Teck Resources Limited Responses to Joint Review Panel Information Request Package 4 – EA Methodology & Indigenous Interests May 2017
Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
Table of Contents
INFORMATION REQUEST 4.1 ...... 4-1
INFORMATION REQUEST 4.2 ...... 4-2 Response 4.2a ...... 4-3 Response 4.2b ...... 4-8
INFORMATION REQUEST 4.3 ...... 4-9 Response 4.3a ...... 4-10 Response 4.3b ...... 4-21
INFORMATION REQUEST 4.4 ...... 4-23 Response 4.4a ...... 4-24 Response 4.4b ...... 4-26
INFORMATION REQUEST 4.5 ...... 4-27 Response 4.5a ...... 4-28 Response 4.5b ...... 4-28 Response 4.5c ...... 4-28
INFORMATION REQUEST 4.6 ...... 4-30
INFORMATION REQUEST 4.7 ...... 4-33 Response 4.7a ...... 4-33 Response 4.7b ...... 4-38
INFORMATION REQUEST 4.8 ...... 4-40
List of Tables Table 4.4a-1: Draft Management and Monitoring Plans for the Project ...... 4-26 Table 4.5c-1: Access Issues Identified by Fort McKay Traditional Land Users (May 12, 2014) ...... 4-29 Table 4.6-1: Location of Requested Information in the Draft TLU Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ...... 4-32 Table 4.8-1: Consolidation of Information Received from Indigenous Group Related to Aboriginal or Treaty Rights ...... 4-41
List of Figures Figure 4.7a-1: Traditional Trails and Transportation Routes and Development Footprint (Revised Figure 44a-1) ...... 4-35 Figure 4.7a-2: Fort McKay Traditional Trail System and Development Footprint (Revised Figure 44b-1) ...... 4-36 Figure 4.7a-3: Fort McKay Traditional Trail System and Development Footprint (LSA) ...... 4-37
May 2017 Page i Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
List of Appendices Appendix 4.1: Alternate Application Case Assessment Appendix 4.2: Traditional Land Use Assessment Update Appendix 4.5: Draft Access Management Plan Appendix 4.6: Draft Traditional Land Use Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
May 2017 Page ii Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
4.1 Section 19(1) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (2012) states: “The environmental assessment of a designated project must take into account the following factors: a) the environmental effects of the designated project, including the environmental effects of malfunctions or accidents that may occur in connection with the designated project and any cumulative effects that are likely to result from the designated project in combination with other physical activities that have been or will be carried out; b) the significance of the effects referred to in paragraph (a)”.
Section 52(1) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (2012) requires the Minister of the Environment to decide if, taking into account the implementation of any mitigation measures that the Minister considers appropriate, the designated project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects referred to in subsection 5(1) and 5(2).
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s (the Agency) Operational Policy Statement (OPS) Determining Whether a Designated Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects under the CEAA, 2012, published in November 2015, states that “Proponents are expected to determine whether their project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects in their EIS with respect to the residual adverse environmental effects. […] Such determinations must be made for the project-specific effects and for any cumulative environmental effects. Both of these determinations need to be assessed and documented in the EA report or panel report, in order to be taken into account in the decision made by the Minister under section 52 of CEAA”
The Government of Alberta’s Final Terms of Reference for the Environmental Impact Assessment Report required Teck to define assessment scenarios including a baseline case, an application case and a planned development case. This method was adopted by Teck for the Frontier assessment. Teck defines the three assessment cases it used in the Project update:
• Base Case, which includes developments that are currently operating or under construction, and activities approved but not yet constructed
• Application Case, which includes developments and activities in the Base Case with the Project added
• Planned Development Case (PDC), which includes developments that have been disclosed or applied for, but not yet approved (Volume 3, p. 85).
However, this methodology does not consider the OPS on “Determining Whether a Designated Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects
May 2017 Page 4-1 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
under CEAA, 2012”. This OPS was not available at the time of issuance of the fifth round of information requests on September 23, 2015.
All three of these assessment cases combine the effects of multiple projects and none isolates project-specific effects of the Frontier Project. The Panel requires an understanding of the potential project-specific effects of the Frontier Project referred to in subsection 5(1) and 5(2) of CEAA 2012 to inform its recommendations to the Minister regarding the likelihood of significant adverse environmental effects.
Provide an assessment of the environmental effects of the Project (that is, remove the developments currently under construction and activities approved but not yet constructed from the Application Case) on valued components related to the environmental effects referred to in subsection 5(1) and 5(2) of CEAA 2012. Present the results of this assessment in tables, where appropriate, and provide a discussion of the results.
Teck is encouraged to reference the Agency’s OPS “Determining Whether a Designated Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects under CEAA, 2012” and other guidance available on the Agency’s website.
Response:
See Appendix 4.1 for the assessment of the environment effects of the the Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project (the Project) using the requested Application Case.
4.2 For each Indigenous group that Teck has engaged with and may potentially be affected by the Project, provide:
a) An updated assessment of the potential effects of the Project on the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes. Describe how Teck considered each Indigenous group’s TLU studies and ATK. Consider project effects on each group independently rather than applying one group’s information to assess effects on current use of lands and resources by all groups. Compare the community-led TLU studies to Teck’s updated assessment for each indigenous group. Describe the differences between the assessments and how these differences were considered in the updated assessment;
i. Include information provided by each Indigenous group, specifically their TLU and ATK, reflecting activities undertaken outside the regional study area (RSA) boundary and any potential Project-related effects on these activities.
May 2017 Page 4-2 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
Where groups have indicated specific uses, practices or activities that occur outside of the boundaries of the RSA, provide an assessment of the potential effects of the Project on those practices
ii. For Métis groups, the updated assessment should consider the traditional use patterns of each community based on their TLU study rather than the 160km radius buffer used in the earlier assessment. The assessment should include Métis Nation of Alberta Lakeland Council 1909, using the information provided in their Phase 1 Traditional Knowledge and Use Baseline Study;
iii. The updated assessment should take into consideration the effects on location, means, and timing of uses of lands and resources for traditional purposes within the RSA based on TLU studies and ATK provided by Indigenous groups, including where Project activities (e.g. stream diversions) may affect the traditional use of waterbodies identified by Indigenous groups (e.g. Unnamed Lake 1 and 2);
b) Provide an updated assessment of the cumulative effects that are likely to result from the Project in combination with other projects or activities on the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes.
Response:
a) An updated assessment of potential effects of the Project on the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes (i.e., traditional land use [TLU]) that addresses items in parts (i) to (iii) is provided in Appendix 4.2. The updated assessment is generally consistent with the results presented in the Project Update; however, Appendix 4.2 also includes an effects classification for the incremental effects of the Project in addition to a cumulative effects assessment.
While most of the community-led traditional use studies (TUSs) were generally consistent in their goal or intent, each study employed various methods in the reporting of TLU information, or in the assessment of effects related to the Project. For example, each study selected values or key indicators as part of the framework by which to discuss potential interactions of the Project with their land use. In most cases, the community- identified values or key indicators are not the same across studies or the same as those used in the Project TLU assessment. It is appropriate and expected that each community would select values or key indicators to reflect the needs of their members.
The Project TLU assessment framed its discussion of effects around key indicators, which were connected with potential Project interactions through effects pathways and evaluated by measurable parameters. The key indicators and measurable parameters in
May 2017 Page 4-3 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
the Project TLU assessment were selected to provide a spatial discussion of effects on TLU.
Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation
The Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation’s (ACFN) TUS, Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Knowledge and Use Report and Assessment (Candler and Firelight Group Research Cooperative 2013)—see Volume 3, Appendix 17A of the Project Update—used a study framework that was similar to that used by the Project TLU assessment. Generally, both assessments undertook baseline data collection, determined study areas, key issues/valued components and performed effects analyses followed by residual effects characterization and consequence. The Project TLU assessment differs from the ACFN assessment in the following main ways:
• The Project TLU assessment considered and classified effects under multiple assessment scenarios: Base Case, Application Case and Planned Development Case (PDC), as well as an assessment of the incremental effects of the Project.
• The data informing the two assessments were different.
• The ACFN assessment completed an effects classification, and determination of environmental consequence and significance on Project effects, while the Project TLU assessment completed an effects classification on the incremental effects of the Project and cumulative effects and determined consequence against cumulative effects.
The Project TLU assessment considered three cumulative assessment scenarios that were compared to predevelopment conditions: Base Case, Application Case and PDC. In comparison, the ACFN assessment did not assess effects using multiple assessment scenarios. Both studies reported on the effects of the Project.
For data informing the assessments, the ACFN assessment undertook literature reviews, interviews and focus groups with selected ACFN members. The TLU assessment in the Project Update, and the updated TLU assessment provided in Appendix 4.2 incorporated information from Candler and Firelight Group Research Cooperative (2013), including the results of interviews and focus groups. The Project TLU assessment also integrated the results of technical assessments from Volume 3 of the Project Update to inform the potential effects on TLU, as follows:
• acoustics (see Section 3)
• air quality (see Section 4)
• hydrology (see Section 6)
• surface water quality (see Section 7)
• fish and fish habitat (see Section 8)
• vegetation (see Section 10)
May 2017 Page 4-4 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
• wildlife (see Section 11) • historical resources (see Section 14)
• visual aesthetics (see Section 16)
• Athabasca River Bridge and access road (see Section 18)
With respect to the results, the Project TLU assessment concluded that magnitude of cumulative effects on ACFN traditional land use were high at each assessment case (i.e., Base Case, Application Case and PDC), resulting in a high consequence for ACFN TLU. The Project TLU assessment examined all effects prior to reclamation to reflect concerns that Indigenous communities have expressed about the ability for reclamation to successfully reproduce environments that will be relied on for traditional activities. The Project TLU assessment concluded that the magnitude of the incremental effects of the Project on ACFN TLU ranged from low to moderate to high, prior to reclamation.
For comparison, the ACFN assessment concluded that the magnitude of Project-specific effects on TLU ranged from moderate to high, while environmental consequence was determined to be high to very high on ACFN TLU values. The ACFN assessment concluded that the Project is expected to have significant adverse residual effects.
Fort McKay First Nation and Métis Community
The Fort McKay First Nation (FMFN) and Fort McKay Métis community’s Traditional Land Use Study for the Teck and Silverbirch Frontier Project (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011)—see Volume 8, Appendix 6A of the Integrated Application—followed a methodological framework that generally included baseline data collection, identification of study areas, various values identified by the community as important to the ongoing practice of community interests, Treaty and Aboriginal rights and effects characterization. One of the stated aims of the FMFN and Fort McKay Métis community study was to assess Project-specific effects and the Project’s contribution to cumulative effects on TLU values (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011). The FMFN and Fort McKay Métis community provided a copy of their assessment to Teck Resources Limited (Teck), which was considered in the Project TLU assessment. Important differences between the FMFN and Fort McKay Métis community study and the Project TLU assessment are found in the development of the Base Case, Application Case and PDC and in the information used to inform the assessment. These differences include:
• The Project TLU assessment considered three cumulative assessment scenarios that were compared to predevelopment conditions: Base Case, Application Case and PDC, as well as completing an assessment of the incremental effects of the Project.
• The FMFN and Fort McKay Métis community assessment considered Project- specific effects and cumulative effects (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011).
May 2017 Page 4-5 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
• The FMFN and Fort McKay Métis community assessment collected baseline information through a literature review, community workshops and interviews, and field studies to ground-truth information identified during workshops and interviews. • The Project TLU assessment in the Project Update and the updated TLU assessment provided in Appendix 4.2 considered information from Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group (2011) and considered the results of other technical components (see the ACFN section above).
The results of the Project TLU assessment and the FMFN and Fort McKay Métis community assessment are similar insofar as both studies indicate that the cumulative effects of the Project in combination with existing and approved projects are adverse and high in magnitude. However, while the FMFN and Fort McKay Métis community assessment considers the Project-specific effects to be adverse and significant, the Project TLU assessment determined the incremental effects of the Project would range from low to high.
Fort Chipewyan Métis Local 125
The Fort Chipewyan Métis (Métis Local 125) Métis Land Use & Ecological Knowledge Study, Executive Summary: Teck Resources Ltd Frontier Mine (Woven Paths 2015)— see Volume 3, Appendix 17B of the Project Update — used a “community based and directed research methodology” (Woven Paths 2015, p. 6) that generally involved interviews and ground-truthing with available harvesters and identification of study areas. Information from interviews was organized into seven traditional use values of meaning to the community along with related concerns. The effects of the Project are discussed in terms of anticipated effects within the local study area (LSA) identified as the Project footprint plus a 10 km buffer, and the regional study area (RSA; described as an area focusing on potential downstream effects in the Peace-Athabasca Delta).
Woven Paths (2015) provided land use information related to seven traditional use values. The report also provided a summary of potential concerns or expected effects related to the Project, as well as recommendations “suggested to support ongoing consultation to help address, avoid, mitigate and/or compensate for project-specific, downstream and cumulative impacts” (Woven Paths 2015, p. 25).
As indicated previously, the Project TLU assessment methodology generally undertook baseline data collection, determined study areas, key issues and performed effects analyses followed by residual effects characterization and consequence. As Métis Local 125 had provided Teck with a copy of Woven Paths (2015), and the information was considered in the Project TLU assessment (see Appendix 4.2). Woven Paths (2015) did not complete a residual effects assessment as part of their assessment; therefore it is not possible to directly compare results between the two studies.
May 2017 Page 4-6 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
Fort McMurray Métis Local 1935
The Métis Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Study: Teck Resources Limited – Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project (Willow Springs 2014)—see Volume 3, Appendix 17C of the Project Update—used a methodology that included baseline data collection (literature review and interviews), identification of study areas and a discussion of concerns and Project-related effects in relation to the LSA and RSA (same areas as used in the TLU assessment completed for the Integrated Application). The discussion of concerns and Project-related effects were grouped under the following headings:
• wildlife
• traditional trails, cabins and cultural/spiritual sites • hunting and trapping
• subsistence harvesting/snaring
• commercial hunting and trapping
Willow Springs (2014) did not undertake a residual effects assessment and therefore, the results of Willow Springs (2014) and the Project’s TLU assessment are not directly comparable. Instead, Willow Springs (2014) instead provided a summary of concerns, recommendations and expected effects of the Project and cumulative development. The information provided in Willow Springs (2014) informed potential interactions and preferred use areas considered in the TLU assessment provided in Appendix 4.2.
Lac La Biche Métis Local 1909
Lac La Biche Métis (Métis Local 1909) prepared its Phase 1 Traditional Knowledge and Use Baseline Study – Frontier Mine Project (Willow Springs and Métis Local 1909 (2015) and provided a copy to Teck for use in the TLU assessment and state:
[t]he focus of this Phase 1 [Métis Local] 1909 Traditional Knowledge and Use Baseline Study for the Frontier Mine Project is to provide reliable, valid and accurate depiction of current and historic patterns of ML 1909 members’ [Traditional Knowledge and Use] TKU.
This document is not an assessment of how the Project will affect Métis Local 1909 land use, but instead provides information on the ways and locations where the community expects that the Project might affect their land and resource use. The document indicates that the baseline information was collected through literature review and interviews. The results of the baseline study identify Métis Local 1909 traditional use, knowledge and concerns as they relate to the Project.
The methodology used in the Project TLU assessment has been summarized earlier in this response and the results of Willow Springs and Métis Local 1909 (2015) informed the
May 2017 Page 4-7 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
Project’s potential effects on the traditional use of Métis Local 1909 as described in Appendix 4.2.
Mikisew Cree First Nation
In consultation with Mikisew Cree First Nation (MCFN) regarding the proposed TLU assessment methodology for the Project Update, Teck agreed to not undertake a proponent-led TLU assessment with respect to MCFN. Teck will rely on Wîyôw’tan’kitaskino (Our Land is Rich): A Mikisew Cree Culture and Rights Assessment for the Proposed Teck Frontier Project Update (Candler et al. 2015), which was provided to Teck in September 2015 and was provided to regulators on September 24, 2015, Mikisew Cree First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Use Report and Assessment for Teck Resources Limited Proposed Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project (Candler et al. 2013) provided November 2013, and the Addendum to the Mikisew Cree First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Use Report and Assessment for Teck Resources Limited Proposed Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project (Candler et al. 2015b) provided June 10, 2015Therefore, a discussion of the MCFN Project-specific TLU studies isnot considered in this response.
b) An updated cumulative effects assessment on the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes is included in Appendix 4.2.
References:
Candler, C. and the Firelight Group Research Cooperative. 2013. Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Knowledge and Use Report for Teck Resources Limited Proposed Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project. November 20, 2013. Prepared on behalf of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation.
Candler, C. Olsen, R. and the Firelight Group Research Cooperative. 2013. Mikisew Cree First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Use Report and Assessment For Teck Resources Limited’s Proposed Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project. November 15, 2014. Prepared on behalf of Mikisew Cree First Nation.
Candler, C., Gibson, G., Malone, M., and the Firelight Group Research Cooperative, with Mikisew Cree First Nation. 2015a. Wîyôw’tan’kitaskino (Our Land is Rich): A Mikisew Cree Culture and Rights Assessment for the Proposed Teck Frontier Project Update. September 15, 2015.
Candler, C. Malone, M. and the Firelight Group Research Cooperative with the Mikisew Cree First Nation. 2015b. Addendum to the Mikisew Cree First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Use Report and Assessment for Teck Resources Limited’s Proposed Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project. May 28, 2015.
May 2017 Page 4-8 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group (Fort McKay Sustainability Department and Integral Ecology Group). 2011. Traditional Land Use Study for the Teck and Silverbirch Frontier Project. August 9, 2011. Submitted to Teck and Silverbirch.
Willow Springs (Willow Springs Strategic Solutions Inc.). 2014. Métis Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Study: Teck Resources Limited- Frontier Oil Sands Project. October 2014. Prepared for Fort McMurray Métis Local 1935.
Willow Springs and Métis Local 1909 (Willow Springs Strategic Solutions Inc., with Métis Nation of Alberta Association Local 1909). 2015. Métis Nation of Alberta Association Local 1909 Phase 1 Traditional Knowledge and Use Baseline Study – Frontier Mine Project. October 2015.
Woven Paths (Woven Paths Aboriginal Relations, Research & Consulting Inc). 2015. Fort Chipewyan Métis Local 125: Métis Land Use & Ecological Knowledge Study. Executive Summary: Teck Resources Ltd. Frontier Mine. Prepared by K. Dertien- Loubert on behalf of Fort Chipewyan Métis Local 125.
4.3. The Agency’s Technical Guidance for Assessing Physical and Cultural Heritage or any Structure, Site or Thing that is of Historical, Archeological, Paleontological or Architectural Significance under CEAA 2012 states “the heritage value of a resource is embodied in tangible and/or intangible character-defining elements” and that Indigenous “…spiritual and cultural practices are often integrally linked to specific locations and landscape features. Environmental effects resulting from a designated project may impact these places, which may in turn limit the ability of Indigenous peoples to engage in their spiritual and cultural practices”.
Based on the dates listed in Table 47a-1 of the responses to Round 5 Supplemental Information Requests, Teck should have received additional Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) studies from Indigenous groups since the submission of the 2015 Project Update that may not have been taken into consideration in the environmental assessment of physical and cultural heritage.
Further, Teck states that it will review the information contained in CIA studies, identify new information that may affect or alter key questions considered in the Project Update, and as such, consider the assessment results and any additional mitigation or monitoring measures that may be required to address outstanding issues, concerns, or predicted effects. Specific mitigation measures should be developed to address effects of the Project on the environment on physical and cultural heritage.
May 2017 Page 4-9 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
a) For each Indigenous group that has submitted a CIA study, explain whether Teck accepts the results and conclusions of the assessment regarding effects of the Project on physical and cultural heritage. In cases where Teck disagrees with an effect or a conclusion in a CIA study, provide a rationale to substantiate this position and an alternative effects assessment.
b) Provide the outstanding Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN) CIA study or provide a revised timeline for when the Joint Review Panel can expect to receive the study. If the ACFN CIA study is not expected by the time Teck has completed its response to this round of information requests, provide an assessment of any potential effects on ACFN’s physical and cultural heritage resulting from changes to the environment caused by the Project.
Response:
a) At the time of drafting this response, Teck has received five community-led cultural impact assessments (CIAs), one from each of the following Indigenous groups:
• Mikisew Cree First Nation (MCFN)
• Fort McMurray Métis Local 1935
• Fort McKay Métis
• Fort Chipewyan Métis Local 125
• Fort McKay First Nation (FMFN)
Overall, Teck understands that CIAs are relatively new in Canada and have not been widely undertaken for past oil sands environmental assessments. Therefore, Teck notes that there are few precedents in Canada and little professional or regulatory guidance available to a community or a proponent with respect to CIAs.
It is Teck’s observation that Indigenous communities adopt a specific approach to CIA methodology that best reflects community concerns and interests regarding measurement and management of cultural impacts, both Project-specific and cumulative. Teck does not believe it is appropriate to take issue with the CIA conclusions, as this would invariably require Teck to opine on the quality, strength or accuracy of the information collected or traditional knowledge holders perspectives regarding impacts to their Indigenous culture and rights.
The information included in the CIAs, in combination with other TLU and other information from Indigenous communities; provide a good basis of information to engage with Indigenous communities regarding cultural impacts, as well as appropriate mitigation actions. In some cases, the CIAs have played a significant role in shaping long term sustainability agreements between Teck and communities. Based on this, Teck is of the
May 2017 Page 4-10 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
opinion that the results and recommendations in the various CIAs are best utilized as vehicles for engagement and consultation between Teck and Indigenous communities.
In addition, the CIAs supplement material included in the Integrated Application, Project Update and other relevant materials filed by the Indigenous communities, as the CIAs have also helped confirm previous assessments and understandings. Based on this, Teck recommends that the Joint Review Panel (JRP) review and assess the proponent- led TLU assessment (see Volume 3, Section 17 of the Project Update and the responses to JRP information requests [IRs] 4.1 and 4.2) in combination with the community-led CIAs.
For example, the CIAs broadly reflect many of the issues relating to disturbance affecting preferred use areas, changes in access to preferred use areas, changes in the availability of traditionally important resources and the potential for sensory disturbances to affect Indigenous land users considered in the proponent-led TLU assessment. The proponent- led TLU assessments similarly note that effects on spatial aspects of TLU have the potential to result in further effects on Indigenous culture, and also conclude that high consequence effects on TLU are currently being experienced at Base Case conditions, and are expected to continue at Application Case and PDC for the Indigenous groups considered in the assessment (see Volume 3, Section 17.8 of the Project Update). This is consistent with the findings of the CIAs.
Similarly, the CIAs also reflect ecological information which is consistent with the assessment outcomes of the Project Update. As noted in Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) Round 5 supplemental information request (SIR) 163, the updated socio-economic impact assessment (SEIA) (see Volume 1, Section 16 of the Project Update) provides a high-level discussion of culture, and the updated SEIA and CIAs broadly reflect fundamentally similar concepts. For example, the CIAs and the updated SEIA filed by Teck in support of the Project application align in terms of their shared finding of weakening core cultural values arising from cumulative industrial development in the region.
Moreover, Teck also notes that the CIAs raise concerns regarding effects on Indigenous governance (i.e., autonomy, stewardship). This discussion reflects concepts indirectly implied, but not explicitly addressed, in Teck’s regulatory submissions (e.g., the Integrated Application, Project Update and responses to SIRs and statements of concern). The socioeconomic information filed by Teck discusses the company’s direct contributions to enhancing the governance capacity of affected Indigenous groups. For example, this includes support for Indigenous group consultation offices (e.g., Industrial Relations Corporations, Government and Industry Relations), committees and other bodies, as well as funding and autonomy for the production of various studies, including the CIAs. Many of the concerns raised in the CIAs regarding Indigenous governance relate to relationships between Indigenous groups and the Crown, which continue to evolve.
May 2017 Page 4-11 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
While the CIAs and other assessments in the Project Update reflect similar concepts, the CIAs provide a thorough analysis and discussion of these effects from the perspective of potentially affected Indigenous groups. This is critical, as it best supports development of mitigation measures on a community-by-community basis. Teck has reviewed the CIAs, and has identified some measures that might mitigate impacts. These include, but are not limited to:
• Incorporating and using Indigenous place names where applicable. • Supporting community-led projects to document Indigenous place names in their respective traditional territories. • Continuing to provide cultural awareness training for all Project staff and contractors.
• Contributing to language retention programs and other programs that support retaining Indigenous culture, knowledge and practice (e.g., culture camps for youth).
• Considering key Indigenous access routes and access preferences in the Project’s access management plan.
• Establishing a Reclamation Working Group with potentially affected Indigenous groups so that cultural values are integrated into reclamation planning.
• Supporting documentation of community-specific cultural heritage.
• Considering cultural keystone species in wildlife management.
Teck’s preferred approach to developing mitigation and other commitments identified in CIAs, or in other TLU or traditional knowledge studies, or other submissions, is to seek to negotiate long term benefits and Participation Agreements directly with Indigenous groups (sometimes referred to as “Impact Benefit Agreements” or “Participation Agreements”). While the specifics of each agreement will vary between communities, each will generally include clear commitments on ongoing joint planning and information sharing efforts throughout the life of the Project, specific commitments regarding mitigation or management efforts related to environmental or TLU matters, collaboration on socio-economic issues such as training, employment and contracting opportunities and provision of financial benefits which the community can use to support those development or other initiatives it prioritizes.
Teck’s experience is that financial benefits provided within Impact Benefit Agreements or Participation Agreements provide communities with opportunities to fund the development and implementation of initiatives aimed at maintaining or promoting culture. Teck’s approach is not to be prescriptive within agreements in how financial benefits should be used by Indigenous communities to mitigate impacts to culture but to provide for autonomy by communities to identify, prioritize and implement such activities as they see fit.
May 2017 Page 4-12 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
Teck is committed to continued engagement with Indigenous groups with respect to outstanding issues and concerns, including those identified in the CIAs and anticipates working cooperatively with Indigenous groups to resolve those issues and concerns.
Below, Teck has provided a brief overview of the conclusions of the CIAs regarding effects of the Project on physical and cultural heritage and a brief response to those conclusions in the CIAs.
I. Mikisew Cree First Nation
The MCFN CIA, which Teck and MCFN developed cooperatively, discusses Project and cumulative effects on MCFN’s core components of culture and rights through application of MCFN’s knowledge within a MCFN-informed assessment framework. In consultation with MCFN, Teck will not undertake a proponent led culture impact or rights assessment with respect to MCFN. The MCFN CIA incorporated qualitative data collection methods, including archival research, focus groups, semi-structured interviews and participant observation. MCFN’s CIA identified three core components of MCFN culture and rights: MCFN culture, identity, language and sense of place (Way of Life); MCFN subsistence practices in the Project area (Harvesting Rights); and MCFN decision-making (Governance and Stewardship). With respect to the three core components of MCFN culture and rights (Way of Life, Harvesting Rights and Governance and Stewardship) MCFN’s CIA identifies measurable indicators such as sense of place and perceived quality (health) of resource within preferred harvesting area.
The MCFN CIA sets out specific impacts that are anticipated by MCFN knowledge holders as follows:
• The Project will increase existing impacts along the Athabasca River and would bring oil sands development into currently unimpacted or minimally impacted watersheds flowing through Ronald and Diana Lakes, and into Buckton Creek and Lake Claire.
• MCFN knowledge holders expect that, as a result, the Project would result in serious impacts to what is currently one of the most important areas of a refuge for the reliable practice of MCFN culture and rights and would impact the ability of future generations to maintain key aspects of MCFN culture and rights into the future.
• Because of location and sensitivity, certain important resources, including the only harvestable herd of wood bison in MCFN territory, and particular rare medicine plants, are at particular risk from the Project. • Reduced use, and over time, loss of place specific language and transmission of place based knowledge between generations within the RSA including in the area of Woof Buffalo National Park (WBNP) and Lake Claire as a result reduced confidence in resources, reduced access because of low water and impaired
May 2017 Page 4-13 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
sense of place (sensory disturbance) and fewer opportunities for future generations to live and learn the MCFN way of life within the RSA.
• Reduced access and opportunity to enjoy culturally preferred areas for camps and cabins, teaching and cultural practice within the RSA, including impacts to MCFN sense of place and experience or enjoyment of preferred areas (including traffic disturbance, noise, light, smell, reduced sense of safety along the Athabasca River) and reduced confidence in water and resources as a result of impacts extending into WBNP and Lake Claire (light, smell, impacts to water level and quality). • Reduced ability to access and enjoy remote areas, especially between the Birch Mountains and the Athabasca river, and including the range of the Ronald Lake bison and reduced confidence in the quality and safety of ground and surface water for drinking, as well as impacts to confidence in lands and resources for cultural use because of pollutants, resulting in widespread impairment and in many cases, complete loss of use by MCFN members in areas surrounding and downstream of the Project. MCFN knowledge holders trace numerous human health impacts to existing industrial pollution and expect the Project would worsen these.
• Lost opportunities for future generations to maintain cultural and harvesting relationships with the Ronald Lake bison herd, including loss of approximately 90% of available preferred bison harvesting areas over a period when the presence of bison in preferred areas would need to increase radically to allow for the practice of rights by a growing population of future MCFN rights holders.
• In addition to impacts on bison, impacts to ability of future generations to confidently harvest moose, and the diversity of plants, migratory birds, fish and fur needed to sustain rights based harvesting in the RSA and especially areas surrounding and downstream of the Project along the Athabasca River and in the area of Lake Claire and WBNP.
• MCFN people feel the proposed Project will undermine many of the MCFN governance principles, which have only begun to rebound from years of impacts from government decisions and policies.
• Impacts on the ability of MCFN leaders and Elders to govern and steward lands, waters and resources critical to particular family stewardship areas, and to the MCFN nation as a whole. • Effects are anticipated to extend far beyond the Project disturbance area (PDA) into a wider cultural zone of influence (ZOI) surrounding and downstream of the Project.
• MCFN members fear the Project will mean losing the ability to freely practice a culture and way of life that has endured and flourished around Lake Claire, along the Athabasca River and into the Birch Mountains, since time immemorial.
In addition to the Project and cumulative impacts and concerns, the MCFN CIA provides many useful recommendations and input about further measures Teck (and other
May 2017 Page 4-14 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
industrial proponents and the government) can potentially take to help mitigate adverse effects on MCFN culture.
Teck is committed to continuing discussions with MCFN and its members to determine how Project-related and cumulative effects can best be addressed through mitigation and other measures. To that end, Teck will work cooperatively with MCFN towards resolution of outstanding issues and concerns, including discussion of the impacts, concerns and recommendations identified within the CIA.
As noted elsewhere in Teck’s submissions, Teck’s preferred approach to reaching agreement on an appropriate scope of mitigation and management options regarding cultural impacts is to negotiate long-term benefits and Participation Agreements with Indigenous communities. Teck will continue to pursue negotiation and consensus building efforts with MCFN and periodically update regulators on the progress of those discussions.
II. Fort McMurray Métis Local 1935
The Fort McMurray Métis (Métis Local 1935) CIA identified five valued components known as Métis environmental and cultural components (MECCs): TLU; family and community; values and spirituality; identity; and autonomy and self-determination. Each of the MECCs was analyzed cumulatively and the potential incremental effects of the Project were assessed in conjunction with the cumulative effects. Additionally, the CIA examined the cascading effects of impacts to one particular MECC on other components of the culture as a whole and the feedback loop to the original effect. Below is a summary of incremental and cumulative effects outlined in the Métis Local 1935 CIA:
Traditional Land Use
• Loss of land and access: decline in places available to live a traditional way of life, travelling increasingly long distances to harvest, loss of access to sites along the Athabasca river. • Greater non-Indigenous access: competition with non-Indigenous harvesters, reduction in sense of privacy and security of land users. • Fewer resources available for harvesting: because of sensory disturbances, habitat fragmentation. • Decreased perceived quality and safety of harvested resources: leading to avoidance of traditionally used areas. • Changes associated with wage labour and increased cost of living: leading to less time on the land and less dependence on traditional foods, and impaired transmission of traditional knowledge.
• Increased government regulations over traditional harvest.
May 2017 Page 4-15 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
Family and Community
• Shift work stressing and disrupting family relationships, and weakening community bonds. • Cultural shock from influx of non- Indigenous population.
• Cost of living forcing Métis Local 1935 people to move away from Fort McMurray, changing the physical proximity of members to each other.
Values and Spirituality
• Wage labour and money undermine traditional values of mutual support and sharing leading to sense of individualism.
• Influx of non-Indigenous population with little attachment to place, leading to disrespect for environmental and wildlife.
Identity
• Shift from a significant majority population to a small-minority population, disturbing sense of place, belonging and identity of Métis Local 1935 members.
• Racial prejudice of non-Indigenous and even First Nations workers: leading to discrimination.
• Psychosocial impacts to Métis members because of perceptions of site contamination.
Autonomy and Self-Determination
• Waning of Métis Local 1935 social movement because of internal conflict, resource scarcity, continued pace of development and lack of government support.
• Pace of development exceeds the capacity of the community to regulate and participate adequately. • Rise of oil industry transformed the place of trappers in their community.
• Lack of recognition and respect on the part of governments and regulators.
With respect to significance, the Métis Local 1935 CIA found that impacts from the Project on Métis Local 1935 culture were deemed to be high. This was based on the following considerations: the existence of net adverse impacts of the Project on Métis Local 1935 culture; and average impact magnitude of moderate-high; and the fact that the sustainability threshold for Métis Local 1935 culture has already been surpassed.
Finally, the Métis Local 1935 CIA found that the impacts outlined in the CIA could be mitigated, compensated and even reversed. Métis Local 1935 proposed recommended actions for the proponent (as well as industry and government more broadly) to take to support ongoing consultation and negotiation.
May 2017 Page 4-16 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
Teck is committed working cooperatively with Métis Local 1935, reviewing their CIA and working towards resolution of outstanding issues and concerns, including those identified within the CIA. Teck will continue to periodically update regulators on the progress of those discussions.
III. Fort McKay Métis
The Fort McKay Métis CIA used Cultural Activities to frame discussions about potential industrial impacts, and Cultural Values as a framework for describing socio-cultural responses to environmental, social and economic change. The CIA found that the Project is expected to contribute to many of the cumulative effects putting stress on the Fort McKay Métis culture. The CIA notes that some effects could be beneficial, however many of the effects are predicted to be adverse.
Fort McKay Métis provided recommendations for each individual activity section. The majority of the recommendations generated by the CIA focus on offset programs and protection plans, whereas the mitigation measures were largely developed by Fort McKay Métis in some of their previous responses to the Project. The recommendations in the CIA focus on the following themes: increased participation in land use planning and resource management; offsets; protection; mitigation measure to address cumulative and Project-specific contributions and monitoring. The Fort McKay Métis also recommended a series of mitigation measures to address cumulative and Project-specific contributions to stressors affecting Fort McKay Métis culture related to environmental and social themes.
On January 30, 2017 Fort McKay Métis and Teck announced the signing of a Participation Agreement for the Project. The agreement identifies economic and social benefits and opportunities for the Fort McKay Métis connected with the Project, as well setting out a framework for long-term cooperation and communication on items including environmental stewardship, employment, contracting and training opportunities and supporting regulatory approvals related to the Project.
The agreement will be implemented through a joint Cooperative Implementation Committee which will work collaboratively to support and implement:
• Contracting opportunities for Fort McKay Métis businesses.
• Education, training and employment strategy for Fort McKay Métis members.
• Environmental stewardship planning and implementation.
Teck and Fort McKay Métis will work together through the Cooperative Implementation Committee to develop the Project in an environmentally and socially responsible manner that creates meaningful, sustainable benefits and is based on a fundamental respect for Fort McKay Métis’ heritage, culture and longstanding connection to the region. The Agreement is intended to mitigate and accommodate Project-specific impacts of the Frontier Project on the Fort McKay Métis, including cultural impacts. Further, Teck has committed to the Fort McKay Métis that as Teck advances the Project; community input
May 2017 Page 4-17 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
(including any additional studies) will continue to inform the development of the Project (including mitigation and management measures).
The parties have used the Fort McKay Métis CIA to inform discussions that led to the agreement between the parties. Teck and Fort McKay Métis will continue to jointly work together through the Cooperative Implementation Committee and with the benefit of the information compiled though the Fort McKay Métis CIA and other sources of information to further reduce any Project related impacts on Fort McKay Métis culture.
IV. Fort Chipewyan Métis Local 125
The Métis Local 125 CIA explores four components of cultural value: well-being, traditional knowledge and language, providing and gathering, visiting and sharing.
The following is a summary of the Project-specific effects outlined in the Métis Local 125 CIA:
Well-Being
• The Project has the potential to impact 10 sites of cultural and spiritual significance in the LSA (e.g., cemetery, future burial sites, old fur trade store) because of sensory disturbance, resulting in increased stress and reduced sense of peacefulness and spiritual enjoyment.
• The fear of contaminants, odours visual disturbances and noise has potential to impact peace and spiritual rejuvenation with the LSA.
• The disturbance of medical plants.
Being on the Land
• The Project footprint will disrupt habitat and change wildlife movement patterns resulting in a need for Métis Local 125 to travel further and experience increased costs.
• Project-related changes in the landscape (e.g., new roads, cut lines) will increase access to other land users, resulting in the potential misuse and degradation of Métis Local 125 cultural and spiritual places.
• 33 transportation routes (trails and waterways) directly or potentially impacted in the LSA. Reduced access to places is linked to impacts on Métis Local 125 identity and ability to carry out spiritual activities and practices.
Identity
• Loss of land in the Project footprint currently being used by Métis Local 125, resulting in impact to Métis Local 125 sense of connection to the land and Métis identity.
May 2017 Page 4-18 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
• 26 place names that are linked to Métis Local 125 sense of place and identity directly or potentially impacted in the LSA.
Traditional Knowledge
• 26 places used for sharing knowledge in the LSA are likely to experience direct impacts resulting in potential losses in knowledge, stories and connections Métis Local 125 members have associated with these places.
Providing
• 15 animal and plant habitats within the Project footprint will be directly impacted by Project development. • Project-related disruption of animal and plant habitat in the Project footprint, resulting in reduced populations available for harvesting.
• Reduced access to plants and animals within the Project footprint.
• 78 subsistence sites within the LSA potentially impacted by the Project because of contamination, noise and increased traffic.
• Avoidance of harvesting areas near to areas disturbed by the Project and potentially contaminated, resulting in a need to travel further to harvest resources.
Gathering Together, Visiting and Sharing
• Removal or limited access to places used for gathering, visiting and sharing.
• Reduced opportunity to visit four places in the LSA where Métis Local 125 members gather, visit and share because of odour, noise and visual disturbances within the LSA. Eight seasonal/temporary and permanent habitation sites in the RSA that are used for gathering, visiting and sharing.
The Métis Local 125 CIA also notes that “[t]he FCM leadership asked that specific mitigation strategies to reduce cumulative and Project-specific impacts on culture not be included in this report; they remain confidential at this time.” However, the Métis Local 125 CIA does include broad mitigation strategies as starting points to begin the process of mitigating cumulative and Project-specific impacts to Métis Local 125 culture.
On December 7, 2016 Teck and Métis Local 125 announced the signing of a Participation Agreement with respect to the Project. The agreement identifies a number of economic benefits for the Métis Local 125 connected with the Project, as well as creating opportunities for meaningful engagement and communication. It also sets out a framework for items such as TLU and environmental stewardship related to the Project.
The agreement will be implemented through a joint Cooperative Implementation Committee (CIC), which will work collaboratively to support and implement:
• Economic benefits to support the community’s interests and rights.
May 2017 Page 4-19 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
• Contracting opportunities for Métis Local 125 businesses. • Education, training and employment opportunities for Métis Local 125 members.
• Consideration of traditional knowledge and TLU.
• Environmental stewardship planning and implementation.
Teck and Métis Local 125 will work together through the CIC to develop the Project in an environmentally and socially responsible manner that creates meaningful, sustainable benefits and is based on a fundamental respect for Métis Local 125 heritage, culture and longstanding connection to the region. The CIA provides a basis to understand and evaluate potential Project-related effects on Métis Local 125 culture. The parties have used this base of information from the Métis Local 125 CIA to inform discussions culminating in the agreement between the parties. Teck and Métis Local 125 will continue to jointly work together through the CIC and with the benefit of the information compiled though the Métis Local 125 CIA and other sources of information to further reduce any Project related impacts on Métis Local 125 culture.
V. Fort McKay First Nation
The FMFN CIA identifies core cultural elements that represent FMFN member’s values and interests related to cultural change: physical cultural sites; cultural practices; cultural landscapes; cultural values and well-being. Within those core cultural elements the CIA uses indicators to serve as tools to measure the change of core elements through time.
The FMFN CIA concludes that the Project will result in significant adverse effects on core elements of FMFN culture, including physical cultural sites, cultural practices, cultural landscapes, cultural values and well-being. The CIA bases these findings on its assessment that the Project has the potential to:
• Eliminate harvesting areas and cabins, grave sites and other culturally significant sites within its footprint.
• Increase pressure on moose and plants because of water, air and soil contamination; affect adjacent harvesting areas because of perceptible landscape disturbance (e.g., noise, infrastructure, smells), and negative perceptions of water and air contamination; reduce access to cultural sites because of gates, “no hunting” signs.
• Increase public access resulting in nuisance and competition for resources.
The CIA links these changes to associated effects on FMFN family and community, history, identity, skills, knowledge, spirituality, norms of sharing, quality of life, sense of self, sense of place, sense of control, cultural transfer and values.
Finally, the CIA proposes strategies to mitigate potential effects, including: development of a cultural strategy; continued monitoring of culture; language retention initiatives;
May 2017 Page 4-20 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
cumulative effects and land use planning research; reclamation initiatives and land-based employment.
On December 21, 2016, FMFN notified CEAA, Alberta Energy Regulator and Alberta Consultation Office that it had entered into a long term sustainability agreement with Teck regarding the Project. Teck and FMFN have worked together to develop the Project in an environmentally and socially responsible manner that creates meaningful, sustainable benefits and is based on a fundamental respect for FMFN heritage, culture and longstanding connection to the region. The CIA provides a basis to understand and evaluate potential Project-related effects on FMFN culture. The parties have used this base of information from the FMFN CIA to inform discussions culminating in the agreement between the parties. Teck and FMFN will continue to jointly work together through the processes set out in the long term sustainability agreement and with the benefit of the information compiled through the FMFN CIA and other sources of information to further reduce any Project-related impacts on FMFN culture.
VI. Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation
Teck has provided funding to ACFN to undertake a community-led CIA. See the response to part (b) for more information.
b) The ACFN CIA is currently not available. On October 12, 2016, Teck was informed by letter that ACFN would not be providing Teck with a copy of the ACFN-led CIA unless ACFN chooses to submit the CIA to the JRP as part of ACFN’s evidence for the hearing. On April 24, 2017, Teck was informed by letter that:
[ACFN] does not expect to produce a single "Cultural Impact Assessment", written by a consultant or academic, which filters the complexity of Project impacts on our nation and members through a colonial lens for ease of consumption on a project- specific basis. In our experience, Cultural Impact Assessments leave "lost in translation" the voices of our Elders, our values, and the obligations that Dene law imposes upon us in our interactions with the environment (amongst other things).
Teck respects the views of ACFN and appreciates the information ACFN has provided to date as part of consultation activities and the Project regulatory process. Teck agrees that potential Project effects on ACFN culture are best assessed by ACFN, as is also the case for other Indigenous communities (see the response to part [a]). Receipt of ACFN’s cultural effects information as part of ACFN’s evidence for the hearing should provide reasonable time for incorporation into the hearing proceedings.
To gain potential insight into ACFN’s perspective on cultural effects related to the Project, ACFN’s submission on cultural effects related to the Shell Canada Jackpine Mine Expansion (The Firelight Group 2012) was reviewed. Teck acknowledges that (i) the Project and the Jackpine Mine Expansion are in different locations with different proximities to Poplar Point, Fort Chipewyan and ACFN’s Cultural Protection Areas, and
May 2017 Page 4-21 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
(ii) that ACFN’s perspective on cultural effects will not be the same for two projects. However, given that both are oil sands mining developments in the Mineable Oil Sands Region, the ACFN Jackpine Mine Expansion submission might provide important insights into potential cultural impacts of the Project.
The following excerpts are from the executive summary of ACFN’s submission for Jackpine Mine Expansion (The Firelight Group 2012):
Cultural Effects of Changes on the Land
Cumulatively, development projects have limited the amount, quality, and distribution of land available for the meaningful practice of Treaty rights and maintenance of ACFN culture through barriers such as gates and fences, irritants such as noise pollution and increased traffic, and physical disruptions such as built infrastructure and roads. Industrial damage is limiting elders’ ability to teach skills that would allow the next generations to live on the land as their predecessors did. This, in turn affects youths’ willingness to adopt a traditional way of life, and reduces the transference of traditional knowledge from one generation to the next, including practical skills, spiritual and ceremonial practices and cultural values.
The psycho-social impacts of cultural losses suffered through changes to the land include a general sense of alienation from traditional land, a loss of hope for the sustenance of traditional culture over time, and the disruption of traditional family and community structures.
Cultural Effects – Changes in the Communities and Region
No beneficial effects of oil sands on ACFN culture were identified. Detrimental effects on culture include: the increased out-migration to Fort McMurray, which reduces exposure to land-based culture, cultural programming and little in the way of services; increased on the land impacts in the Fort McMurray region causing avoidance of ACFN members of the land, and thereby reducing the access to cultural benefits (i.e., sense of well-being from being out on the land); and reduced adherence to Dene cultural values because of increased reliance on the wage economy and exposure to “Western industrial” value set.
Particular Concerns for Youth
Priorities raised by youth included primarily social and cultural issues. Health concerns included fears of disease, wild food contamination and social drug use. Lack of recreational opportunities, poor quality of education, and lack of training and education opportunities for non-oil sands work are also prominent social concerns. Cultural concerns include those associated with limited opportunities to practice a traditional way of life, particularly because of environmental changes or destruction. These include water quantity and quality issues that affect access to cabins, loss of wildlife and country foods,
May 2017 Page 4-22 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
limited opportunities to get out on the land, and general loss of culture and language. High unemployment is the youth respondents’ primary economic concern.
Particular Concerns for Elders
Priority concerns of elders focused around changes on the land, including health and cancer risk from contamination, air contamination, water quality, water quantity and the loss of livelihood from trapping. Elders’ concerns about environmental degradation extend to the potential effect on plants and animals, including the loss of abundance of berries, animals, birds, waterfowl, wild vegetables and fruit. Persistent poverty, the high costs of housing and of procuring country foods or store-bought foods, the inaccessibility of health care in Fort Chipewyan, and cultural shifts in the value of respect for elders have led to their economic and social marginalization.
Teck is committed to continued engagement with ACFN with respect to outstanding issues and concerns, including those that might be identified in ACFN’s evidence at the hearing, and hopes to work cooperatively with ACFN to resolve those issues and concerns.
Reference:
The Firelight Group (The Firelight Group Research Cooperative). 2012. Supplemental Social, Economic and Cultural Effects Submission for Shell Canada’s Proposed Jackpine Mine Expansion. September 29, 2012. CEAA Registry Number: 465. Appendix D, Part 5.
4.4 Under its Terms of Reference, the Panel is required to consider information received concerning measures proposed to avoid or mitigate effects of the Project on asserted or established Aboriginal rights and interests. The Panel must also make conclusions on the significance of adverse environmental effects under CEAA 2012 after taking into consideration the implementation of mitigation measures.
To date, the mitigation measures proposed by Teck to address potential effects of the Project on current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes have focused on the development of wildlife and access management plans. Teck states that these plans would be completed following the environmental assessment decisions of the provincial and federal governments, and are intended to be further developed based on discussions with Indigenous groups in the future. The proposed plans could serve as a valuable framework for implementing and monitoring mitigation measures, including identifying some details that cannot be specified at the time of the environmental assessment. However, the proponent’s commitment to identify mitigation measures after the decision means that these measures cannot be
May 2017 Page 4-23 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
considered by the Panel in making recommendations, nor in supporting the Minister in reaching a CEAA 2012 section 52 decision.
In addition, the Agency’s draft “Technical Guidance for Assessing the Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes” states that proponents should describe how input from Indigenous groups was used to inform measures to mitigate potential project related environmental effects on current use of lands and resources.
Additional information is required to understand how the potential effects of the Project that may be caused to the environment on current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes will be mitigated.
a) For each Indigenous group, provide a full list of mitigation measures that Teck commits to implement, should the Project be approved, including proposed mitigation measures that have resulted from discussions with Indigenous groups throughout the EA process. For clarity, list the potential effects of the Project and the proposed mitigation measures and provide references to additional information. These should include mitigation measures within the Local Study Area (LSA) and RSA as well as mitigation measures for specific uses, practices or activities that occur outside of the boundaries of the RSA where a potential effect of the Project may occur. In particular, provide:
i. specific mitigation measures that would address effects on the environment on current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes;
ii. specific measures to mitigate changes to the environment caused by the Project on physical and cultural heritage.
b) For each Indigenous group, indicate how their respective ATK, TLU studies, and CIA studies received throughout the EA process, have informed mitigation measures.
Response:
a) Teck has consulted with Indigenous communities about the Project since 2008. During these consultations, members of these communities have expressed concerns, made recommendations, articulated potential Project effects on rights and traditional uses, and voiced interest in economic benefits of the Project. Input received from Indigenous communities has resulted in specific commitments and mitigation measures; and also informed Project design elements and commitments which are also informed by:
• prudent and responsible Project design and implementation
May 2017 Page 4-24 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
• multiple interests, including non-Indigenous interests (e.g., government) • Teck standard practices in terms of project implementation (e.g., biodiversity management plan)
The Project has been designed to avoid and reduce adverse effects, including effects on Indigenous groups. Therefore, Project design or broader environmental effect efforts should also be considered to fully understand Project measures to avoid, reduce, mitigate and manage effects on Indigenous use of lands, and address Indigenous concerns. On Indigenous mitigation efforts specifically, Teck has set out proposed measures in three main areas: (i) commitments in Volume 3, Appendix 17-H of the Project Update and Teck’s response to JRP IR 4.6; (ii) incorporation of mitigation measures into key management plans; and (iii) commitments made directly to Indigenous communities through negotiation of Participation Agreements.
Volume 3, Appendix 17-H of the Project Update and Teck’s response to JRP IR 4.6 provide detail on Teck’s proposed TLU mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management plan, and are intended to support the reduction of effects on the use of lands by Indigenous land users. The identified mitigation measures include the following:
• Teck will provide cultural diversity awareness training to employees and contractors focusing on respect for Indigenous land users, traplines, cabins, trails and equipment, as well as respect for Indigenous world views, customs and values.
• Teck will support the planning and implementation of an excursion for Indigenous communities within the terrestrial LSA prior to Project-related disturbance to describe Indigenous values, access and to recommend mitigation to avoid or limit effects on Indigenous access values.
• Teck will grant traditional land users temporary access to and through the PDA according to the policy and processes set out in the draft access management plan (see the response to JRP IR 4.5).
• Teck will invite traditional users to harvest traditional plants before disturbance. • Teck will reclaim land using traditional use plants where feasible.
• Teck will compensate Indigenous trappers following industry-community standards and the Alberta Trappers Compensation Program.
• Project personnel will be prohibited from using personal recreation vehicles within the PDA during work rotations, which is when Teck’s policies can be enforced. • Project personnel will be prohibited from fishing, hunting and trapping within the PDA during work rotations, which is when Teck’s policies’ can be enforced.
Volume 3, Appendix 17-H of the Project Update provided a summary of mitigation measures that address effects on the environment on the resources relied upon for
May 2017 Page 4-25 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
traditional purposes, as well as mitigation measures related to physical and cultural heritage.
Teck has also developed draft management and monitoring plans in response to several JRPIRs (see Table 4.4a-1). These plans include mitigation measures that Teck has committed to implementing and explain how Teck has and will continue to engage with Indigenous communities regarding the Project.
Table 4.4a-1: Draft Management and Monitoring Plans for the Project
Draft Plan Reference Access management plan See the response to JRP IR 4.5, Appendix 4.5 Air quality mitigation, monitoring and adaptive See the response to JRP IR 3.18, Appendix 3.18 management plan Biodiversity management plan See the response to JRP IR 7.15, Appendix 7.15 Detailed fisheries offsetting plan See the response to JRP IR 2.1, Appendix 2.1 Odour management and response plan See the response to JRP IR 3.13, Appendix 3.13 Reclamation monitoring plan See the response to JRP IR 6.9, Appendix 6.9 Ronald Lake bison mitigation, monitoring and See the response to JRP IR 7.5, Appendix 7.5 adaptive management plan Socio-economic monitoring plan See the response to JRP IR 5.15, Appendix 5.15 Surface water hydrology and quality monitoring and See the response to JRP IR 8.33, Appendix 8.33 adaptive management plan Traditional land use mitigation, monitoring and See the response to JRP IR 4.6, Appendix 4.6 adaptive management plan Waterfowl protection plan See the response to JRP IR 7.10, Appendix 7.10 Wildlife mitigation and monitoring plan See the response to JRP IR 7.14, Appendix 7.14
In addition to the mitigation measures outlined by Teck in material filed to date for the Project, Teck has concluded Participation Agreements with some Indigenous groups in the oil sands region and is continuing to negotiate with others. These agreements typically include mechanisms for future consultation with Indigenous groups on Project effects, mitigation measures and monitoring. These Agreements formalize a long term relationship with Teck and Indigenous groups that include mechanisms for sharing benefits of the Project and continued engagement with communities throughout the life of the Project.
b) As community-led Project specific Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge (ATK), TLU and CIA studies were provided to Teck, Teck undertook the following activities for each Indigenous group:
• Considered the information in relation to the existing Project design and planned mitigation measures to determine if concerns and potential effects identified within ATK, TLU and CIA studies had been addressed to the extent practical.
May 2017 Page 4-26 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
• Considered if additional mitigation measures could be employed if existing Project design and mitigation measures did not sufficiently mitigate effects and concerns identified within ATK, TLU and CIA studies.
Teck sought to receive studies from Indigenous groups at a point in the schedule where they could be incorporated into the assessment. This is reflected by each assessment discipline including sections entitled ‘Aboriginal Community Concerns’ and ‘Responses to Aboriginal Community Concerns’. As the Project application progressed, the timing of the receipt of Indigenous community studies did not always coincide with the Project schedule. In these situations, input was considered and mitigation identified and included in the next logical regulatory filing (see the response to part [a]).
Teck has concluded Participation Agreements with Métis Local 125, FMFN and Fort McKay Métis and is in ongoing negotiations with other Indigenous groups. While these Agreements are substantial and critical mitigation measures in and of themselves, they provide mechanisms for continued engagement with Indigenous groups throughout the life of the Project, which might result in the development of additional community-specific mitigation measures to managed specific effects.
In addition to the current suite of mitigation measures that will be implemented to reduce effects on the use of lands by Indigenous land users (see the response to part [a]) and in addition to Participation Agreements that further mitigate Project effects, Teck will continue to engage Indigenous communities in the development of mitigation and monitoring plans (see the response to part [a]). The development of these mitigation and monitoring plans in collaboration with Indigenous groups provides additional opportunity for community-led studies to directly inform mitigation and monitoring plans. Teck looks forward to continuing to work with Indigenous groups in the development of these plans.
4.5 In Volume 1, Section 14.8.5 of the Project Update, Teck states that an access management plan (AMP) will facilitate access to land traditionally used by Indigenous communities and stakeholders as well as to better manage increased access created by Project activities. Teck further states that it is in the early stages of consultation with Indigenous communities for a Project-specific AMP and plans to continue to discuss concerns expressed by Indigenous communities about access to traditional use areas and how a Project-specific AMP could reduce or mitigate access concerns. In the appendix 75a.1 of its Round 3 Supplemental Information Requests, Teck provided a table of contents for the Conceptual Access Management Plan.
Teck’s commitment to developing the AMP after the decision means that these mitigation measures cannot be considered by the Panel in making recommendations. A more detailed version of the AMP is required to understand how the potential effects of the Project on current access to lands and resources for traditional purposes will be mitigated.
May 2017 Page 4-27 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
Recognizing that this more detailed version of the AMP will be in draft form and will have to allow for some flexibility for amendments as a result of future discussion with Indigenous groups, the panel also requires Teck to develop a framework for developing or amending the details of the AMP in the future.
a) Provide a draft of the AMP. For each indigenous group that would be granted access under the AMP, provide a detailed description (and maps, if possible) of how the access to, through or around the Project site for that group is predicted to change at each phase of the mine advancement. Use the TLU studies, CIAs and any other ATK to determine what current uses will be restricted for each phase of the mine advancement by overlaying current use, active zones of the Project area and project components (such as the aerodrome) to demonstrate which areas and associated resources will be accessible for each indigenous group for which periods of time. Identify any management actions will be used to either facilitate or restrict access.
b) For each indigenous group, describe the consultation that has taken place to date and that is planned for the future.
c) Provide evidence of the efficacy of AMPs in mitigating effects to current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes for similar oil sands projects and discuss how Teck will incorporate lessons learned from those examples into the AMP for the Frontier Project.
Response:
a) A draft access management plan (AMP) for the Project is attached in Appendix 4.5.
b) See Section 5 of the draft AMP (Appendix 4.5).
c) AMPs are used in oil sands operations to maintain access to lands for traditional uses such as hunting, fishing and trapping; however, their efficacy has not been widely documented. In 2014, the Fort McKay Sustainability Department hosted a series of workshops with representatives from oil sands developments, including Teck, to discuss and develop solutions for traditional land users that experience challenges in accessing traditional lands on the east side of the Athabasca River.
Based on the documented experiences of 12 traditional land users from Fort McKay, Teck understands that the efficacy of AMPs for oil sands developments can be improved. Table 4.5c-1 lists the issues identified by traditional land users and trappers at these workshops (Fort McKay Sustainability Department 2014).
May 2017 Page 4-28 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
Table 4.5c-1: Access Issues Identified by Fort McKay Traditional Land Users (May 12, 2014)
Access Issue: Relationships with Companies
• Lack of understanding of Indigenous rights and traditions.
• Fort McKay members feel they are treated disrespectfully by security staff (e.g., “You are not supposed to be here – go away. This is for workers only.”).
• Sometimes, security workers don’t understand English.
• Fort McKay members get blamed when an Indigenous person tries to access the land or gains access and behaves inappropriately. The person might not be from Fort McKay.
Access Issue: Routing
• Access to an area changes but traditional land users are not advised (e.g., additional fencing or other obstructions).
Access Issue: Convenience
• Delays in getting access become very time consuming and might also result in lengthy alternative routes (e.g., “security staff want users to take an orientation, tell them who you are, where you are going and why? This takes time; can cause a delay of an hour in getting to trap line.”).
• Identification must be shown each time the traditional user seeks access; without identification there are delays.
• There is a lack of communication between shifts of security staff. This results in delays when shift staff change and new staff don’t understand why the traditional land users are on the land.
• Some people are denied access or delayed because of problems in the past.
Access Issue: Safety
• People who are impaired are accessing the land.
• The guidelines for hunting on lease land in a non-operational area are not clear. Police have been called and hunters with fresh game delayed.
• In the event of an emergency, the process for companies to deal with trappers who are on the land is not clear (e.g., if the trapper is on the “wrong side of the fence”).
• Security workers or oil workers call the Royal Canadian Mounty Police when they hear shots.
Source: Fort McKay Sustainability Department (2014).
During the Fort McKay workshops, several actions were proposed to address these issues and improve the efficacy of AMPs for oil sands developments. These include:
• providing Indigenous awareness training about traditional rights for industry leaseholders and their contractors
May 2017 Page 4-29 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
• sharing updated TLU maps so that industry can identify active mineral surface leases (MSLs) and ways of providing access
• identifying critical access areas for traditional land users • accommodating access for traditional land users’ guests
• communicating access and route changes on an ongoing basis (more discussion is needed about the approach)
• providing escorts for traditional land users
• refusing access if impaired by alcohol or drugs or in possession of drugs (more discussion is needed about possessing alcohol for consumption when out for a few days)
• sharing information about security contacts
• providing emergency response to traditional land users through the Mutual Aid Agreement in place between the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo, Fort McKay and the oil sands industry if traditional land user is not with a company escort
• developing access agreements between Fort McKay and each company
Teck’s draft AMP for the Project includes an adaptive management program to capture opportunities for improving the AMP. The draft AMP incorporates many of the actions proposed during the Fort McKay workshops to improve the efficacy of AMPs. Including proposed solutions at the draft stage demonstrates Teck’s willingness to adopt solutions currently under consideration by other oil sands operators.
As Teck continues to engage Indigenous communities regarding the AMP for the Project, it expects to discuss the issues identified in Table 4.5c-1 as well as potential actions to improve the efficacy of AMPs. Based on engagement outcomes, appropriate solutions will be brought forward and incorporated into the AMP.
References:
Fort McKay Sustainability Department. 2014. Summary Report, East Athabasca Access Strategy Planning Meeting, May and June 2014. Unpublished report. 27 pp + app.
4.6 Provide a follow-up program for verifying the accuracy of the assessment of effects of the Project on the environment on current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes as well as on physical and cultural heritage and the mitigation measures taken. Specifically, the plan should include:
May 2017 Page 4-30 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
a) The current use or physical heritage of concern;
b) Specific indicators that that will be used to measure whether the actual environmental effects resulting from the project occur as predicted in the environmental assessment and that mitigation measures are effective;
c) Details of the plan to monitor the indicators identified above;
d) Details of the plan to report on the status of the indicators identified above, and
e) Identify any areas of significant uncertainty with respect to the predicted effects to TLU and physical and cultural heritage and potential additional management actions that could be taken to mitigate those effects if they were to occur.
Response: Please refer to Appendix 4.6 for the draft TLU mitigation and monitoring plan. Table 4.6- 1 is a concordance table that identifies the location of the requested information.
May 2017 Page 4-31 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
Table 4.6-1: Location of Requested Information in the Draft TLU Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
Requested Information Location of Information The current use or physical heritage of concern. • Appendix 4.6, Section 4 Specific indicators that will be used to measure • Appendix 4.6, Section 7 whether the actual environmental effects • Other relevant indicators are found in the resulting from the Project occur as predicted in following draft plans: the environmental assessment and that • draft access management plan (see the mitigation measures are effective. response to JRP IR 4.5, Appendix 4.5, Section 5) • draft air quality management plan (see the response to JRP IR 3.18, Appendix 3.18, Section 7) • draft biodiversity management plan (see the response to JRP IR 7.5, Appendix 7.5, Section 3) • draft reclamation monitoring plan (see the response to JRP IR 6.9, Appendix 6.9, Section 5) • draft detailed fisheries offsetting plan (see the response to JRP IR 2.1, Appendix 2.1, Section 2) • draft odour management response plan (see the response to JRP IR 3.13, Appendix 3.13, Section 5) • draft Ronald Lake bison mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management plan (see the response to JRP IR 7.5, Appendix 7.5, Section 4) • draft hydrology and water quality mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management plan (see the response to JRP IR 8.33, Appendix 8.33, Section 7) • draft waterfowl protection plan (see the response to JRP IR 7.10, Appendix 7.10, Section 4) Details of the plan to monitor the indicators • Appendix 4.6, Section 7 identified above. Details of the plan to report on the status of the • Appendix 4.6, Section 9.2 indicators identified above. Identify any areas of significant uncertainty with respect to the predicted effects to TLU and physical and cultural heritage and potential • Appendix 4.6, Section 8.1 additional management actions that could be taken to mitigate those effects if they were to occur.
May 2017 Page 4-32 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
4.7 In Volume 1, Section 2.2.6 of the Project Update Teck states "routing that the regional utility corridors will take will be determined by third-party service providers who will independently obtain the permits necessary for their projects. However, since the corridor is a necessary part of the Project, Teck completed a due diligence review as part of the Integrated Application and determined that a west alignment along the base of the Birch Mountains was likely to be the preferred option." Figure 1.3-1 in Volume 1 of the Project Update includes a potential routing of the regional utility corridor.
In its response to Question 44 in the Supplemental Information Request Round 5, Teck provided figures overlaying the existing and proposed project footprints in the Traditional Land Use Regional Study Area, including the Planned Development Case in order to illustrate cumulative impacts of access restriction.
Based on these figures, it is unclear if the assessment of the potential effects on TLU in the Planned Development Case includes the regional utility corridor discussed in the project Update, or any other future corridors, pipelines, or infrastructure anticipated to be developed to facilitate the Project.
a) Update Figures 44a-1 and Figure 44b-1 in Teck’s response to Supplemental Information Request Round 5 to include:
i. the footprint of the regional utility corridor;
ii. any other future corridors, pipelines, or infrastructure reasonably anticipated to be developed to facilitate the Project; and
iii. any other future corridors, pipelines, or infrastructure considered in the assessment of potential effects on TLU in the Planned Development Case.
b) Clarify whether the assessment of potential effects on TLU in the Planned Development Case includes the regional utility corridor and other future corridors, pipelines, or infrastructure anticipated to be developed to facilitate the Project. If not, provide a discussion of effects of the regional utility corridor and other future corridors, pipelines, or infrastructure on TLU activities within the Traditional Land Use Regional Study Area.
Response:
a) The revised figures are presented in Figure 4.7a-1 to Figure 4.7a-3.
May 2017 Page 4-33 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
i. The final regional utility corridor routing will be determined by third-party service providers, who will independently obtain the permits necessary for their projects. However, since the corridor is a necessary part of the Project, Teck re-examined options for routing the corridor as part of the Integrated Application and determined that a west alignment along the base of the Birch Mountains was likely the preferred option (see Volume 1, Section 2.2.3.6 of the Integrated Application).
ii. Teck reasonably anticipates that the following additional infrastructure will be developed to facilitate the Project:
• a bridge over the Athabasca River and east side access road
• an access road from the bridge to the mine • a road to the river water intake
• the bridge and river water intake
• an access road to the fish habitat compensation lake (FHCL)
Each of these features was assessed in the Project Update, although they might not be shown on all figures. These features are shown in Figures 4.7a-1 and 4.7a-2.
iii. Five planned future pipelines were identified in the TLU RSA for the PDC. Of these, two have sufficient information to be assessed for potential effects on TLU activities:
• The TransCanada Northern Courier Pipeline (NCP) project is an approximately 90 km pipeline located north of Fort McMurray between the Fort Hills Bitumen and Extraction Facility Mine and Suncor’s East Tank Farm (TransCanada 2017). The NCP project is mostly on the west side of the Athabasca River and is fully within the TLU RSA. The footprint of this project has been added to the PDC shown in Figures 4.7a-1 to 4.7a-3.
• The Norlite Pipeline Project is an approximately 446 km pipeline located between Enbridge’s Stonefell site, Enbridge’s Fort McMurray South Facility and Suncor’s East Tank Farm (Enbridge 2017). The northern section of this project is located within the TLU RSA. The footprint of this project has been added to the PDC shown in Figures 4.7a-1 to 4.7a-3.
Currently, there is insufficient information available on the Enbridge Fort Hills Pipeline, Inter Pipeline Fund Polaris Pipeline Expansion and the Williams Energy Natural Gas Liquids Pipeline to include the footprints for these projects in Figures 4.7a-1 or 4.7a-2, or in the discussion of potential effects on TLU (see the response to part [b]).
May 2017 Page 4-34 Richardson River Dunes Wildland Provincial Park T106 Maybelle River Wood Buffalo Wildland Provincial National Park R19 Park R18 T105 R17 R16 R15 R14 R13 R12 R11 R10 R9 R8 R7 R6 R5 R4 R3 R2 Athabasca Dunes Richardson River Ecological Dunes Wildland Reserve T104 Provincial Park Chipewyan 201F
T103 Chipewyan 201G
T102
T101
Marguerite River Wildland Provincial Park T100
Sand Lake T99
Birch Mountains Wildland Provincial Park T98 Namur River 174A
T97 Namur Lake 174B
T96 Athabasca River Fort McKay 174C
T95
T94 Fort McKay
FortMcKay T93 174D
T92
Traditional Trail T91 FortChipewyan Métis FortMcMurray Métis
TransportationT90 Route AthabascaChipewyan FirstNation FortChipewyan Métis Fort McMurray T89 MikisewCree FirstNation RegionalCorridorUtility Clearwater T88 Terrestrial 175 LocalStudy Area TraditionalLand Use T87RegionalStudy Area 63 Grand Rapids Gipsy Lake Wildland Provincial Gregoire Lake Wildland Developments Park Provincial Park Provincial Park Gregoire T86 ApplicationCase 176BLake Gregoire Anzac BaseCase 176ALake Gregoire PDC 176Lake T85 NAll ote:trails/routes ha vebee reprod n ucedcorres pondingthearea use dtheinsource docume ntationand ma represnot y ea e nt chtrail or Municipality route’sfull extent Acknowled g e mBas e nts: eda AltaLIS, ta: Highway Stony Mountain Wildland Provincial T84 Trad itionaltrail and transportation route da ta: Watercourse Atha bas caChipe wyanFirst Na Candler, tion: and C., theFirelight Group Res e a rchCoope rative.Atha2013. bas caChipe wyanFirst Na tion Park Knowled g eand Us eReport and Ass e s s mfor e nt Teck Res ourcesLimited Propos e dFrontier Oil Sands Mine Project. Prepa redonbeha lfof Waterbody Atha bas caChipe wyanFirst Na tion, FortChipe wyanMétis: Labour, andHerm S. B. a nseBarb2011. Herm n. a nseHer n: Story.The LasWom t Raise ato n Children onthe Atha bas ca T83I.R. River.Prepa redfor FortChipe wyanMétis Local Sponsored 125. Teckby Res ourcesLimited and SilverBirch Energ Corporation. y June 2011. HouseRiver WovenPaths Aboriginal Relations, Res e a rchConsulting& No daInc. Fort Chipe te. wyanMétis Local Métis 125. Land Us e& ProvPark incial Indian Ecolog icalKnowled gExecutive eStudy. Summ aTeck ry: Res ourcesFrontierLtd Mine. Prepa redfor Dertien-Loubert,by onbeha K. lfof Fort Chipe wyanMétis Local 125. Cemetery178 NationalPark FortMcMurray Métis: Willow Springs Strateg Solutions icMétis 2014. TradInc. itionalLand Us eand Occupa TeckStudy: ncy Res ources T820 10 20 30 Limited–Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project. October Prepa2014. redfor FortMcMurray Métis Local 1935. Stony Mountain Mikise wCree First Na Candler, tion: Olse andC., R. the n, Firelight Group Res e a rchCoope Wildland rative.Mikise2013. wCree First Na Provincial tionIndige nous KILOMETRES Knowled g eand Us eReport and Ass e s s mfor e nt Teck Res ourcesLimited ’sPropos e dFrontier Oil Sands Mine Project. Prepa redonbeha lfof UTMZone NAD12 83 Mikise wCree First Na tion. Park 1:1,000,000 Candler,LeeWhittake C., S., ch, andC r, theFirelight Group withMikise wCree Firs Na Sakâw t 2015. tion. Mos tos(Wood Bison): Mikise wCree T81 Date:20170418 Author:CES Che ckeCS d : FirstNa tionIndige nousKnowled Acknowled g eStudy. g e mBas e nts: edaTrad AltaLIS, ta: itionaltrails da ta:FortMcKay IRC(2010a) File123511248-0925 ID: (Originalpa g esize: 8.5X11) T80 Figure 4.7a-1: Traditional Trails and Transportation Routes and Development Footprint (revised 44a-1) FrontierProject Responses– toJoint Review Panel Information Requests R1 R24 R23 R22 R21 R20 T 113 R19 R18 R17 R16 Devil's Gate 220 R15 R14 R13 R12 R11 R10 R9 R8 R7 R6 R5 R4 R3 R2 R1
T 112 Fort Chipewyan Allison Bay 219
T 111 Dog Head 218 Lake Athabasca
T 110 Lake Claire Chipewyan 201A
T 109 Chipewyan 201B Wood Buffalo National Park
T 108 Old Fort 217 Chipewyan 201
T 107 Maybelle River Wildland Provincial Richardson River Park T 106 Dunes Wildland
Provincial Park Alberta
T 105 Athabasca Dunes Saskatchewan Ecological Reserve
T 104
Chipewyan 201F T 103 Chipewyan 201G T 102
T 101
T 100 Marguerite River Sand Wildland Provincial Lake Park T 99
Birch Mountains T 98 Wildland Provincial Namur River Park 174A
T 97
T 96 Fort McKay 174C Namur Lake 174B Athabasca River
T 95
T 94 Fort McKay Fort McKay 174D Marguerite River Wildland Provincial T 93 Park
T 92
T 91
T 90
Whitemud Falls T 89 T raditionalTrail Fort McMurray Wildland Provincial Park
T 88 FortMcKay First Nation T raditionalLand Gipsy Lake Wildland Clearwater 175 Provincial Park Clearwater River T 87 RegionalUtilityCorridor Provincial Park Gregoire Lake T errestrial Provincial Park T 86 StudyLocal Area Grand Rapids Anzac Wildland Provincial T raditionalLand Use Park T 85 RegionalStudy Area Gregoire Lake 176, Developments T 84 176A & 176B ApplicationCase
T 83 BaseCase 63 PDC T 82 House River Indian Cemetery 178 Municipality Stony Mountain Wildland Provincial T 81 Highway Park Watercourse T 80 Waterbody Cowper Lake 194A Janvier 194 Wabasca 166 T 79 I.R. ProvincialPark T 78 NationalPark 0 20 40 60
T 77 KILOMETRES 1:1,500,000 UT MZone NAD12 83 T 76 Date: 20170418 Author: CES Checked: CS File ID: 123511248-0926 (Original page size: 8.5X11) Acknowledgements: Base data: AltaLIS, Traditional trails data: Fort McKay IRC (2010)
Figure 4.7a-2: Fort McKay Traditional Trail System and Development Footprint (revised 44b-1) FrontierProjectResponses – toJoint Review PanelInformation Requests Unnamed Waterbody 14
8 1 k e e r C ed m na T102 R11 Un 6 R10 R9
1 9 k R12W4 1 e e r k e C e r d e C ³ d m e a m n a n Unnamed Creek 17 n U n
U
T101 Unnamed Waterbody 29 Unnamed Waterbody 12 Athabasca River
k y Cree edcla R
Unnamed Waterbody 13
Redclay Creek
T100
U nn am e d C re e k Unnamed Creek 7
5 Unnamed Lake 2 ek Cre 2 Unnamed ed Lake 1 U nna m
Big Creek reek 6 d C Unname
Eymundson Creek
T99 Asphalt Creek Unnamed First C r Waterbody 15 e ek
Unnamed Waterbody 8
Traditional Trail Traditional R egional Utility Corridor Utility Regional Creek 1 Unnamed ed m Waterbody 7 Developments U n na Unnamed Waterbody 10 AppCase lication BaseCase T98 PDC Terrestrial Local StudyLocal Area Terrestrial Pierre River Township D efined Watercourse Defined U ndefined WatercourseUndefined Waterbody
0 1 2 3 4
T97 KILOMETRES 1:200,000 UTMZoneNAD12 83 Date: 5/18/2017 Author: CS Checked: CES Acknowledgements: Base data: AltaLIS, Hydrology ground truthed by Golder (2008, 2010 & 2014) File ID: 123511248-0926 (Original page size: 8.5X11)
Figure 4.7a-3: Fort McKay Traditional Trail System and Development Footprint (LSA) Frontier Project – ResponsesProjectRequests– Review JointtoInformation Frontier Panel Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
b) Volume 3, Section 17 of the Project Update assessed potential effects on TLU including consideration of the following corridors, pipelines and infrastructure that will be developed to facilitate the Project (see, Volume 1, Appendix 1A, Figure 1A-1 of the Project Update):
• the access road from the west side of the Athabasca River bridge to the Frontier Project Plant site
• the road and Dalkin Island bridge to access the river water intake • the electric power transmission line to the river water intake that will parallel the access road • the water pipeline from the river water intake to the Frontier Project Plant site
• the access road to the FHCL
In Volume 3, Section 18 of the Project Update, the bridge over the Athabasca River and east side access road were assessed including consideration of potential effects on TLU (Section 18.11) This assessment was provided in an independent section because of timing associated with completion of the Project Update and Shell’s disclosure of the withdrawal of their Pierre River Mine application.
The TLU assessment completed for the Project Update did not include consideration of the regional utility corridor or planned pipeline developments in the TLU RSA at the PDC. As discussed in the response to part (a), five planned future pipelines were identified in the TLU RSA at the PDC. Of these, only the NCP Project and Norlite Pipeline Project have sufficient information to be discussed with regards to potential effects on TLU activities. The following provides a discussion of potential effects resulting from the regional utility corridor and planned pipelines based on available information.
Linear corridors have the potential to affect TLU through direct disturbance, changes in resource availability (e.g., effects on wildlife, vegetation, and fish), sensory disturbance and changes in access. The regional utility corridor, as mapped in Figures 4.7a-1 to 4.7a- 3, includes an electric power transmission line, a natural gas pipeline, a diluent supply pipeline and a diluted bitumen product pipeline and is expected to result in 748 ha of disturbance. Of this, 151 ha are within the PDA and were assessed in the Project Update, and 177 ha are overlapped by Base Case disturbance. The NCP Project will result in 535 ha of disturbance. Of this, 159 ha are overlapped by Base Case disturbance. The Norlite Pipeline Project will result in 253 ha of disturbance in the TLU RSA. Of this, 41 ha are overlapped by Base Case disturbance. Therefore, new disturbance that might affect TLU activities is 420 ha, 376 ha and 212 ha, resulting from the regional utilities corridor, the NCP Project and the Norlite Pipeline Project respectively. In total, these projects will result in 1,008 ha of new disturbance in the TLU RSA, an increase of less than 0.1%. Direct disturbance (i.e., clearing and construction) because of pipelines is of short duration. For example, construction of the NCP Project is expected to take approximately three years (TransCanada 2016). Direct effects because of disturbance are expected to
May 2017 Page 4-38 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
continue after construction until the right-of-way has been revegetated, which is estimated to take approximately five years.
Direct disturbance associated with the construction of linear developments, including vegetation clearing, might have localized effects on wildlife habitat and therefore, traditional harvesting. The availability of wildlife for traditional harvesting might also be affected because of changes in movement patterns as linear disturbance might act as filters or barriers to movement for some wildlife species. Wildlife might also be affected because of direct mortality as a result of increased hunting and trapping pressure resulting from increased access, increased predation or wildlife collisions with construction equipment, structures and vehicles. Wildlife might also be affected by the sensory disturbance associated with construction and management actions intended to dissuade wildlife from entering work sites.
Vegetation, including traditionally important plant species, might also be affected as a result of direct disturbance. Vegetation might be affected by the introduction of noxious or invasive plant species from construction equipment or other vehicles. Vegetation recovery following construction might result in an alteration of species diversity or an increase in non-native species.
Development that crosses wetlands, waterbodies or watercourses also has the potential to result in adverse effects on vegetation or fish. Linear construction and operation activities that have the potential to affect fish and fish habitat primarily relate to disturbance of instream channels and riparian zones at watercourse crossings, as well as the potential for increased turbidity and sedimentation in areas downstream of crossings, and habitat fragmentation if crossing structures (e.g., culverts) are improperly installed and maintained. Fish abundance might also be affected as a result of increased fishing pressure resulting from increased access.
It is expected that the majority of potential effects on wildlife, vegetation and fish will be mitigated through Project-specific measures, standard best management practices and regulatory guidelines for each of the proposed linear developments. After revegetation has occurred it is expected that the pipeline corridors and transmission lines will be generally compatible with TLU activities, including wildlife, plant and fish harvesting.
Transmission lines and pipelines might also result in an increase in sensory disturbances that land users experience while practicing TLU activities. There is the potential for localized noise because of the transmission line, and facilities associated with pipelines. Visual disturbance is expected as a result of the increased line of site because of vegetation maintenance along the right-of-way’s and transmission line towers and pipeline facilities (e.g., meter or compressor stations) are expected to be visible on the landscape.
Transmission lines and underground pipelines are generally not expected to result in a loss of access routes, although temporary interruption or disturbance to routes that
May 2017 Page 4-39 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
intersect linear developments might occur during construction activities. Linear developments might also result in an increase of available access opportunities, which can be a benefit to traditional land users by providing new or improved access to areas, but might also provide this same access to additional harvesters, resulting in increased competition for resources and increased human presence on the landscape.
Based on the available information and considering the small increase in disturbance because of the regional utility corridor and planned pipeline developments at PDC (i.e., less than 0.1% of the TLU RSA), inclusion of the regional utility corridor and planned pipeline developments at PDC is not expected to alter the effects classification assessment results on TLU key indicators completed for the Project Update (see Volume 3, Table 17-28).
References:
Enbridge (Enbridge Inc.). 2017. Norlite Pipeline Project [website]. Available at: http://www.enbridge.com/projects-and-infrastructure/projects/norlite-pipeline- project Accessed March 31, 2017.
TransCanada (TransCanada Pipelines Limited). 2017. Northern Courier Pipeline Project [website]. Available at: https://www.transcanada.com/en/operations/oil-and- liquids/northern-courier-pipeline/ Accessed March 31, 2017.
TransCanada. 2016. Northern Courier Project September 2016 Update. Available at: http://www.transcanada.com/docs/Key_Projects/Northern-courier-factsheet- sepember-2016.pdf.
4.8. Consolidate all of the information Teck has received pertaining to asserted or established Aboriginal or treaty rights for each Indigenous group, including any updated information from TLU and CIA studies.
Response:
Table 4.8-1 contains the consolidated list of all information Teck has received pertaining to asserted or established Aboriginal or treaty rights, per Indigenous group.
May 2017 Page 4-40 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
Table 4.8-1: Consolidation of Information Received from Indigenous Group Related to Aboriginal or Treaty Rights
Indigenous CEAA Registry Type of Information Title Date Received Group No. Fort McKay First Traditional Land Use Study for the Teck and SilverBirch November 24, Traditional Use Study 5 Nation and Métis Frontier Project 2011 Statement of Concern Fort McKay First Nation Statement of Concern 24 June 4, 2012 Fort McKay First Nation Review of Teck Resources Limited Technical Review 63 June 29, 2012 Frontier Oil Sands Mine Integrated Application Fort McKay First Nation to Agency re: Sufficiency Review of Teck Technical Review Resources Limited's Response package to Supplemental 72 February 28, 2013 Information Requests, Round 1 Fort McMurray #468 First Nation to Energy Resources Letter 91 June 7, 2013 Conservation Board re: Statement of Concern Fort McKay First Fort McKay First Nation to Agency re: Comments on Draft Letter 126 March 31, 2014 Nation Agreement to Establish a Joint Review Panel Cumulative Effects September 8, A Community Approach for Landscape Planning 141 Study 2014 Fort McKay First Nation to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments on and Technical Reviews of Technical Review 174 August 17, 2015 the Project Update and Teck's responses to Round 4 Supplemental Information Requests Cultural Impact Fort McKay First Nation Cultural Impact Assessment: Teck Frontier 261 October 26, 2016 Assessment Oil Sands Mine Project
May 2017 Page 4-41 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
Table 4.8-1: Consolidation of Information Received from Indigenous Group Related to Aboriginal or Treaty Rights (continued)
Indigenous CEAA Registry Type of Information Title Date Received Group No. Technical Sufficiency Review of Teck Resources Limited Technical Review 30 June 4, 2012 Integrated Application for the Frontier Oil Sands Project Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and Mikisew Cree First Nation to Agency re: Sufficiency Review of Teck Resources Limited's Technical Review 71 February 28, 2013 Response package to Supplemental Information Requests, Round 1 Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and Mikisew Cree First Nation Technical Review to Agency re: Comments on Teck Resources Limited's Responses 103 December 4, 2013 to Supplemental Information Requests, Round 2 package Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and Mikisew Cree First Nations to Agency and Teck Resources Limited re: Concerns with review Technical Review process and content of Teck's responses to Athabasca Chipewyan 125 March 27, 2014 First Nation and Mikisew Cree First Nation's original Technical Sufficiency Review
ACFN and Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and Mikisew Cree First Nation to the Agency re: Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and Mikisew MCFN November 24, Technical Review Cree First Nation response to October 23rd invitation for public 144 2014 comments on the additional information related to the Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and Mikisew Cree First Nation to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Technical Review 158 February 6, 2015 Supplementary submission to the comments on the additional information related to the Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and Mikisew Cree First Nation to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments Technical Review 173 August 17, 2015 on and Technical Reviews of the Project Update and Teck's responses to Round 4 Supplemental Information Requests Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and Mikisew Cree First Nation to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Technical Technical Review 242 October 14, 2016 Review of Teck Resources Limited's Responses to the Supplemental Information Requests 4 and 5 Responses
May 2017 Page 4-42 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
Table 4.8-1: Consolidation of Information Received from Indigenous Group Related to Aboriginal or Treaty Rights (continued)
Indigenous CEAA Registry Type of Information Title Date Received Group No. Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation to Agency and Alberta Environment and Water RE: Statements of Concern and Statement of Concern 31 June 4, 2012 Comments on the Teck Resources Limited Integrated Assessment Application Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Knowledge and Use Report Traditional Use Study and Assessment for Teck Resources Limited Proposed Frontier Oil 163 February 19, 2014 Sands Mine Project ACFN Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation to Agency re: Comments on Letter 127 April 17, 2014 Draft Agreement to Establish a Joint Review Panel Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation to the Joint Review Panel re: Technical Review Comments regarding whether the information submitted by the 248 October 17, 2016 proponent is sufficient to proceed to public hearing Cultural Impact TBD –Scope of Work approved on May 21, 2015, with delivery TBD TBD Assessment date of October 2015. Outstanding. Statement of Concern Mikisew Cree First Nation Statement of Concern 25 June 4, 2012 As Long as the River Flows: Athabasca River Knowledge, Use and Community Report 26 June 4, 2012 Change Mikisew Cree First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Use Report November 25, Traditional Use Study and Assessment for Teck Resources Limited Proposed Frontier Oil 194 2013 Sands Mine Project Mikisew Cree First Nation to Agency re: Comments on Draft Letter 129 April 16, 2014 Agreement to Establish a Joint Review Panel MCFN Indigenous Knowledge Sakȃw Mostos (Wood Bison) Mikisew Cree First Nation 163 April 14, 2015 Study Indigenous Knowledge Study Addendum to the Mikisew Cree First Nation Indigenous Knowledge Traditional Use Study and Use Report and Assessment for Teck Resources Limited 195 June 10, 2015 Proposed Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Wîyôw’tan’kitaskino (Our Land Is Rich): A Mikisew Cree Culture Cultural Impact and Rights Assessment for the Proposed Teck Frontier Project 163 June 15, 2015 Assessment Update
May 2017 Page 4-43 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
Table 4.8-1: Consolidation of Information Received from Indigenous Group Related to Aboriginal or Treaty Rights (continued)
Indigenous CEAA Registry Type of Information Title Date Received Group No. Mikisew Cree First Nation to the Joint Review Panel re: Comments Technical Review regarding whether the information submitted by the proponent is 256 October 17, 2016 sufficient to proceed to public hearing Traditional Knowledge Barb Hermansen - Her Story, The Last Woman to Raise Children 94 June 1, 2011 Study on the Athabasca River Fort Chipewyan Métis Local 125 to Agency and Alberta Statement of Concern 29 May 28, 2012 Environment and Water RE: Statements of Concern Fort Chipewyan Métis Local 125 to Agency re: Comments on September 25, Letter 64 Proposed Federal Consultation Plan 2012 Fort Chipewyan Métis Local 125 to Agency re: Sufficiency Review Technical Review of Teck Resources Limited's Response package to Supplemental 70 February 27, 2013 Information Requests, Round 1 Fort Chipewyan Fort Chipewyan Métis Local 125 to Agency re: Review of the December 10, Technical Review 104 Métis Local 125 Environmental Impact Assessment 2013 Fort Chipewyan Métis to Provincial and Federal Environment December 16, Technical Review 118 Ministers and Agency re: Extent of Aboriginal Consultation 2013 Fort Chipewyan Métis Local 125 to Teck Resources Limited re: Letter Response to Proposed Traditional Land Use Assessment 152 January 12, 2015 Methodology for Teck Frontier Project Update Fort Chipewyan Métis Local 125 Métis Land Use & Ecological Traditional Use Study 179 August 28, 2015 Knowledge Study Final Report: Teck Resources Ltd Frontier Mine Cultural Impact November 13, Fort Chipewyan Métis Local 125 Cultural Impact Assessment Confidential Assessment 2015 Cultural Impact Teck Frontier Mine Project Fort McKay Métis Integrated Cultural 193 March 4, 2016 Assessment Assessment Fort McKay Métis Fort McKay Métis Community Association to the Joint Review Technical Review Panel re: Comments regarding whether the information submitted 253 October 17, 2016 by the proponent is sufficient to proceed to public hearing
May 2017 Page 4-44 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
Table 4.8-1: Consolidation of Information Received from Indigenous Group Related to Aboriginal or Treaty Rights (continued)
Indigenous CEAA Registry Type of Information Title Date Received Group No. Fort McMurray Métis Local 1935 to Alberta Environment and Letter 89 October 21, 2013 Sustainable Resource Development re: Statement of Concern Fort McMurray Local Council 1935 to Agency re: Supplemental December 16, Technical Review 114 Information Requests Round 2 Response package 2013 Métis Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Study: Teck Fort McMurray Traditional Use Study 145 October 1, 2014 Resources Limited – Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Métis Local 1935 Cultural Impact McMurray Métis Cultural Impact Assessment of the Teck 163 June 15, 2015 Assessment Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project McMurray Métis to the Joint Review Panel re: Comments Technical Review regarding whether the information submitted by the proponent is 255 October 17, 2016 sufficient to proceed to public hearing Métis Nation of Alberta Association Local 1909 to Agency and Statement of Concern 26 June 4, 2012 Alberta Environment and Water RE: Statements of Concern Métis Nation of Alberta Association Lakeland Local Council 1909 Letter to Energy Resource Conservation Board and Teck Resources 93 June 13, 2013 Limited re: Letter of Objection Métis Local 1909 to the Agency re: Métis Local 1909 response to November 21, Technical Review October 23rd invitation for public comments on the additional 143 2014 information related to the Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Lac La Biche From Métis Nation of Alberta Association Lakeland Local Council Métis Local 1909 1909 to Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Technical Review 161 January 16, 2015 Comments on the draft Round 4 Federal Supplemental Information Requests Métis Nation of Alberta Association Local 1909 Phase 1 Traditional Traditional Use Study 203 June 10, 2016 Knowledge and Use Baseline Study Frontier Mine Project Métis Nation of Alberta, Lakeland Local Council 1909 to the Joint Review Panel: Comments regarding whether the information Technical Review 259 October 18, 2016 submitted by the proponent is sufficient to proceed to public hearing
May 2017 Page 4-45 Teck Resources Limited Responses to Information Request Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Joint Review Panel Package 4
Table 4.8-1: Consolidation of Information Received from Indigenous Group Related to Aboriginal or Treaty Rights (continued)
Indigenous CEAA Registry Type of Information Title Date Received Group No. Métis Nation of Alberta, Region 1 to Agency and Alberta Statement of Concern 27 June 4, 2012 Environment and Water Re: Statements of Concern Métis Nation of Alberta, Region 1 to Agency Re: Statement of Letter 53 August 30, 2012 Concern Métis Nation of Alberta, Region 1 to Agency re: Sufficiency Review Métis Nation of Technical Review of Teck Resources Limited's Response package to Supplemental 73 February 27, 2013 Alberta, Information Requests, Round 1 Region 1 Métis Nation of Alberta Region 1 re: Review of Teck's Responses December 16, Technical Review 109 to Supplemental Information Requests, Round 2 package 2013 Métis Nation of Alberta Region 1 to the Joint Review Panel re: Technical Review Comments regarding whether the information submitted by the 258 October 18, 2016 proponent is sufficient to proceed to public hearing
May 2017 Page 4-46