public comments - uts energy corporation/teck cominco ... · equinox & frontier oil sands...

Melanie Daneluk

From: Megan Robinson

Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 8:48 AM

To: Camille Almeida

Subject: FW: ACFN Letters

Attachments: ACFN Oct 2008 letter re UTS.pdf

11/30/2009

From: Lisa King [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 5:33 PM To: AENV Environmental Assessment Cc: [email protected] Subject: ACFN Letters Please see attached letters from ACFN regarding both the UTS‐TeckCominco Frontier Project and the Equinox Project. In addition to this email, the letters have also been faxed to: 780‐427‐9102 Thank you. Lisa Deskelni King Environmental Specialist Athabasca Chipeywan First Nation Industry Relations Corporation 9816 Suite 333 Hardin Street Building Fort McMurray, AB T9H 4K3 780-791-9131 ext. 236 780-791-9102 fax 780-742-3475 cell This email communication is intended as a private communication for the sole use of the primary addressee and those individuals listed for copies in the original message. The information contained in this email is private and confidential and If you are not an intended recipient you are hereby notified that copying, forwarding or other dissemination or distribution of this communication by any means is prohibited. If you are not specifically authorized to receive this email and if you believe that you received it in error please notify the original sender immediately. We honour similar requests relating to the privacy of email communications. Cette communication par courrier électronique est une communication privée à l'usage exclusif du destinataire principal ainsi que des personnes dont les noms figurent en copie. Les renseignements contenus dans ce courriel sont confidentiels et si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire prévu, vous êtes avisé, par les présentes que toute reproduction, transfert ou autre forme de diffusion de cette communication par quelque moyen que ce soit est interdite. Si vous n'êtes pas spécifiquement autorisé à recevoir ce courriel ou si vous croyez l'avoir reçu par erreur, veuillez en aviser l'expéditeur original immédiatement. Nous respectons les demandes similaires qui touchent la confidentialité des communications par courrier électronique.

Melanie Daneluk

From: Camille Almeida

Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 8:27 AM

To: Melanie Daneluk

Subject: FW: Fort McKay comments on UTS/Teck Cominco ToR

Importance: High

Attachments: Fort McKay letter UTS PTOR.doc; Letter_CBateman_LSchaldemose_08Sep22 (3).doc

11/30/2009

From: Lisa Schaldemose [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 11:14 AM To: AENV Environmental Assessment Cc: Jim Boucher; Ron Quintal; Will Roach; Cam Bateman; Janais Turuk; Stephen Smith; [email protected]; Brian Makowecki; Elizabeth Grilo; Neil Barker; Marie Lagimodiere Subject: Fort McKay comments on UTS/Teck Cominco ToR Importance: High Dear Director, Please find attached a letter from Fort McKay regarding the proposed Terms of Reference for the Equinox and Frontier Oil Sands Mine Projects. As outlined in our letter, we are very pleased that UTS has stepped forward and taken a very proactive approach to addressing Fort McKay’s concerns. We look forward to continuing to work with UTS and Teck Cominco as well as the regulators on this project as it moves forward. Sincerely, Lisa Schaldemose Lisa Schaldemose Executive Director, Fort McKay Industry Relations Corporation (780) 828-2480

FORT MCKAY INDUSTRY RELATIONS CORPORATION

P.O. BOX 5905 Fort McMurray, Alberta T9H 4V9 Business: (780) 828-2480 Facsimile: (780) 828-2481

October 17, 2008 Director, Environmental Assessment, Northern Region, Alberta Environment 111, Twin Atria Building 4999 – 98 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta T6B 2X3 Fax: (780) 427-9102 e-mail: [email protected] Attention: Director, Environmental Assessment Dear Sir: Re: UTS Energy Corporation and Teck Cominco Limited

Proposed Terms of Reference – Environmental Impact Assessment Report for the Equinox and Frontier Oil Sands Mine Projects

The Fort McKay Industry Relations Corporation (IRC) is writing on behalf of the community of Fort McKay, including the Fort McKay First Nation and Métis Local 63 with regard to the proposed environmental impact assessment (EIA) Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Equinox and Frontier Oil Sands Mine Projects. UTS consulted with us early in the ToR development process. This is the first time that a company has consulted with us on the draft Terms of Reference prior to submitting their own comments/draft of the ToR to AENV. We provided UTS with copies of our ToR comments on previous oil sands mine projects and UTS has incorporated many of our comments into the draft ToR that have been released for public review. We are pleased to have input at this early stage and encourage other companies to do this. There are a few key items of interest and concern to Fort McKay that are not addressed in the current proposed ToR (e.g. pre-development baseline, incorporation of community specific information and guidelines). To address these concerns, UTS and Fort McKay have started discussions regarding conducting a Fort McKay Community Specific Assessment for the Equinox and Frontier Oil Sands Mine Projects. UTS has sent us a letter outlining their commitment to working closely with Fort McKay on a Community Specific Assessment (see attached). Fort McKay is currently working with another oil sand mine proponent on a pilot project Fort McKay Community Specific Assessment. This first community-based assessment is expected to provide a foundation upon which other companies, such as UTS, can build. Given the input that Fort McKay has had already on the ToR and our plans to work with UTS on a Fort McKay Community Specific Assessment, we have no further comments on the draft ToR. We are very pleased with UTS’s proactive approach to consulting with Fort McKay and we look forward to continued involvement in the EIA for these projects. Sincerely,

Lisa Schaldemose, Executive Director

mailto:[email protected]

Cc: Jim Boucher, Chief, Fort McKay First Nation Ron Quintal, President, Fort McKay Métis Local 63

Dr. Will Roach, Chief Executive Officer, UTS Energy Corporation Cam Bateman, Manager, Regulatory and Stakeholder Affairs, UTS Energy Corporation Janais Turuk, FMA Heritage Inc. Stephen Smith, Energy and Resources Conservation Board Cheryl Baraniecki, Environment Canada Brian Makowecki, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Elizabeth Grilo, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development Neil Barker, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development Marie Lagimodiere, Lagimodiere & Associates Inc.

UTS Energy Corporation, 1000, 350 – 7th Avenue SW, Calgary, Alberta T2P 3N9 T 403 538 7030 F 403 538 7033

September 22, 2008 Fort McKay First Nation Industry Relations Corporation PO Box 5905 Fort McMurray, AB T9H 4V9 Attention: Lisa Schaldemose Subject: UTS/Teck Cominco Frontier & Equinox Applications: Fort McKay Specific

Assessment Dear Ms Schaldemose:

Following up our meeting on June 11, 2008 and conference call conducted September 19, 2008, UTS/Teck Cominco are pleased to inform you about the following.

As you are aware, UTS/Teck Cominco are currently in the process of preparing applications for the Equinox & Frontier oil sands mining projects. We are anticipating filing dates of third quarter 2009, and mid-2010, respectively. UTS/Teck Cominco have engaged the community of Fort McKay and the Fort McKay IRC in an effort to meaningfully consult and commence a working relationship that addresses our respective and mutual interests.

UTS/Teck Cominco are aware of comments Fort McKay has made on some oil sands project proposed terms of reference including requests for a Fort McKay-specific cumulative effects assessment. UTS/Teck Cominco have made efforts to incorporate Fort McKay comments into the Equinox & Frontier terms of reference for their respective environmental assessments. UTS/Teck Cominco acknowledge the importance of the Fort McKay-specific cumulative effects assessment to the Fort McKay community and are committed to working closely with Fort McKay to conduct this assessment for the Equinox & Frontier projects.

It is our understanding that Fort McKay is currently working with another operator in the area to conduct both a pre-development environmental impact assessment and a cumulative environmental effects assessment specific to Fort McKay First Nation Traditional Lands. We also understand that the information from these assessments will be made available for other companies to use as a baseline on which to complete cumulative effects assessments for new projects within Fort McKay First Nation Traditional Lands. When the results of these assessments become available, UTS/Teck Cominco would be pleased to review them to determine how they may contribute to the Fort McKay specific cumulative environmental effects assessment for the Equinox and Frontier Projects.

- 2 -

UTS/Teck Cominco are looking forward to working with Fort McKay as we move our projects forward.

Yours very truly,

UTS ENERGY CORPORATION

Cam Bateman, M.Sc. R.P.F. Manager, Regulatory and Stakeholder Affairs UTS Energy Corporation 1000, 350-7th Avenue S.W. Calgary Alberta T2P 3N9 T 403 538 7024 F 403 538 7033 C 403 471 3566 [email protected] cc. Marie Lagimodiere, Lagimodiere & Associates Ltd.

Letter_CBateman_LSchaldemose_08Sep22 (3).doc

mailto:[email protected]

Melanie Daneluk

From: Chris Powter

Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 3:17 PM

To: Camille Almeida

Subject: FW: pToR review - UTS/Teck Cominco Ltd.

Attachments: UTS Frontier pToR Review.pdf

11/30/2009

FYI

Chris

From: Mike Boyd [AENV] Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 2:57 PM To: Chris Powter Subject: FW: pToR review - UTS/Teck Cominco Ltd.

From: Cathleen O'Brien [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 2:38 PM To: Mike Boyd [AENV]; 'Cam Bateman'; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; 'melody lepine'; 'Crystal Bull' Subject: pToR review - UTS/Teck Cominco Ltd. Good Afternoon, Please accept the following review done by MSES on behalf of the Mikisew Cree First Nation of the Proposed Terms of Reference for the Frontier and Equinox Oil Sands Mine Projects. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Regards, Cathleen OʹBrien Regulatory Affairs Coordinator Mikisew Cree First Nation Suite 208, 9715 Main Street Fort McMurray, Alberta T9H 1T5 Tel: (780) 714‐6500 ext 228 Fax: (780) 715‐4098

Review of UTS Energy Corporation/ Teck Cominco Frontier Oil Sands Mine Proposed Terms of Reference

Prepared for

Mikisew Cree First Nation IRC

June 2008

Prepared by

207 Edgebrook Close NW Calgary, Alberta

T3A 4W5 Canada Phone (403) 241-8668

Fax (403) 241-8679 Email: [email protected]

Review of Frontier Oil Sands Mine PToR June 2008

Page i

List of Contributors

Senior Review Dr. Petr Komers, P.Biol.

Project Management & Wildlife Dr. Troy Whidden, P.Biol.

Hydrology Dr. Stefan Kienzle

Hydrogeology Mr. Owen Quinn, M.Sc., P.Geo. and

Mr. John Balfour, M.Sc., P.Eng.

Air Quality Dr. Kevin McCullum, P.Eng.

Vegetation Dr. Sheri Gutsell

Socio-economics and

Traditional Resource Use Dr. Jim Tanner and Dr. Petr Komers, P.Biol.

Integration & Coordination Ms. Shannon Gavin, P.Biol.


Page ii

Executive Summary

The Mikisew Cree First Nation (Mikisew Cree) has requested that Management and Solutions in

Environmental Science (MSES) review UTS Energy Corporation/ Teck Cominco (UTS/TECK) Proposed

Terms of Reference (PToR) for the Frontier Oil Sands Mine Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

Report. MSES evaluated the PToR to determine how and to what extent UTS/TECK proposes to

address the concerns of the Mikisew Cree, and to provide recommendations to UTS/TECK as to how

these concerns and issues could be incorporated into the EIA process. The review focused on the

following disciplines: hydrology, hydrogeology, terrestrial resources, vegetation, air quality, and socio-

economics and traditional land uses.

The development of the terms of reference is part of the scoping exercise for the EIA process. Scoping

is intended to shape an impact assessment such that local communities are assured that all potentially

significant impacts are identified. The scoping process fails the Miksew Cree because:

1. it does not list their concerns in the ToR,

2. it does not require the proponent to design the EIA and the project to accommodate the First

Nation, and

3. it does not require the proponent to explicitly measure, in a scientifically rigorous manner, the

success of mitigating the deprivation of traditional rights.

Key recommendations have been summarized from each discipline and are provided below within this

executive summary. We recommend the following additions or changes to the PToR:

Hydrology

• Include a higher level of detail as required in many previous ToRs.

• Follow a certain standard in both wording and organization for the format of the ToR

• Require that all monitoring, modelling and assessment data be made accessible to all Albertans

for review, analysis and discussion.

• Require that the Regional Study Area must include major water bodies previously excluded from

oil sands EIAs.

• Require oil spill dispersion analyses for the full range of streamflow conditions, from low flow

conditions, to mean or median runoff, to conditions found during spring flood. Analyses should

also be carried out for different spillage volumes and a range of representative substances that

could be spilled during normal and worst-case flooding conditions.


Page iii

• Require provision of detailed information on the soil water balances and their behaviour during

flood and multi-year drought events.

• Include a more rigorous flood level than the 1:100 year flood.

• Include a condition to evaluate the streamflow changes during the various stages of the project

which is in other ToRs.

• Include a condition for the discussion about climate change impacts in the planning of the

project.

• Include a requirement for providing baseline soil moisture parameters.

Hydrogeology

• The geotechnical concerns addressed are essentially independent of potential groundwater

protection issues relating to the site selection for waste disposal facilities, and thus warrant a

separate line item.

• Extend the condition for documenting the existing geologic and hydrogeologic information from

the ground surface down to the formations below the producing and/or disposal formations

which may also be impacted by the oil sands project.

Vegetation

• Some vegetation concepts to be used in the EIA are vague and need to be replaced with

measurable parameters with thresholds that will allow the proponent and stakeholders to

determine the success or failure of reclamation.

• Include a condition that is more specific in its definition of diversity when discussing pre- and

post-development conditions.

• Include a condition that requires a description of how existing vegetation will be determined.

• Ensure that the use of terms in the EIA is accurate for clarity of meaning. For example, clarify

definition between peatland and wetland.

Wildlife

• Include a condition that requires setting specific targets or benchmarks of performance over

time with respect to wildlife habitat use and the successful recolonization of disturbed

landscapes by wildlife.

• Include a condition that requires monitoring programs be designed (1) with actual end land use

and wildlife recolonization in mind and (2) actually relate the results of any monitoring programs

to baseline conditions to better understand cause-and-effect relationships (if any) between the

project and wildlife distribution and abundance.

• Include a condition that requires First Nation consultation and input for monitoring programs.

• Include a condition that requires more specific details regarding information gathering on wildlife

health which is important for the continued traditional use of First Nations.


Page iv

• Include a condition that requires the discussion and consideration of the effects of ecosystem

shifts with respect to reclamation success, prediction confidence, and wildlife recolonization of

the LSA and RSA.

Air Quality

• Add a condition to request an evaluation of the best available air emission control technologies.

• Include the request for a Quality Assurance Plan (QAP), as required by Alberta Environment for

any facility monitoring ambient air (Air Monitoring Directive).

• Add a requirement for reporting that describes how the monitoring data will be disseminated to

the public and other interested parties.

Socio-economics and Traditional Resource Use

• The consultation included in Section 2 (Page 2) is structured like a stakeholder consultation

process rather than a process that would be followed to meet the concerns of rights holders

such as the Mikisew Cree. Proper consultation must include not only communications but the

Crown must consider and meaningfully integrate the First Nation’s concerns in the decisions

that are made.

• The concerns raised by First Nations and documented as per Section 2 of the pToR need to be

used in designing both the project and the EIA to ensure that all impacts potentially significant to

traditional resource use are identified and alleviated.

• In the section under land management, include a condition requiring a discussion of aboriginal

concerns regarding access to lands by other land users who will infringe upon traditional land

use activities.

• Include a requirement to consult with First Nation with respect to surface water management

and its effect on long term traditional use.

• Include specific conditions for consultation with First Nation with respect to reclamation and

monitoring programs which must require a demonstration that the views of First Nations on

final land capability be integrated as benchmarks and targets.

• The ToR should acknowledge that the First Nations such as the Mikisew Cree as “resource

users” and should be included according to their priority status within regional initiatives.

• Include a requirement that the cumulative effects assessment consider cumulative impacts on

First Nation land use, showing specifically how the cumulative impacts will be alleviated to

accommodate the First Nation use of traditional resources in the region.

• Include a requirement to show regional targets and benchmarks so that the incremental

deprivation of traditional use in the region caused by the proposed project can be evaluated.

• Include a condition that requires specific socio-economic studies of aboriginal communities be

completed.


Page v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Report Organization.............................................................................................................1

1.2 Project Overview ..................................................................................................................2

2.0 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS................................................................................ 2

3.0 DISCIPLINE REVIEWS.......................................................................................... 3

3.1 Hydrology................................................................................................................................3

3.1.1 General Comments.................................................................................................3

3.1.2 Specific Issues of Potential Concern....................................................................4

3.2 Hydrogeology .........................................................................................................................9

3.2.1 General Comments.................................................................................................9

3.2.2 Specific Issues of Potential Concern....................................................................9

3.3 Vegetation .............................................................................................................................10

3.3.1 General Comments...............................................................................................10

3.3.2 Specific Issues of Potential Concern..................................................................10

3.4 Wildlife...................................................................................................................................12



3.5 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................18



3.6 Socio-economics and Traditional Knowledge...............................................................20



4.0 CLOSURE.............................................................................................................. 24

5.0 LITERATURE CITED........................................................................................... 24


Page 1

1.0 Introduction The Mikisew Cree First Nation (Mikisew Cree) requested Management and Solutions in Environmental

Science (MSES) to review and assess UTS Energy Corporation/ Teck Cominco’s (UTS/TECK) Proposed

Terms of Reference (PToR) for the Frontier Oil Sands Mine Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

The objective of this review was to determine whether or not any gaps in the PToR exist that are

relevant to the concerns of the Mikisew Cree and make recommendations to UTS/TECK and the

Mikisew Cree on ways to fill those gaps.

In its review, MSES evaluated the PToR for their potential utility in guiding the preparation of the EIA to

successfully generate meaningful impact predictions associated with potential environmental effects. The

review emphasized the relevance of issues for the Mikisew Cree and the strength of the direction given

to UTS/TECK in terms of assuring that scientific rigor will be applied during the EIA process as well as in

all follow-up or monitoring programs. This emphasis is important at the local scale of the assessment but

is critical to the regional assessment and sound environmental management. The following disciplines

were reviewed:

Terrestrial Ecosystems (Vegetation, Wildlife);

Aquatic Ecosystems (Groundwater, Surface water, Water Resources);

Air Quality; and

Project activities and boundaries in relation to Mikisew Cree traditional land uses.

1.1 Report Organization

The sections are organized by discipline. Wherever possible, the reader is directed to specific sections

and page numbers of the reviewed documents. Original quotes from the ToR are in italics and some

recommended changes or additions to the condition are underlined within the quote. Other questions

or requests for changes not directly in quotes appear in bolded font.

While the content in this report does not, necessarily, contain the views held by the Mikisew Cree, this

report should be viewed as a tool that the Mikisew Cree, UTS/TECK and AENV can use in the process

of improving the assessment and predictions of potential environmental impacts associated with the

Frontier Oil Sands Project. To facilitate consultation, we request that AENV provide

feedback, in writing, as to why or why not our suggestions are incorporated into the final

ToR.


Page 2

1.2 Project Overview

The proposed Frontier Oils Sands Mine Project (Project) is a mining and bitumen extraction and

processing facility. It will be located approximately 60 km from Fort McKay, Alberta on UTS and Teck

Cominco’s jointly owned Leases 311, 468, 470, 477 and 610 on the west side of the Athabasca River in

Townships 100 and 101 Range 11. The Project will be 10-20 km northwest of the Fort Hills Project and

it will be bordered to the south and east by Royal Dutch Shell’s proposed Pierre River Project. The

predicted initial production rate of the Frontier Project is expected to be in the range of 100,000 -

160,000 barrels per day starting in 2015. Additional mining operations for expansion of the initial phase

are being considered on Leases 513, 514 and 840 but are dependent on the results of further

exploration.

2.0 General Observations

This PToR, like many others prior to it, lacks a true involvement of First Nations input. The

development of the terms of reference is part of the scoping exercise for the EIA process. Scoping is

intended to shape an impact assessment such that local communities are assured that all potentially

significant impacts are identified (Wood 2003). The major problem with the process before us is that

identification of the community’s concerns is, as per Section 2 of the PToR, merely a part of the EIA

Report. It is not part of the scoping exercise that would precede the EIA Report in order to shape it. In

other words, by the time the proponent identifies the concerns (if at all), the EIA Report is done. How

then will the concerns of the Miksew Cree be assessed?

The overarching concern of the Miksew Cree is the deprivation of their constitutional rights to

traditional resources. As it stands, this PToR will not address the Miksew Cree concerns in follow-up

phases. Contrary to assertions by regulators that the EIA Report is only a conceptual level document

and that follow-up will quantify the effects and the success of mitigation, there are no follow-up

documents in existence, for any follow-up program in the Oil Sands, that would provide the necessary

proof of successfully mitigating the deprivation of traditional rights. This failure rests on a) the absence

of measurable parameters that would be analyzed by scientifically rigorous means and b) the reluctance

of regulators to set targets against which mitigation success could be measured. The requirement for a

“conceptual level conservation and reclamation plan” which “considers” several listed topics in Section

3.10 of the PToR underlines and exemplifies this point. How “conceptual” is it expected to be? What

does “consider” mean?

We have reviewed over 20 EIA Reports and smaller EAs in the Oil Sands Region and we find that

quantitative analyses which would pave the way for rigorous testing of the predictions and the

measurement of mitigation effectiveness are extremely rare. The PToR asks generally that impact


Page 3

significance be quantified, where possible (Section 4.1.4 f). This has not happened in any satisfactory way

in any of the EIAs we reviewed. Why then would the regulators expect that this would be done now?

Because there is no evidence that this term will be satisfied, the reviewers ask for more detail, and more

prescriptive requirements that would engage the proponent to step up to the task and measure what

exists now, and measure what will exist at any given stage of the construction and operation phases.

The scoping process fails the Miksew Cree because

4. it does not list their concerns in the ToR,

5. it does not require the proponent to design the EIA and the project to accommodate the First

Nation, and

6. it does not require the proponent to explicitly measure, in a scientifically rigorous manner, the

success of mitigating the deprivation of traditional rights.

3.0 Discipline Reviews

3.1 Hydrology

3.1.1 General Comments

This PToR is much less detailed than many previous Terms of References for similar projects. The lack

of required detail poses a serious threat that important information can be omitted, and potential

impacts would not have to be discussed. The lack of detail with regard to baseline information, floods,

spillages, climate change, trend analyses, risk assessment and reclamation are serious and negligent. We recommend that the Mikisew Cree request the inclusion of a higher level of detail as required in many previous Terms of References.

State-of-the-art scientific investigations, including modelling and monitoring, are no longer requested. Please include this requirement in the PToR. The Mikisew Cree are highly

concerned that the requested standards for environmental impacts assessments are declining, with the

potential for subsequent increased environmental impacts.

The organization of the PToR is different from previous PToRs. It would be beneficial to Albertans, and

particularly the reviewers of an EIA, if Alberta Environment would follow a certain standard in both wording and organization. This would constitute the foundation for:


Page 4

• the standardization of the content and organization of the EIA for different companies and

different projects,

• more transparency in the evolution of the ToRs,

• the evaluation of the impact of our reviews,

• the assurance that important points, considered in earlier ToRs, are not omitted.

3.1.2 Specific Issues of Potential Concern

1) Reference: Section 1.2 Scope

Question/Request: The Alberta public has the right to access raw data and information about a

project that may seriously alter their environment, lifestyle and health. Please add the following sentence (underlined) to point 1.2 [A]:

“[A] UTS and Teck Cominco will prepare and submit an EIA report that examines the environmental and socio-economic effects of the Project. Data that are gathered through monitoring, modelling and assessment should be made available to a central data warehouse, which should be accessible to all stakeholders for review, analysis and discussion.” In addition, add the following point:

[I] Provide all monitoring, modelling and assessment data to a central data warehouse, and make the

data warehouse accessible to all Albertans for review, analysis and discussion.

Oil spills during oil sands operations are common, but are often not adequately reported. There is

overwhelming evidence that Lake Athabasca has rising levels of contaminants related to oil sands

operations. The contamination sites must be identified in the EIA in consultation with and to the

satisfaction of the Mikisew Cree.

The Mikisew Cree requests that, until such time as when the oil spill dispersion study results are

available (as requested below), the Regional Study Area must include major water bodies previously excluded from oil sands EIAs. Please add the following sentence to point 1.2 [B]:

[B] The Study Area for the EIA shall include the Project Area, as well as, the spatial and temporal limits of

individual environmental components outside the Project Area boundaries where an effect can be reasonably

expected. The Study Area includes both the Local Study Area and Regional Study Area. The Regional

Study Area must include the Peace Athabasca Delta (PAD) and Lake Athabasca. Locations where


Page 5

previous contaminations from spills of oil sands operations were observed will be identified in the

EIA.

2) Reference: Section 3.11 Environmental Management Systems And Response Plans

Question/Request: This study should be carried out with the potential collaboration of other oil

sands operators. Extreme precipitation events could cause overflows and spillage of contaminated

water in storage, resulting not only in physical damages and operational disruptions, but potentially

resulting in dramatic contamination spills and expensive cleanups. The urgency of this study is

emphasized with the publication of various oil spills by Suncor in May 2008 (Calgary Herald, 2008).

For example, Shell (2004) reported 21 spills with a total volume of 70 m3 of hydrocarbon in 2004

for their Athabasca Oilsands Project, and a total volume of 300 m3 in 2003. Oil spills in inland

waterways can have enormous environmental and economical impacts (Yapa and Shen, 1994).

Tailings ponds contain naphthenic acids, a toxic and corrosive pollutant (McMartin et al., 2004)

produced in large quantities by oil sands refining. They are persistent in water, but their occurrence

and fate have been sparsely studied (Headley and McMartin, 2004). This pollutant could affect the

aquatic ecosystem throughout the PDA, LSA and the RSA through to Lake Athabasca if any

contaminated waters leak, or overflow, due to extreme events. Timoney (2007) reported a rising

trend of many oil sands related contaminants in the Lake Athabasca area.

We recommend that the Mikisew Cree request that the oil spill dispersion analyses be transparent, and that all relevant data and results are made available to Albertans. Analyses must be carried out for the full range of streamflow conditions, from low flow conditions,

to mean or median runoff, to conditions found during the spring flood. Analyses must also be

carried out for different spillage volumes and a range of representative substances that could be

spilled during normal and worst-case flooding conditions. The benefits of these analyses include the

following:

• spill responses can be carried out more effectively, thus minimizing the environmental impacts;

• locations for containment as a function of time since the spillage can be identified, and

containment equipment can be stored at those locations to speed up the response time and

minimize the environmental effects, and;

• the baseline study area can be delineated based on scientific data rather than on simple

assumptions.

Please add the following point:


Page 6

[G] Discuss, based in state-of-the-art scientific modeling and field studies, the fate of an oil

spill or other potentially harmful substances from the potential point of origin all the way

downstream, including the Peace-Athabasca-Delta and Lake Athabasca.

3) Reference: Section 3.8.1 Water Supply

Question/Request: The Mikisew Cree are concerned with their land and associated changes,

particularly after reclamation. As the soil is a critical element governing processes of the

hydrological cycle, such as infiltration, water storage capacity, evapotranspiration, groundwater

recharge and runoff, the soil water balance must be given special attention, in particular during the

project operation and after reclamation. The soil water balance of the reclaimed land is critical for

reclamation success, as it provides the necessary water and nutrients for the plants. It is, therefore,

important to request the provision of detailed information on the soil water balances and their

behaviour during flood and multi-year drought events. Please add the following points: h) a seasonal hydrological water balance for each distinct land unit and each phase of the Project, including actual evaporation, soil water, and runoff. Discuss the assumptions made or methods chosen to arrive at the water balance; During low flows, water supplies from the Athabasca River can be restricted. We recommend adding this condition: i) contingency plans when the instream flow needs of the Athabasca River require the reduction or interruption of pumping water from the Athabasca River. 4) Reference: Section 3.8.2 Surface Water Management Question/Request: The formulation below is based on previous ToRs formulations, such as, the

Final ToR for the Deer Creek Energy Ltd. Joslyn North Mine Project, and many others. We recommend that the Mikisew Cree request the inclusion of the previously used formulation, however, with a much more rigorous flood level than the 1:100 year flood. Since Alberta Environment has used and defined the Probable Maximum Flood, this must be

used as the design standard to avoid oil spillages and severe contamination of downstream water

bodies.

The quantification of a Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) is extremely difficult, as the estimate should

be based on the Probable Maximum Precipitation, PMP (Benson, 1973). The PMF is defined by the

U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (2002) as "the flood that may be expected from the

most severe combination of critical meteorological and hydrologic conditions that are reasonably


Page 7

possible in the drainage basin under study." Theoretically, the probability of exceeding the PMF is

zero, and hence the dam can safely withstand all floods. The Canadian Dam Association’s Dam

Safety Guidelines provide a similar definition (Canadian Dam Association, 1998).

Pietroniro et al. (2004) state: “As the estimation of the PMF uses historical data, it is re-estimated

periodically as more data are collected. Occasionally, the revised PMF becomes significantly higher

as new data are added. For example, Jarrett and Tomlinson (2000) provided an example where the

revised PMF for the Olympus Dam in Colorado was almost four times larger than the original

estimate. When this situation occurs, the dams may fail the safety check, leading to expensive

spillway re-design and re-construction. There is, therefore, a considerable amount of concern about

the validity and robustness of techniques used for PMF estimation.”

The WMO manual states that the PMP must be considered an estimate and that its accuracy cannot

be assessed in an objective manner (World Meteorological Organization, 1986).

Based on the above information, we are concerned that a too low PMF estimate may be used, due

to either poor data or a poor method. Due to the length of the project life, a method should be

applied that is easy to estimate and easy to update. In order to keep the risk of a catastrophic flood

under 1% for the life time of the project, the design flood should be based on the 1:4000 year flood

for a project lasting 40 years, and 6000 years for a project lasting 60 years. Please replace the following point x): [A] Describe the surface water management strategy for the construction, operation, decommissioning and reclamation stages, including: a) design factors considered, such as: x) flood protection; with this point: x) the 1:4000 year flood level or the Probable Maximum Flood; including the potential for flooding during heavy precipitation events and spring runoff. Address the effects of Probable Maximum Flood and precipitation events on ponds, containment structures and infrastructure;

5) Reference: Section 3.8.2 Surface Water Management Question/Request: This important point was included in previous ToRs. It is required to evaluate

the streamflow changes during the various stages of the project. Please add the following point:


Page 8

[A] y) the pre- and post-disturbance alignment and condition of all ephemeral and permanent

streams and waterbodies, including those created by the Project. Consider the entire flow

frequency distribution presented as changes in exceedance curve, relate these to potential changes

in fluvial dynamics across the range in flows;

6) Reference: Section 4.4.1 Baseline Information Question/Request: Based on current scientific literature, it is known that streamflow trends are

declining in many Alberta rivers. Due to the life-time of the oil sands projects, which often last 100

years until the completion of reclamation, these trends are critical to develop meaningful strategies.

Please add the following point:

[B] c) trend analyses of low, average and peak levels.

7) Reference: Section 4.4.1 Baseline Information Question/Request: The impacts of climate change are expected to be severe, particularly in the

northern regions of Alberta. There is a relative consensus within the scientific community about the

principal impacts of climate change on soil moisture, evaporation, and runoff. To ignore climate

change impacts in the planning of a project with a very long life-time is negligent. Add the following point:

[B] d) climate change impacts on surface water hydrology.

8) Reference: Section 4.10.1 Baseline Information Question/Request: The understanding of soil moisture characteristics is critical for reclamation.

Therefore, the baseline soil moisture parameters must be known. Please add the following point:

f) description of the soil water characteristics of all soils in the Study Area.


Page 9

3.2 Hydrogeology


The Frontier Oil Sands Mine PToR seems quite thorough and comprehensive overall, including the

portions dealing with hydrogeology. However, a few modifications and additions to the ToR document

are proposed.


1) Reference: Section 3.2 – Project Development

Question/Request: Please add the following line item “extent of mine pit excavation in each phase of the project”.

2) Reference: Section 3.3.2 – Process Infrastructure Alternatives

Question/Request: Item [H] – (c) is currently worded as follows: “site suitability from a

groundwater perspective (provide geo-technical information to support the siting of disposal facilities).”

The geotechnical concerns addressed here are essentially independent of potential groundwater

protection issues relating to the siting of waste disposal facilities, and thus warrant a separate line

item.

Please add the following: “the geotechnical suitability of any proposed waste disposal facilities”

3) Reference: 3.4 Project Processes and Facilities

Question/Request: Please include “proposed mining excavation(s)” as a line item.

4) Reference: 3.10 Conservation and Reclamation

Question/Request: We suggest adding a line item to Section 3.10 [A] as follows: “remediation of any impacted water supply aquifers.”

5) Reference: 3.11 Environmental Management Systems & Response Plan

Question/Request: We suggest adding “groundwater” to the Section 3.11 – [E] line item:

“Provide a conceptual plan to monitor reclamation success (including soils, vegetation, wildlife, groundwater,

and aquatic resources.”


Page 10

6) Reference: 4.3 Hydrogeology / 4.3.2 Impact Assessment

Question/Request: Line item [A] of Section 4.3 / 4.3.2 Impact Assessment refers to documenting

the existing geologic and hydrogeologic information from the ground surface down to the oil

producing and wastewater disposal formations. However, formations below the producing and/or

disposal formations may also be impacted by the oil sands project. Please add the following wording:

“Provide an overview of the existing geologic and hydrogeologic setting from the ground surface down to and

including the oil producing and wastewater disposal zones, and if applicable, to the base of any deeper

strata that would be potentially impacted by mining and/or wastewater disposal operations.”

We suggest adding the following to the end of item (f) of Section 4.3.2 - [B]:

“including any expected alterations in the groundwater flow regime during and following Project

operations”

In addition, we suggest the addition of the following line item to Section 4.3.2 – [B]:

“g) potential changes to the site water balance following completion of Project operations, and

proposed mitigative measures.”

3.3 Vegetation


Overall, we found the PToR to be thorough, although as specified below, some additional clarifications

are needed. Importantly, some vegetation concepts to be used in the EIA (i.e., self-sustaining vegetation

communities, representative communities, and community capable of ecological succession) are vague

and need to be replaced with measurable parameters with thresholds that will allow the proponent and

stakeholders to determine the success or failure of reclamation.


1) Reference: Section 3.10 [A]

Question/Request: What is meant by a “conceptual” conservation and reclamation plan? This should be clear in the EIA.


Page 11

2) Reference: Section 3.10 [A] d), e)

Question/Request: The conservation and reclamation plan will consider “d) post-development land

capability with respect to … self-sustaining vegetation communities representative of the surrounding area”

and “e) a revegetation plan for the disturbed terrestrial .. areas, identifying …the management practices to

return disturbed areas to a state capable of supporting a self-sustaining vegetation community capable of

ecological succession equivalent to pre-disturbance conditions..” The concept of “self-sustaining vegetation

community” is vague. It would be more helpful to state specifically what is meant, using some

measurable parameter with a threshold showing when reclamation has been successful. For

example, one could set a threshold for similarity value (e.g. 75%) which measures the similarity in

species composition between pre- and post-disturbance communities. Having such a threshold

would allow the proponent and stakeholders to determine clearly whether reclamation had been

successful. Therefore, it will be important in the EIA to provide a list of meaningful thresholds for measuring whether a community has been successfully reclaimed. Please consider including this condition in the ToR.

The phrase “representative of the surrounding area” is also vague. How does one know when a post-disturbance community representative of the surrounding area has been achieved? Without measurable targets, it is unclear how one would determine when or if this had been

achieved. And, if the vegetation in the surrounding area is different from the pre-disturbance

vegetation, then the reclaimed community would be different from the pre-disturbance community.

One would hope that the goal of reclamation would be to ensure that the post-disturbance

vegetation types are the same or as similar as possible, as pre-disturbance vegetation. Therefore, it

will be important in the EIA to specify what measurable thresholds will be used to determine

reclamation success if comparisons to communities in the surrounding area are made.

The phrase “community capable of ecological succession” is vague. What evidence could be provided that such a community exists post-disturbance? Again, measurable targets in the

EIA would resolve this issue.

3) Reference: Section 3.10 [A] j)

Question/Request: What does “promotion of diversity” mean? With respect to vegetation,

one could interpret this statement to mean that a diverse post-development vegetation community

would be desirable, regardless of the diversity of the pre-disturbance community. However, if a

particular pre-disturbance community has low diversity it would not make sense to attempt to


Page 12

reclaim it to a diverse post-development community. It will be important to be more specific in the EIA with regards to diversity.

4) Reference: Section 3.10 [B] a)

Question/Request: A “conceptual” ELC map will be provided. Do you mean a “predicted” post-disturbance ELC map? Please be more specific in the EIA.

5) Reference: Section 4.7.1 [A]

Question/Request: How will existing vegetation be determined? Will field surveys be used in addition to air photo interpretation? Will field surveys be used to verify the accuracy of the air photo interpretation to produce an ELC map? Also, will the description of “existing vegetation” include non-native plant species? These points will be

important to include in the EIA.

6) Reference: Section 4.7.1 [B]

Question/Request: What is the difference between a peatland and wetland? Isn’t a peatland a type of wetland? Ensure that the use of terms in the EIA is accurate for clarity of

meaning.

3.4 Wildlife


1. The PToR is written in the typical format for most oil sands developments – quite generalized,

vague wording subject to interpretation, and lacking any specific targets or benchmarks of

performance over time with respect to wildlife habitat use and the successful recolonization of

disturbed landscapes by wildlife. The proposed ToR is weak in terms of the lack of specific

details. As indicated in previous ToR reviews and meetings with regulatory agencies, if the

drafting of a ToR for an EIA report is to be a meaningful part of the overall EIA process (which

does not end with the acceptance of the EIA report as being complete), then serious thought

needs to be given to considering the continuous, long-term evaluation of EIA predictions via the

establishment of dynamic benchmarks or targets for conservation, reclamation, and ultimately,

end land use (locally and regionally). Without benchmarks or targets to strive towards (which

could change over time and during the course of a project) it is not clear how UTS/TECK and


Page 13

the Government of Alberta will rise to the task of determining the relative “success” and

“effectiveness” of reclaiming the landscape and subsequent wildlife recolonization over time.

Please explain to the Mikisew Cree the local and regional measurements of

“success” and “effectiveness” of reclaiming the landscape for wildlife populations.

2. Interestingly, there are provisions for discussing potential impacts to wildlife as a result of

project influences on hydrology, hydrogeology, and from project-associated noise. Traditional

ecological knowledge and land use must also be part of the EIA report. Issues surrounding

wildlife are also part of the requirements for the conceptual Conservation and Reclamation Plan

(PToR Section 3.10 [E]) and the Environmental Management Systems and Response Plans (PToR

Section 3.11). The latter requires that plans for monitoring “success” of reclamation activities as

they apply to wildlife. Conceptually, UTS/TECK could do this if guidance is provided from

Alberta (how to measure success when dealing with wildlife). The reviewer remains sceptical

about the degree to which UTS/TECK will go in order to satisfy the conditions of the pToR. If

past reviews of EIA reports are indicative of what to expect, these conditions will not be

thoroughly addressed. The Mikisew Cree would be more than willing to provide local insight

into these issues of concern. Is UTS/TECK willing to commit to the meaningful

consideration of Mikisew Cree input when it comes to issues surrounding wildlife

(past, present and future)?

3. There is almost no indication that the proponent should consider the use of targets in

reclamation, even though reclamation will, undoubtedly, be the primary mitigation measure

proposed for wildlife. The term “targets” is used only once in the ToR (Section 3.10 (b)) when

discussing conservation and reclamation activities and how progress to achieve reclamation

targets (it appears that targets in this context are the “milestone dates” mentioned in this Term)

will be measured. It is hoped that the proponent will not use the lack of detail and vague

wording in the ToR as a means to minimize efforts in establishing any such targets. We

suggest that the following be added to the end of 3.10(d) in the PToR:

The proponent shall use regional control sites as benchmarks for comparison with reclaimed

areas, and use Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Program protocols or similar protocols if suitable

rationale and justification is provided.


Page 14

Given that cause-and-effect relationships, if any, could be established via the use of a high-quality

Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) approach, it remains unclear as to why UTS/TECK and the

Government of Alberta have apparently failed to foster this approach.

Currently there is a distinct lack of evidence on the behalf of the development community in the

Alberta Oil Sands Region that regional planning for wildlife is being done and that it works. This

fact offers little confidence for the Mikisew Cree to accept that UTS/TECK or the oil sands

development community as a whole is prepared, capable, and willing to resolve increasingly

complex environment issues. In turn, this leads to the questioning of the overall capability and

preparedness of UTS/TECK and the Alberta government to fairly, honestly and progressively

address and mitigate potentially unexpected project effects upon wildlife. Correlated to this, is

whether or not they are willing to engage the Mikisew Cree in the development of meaningful

habitat restoration programs, whether or not they are competent and capable of following

through with appropriate programs, and what level of assurance and/or compensation are they

willing to put forward in support of these programs. Please explain to the Mikisew Cree

the current status of local and regional end land use targets or benchmarks for

wildlife populations.


1) Reference: Section 4.7.3

Issue: Baseline Data Quality and Monitoring

Question/Request: The most significant concern is that there is no provision that would require

the proponent to collect data on wildlife species or populations that would ensure the

establishment of quality baseline information that could, and should, be comparable to the results of

future monitoring programs over the entire lifetime of the Project. Too often, the results of

baseline data collection in EIAs focus on data quantity rather than data quality. As such, the

opportunity to establish a quality product in terms of baseline data for wildlife is often missed.

Proponents often purport that the EIA is only the beginning of baseline data acquisition and

development and that additional data will be gathered. Given the underlying importance of

understanding baseline conditions of wildlife populations for monitoring programs in determining

cause-and-effect relationships, if any, between Project disturbance and wildlife use of the LSA and

RSA, it is important to focus on the quality of the data being gathered rather than the quantity of

data.


Page 15

The ToR contains the following provision related to wildlife monitoring:

Section 4.7.3 [A] “Describe monitoring programs that may be proposed to assess wildlife impacts from the

Project and the effectiveness of mitigation strategies and habitat enhancement measures, giving special

attention to sensitive species.”

This statement, although full of appropriate “buzz words”, is hollow and makes no reference to

local or regional conditions. Based upon past experience it is understood that actual monitoring

plan details for wildlife are not developed in sufficient detail until after the EIA report has been

deemed complete by the appropriate regulatory agencies (in this case AENV and ERCB). Although

acceptable under the pretence that the Mikisew Cree will be able to provide meaningful input into

any monitoring program at the development and implementation stages, a continued issue of

concern is with the fact that wildlife monitoring programs to date in the region fail to link the actual

results of monitoring programs with EIA baseline data and predicted impacts and effects to wildlife

habitat and temporal scenarios surrounding wildlife recolonization (whatever the goals or targets

might be). Too often it has been noted by reviewers that AENV does not even ask proponents to

design monitoring programs with this in mind; most yearly monitoring program reports that are

submitted as a condition of project approvals are simply lists of wildlife species observed through

systematic surveys or anecdotally with little to no reference being made to pre-disturbance

conditions and future benchmarks or targets associated with wildlife recolonization of either the

delineated LSA or RSA. Regionally, there are no apparent benchmarks or targets for wildlife

populations being provided by any regulatory authority. How can the Mikisew Cree, in good faith, believe that monitoring programs will be designed (1) with actual end land use and wildlife recolonization in mind and (2) actually relate the results of any monitoring programs to baseline conditions to better understand cause-and-effect relationships (if any) between the project and wildlife distribution and abundance? The Alberta Oil Sands

Region has been in varying stages of development for the last 30+ years and the understanding of

the distribution and abundance of regional wildlife populations (and monitoring programs) should be

much further along than they are currently. Please explain. In addition, it is difficult to comprehend how the relative effectiveness of mitigation strategies and

habitat enhancement measures will be described given that (a) there are no short-term or long-

term local or regional targets for wildlife recolonization and (b) nothing will have been actually

implemented, in terms of mitigation strategies and habitat enhancement measures, for some years

to come. Unless monitoring programs are to be proposed in their entirety in the EIA, describing

what could be implemented is only useful if the Mikisew Cree are to be meaningfully engaged from

the conceptual stage of monitoring program design. Is UTS/TECK willing to engage the


Page 16

Mikisew Cree, in a meaningful way, with all aspects of any proposed monitoring program(s) for wildlife?


Issue: Benchmarks and Targets

Question/Request: We suggest that the following points be added to Section 4.8.3:

[B] Provide the following information for all wildlife indicator species selected for the impact

assessment: Benchmarks and targets for wildlife populations over the lifetime of the project (3 to 5-

year incremental periods), in association with the recolonization of reclaimed landscapes and other

future development scenarios in the region. Discuss in relation to time required to recolonize and

sources for recolonization. Discuss how potential Project amendment applications relating to

increased resource extraction will impact wildlife recolonization.

Or:

[B ]Provide targets for wildlife populations over the lifetime of the project in relation to the time

required to recolonize and sources for recolonization. (as per Alberta Environment, 2007).

As discussed previously, without such targets or benchmarks to measure the effectiveness of

mitigation strategies (reclamation), the results of any monitoring program(s) for wildlife are

meaningless in the sense that the relative success of mitigation cannot be gauged.

Please explain why the requirement for targets/benchmarks has not been included in the current PToR for wildlife, unless this is captured in pToR Section 3.10 [A] or 3.11 [E]. The Mikisew Cree would envision an official request in writing for the aforementioned information from UTS/TECK to the appropriate Government of Alberta representatives or request why this information is not available for long-term planning in the Alberta Oil Sands Region.

3) Reference:

Issue: The PToR contains no provisions related to Wildlife Habitat Models

Question/Request: Habitat models, if used to evaluate impacts, should be modified or calibrated

by comparing model predictions with wildlife data from the study areas. Arguments surrounding the

use of habitat models aside, we suggest that if field or ground-truth data on habitat use by wildlife

does not correlate well with habitat models (or other assessment tools) this indicates that either


Page 17

(a) the habitat model parameters were incorrect, (b) the data collection process was flawed, or (c)

a combination of (a) and (b) resulted in invalid models. Regardless, there should be a provision in the ToR requiring meaningful baseline data collection to ensure that future monitoring programs are not jeopardized before they begin. Much too often, the

“baseline” data/conditions for wildlife distribution and abundance are full of gaps in terms of

sampling stratification and statistical analysis of wildlife habitat “use”. In turn, many models remain

to be validated by actual field data.

We suggest the addition of the following addition:

4.8.1[C]: Habitat models used to evaluate impacts should be modified/calibrated by comparing

model predictions with wildlife data from the Study Areas. If field data do not correlate with habitat

models, the habitat model parameters should be revised (at minimum) and the data collection

process should be revisited. If data are deemed insufficient in establishing a meaningful baseline

scenario for wildlife populations, additional data collection will be required to demonstrate due

diligence on behalf of the proponent prior to the EIA being deemed complete.

Also, in support of the acquisition of the best-available baseline data for wildlife, we suggest the following additional requirement to 4.8.1:

Provide rationale behind sampling protocols and field methods implemented.


Issue: Wildlife Health

Question/Request: The health of wildlife populations is of paramount importance to First Nations

to ensure the continued traditional use of this natural resource. Too often, wildlife health is

ignored or lacking important detail that is relevant to the continued traditional use of First Nations.

Often only a few (if any) species are selected for some sort of model.

We suggest that the follow changes be made in the ToR:

4.8.2(b)i) potential effects on wildlife as a result of changes to air and water quality, including both acute

and chronic effects on, at minimum, all wildlife Key Indicator Resources. Meaningful consideration of

First Nation input is required.


Issue: Ecosystem Shifts


Page 18

Question/Request: Ecosystem shifts are likely to occur in areas where disturbance approaches

50% of the landscape. It is currently not clear in the Alberta Oil Sands Region whether recovery

through adaptive and progressive reclamation will happen rapidly enough to avoid ecosystem shifts.

To date, the crutch of development proponents and the government has been that there is a lot of

time to develop all of the necessary approaches. Given that oil and gas development has been

ongoing over the past 30+ years, immediate go-forward decisions are required of the regulatory

agencies. Addressing ecosystem shifts may require much more effort and yet to be developed

processes than has been proposed in the Alberta Oil Sands Region to date. Regional shifts to new

ecosystems in ten to twenty years will greatly alter the conditions for reclamation and natural

recruitment of vegetation and wildlife species. As such, the following addition to the ToR is requested:

4.8.2 [E] Provide the following information for all wildlife indicator species selected for the impact

assessment: Discussion and consideration of the effects of ecosystem shifts with respect to

reclamation success, prediction confidence, and wildlife recolonization of the LSA and RSA.


Issue: Residual Impacts

Question/Request: The PToR has the following provision:

4.8.2[D] Describe the residual effects of the Project on wildlife and wildlife habitat in both the Local Study

Area and Regional Study Area and the plans to manage those effects.

We suggest the following changes:

4.8.2[D] Describe the predicted residual effects of the Project for wildlife Key Indicator Species and

habitat in both the Local Study Area and Regional Study Area and the plans to manage those effects.

Provide rationale for mitigation measures selected, including examples of their success in the oil

sands region.

3.5 Air Quality


Overall the ToR was extensive regarding the air quality impacts. There was however, a few comments

regarding the lack of specific detailed information required in the air quality section.


Page 19


1) Reference: Section 3.3, Evaluation of Alternatives, 3.3.2, Process and Infrastructure

Alternatives, Pages 3-4.

Question/Request: Under water treatment (F) it is asked for preferred selection of best available

technologies. There was no clear connection with air emissions and the project infrastructure

asking for Best Available Control Technologies (BACT) or even Best Available Control Technologies

Economically Available (BACTEA). Please add to the condition a request to evaluate the

best available air emission control technologies.

2) Reference: Section 3.7, Air Emissions Management, Pages 5-6.

Concern: There is detailed information being requested in this ToR, however of the nine

sections of information required under the Air Emissions Management, there is no request for a

Quality Assurance Plan (QAP), as required by Alberta Environment for any facility monitoring

ambient air (Air Monitoring Directive). Please add a request for the facility to prepare a

QAP.

a. Under section ‘f’ there is a need to address control technologies for sulphur dioxide,

hydrogen sulphide, oxides of nitrogen, greenhouse gases, volatile organic compounds,

and particulate matter. There was no distinct ‘request’ for BACT or BACTEA,

if this is not the evaluation criteria, what will be?

3) Reference: Section 3.12, Regional and Cooperative Initiatives, Pages 8-9.

Concern: Under section ‘B’ there is a request to discuss what monitoring will be done

independently and what will be done on conjunction with others. Is this referring to joining the

Wood Buffalo Environmental Association (WBEA)? If so, why not state this as an

option – to join the airshed?

4) Reference: Section 4.2, Air Quality, Climate and Noise, 4.2.1, Baseline Information, Page 11.

Concern: Under the Air Emissions Management section (3.7) the condition requires a discussion of

control technologies used to minimize air emissions such as sulphur dioxide, hydrogen sulphide,

oxides of nitrogen, greenhouse gases, volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter. However

in the baseline review (4.2.1), additional information is required for total hydrocarbons, individual

hydrocarbons of concern, and heavy metals. Is there no concern for emissions of these

additional parameters and that is why they were not included in section 3.7? Will there


Page 20

be a need to address potential emissions from these parameters in addition to those

identified in section 3.7?

5) Reference: Section 4.2, Air Quality, Climate and Noise, 4.2.2, Impact Assessment, Pages 11-

12.

Concern: In other sections under the Impact Assessment there is a requirement to discuss any

potential changes in quality that may result in exceeding existing guidelines. Why in the Air

Impact Assessments was there no requirement to discuss potential exceedances of the

Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives or the Canada Wide Standards? Is it expected

that this issue will be addressed in the Air Quality Modeling exercise, or should it be

commented in this section?

In section ‘D’ there is a requirement to describe how air quality will be mitigated – is the

expectation BACT or BACTEA?

6) Reference: Section 4.2, Air Quality, Climate and Noise, 4.2.3, Monitoring, Pages 12.

Concern: Please add a requirement for reporting. How will the data from the

monitoring be disseminated to the public or other interested parties? Will there be a

requirement for public meetings, web-accessed data, CASA submitted data, etc.?

3.6 Socio-economics and Traditional Knowledge


In the last few years the Provincial Government has produced a document called “Alberta’s First

Nations Consultation Guidelines on Land Management and Resources Development” last updated on

November 14, 2007. This document includes information on the delegation of consultation to the

Proponent of an oil sands project. It also directly ties the approval process of a project to the adequacy

of consultation. It states that “Where approval is given to move forward, consultation is deemed to be

adequate.” The policy also states that the Alberta Government decides who is affected, how they must

be consulted and that the Government has the authority to decide if consultation has been adequate.

The policy loads the Proponent with consultation responsibilities and decides if the responsibilities are

properly met by the proponent. It states that accommodation will be provided through the regulatory


Page 21

process as well. In summary, these Guidelines set the proponent’s obligations whose direct

requirements are then outlined in any ToR.

With the new Alberta Provincial Guidelines, the ToR has taken on a much more important role in

meeting the Crown Consultation requirements for aboriginal peoples. The UTS/TECK Frontier PToR

generally does not address this issue and is flawed throughout. Given the constitutional significance of

the ToR, this review will focus on the omissions in the PToR specifically dealing with aboriginal

traditional land use, TEK and socio-economic effects of the project. This also includes omissions of

consultation in these areas and related omissions in other areas on which the Project has effects which

are related to traditional land use culture and socio-economics of the First Nation.

The concerns raised by First Nations and documented as per Section 2 of the pToR need to be used in

designing both the project and the EIA to ensure that all impacts potentially significant to traditional

resource use are identified and alleviated. The overarching concerns of the First Nations relate to the

deprivation of traditional rights. However, these concerns are not part of the scoping exercise that

would precede the EIA in order to shape it. In other words, by the time the proponent identifies the

concerns (if at all), the EIA is done.


1) Reference: Section 1.1 [B], Page 1

Question/Request: On page 1 of the ToR under [B], the term used is “appropriate stakeholders”.

This statement typifies one of the most important errors in the ToR which is the treatment of the

Mikisew Cree First Nation (and other First Nations) as stakeholders rather than rights holders.

There is a large difference between these two categories. The First Nations hold priority rights to

continue their traditional occupations. The Supreme Court decisions provide for a consultation

process which the Crown is required to follow in order to justify infringements of these rights.

When this process is not followed, it puts the project Proponent in a compromised position.

In previous applications, in absence of direct participation by the Alberta Provincial Government in a

consultation process, Proponents have expanded their interface with Aboriginal groups in hopes of

satisfying Aboriginal concerns. Since the Alberta Guidelines were officially released, the Alberta

Provincial Government now delegates extensive responsibilities to the Proponents to consult with

First Nations. As a result the new ToR includes sections on First Nations Consultation as on page 2

of the current Draft.


Page 22

However, the consultation included in Section 2 (Page 2) is structured like a stakeholder

consultation process rather than a process that would be followed to meet the concerns of rights

holders. Proper consultation must include not only communications but the Crown must consider

and meaningfully integrate the First Nation’s concerns in the decisions that are made. We recommend that consultation also include accommodation and mitigation of the effects. The ToR should include provisions that permit appropriate consultation as defined by the Supreme Court.

2) Reference: Introduction Question/Request: Since the ToR must include Crown consultation provisions, many sections of

the ToR need to be revised to provide for such consultation. The Mikisew Cree would be affected

by land management, air emissions, effects on water resources, surface water, reclamation and

almost all of the other headings under the ToR. Since the ToR was not written specifically to

respond to Aboriginal rights, most of the sections do not address the appropriate concerns of the

Mikisew Cree.

3) Reference: Section 3.6, Land Management, Page 5

Question/Request: Under the section of the ToR entitled land management, the Mikisew Cree are

concerned about access to lands by other land users who will infringe upon traditional land use

activities. This section should refer to aboriginal concerns with access.

4) Reference: 3.8 Water Resources, Page 6

Question/Request: The Mikisew Cree should be consulted with respect to surface water

management and its effect on long term traditional use. The section should specifically refer to aboriginal concerns.

5) Reference: 3.10 Conservation and Reclamation

Question/Request: The Mikisew Cree should be consulted with respect to Reclamation;

specifically in paragraph a, there should be a reference to traditional land uses in the pre-development reclamation plan.

6) Reference: Paragraph d, Page 7

Question/Request: The consultation with Mikisew Cree should include post-development planning to accommodate traditional land use according to the First Nation’s priority rights.

7) Reference: In section 3.11, page 8


Page 23

Question/Request: All of the monitoring and management systems should include community based monitoring and integrate Mikisew Cree management systems into the plans. As an independent regulatory authority, the First Nation should be included in the

administration of these systems.

8) Reference: Section 3.12, a, page 8

Question/Request: The ToR should acknowledge that the First Nations such as the Mikisew Cree as “resource users” and should be included according to their priority status within regional initiatives.

9) Reference: Section 3.12, c, page 9

Question/Request: Monitoring should be done in cooperation with the Mikisew Cree and other First Nations.

10) Reference: Page 9, Sections 4.1.2.

Question/Request: Any study areas must be chosen so that the cumulative impacts on First Nation traditional land use can be measured.

11) Reference: Page 10, Section 4.1.3, Cumulative Effects Assessment

Question/Request: The Cumulative effects assessment does not take into consideration

cumulative impacts on First Nation land use. Also, the cumulative effects are only measured with

other existing and planned projects and not including all of the industrial effects on aboriginal land

use in the area. The baseline should be pre-industrial.


Question/Request: A list of Information Requirements is included in this section but it is missing

information. Please include the information required to determine the impacts on aboriginal land use in the area from the beginning of area development. In order to

perform proper Crown consultation, this information is required.

13) Reference: Pages 11-20 inclusive

Question/Request: In each section including aquatic ecology, surface water quality, vegetation,

wildlife, fragmentation, soils, and land use other than traditional land use there will be effects on

aboriginal rights. Please include a requirement to include the discussion or research on the effects on aboriginal rights in these disciplines.

14) Reference: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Land Use, page 20


Page 24

Question/Request: In the section Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Land Use, the ToR asks

for the Proponent to provide the extent of traditional use of land in the LOCAL STUDY AREA

only. This section goes on to ask for traditional uses by affected aboriginal peoples, historic

resources, and how the TEK was gathered and incorporated into the assessment. The ToR does

not ask for an assessment of cumulative impacts on the traditional lands use of the Mikisew Cree or

any other First Nations. Yet in order to complete a proper consultation process before any project

is approved, such a cumulative impact analysis must be done. The fact that this is not included in the

ToR puts any approval by the ERCB in jeopardy since this process must now include appropriate

Crown consultation. Please include this requirement.

15) Reference: Section 8.3 Impact Assessment

Question/Request: The impacts on the Aboriginal communities will require specific socio-

economic studies of aboriginal communities. These studies are not specifically mentioned in the

ToR and have been omitted from other proposals where it was not specifically required in the ToR.

Please include socio-economic studies in the ToR.

4.0 Closure The discipline reviews outline some overarching items for discussion between AENV, the proponent and

the Mikisew Cree. In addition, specific changes recommended for the PToR are provided that would

make the proponent more accountable and assist in alleviating the uncertainty the Mikisew Cree have

with the current approach to local and regional planning.

5.0 Literature Cited Alberta Environment. 2007. Final Terms of Reference – Environmental Impact Assessment for the

Suncor Energy Inc Voyageur South Project – Approximately 15 km North of Fort McMurray, Alberta.

Issues by Alberta Environment July 19, 2007.

Benson MA 1973: Thoughts on the design of design floods, in Floods and Droughts, Proc. 2nd Intern.

Symp. In Hydrology, pp. 27-33, Water Resources Publications, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Calgary Herald 2008: Suncor spills oil in northern river. Article by Adrian Morrow in News, May 29,

2008. On June 18 available at: http://www.albertaliberal.com/images/uploads/Clippings_20080529.pdf


Page 25

Canadian Dam Association 1998: Dam safety guidelines. Edmonton, Alberta.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 2002: Engineering guidelines for the evaluation of hydropower

projects. Washington, D.C. 644 p. Available from:

http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/safety/eng-guide.asp

Headley JV and McMartin DW 2004: Review of the occurrence and fate of naphthenic acids in aquatic

environments. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A – Toxic/Hazardous Substances and

Environmental Engineering 39(8): 1989-2010.

McMartin DW, Headtey JV, Friesen, Duane A., Peru KM and Gillies JA 2004: Photolysis of naphthenic

acids in natural surface water. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A – Toxic/Hazardous

Substances & Environmental Engineering 39(6): 1361-83.

Pietroniro A, Halliday R, Kouwen N, Burn DH, Lin C and Figliuzzi S 2004: Floods. In: Environment

Canada 2004: Threats to Water Availability in Canada. National Water Research Institute, Burlington,

Ontario. NWRI Scientific Assessment Report Series No. 3 and ACSD Science Assessment Series No. 1.

128 p.

Shell Canada Ltd. 2004: The Athabasca Oil Sands Project, Public Affairs, Athabasca Oil Sands Project,

Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Timoney, KP 2007: A study of water and sediment quality as related to public health issues, Fort

Chipewyan, Alberta. Treeline Ecological Research, Sherwood Park, Alberta, 82 p.

Wood, C. 2003. Environmental Impact Assessment; a Comparative Review; 2nd Edition, Prentice Hall,

Edinburgh.

World Meteorological Organization 1986: Manual for estimation of probable maximum precipitation.

Operational Hydrology Report No. 1, WMO No. 332, Geneva, Switzerland.

Yapa PD and Shen HT 1994: Modelling river oil spills: A review. Journal of Hydraulic Research 32 (5):

765-782.

UTS Energy Corp. Equinox and Frontier Proposed Terms of Reference Consideration of Comments Received from the Mikisew Cree First Nation The following explains Alberta Environment (AENV)’s views on some of the general comments and questions asked in the Mikisew Cree First Nation’s review of the Terms of Reference. Comment Result of Consideration 1 Executive Summary

Hydrology Include a higher level of detail as required in many previous ToRs.

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. Proponents and consultants have considerable experience in EIA work and therefore the TOR do not require the level of detail suggested.

2 Executive Summary Hydrology Follow a certain standard in both wording and organization for the format of the ToR

Comment accepted. AENV has developed sector-based standardized TOR.

3 Executive Summary Hydrology Require that all monitoring, modelling and assessment data be made accessible to all Albertans for review, analysis and discussion.

See final TOR clause 2.11[F] “Describe how the monitoring data will be disseminated to the public or other interested parties”.

4 Executive Summary Hydrology Require that the Regional Study Area must include major water bodies previously excluded from oil sands EIAs

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. If the assessment indicates that there is an effect on any aquatic resources, our expectation is that the Proponent would include it.

5 Executive Summary Hydrology Require oil spill dispersion analyses for the full range of streamflow conditions, from low flow conditions, to mean or median runoff, to conditions found during spring flood. Analyses should also be carried out for different spillage volumes and a range of representative substances that could be spilled during normal and worst-case flooding conditions.

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. AENV viewed the comment as requesting more detail than is required for an EIA report.

6 Executive Summary Hydrology Require provision of detailed information on the soil water balances and their behaviour during flood and multi-year drought events.


7 Executive Summary Hydrologyl Include a more rigorous flood level than the 1:100 year flood.


1

Comment Result of Consideration 8 Executive Summary

Hydrology Include a condition to evaluate the streamflow changes during the various stages of the project which is in other ToRs.


9 Executive Summary Hydrology Include a condition for the discussion about climate change impacts in the planning of the project.

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. AENV viewed the TOR as inclusive of this item. See final TOR clause 3.2.2[B].

10 Executive Summary Hydrology Include a requirement for providing baseline soil moisture parameters.

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. AENV viewed the TOR as inclusive of this item. See final TOR Clause 3.10.1[A]f).

11 Executive Summary Hydrogeology The geotechnical concerns addressed are essentially independent of potential groundwater protection issues relating to the site selection for waste disposal facilities, and thus warrant a separate line item.

Comment accepted. See final TOR clause 2.3.2[M]d).

12 Executive Summary Hydrogeology Extend the condition for documenting the existing geologic and hydrogeologic information from the ground surface down to the formations below the producing and/or disposal formations which may also be impacted by the oil sands project.

Comment accepted. See final TOR clause 3.3.1[A].

13 Executive Summary Vegetation Some vegetation concepts to be used in the EIA are vague and need to be replaced with measurable parameters with thresholds that will allow the proponent and stakeholders to determine the success or failure of reclamation.

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. Because the EIA report is Proponent driven AENV does not generally specify how the assessment is to be conducted. The Proponent must select and provide a rationale for the selection of: Project technology, including the alternatives and the reasons for selecting the preferred approach Study areas used to determine effects Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) or Key Indicator Resources (KIRs) used to determine effects Models used to determine effects Impact rating criteria.

2


Vegetation Include a condition that is more specific in its definition of diversity when discussing pre- and post-development conditions.


15 Executive Summary Vegetation Include a condition that requires a description of how existing vegetation will be determined.

In Alberta’s environmental assessment system the Proponent determines how and when data collection will be done in support of the EIA. AENV encourages use of best practices and professional judgment in determining appropriate methodology. AENV encourages Proponents to discuss data collection requirements with relevant government departments, First Nations and stakeholders..

16 Executive Summary Vegetation Ensure that the use of terms in the EIA is accurate for clarity of meaning. For example, clarify definition between peatland and wetland.

Comment accepted. A peatland is a type of wetland, therefore the term wetland is appropriate and is the term that will be used.

17 Executive Summary Wildlife Include a condition that requires setting specific targets or benchmarks of performance over time with respect to wildlife habitat use and the successful recolonization of disturbed landscapes by wildlife.

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. This is broader government policy and not related to EIA. The Mikisew Cree should discuss with SRD how they wish to provide input on the EIA and subsequent project operations.

18 Executive Summary Wildlife Include a condition that requires monitoring programs be designed (1) with actual end land use and wildlife recolonization in mind and (2) actually relate the results of any monitoring programs to baseline conditions to better understand cause-and-effect relationships (if any) between the project and wildlife distribution and abundance.

AENV encourages the Mikisew Cree to share information, knowledge and concerns with UTS/Teck Cominco to ensure they are able to prepare a high quality EIA report.

3


Wildlife Include a condition that requires First Nation consultation and input for monitoring programs.

AENV encourages the Mikisew Cree to share information, knowledge and concerns with UTS/Teck Cominco to ensure they are able to prepare a high quality EIA report. The Mikisew Cree should discuss with UTS/Teck Comino how they wish to provide input on the EIA and subsequent project operations.

20 Executive Summary Wildlife Include a condition that requires more specific details regarding information gathering on wildlife health which is important for the continued traditional use of First Nations.

Comment partially accepted. See final TOR clause 3.8.2[B]b)i). AENV encourages the Mikisew Cree to share information, knowledge and concerns with UTS/Teck Cominco to ensure they are able to prepare a high quality EIA report.

21 Executive Summary Wildlife Include a condition that requires the discussion and consideration of the effects of ecosystem shifts with respect to reclamation success, prediction confidence, and wildlife recolonization of the LSA and RSA.

AENV viewed the TOR as mostly inclusive of this item. See final TOR clauses 2.10[A]d)ii), 3.8.2[B]b), 3.8.2[E] and 3.1.5[A]b).

22 Executive Summary Air Quality Add a condition to request an evaluation of the best available air emission control technologies.

Comment accepted. See final TOR clause 2.3.2 [I].

23 Executive Summary Air Quality Include the request for a Quality Assurance Plan (QAP), as required by Alberta Environment for any facility monitoring ambient air (Air Monitoring Directive).

No change to the TOR were made in response to this comment. This is an approval level requirement.

24 Executive Summary Air Quality Add a requirement for reporting that describes how the monitoring data will be disseminated to the public and other interested parties.

See final TOR clause 2.11[F] “Describe how the monitoring data will be disseminated to the public or other interested parties”.

4


Socio-economics and Traditional Resource Use The consultation included in Section 2 (Page 2) is structured like a stakeholder consultation process rather than a process that would be followed to meet the concerns of rights holders such as the Mikisew Cree. Proper consultation must include not only communications but the Crown must consider and meaningfully integrate the First Nation’s concerns in the decisions that are made.

No change to the TOR were made in response to this comment. The TOR already have a section dedicated to consultation. See final TOR section 1. AENV encourages the Mikisew Cree to share information, knowledge and concerns with the Proponent to ensure they are able to prepare a high quality EIA report.

26 Executive Summary Socio-economics and Traditional Resource Use The concerns raised by First Nations and documented as per Section 2 of the pToR need to be used in designing both the project and the EIA to ensure that all impacts potentially significant to traditional resource use are identified and alleviated.

No change to the TOR were made in response to this comment. AENV encourages the Mikisew Cree to share information, knowledge and concerns with the Proponent to ensure they are able to prepare a high quality EIA report.

27 Executive Summary Socio-economics and Traditional Resource Use In the section under land management, include a condition requiring a discussion of aboriginal concerns regarding access to lands by other land users who will infringe upon traditional land use activities.

Comment accepted. See Final TOR clause 3.11.2[A]i). Also see final TOR clauses 3.8.2[B]c),and 5[A]d).

28 Executive Summary Socio-economics and Traditional Resource Use Include a requirement to consult with First Nation with respect to surface water management and its effect on long term traditional use.

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. The TOR already have sections dedicated to consultation and TEK. See final TOR sections 1 and 5. AENV encourages the Mikisew Cree to share information, knowledge and concerns with UTS/Teck Cominco to ensure they are able to prepare a high quality EIA report.

29 Executive Summary Socio-economics and Traditional Resource Use Include specific conditions for consultation with First Nation with respect to reclamation and monitoring programs which must require a demonstration that the views of First Nations on final land capability be integrated as benchmarks and targets.

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. AENV viewed the TOR as partially inclusive if this item. See final TOR clauses 1[C] and 5[A]d)ii). The development of benchmarks and targets is not the responsibility of the proponent and an EIA is not the proper venue for their development.

30 Executive Summary Socio-economics and Traditional Resource Use The ToR should acknowledge that the First Nations such as the Mikisew Cree as “resource users” and should be included according to their priority status within regional initiatives.

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. EIAs are not intended to be specific to the effects on any one community.

5


Socio-economics and Traditional Resource Use Include a requirement that the cumulative effects assessment consider cumulative impacts on First Nation land use, showing specifically how the cumulative impacts will be alleviated to accommodate the First Nation use of traditional resources in the region.

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. AENV encourages the Mikisew Cree to share information, knowledge and concerns with UTS/Teck Cominco to ensure they are able to prepare a high quality EIA report.information.

32 Executive Summary Socio-economics and Traditional Resource Use Include a requirement to show regional targets and benchmarks so that the incremental deprivation of traditional use in the region caused by the proposed project can be evaluated.

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. The development of benchmarks and targets is not the responsibility of the proponent and an EIA is not the proper venue for their development.

33 Executive Summary Socio-economics and Traditional Resource Use Include a condition that requires specific socio-economic studies of aboriginal communities be completed.

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. EIAs are not intended to be specific to the effects on any one community. AENV encourages the Mikisew Cree to share information, knowledge and concerns with UTS/Teck Cominco to ensure they are able to prepare a high quality EIA report.

34 3.1 Hydrology 3.1.1 General Comments This PToR is much less detailed than many previous Terms of References for similar projects. The lack of required detail poses a serious threat that important information can be omitted, and potential impacts would not have to be discussed. The lack of detail with regard to baseline information, floods, spillages, climate change, trend analyses, risk assessment and reclamation are serious and negligent. We recommend that the Mikisew Cree request the inclusion of a higher level of detail as required in many previous Terms of References.

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. Proponents and consultants have considerable experience in EIA work and therefore the TOR do not require the level of detail suggested.

35 State-of-the-art scientific investigations, including modelling and monitoring, are no longer requested. Please include this requirement in the PToR. The Mikisew Cree are highly concerned that the requested standards for environmental impacts assessments are declining, with the potential for subsequent increased environmental impacts.

Comment accepted. See final TOR clause 3.1.5[A]a).

6

Comment Result of Consideration 36 The organization of the PToR is different from previous PToRs. It would be

beneficial to Albertans, and particularly the reviewers of an EIA, if Alberta Environment would follow a certain standard in both wording and organization. This would constitute the foundation for • the standardization of the content and organization of the EIA for different companies and different projects, • more transparency in the evolution of the ToRs, • the evaluation of the impact of our reviews, • the assurance that important points, considered in earlier ToRs, are not omitted.

AENV has developed Standardised TOR for each major industrial sector. The TOR for Frontier and Equinox were based on the new Standardised TOR. These Standardised TOR have been in use for several of the recent projects. AENV has also developed a Guide to Providing Comments on Proposed Terms of Reference and a Guide to Preparing Environmental Impact Assessments in Alberta.

37 3.1.2 Specific Issues of Potential Concern 1) Reference: Section 1.2 Scope Question/Request: The Alberta public has the right to access raw data and information about a project that may seriously alter their environment, lifestyle and health. Please add the following sentence (underlined) to point 1.2 [A]: “[A] UTS and Teck Cominco will prepare and submit an EIA report that examines the environmental and socio-economic effects of the Project. Data that are gathered through monitoring, modelling and assessment should be made available to a central data warehouse, which should be accessible to all stakeholders for review, analysis and discussion.” In addition, add the following point: [I] Provide all monitoring, modelling and assessment data to a central data warehouse, and make the data warehouse accessible to all Albertans for review, analysis and discussion.

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. This comment is too prescriptive for inclusion in the TOR. See final TOR clause 2.11[F] “Describe how the monitoring data will be disseminated to the public or other interested parties”.

7

Comment Result of Consideration 38 Oil spills during oil sands operations are common, but are often not adequately

reported. There is overwhelming evidence that Lake Athabasca has rising levels of contaminants related to oil sands operations. The contamination sites must be identified in the EIA in consultation with and to the satisfaction of the Mikisew Cree. The Mikisew Cree requests that, until such time as when the oil spill dispersion study results are available (as requested below), the Regional Study Area must include major water bodies previously excluded from oil sands EIAs. Please add the following sentence to point 1.2 [B]: [B] The Study Area for the EIA shall include the Project Area, as well as, the spatial and temporal limits of individual environmental components outside the Project Area boundaries where an effect can be reasonably expected. The Study Area includes both the Local Study Area and Regional Study Area. The Regional Study Area must include the Peace Athabasca Delta (PAD) and Lake Athabasca. Locations where previous contaminations from spills of oil sands operations were observed will be identified in the EIA.

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. If the assessment indicates that there is an effect on the Peace-Athabasca Delta or other aquatic resources, our expectation is that the Proponent would include it.

39 2) Reference: Section 3.11 Environmental Management Systems And Response Plans We recommend that the Mikisew Cree request that the oil spill dispersion analyses be transparent, and that all relevant data and results are made available to Albertans. Please add the following point: [G] Discuss, based in state-of-the-art scientific modeling and field studies, the fate of an oil spill or other potentially harmful substances from the potential point of origin all the way downstream, including the Peace-Athabasca-Delta and Lake Athabasca.

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. If the assessment indicates that there is an effect on the Peace-Athabasca Delta or other aquatic resources, our expectation is that the Proponent would include it.

8

Comment Result of Consideration 40 3) Reference: Section 3.8.1 Water Supply

Please add the following points: h) a seasonal hydrological water balance for each distinct land unit and each phase of the Project, including actual evaporation, soil water, and runoff. Discuss the assumptions made or methods chosen to arrive at the water balance; During low flows, water supplies from the Athabasca River can be restricted. We recommend adding this condition: i) contingency plans when the instream flow needs of the Athabasca River require the reduction or interruption of pumping water from the Athabasca River.

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. AENV viewed the comment as requesting more detail than is required for an EIA report. Comment accepted. See final TOR clause 2.8.1[A]e).

41 4) Reference: Section 3.8.2 Surface Water Management We recommend that the Mikisew Cree request the inclusion of the previously used formulation, however, with a much more rigorous flood level than the 1:100 year flood. Since Alberta Environment has used and defined the Probable Maximum Flood, this must be used as the design standard to avoid oil spillages and severe contamination of downstream water bodies. Please replace the following point x): [A] Describe the surface water management strategy for the construction, operation, decommissioning and reclamation stages, including: a) design factors considered, such as: x) flood protection; with this point: x) the 1:4000 year flood level or the Probable Maximum Flood; including the potential for flooding during heavy precipitation events and spring runoff. Address the effects of Probable Maximum Flood and precipitation events on ponds, containment structures and infrastructure;


9

Comment Result of Consideration 42 5) Reference: Section 3.8.2 Surface Water Management

Please add the following point: [A] y) the pre- and post-disturbance alignment and condition of all ephemeral and permanent streams and waterbodies, including those created by the Project. Consider the entire flow frequency distribution presented as changes in exceedance curve, relate these to potential changes in fluvial dynamics across the range in flows;

Comment partially accepted. See final TOR clause 2.8.2c). AENV viewed the remainder of the comment as requesting more detail than is required for an EIA report.

43 6) Reference: Section 4.4.1 Baseline Information Please add the following point: [B] c) trend analyses of low, average and peak levels.

Comment accepted. See final TOR clause 3.4.1[C].

44 7) Reference: Section 4.4.1 Baseline Information Add the following point: [B] d) climate change impacts on surface water hydrology.

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. AENV viewed the TOR as inclusive of this item. See final TOR clause 3.2.2[B].

45 8) Reference: Section 4.10.1 Baseline Information Please add the following point: f) description of the soil water characteristics of all soils in the Study Area.

Oil sands mine soil assessments include determination of capability ratings using the Land Capability Classification System for Forested Ecosystems. One of the components in the rating is water holding capacity. Therefore this requirement is adequately covered.

46 3.2 Hydrogeology Section 3.2 – Project Development Please add the following line item “extent of mine pit excavation in each phase of the project”.

Comment accepted. See final TOR clause 2.2[A]b).

47 2) Reference: Section 3.3.2 – Process Infrastructure Alternatives Question/Request: Item [H] – (c) is currently worded as follows: “site suitability from a groundwater perspective (provide geo-technical information to support the siting of disposal facilities).” Please add the following: “the geotechnical suitability of any proposed waste disposal facilities”

Comment accepted. See final TOR clause 2.3.2[M]d).

48 3) Reference: 3.4 Project Processes and Facilities Question/Request: Please include “proposed mining excavation(s)” as a line item.

Comment accepted. See final TOR clause 2.4[A]b).

49 4) Reference: 3.10 Conservation and Reclamation Question/Request: We suggest adding a line item to Section 3.10 [A] as follows: “remediation of any impacted water supply aquifers.”

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. AENV viewed the TOR as inclusive of this item. See final TOR clause 3.3.2[C].

10

Comment Result of Consideration 50 5) Reference: 3.11 Environmental Management Systems & Response Plan

Question/Request: We suggest adding “groundwater” to the Section 3.11 – [E] line item: “Provide a conceptual plan to monitor reclamation success (including soils, vegetation, wildlife, groundwater, and aquatic resources.”

Comment accepted. See final TOR clause 2.11[E].

51 6) Reference: 4.3 Hydrogeology / 4.3.2 Impact Assessment Please add the following wording: “Provide an overview of the existing geologic and hydrogeologic setting from the ground surface down to and including the oil producing and wastewater disposal zones, and if applicable, to the base of any deeper strata that would be potentially impacted by mining and/or wastewater disposal operations.”

Comment accepted. See final TOR clause 3.3.1[A].

52 We suggest adding the following to the end of item (f) of Section 4.3.2 - [B]: “including any expected alterations in the groundwater flow regime during and following Project operations”

Comment accepted. See final TOR clause 3.3.2[B]f).

53 In addition, we suggest the addition of the following line item to Section 4.3.2 – [B]: “g) potential changes to the site water balance following completion of Project operations, and proposed mitigative measures.”

Comment accepted. See final TOR clause 3.3.2[B]g).

54 3.3 Vegetation 1) Reference: Section 3.10 [A] Question/Request: What is meant by a “conceptual” conservation and reclamation plan? This should be clear in the EIA.

Industry is aware of the expected scope and content of a conceptual reclamation plan.

11

Comment Result of Consideration 55 2) Reference: Section 3.10 [A] d), e)

The conservation and reclamation plan will consider “d) post-development land capability with respect to … self-sustaining vegetation communities representative of the surrounding area” and “e) a revegetation plan for the disturbed terrestrial .. areas, identifying …the management practices to return disturbed areas to a state capable of supporting a self-sustaining vegetation community capable of ecological succession equivalent to pre-disturbance conditions..” The concept of “self-sustaining vegetation community” is vague. It would be more helpful to state specifically what is meant, using some measurable parameter with a threshold showing when reclamation has been successful. For example, one could set a threshold for similarity value (e.g. 75%) which measures the similarity in species composition between pre- and post-disturbance communities. Having such a threshold would allow the proponent and stakeholders to determine clearly whether reclamation had been successful. Therefore, it will be important in the EIA to provide a list of meaningful thresholds for measuring whether a community has been successfully reclaimed. Please consider including this condition in the ToR.


56 2) Reference: Section 3.10 [A] d) The phrase “representative of the surrounding area” is also vague. How does one know when a post-disturbance community representative of the surrounding area has been achieved? Without measurable targets, it is unclear how one would determine when or if this had been achieved. And, if the vegetation in the surrounding area is different from the pre-disturbance vegetation, then the reclaimed community would be different from the pre-disturbance community. One would hope that the goal of reclamation would be to ensure that the post-disturbance vegetation types are the same or as similar as possible, as pre-disturbance vegetation. Therefore, it will be important in the EIA to specify what measurable thresholds will be used to determine reclamation success if comparisons to communities in the surrounding area are made.

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. Because the EIA report is Proponent driven AENV does not generally specify how the assessment is to be conducted. The Proponent must select and provide a rationale for the selection of: Project technology, including the alternatives and the reasons for selecting the preferred approach Study areas used to determine effects Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) or Key Indicator Resources (KIRs) used to determine effects Models used to determine effects Impact rating criteria. Proponents are also expected to follow the relevant guidance documents, best practices and the work of CEMA when completing the assessment.

12

Comment Result of Consideration 57 2) Reference: Section 3.10 [A] e)

The phrase “community capable of ecological succession” is vague. What evidence could be provided that such a community exists post-disturbance? Again, measurable targets in the EIA would resolve this issue.

CEMA’s Soil Vegetation Working Group continues to develop recommendations for reclamation targets, including vegetation. Once approved these expectations can be incorporated into operating approvals.

58 3) Reference: Section 3.10 [A] j) What does “promotion of diversity” mean? With respect to vegetation, one could interpret this statement to mean that a diverse post-development vegetation community would be desirable, regardless of the diversity of the pre-disturbance community. However, if a particular pre-disturbance community has low diversity it would not make sense to attempt to reclaim it to a diverse post-development community. It will be important to be more specific in the EIA with regards to diversity.

CEMA’s Soil Vegetation Working Group continues to develop recommendations for reclamation targets, including diversity. Once approved these expectations can be incorporated into operating approvals.

59 4) Reference: Section 3.10 [B] a) Question/Request: A “conceptual” ELC map will be provided. Do you mean a “predicted” post-disturbance ELC map? Please be more specific in the EIA.

Comment accepted. See final TOR clause 2.10[B]a).

60 5) Reference: Section 4.7.1 [A] How will existing vegetation be determined? Will field surveys be used in addition to air photo interpretation? Will field surveys be used to verify the accuracy of the air photo interpretation to produce an ELC map? Also, will the description of “existing vegetation” include non-native plant species? These points will be important to include in the EIA.

In Alberta’s environmental assessment system the Proponent determines how and when data collection will be done in support of the EIA. AENV encourages use of best practices and professional judgment in determining appropriate methodology. AENV encourages Proponents to discuss data collection requirements with relevant government departments, First Nations and stakeholders.

61 6) Reference: Section 4.7.1 [B] Question/Request: What is the difference between a peatland and wetland? Isn’t a peatland a type of wetland? Ensure that the use of terms in the EIA is accurate for clarity of meaning.

Comment accepted. A peatland is a type of wetland, therefore the term wetland is appropriate and is the term that will be used.

62 3.4 Wildlife Please explain to the Mikisew Cree the local and regional measurements of “success” and “effectiveness” of reclaiming the landscape for wildlife populations.

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. This is based on broader government policy and not related to EIA. The Mikisew Cree should discuss with SRD how they wish to provide input on the EIA and subsequent project operations.

13

Comment Result of Consideration 63 3.4 Wildlife

Traditional ecological knowledge and land use must also be part of the EIA report. The Mikisew Cree would be more than willing to provide local insight into these issues of concern. Is UTS/TECK willing to commit to the meaningful consideration of Mikisew Cree input when it comes to issues surrounding wildlife (past, present and future)?

See final TOR section 5. AENV encourages the Mikisew Cree to share information, knowledge and concerns with UTS/Teck Cominco to ensure they are able to prepare a high quality EIA report. AENV also partially accepted this comment. See final TOR clauses 2.10[A]a), 3.1.2.2[E], 5[A]g), 3.6.1[B]d) and 3.9.1[A]b). The Mikisew Cree should discuss with UTS/Teck Comino how they wish to provide input on the EIA and subsequent project operations

64 We suggest that the following be added to the end of 3.10(d) in the PToR: The proponent shall use regional control sites as benchmarks for comparison with reclaimed areas, and use Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Program protocols or similar protocols if suitable rationale and justification is provided.

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. This comment is too prescriptive for inclusion in the TOR.

65 Please explain to the Mikisew Cree the current status of local and regional end land use targets or benchmarks for wildlife populations.

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. This is broader government policy and not related to EIA. The Mikisew Cree should discuss with SRD how they wish to provide input on the EIA and subsequent project operations.

66 1) Reference: Section 4.7.3 The most significant concern is that there is no provision that would require the proponent to collect data on wildlife species or populations that would ensure the establishment of quality baseline information that could, and should, be comparable to the results of future monitoring programs over the entire lifetime of the Project.

In Alberta’s environmental assessment system the Proponent determines how and when data collection will be done in support of the EIA. AENV encourages use of best practices and professional judgment in determining appropriate methodology. AENV encourages Proponents to discuss data collection requirements with relevant government departments, First Nations and stakeholders.

67 The ToR contains the following provision related to wildlife monitoring: Section 4.7.3 [A] “Describe monitoring programs that may be proposed to assess wildlife impacts from the Project and the effectiveness of mitigation strategies and habitat enhancement measures, giving special attention to sensitive species.” How can the Mikisew Cree, in good faith, believe that monitoring programs will be designed (1) with actual end land use and wildlife recolonization in mind and (2) actually relate the results of any monitoring programs to baseline conditions to better understand cause-and-effect relationships (if any) between the project and wildlife distribution and abundance? The Alberta Oil Sands Region has been in varying stages of development for the last 30+ years and the understanding of the distribution and abundance of regional wildlife populations (and monitoring programs) should be much further along than they are currently. Please explain.

AENV encourages the Mikisew Cree to share information, knowledge and concerns with UTS/Teck Cominco to ensure they are able to prepare a high quality EIA report.

14

Comment Result of Consideration 68 Unless monitoring programs are to be proposed in their entirety in the EIA,

describing what could be implemented is only useful if the Mikisew Cree are to be meaningfully engaged from the conceptual stage of monitoring program design Is UTS/TECK willing to engage the Mikisew Cree, in a meaningful way, with all aspects of any proposed monitoring program(s) for wildlife?

AENV encourages the Mikisew Cree to share information, knowledge and concerns with UTS/Teck Cominco to ensure they are able to prepare a high quality EIA report. The Mikisew Cree should discuss with UTS/Teck Comino how they wish to provide input on the EIA and subsequent project operations.

69 Reference: Section 4.8.3 We suggest that the following points be added to Section 4.8.3: [B] Provide the following information for all wildlife indicator species selected for the impact assessment: Benchmarks and targets for wildlife populations over the lifetime of the project (3 to 5-year incremental periods), in association with the recolonization of reclaimed landscapes and other future development scenarios in the region. Discuss in relation to time required to recolonize and sources for recolonization. Discuss how potential Project amendment applications relating to increased resource extraction will impact wildlife recolonization. Or: [B ]Provide targets for wildlife populations over the lifetime of the project in relation to the time required to recolonize and sources for recolonization. (as per Alberta Environment, 2007).

No changes were made to the TOR in response to these comments. The development of regional targets is not the responsibility of the proponent and an EIA is not the proper venue for their development.

70 Please explain why the requirement for targets/benchmarks has not been included in the current PToR for wildlife, unless this is captured in pToR Section 3.10 [A] or 3.11 [E]. The Mikisew Cree would envision an official request in writing for the aforementioned information from UTS/TECK to the appropriate Government of Alberta representatives or request why this information is not available for long-term planning in the Alberta Oil Sands Region.

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. The development of regional targets is not the responsibility of the proponent and an EIA is not the proper venue for their development.

15

Comment Result of Consideration 71 The PToR contains no provisions related to Wildlife Habitat Models

We suggest the addition of the following addition: 4.8.1[C]: Habitat models used to evaluate impacts should be modified/calibrated by comparing model predictions with wildlife data from the Study Areas. If field data do not correlate with habitat models, the habitat model parameters should be revised (at minimum) and the data collection process should be revisited. If data are deemed insufficient in establishing a meaningful baseline scenario for wildlife populations, additional data collection will be required to demonstrate due diligence on behalf of the proponent prior to the EIA being deemed complete.

Comment accepted. See final TOR clause 3.1.5[C].

72 Also, in support of the acquisition of the best-available baseline data for wildlife, we suggest the following additional requirement to 4.8.1: Provide rationale behind sampling protocols and field methods implemented.

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. AENV viewed TOR as inclusive of this item. See final TOR clauses 3.1.5[A]a), b) and c.

73 Section 4.8.2 We suggest that the follow changes be made in the ToR: 4.8.2(b)i) potential effects on wildlife as a result of changes to air and water quality, including both acute and chronic effects on, at minimum, all wildlife Key Indicator Resources. Meaningful consideration of First Nation input is required.

Comment partially accepted. See final TOR clause 3.8.2[B]b)i). AENV encourages the Mikisew Cree to share information, knowledge and concerns with UTS/Teck Cominco to ensure they are able to prepare a high quality EIA report.

74 Section 4.8.2 the following addition to the ToR is requested: 4.8.2 [E] Provide the following information for all wildlife indicator species selected for the impact assessment: Discussion and consideration of the effects of ecosystem shifts with respect to reclamation success, prediction confidence, and wildlife recolonization of the LSA and RSA.

AENV viewed the TOR as mostly inclusive of this item. See final TOR clauses 2.10[A]d)ii), 3.8.2[B]b), 3.8.2[E] and 3.1.5[A]b).

16

Comment Result of Consideration 75 Section 4.8.2

The PToR has the following provision: 4.8.2[D] Describe the residual effects of the Project on wildlife and wildlife habitat in both the Local Study Area and Regional Study Area and the plans to manage those effects. We suggest the following changes: 4.8.2[D] Describe the predicted residual effects of the Project for wildlife Key Indicator Species and habitat in both the Local Study Area and Regional Study Area and the plans to manage those effects. Provide rationale for mitigation measures selected, including examples of their success in the oil sands region.

Comment partially accepted. See final TOR clause 3.8.2[E]. It is implied that the residual effects of the project are predicted because when the assessment is done the project is only at the proposed stage. Comment accepted. See final TOR clause 3.8.2[D].

76 Air Quality Section 3.3, Evaluation of Alternatives, 3.3.2, Process and Infrastructure Alternatives Under water treatment (F) it is asked for preferred selection of best available technologies. There was no clear connection with air emissions and the project infrastructure asking for Best Available Control Technologies (BACT) or even Best Available Control Technologies Economically Available (BACTEA). Please add to the condition a request to evaluate the best available air emission control technologies.

Comment accepted. See final TOR clause 2.3.2[I].

77 Section 3.7, Air Emissions Management Please add a request for the facility to prepare a Quality Assurance Plan (QAP), as required by Alberta Environment for any facility monitoring ambient air (Air Monitoring Directive). a. Under section ‘f’ there is a need to address control technologies for sulphur dioxide, hydrogen sulphide, oxides of nitrogen, greenhouse gases, volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter. There was no distinct ‘request’ for BACT or BACTEA, if this is not the evaluation criteria, what will be?

No change to the TOR were made in response to this comment. This is an approval level requirement. The Proponent must provide rationale for the selection of technologies.

17

Comment Result of Consideration 78 Section 3.12, Regional and Cooperative Initiatives,

Under section ‘B’ there is a request to discuss what monitoring will be done independently and what will be done on conjunction with others. Is this referring to joining the Wood Buffalo Environmental Association (WBEA)? If so, why not state this as an option – to join the airshed?

This comment is too prescriptive for inclusion in the TOR. AENV does not prescribe with whom proponents must perform their monitoring. As per final TOR clause 2.12[B]c), proponents will identify in the EIA report with whom they have performed their monitoring.

79 Section 4.2, Air Quality, Climate and Noise, 4.2.1, Baseline Information, Under the Air Emissions Management section (3.7) the condition requires a discussion of control technologies used to minimize air emissions such as sulphur dioxide, hydrogen sulphide, oxides of nitrogen, greenhouse gases, volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter. However in the baseline review (4.2.1), additional information is required for total hydrocarbons, individual hydrocarbons of concern, and heavy metals. Is there no concern for emissions of these additional parameters and that is why they were not included in section 3.7? Will there be a need to address potential emissions from these parameters in addition to those identified in section 3.7?

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. The list of emission types is not exhaustive and the Proponent is expected to address all emission types expected from the Project.

80 Section 4.2, Air Quality, Climate and Noise, 4.2.2, Impact Assessment, In other sections under the Impact Assessment there is a requirement to discuss any potential changes in quality that may result in exceeding existing guidelines. Why in the Air Impact Assessments was there no requirement to discuss potential exceedances of the Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives or the Canada Wide Standards? Is it expected that this issue will be addressed in the Air Quality Modeling exercise, or should it be commented in this section?

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. Proponents are expected to compare results to existing regulatory requirements as a standard practice.

81 In section ‘D’ there is a requirement to describe how air quality will be mitigated – is the expectation BACT or BACTEA?

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. The Proponent must provide rationale for the selection of technologies.

82 Section 4.2, Air Quality, Climate and Noise, 4.2.3, Monitoring, Pages 12. Concern: Please add a requirement for reporting. How will the data from the monitoring be disseminated to the public or other interested parties? Will there be a requirement for public meetings, web-accessed data, CASA submitted data, etc.?

Comment partially accepted. See final TOR clause 2.11[F]. AENV dos not prescribe how proponents will disseminate the information, rather it is up to the proponent to inform AENV how information will be disseminated to the public.

18

Comment Result of Consideration 83 Socio-economics and Traditional Knowledge

In the last few years the Provincial Government has produced a document called “Alberta’s First Nations Consultation Guidelines on Land Management and Resources Development” last updated on November 14, 2007. In summary, these Guidelines set the proponent’s obligations whose direct requirements are then outlined in any ToR.

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. The connection between the Consultation Guidelines and the TOR is incorrect. The Consultation Guidelines outline the requirements for consultation. The EIA report describes the results of the consultation – the TOR do not set out consultation requirements.

84 Section 1.1 [B], We recommend that consultation also include accommodation and mitigation of the effects. The ToR should include provisions that permit appropriate consultation as defined by the Supreme Court.

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. In Alberta, the Consultation Guidelines outline the requirements for consultation.

85 Section 3.6, Land Management, Under the section of the ToR entitled land management, the Mikisew Cree are concerned about access to lands by other land users who will infringe upon traditional land use activities. This section should refer to aboriginal concerns with access.

Comment accepted. See final TOR clause 3.11.2[A]i). Also see final TOR clauses 3.8.2[B]c) and 5[A]d).

86 3.8 Water Resources, The Mikisew Cree should be consulted with respect to surface water management and its effect on long term traditional use. The section should specifically refer to aboriginal concerns.

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. The TOR already have sections dedicated to consultation and TEK. See final TOR sections 1 and 5. AENV encourages the Mikisew Cree to share information, knowledge and concerns with UTS/Teck Cominco to ensure they are able to prepare a high quality EIA report.

87 3.10 Conservation and Reclamation The Mikisew Cree should be consulted with respect to Reclamation; specifically in paragraph a, there should be a reference to traditional land uses in the predevelopment reclamation plan.

Comment partially accepted. See final TOR clauses 2.10[A]a) and 5[A]d)ii).

88 Paragraph d, Page 7 Question/Request: The consultation with Mikisew Cree should include post-development planning to accommodate traditional land use according to the First Nation’s priority rights.

Comment accepted. See final TOR clause 5[A]d)ii).

89 In section 3.11, All of the monitoring and management systems should include community based monitoring and integrate Mikisew Cree management systems into the plans. As an independent regulatory authority, the First Nation should be included in the administration of these systems.

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. The TOR already have a sections dedicated to consultation. See final TOR section 1. AENV encourages the Mikisew Cree to share information, knowledge and concerns with UTS/Teck Cominco to ensure they are able to prepare a high quality EIA report.

19

Comment Result of Consideration 90 Section 3.12, a,

The ToR should acknowledge that the First Nations such as the Mikisew Cree as “resource users” and should be included according to their priority status within regional initiatives.

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. EIAs are not intended to be specific to the effects on any one community.

91 Section 3.12, c, Monitoring should be done in cooperation with the Mikisew Cree and other First Nations.

See final TOR clause 2.12[B]c).

92 Sections 4.1.2. Any study areas must be chosen so that the cumulative impacts on First Nation traditional land use can be measured.

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. AENV encourages the Mikisew Cree to share information, knowledge and concerns with UTS/Teck Cominco to ensure they are able to prepare a high quality EIA report.information.

93 Section 4.1.3, Cumulative Effects Assessment The baseline should be pre-industrial.

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. AENV believes that to fully understand and evaluate the effects of a project, there needs to be a well-defined, scientifically verifiable benchmark to use for comparison. The difficulty of using a pre-development scenario is that for many parameters we lack the data needed to properly describe the scenario so that appropriate modeling, etc. can be conducted to forecast project effects. There is also a question about what constitutes “pre-industrial”. Is it oil sands development, all development, resource exploration, European settlement…? The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency's February 1999 Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide states at s. 3.2.3.2: The further back in time…the greater the dependence on qualitative analysis and conclusions due to lack of descriptive information… and increasing uncertainty in predictions.

20

Comment Result of Consideration 94 Section 4.1.4

Please include the information required to determine the impacts on aboriginal land use in the area from the beginning of area development.

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. AENV believes that to fully understand and evaluate the effects of a project, there needs to be a well-defined, scientifically verifiable benchmark to use for comparison. The difficulty of using a pre-development scenario is that for many parameters we lack the data needed to properly describe the scenario so that appropriate modeling, etc. can be conducted to forecast project effects. There is also a question about what constitutes “pre-industrial”. Is it oil sands development, all development, resource exploration, European settlement…? The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency's February 1999 Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide states at s. 3.2.3.2: The further back in time…the greater the dependence on qualitative analysis and conclusions due to lack of descriptive information… and increasing uncertainty in predictions.

95 In each section including aquatic ecology, surface water quality, vegetation, wildlife, fragmentation, soils, and land use other than traditional land use there will be effects on aboriginal rights. Please include a requirement to include the discussion or research on the effects on aboriginal rights in these disciplines.

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. AENV encourages the Mikisew Cree to share information, knowledge and concerns with UTS/Teck Cominco to ensure they are able to prepare a high quality EIA report.

96 Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Land Use, In the section Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Land Use, the ToR asks for the Proponent to provide the extent of traditional use of land in the LOCAL STUDY AREA only. This section goes on to ask for traditional uses by affected aboriginal peoples, historic resources, and how the TEK was gathered and incorporated into the assessment. The ToR does not ask for an assessment of cumulative impacts on the traditional lands use of the Mikisew Cree or any other First Nations. Yet in order to complete a proper consultation process before any project is approved, such a cumulative impact analysis must be done. The fact that this is not included in the ToR puts any approval by the ERCB in jeopardy since this process must now include appropriate Crown consultation. Please include this requirement.

No changes were made to the TOR in response to this comment. EIAs are not intended to be specific to the effects on any one community. Study area boundaries are project-based and are not set by AENV. If the rationale provided by proponents for the selection of study area boundaries is not satisfactory, AENV may request additional information.

97 Section 8.3 Impact Assessment The impacts on the Aboriginal communities will require specific socioeconomic studies of aboriginal communities. These studies are not specifically mentioned in the ToR and have been omitted from other proposals where it was not specifically required in the ToR. Please include socio-economic studies in the ToR.

See final TOR clause 7.2[A]a)viii).

21

10/30/2008 10:20 780-422-0154

OCT/17/2008/FRI03:35 PM Metis Local 1935

PAGE 02/05

P. 001

MiItI&Local191935

ChardLocaltt214

Fort Chjpcwyanlocal #126

Fort MQKayLocal#63

Wood Buffalo Metis Corporation

~

Company,

Fax#:.1'tJ -q 22. - 0 ,~f"~

...From: r Y~.1'7 ko

: /1../tJ "Omr-~

Pages (includ"mg COWfSheet)..L. .

Ra:

Attention:

Phone#:,

Urgent FarRBviIlW Please Comment...

~

PIaase Reply...

....

...

The tn[ormatlQnIn this foaimi{~ trrtIsSGJf1is intencled onlyfor the contIaentfafuseCifthe nfi:f~nt. If thereader of tills mesS4ge ;5 oot tM inttlnd~d recipient, please notifY tM recder you have received thiscommunfaJtionin error, dHtroy ell t»ples, dtssemiT1QUon,distributiDIJ, or c:op1esof thfs wmmumCQ#:ionand attuchments is prohll:11ter:I.

ThankYtW..~~..~ ..~ ~ ~ 0..,.~ ~ ~~~.~(\< .

Phone:780-i'48-760' C~ll: 78D-715-82JIl E-mall: [email protected]

441 Sakit1!Iw9WhR. FM MeMUIr.ilY,AIb&r1aT9H 4P31.d. .

T: (780) 748-7601. F: (78CI)7Sn.2654 .. &In: [email protected]

10/30/2008 10:20 780-422-0154

OGT/20/200B/MON12:04 PM Metis Local 1935REGULATORVAPPROVALS PAGEFAXNo.780-791-2654 ~. UUl

EPEA Application No. .

~. DaI.._j)~~.Reg_rovaiS :. ~}

03/05

ChardLooal#214

Fort Chipewyanlocal #125

WiDowLakeLocal#780


~

From:--J_..

Date: 20 ~

..

Attention:

Phone #:

Pages (includingCO'Iersha&t,)~

Re:

For Review Please Comment

The tflJ{mnatitm In this facsimile mes~ f$ Intended only for the confidential use at the recipient. If I:~reader of this message's IlOt the illtf!nde<l recipient, please notify the reader you htNe received thisCC11hmunicottonIn error. destroyall copIes, dissemination. distribution, c)r ttJpI~$Dr this commumClltlonaruJQtrm:ftments fs prohibited.

ThanJ: YQU.

~\V Trai~Fort~I.AIbetfa TSH4P3T: (78() 148-7601·F: (7£10)791-2654 . e-m: ~~.ce

10/30/2008 10:20 780-422-0154

OCT/20/2QQB/MON12:04 PM Me~is Local' 1935

REGULATORV APPROVALS

FAX No.780-791-2654PAGE 04/05

f. UUZ

ChardLOCSIif214

Fort ChipewYanLacat#125


October 1~~ 2008

KimSinghRegional Approvah Manager,Northcm RegionAIbertaEuvitomnent5th FIoor~Oxbrldgc Place9820- lOf14StreetEdmomon.Alberta, T5K216Fa: (780) 422-0154

Dear Sir:

RE: UT8-TBcBCoMINCO- DRAJ'T EIA T'ERMs OF RPElUtN'C£ FtmNTJER. AN»

EQUINOXon. SANDsPRo.ntCTS

The Wood Buffalo Metis Corporation is a 1:epresenta'dveorgattiJ:ationof the five Metislocals locatedwith the RegionalMunicipalityof WoodBuffalo. It is governedby aboard of directors QOmprised of the presiden.ts~ of these loca1s and has members acrossthe entire Atbabasca Oil Sands region - from Fort Cbipewyan in the north to Chanl in thesouth.

TheWoodBuffidoMetigCorporation(WBMC)is writingto youonbdJalfofthc WillowLakeandCbatdMetisLocalsto expxessour concernabom1hecltaftTermsof Ref~for the two UTS-TeckCommco projects (Fron1ierand Equinox). This letter is being filed .

to comment on the draft Terms ofR.eference that were pub1ish.edby Mberta. Bnviromne:ntin July of this year. We have not had a.chanceto reviewin detailthe draft TcmnsofReference and.to my knowledge.nei1hcrWLML~CML or WBMC have been approacl1edto dated by the AppU". regarding any type of consuJmtionon the ToR's.

As.the assessment of'the proposed projects will be based ODthe final Terms ofRl:fenmccit is important fur us to have our input into 'I:b.em.consideredso that the assessment repvrtswill more appropristely address our concerns.

Based on what WBMC has been able to do to this poiat in time in reviewing the daftTerms of Reference, I have summarized belowt our concer.nswith the dmft Tains ofReference as follows:

441 SaJdIaInw TnOI,fed McI\4un'ay.~.1!!i1!!T: (780)74~H801·F:(780)791-2654.E-m:~c:s

-.. .__ ._u

10/30/2008 10:20 780-422-0154

OCT/20/2008/MON12:04 PM Metis Local 1935

.- -.- -- --

REGULATORVAPPROVALSFAX No. 780-791-2654

PAGE 05/05f.UUj

o There is no ~ baseline,or"s pre--ii1dusI.riaIbase we to comparethecurrent baseline conditions against. This is critioaUy important to be able touucleJstandwhatchangeshaVealteadytakenplacetin theregionasaxesa1tof

mdustrial activitiesbefore any new projects are approved.Only with theprcseu.ta:tionof such a CaBecan the true impactsbe determined.

o CUmn1a1iveimpacts must be examined. over this longer time scale - Qaekto andintludmg the pre--industrial base: case.

o The proprmentmust idcubfyand clearlydocumenthow they intendto consult'Withaboriginal pc=oplesin the region fairJy aIlQ.jn good faith, specifically ourMetis Locals' .

o Traditionalknowledgeglllheredfromaborigina1smustbe properlygst:b.l7eC1,anddocumeJXtSand must be usc:d to inform the assessment.Proper sharingagreemeutsmust be signed pd .respectedfor me use of1bis information.

o The tWOprojects must have separate assessments done and the assessmenttepOrtamust clearly separate1hetwo propost:dprojects.

In order for WBMC to be in a position to undertake a more 1horoughevaluation andassessmentof the dtaft Terms of Reference,we would require the proponentto meet with

. us a.s.a.p. so that arrangements 1»u1dbe established whereby WBMC would have b:capacity to be able to do that. I be1ievethat this condition should.be sIrODglysupportedby AlbertaEnvironment,prior to your ~ of the proponent'sfinal Terms ofReference. It is unreasonable"to expect any poten1iaUyimpactedstakeholderm.thisregion to be able to respondmeaningfullyin providingiIIputwithout in 1!a'Vingareasonablelevelof capacityandcapabilityto be ableto do so. Cuaently,we arcl~both.

Wewouldbe pleasedto discUssom concer:oswith you furlhcr. AIso~I would appreciatebeing mformedby your office on how our concernswill be addtesscd in the final tenns ofrefereD.ce

Thank you for the opportunity to ha:veinput into the Terms of Reference for these twoprojecm. "

:r;Tony Punko, CEO

cc Ron Quintal, President -WBMCCam.BatMrlsm,ms Energy Cm:poration

public comments - uts energy corporation/teck cominco ... · equinox & frontier oil sands...

Documents