitigation – Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to develop a Wildlife Mitigation and Offset Plan that Regulatory species at risk encompasses and addresses impacts on both key cultural species and species at risk and that the Response plan includes conservation areas and comprehensive monitoring for effectiveness. Further, Fort McKay requests that it is consulted on the development and implementation of this plan. [37] Mitigation – Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to determine the local habitat requirements for species Regulatory species at risk with large ranges (i.e., yellow rail). Response [38] Mitigation – Fort McKay requests that Teck maps a noise contour map of 48 dbA (e.g., Figure 2‐2 only has 45 Regulatory species at risk and 50 dbA contours) to determine areas of noise impact and assess potential noise impacts on Response species at risk and provide a mitigation plan. [39] Mitigation for Fort McKay requests that the regulators require that any clearing occurs prior to nest initiation of Regulatory Species at Risk early nesting species such as great‐horned owls, great gray owls and gray jays. Response [40] Mitigation for Fort McKay requests that Teck describes the mitigation measures that it plans to use to mitigate Regulatory Species at Risk human disturbance on wildlife and its plans to monitor effectiveness. Response
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Avii‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [41] Biodiversity Fort McKay requests that in addition to ABMI, that Teck is required to conduct wildlife biodiversity Regulatory monitoring monitoring at a local scale and that traditional wildlife species and communites are included as Response indicators. [42] Mitigation – Fort McKay is very concerned about tailings ponds and the effects on wildlife in the oil sands Regulatory tailings ponds region. Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to incorporate the findings of the Research on Response and waterfowl Avian Protection Project (RAPP) in the development, operation, and monitoring of wildlife deterrent systems. [43] Monitoring A Wildlife Mitigation Offset Plan should be developed by Teck and along with it a Regulatory Plan comprehensive monitoring plan that evaluates the effectiveness of the plan in addressing impacts Response on wildlife populations. Fort McKay should be consulted regarding the design of the monitoring plan and the species, populations and habitats to be monitored. Also, see Requests [3] to [5] regarding regional cumulatived effects monitoring, assessment and follow‐up program for the Project. [44] Monitoring Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to engage a wildlife biologist to monitor species at risk Regulatory Plan during construction and operation. Teck should be prepared to modify operations based on advice Response from ESRD (e.g., stop activities when species of concern are near). [45] Monitoring Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to monitor more common species (e.g., Tennessee Regulatory Plan warbler and boreal chorus frog) along with species at risk (e.g., olive‐sided flycatcher and western Response toad). It will be easier to obtain sufficient data on more common species for statistical analysis allowing the detection of population changes as a result of the Project. [46] Monitoring Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to use the methods for monitoring wildlife on reclaimed Regulatory Plan areas developed by the CEMA Wildlife Task Group (Hawkes and Tuttle 2011). Response [47] Keeping Clean Fort McKay requests that, in the event of a fuel or chemical spill, that Teck is required to clean up Regulatory Areas Clean to meet Alberta Tier 1 criteria (Alberta Environment 2009). Response
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Aviii‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [48] Cumulative Fort McKay requests that regulators immediately implement the recommendations in the Regulatory Effects Terrestrial Ecosystem Management Framework (TEMF) as critical to maintaining wildlife populations (Cumulative Environmental Management Association 2008). Fort McKay’s view is that the TEMF is a balanced regional framework and should be implemented instead of the draft Lower Athabasca Regional Plan (LARP). [49] Cumulative Fort McKay requests that Alberta immediately takes measures in consultation with Fort McKay to Regulatory Effects address cumulative impacts on wildlife, prior to any further project approvals. See Fort McKay’s submission on the draft Land Use Plan for the Lower Athabasca River for detailed mitigation and accommodation recommendations (submitted to Alberta June 6, 2011). [50] Cumulative Fort McKay requests that ESRD immediately develops, in consultation with the Community, a Regulatory Effects regional monitoring program for wildlife, including annual wildlife surveys and use this information to determine if EIA predictions and assumptions are valid and accurate and to develop and assess mitigation measures. Noise [51] Noise Fort McKay requests that Teck conducts an assessment of tonal noise, pure tone or narrow‐ Response assessment frequency band emissions. [52] Tonal noise at Fort McKay requests that Teck determines whether audible noise from narrow‐frequency bands Response cabins from the project will be audible at trapper cabins R1‐R8. If noise is predicted to be audible at Fort McKay trapper’s cabins, Teck should be required to mitigate the impacts. [53] Aircraft noise Fort McKay requests that Teck: Response i) confirms the frequency of aircraft expected to overfly the Community of Fort McKay, and ii) clarifies how promotion of flight patterns avoiding the Community of Fort McKay will be ensured. [54] Aircraft noise Fort McKay requests that Teck consults with Fort McKay regarding mitigation and offsets to Response address the impacts of aircraft noise from the Project.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Aix‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [55] Clarity on time Fort McKay requests that Teck provides clarity on what timelines are meant by noise concerns Response for prompt raised by Fort McKay community members being promptly addressed and what options Teck has management available to address noise concerns. Fort McKay requests that Teck consults with Fort McKay to develop a noise complaint support system that will necessitate prompt documentation and a response from Teck. [56] Best practices Fort McKay requests that Teck provides specific examples of what best practices will be Response implemented to ensure its commitment to reduce and control noise emissions. Air [57] Assessment Fort McKay requests that regulators require: Regulatory Approach i) regulators require all oil sands project EIAs for proposed projects north of Fort McMurray to include both Pre‐development and Current Case assessments. ii) Teck to model the Base Case with only existing and approved projects. iii) Teck to compare the Planned Development Case, Application and re‐modelled Base Case against the Current and Pre‐development cases (i.e. the Current and Pre‐development cases should be the ‘baseline’ against which the existing, approved, planned developments and the Project should be assessed against.) [58] Air Quality Fort McKay requests that regulators: Regulatory Criteria i) require all oil sands project EIAs for proposed projects north of Fort McMurray to compare predicted air emissions to Fort McKay’s air quality criteria and targets; ii) note that in Table 3‐4, Vol. 4, Section 3 no benzene criteria is listed for Fort McKay but Fort McKay proposes a three‐year running annual average benzene criteria of 1 µg/m³. Fort
McKay therefore requests a revision of the assessment using this benzene criteria; and
iii) require that air impacts of the proposed Frontier Project and any future proposed projects use Fort McKay’s air quality criteria and targets to assess the adequacy of air emission Response mitigation measures and project acceptability.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Ax‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [59] Modeling and Fort McKay requests that regulators: Regulatory Assessment i) treat air quality modelling predictions in the EIA as best estimates and therefore use them Methodology to guide decision‐making regarding the acceptability of this project and emission control requirements; and ii) require Teck to meet applicable vegetation protection criteria for air quality, nitrogen and acid deposition rates on undisturbed areas of the Frontier project development area. [60] Modeling and Fort McKay requests that Teck delineates the undisturbed area within the project development Response Assessment area and the predicted ambient air quality and nitrogen and acid deposition in these areas and Methodology that Teck assess the impact of this air quality and deposition on the ecosystems within these undisturbed areas. [61] Assessment Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to compare the Application and Base Cases to the Response Cases Current Case (2010 emissions data) and to the Pre‐Development Case (pre‐1965). [62] Project Fort McKay requests that regulators: Emissions i) acknowledge that the Frontier Project will be a significant source of air emissions, and make regulatory decisions that ensure pollution prevention and emission minimization principles are applied; ii) require emission estimates used in the EIA and application for the Frontier Project to be validated against actual project emissions at various stages and that this assessment is provided to Fort McKay; approval conditions are tools to ensure this occurs; and iii) include conditions in approvals for the Frontier Project and for other new and renewed applications for projects that the annual report contains the project’s emission intensities for SO₂, NOχ, VOCs, CO, PM₂.₅ and TRS. iv) set a continuous improvement target in emission intensities for the Frontier Project in its initial approval and in any subsequent approval renewals.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Axi‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [63] Regional Fort McKay requests that regulators: Regulatory Emissions i) consult with Fort McKay regarding standardization of approaches for estimating air emissions ii) Develop standardized air modeling domains and standardized approaches for estimating air emissions and require all companies preparing regulatory applications to use these approaches. These standards or guidelines would be refined through an ongoing emission validation process; iii) prior to any project approvals, meeting with Fort McKay to consider, review and establish BATEA standards and the use of Fort McKay’s air, odour and PM emission standards or international standards; and iv) acknowledge that Planned Development Case emission estimates might not adequately reflect the total future emissions for some parameters and in fact might be underestimates. This needs to be taken into account when establishing emission management requirements for the Frontier Project.
[64] NOχ and PM2.5: Fort McKay requests that regulators provide requirements to proponents including Teck to achieve Regulator Mine Fleet consistency in how point and mobile emissions are estimated so that the point does not represent the worst case, while mobile estimates represent an estimate of actual.
[65] NOχ and PM2.5: Fort McKay requests that: Regulatory Mine Fleet i) Teck is required to meet the most stringent requirements in place, at a minimum, at the Response time of project procurement and construction; and ii) if Tier IV vehicles are not commercially available, at a minimum, all vehicles meet the emission requirements even if this means post‐combustion device installation on vehicles.
[66] NOχ 5: Mine Fort McKay requests that Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development impose Regulatory Fleet NOχ limits on heavy haulers giving industry sufficient notice to develop and aquire the required equipment from the manufacturers.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Axii‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [67] NOχ: Mine Fort McKay requests that regulators challenge mine fleet manufacturers to provide specific Regulatory Fleet justification as to why they are not able to meet the more stringent requirements for heavy haulers. This justification should be provided to Fort McKay, to ensure that BATEA is actually being achieved for the most significant contributor to the mine fleet emissions. [68] NOχ: Boilers Fort McKay requests that Teck: and Heaters i) Teck clarifies if it plans to meet the intent of the Interim Emissions Guidelines for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOχ) for New Boilers, Heaters and Turbines using Gaseous Fuels for Oil Sands Region in the Rural Municipality of Wood Buffalo North of Fort McMurray based on a review of Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA) performance targets for the design, purchase and operation of boilers, heaters and steam generators covered by the policy; ii) verifies the type of technology specified for the boilers, heaters, and steam generators to achieve the performance targets outlined in the Interim Emissions Guidelines for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOχ) for New Boilers, Heaters and Turbines using Gaseous Fuels for Oil Sands Region in the Rural Municipality of Wood Buffalo North of Fort McMurray based on a review of Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA) and provide justification for this technology satisfying BATEA requirements; and iii) provides the testing data to demonstrate performance targets achievement results to Fort McKay. [69] NOχ: Boilers Fort McKay requests that regulators: and Heaters i) stipulate in approval conditions the requirements for testing and demonstrating achievement of the performance targets; and ii) set the performance targets to be applicable for those equipment that fall under the Interim Emissions Guidelines for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOχ) for New Boilers, Heaters and Turbines using Gaseous Fuels for Oil Sands Region in the Rural Municipality of Wood Buffalo North of Fort McMurray based on a review of Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA).
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Axiii‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [70] NOχ: Fort McKay requests that Teck provides more detailed justification for DLN 1+ as BATEA for the Response Cogeneration cogeneration unit as opposed to SCR. Fort McKay also requests that Teck demonstrate that the and Heat performance targets will be achieved as outlined in the Interim Emissions Guidelines for Oxides of Recovery Nitrogen (NOχ) for New Boilers, Heaters and Turbines using Gaseous Fuels for Oil Sands Region in Steam the Rural Municipality of Wood Buffalo North of Fort McMurray based on a review of Best Generation Available Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA) by its choice of technology. Fort Mckay requests that Teck provides information on intermittent NOX emission sources and demonstrate how these sources will meet applicable emission standards, and show how they have applied BATEA. [71] SO₂: All Fort McKay requests that Teck determines how much H₂S might be generated and recovered sources through the VRU to understand the potential for odours during upset conditions. [72] Particulate Fort McKay requests that regulators require monitoring and measurement through their Matter: All monitoring and research programs to understand the cumulative effects of metals emissions and sources of provide that data to regional stakeholders, including Fort McKay. Emissions [73] Fugitive Fort McKay requests that: Emissions, i) Teck identifies what technology it will use to detect and measure emissions and odours VOCs and TRS from equipment leaks, including tailings ponds and mine faces, and supply that information to Fort McKay to verify that the appropriate technology is employed; and ii) the regulators review current practice regarding mimimizing diluent loss, provide that information to Fort McKay for review and comment, and revise the standard diluent loss volume (currently 4 volumes/1000 volumes ) to reflect a more up‐to‐date standard and continuous improvement. [74] Flaring and Teck expects the largest potential upset for flaring to be associated with weekly cooling water Response upsets failures. Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to improve its cooling water system design to a Regulatory higher reliability and to show how the design will meet the requirements of “best practices”.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Axiv‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [75] Continuous Fort McKay requests that regulators require Teck to develop a continuous improvement plan and Regulatory Improvement that it is an integral part of the approval process. [76] Continuous Fort McKay requests that Teck: Response Improvement i) is required to implement the best available technology at the time of construction and Regulatory through equipment replacement (capital stock turnover) throughout the life of the project; and ii) reports progress towards continuous improvement plans implementation and environmental benefits achieved. [77] Odourous Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to redo: Response Emissions i) the odour impact assessment using the TCEQ and Nagata (2003) odour thresholds outlined Regulatory in Table 8‐11, and that it expands the list of odourants assessed, and that it uses one of the additive effect approaches outlined bym Ki and Park (2008) to assess cumulative impacts of individual odourants; and ii) undertakes source and fugitive emissions monitoring and ambient monitoring to verify its predictions regarding odourant emissions and their impact from the Frontier Mine Projects. [78] Odourous Fort McKay requests that regulators: Regulatory Emissions i) provide project applicants with a standardized list of odourants and related odour thresholds to be used in odour assessments and guidance on how to consider mixtures of odourants; and ii) require, and companies undertake, odour‐related source and ambient air monitoring to improve modeling related to odours and to guide effective odour management.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Axv‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [79] Odourous Fort McKay requests that the regulators collect, collate and publish all hydrocarbon and reduced Regulatory Emissions sulphur monitoring data that has been generated to date related to mine faces, tailings ponds and fugitive bitumen processing and upgrading emissions. Fort McKay requests the opportunity to review this information to identify information gaps and have input on devising a strategy to address these gaps. [80] Visibility or Fort McKay requests that regulators: Regulatory Regional Haze i) require regional haze or visibility monitoring within the region to determine how emissions from the development are impacting visibility; and ii) lead the development of a regulatory tool with input from Fort McKay, that will enable comparison on monitoring informationd an input into management of emissions of precursors. [81] Ambient Air Fort McKay requests that Teck: Response Monitoring i) provides, and the Government of Alberta requires, an attribution‐based continuous Regulatory monitoring station as part of the Frontier Project; ii) provides a continuous air monitoring station to monitor NO, NO₂, NOχ, SO₂, TRS, NMHC, THC, PM₂.₅, O₃, and typical meteorological parameters (wind speed, wind direction, temperature, relative humidity); iii) provides passive monitoring for acid deposition, nitrogen deposition; and iv) commits to direct consultation with Fort McKay on the location and parameters to be monitored at any continuous air monitoring stations located on Fort McKay Traditional Territory. [82] Ambient Air Fort McKay requests that the regulators directly consult with Fort McKay and Teck as to the Regulatory Monitoring location of any compliance or attribution air monitoring stations.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Axvi‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [83] Source Fort McKay requests that Teck provides results of the: Response Monitoring i) CEMS and stack tests to demonstrate compliance with approval limits and to verify that Teck is striving to achieve performance targets outlined in their approval; and ii) emission surveys for VOCs and sulphur compounds from mine faces and tailings ponds; this will be used to assess actual versus predicted emissions from these sources. Hydrogeology/Groundwater [84] Basal Aquifer Fort McKay requests that: Response Depressurization i) Teck provides documentation explaining how water levels in the BWS will recover Regulatory and Pit following dewatering if portions of the aquifer are isolated from surface recharge. If this Dewatering recovery will occur as seepage from pit lakes or other features of the mine‐altered landscape, then this should be made clearer in the assessment; ii) Teck explains its adaptive management response if portions of the BWS are found to be non‐saline; for example, demonstrate a plan for how non‐saline groundwater extracted for dewatering purposes would be returned to the environment as opposed to use in oil sands processing; iii) in keeping with ii above, Teck is required by ESRD to return non‐saline groundwater to the environment instead of using it for makeup water or process water; and iv) Teck provides information on the origin of highly saline BWS groundwater in the SDA and whether or not the possible connection with deeper (Devonian) saline aquifers has been investigated and assessed for potential risk of high inflow into the Equinox pit during pit dewatering operations.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Axvii‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [85] Traditional Fort McKay requests that: Response Groundwater i) Teck provides a composite map showing predicted groundwater contours according to its Use and Pre‐ snapshots including full build‐out with overlays showing TLU sites or values and other Development important traditional use features (using the TLU map from Fort McKay’s TLUS study; Basline Appendix 6B; ii) assesses whether or not traditional land use such as medicinal plant or berry harvesting have the potential to be adversely affected by changes in the groundwater environment, and if so, proposes mitigation measures; and iii) Teck provides the basis of definition for the pre‐development groundwater baseline condition for the Project. [86] Use of RSA Fort McKay requests that Teck: Response scale i) is required by ESRD to develop and adopt a local‐scale groundwater flow model with a Regulatory groundwater finer grid spacing to use during project operations and in developing this model, provide model better calibration of water levels in surficial and McMurray aquifers; and ii) uses data derived during groundwater monitoring and operation of dewatering and seepage control systems to refine and update the model and compare results to predictions made by the model. [87] Tailings Fort McKay requests that Teck: Response seepage i) agrees to consult with Fort McKay on the development of its seepage control system Regulatory control including plans for monitoring the performance of the barrier, the barrier wells, and any resulting seepage; ii) jointly monitor seepage with Fort McKay and provide assistance with capacity development for community‐based monitoring; iii) is required by the regulators to develop contingency plans and potential mitigation in case the barrier walls of the External Tailings Areas do not perform as anticipated in preventing seepage to groundwater and surface waters; and
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Axviii‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [87] Tailings iv) clarifies whether or not relative concentrations as predicted by the solute transport model Response (cont’d) seepage might exceed applicable guidelines or other anticipated water quality limits to be Regulatory control determined in the groundwater management plan (see also below). [88] Potential Fort McKay requests that the regulators not to approve the tailings pond and the compansation Regulatory impacts of lakes at the proposed locations and that Teck is required to reconfigure the layout to ensure that Response seepage process‐affected seepage to the Athabasca River and any proposed compensation lakes will be prevented. [89] Groundwater Fort McKay requests that: Response Monitoring and i) Teck consults with Fort McKay regarding the development of the detailed Groundwater Regulatory Management Management Plan for the project and fully engage Fort McKay in all groundwater Plan monitoring activities; ii) Teck develops a Groundwater Management Plan that provides specific rationale for the selection of monitoring well sites, the distance between these sites and the potential sources of water quality effects, and further details on how groundwater monitoring will be integrated with surface water monitoring. iii) the Groundwater Management Plan developed by Teck proposes and justifies a project‐ specific groundwater response plan; and identifies the proposed process to establish triggers and limits for groundwater. iv) Teck provides annual comprehensive groundwater monitoring reports to Fort McKay, including raw data collected from groundwater monitoring. v) Teck integrates the monitoring of surface water and groundwater when and where needed during the life of the project as well as the post‐closure period.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Axix‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) Hydrology/Surface Water [90] Athabasca Fort McKay requests that Teck confirms that the OSSP volume will be able to supply 100% of the Response River Water make‐up water demands from November to March during years where withdrawal is restricted. In Use particular, Teck is requested to clarify if this volume is based on their participating in sharing arrangements of the Suncor and Syncrude water licences with other oils sands projects, as is the current practice in the Phase 1 Water Management Framework. [91] Athabasca Fort McKay requests that Teck indicates whether or not their annual withdrawal volume, and Response River Water maximum withdrawal rate, and the OSSP volume would need to change if the Phase 2 Framework Use Committee recommendations were adopted by the regulators and if so to what. [92] Phase 2 Fort McKay requests that ESRD and Fisheries and Oceans implement the Phase 2 Framework prior Regulatory Framework to issuing any further oil sands approvals. [93] Athabasca Fort McKay requests that Teck clarifies the use of the term “recycle water”. Response River Water Use [94] Athabasca Fort McKay requests that Teck provides the reclaimed water rate as a percentage of total process Response River Water water used for each year of the project. Use [95] Athabasca Fort McKay requests that Teck explains why its annual Athabasca River water withdrawal does not Response River Water decrease to a river‐water to bitumen ratio of 2 or less as available tailings recycle water increases, Use as reported to the P2FC by other oil sands mining companies. [96] Athabasca Fort McKay requests that Teck comments on the ability of all oil sands developments to continue Response River Water to meet their water needs from the Athabasca River in the Application Case and Planned Use Development Case under both the existing Phase 1 Framework and the proposed Phase 2 Framework.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Axx‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [97] Surface Water Fort McKay requests that Teck is required by ESRD to develop a contingency plan for testing and Response Management addressing any clean‐up of water that might enter the regional watersheds through an unplanned Regulatory release from their stormwater facilities and that Fort McKay has an opportunity to review and comment on the plan, prior to the Application being deemed complete. [98] Surface Water Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to fill pit lakes only from the Athabasca River and that Response Management local streams are directed around a pit lake until its water levels and water quality are acceptable Regulatory for it to be connected to the watershed. Water Quality, Fish and Fish Habitat [99] Seepage of Fort McKay request that: Response process i) Teck provides additional information about the design and location of proposed treatment Regulatory affected waters wetlands and lakes, including plans for ensuring that contaminated sediments and water to will not be harmful to migratory waterfowl and any resident aquatic biota; uncontaminated ii) Teck provides contingency plans and potential mitigation if the barrier walls of the External local waters Tailings Areas do not perform as anticipated in preventing seepage to groundwater and surface waters; and iii) the regulators do not deem the Application complete until Teck provides this information and it has been reviewed by Fort McKay and the regulators. [100] Aerial Fort McKay requests that they are consulted once government data for aerial deposition are Response emissions and available and used in depositional model validation. Fort McKay also requests that Teck includes fallout to local snowpack surveys of metals and PAHs in its future monitoring plans. snowpack and surface waters
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Axxi‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [101] Use of large Fort McKay objects to Teck’s proposal to use natural lakes as polishing ponds and requests that Response unnamed lakes Teck is required to revise its water management plan and is not allowed to use Oakly and Sandy Regulatory as settling lakes as polishing ponds. basins and If ESRD contemplates the approval of the use of natural lakes as polishing ponds, Fort McKay potential requests that any discharges downstream (outside) of the project area from Unnamed lakes 1 and downstream 2 are monitored for total and dissolved metals and PAHs in addition to suspended solids. contamination; Fort McKay requests consultation about the loss of traditional use areas in the area of Oakley Loss of (UNL#1), Small Sandy (UNL#2) and Crooked Lake (UNWB#6) and that a mitigation and offset plan is traditional use developed with Fort McKay. lakes [102] Participation in Fort McKay requests that Teck: Response pit lake i) is required to participate in pit lake research, including studies of bottom sediments and Regulatory research, pit possible transfer of contaminants through the aquatic food chain, as well bioturbation and lake sediment wind‐induced resuspension of sediments; toxicity ii) provides further discussion about the fate and transport of napthenic acids and PAHs over time in their pit lakes, notably in Central Pit Lake B; and iii) is required to test the tailings cap water to ensure it is of a suitable standard before transferring it to a pit lake; and iv) is required to develop a contingency water management plan in case the tailings cap water does not develop to a suitable standard and/or the pit lakes do not work as predicted for managing/treating tailings cap water and reclamation runoff.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Axxii‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [103] Dismissal of Fort McKay requests that Teck: Regulatory CCME i) accepts, and ESRD uses to evaluate the Project, published CCME guidelines for all Response guidelines and substances for which they are available until such time as CCME or another government derivation of environmental agency approves the newly derived CEBsd presente by the company; chronic effects ii) applies a safety factor to their derived CEBs wherever they are based on the lowest result benchmarks of a single toxicity test. In particular, Teck should apply a safety factor of at least 10X to its calculation of the suggested labile naphthenic acid CEB of 1 mg/L; and iii) describes and provides their rationale for using an amended standardized method for calculating SSDs. [104] Disregarding Fort McKay requests that Teck: Response their own i) accepts its own predictions of guideline exceedances, and provides an assessment of the Regulatory predicted potential impacts to aquatic biota for each of these substances. guideline ii) discusses the limitations of its dataset for establishing natural variability, and related exceedances, predictive power where sample numbers are low (e.g., single samples, single season); and calling them “over‐ iii) the Application is not deemed complete until this information is provided by Teck and estimates” reviewed by Fort McKay and the regulators. [105] Monitoring Fort McKay requests that Teck: Response plans to follow i) develops a monitoring plan designed to validate EIA assessment predictions for water Regulatory quality and aquatic resources and evaluates the effectiveness of mitigation; ii) consults with Fort McKay prior to the development of aquatic monitoring plans and prior to any approvals being issued for the project; and iii) is required by ERSD to fund and participate in a Community‐Based Monitoring Program.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Axxiii‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [106] Whole effluent Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to provide plans to complete whole effluent toxicity Response toxicity tests tests to validate their predictions that are based on single substances or other methods. Regulatory based on an unconventional method [107] Fish habitat Fort McKay asserts that ‘fish habitat compensation’ as implemented under the DFO’s Fish Habitat Response compensation Policy is not sufficient to mitigate, offset or accommodate for losses to Fort McKay’s traditional use plans areas, Aboriginal fisheries and impacts on Fort McKay’s Aboriginal rights. Notwithstanding, Fort McKay requests that DFO consult with Fort McKay regarding fish habitat compensation plans. Fort McKay’s preference is for fish habitat to be enhanced in degraded areas or habitats or fish populations that are under stress are enhanced or stocked rather than constructing compensation lakes, which impacts terrestrial habitat that is important to Fort McKay for traditional use. [108] Plans to use Fort McKay requests that Teck presents alternative options for compensation lake source water Response compensation and for pit lake management and that the regulators do not allow a plan that involves discharging Regulatory lake as a end pit lake water into a fish habitat compensation lake. polishing system [109] Lost fishing Fort McKay requests that Teck consults with Fort McKay about gaining access to important Response opportunities traditional use areas, including habitation sites located near watercourses and waterbodies in the and access area. If access is not feasible, Fort McKay requests consultation about alternative options for pursuing traditional water‐related activities in a way that is meaningful to them. Loss of and/or contamination of fish bearing habitats has a direct impact on traditional livelihoods. Fort McKay requests that Teck develop a Mitigation and Offset Plan with Fort McKay that addresses loss of fish habitats, loss of access to fishing areas and contamination of fish bearing waters. The Mitigation and Offset Plan should include preservation of fish habitats within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory and fish habitat enhancement projects determined in consultation with Fort McKay
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Axxiv‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [110] Lost fishing Fort McKay requests further consultation with Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) regarding habitat Regulatory opportunities compensation options and mitigation and accommodation for loss of Aboriginal fishing and fishing and access opportunities. [111] Loss of Fort McKay requests that Teck discusses the importance of invertebrate drift along tributaries and Response invertebrate at their confluence with the Athabasca River, and predicts the implications of lost invertebrate fish fish food to fish food for the length of River as impacted under the Application Case. in tributaries and Athabasca River [112] Fish tainting Fort McKay requests that Teck: Regulatory i) provides a list of substances that it considers to cause fish tainting; ii) provides further discussion about the potential taint caused by the presence of tainting compounds at low levels for a long period of exposure as might occur in their project area; and iii) is required by the regulators to develop and implement a tainting monitoring program. [113] Fishing Fort McKay requests that Teck provides Fort McKay with a copy of its fishing and hunting policies Response pressure for staff and contractors and consults with Fort McKay regarding this. [114] Fishing Fort McKay requests that ESRD consults with Fort McKay regarding fisheries population Regulatory pressure management and access management within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory and including the area of the Frontier Project. Soils and Terrain [115] Soil Fort McKay requests that Teck redoes the soil acidification assessment using a modelling approach Response acidification consistent with the Acid Deposition Management Framework and that the Application is not assessment deemed complete until this is done and Fort McKay and the regulators have reviewed and commented on the assessment.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Axxv‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [116] Soil Fort McKay requests that Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resources revises the Regulatory acidification requirements for soil acidification assessments in EIA Terms of Reference for oil sands projects to assessment use a modelling approach consistent with the Acid Deposition Management Framework. [117] Soil Fort McKay requests that Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resources require as part of any Regulatory acidification operating approval that Teck participates in regional initiatives to collect current soil data assessment regarding acidification. [118] Pre‐ Fort McKay requests that regulators require proponents of EIAs to assess Base Case, Application Regulatory development Case and Planned Development Case against pre‐development conditions (pre 1965) for soil conditions acidification assessments. Soil and terrain‐specific recommendations relating to reclamation for the Project are covered in the Conservation and Reclamation section (Section 21 of this review). Vegetation and Wetlands [119] Assessment Fort McKay requests that Teck provides vegetation data for the PAA as a reference point to Response Cases compare the impacts of the Project to existing baseline conditions. The PAA was established as Regulatory greater than the Project footprint to achieve a more conservative assessment of vegetation impacts, as some of the Frontier Project disturbance is not yet fully planned. Fort McKay requests that the Application is not deemed complete until this assessment is provided and Fort McKay and the regulators have reviewed and commented on it. [120] Pre‐ Fort McKay requests that in addition to its current methodology, Teck includes simulations of Response Development natural disturbance on the landscape (i.e., fire) to more accurately represent the natural variation Regulatory Reference of soil and vegetation types that might have been present in the pre‐development landscape (i.e., Conditions pre‐1965). Teck should also integrate historical data to form a more accurate picture of the pre‐ industrial development conditions. Further, the vegetation project assessments should be directly related to pre‐industrial disturbance conditions, rather than using Base Case or the existing landscape as a reference point. Fort McKay requests that the update of the pre‐disturbance conditions is completed prior to the Application being deemed complete.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Axxvi‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [121] Pre‐ Fort McKay requests that Teck compares all Project effects assessments to pre‐development Response Development conditions, as per the request above and that the Application is not deemed complete until this is Regulatory Reference done and has been reviewed and comments on by Fort McKay and the regulators. The assessment Conditions cases provided in the Application do not provide a comprehensive comparison of all of the Project effects to pre‐development conditions. [122] Fort McKay TK Fort McKay requests that Teck provides a formal plan as to how it will protect and reclaim Response and TLU traditional use species. Studies [123] Fort McKay TK Fort McKay requests that Teck completes an on‐the‐ground traditional plant survey for the LSA, Response and TLU and specifically report project effects to traditional plants in both the PDA and PAA and that the Regulatory Studies Application is not deemed complete until this is done. [124] Fort McKay TK Fort McKay requests that Teck completes a cumulative effects assessment, PDC, for traditional Response and TLU land use within the RSA, and that this assessment include the Shell Pierre River Mine Project as Regulatory Studies part of the PDC and that the Application is not deemed complete until this is done. [125] Novel Fort McKay requests that Teck develops a monitoring program to assess the success of reclamation Response Ecosystems on tailings sands specifically, to determine if there is indeed a conversion of these sites to novel Regulatory ecosystems following reclamation. This program will monitor tailings sands reclamation and develop strategies to mitigate the development of novel ecosystems by identifying management actions to achieve the reclamation requirements outlined in the EPEA approvals and the Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region 2nd Edition. [126] Novel Fort McKay requests that the Government of Alberta, as part of a regulatory approval, ensures that Response Ecosystems Teck is required to reclaim the land so that the reclaimed soils and landforms are capable of Regulatory supporting a self‐sustaining, locally common boreal forest, regardless of the end land use and to implement reclamation practices that will achieve the reclamation goals outlined in the Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region 2nd Edition.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Axxvii‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [127] Rare Plant Fort McKay requests that Teck completes a lichen survey as part of the rare plant vegetation plot Response Surveys surveys as some lichen species from this region are listed in the Species at Risk Act. [128] Non‐native and Fort McKay requests that ESRD requires Teck to implement a monitoring and control program for Regulatory Invasive non‐native and invasive species during the construction, operation, reclamation and closure Species Plan phases of the project to ensure that these species do not invade disturbed sites and compete with and Monitoring native species. [129] Non‐native and Fort McKay requests that ESRD requires Teck to avoid the use of seed mixes for erosion control to Regulatory Invasive reduce the potential for introducing persistent grass species and to ensure that the natural Species Control recovery of vegetation communities on site is returned to those of pre‐disturbance conditions. and Erosion Furthermore, BMP 15 in Alberta Environment and Water (2012) indicates that the use of seed Control mixes should be avoided to preserve propagule diversity and integrity. If a seed mix is used, Fort McKay requests that the seed mix contain only native species local to the project area. [130] Non‐native and Fort McKay requests that the return of the site to pre‐disturbance conditions is included as a Regulatory Invasive condition of any approvals issued for the Project. See also reclamation and certification requests in Species Control Section 21.2. and Erosion Control [131] Natural Fort McKay requests that research and studies are conducted to understand forest establishment Regulatory successional on reclaimed landscapes, and to develop models for predicting landscape patterns and processes reclamation trajectories. Fort McKay believes these types of studies can be used to develop guidance to assist in regional reclamation planning. [132] Natural Fort McKay requests that Teck evaluates if old‐growth forests will develop in the undisturbed areas Response successional of the study area as predicted, based on available literature, research and other case studies. processes
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Axxviii‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [133] Monitoring Air Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to support and participate in regional monitoring (i.e., Response Emissions Terrestrial Environment Effects Monitoring Program and biodiversity monitoring) to monitor Regulatory potential effects of air emissions on vegetation resources. [134] Monitoring Air Fort McKay requests that Alberta and Canada consult with Fort McKay regarding the governance, Regulatory Emissions design and implementation of the World Class Monitoring System with regard to air, land and water monitoring and the inclusion of community‐based monitoring. [135] Reversibility of Fort McKay requests that Teck provides scientific support (in the form of literature citations and/or Regulatory Air Emissions studies) regarding their assessment of SO2, NO2, and nitrogen deposition impacts to vegetation as Impacts “reversible” over the long‐term within the RSA. Further, Fort McKay requests that Teck explains how results from studies of air pollution effects in Europe transfer to the boreal systems of northeastern Alberta. [136] Reversibility of Fort McKay is concerned about air pollution effects to vegetation during and following the Frontier Response Air Emissions Project operation, and requests that Teck implements a monitoring program to understand Regulatory Impacts nitrogen and sulphur deposition and effects to vegetation and soils in the LSA throughout the duration of the mine operation. [137] Landscape Fort McKay requests that the regulators develop meaningful criteria to assess disturbance of Regulatory Disturbance ecosystems and landscapes and establish thresholds for disturbance that consider long term effects on biodiversity, traditional land use, economic forests, rare plants and rare plant communities and wetland destruction or degradation in the Fort McKay Traditional Lands, in consultation with Fort McKay. Biodiversity [138] Biodiversity Fort McKay requests that Teck establishes a biodiversity monitoring program based on a reference‐ Regulatory Potential condition approach, to collect data on undisturbed areas and reclaimed areas in order to quantify how similar conditions and successional patterns on reclaimed landscapes are to the natural landscape.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Axxix‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [139] Reclamation Fort McKay requests that the regulators ensure the effects of the Project and the cumulative Regulatory Success effects of regional development on biodiversity are assessed: i) with the assumption that reclamation does not prove completely successful at returning a suite of native plant and animal species to the project‐area landscape; ii) during the time period the study area is “functionally” unreclaimed – that is, during the time period that Project footprint features are unreclaimed, plus the subsequent period until return of ecological function and form similar to pre‐disturbance conditions can be conclusively demonstrated; and iii) that the application is dnot deeme complete until this work is done. [140] Reclamation Fort McKay requests that the regulators ensure through protected areas, access management and Regulatory Success other management tools identified in the TEMF and by Fort McKay in its submissions regarding the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan (November 7, 2010 and June 6, 2011), that sufficient habitat and wildlife populations are maintained to allow the repopulation of reclaimed areas. Where these tools or mitigation measures are to be adopted within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory, Fort McKay requests that it is involved in development, implementation, and evaluation of these measures. [141] Reclamation Fort McKay requests that, as an approval condition, Teck is required to demonstrate a vigourous Regulatory Success commitment to plan for biodiversity restoration in its reclamation program, and within two years of approval to develop a work plan to accomplish this objective, in co‐operation with regional committees that allow for Fort McKay’s detailed and meaningful involvement and input or other forums, acceptable to Fort McKay. Human Health [142] Synergism Fort McKay requests that Teck presents clear justification for not including potential synergism in Regulatory their HHRA and comment whether potential synergism could occur within the identified CofC and Response other chemicals already present in the regional air and water sheds and further explain how the exclusion of synergism supports conservatism in their HHRA approach.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Axxx‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [143] Acrolein Fort McKay requests that Teck re‐evaluates the integrity of the measurements contained in the Response 2005 Golder report, and validity of its conclusions, and amends the acrolein section of the HHRA. [144] Acrolein Fort McKay requests that Teck rewrites its HHRA for acrolein with particular attention to a more Response realistic statement of conservatism, which accepts that conservatism is not as inherently strong in their HHRA as the HHRA claims. [145] Non peer Fort McKay requests that Teck reviews the other non peer‐reviewed reports relied upon in the EIA Response reviewed and assesses them for reliability and validity. reports [146] Health Impact Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to use a holistic approach to human health risk Response Assessment assessment that addresses community comments and concerns (note that the EIA ToR specify that Regulatory Incomplete any health issues raised by stakeholders need to be taken into account in the assessment of health). Fort McKay also requests that the human health assessment is revised to include a risk assessment on the likely health impacts of the Frontier project on all determinants of health (list provided in the health review) and that the application is not deemed complete until this is done. Palæontology [147] Paleontological Fort McKay requests that Teck provides assurances that the palæontological assessment was Response study carried out in accordance with accepted standards for such investigations within the Province of standards Alberta. [148] Palæontologica Fort McKay requests that Teck clarifies the actual size and area of the Palaeontological Resources Response l study area Study area. [149] Paleontological Fort McKay requests that Teck indicates who carried out the palæontological study for the Response study lead proposed project. This was not clear in the study. [150] Resource The palæontological report contains inconsistent and confusing information regarding the results Response significance of the in‐field palæontological investigation. Fort McKay requests that Teck provides additional information on how resource signficance was determined.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Axxxi‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [151] In‐field Fort McKay requests that Teck provides the rationale for how certain areas were, or were not, Response examination subjected to in‐field palæontologiocal examination needs given the seemingly short amount of field examination that was carried out. [152] In‐field Fort McKay requests that Teck explains why the in‐field examinations only included surface Response examination exposures and why no sub‐surface field investigations were carried out. Historical Resources [153] HRIA Fort McKay requests that the Archæological Survey of Alberta’s Culture and Community Spirit Regulatory provide the HRIA for the Teck Frontier project and all future development projects taking place within Fort McKay Traditional Territory as soon as they are available. This information is required for Fort McKay to complete a review of the potential development impacts on the historic, palæontological and traditional land use values within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory. Fort McKay requests that Alberta Culture and Community Spirit consult with Fort McKay regarding protection of historic, palæontological and traditional land use values within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory. [154] HR Study Area Fort McKay requests that Teck clarifies the size of the various HR study areas and if areas within Response the 10‐km buffer zone of the general study area were subjected to in‐field examinations. Fort McKay requests that Teck clarifies how and when it will assess potential historical resources within the PAA areas that are not yet defined for clearing. [155] Documented Fort McKay requests that Teck clarifies the actual number of documented Historic Resources sites Response HR sites (which are mainly archæological site types). In particular, it is not clear how many archæological site locations require future mitigation study. [156] Archaeological The criteria used for determining archæological site significance are unclear. Fort McKay requests Response site that Teck explains the significance criteria in more detail. significance
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Axxxii‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [157] Follow up HR Historical Resources and related studies carried out in the past, including the latest FMA study Response studies from 2010, indicate that additional studies will likely be required. This information is important since it will form the basis for any meaningful cumulative effect assessment for the project. Fort McKay requests that Teck provides updates and findings from any additional studies that are conducted in follow up to the HR study for the Frontier application. [158] HR Fort McKay requests that Teck provides the Fort McKay Sustainability Department with a detailed Response development Development Schedule and list of specific developments and ancillary projects that might need schedule additional historical resources assessment, in advance of any such developments taking place. [159] HR Fort McKay requests that Teck develops a Historical Resources Management Plan in cooperation Response management with Fort McKay. This Plan will include how and when follow‐up archaeological and other historical plan resources study, mitigation and protection actions are to be carried out. Fort McKay also requests that Teck provide a database of all historical resources locations and descriptions to Fort McKay, provide the necessary resources for start‐up and continued operation of the database, and assist Fort McKay in establishing an historical resources collections storage and documentation facility. Visual Aesthetics [160] Pre‐ Fort McKay considers it crucial to include a pre‐development baseline assessment to understand Response Development the full range and scope of visual æsthetic impacts experienced by Community members due to Regulatory Baseline regional development. Therefore, Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to include a Pre‐ development Case and to assess the impacts of the Project against pre‐development conditions. [161] Key Indicators Fort McKay requests that Teck provides a clear indication of how it incorporated TLUS data and Response resource use into the Visual Aesthetic assessment. [162] Project Fort McKay requests that Teck consults with the trapline holder over adverse impacts to the Response Visibility enjoyment of his trapline and cabin and mitigation.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Axxxiii‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [163] Project Teck’s results appear to suggest that Project components will be visible from various places within Response Visibility registered trapline RFMA #0850. Fort McKay requests that Teck consults with the trapline holder and mitigate adverse impacts to the enjoyment and use of his trapline and cabin. [164] Visual Fort McKay requests that the regulators require Teck to provide an assessment of the impacts of Response Aesthetics and visual changes due to the mine on traditional land use and culture, and human health (from a Regulatory Culture holistic ecosystem perspective). [165] Community Fort McKay requests that Teck describes or reiterates engagement undertaken concerning the Response Engagement Project’s design in the visual æsthetic section. [166] Visual Fort McKay requests that Teck consult with Fort McKay regarding mitigation, monitoring and Response Aesthetics offsets for impacts of visual æsthetics. Impacts [167] Mitigation and Fort McKay requests that the regulators require Teck to differentiate between mitigating factors Regulatory monitoring that are stable (topography) and those that are highly variable (forest cover) and might be affected Response by other land use activities (e.g. forest harvesting) and describe its plans for adapting mitigation to address changes in land use. [168] Mitigation and Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to monitor the visual æsthetic impacts of the Project, Regulatory monitoring compare the results against the assessment predictions, and assess the effectiveness of mitigation measures, especially given the moderate confidence in its own assessment model. Resource Use [169] Aggregate and Fort McKay requests that Teck follows reclamation suggestions outlined in Fort McKay’s TUS and Response Mineral Reclamation and Closure planning review. Resources [170] Forestry Fort McKay requests that the regulators require Teck to include Fort McKay in any discussions Response toward the creation of an ILM related to forestry within the LSA. Request
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Axxxiv‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [171] Forestry and Fort McKay requests that Teck provides additional information regarding how the harvest of Response Visual merchantable timber within the LSA might interact with visual æsthetics prediction. Aesthetics Interactions [172] Hunting and Fort McKay requests that Teck consults with Fort McKay about a Wildlife Mitigation Offset Plan, Response Trapping wildlife population and habitat monitoring, evaluation of the success of mitigation measures and then provides opportunities for inclusion of Fort McKay’s input during the life of the Project. See Wildlife related requests in Section 6. [173] Hunting and Fort McKay requests that ESRD conducts annual wildlife population surveys and consults with Fort Regulatory Trapping McKay regarding wildlife management within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory including limits on non‐Aboriginal recreational harvest of wildlife. [174] Access Fort McKay requests that the regulators require Teck to consult with Fort McKay concerning the Regulatory Access Management Plan. See Access related requests in Section 4. Response [175] Hunting and Fort McKay requests that ESRD consulta with Fort McKay regarding back‐country related issues Regulatory outfitters such as the issuing of outfitters licences, who these are issued to, the locations of bait stations, camps and other outfitter activities. [176] Sport fishing Fort McKay requests that ESRD conducts annual fish surveys of Namur and Gardiner lakes and Regulatory consults with Fort McKay regarding fisheries management within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory including limits on non‐Aboriginal fishing in areas of important cultural and traditional use. Tailings Management [177] Tailings Fort McKay requests that Teck is required by the regulators to develop a contingency plan for Response management tailings management in case the plan does not work as anticipated. Regulatory
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Axxxv‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) Conservation and Reclamation [178] Pace and Detail Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to increase the pace of reclamation at the Frontier Response of Reclamation Project in order to realize opportunities for direct placement of surface soil materials. Regulatory Schedule and Planning [179] Pace and Detail Fort McKay requests that Teck consults with Fort McKay regarding any potential shifts in surface Response of Reclamation disturbances within the PDA from the planned locations and that the appropriate regulatory Schedule and bodies request assessment of cumulative effects due to shifts in the planned locations and Planning associated disturbances. [180] Adaptive Fort McKay requests that Teck is required to participate in regional initiatives specific to the Regulatory Management development and quantification of key performance indicators for the purposes of defining an Response Framework adaptive management framework for progressive reclamation in the Athabasca oil sands region. [181] Adaptive Fort McKay requests that an adaptive management framework for progressive reclamation and Regulatory Management closure plan integration for oil sands mines is developed on a priority basis. Fort McKay requests Framework the opportunity to participate in its development. This could be done through CEMA or equivalent multi‐stakeholder association with sectoral balance acceptable to Fort McKay. [182] Incorporate Fort McKay requests that: Regulatory Traditional i) Teck describes how land will be reclaimed for traditional purposes, including which plant Land Use species and animal habitats will be targeted; and Values into ii) ESRD requires such information for all reclamation plans in Fort McKay’s Traditional Reclamation Territory. Plans
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Axxxvi‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [183] Incorporate Fort McKay requests that ESRD requires Teck to develop C&R Plans that include explicit planning Regulatory Traditional and methods to reclaim for traditional land use and the return of traditional‐use species to the Response Land Use disturbed landscape, as per the 2nd edition of the Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation Values into in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region, and as updated periodically. Fort McKay wishes to be involved Reclamation and collaborate in this program throughout Project reclamation, and requests support to develop Plans capacity for indigenous research and monitoring programs. [184] Incorporate Fort McKay requests that Alberta, in consultation with Fort McKay, develops and implements Regulatory Traditional criteria and mandatory requirements for reclamation and certification that will support traditional Land Use land use by Fort McKay. Values into Reclamation Plans [185] Wetland Fort McKay requests that the regulators require Teck to replace organic soils and associated Regulatory Reclamation wetlands cover classes in their reclamation, including returning plant communities similar to those Planning found in pre‐disturbance wetlands, and that this requirement is reflected in regulated operating conditions (e.g., approvals). [186] Wetland Fort McKay requests that Teck develops further detail on reclamation planning for organic Reclamation wetlands that specifically addresses the wetland types eliminated in the PDA (i.e., non‐patterned, Planning open graminoid fens [FONG] and non‐patterned, wooded fens with no internal lawns [FTNN]) as targets for reclamation, and how their successful reclamation will be achieved. As part of this wetland reclamation plan, Teck should refer to literature or cases where reclamation success in organic wetlands in similar conditions has been achieved. [187] Wetland Fort McKay requests that ESRD requires Teck to conduct wetland reclamation research as a Regulatory Reclamation condition of any operating approval issued for the project. Planning
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Axxxvii‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [188] Best Fort McKay requests that the regulators ensure that research projects are initiated to follow up on Regulatory Management the reclamation gap analysis to aid in best management practices development for peatland Practices reclamation. Fort McKay also requests that existing research data describing peatland reclamation Development techniques are compiled into a guidance document presenting best management practices for re‐ establishing land capability (i.e., biological, physical and chemical processes required to support end land uses) of peatlands in post‐reclamation landscapes in the oil sands region. [189] Best Fort McKay requests that best management practices development for peatlands reclamation are Regulatory Management completed in a regional multi‐stakeholder group such as CEMA or other alternative acceptable to Practices Fort McKay that allows for participation of Fort McKay members or their designated Development representatives. [190] Monitoring Regulatory Fort McKay requests that Teck confirms that agreements are in place with Shell (Pierre River Mine Wetlands and project) for coordinated long‐term drainage control. Hydrology [191] Monitoring Fort McKay requests that any operating approvals granted for the Project include clauses requiring Regulatory Wetlands and Teck to monitor wetland communities adjacent to the PDA for any effects of hydrologic alterations, Hydrology such as interruption of surface or shallow subsurface water flows. This would include surface drainage monitoring, shallow groundwater disruption, groundwater draw‐down, and any soil and vegetation response to these mechanisms. Fort McKay requests inclusion in development and review of these monitoring programs. [192] Monitoring Fort McKay requests that Teck designs and implements a program to monitor the potential effects Indirect Effects of surface water disturbance, including changes to water quantity and quality, on off‐site wetlands. of Wetlands Fort McKay also requests that Teck implements a program to mitigate for potential effects to wetlands caused by changes to hydrologic conditions.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Axxxviii‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [193] End Pit Lakes Fort McKay opposes the deposition of tailings into end pit lakes as a method of long‐term tailings storage. In addition, Fort McKay requests that Teck determines the levels of water‐quality parameters necessary to achieve reclamation certification for fish habitat, estimates the time required to achieve these levels and designs their material placement and drainage systems accordingly. [194] Additional Fort McKay requests that Teck evaluates how to re‐establish equivalent biodiversity on the closure Drainage landscape with particular attention to landscape diversity and wetland community diversity. Features [195] Soil Salvage Fort McKay requests that Teck: Regulatory and i) prepares a more detailed plan for scheduling and direct placement of upland soils; Replacement ii) ensures a professional soil scientist will be on staff to schedule topsoil salvage and direct placement activity and closely plan and monitor work as soil salvage and replacement occurs; and iii) investigates the potential for direct placement of organic soils in locations with high potential for peatland development. [196] Stock Pile – Fort McKay requests that ESRD requires Teck to minimize the volume‐to‐surface‐area ratio of all Plant soil stockpiles to improve longevity of seed propagules over time and Teck is required to Propagules implement best management practices for upland surface soil stockpile construction as part of an operating approval. [197] Stock Pile – Fort McKay requests that Teck provides further information on how the preservation of native Plant species propagules in stockpiles will be accomplished and that Teck does not assume natural Propagules revegetation will occur with any soil that has been stockpiled longer than one year as seed propagules will not be viable. [198] Borrow Pits Fort McKay requests that Teck provides any updated information regarding granular resources in Response and Excavation the lease, if available, to Fort McKay for review.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Axxxix‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Fort McKay Number Requests Category* Key Concern(s) [199] Overburden Fort McKay requests that Teck provides more details to Fort McKay regarding the overburden Materials handling plan and any additional overburden characteristics identified during the winter 2012 Response overburden delineation program. [200] Overburden Fort McKay requests that ESRD requires Teck to follow the Best Management Practices for Materials Conservation of Reclamation Materials in the Mineable Oil Sands Region of Alberta for developing Regulatory the overburden handling plan and to requires Teck to identify unsuitable materials and sequester these materials accordingly. [201] Mulch Removal Fort McKay requests that Teck consults the Best Management Practices for Conservation of Reclamation Materials in the Mineable Oil Sands Region of Alberta for developing a coarse woody Regulatory debris schedule and management strategy. [202] Revegetation Fort McKay was intimately involved in the development of the Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Regulatory Guidelines Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region 2nd Edition, and requests that Teck is required, through the operating approval, to follow these guidelines, specifically including the use of indicators in this guideline document for evaluation of reclamation or revegetation success. [203] Wildlife Habitat Fort McKay requests that Teck develops reclamation planning for wildlife habitat for key species Reclamation important to Fort McKay (e.g., Fort McKay’s identified Cultural Keystone Species, moose and beaver) and provide special consideration for preservation and reclamation of organic wetland habitat (or muskeg). [204] Reclaimed Fort McKay requests that the regulators ensure Fort McKay’s participation in reclamation Regulatory Lands certification application reviews and site inspections, and obtain Fort McKay’s consent to any Certification reclamation certification within its traditional territority. [205] Certification of Fort McKay requests that Alberta obtains Fort McKay’s approval prior to any reclamation Regulatory Reclaimed Sites certification. [206] Reclamation Fort McKay requests the opportunity to review a reclamation plan with associated costs and Security proposed security deposit to understand if the reclamation security is sufficient for the Frontier project.
*Recommendation Categories: Regulatory – a request to ESRD or the ERCB (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach), if the project proceeds. Response – Fort McKay request for Teck to provide clarification or more information as outlined.
Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project ‐Axl‐ June 2012 Integrated Application Review – Appendix A
Teck Resources Limited (Teck) Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project (Frontier)
Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (SEIA) Review GREEN OFF RES
“The identity of the Fort McKay people is rooted in time and place to the land. Since time immemorial we have roamed this land, lived from this land, and been part of this land. To separate us from this land would be to split our very identity in two” (FMTA 1983
Prepared for: Fort McKay Sustainability Department By: Molstad and Anderson Consultants Inc.
Page 1 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review March 2012
Page 2 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary ...... 4 2 Introduction ...... 6 2.1 Review and Validation of Key Issues ...... 6 3 Context for the Review ...... 7 3.1 Risk Perception ...... 7 3.2 Community Health Effect Stressors ...... 10 4 Socio-Economic Impact Review ...... 17 4.1 Terms of Reference and Consultation ...... 17 4.2 Precautionary Principle ...... 19 4.3 Uncertainty Principle ...... 20 4.4 Intragenerational Equity ...... 22 4.5 Intergenerational Equity ...... 26 4.6 Recognition and Preservation of Diversity ...... 29 4.7 Internalization of Costs ...... 30 4.8 The Polluter Pays Principle ...... 33 4.9 The Prevention Principle ...... 35 4.10 The Protection and Promotion of Health and Safety ...... 36 4.11 The Principle of Multisectoral Integration ...... 37 4.12 The Principle of Subsidiarity ...... 38 5 Cumulative Social Effects ...... 39 6 Summary Table ...... 43 7 References ...... 51
Page 3 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review 1 Executive Summary
The Teck Frontier Project is located northwest of the community of Fort McKay between the Athabasca River and the Birch Hills. A mine and bitumen extraction and processing facility will be developed in phases.
Fort McKay views its traditional lands west and north of the community, encompassing the Birch Hills, Namur and Gardiner Lakes areas as the last bastion of pristine cultural lands. To the community of Fort McKay their perception of reality is that risk from all industrial development is high and trust is low. This particular project represents an additional risk to the community of Fort McKay.
The Fort McKay First Nation Sustainability Department has adopted the “Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment” from the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA 2003). These guidelines and principles provide the framework from which the social impacts of this development have been identified.
Three significant areas of concern are identified in this review:
1. Lack of government action to implement meaningful requirements for socio-economic impact assessment
Fort McKay has requested development of meaningful socio-economic impact assessment measures several times. However, little action has occurred. The Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel, in its 2010 report on the environmental and health impacts of the Canadian oil sands industry identified the following finding related to the social versus economic effects of oil sands development: “The EIA process … that is relied upon by decision makers … to make a determination whether proposed projects are in the public interest is seriously deficient in formal health impact assessment (HIA) and quantitative socio- economic impact assessment (SEIA) as would be required for World Bank projects, for example.”
2. Cumulative Effects
Recent SEIAs, including this one, have begun to chronicle a number of the concerns and losses experienced by Fort McKay. And, Fort McKay has been asking governments to address this issue for some time. Despite the variety and multiplicity of ways used to express this concern minimal progress has been made.
For a people that are intrinsically linked to the land, the Community is concerned about the cumulative effects of extensive industrial development on their traditional lands. People believe that the lands can never be returned to the way they were and that there will be profound intergenerational effects on the sustainability of their culture and way of life.
Page 4 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review
Using the current government approach to assessment of cumulative impacts, the base line data used by proponents is a perpetually moving target. Applicants simply record the current impacts as the baseline or norm and then of course their new project represents a small, and some argue an insignificant, portion of the total. This approach allows development to continue, despite the mounting land disturbance and other impacts on Fort McKay’s traditional lands.
No one activity causes cumulative effects; they are caused by the accumulation of impacts from different activities over time. One impact by itself may not be a cause for concern; it might even seem insignificant. However, the addition of many small impacts over time adds to the end result – cumulative effects and an increase for concern.
However the Frontier Project represents a significant impact upon the culture and way of life for Fort McKay residents.
3. Cultural Fragility
The people of Fort McKay believe that it has been the large scale taking up of lands by industrial development since the 1960’s, the associated air and water pollution, and the influx of non-aboriginal people to the region that have had the most significant effects on their culture. As older community members pass away and fewer community members have access to the land and traditional pursuits the culture is eroded.
Whitbeck et al describe the cumulative effect of acculturation and infringement as “…the “holocaust” is not over for many American Indian people. It continues to affect their perceptions on a daily basis and impinges on their psychological and physical health. There has been no “safe place” to begin again. The threats to their way of life and culture have been ongoing, the losses progressive as each generation passes away. These losses are so salient because they are not truly “historical” in the sense that they are now in the past. Rather they are “historical” in the sense that they began a long time ago. There has been a continual, persistent, and progressive process of loss that began with military defeat and continues through to today with loss of culture.”1
1 Whitbeck, Les; Adams, Gary; Hoyt, Dan; Chen, Xiaojin; “Conceptualizing and Measuring Historical Trauma Among American Indian People”; American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 33, Nos. 3/4, June 2004 ( C ° 2004) pg. 128
Page 5 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review
2 Introduction
Teck Resources Limited (Teck) is proposing its Frontier Project which integrates the former Frontier and Equinox projects into one that includes a truck-and-shovel oil sands mine located about 110 kilometres north of Fort McMurray, and northwest of the community of Fort McKay, across from Fort Hills. Teck owns 100% of the Project and is the operator. The project would anticipates production of partially deasphalted bitumen to begin in late 2021 from the main development area.
The technical review team has reviewed the Frontier Socio-Economic Assessment (SEA or SEIA used interchangeably) and linked Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) sections on behalf of the community and Fort McKay Sustainability Department, which represents the community of Fort McKay (including the Fort McKay First Nation and Fort McKay Métis Community). This review was completed by Molstad and Anderson Consultants Inc.
The EIA was reviewed by the Fort McKay Sustainability Department Technical Review Team (2012). Where appropriate, linkages to the EIA technical review are noted.
To enable ease of tracking issues we have numbered issues and their associated recommendations. Recommendations are made in the event that Fort McKay’s concerns are addressed and the community does not object to the Project. These recommendations are also presented in a summary table with Fort McKay’s key concerns. The category column of the table indicates the potential path forward to address issues. Categories are as follows: Regulatory – a suggestion that Fort McKay may want to recommend to the regulators (e.g. potential approval or license condition, assessment approach); Response – a deficiency or question for which Fort McKay requests a response or additional information from Teck.
Quotes are identified by italics.
2.1 Review and Validation of Key Issues
This review has included examination of the Teck Frontier Project Integrated Application, November 2011. Specific sections that were reviewed include Vol.1, Section 16 – Socio-Economic Impact Assessment; and Vol. 1, Section 17 – Aboriginal and Public Stakeholder Consultation.
In 2010, Fort McKay completed a Fort McKay Specific Assessment for a mining oil sands project, which was filed with the regulators in June 2010. That assessment included a Cultural Heritage Assessment (CHA) that consists of two main reports:
Page 6 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review Indicators Of Cultural Change (ICC) (1960 to 2009): A Framework For Selecting Indicators Based On Cultural Values In Fort McKay, Human Environment Group, June 2009 (HEG 2009); and Fort McKay Specific Cultural Heritage Assessment (CHA) Baseline: Pre- Development (1964) to Current (2008) (Fort McKay IRC 2010).
These assessments have assisted Fort McKay to determine how the community and its members will be affected by oil sands development in general. This review includes a technical review of the socio-economic impacts of the Frontier Project in relation to the cultural heritage assessment and it assists in detailing the community’s specific concerns and any proposed mitigation options.
As well, in the fall 2011, the Fort McKay Sustainability Department undertook a community consultation process to determine and validate community perception and issues specifically related to oil sand development on the west side of the community near the cultural lands of Moose Lake and the impacts upon the community. Comments from that draft report have been incorporated into this review.
Community consultation focus group sessions specific to the Teck Frontier Project took place in March and early April 2012. The Sustainability Department is in the process of compiling and synthesizing information and input obtained from community consultation sessions and meeting with leadership to discuss this information. Additional questions and concerns raised during these consultations will be communicated to Teck, Alberta and Canada, as needed in the near future.
Information from Fort McKay First Nation and Fort McKay Métis Community has been reviewed to identify socio-economic issues and concerns of the community. The Fort McKay Sustainability Department has reviewed and validated the key concerns and recommendations of this review prior to its submission.
If mitigation is identified and agreed upon by the parties, it will be discussed and validated at Elder’s, community members and trapper’s meetings.
3 Context for the Review 3.1 Risk Perception
In previous SEIA reviews, Fort McKay has expressed its perception regarding the risks associated with oil sands development on its traditional lands. This perception has been described as distrustful and having limited basis in empirical foundation.
Lay people seldom have statistical evidence of risks and most often they rely on conclusions based on what they remember hearing or seeing about the risk. This perception of risk can have negative health effects as described in the CHA Baseline (Fort McKay IRC 2010, p. 31).
Page 7 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review “Generally speaking, health risk perception of an individual, family, or community revolves around their belief of how they are being exposed to industrial pollution – how often and at what levels and whether they believe their health will be affected. This perceived risk may be higher than the more objective risk obtained from a conventional health risk assessment. This perceived risk increases stress within the individual, family or Community; and may influence behaviour of the individual, family or community group.2 Both of these outcomes will influence health as well as cause behavioural changes. For Community members in Fort McKay, perceived pollution had caused overall concern about the safety and quality of air they breathe, the water they drink and the food they consume. As well, perceived pollution has, in part, changed the way Community members interact with the land at a variety of levels.”
Generally, the community does not trust industry and does not differentiate the contribution to cumulative impacts from one specific project to the next. Many believe that once approvals are granted “industry” does not follow through on its promises and there is no means to address emerging concerns.
In their work, titled, “Explaining Risk Perception: An evaluation of the psychometric paradigm in risk perception research” a group of Norwegian authors say the following about the paradigm usually attributed to the layperson’s perception of risk.
"The psychometric paradigm, in particular, has been instrumental in preserving a sharp dualism between lay and expert perceptions of risk, together with an asymmetrical emphasis on investigating and correcting distortions in lay people's assessments of environmental and health hazards. In policy settings, psychometric research has provided the scientific basis for a realist model of decision making that seeks to insulate supposedly rational expert judgments from contamination by irrational public fears". (Jasanoff, 1998, p. 98).
The simple diagram, reproduced many times, of the factors Dread and Novelty, seemed to show convincingly that people oppose nuclear power because they were emotional and ignorant. Moreover, as Jasanoff points out, experts were widely held to be rational and objective in their risk perceptions. The widespread notion that policy decisions should ignore the publics’ perceived risk probably has some of its roots and at least considerable support in these conclusions from the psychometric model. It disregards the simple fact that the views of the public cannot and should not be ignored in a democracy (Sjöberg, 2001b, 2001c).
Public opinion is becoming a more salient factor also in sociological theory (Weakliem, in press). In our research we have found a quite different picture of the risk perceiver, be he or she an expert or not. The dominating factors in risk perception are of an ideological character. The belief that the development of technology involves unknown dangers is very important, and it seems no less rational than not believing that such is
2 How perceived risk may affect a Community can be illustrated by considering a local industry which has periodic odorous emissions. Even assuming that the odorous emission has no acute or chronic health effect other than a nuisance odour, the periodic smell acts as a constant reminder that the environment is not pristine and that some degree of pollution is occurring.
Page 8 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review the case. Science does develop all the time and risks we do not know about today will be discovered tomorrow. If experts say "there is no risk" this usually means "no risks have yet been discovered". In studies especially oriented towards New Age beliefs and world views, it was found that such beliefs account for some 10-15 per cent of the variance of risk perception (Sjöberg, 2002d, in press-a).
Maybe we have here a clue as to the relatively moderate importance of trust. I may trust that experts tell the truth, as they know it, but still believe that they do not know the whole truth, that nobody does (Sjöberg, 2001a). Initially the psychometric approach “sought to identify attributes of risk which were shared universally by all individuals. Except their use of ‘experts’ and ‘laypeople’ it did not attempt to distinguish between individuals or groups” (Marris et al, 1997: 304). During the development of the psychometric paradigm, cultural factors have been taken into consideration. The psychometric paradigm has been developed to include factors like gender, ethnicity, nationality, affect, and worldviews (Rohrman, 1994; Slovic, 1999), but their early studies continues to be very influential among both academic researchers and policy-makers (Marris et al, 1997).
Risk perception varies between respondents, dependent on the particular issue being evaluated and the definition of risk used to elicit responses. Again, this suggests a coalition between psychometric paradigm and cultural theory. They also found that ‘personality profiles’ of hazards defined by the qualitative risk characteristics of the psychometric paradigm were not necessarily universal: different individuals will attribute different characteristics to the same risk issue.
The psychometric paradigm assumed that risks have ‘personality profiles’. This implies that all individuals assess hazard in the same manner. The approach treated risk, activities, and products as ‘external objects with a set predefined qualities and drawbacks, and ignored the possibility that social, cultural and institutional factors might affect the way in which risks are understood and evaluated by individual members of the public” (Marris et al., 1997: 304, ref from Turner and Wynne, 1992)
Safety systems should be designed to reduce the amount of risk in different areas. Expressing and evaluating the tolerable amount of risk is very difficult. It will also vary among individuals. Objective risk estimates are average values, based on summary statistics. As shown by Finn and Bragg (1986) and Matthews and Moran (1986) the majority of drivers tend not to equate their own traffic risk with that of the average person, because they believe themselves to be more skilful and safer than average. Therefore objective risk estimates will tend to be viewed as somewhat irrelevant for most drivers, when assessing their own behaviour, except as confirmation of their own superiority
Why should risk be so important? In data presented in the present paper we have seen risk to be a dominating factor in accounting for attitude, benefits being much less important. In related work, we found that people are more easily sensitized to risk than to safety (Sjöberg & Drottz-Sjöberg, 1993). Mood states have been found to be more
Page 9 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review influenced by negative expectations than by positive ones (Sjöberg, 1989). People seem to be more eager to avoid risks than to pursue chances.” 3
Fort McKay views its traditional lands west and north of the Community among the last bastion for access to unspoiled lands and where cultural pursuits may be practiced. Unrelenting intrusion into areas of significance creates considerable concern for community members.
Sztompka, in “Cultural Trauma: The Other Face of Social Change”, states, “Trauma is a collective phenomenon, a condition experienced by a group, community or society as a result of disruptive events culturally interpreted as traumatizing. Trauma affects the collective and therefore cannot be treated as an individual psychological predicament.”4
To the community members of Fort McKay their perception of reality is that risk from all industrial development is high and trust is low. This particular project represents a significant risk to the culture and community of Fort McKay.
3.2 Community Health Effect Stressors
The CHA identifies a number of stressors that affect the culture of the community (HEG 2009, Fort McKay IRC 2009a, Fort McKay IRC 2009b). They are: loss of land, pollution, decreased access to the land, the wage economy and increased regional population. A number of these stressors are similar to stressors that also affect the social, health and well-being of individuals and the community.
Determining the health effects of stressors upon the community is a complex matter with many potential known and unknown factors. In light of these complex interactions Fort McKay believes that a precautionary approach must be taken.
Air Quality/Emissions
Two issues of concern relate to air quality: (1) almost daily exposure to odours, and (2) inadequate controls and management of cumulative emissions.
Emissions associated with industrial activities are generally below levels that have direct toxic effects and are therefore often referred to as nuisance odours. However, because these unwanted odours are present in and around homes and trapping areas, and cannot be avoided, they cause distress to many and adversely affect quality of life in the community. Because Fort McKay is regularly exposed to a variety of chemicals and odours their frequent occurrence and perpetual threat is a serious community health concern.
3 Explaining Risk Perception, pg. 28-30 4 Sztompka p. 458
Page 10 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review Despite air monitoring and some air quality studies that have been undertaken many community residents do not trust the findings and continue to associate odours with a high level of air contaminates that are affecting their health.
Fort McKay has articulated the following expectations regarding air quality; In general, the Community’s air quality will be maintained as closely as possible to natural levels; In particular, the Community’s air quality must always be below health based criteria as health effects levels; There should be no detectable odours in the Community under normal industrial operating conditions; Odour episodes under industrial upset conditions are of short duration and do not create severe nuisance problems and never represent a health risk; Odours on Fort McKay traditional Lands outside development areas are very infrequent; Ait emissions from industrial operations will not have an adverse effect on vegetation and ecosystems on its Traditional Lands, except perhaps on very small areas adjacent to development sites where adverse effects are likely unavoidable.
As the following graph indicates, for eleven days of a two week period in January- February 2012, air quality in the community was fair to very poor.5
5 Source – Fort McKay Red River Current, February 8, 2012
Page 11 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review
Also, see the discussion and recommendations regarding odorous emissions and/or air quality assessment in the EIA Review (Section 8).
Noise
At the present noise impacts within the community of Fort McKay associated with regional development are beginning to manifest. Industrial developments are now within sight of the community and as the amount of traffic, industrial equipment, blasting, air cannons and air traffic grows the residents of Fort McKay are becoming affected by noise and are more concerned about the loss of their peace and quiet environs. The cumulative impact of noise from various mining operations (present and future) continues to be an issue of concern for Fort McKay. Increase activity at the aerodrome which is located within the project area is expected to contribute to noise levels in the community.
The Frontier Project is relatively close to the community and would contribute to noise within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory through the mine operations themselves, flights and traffic.
See Noise Assessment Section 7 the EIA Review for further comments on noise. Also of concern is noise that affects wildlife (Section 6 of the EIA Review).
Page 12 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review
Traffic
Teck plans to work with Shell and its Pierre River Mine project to build a bridge over the Athabasca River and to share a road. Sec 16.7.5 regarding traffic states, “The Projects traffic effect on Highway 63 is estimated to be: 210 AADT north of the Fort McKay turnoff and 190 south of the turnoff in the year 2018 160 AADT north of the Fort McKay turnoff and 140 south of the turnoff in 2012. This represents an effect of 1.6% over predicted Base Case volumes north of Fort McKay and 0.6% to 1.3% above volumes south of Fort McKay to Fort McMurray.”
Fort McKay’s concerns remain unchanged from previous SEIAs. Ever increasing traffic volumes, concerns about safety and the inability of government to respond to concerns with meaningful consultation and action have not been addressed.
Since May, 2007, Fort McKay has been attempting to engage Alberta Transportation in meaningful discussion regarding traffic management issues. A meeting of industry and government stakeholders reported the following, “AI&T {Alberta Infrastructure & Transportation} expects industry to address issues related to the impact of their operations on public highways. AI&T does not want to impede developers however it requires developers to undertake a number of steps in order to receive its approvals. In addressing issues, AI&T also adopts the position that it will participate with industry but does not want to impede the flow of traffic on highways.”6
Recommendation:
a) Fort McKay requests copies of any traffic impact assessments undertaken regarding this project.
b) Fort McKay requires Teck to consult with the community regarding the design of access points and to provide information regarding decisions being made between Teck, Shell and Alberta Transportation.
c) Fort McKay requests meaningful consultation with Alberta Transportation regarding this specific project and related traffic concerns.
d) Fort McKay requests it is meaningfully consulted on the implementation of the Comprehensive Regional Infrastructure Plan (CRISP)
e) Continuing increase in road use as a result of this Project (and others) on both the east and the west side of the Athabasca supports Fort McKay’s request for an access management plan. The request for a Moose Lake access management was first made in 2003; we request Alberta consult with Fort McKay on this plan with the goal of developing the plan on a priority basis. The Frontier Project is
6 Minutes of a meeting held May 16, 2007 with industry and government stakeholders.
Page 13 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review within the planning boundaries defined in the Terms of Reference for the Moose Lake access management plan.
Water
Fort McKay remains concerned about the amount of water in the Athabasca River. Tributary removals, diversions, water withdrawals, closed circuiting, and process-water seepage are among the water-related concerns for the Community on the MacKay River. These cumulative losses ultimately affect fish habitat and Fort McKay community members who rely on the Athabasca River and its tributaries for many traditional uses.
Concerns about the diminishing levels of water throughout the traditional lands include decreasing muskeg areas, lower creek water levels, and increased drying of the land. These occurrences cause considerable anxiety about the quantity of water in the rivers and lakes and the impact that water level has on fish populations.
Also, see the Fort McKay EIA technical review Section 9 (Hydrogeology), Section 10 (Hydrology/Surface Water), and Section 11 (Water Quality, Fish and Fish Habitat for further comments and recommendations regarding groundwater, water quality and quantity, and fish habitat.
Housing
Although the First Nation is able to manage its needs for housing the Métis continue to experience inadequate and sub-standard housing. The Métis leadership is planning for a comprehensive needs assessment to be done over the summer 2012. Recent maintenance to some homes has been the result of cooperation between the First Nation and Métis leadership.
Recommendation:
f) Fort McKay requests that Teck negotiate mitigation funding for the development of infrastructure and capacity building to develop more Métis housing; for example for land surveys for housing, parks and trails within the Métis lands of the community.
Access to Traditional Lands
Today, oil sands development is the largest use of land for heavy industrial purposes within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory:, Oil sands projects have been approved to the north, south, east and west sides of the community. Fort McKay is literally overwhelmed trying to effectively deal with development, being surrounded by oil sands, pipelines, forestry and other industrial activities that have taken up... [the] most intensely used area of Fort McKay’s traditional lands.
Page 14 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review (Fort McKay IRC 2010)
At the same time and as a direct result of this industrial development, the number of people living in the Traditional Territory boundary has grown from about 2,000 in the mid-1960s, to over 100,000 in 2008 (including work camps and other communities in the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo (RMWB 2007; RMWB 2008).7
The Frontier Project removes land from Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory and negatively impacts access of Fort McKay residents to their traditional lands. Fort McKay community members utilize the traditional lands for hunting, berry picking, cultural pursuits and recreation. One specific Fort McKay trapper is impacted by this project.
Fort McKay members find it increasingly difficult to access undisturbed lands and the natural resources that are necessary to pursue their traditional activities as guaranteed under Treaty 8 and s. 35 of the Constitution of Canada. By losing access, the community loses more than high quality, inexpensive food. The culture is linked to the land. When community members cannot go to the land, they lose their language, their stories, their family histories, and their traditional skills and knowledge.
Also see Sections 4 (Access), Section 5 (Traditional Land Use) and Section 19 (Land and Resource Use) in the Fort McKay EIA Review for further comments on access.
Encroaching Non-Aboriginal Population
As access increases to an area where there previously was none, there is an increase in hunting and angling pressures, as well as noise disturbance resulting in reductions in wildlife and fish populations. As ground disturbance increases with more vehicular traffic (both road and off-road), sensitive landscapes are affected, successful reclamation of clearings becomes more difficult, and opportunities for introduction and establishment of invasive species occur. In addition, improved access often results in land uses that can create issues related to littering, vandalism of property, and forest fire.
Regarding population in the area, Teck states, “Those occupying owned or rented dwellings: Since 1999, this population has grown by an average of 6.6 %, reaching over 78,925 people in 2010. Those occupying lodge-based or other temporary dwellings (e.g. hotels, motels and campgrounds): since 1999, this population has grown from under 4,000 to nearly 25,000 in 2010. Over 23,300 workers or 90% lives in work camps or lodges” 8
g) Fort McKay requests that Alberta collaborate with Fort McKay in an access management plan development for this area in accordance with the terms of reference previously developed by Fort McKay, Alberta and industry for a “Moose
7 CHA Baseline (Fort McKay IRC 2009a, p. 13) 8 Teck Vol. 1, Section 16.4.4.2
Page 15 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review Lake Access Management Plan” (note that the proposed Frontier Project is within the planning area identified in the Moose Lake Access ToR).
Access to Services
Timely access to needed services such as health care, day care, social services and education is a continuing concern of Fort McKay residents. Distance, road safety, availability of services and cultural appropriateness often negatively impacts satisfaction with regional services.
To date, Fort McKay has not seen any mitigation of this situation despite government commitments to enhance infrastructure in the region or through the efforts of the Oil Sands Developers Group. The Alberta government’s, Responsible Actions, A Plan for Alberta’s Oil Sands, and the Land Use Framework have identified several socio- economic goals that are of interest to Fort McKay including:
Support further planning and development of healthy communities in the oil sands regions;
Improve public safety and security in the oil sands regions;
Promote clarity and consistency in consultation processes with First Nations;
Enhance collaborative government-to-government relationships;
Continue to work with the Métis Settlements in the oil sands regions on matters affecting Settlement lands.
Develop transparent and effective performance measurement systems that foster continuous improvement to achieve outcomes.
Fort McKay supports action in relation to these goals.
Lifestyle Choices
The CHA Baseline (Fort McKay IRC 2009a, p.15) states that, “While most societies experience continuous social change in response to economic, ecological and technological changes, researchers studying the effect that large scale development has on Indigenous cultures suggest that where such change is rapid and largely out of the control of those affected, the effect is to erode confidence in a community's ability to control its own destiny (Erikson and Vescey, 1980:159)
This is reflected in ‘cultural stress’, a term used to describe a condition that results from the erosion of integrity of cultural systems and which manifests as psychological, physical, emotional, and/or spiritual health disorders. Cultural stress is described in the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples – Volume 3: Gathering Strength (2006) as:
Page 16 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review “a factor negatively affecting the well-being of First Nations people and communities throughout Canada. … In cultures under stress, the smooth operation of society and the sense life makes to its members can be seriously impaired. Culturally transmitted norms that once provided meaning and guided individual behaviour become ineffectual as rules for living or sustaining relationships, and the rules themselves fall into disrepute. People lose confidence in what they know and in their own value as human beings. They may feel abandoned and bewildered and unsure about whether their lives have any real meaning or purpose.”
Fort McKay residents have benefited from the increased economic opportunities in the region, but these benefits have not been proportional to the impacts. As a historically marginalized aboriginal community, Fort McKay did and does not have the same capacity to benefit from economic development in the region, as compared to other communities in Alberta. The Fort McKay Métis Community is most severely limited by lack of capacity and capital to benefit from economic development opportunities. There remain a significant number of Fort McKay residents who do not benefit from the economic prosperity of the region, and the Community as a whole is significantly adversely affected by the social and economic effects of development. Like other populations that find themselves in a boom wage economy lifestyle choices significantly affect health and well-being. These choices can include substance use and abuse, addictive behaviours such as gambling, abusive relationships, sedentary lifestyles and inadequate diet. This disproportionally affects Fort McKay as the adverse effects of development are layered upon historical social and economic deficits.
4 Socio-Economic Impact Review
The Frontier SEIA identifies a Baseline Case which describes the impact of existing and approved projects; an Application Case which describes impacts of the baseline with the addition of the Frontier Project and a Cumulative Effects assessment that includes the base line, the Frontier project and current planned projects. However the EIA states, “each case assesses and compares Project-specific and cumulative changes during and sometimes (emphasis added) beyond operations to predevelopment and existing conditions.”9 Throughout the impact assessment there is minimal and usually general reference to First Nation interests and/or impacts.
Fort McKay has adopted the, “International Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment” (IAIA 2003) to review industrial development projects. This section discusses each principle and the impacts upon the community.
4.1 Terms of Reference and Consultation
Fort McKay routinely responds to draft Terms of Reference (ToR) and provided comments to UTS (the previous owner) in 2008. At that time discussions had started regarding conducting a Fort McKay Community Specific Assessment for the Equinox
9 EIA Vol. 3, Sec 1.2.4
Page 17 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review and Frontier Oil Sands Mine Projects. However, since that time no further action regarding a Community Specific Assessment has occurred.
As well, Fort McKay routinely requests information to understand and assess the potential impacts of projects on the Community, traditional lands and reserves, determine the significance of the project effects and cumulative effects, on Fort McKay's Reserves at Gardiner and Namur Lake, the use of lands and resources for traditional purposes and on the ability to exercise treaty and aboriginal rights. Fort McKay also routinely requests information regarding consultation with aboriginal communities and the mitigation measures that are planned to prevent and minimize impacts on traditional use and resources within and adjacent to these reserves.
As previously stated in other SEIA reviews, Fort McKay objects to the local study area (LSA) for the SEIA being so large and including Fort McMurray, which in the view of Fort McKay significantly dilutes the identified impact on Fort McKay.
Fort McKay IRC defines consultation as “a process of notice and communication among various groups where opinions of all stakeholders are sought before a decision is made and there is genuine consideration of that opinion. To achieve consultation, sufficient information must be supplied and sufficient time allowed by the consulting party to the consulted to enable it to tender meaningful input. It involves an on-going dialogue. It does not mean acceptance of the other party’s view, but enables informed decision- making by having adequate regard to those views. The process may involve teaching an individual being consulted specific skills or concepts, or helping them to develop a plan of action for dealing with a specific issue. In many cases this will also include the provision of financial resources to Fort McKay in order to retain technical and legal experts to assess, interpret and present the information in an understandable and meaningful format to the Community. Specifically, in relation to Treaty and Aboriginal rights the Supreme Court of Canada identifies a continuum of responsibilities ranging from giving notice through to accommodating Aboriginal concerns to satisfy the Crown’s duty to consult.” 10
ESRD (formerly ASRD) initiated a process in 2003 11 with Fort McKay and industry to develop the Moose Lake AMP to manage and coordinate new and existing access in the Moose Lake area through a cooperative plan, but ASRD stopped it in 2007. Fort McKay has repeatedly asked ASRD to work with Fort McKay to develop the AMP, but ASRD has not advanced this work.
“A 2007 report addressed Crown consultation with Aboriginal people I oil sands development (Passelac- Ross and Potes 2007). One of its main conclusions is that Alberta is failing in its duty to consult Aboriginal people in oil sands development, noting
10 Protocols and Procedures for Consultation With Resource Developers Operating on Fort McKay Traditional Lands, October 2006
11 Terms of Reference for the Moose Lake Access Management Plan were approved by the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development on December 8, 2003,
Page 18 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review that “the Alberta government and the First Nations differ at a fundamental level on the purpose of consultation: for the former it is a tool in decision making, for the later it is a tool for rights protection.” Furthermore these authors concluded that “current consultation processes do not meet the high standard of conduct required by the Supreme Court.” 12
h) Fort McKay requests direct consultation with Alberta to address the socio- economic and environmental assessment and impacts of this project.
Recommendations:
In relation to the terms of reference, Fort McKay requests:
i) a pre-industrial, socio-economic baseline and an assessment of the project- specific and cumulative effects specific to Fort McKay compared against the pre- industrial baseline. j) an assessment of potential effects of alteration to access into areas used by Fort McKay people for traditional uses as well as access to and use of reserve lands. k) an assessment of the socio-economic effects for Fort McKay respecting Aboriginal rights and interests before and after reclamation.
Fort McKay requests that Teck:
l) provide its Aboriginal procurement, training and hiring policies and provide a policy regarding managing access to the site; m) state how it plans to assist and work with other developers in mitigating the cumulative social and economic impacts of the project on Fort McKay; n) provide a detailed, pro-active consultation plan that shows how Fort McKay input is considered in Teck’s decision making processes and how Teck intends to maintain a meaningful opportunity for continued input throughout the life span of the project; o) describe how it will work with Fort McKay so that the community benefits in an on- going way from the project; p) provide support to add to the FMSA with regard to the impacts of mine projects; q) support Fort McKay to assess the potential impacts of the Frontier Project on Fort McKay First Nation’s reserves 174B at Namur (Buffalo) Lake and 174A at Gardiner (Moose) Lake.
4.2 Precautionary Principle
Principle:
In order to protect the environment, a concept which includes peoples’ ways of life and the integrity of their communities, the precautionary approach shall be
12 Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel Report, Pg. 236
Page 19 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review applied. Where there are threats or potential threats of serious social impact, lack of full certainty about those threats should not be used as a reason for approving the planned intervention or not requiring the implementation of mitigation measures and stringent monitoring.
Impact:
For a people that are intrinsically linked to the land, the community is concerned about the cumulative effects the additional industrial development will have upon the inter- generational effects on the sustainability of its culture and way of life.
Sztompka says this about the effects of trauma upon societies, “I believe that cultural trauma is most threatening, because like all cultural phenomena if has the strongest inertia, it persists and lingers considerably longer than other kinds of trauma, sometimes over generations, preserved in collective memory or hibernating in collective sub consciousness and occasionally gaining salience when conducive circumstances arise.”13
People believe that the lands can never be returned to the way they were and that there will be profound effects on the sustainability of their culture and way of life. The scientific and technical information supports the reasonableness of this belief. Future generations will likely not have the opportunity to experience the land in the same way as their grandparents did and a connection to the past will be lost. This project, will contribute to the cumulative effect upon the integrity of this fragile community. The precautionary principle must be the underlying principle when assessing the stressors, effects and interaction of factors upon this society and culture.
This application represents a significant intrusion into formerly unspoiled areas of cultural significance and it will unquestionably impact the people of Fort McKay.
Recommendations:
Fort McKay requests that Teck:
r) develop with Fort McKay options to mitigate and offset the adverse effects to its rights, rights, culture and wellbeing..
See also Section 5 (Traditional Land Use) of the EIA technical review.
4.3 Uncertainty Principle
Principle:
13 Sztompka p. 458
Page 20 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review It must be recognized that our knowledge of the social world and of social processes is incomplete and that social knowledge can never be fully complete because the social environment and the processes affecting it are changing constantly, and vary from place to place and over time.
Impact:
Sztompka says that trauma is not a stable condition but it is a dynamic process that occurs when some kind of disorganization or displacement or incoherence occurs within a culture. This trauma occurs when there is a clash between indigenous and foreign cultures and the foreign culture is viewed as pernicious.
As the AENV is aware, Fort McKay has lost use of, or access to, much of its intensely used traditional lands in reasonable proximity to its community at Fort McKay, significantly and adversely affecting its members’ ability to exercise their treaty and aboriginal rights. It is a priority for Fort McKay to preserve its Namur and Gardiner Lake reserves, surrounding traditional lands and the lakes themselves, for hunting, fishing, trapping and cultural use. The effects of this project, along with the other anticipated development of lands leased by Alberta in the same area, will likely lead to the loss of the last important area of relatively preserved natural area available to the Community. There is considerable community concern regarding development in this area.
“The people of Fort McKay believe that it has been the large scale taking up of lands by industrial development since the 1960’s, the associated air and water pollution, the influx on non-aboriginal people to the region, and the shift from a mixed economy to a predominantly wage based economy that has had the most significant effect on their culture.”
“We have been taken from our way of life and put into a “white” way of life. Industry didn’t start it, but has made it more.”14 Fort McKay Community Workshop September 2008
The community judges the acceptability of the Teck Project based on risk factors such as catastrophic potential, control, level of knowledge, effects on children and future generations and most importantly upon their experiences over the past number of years that have occurred in the region.
Fort McKay community members are disappointed with reclamation efforts in the region to date and many feel that the land will never be restored. Twenty and forty years represent a life-time to many. Approximately 43% of the community is under the age of 24 15 and most of these young people will not be able to experience the traditional land taken up by this project before they become Elders.
14 ICC (HEG 2009, p. 2) 15 Statistics Canada (community profile 2006)
Page 21 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review Social stressors such as ever increasing numbers of non-Aboriginal people on their traditional lands, increased traffic, the effects of shift work on family life and impacts on traditions and culture add to this uncertainty. The absence of any effort by government or industry to address the cumulative effects of each additional project, and in this case another mine, on the land simply ignores the rights and interests of Fort McKay residents.
Fort McKay believes that it is a principal stakeholder for consultation regarding reclamation issues such as target end land use, reclamation goals, species selection and revegetation. Although Teck has stated it will return the land to support Aboriginal cultural and traditional use the community will be sceptical until they actually see it being done and the lands have been reclaimed.
Given Fort McKay’s stake in ensuring successful reclamation of areas disturbed through industrial activities, and given the community’s interest in developing the capacity of its residents for a variety of work, including as professionals engaged in community-based monitoring programs, Fort McKay is interested in working with Teck to assist the community in developing its capacity for conducting reclamation monitoring, and, if possible, to engage this capacity in reclamation monitoring on the Teck site .
Recommendations:
Fort McKay requests that Teck:
s) present a plan to address the degree of uncertainty experienced by the community in relation to the success of reclamation, future expansions, cumulative effects and reclamation; t) assist the community to develop its capacity for conducting reclamation monitoring; u) begin discussions with Fort McKay regarding reclamation and reclamation monitoring early in development phases. Given the length of time reclamation will take, and the uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of reclamation efforts to restore the pre-existing ecological conditions and traditional land use, Fort McKay recommends Teck develop measures with Fort McKay to off-set the loss of use of its Traditional Territory; and v) Teck and/or Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development should be required to notify or forward all Environmental Protection Order notifications to Fort McKay Sustainability Department or its designated technical representative.
See also recommendations regarding Reclamation (Section 21) and Traditional Land Use (Section 5) in the EIA Review.
4.4 Intragenerational Equity
Principle:
Page 22 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review
The benefits from the range of planned interventions should address the needs of all, and the social impacts should not fall disproportionately on certain groups of the population, in particular children and women, the disabled and the socially excluded, certain generations or certain regions.
Impact:
This principle assesses the degree to which a development unequally impacts a certain segment of the community. The analysis of intragenerational equity should clearly identify who will win and who will lose, and emphasize vulnerability of under- represented groups. While many Fort McKay residents benefit from employment and business opportunities, a significant number do not. Statistics Canada (2006 Community Profiles) states that 200 out of 250 eligible workers in Fort McKay are in the work force (reflecting 20% unemployment).
The Core Need Income Threshold (CNIT) is used to determine whether housing in a community is affordable for the local residents and it identifies the minimum annual income an individual or household would need to earn to be able to afford appropriate housing in a given municipality. Higher incomes are needed to afford housing in the RMWB than in most of the province including Edmonton. Since 2007, the CNITs in the RMWB and Fort McMurray have increased by about 33% on average and over 70% in Fort McKay (Alberta Municipal Affairs and Housing 2007a, 2009; Appendix 6-4). In 2009, the CNIT for a 2-bedroom apartment in both study areas was about $90,000. In Edmonton, the CNIT was only $43,500 (Alberta Municipal Affairs and Housing 2009). At the same time median incomes in the RSA and Fort McMurray are higher for the Province as a whole and lower in Fort McKay.16 The negative social impacts of stressors, loss of culture and language and inadequate social/community services also affect Fort McKay disproportionately within the region. Statistics Canada shows that median earnings in 2005 for the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo (RMWB) and Fort McKay are well above the province of Alberta and median income in Fort McKay is lower than the Alberta and RMWB medians. Given that Fort McKay residents must live in and support their families in the Fort McMurray area the comparison to Fort McMurray income is more realistic. Statistics Canada (2006 Community Profiles) shows that the median income of a person 15 years or older in 2005 in the RMWB was $43,920 while the median income in Fort McKay was $16,832 (38% lower). It is clear that Fort McKay residents do not enjoy economic prosperity to the same degree as their urban neighbours.
As well the 2006 Community Profile shows that employment participation rates in 2005 in the RMWB were 82.3% and in Fort McKay was 61.7%.
16 Dover Commercial Project Vol. 6. Pg. 177 and 183
Page 23 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review Teck has not identified opportunities for Aboriginal workers. Its statement “Teck will attempt to hire local contractors where possible” 17 provides no assurance to Fort McKay regarding potential employment opportunities.
Fort McKay understands that incomes of its members will largely depend on the effects of employment and business development and that there will be an emphasis on skilled labour as the oil sands develop. If Fort McKay is to increase its participation in the oil sands economy, a number of educational barriers must be addressed.
Fort McKay has been keenly aware of educational barriers associated with an absence of in-community schooling after grade 8, travelling to Fort McMurray for high school, racism, and under achievement. Fort McKay students face historical, social, geographic, demographic, cultural and individual/personal barriers when it comes to education. The community is considering plans and funds to build its own school as one means to encourage high school graduation.
Michael Mendelson of the Caledon Institute of Social Policy18 says this of Aboriginal education and its impacts:
“Not only will improved educational outcomes result in better social conditions for Aboriginal peoples, but they also will furnish a source of much-needed skilled workers to fuel future economic prosperity [Brunnen 2004].
The links among better education, better jobs and better income have been substantially documented. Hull [2005: 150] concludes “Throughout the study there is ample evidence that educational attainment leads to greater opportunities in the areas of employment and income.”
“So better education outcomes, including postsecondary graduation, does increase income, which implies that improving PSE success among Aboriginal peoples will result in improved socioeconomic status and, in so doing, contribute to the social and economic wellbeing of Canada. This is a big ‘win’ for the Individuals involved who can live richer and more fulfilling lives and also contribute more to the growth and nurturing of their own cultures. It also is a big ‘win’ for all of society, which will be better off with more prosperous citizens and no doubt also will enjoy the continuing benefits of cultural and economic innovation arising from the Aboriginal community. As we have seen earlier, this outcome is especially important in the West and the North.
However there is a ‘Catch-22.’ While higher education is the way out of low socioeconomic status, low socioeconomic status makes it less likely that higher education will be obtained. Just as research has shown that socioeconomic status improves with education, research also shows that it is much less likely for students from low socioeconomic families to obtain higher levels of education.”
17 Frontier SEIA Section 1.2.2.2 18 Michael Mendelson, Caledon Institute of Social Policy, Aboriginal Peoples and Postsecondary Education in Canada, July 2006
Page 24 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review
The Council of Ministers of Education, and Statistics Canada19, has identified the following findings regarding Aboriginal education.
students from the highest socioeconomic quartile are more than twice as likely to go to university as their counterparts in the lowest socioeconomic quartile; it is in the West and the North, just where better educational outcomes are most needed, that Aboriginal socioeconomic status is worst; With respect to incomes alone, Corak et al. [2003] show that family income per se is not a factor with respect to whether students go to college, but it is a strong predictor of whether they go to university.; Aboriginal students who graduate from high school are just as likely to go onto and graduate from post-secondary education as are students from the total population. The problem is that Aboriginal students are much less likely to complete high school; and Breaking the cycle requires that Aboriginal students get into postsecondary education and graduate, but to do so it is usually necessary to complete high school.
Teck has indicated that it is willing to work with Fort McKay to develop an Aboriginal employment and business development program. Teck also states, as have all previous proponents, that this program will focus on hiring qualified Aboriginal people. 20 The issue for Fort McKay, as stated in previous SEIAs, relates to supporting community members to become “qualified”.
The February 2008, Alberta Immigrant Integration into the Petroleum Industry Research Report states that challenges exist with industry culture and organizational structure regarding the integration of minority groups. At page 10 the report states, “ The upstream petroleum industry holds a reputation for its: “Survival-of-the-fittest” mentality, which often exists in field operations environments; and lack of tolerance for minority groups be they women, Aboriginals, visible minorities or internationally trained workers.”
The report goes on to identify some potential solutions that that support recruitment and integration of international workers and which apply to Fort McKay. They are: Longer-term workforce planning; Effective on-boarding and orientation programs; A “build the skills” philosophy and a work environment that supports the development of technical and soft skills (as opposed to just trying to “buy the skills”); Holistic view of recruitment to include the broader needs of the employee’s family and how they integrate into the community;
19 Council of Ministers of Education, Canada and Statistics Canada, Indigenous Education in Canada, 2000 20 Frontier SEIA Vol. 1, Sec 16.5.5.1
Page 25 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review Expertise in recruiting and integrating from other under-represented groups; and A centralized recruitment function.
One solution that is profiled in the report may be of interest to Fort McKay. Based on a best practice program provided by Calgary Catholic Immigration Society (CCIS) a petroleum “boot camp” should be developed. The CCIS Drilling Right and Training Program in Calgary aims to train international workers for entry into the drilling and well servicing sectors of the petroleum industry. “The key to the success of the program has been employer commitment to assist in candidate selection as well as the inclusion of industry recognized training through ENFORM and a work experience component”.
The short term course could incorporate the following applicable elements: Provide candidates with an introduction to the petroleum industry culture. Target candidates possessing some industry experience who require industry-specific language/communication skills. Develop an understanding of industry’s cultural; safety awareness/training; regulatory systems (role of EUB, etc.); and business practices/ procedures (shareholder expectations, reserves booking), etc. Used as either pre-employment training and/or support offered to companies for newly hired Aboriginal workers to complement company-specific orientation.
Recommendations: Fort McKay requests that Teck identify strategies to:
w) develop programs for increased employment and advancement of Fort McKay residents; x) establish a means for identifying the number of Fort McKay residents employed, and trained by Teck; and y) provide long term sustainable support to social and/or educational programs in Fort McKay.
Fort McKay requests that Alberta:
z) develop plans to work with Fort McKay First Nation and Métis Community residents and to address the systemic barriers that obstruct advancement in Aboriginal education, training, employment and business development.
4.5 Intergenerational Equity
Principle:
Page 26 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review
Development activities or planned interventions should be managed so that the needs of the present generation are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
Impact:
This principle considers the ability of the current generation to benefit from development without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
The CHA Baseline (Fort McKay IRC 2009a, p. 36) states, “The key point is that the problem facing Fort McKay is not one of the availability or non-availability of wage employment per se but rather of maintaining the flexibility within our Indian economy for the varying requirements of our population....Many prefer seasonal wage labour so as not to interfere with hunting, trapping, fishing and gathering. This is not to say that some individuals will not want full time wage employment, but still others want to get whatever cash they require by trapping and living from what the land provides on a full time basis. But you will appreciate that this is our decision and responsibility to provide for the varying preferences of our population so as to achieve our plans of ... development.
“Our largest problem is not jobs, but rather creating the conditions under which our own economy can recover the flexibility lost from past resource development encroachment within our territory so that we can implement our model of ... development. This is the only way we can see to escape the fall from the cliff: that is, to maintain our Indian economy and to decide on its mix.” FMTA 1983: pages 193-194
Issues of reclamation, preservation of culture and the opportunity of future generations to access the land and engage in traditional pursuits if they chose to do so are central to intergenerational equity of Fort McKay.
Apart from the ability of the community to benefit economically without compromising future generations; a very real threat exists in relation to the ability of the community to maintain its cultural identity for future generations. Sztompka says, “…cultural disorientation appears when people find themselves in the grip of a new culture, more precisely when the socialized, internalized culture that they ‘have in their heads’ or in the semi-automatic ‘habits of the heart’ clashes with the cultural environment in which they find themselves.” 21 Fort McKay residents have been talking about this personal loss of self for twenty years.
Recommendations:
Fort McKay requests that Teck articulate its plans to:
21 Sztompka p. 454
Page 27 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review aa) retain within its industrial development protected land that may still be accessible to the community; bb) strive to reclaim disturbed land to a diversity and capability commensurate with its predisturbed state and with an equivalent capability to support all of the resources that existed on the land prior to disturbance including the re- establishment of productive and healthy plant and animal environment, both on the land and in the water at a faster pace; cc) provide conditions that allow resources stressed by industrial development to recover to their previous health and productivity through planning and protection of wildlife populations (e.g. access management; improved technology to minimize impacts on plant and animal communities) and human health; dd) provide alternate and equivalent hunting, fishing, trapping and cultural resources and opportunities when traditionally used resources are lost due to development (such as purchasing and preserving in trust conservation areas identified by Fort McKay within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory); and ee) present to the community and its technical advisors results and plans for reclamation.
Fort McKay requests that the Government of Alberta and Canada:
ff) enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with Fort McKay to identify accommodation strategies, including the establishment of protected areas for traditional land use in reasonable proximity to the community, in culturally significant ecosystems identified by the community, as well as sufficient undisturbed area to maintain wildlife populations and other resources. The accommodation strategies would include but not be limited to the following:
ensuring sufficient and healthy lands and natural resources are reasonably available and accessible for the exercise of traditional land use; recognition of enforcement of its health-based standards for ambient air quality, noise and odors in the Community; regional assessment and monitoring of odors; community-based monitoring of air, water, noise and odor impacts; land use planning and development on the borders of the community and Fort McKay reserves, including the requirement for buffer zones and compatible land use; securing sufficient access to clean water for domestic and economic development of Fort McKay’s reserves; offsets and compensation for existing and anticipated impacts to replace the health, social and cultural values associated with traditional land use; long- term fiscal arrangements to provide physical and social infrastructure needed by the Community of Fort McKay; regulatory changes to improve air and water monitoring and protection; assessment and monitoring of cumulative impacts on the Community of Fort McKay’s and its aboriginal and treaty rights; and
Page 28 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review development of reclamation standards that specify traditional land use requirements and consultation with Fort McKay on reclamation planning and implementation and progress.
See also Section 21, (Conservation and Reclamation), Section 5 (Traditional Land Use), and Section 19 (Resource Use) in the EIA technical review.
4.6 Recognition and Preservation of Diversity
Principle:
Communities and societies are not homogenous. They are demographically structured (age and gender), and they comprise different groups with various value systems and different skills. Special attention is needed to appreciate the existence of the social diversity that exists within communities and to understand what the unique requirements of special groups may be. Care must be taken to ensure that planned interventions do not lead to a loss of social diversity in a community or a diminishing of social cohesion.
Impact:
Fort McKay is a diverse community of different groups such a Cree, Dene, Métis, non- Aboriginal people and like all communities it encompasses a wide range of values and needs. The industrial boom has forced people who can’t afford to live in Fort McMurray to move back to Fort McKay and as the number of people living and moving through the community increases, people become more disconnected to each other. The needs, values and interests of Fort McKay today are evolving as the community grows and adapts.
Social cohesion is a concept used to underline the social and economic failings of modern society, linking it to the decline of communal values and civic participation. The desired outcome of focusing on social cohesion is to reduce social and economic disparities. Social diversity on the other hand provides a balance of different perspectives and strengths with respect for all human differences, including but not limited to cultural, ethnic, racial, religious, physical, socioeconomic, gender, and age differences, as well as sexual orientation. The value of disparate experiences is woven into the fabric of a healthy community.
Discussions about social diversity and cohesion are also related to issues of social justice and making sure that every Fort McKay resident has choices about how they live and the means to make those choices. It is rooted in the practical, day-to-day realities of life. It’s about waking up in a house with running water and proper sanitation; offering one’s children an education that helps them develop their potential and respect their culture. It is the prospect of satisfying employment and good health.
Page 29 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review Community planning and mitigation measures must maintain this social diversity and promote social cohesion. Inclusive and participative community development and engagement is essential if Teck is to contribute in a positive way to the wellbeing of the community.
Recommendations:
Fort McKay requests that Teck:
gg) provide long term funding to develop and sustain community infrastructure and social-cultural programs.
4.7 Internalization of Costs
Principle:
The full social and ecological costs of a planned intervention should be internalised through the use of economic and other instruments, that is, these costs should be considered as part of the costs of the intervention, and no intervention should be approved or regarded as cost-effective if it achieves this by the creation of hidden costs to current or future generations or the environment.
Impact:
Every development represents a trade-off of the negative and positive results, gains and losses. This SEIA highlights the many economic advantages to the Wood Buffalo Municipality, Alberta and Canada. While Fort McKay benefits from employment and business opportunities it is at an enormous cost to its culture and way of life. The following diagrams show how Fort McKay’s way of life has been changed by industrial development.22
22 ICC (HEG 2009, p. 79)
Page 30 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review Hunti Fishi ng ng
Respe Traditi ct on Tr Self W ap or Relian pi Rhythm k ce ng of In Nature d
us tr Lan Se y
Self Rootedn d lf Determinati ess H on B Cooperati W er Peac on or ry e Creat Communi k Pi or ty Ft ck . in M g cK ay Purpo Cari se ng Visiti Educati ng Connectedn Cohesi on ess on
Raising Children
Direct Link Indirect Link
Figure 11-1: Activity-Traditional Value Links – 1960
Page 31 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review Hunti Fishi ng ng
Respe Traditi ct on Tr Self W a Relian or p Rhyth k ce pi m In n of d
g Nature us tr Lan Se y
Self Rootedn d lf Determinati ess H on B Cooperati W er Peac on or ry e Creat Commun k Pi or ity Ft ck . in M g cK ay Purpo Cari se ng Visiti Educati ng Connectedn Cohesi on ess on
Raising Children Similar or Stronger Link Weakening Link
Figure11-2: Activity-Traditional Value Links – 2008
By comparing the two figures, the weakening of most links from 1960 to 2008 becomes apparent. In reviewing these models, one community member suggested “these
Page 32 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review (models) show the way our culture is disintegrating – being pushed out by white culture” (Fort McKay Workshop June 2009).
The relative weights of the lines in these figures represent the perception of the community participants. In order to quantify or qualify the impacts on the links between stressors, activities and values it will be necessary to collect and analyse data on indicators selected by the community.
The people of Fort McKay believe industrial development is limiting their ability to carry out cultural activities within their Traditional Territory and that this is significantly affecting their collective and individual identity.
While the ICC (HEG 2009) and CHA Baseline (Fort McKay IRC 2009a) have provided a significant baseline of information regarding the cultural impacts upon Fort McKay, much more needs to be done to identify indicators, monitor impacts and identify strategies for cultural retention. The two reports identify additional steps and recommendations for further action.
The Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel, in its 2010 report on the environmental and health impacts of the Canadian oil sands industry identified the following findings related to the social versus economic effects of oil sands development: “ The EIA process … that is relied upon by decision makers … to make a determination whether proposed projects are in the public interest is seriously deficient in formal health impact assessment (HIA) and quantitative socio-economic impact assessment (SEIA) as would be required for World Bank projects, for example.” 23
Fort McKay requests that Teck:
hh) contribute to the continuation of Fort McKay’s cultural heritage assessment and monitoring; and ii) support the Métis community in its efforts to preserve and showcase the history of the Métis
Fort McKay requests that the government of Alberta and Canada: ff) establish meaningful socio-economic assessment criteria for oil sands developments
4.8 The Polluter Pays Principle
23 Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel Dec 2010, Pg. 304
Page 33 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review Principle:
The full costs of avoiding or compensating for social impacts should be borne by the proponent of the planned intervention.
Impact:
Social resilience can be described as the capacity of a community to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to retain the same essential identity, structure, functions and feedback. The amount of change that a community can experience and still retain its essential identity is dependent upon the community’s ability to self-organize and its capability for learning and adapting. Social resilience is an important component of the circumstances under which individuals and social groups adapt to environmental change.
“Those who adapt well to profound stress have protective attributes. These include such person-centered factors as perceived self-efficacy, temperament, and setting-centered variables such as warm and caring relationships with caregivers which act as moderators of stressors (Cicchetti & Garmezy, 1993; Cowen, Wyman, Work, & Iker, 1995). Caplan (1964) referred to stress moderators: the physical, psychosocial, and sociocultural supplies people had at their disposal through cultural development and upbringing. Physical supplies include food and shelter; psychosocial supplies refer to interpersonal relations (e. g., peers, and family) that is important for emotional and cognitive development. Sociocultural supplies are “those influences on personality development and functioning which are exerted by the customs and values of the culture and the social structure....This provides him with rewards and external security to supplement his inner strength.” (Caplan, 1964, pp.32-33). Those with adequate supplies are in better positions to deal with adversity.”24
Where mitigation in the form of maintaining pre-disturbance levels of traditional foods or opportunities for pursuing livelihood and cultural activities is not possible or uncertain, Fort McKay’s goal is to ensure that its activities can be maintained or they are provided in alternative forms. Options for accommodation strategies from the community’s perspective may include enhancements to quality of life factors such as health, education, employment and recreation, protection for undisturbed portions of traditional territories, archaeological sites, graves, sacred places and culturally significant harvesting areas. It may also include compensation, access management plans and co- management agreements.
Initiatives aimed at restoring the locus of control, strengthening social skills, and increasing knowledge and education address issues related to risk perception. Strengthening community institutions and developing resilience in youth through youth empowerment programs build strength of the entire community.
24 Teresa D. LaFromboise, Stanford University; Dan R. Hoyt, University of Nebraska–Lincoln; Lisa Oliver, San Jose State University; Les B. Whitbeck, University of Nebraska–Lincoln; Family, Community, and School Influences on Resilience among American Indian Adolescents in the Upper Midwest; Journal of Community Psychology 34:2 (March 2006), pp. 193–209
Page 34 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review
This proposed project will have an impact upon Fort McKay’s traditional lands in general and in the adjacent area specifically, and it will significantly contribute to the cumulative social costs to the community.
Recommendations:
Fort McKay requests that Teck:
gg) contribute resources (financial, manpower and political) to assist Fort McKay in addressing longstanding issues such as Métis housing, access management plans, and strengthening community resilience; and
Fort McKay requests Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resources Development and other Government departments to:
hh) consult and accommodate Fort McKay’s needs in land use planning for the region
4.9 The Prevention Principle
Principle:
It is generally preferable and cheaper in the long run to prevent negative social impacts and ecological damage from happening than having to restore or rectify damage after the event.
Impact:
Community stressors coupled with a perception of high risk and low trust levels are a recipe for considerable negative effect upon the wellbeing of community members. Additionally, as shown by the CHA, Fort McKay is a fragile community that is in danger of losing its cultural identity. Statistics Canada (community profile 2006) shows that 75 out of 95 Fort McKay youth (79%) between 15 and 24 years do not have a certificate, diploma or degree. The CHA Baseline says, “Community members recognize the link between education, a good job and money in order to provide for themselves and their family. However, the element of money and need to purchase goods from a store in Fort McMurray have weakened their perception of and value of self-reliance.” and “Community members associate western education with power and the ability to decide how to make a living. “Get an education you can go anywhere” (Fort McKay Workshop, 2008).” Reconciling the linkages between resilience, preservation of cultural self-reliance and the education imperative are significant challenges for Fort McKay. “The presence of industry has increased access to drugs and alcohol. The paved road, increased cash, the increased numbers on non-Aboriginal people living in work camps
Page 35 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review close to Fort McKay and other socio-economic factors associated with a boom– economy have increased access to illegal drugs and alcohol. Parents dealing with their own issues have a hard time raising healthy children.”25
Recommendations:
Fort McKay requests that Teck:
ii) support community educational and/or social programs; and jj) contribute funding toward ongoing development and monitoring of cultural indicators and a program for cultural retention.
4.10 The Protection and Promotion of Health and Safety
Principle:
Health and safety are paramount. All planned interventions should be assessed for their health impacts and their accident risks, especially in terms of assessing and managing the risks from hazardous substances, technologies or processes, so that their harmful effects are minimized, including not bringing them into use or phasing them out as soon as possible. Health impacts cover the physical, mental and social wellbeing and safety of all people, paying particular attention to those groups of the population who are more vulnerable and more likely to be harmed, such as the economically deprived, indigenous groups, children and women, the elderly, the disabled, as well as to the population most exposed to risks arising from the planned intervention.
Impact:
For several years Fort McKay has been saying that it is a community under siege from ever expanding industrial development and the development of Teck’s project represents one more encroachment. Multiple stressors, piled on top of negative perceptions, piled on top of a complete inability to control the loss of traditional land and culture serve to deepen community concerns about health and wellness.
Responding to the community health needs involves addressing factors traditionally seen as outside of the health realm. In this approach Health Canada has adopted a population health model that is based on 12 determinants.26 This model acknowledges an entire range of factors that determine health of a population in a region. These factors include: income and social status, social support networks, education, employment/working conditions, social environments, physical environments, personal
25 CHA Baseline, (Fort McKay IRC 2009a, p.88). 26 Public Health Agency of Canada; www.publichealth.gc.ca
Page 36 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review health practices and coping skills, healthy child development, biology and genetic endowment, health services, gender and culture.
Just as health is influenced by a complex array of factors; a sense of safety and security is influenced by circumstances created by history, social policies and structures, local conditions, and criminal justice practices. In, “Risk and Resilience: Crime and Violence Prevention in Aboriginal Communities” the interaction of individual, family, community and societal factors are described.
A basic tenet of developmental theory is that acts of crime stem both from the characteristics of people (perhaps impulsivity or poor social skills) and from the social context (such as the availability of support for taking alternate paths). The social context is multi-layered, incorporating not just the immediate family — vital as this is — but also the informal supports available for the family (kin, neighbours, friends); the local community; the developmentally relevant institutions in the area (such as preschools, playgroups, churches, and child care centres); and elements of the larger society that affect what happens to children and families.27
Recommendations:
Fort McKay requests that Teck:
kk) provide mitigation support to help address community health and wellness issues.
Also see the discussion and recommendations regarding an ecosystem approach in the Human Health Risk Assessment Review (Section 15) of the EIA technical review.
4.11 The Principle of Multisectoral Integration
Principle:
Social development requirements and the need to consider social issues should be properly integrated into all projects, policies, infrastructure programs and other planning activities.
Impact:
27 Ross Homel , School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University , Robyn Lincoln, School of Humanities & Social Sciences, Bond University, Bruce Herd; Centre for Crime Policy and Public Safety, Griffith University; Risk and Resilience: Crime and Violence Prevention in Aboriginal Communities
Page 37 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review
This SEIA has not discussed the social implications (such as social cohesion, self- sufficiency, poverty, etc.) of the Frontier Project upon Fort McKay. By defining the LSA to include Fort McMurray; any socio-economic impacts on Fort McKay are significantly minimized.
Recommendations:
Fort McKay requests that Teck:
ll) enter into a long-term sustainability agreement with Fort McKay to address the impacts of its project.
Fort McKay requests ESRD to:
mm) implement a mechanism to validly assess and mitigate the social and cultural impacts specific to the community of Fort McKay.
4.12 The Principle of Subsidiarity
Principle:
Decision making power should be decentralised, with accountable decisions being made as close to an individual citizen as possible. In the context of SIA, this means decisions about the approval of planned interventions, or conditions under which they might operate, should be taken as close to the affected people as possible, with local people having an input into the approval and management processes.
Impact:
Meaningful participation is at the heart of ensuring an active and sustainable community that affords individuals fair treatment and an impartial share of the benefits of society. Guided by mutual respect, it is about influencing power structures to remove the barriers that prevent people from participating in the issues that affect their lives.
Fort McKay’s historical and current occupancy or use of its traditional lands and understanding of the environment uniquely qualifies its members to contribute knowledge and expertise relevant to the protection, management, monitoring and mitigation of social, environmental and cultural impacts resulting from increased access and resource development. The community must have a meaningful role in such activities.
As early as the 1960s Fort McKay has recognized the importance of developing local governance capacity to deal with and interact with developers in the region. Two local
Page 38 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review governments currently represent the community – the Fort McKay First Nation and the Fort McKay Métis Nation. The Metis administration requires additional resources to build capacity.
Recommendations:
Fort McKay requests that Teck:
nn) provide additional support to strengthen the administrative capacity of the Fort McKay Métis Community.
oo) engage Fort McKay in the design, planning and management of the Project, including in the design and implementation of a follow up program to assess and ensure the success of mitigation identified by Teck.
5 Cumulative Social Effects
Recent SEIAs, including this one, have begun to chronicle a number of the concerns and losses experienced by Fort McKay. And, Fort McKay has been asking governments to address this issue for a number of years. Despite the variety and multiplicity of ways used to express this concern minimal progress has been made. The following information is provided again, in anticipation that that action will be taken.
The current government approach regarding cumulative effects involves project-by- project regulation; and anticipates that individual projects are responsible for any environmental effects. Cumulative effects are only considered for major projects and only to a limited degree.
SEIAs typically focus on economic considerations and the prevailing view seems to be that money can compensate for any adverse impacts. Externalized environmental and social costs are not factored into the economic assessment of this Project (or others). There seems to be minimal concern for social impacts, even if, for example, entire communities have to be marginalized so long as mitigative benefits can be provided. There seems to be even less concern for the distribution or equity of these impacts on different populations. Also lost in this process is the importance people attach to their communities; and particularly to long-standing social networks that form the basis of support both for daily living and during periods of extreme stress and hardship.
Cumulative effects from an Aboriginal perspective that accords with the experience of Fort McKay can be defined as follows:
“Combined environmental impacts that accrue over time and space that are caused by an action in combination with other past, present and future human actions. Although each action, in and of itself, may seem to have a negligible impact, the combined effect
Page 39 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review can be severe. The concept of cumulative effects should not be universalized as they can have different meaning for First Nations and this has implications for how we move forward while keeping our rights and maintaining our land base. “First Nation concerns may include: the rate of industrial, agricultural, residential, and recreational development, the shrinking land base, access, congestion, the impacts on moose (it is our staple food and a priority), the linkage between environmental contamination and human health, the human population, game numbers, First Nations’ ability to maintain our way of life on the land, and First Nations’ need to be involved in land-use planning and decision-making policies that consider our concerns in a mutually beneficial way. Cumulative effects assessments are essential; however, First nations do not have sufficient tools. [In addition], First Nations, government and industry often do not share the same evaluation standards. A central factor for First Nations is First Nation issues and values. Traditional knowledge is a vital component to a cumulative effects study. This information must be respected and used in a way that does not reduce its integrity. First Nations must speak for ourselves. We know what our needs are and we are the best people to respond to these issues.”28
The SEIA prepared by Teck, like other SEIAs, addresses the cumulative socio- economic impact by discussing a Base Case, which includes existing and approved projects and ‘likely to be approved projects’; an Application Case, which are the impacts of the Base Case plus the proposed project; and Cumulative Effects Case which includes past studies, cumulative impacts of the Application Case plus other projects that were disclosed 6 months before the application was filed.
Using the current government approach to assessment of cumulative impacts, the base line date used by proponents is a perpetually moving target. Applicants simply record the current impacts as the baseline or norm and then of course their new project represents a proportionally smaller impact as compared to the growing impacts of the ‘base case’ of growing cumulative effects. This approach conveniently allows government and industry to turn a blind eye to the cumulative impacts in the region.
Fort McKay consistently requests a pre-development baseline scenario (prior to extensive industrial development) be added to the assessment or at the very least an existing baseline scenario (i.e., the actual existing scenario without the approved but not yet built projects). The community asserts that a true pre-development baseline is required to adequately assess the impact on traditional users. It is important for all components to do this, partly because the ‘existing and approved’ case is not what the local communities are experiencing (there are several approved projects that have not begun operation or reached full operation) and partly because of the significant existing loss of resources in proximity to the community. TEK from Fort McKay community members tells us that there has already been a noticeable decrease in moose
28 D. Korber, Workshop on Cumulative Effects of Development in the Treaty 8 Area: Exploring a Research Program, May 15-17, 2001, Fort St. John, BC, Sustainable Forest Management Network, University of Alberta. Accessed 7 November 2007, < www.sfmnetwork.ca/docs/e/WS_2001-7.pdf
Page 40 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review populations; to only assess the net change from the current situation or the current situation plus approved ignores the previous loss.29
In their paper, “From Invisibility to Transparency: Identifying the Implications” Turner, Gregory, Brooks, Failing, and Satterfield argue for a broader and more inclusive approach to decisions about land and resources. They propose one that “recognizes the legitimacy of cultural values and traditional knowledge in environmental decision making and policy”. The paper identifies eight invisible losses often overlooked but which arise form indirect or cumulative events. They say, “First Nations communities in western North America have experienced many such losses that, together, have resulted in a decline in the overall resilience of individuals and communities.” The eight invisible losses are: cultural/lifestyle losses, loss of identity, health losses, loss of self- determination and influence, emotional and psychological, losses, loss of order in the world, knowledge losses, and indirect economic losses and lost opportunities.30
Fort McKay continues to be concerned about the cumulative social effects (in addition to environmental) of development upon its culture and way of life. Ccommunity concerns regarding significant cultural impacts from this project overshadow concerns on the level of development in the area. General consensus among community members that any additional development and this project in particular, will add to the problems arising from an ever-increasing number of projects surrounding Fort McKay. Many Elders, in particular, are afraid for their health and safety and feel angry but helpless to slow it down. The interests of the community lie in managed development resulting in the community’s social well-being supported by a viable economy.
Whitbeck et al describe the cumulative effect of acculturation and infringement this way, “…the “holocaust” is not over for many American Indian people. It continues to affect their perceptions on a daily basis and impinges on their psychological and physical health. There has been no “safe place” to begin again. The threats to their way of life and culture have been ongoing, the losses progressive as each generation passes away. These losses are so salient because they are not truly “historical” in the sense that they are now in the past. Rather they are “historical” in the sense that they began a long time ago. There has been a continual, persistent, and progressive process of loss that began with military defeat and continues through to today with loss of culture.”31
Recommendations: Fort McKay requests that Alberta Environement and Sustainable Resources: pp) Develop requirements for the integrated use of the social sciences in assessing cumulative impacts on the human environment; and
29 From a Letter, September 7, 2010, Director, Environmental Assessment, Northern Region, Alberta Environment 111, Twin Atria Building, 4999 – 98 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta T6B 2X3 30 Turner, N. J., R. Gregory, C. Brooks, L. Failing, and T. Satterfield. 2008. From invisibility to transparency: identifying the implications. Ecology and Society 13(2):7 31 Whitbeck, Les; Adams, Gary; Hoyt, Dan; Chen, Xiaojin; “Conceptualizing and Measuring Historical Trauma Among American Indian People”; American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 33, Nos. 3/4, June 2004 ( C ° 2004) pg. 128
Page 41 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review qq) Support mechanisms to develop and implement cumulative socio-economic impact assessment criteria and standards.
Page 42 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review 6 Summary Table
Sec Key Concern Recommendation Category* 3.2. Community Health Effect Stressors – a) Fort McKay requests copies of any traffic impact assessments Response Traffic undertaken regarding this project. Regulatory b) Fort McKay requires Teck to consult with the community regarding the design of access points and to provide information regarding decisions being made between Teck, Shell and Alberta Transportation.
c) Fort McKay requests meaningful consultation with Alberta Transportation regarding this specific project and related traffic concerns.
d) Fort McKay requests it is meaningfully consulted on the implementation of the Comprehensive Regional Infrastructure Plan (CRISP)
e) Continuing increase in road use as a result of this Project (and others) on both the east and the west side of the Athabasca supports Fort McKay’s request for an access management plan. The request for a Moose Lake access management was first made in 2003; we request Alberta consult with Fort McKay on this plan with the goal of developing the plan on a priority basis. The Frontier Project is within the planning boundaries defined in the Terms of Reference for the Moose Lake access management plan
Page 43 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review Sec Key Concern Recommendation Category* 3.2 Community Health Response Effect Stressors - f) Fort McKay requests that Teck negotiate mitigation funding for the Housing development of infrastructure and capacity building to develop more Metis housing; for example for land surveys for housing, parks and trails within the Métis lands of the community.
Increased g) Fort McKay requests that Alberta collaborate with Fort McKay in an Regulatory population access management plan development for this area in accordance with the terms of reference previously developed by Fort McKay, Alberta and industry for a “Moose Lake Access Management Plan” (note that the proposed Frontier Project is within the planning area identified in the Moose Lake Access ToR).
Socio-economic h) Fort McKay requests direct consultation with Alberta to address the Regulatory and environmental socio-economic and environmental assessment and effects of this effects project.
4.1 Terms of In relation to the terms of reference, Fort McKay requests: Reference and Consultation i) a pre-industrial, socio-economic baseline and an assessment of the Regulatory project-specific and cumulative effects specific to Fort McKay compared against the pre-industrial baseline. j) an assessment of potential effects of alteration to access into areas used by Fort McKay people for traditional uses as well as access to and use of reserve lands.
k) an assessment of the socio-economic effects for Fort McKay respecting Aboriginal rights and interests before and after Response reclamation.
Page 44 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review Sec Key Concern Recommendation Category*
Fort McKay requests that Teck:
l) provide its Aboriginal procurement, training and hiring policies and provide a policy regarding managing access to the site; m) state how it plans to assist and work with other developers in mitigating the cumulative social and economic impacts of the project on Fort McKay; n) provide a detailed, pro-active consultation plan that shows how Fort McKay input is considered in Teck’s decision making processes and how Teck intends to maintain a meaningful opportunity for continued input throughout the life span of the project; o) describe how it will work with Fort McKay so that the community benefits in an on-going way from the project; p) provide support to add to the FMSA with regard to the impacts of mine projects; q) support Fort McKay to assess the potential impacts of the Frontier Project on Fort McKay First Nation’s reserves 174B at Namur (Buffalo) Lake and 174A at Gardiner (Moose) Lake.
4.2 Precautionary r) develop with Fort McKay options to mitigate and offset the adverse Response Principle effects to its rights, rights, culture and wellbeing.
4.3 Uncertainty s) present a plan to address the degree of uncertainty experienced by Response Principle the community in relation to the success of reclamation, future expansions, cumulative effects and reclamation;
t) assist the community to develop its capacity for conducting
Page 45 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review Sec Key Concern Recommendation Category* reclamation monitoring; u) begin discussions with Fort McKay regarding reclamation and reclamation monitoring early in development phases. Given the length of time reclamation will take, and the uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of reclamation efforts to restore the pre-existing ecological conditions and traditional land use, Fort McKay recommends Teck develop measures with Fort McKay to off-set the loss of use of its Traditional Territory; and v) Teck and/or Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development should be required to notify or forward all Environmental Protection Order notifications to Fort McKay Sustainability Department or its designated technical representative.
4.4 Intragenerational Fort McKay requests that Teck identify strategies to: Equity w) develop programs for increased employment and advancement of Response Fort McKay residents;
x) establish a means for identifying the number of Fort McKay residents employed, and trained by Teck; and
y) provide long term sustainable support to social and/or educational programs in Fort McKay
Fort McKay requests that Alberta: Regulatory
z) develop plans to work with Fort McKay First Nation and Métis Community residents and to address the systemic barriers that
Page 46 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review Sec Key Concern Recommendation Category* obstruct advancement in Aboriginal education, training, employment and business development.
4.5. Intergenerational Fort McKay requests that Teck articulate its plans to: Equity aa) retain within their industrial development protected land that may still Response be accessible to the community;
bb) strive to reclaim disturbed land to a diversity and capability commensurate with its predisturbed state and with an equivalent capability to support all of the resources that existed on the land prior to disturbance including the re-establishment of productive and healthy plant and animal environment, both on the land and in the water at a faster pace;
cc) provide conditions that allow resources stressed by industrial development to recover to their previous health and productivity through planning and protection of wildlife populations (e.g. access management; improved technology to minimize impacts on plant and animal communities) and human health;
dd) provide alternate and equivalent hunting, fishing, trapping and cultural resources and opportunities when traditionally used resources are lost due to development (such as purchasing and preserving in trust conservation areas identified by Fort McKay within Fort McKay’s Traditional Territory; and
ee) present to the community and its technical advisors results and plans for reclamation.
Page 47 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review Sec Key Concern Recommendation Category*
ff) Fort McKay requests that the Government of Alberta and Canada Regulatory enter into an agreement with Fort McKay to identify accommodation strategies, including the establishment of protected areas for traditional land use in reasonable proximity to the community, in culturally significant ecosystems identified by the community, as well as sufficient undisturbed area to maintain wildlife populations and other resources. 4.6 Recognition and Fort McKay requests that Teck: Preservation of Diversity gg) provide long term funding to develop and sustain community Response infrastructure and social-cultural programs.
4.7 Internalization of Fort McKay requests that Teck: Costs hh) contribute to the continuation of Fort McKay’s cultural heritage Response assessment and monitoring; and
ii) support the Métis community in its efforts to preserve and showcase the history of the Métis
jj) Fort McKay requests that the government of Alberta and Canada: Regulatory establish meaningful socio-economic assessment criteria for oil sands developments
4.8 The Polluter Pays kk) Fort McKay requests that Teck contribute resources (financial, Response Principle manpower and political) to assist Fort McKay in addressing longstanding issues such as Métis housing, access management
Page 48 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review Sec Key Concern Recommendation Category* plans, and strengthening community resilience.
ll) Fort McKay requests Alberta Sustainable Resources Development Regulatory and other Government departments consult and accommodate Fort McKay’s needs in land use planning for the region.
4.9. The Prevention Fort McKay requests that Teck: Principle mm) support community educational and/or social programs; and Response
nn) contribute funding toward ongoing development and monitoring of cultural indicators and a program for cultural retention 4.10 The Protection oo) Fort McKay requests that Teck provide mitigation support to help Response and Promotion of address community health and wellness issues. Health and Safety 4.11 The Principle of pp) Fort McKay requests that Teck enter into a long-term sustainability Response Multisectoral agreement with Fort McKay to address the impacts of its project. Integration qq) Fort McKay requests ESRD implement a mechanism to validly assess and mitigate the social and cultural impacts specific to the Regulatory community of Fort McKay.
4.12 The Principle of Fort McKay requests that Teck: Subsidiarity rr) provide additional support to strengthen the administrative capacity Response of the Fort McKay Métis Community.
ss) engage Fort McKay in the design, planning and management of the
Page 49 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review Sec Key Concern Recommendation Category* Project, including in the design and implementation of a follow up program to assess and ensure the success of mitigation identified by Teck.
5.. Cumulative Social Effects Fort McKay requests that Alberta Sustainable Resources: Regulatory tt) Develop requirements for the integrated use of the social sciences in
assessing cumulative impacts on the human environment; and
uu) Support mechanisms to develop and implement cumulative socio- Regulatory economic impact assessment criteria and standards.
*Recommendation Categories: Agreement - recommendation that Fort McKay consider this as an item to negotiate with Teck in their Agreement Regulatory - recommendation that Fort McKay consider this an item to recommend to Alberta Environment or the NRCB or other government department (e.g., potential approval or license condition, assessment approach) Response – a deficiency or question for which Fort McKay requests a response or additional information from Teck.
Page 50 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review 7. References
Fort McKay IRC. April 2010. Fort McKay Specific Cultural Heritage Assessment (CHA) Baseline: Pre-Development (1964) to Current (2008).
Fort McKay Industry Relations Corporation (IRC) Technical Review Team. June 2010. Review of the Teck Frontier Project Application for Approval and Environmental Impact Assessment.
Fort McKay Sustainability Department, Moose Lake Consultation Preliminary Report, Draft Version, September 12th - Oct.7th, 2011
Friedkin, Noah E. Department of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106, 2004. Social Cohesion.
Gosselin, Hrudey, Naeth, Plourde, Therrien, Van Der Krack, Zhenghe, Royal Society of Canada, The Academics of Arts, Humanity and Sciences of Canada, Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel: Environmental and Health Impact of Canada’s Oil Sands Industry, Ottawa, Ontario, December 2010. Accessed 6 January 2012 http://www.rsc.ca/documents/expert/RSC%20report%20complete%20secured%2 09Mb.pdf
Human Environment Group, June 2009. Indicators Of Cultural Change (1960 to 2009): A Framework For Selecting Indicators Based On Cultural Values In Fort McKay. Prepared for Fort McKay IRC.
International Association of Impact Assessment. May 2003. Social Impact Assessment International Principles; IAIA Special Publication Series No. 2
D. Korber, Workshop on Cumulative Effects of Development in the Treaty 8 Area: Exploring a Research Program, May 15-17, 2001, Fort St. John, BC, Sustainable Forest Management Network, University of Alberta. Accessed 7 November 2007, www.sfmnetwork.ca/docs/e/WS_2001-7.pdf
LaFromboise, Teresa D. Stanford University; Dan R. Hoyt, University of Nebraska–Lincoln; Lisa Oliver, San Jose State University; Les B. Whitbeck, University of Nebraska–Lincoln; Journal of Community Psychology 34:2 (March 2006). Family, Community, and School Influences on Resilience among American Indian Adolescents in the Upper Midwest; pp. 193–209.
Petroleum Human Resources of Canada, Alberta Immigrant Integration into the Petroleum Industry Final Research Report, February 2008.
Planning Our Future Together A Community-Based Planning project by the People of Fort McKay, Alberta - 2002
Page 51 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review
Protocols and Procedures for Consultation With Resource Developers Operating on Fort McKay Traditional Lands, October 2006
Spyce, Tera, University of Alberta Thesis, July 10, 2009. Disruption in place attachment: Insights of young Aboriginal adults on the social and cultural impacts of industrial development in northern Alberta.
Sjöberg, Lennart; Moen, Bjørg-Elin; Rundmo, Torbjorn; Explaining Risk Perception: An evaluation of the psychometric paradigm in risk perception research. Rotunde publikasjoner Rotunde no. 84, 2004, Editor: Torbjørn Rundmo, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Department of Psychology, ISBN 82-7892-024-9 http://www.svt.ntnu.no/psy/torbjorn.rundmo/psychometric_paradigm.pdf
Statistics Canada. 2012. Fort Mackay, Alberta (Code 4816859) and Alberta (Code 48) (table). Census Profile. 2011 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316-XWE. Ottawa. Released February 8, 2012. http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-d/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E (accessed February 18, 2012).
Sztompka, Piotr, Cultural Trauma: The Other Face of Social Change, European Journal of Social Theory. 2000:3; 449 Sage http://est.sagepub.com
Turner, N. J., R. Gregory, C. Brooks, L. Failing, and T. Satterfield. 2008. From invisibility to transparency: identifying the implications. Ecology and Society 13(2): 7. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/ vol13/iss2/art7/
Whitbeck, Les; Adams, Gary; Hoyt, Dan; Chen, Xiaojin; “Conceptualizing and Measuring Historical Trauma Among American Indian People”; American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 33, Nos. 3/4, June 2004 ( C ° 2004)
Page 52 of 52 Teck Frontier Project SEIA Review