SHEET 12. - Alberta€¦ · SEP-04-2007 TUE U4: 00 PM DENESOL INE FAX No* 780-791-9102 P. 005 Jaokpine Expansion & Pierre River Mining Pmjad- Draft EIA TOR Review (ACFN) 4.3 Process

FAX l a . 780-791-9102

FACGIMILE TRAWSYITTRL SHEET

70: F a

COYPAMY:

a. u d&&& . 12. FAX NUMBER: u TOT& NO. OF PAGE8 BCLUDUlO COVER

PHOHE N~UBER:

42 7- 7 P Z q WEEREtJCF HUM6Ei%

RE; Y M l R REEREWE IUMBER:

& P A

URGENT I3 FOR REViEW PLEASE COMY EbJT a PLEASE RECYCLE

-

SEP-04-2007 TUE 04:00 PM

- -

DENESOLI NE

BY FACSIMILE

September 4,2007

Mr. Kern Singh Approvals Manager, Northern Region Alberta Environment I 1 I Twin Atria Building 4999 - 98" Avenue Edmonton, Alberta T6B 2x3 Fax: (780) 427-7824

Dear Mr. Singh:

Re: ACFN IRC Review of the Draft Terms of Reference for Albian Sands - Jackpine Mine Epansion and Pierre River Wline Project

The Athabasca Chipewayn First Nation (ACFN) Industry Relations Corporation (IRC) on behalf of the Athabasw. Chipewyan First Nation is writing you with regard to the draft EIA terms of reference for the proposed Albian Sands - Jackpine Mine Expansion and Pierre River Mine Project We have reviewed the T ems of Reference b r the Albian Sands - Jackpine Mine Expansion and Pierre River Mine Project and our detailed comments are presented in the attached review. We offer these comments in the spirit of improving the environmental assessment of the proposed Jadcgine Mine Expansion and Pierre River Mine Project. ACFN considers itself to be directly affected by this proposed project as it lies within our documented traditional lands, the project will add to the cumulative removal of lands, water, highjy protective wildlife habitat, and it will affect ACFN membership living in proximity to the project, through impacting their ability to use this area for traditional purposes.

The ACFN IRC notes that there are many outstanding issues regarding the many key cross ministry initiatives (i.e. MOSSIOSS, LUF, IFN, Mine Liabilities, RSDSIIRP, E X . ) that are still presently unaddressed. The ACFN IRC respectfully submits that Government of Alberta take the necessary time to

SEP-04-2001 TUE 04:00 PM DENESOLINE FAX No* 180-791-9102

develop and consult on these key government initiatives befare undertaking reviews of any new oil sands projects. If the Government of Alberta elects to continue forward in issuing terms of references, reviewing and approving new proja EIA's, the ACFN respectfully submits any new project approvals be conditional upon reassessment of the project based on the new government initiative($).

The ACFN IRC feels it is not dearly outlined in the draft terms of reference how the lnstream Flow Needs (IFN) for the Athabasca River and Watmhed Integrity fbkmagernent Plan for the Muskeg River will be handled in the EIA, The ACFN IRC wants the regulator to understand that both of these initiatives hold a high priority value for the environmental concerns of the ACFN. The ACFN IRC wants to clearly understand what effect this project will have on the Athabasca River and its IFN. Plus, with approximately 50 to 80 percent of the Muskeg River Watershed scheduled for mining, how is this significant effect going to be addressed by the proponent and government.

The ACFN wouM like b note that far stakeholders and directly &ctd parties, such as the ACFN, commenting on the drafi terns of reference for an assessment is an important opportunity to become involved in the regulatory review process at an early stage. We hope that our comments will be incorporated into the final EIA terms of reference. The ACFN would like to be informed by the Director how our comments have been incorporated into the final terms of reference for the assessment of he proposed Albian Sands - Jackpine Mine Expansion and Pierre River Mine Project. In this, It is equally important that the ACFN know, and understand why, if wme of our comments were not incorpwated into the final terms of reference.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the draft Terms of Reference for the Albian Sends - Jackpine Mine Expansion and Pierre River Mine Project. This project is of interest and concern to ACFN and we look forward to continued input into the environmental assessment for this project. We are available to answer any questions you may have and w q m t that we receive the final terms of reference.

66ir Whenham Director

Enclosure (7pgs)

C. Chief Archie Cyprien, ACFN Bill Kovach, Shell Canada Ltd. Dan Smith, D S Envir~nmental

I..

ACFN - IRC Comments on Draft Terms of Reference

Jackpine Expansion & Pierre River Mining & Extraction Project

The Atfiabasca Chipewyan First Nation Industry Relations Corporation (ACFN-IRC) has developed the fallowing comments with the support of DS Environmental Consulting Inc. These comments are provided to assist We project proponent and Alberta Environment in developing a final set of terms of reference for the EIA for this project that will meet the needs of stakeholders, including the ACFM-IRC.

1.2 Scope

c) iv) Cross references should be as specific as possible. If any referenced sub%don is more than five pages, then a more specific reference should be given to aid the reader in locating the information (for both text and CD-Rom versions ofthe EIA documents).

Include a glossary of terms (including definition source) to assist the reader in understanding the material presented.

3.1 EIA Summary

b) Highlight all impacts with significant residual adverse effects and detail how these impacts will be further mitigated and monitored. Mitigation strategies should be described indicating whether mitigations: eiirninate or reduce impacts, or alternately provide restitution in terms of replacement, restoration, or compensation. A summary table listing the predicted effects, the planned mitigations, and any residual impacts would be very useful.

4.0 Project bescription and Management Plans When describing alternatives for project components, including mitigative measures, provide an explicit (qualitative and quantitative) cornparison d the benefits and drawbacks of each. The comparison should evaluate alternatives from these points of view: environmental performance, safety, technical feasibility, and economic feasibility. For the technology choices where environmental performance and safety are not maximized, provide an explanation of why this was not done. For mitigation measures proposd to alleviate potential impacts, the degree of certainty in the outmrnes (i.e. confidence) should be highlighted, as well as contingency plans

August 14,2007

FAX N o * 780-791-9102 P. 005 SEP-04-2007 TUE U4: 00 PM DENESOL INE

Jaokpine Expansion & Pierre River Mining Pmjad- Draft EIA TOR Review (ACFN) *

4.3 Process Selection and Description

If an alternative technology is deemed to not be economically feasible, explain the justification used to make this conclusion,

4.10 Reclamation and Closure

The C&R plan (or elsewhere in the EM) should discuss how the closure plan would be dected by changes and variability in the climate regime over the time periods that rslamation would be taking place*

(a) - this should also include the unoertainties related to timeframes for reclamation

(b) -the basdine information used in the C&R plan should include traditional lands and traditional use of these lands. (i) -the infarmation an the restmtion of traditional land uses should include the conceptual schedule and timeframes for this restoration to a fully functhning ecosystem capable of supporting traditional land uses.

(k) - the information on end pit lakes, wetlands, and other components of the reclaimed landscape should show hw these will be integrated with other operators in the area. (m) - the discussion on returning the land t~ an "equivalent capabiliy should include traditional land use.

5.0 Environmental Assessment Assessment scenarios and temporal boundaries should indude a trLte pre- development baseline, not just a baseline that includes the approved projects. The later may be useful for regulatory purposes, but it does not serve the needs of the firsf nations' stakeholders who see this from a much different view. Each new development wilf produce an incremental change from what was there before all the development began. tooking at it only within the very limited frame of what already has been approved does nothing to address the cumulative changes that have occurred over time. A full 100-year window (i.e. 40 years of historical & 80 years of future projections) is desirable from a first nation's point of view. The temporal dimensions of the assessment should include consideration of the following, in addition to the Application and CEA assessment cases:

o Baseline - a thle 'pre-developmenf baseline o Current - information on what is currently happening; such as, the current rates

of water withdrawals or emissions of air pollutants, the current amount of land disturbed or reclaimed, the current amount of tailings held in ponds, etc.

Augusf 14 2007

- - - - -- _ -- - - -- -

SEP-04-2007 TUE 0 4 : 0 1 PM DENESOL I NE FAX Na. 780-791-9102

Jaokpine Expansion & Pierre River Mining Project- Draft EIA TOR Review (ACFN)

o Historic - the trends over the last 40 years in the region (i.e. from 1965 to present) with respect to changes in environmental and Socio-Economic parameters

The assessment should use the traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) available in the regian throughout the assessment, The report should indicate which TEK was used, where it was obtained (generally), and how it was used and integrated into the assessment. The Proponent should also discuss how they intend to use TEK throughout the life of the Project, including implementing mitigation and monitoring programs, and in planning and conducting reclamation,

5.1 Basic Information Requirements

(c) Expiain efforts made to verify the applimbility of the models to the study context; this should include input from field studies

(d) - information on "human activities in the study area" should include traditional uses. In addition, the effects of Project on traditional resources should be discussed as well as the effects on renewable resources. (g) -the EIA shautd discuss how the system used to classrfy and evaluate the potential efkcts and impacts of the proposed project incorporates TEK and the values of first nation's communities in the region.

Thresholds used to determine impact significance should be justified based on stakeholder values. Take for example a project results in a 40% reduction af an emsystem component, assume this impact is deemed of low or moderate significance - not requiring mitigation. For this threshold to be acceptable the Proponent should demonstrate that the potential 10% loss of the resource, without further mitigation, is acceptable to all stakeholders. These assessments are always value-laden, and the values of first nations should be considered- (h) - There may be significant residual impacts where an existing w emerging mitigation technique was not used due to technical or economic feasibility. In these cases the Proponent should provide a detailed quantitative justification as to how this feasibility was determined. Stab which alternate mitigations will be used and their cost and effectiveness relative to the technique that was not used.

The Proponent should describe emerging 'best available' mitigation technologies currently being used or researched by other producers operakg in the area (e.g. the use of a vacuum belt filter to dewater tailings). If the Proponent decides not to use or research the use of these technologies, they should provide justification as detailed above.

If examples of real-world success using a proposed mitigation strategy cannot be cited, this should be clearly indicated.

(i) -the discussion of residual effects, and their acceptability or significance, should also include a discussion of how this incorporates TEK and the values of first nations' communities in the region,

August 14 2007

SEP-04-2001 TUE 0 4 : 0 1 PM DENESOL l NE

Jackpine Expansion & Pierre River Mining Project- Drafl EIA TOR Review (ACFN)

Any residual effeds resulting from an impact prediction or mitigation With e moderate (or worse) level of uncertainty should be accompanied by a management plan.

5.2 Study Areas

Maps presented in the EIA report should use a minimum of different scales, and clearly mark the scale on the legend for each map. We have noticed that recent ElAs have used as many as 50 different map scales throughout the EIA report - making direct comparisons between maps (within and between sections of the EN) quite difficult. It is suggested that the proponent instruct their EIA consultants to use a standard set of map scales throughout the EIA and technical appendices. This w~uld also have the added benefit of allowing direct comparisons between EIAs, The number of map scales shoukl be kept under 10. Suggested standard scales are: 1:15,000, 50k, -lOOk,150k, 250k, 500k, 750k, lOOOk (or 1250k), and 2500k.

The temporal boundaries shoukl reference the historical period from 1065 to present (i.e. past 40 years) as well as the next 60 years, to produce a 100-year window from which to view the assessment (see 5.0 above).

5.3 Cumulative Envimnrnsntql Effects Assessment

The CEA should not just be documented, but have a management action component as well. Cumulative effects that this project contributes to and are considered significant adverse efF&s for the regional area should be given special atlention. This should indude mitjgative measures Wich go above and beyond regulated requirements that lbe proponent will take to ensure continuous improvement with respect to reducing these impacts.

The cumulative effects assessment should also include and consider the impacts on traditional use of the region over the extended time periods that are involved, including the incremental withdrawals of lands far traditional purposes from the available land base. The traditional lands of the regional first nations shortld be used as one of the baselines for any cumulative impact assessment.

5.4 Cllmate, Air Quality, and Noise

(d) - estimates of ground-level concentrations of relevant pollutants should also be shown on isopteth maps (as appropriate).

(j) -the predicted air quality concentration should also be compared to the existing (monitored) concentrations, not just modeled conditions.

The location of all existing (and plannedfproposed) monitoring stations should be indicated on the maps.

The air quality assessment should focus on more than just exceedences and the point of maximum impingement. The assessment should also consider and

SEP-04-2001 TUE D4: O f PM

- - - - FAX No. 780-791-9102

Jackpine Expamion & Pierre River Mining Projd- Draft EIA TOR Review (ACFN)

discuss the changes in the patterns, rates, and trends in the overall air quality (locally and regionally).

Keeping Clean A m Clean - the EIA should discuss the ' K e e p i ~ Clean Areas Clean' protocol that is part of the Canada Wide Standards for PM and Ozone, as it relates to remote areas of the region. This is essenfialv a nondegmdation protocol for air quality for non-u&an areas.

Visibility -the air quality section should present an assessment of the changes in visibility (as different from opachy and visibility as a meteorological factor) over time. The concern here is with potential regional changes (i.e. degradation) in visibility over time. This also relates to the non-degradation aspeds of 'Keeping Clean Areas Clean'.

5.4 3 Climate Change

The discussion on climate change effects should include the effects on local and regional hydmlqiml flows, and related 63 the compounding of effects of climate change on other factors, such as acid deposition, reclamation, etc.

5.6.1 Biodiversity

(a) - indude traditional indicato~s species in the list of species used. Additionally, the biodiversity assessment should include an intqwed index of biodiversity, so that the assessment of effects on biodiversity looks at more than just the individual components.

5.6.3 Vegetation

(c) (vi) - discuss how the proponent will determine the vegetation species used for bod, medicinal, and cultural purposes.

(g) - fhe mitigation plans should be extended to include traditionaIly important plants. - Any impacts to plants which are considered significant to the first nations (e.g. nutritional or medicinal) should be mitigated with the $oal of no net loss. To b e sure this is achieved, monitoring prbgrams for these species must be implemented and documented in the EA.

5.6.4 Wildlife

(fj - replace "recolonize" with: "restore habiit productivity to predisturbanw levels in order to allow wildlife populations to recolonize."

A detailed inventory of population sources for habitat restoration (predicted at time of project closure) should be given in light of the regional impacts caused by other projects that will also impact wildlife and their habitat.

August 14 2007

L

sEP-04-2007 TUE 04:01 PM DENESOLI HE FAX N o t 789-19t-9102

Jackpine Expansion & Pierre River Mining Project- DrM EIA TOR Review (ACFN)

(1.1) - "...anticipated from the project and other planned activities"; should read: "...anticipated from the project and other planned and existing activities"

Ako discuss the significance of impacts in the context d first nation's values as represented by the traditional land use that will be documented as per section 8 of this document. Any impacts to wildlife considered significant to the first nations should be mitigated with the goal of no net loss. To be sure this is achieved; monitoring programs for these species must be implemented and documented in the EA, The proponent should validate the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) modeb used for wildlife habitat with actual field (local) abundanm data before using the results in the assessment HIS model components, and the resutts from these, that have not been validated should be clearly indicated. The Proponent should discuss their plans to validate these components with local field data.

(fj Oetails of the plans to monitor groundwater for these contaminants including the frequency and location of test sites should be provided.

5.6.6 Surface Water

(p) add: "If there are existing regional initiatives that Shell Canada is not participating in, please explain the reasons for this."

7.0 Public Health And Safety

The assessment should use a broader definition of 'health' that encompasses all aspects and determinants of heah, not just the exposure-response tb chemicals of concern. The IRP uses the concept of 'population health' to encompass all the determinants of health of the population within the region. Focusing on a single factor (such as exposure to air or water pollutants) does not accurately portray the actual status of human health, nor does it effectivery allow for mrtigatians that have a reasonable chance of actually improving the health status of individuals (and populations) within the region.

9.0 Historical and Traditional Land use The findings of the historical resource assessment should be shared with the first nation's cammunities,

Information about traditional land use sboukl not only be presented in this section, but should be used meaningfully throughout the assessment and documented in the ~ k v a n t sections of the EA report.

August 14 2007

FAX No. 780-191-9102

Jackpine Expansion & Pierre River Mining Project- Draft EIA TOR Review (ACFN)

10.0 SocioIconomie Factors

(c) add to social impacts: "the potential for increased crime and potential impacts (such as substance abuse or depression) to project workers resulng from isolation and separation from their families."

The discussion d soeieeconornic impacts should make use of a comprehensive indicator of sacibeconomie well-being, such as: the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI). The GPI provides an index of well-being for9a population. This index makes use of indicators (e.g. crime and family breakdown) aver and above those used for traditional economic based views of wl-being. This indicator could be used for purposes of establishing a baseline and to track changes to that baseline over time.

11.0 Public Consultation Requirements

(b) ... recognized land users of the Local Study Areas, and Regional Sfudy Areas. [add bolded text]

(c) First Natkns and Mbtis commueities that may be directly and indirectly affected should be consulted. [add bolded text]

Appendix - Conservation and Reclamation Plan (c) References to examples of demonstrated success with respect to each reclamation technique contained in the plan should be included. For example: tailings pond reclamation and replanting native species.

August 14 2007

Melanie Daneluk

From: Lisa Schaldemose [[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 3:00 PM

To: AENV Environmental Assessment

Cc: Jim Boucher; Jean L'Hommecourt; [email protected]; Cort Gallup; [email protected]; Brad Bricker; [email protected]; Brian Makowecki; Elizabeth Grilo; Neil Barker; Marie Lagimodiere

Subject: Fort McKay review of Jackpine Expansion and Pierre River Mine ToR

Attachments: Fort McKay letter JPE-PR PTOR.doc; Fort McKay review of JPE-PR PTOR.doc

11/4/2009

Dear Sir, Please find attached Fort McKay's review (using track changes) of the Shell Jackpine Expansion and Pierre River Mine project Terms of Reference, as well as covering letter. Fort McKay appreciates the opportunity to review the ToR and we look forward to further engagement in the EIA process as this project 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

September 3, 2007 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: Comments on Shell Canada Limited (Shell)

Proposed Terms of Reference – Environmental Impact Assessment Report for the Jackpine Expansion and Pierre River Mining Areas Project

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 Jackpine Expansion and Pierre River Mining Areas Project. We have reviewed the proposed Terms of Reference and have indicated our suggested changes and comments in the attached MS Word file of the draft TOR, as distributed by Shell using ‘track changes’ and ‘comments’. We are pleased to see that several of our suggestions from previous TOR review have been integrated into these draft TORs. However, there are several changes that we request so that the resulting EIA will enable us to more fully understand the implications of this project for Fort McKay. Overview of SEIA TOR Comments We are pleased that regulators require the proponent to include some specific socio-economic information relating to Aboriginal peoples of the region. However, we also ask that the proponent be required to also describe the socio-economic conditions in the Community of Fort McKay before and after the project and to address the relevant social and economic impacts and benefits outlined in Section 10 a to g, including specific information for the Fort McKay First Nation and Métis Local 63. Overview of EIA TOR Comments EIA Approach We request that a pre-development baseline scenario (prior to extensive industrial development) and an existing baseline (i.e., the actual existing scenario without the approved but not yet built projects) scenario be added to the assessment. A true pre-development baseline is required to adequately assess the impact on traditional users. It is important for all components to do this because of the significant existing loss of resources in proximity to the community. An existing baselines is needed because the ‘existing and approved’ case is not what the local communities are experiencing (there are several approved projects that have not begun operation or reached full operation). An existing baseline scenario would provide the information necessary to assess how much change has occurred and will occur under the development scenarios i.e. base, application and planned.

mailto:[email protected]

Size of Regional Study Area We are concerned about the size of the regional study area that has been used in recent oil sands EIAs; it is arbitrary in size and does not reflect the significance of impacts on the landscape in relation to Fort McKay. For example, in several recent EIAs the regional magnitude of impacts to wetlands, old-growth forest, and areas of high rare plant and biodiversity potential was determined to be low, due to the large size of the regional study area over which these impacts are assessed. For example, even the loss of almost 60,000 hectares of muskeg wetlands is assessed as having a low magnitude of impact, as it affects only 3% of an almost 2.3 million hectare regional study area. The regional study area used in recent EIAs, is equivalent to an area centred on Fort McKay with an approximate 85-km radius. However, the vast majority of impacts will occur much closer to Fort McKay. An area with a radius of about 40-km around Fort McKay would encompass all surface mining disturbances. This area is approximately 500,000 hectares. The destruction of 60,000 hectares of wetlands in this area would cover 12% of the land base, enough to qualify as a “moderate” impact. We request that the regulators and Shell consider and discuss with us including an additional regional study area for inclusion in this and future environmental impact assessments that would more accurately reflect the significance of the true magnitude of environmental impacts to the community of Fort McKay. The large size of previously used regional study areas also reduces the ability to accurately model predicted local air quality impacts. It is these local impacts which are of particular interest and relevance to the Community and as such should be as accurate as possible. Mine Plan We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the mine plan in the EIA. However, by the time Fort McKay has an opportunity to provide input into the mine plan it is close to final. Fort McKay is particularly concerned that mine plans be designed to reduce the area of land that must be disturbed at any time, to allow progressive reclamation to occur and to reduce the time period between land disturbance and reclamation. There should be more opportunity for iterative discussion among mine planners, Fort McKay and environmental specialists to ensure that impacts on Fort McKay’s traditional lands and the environment are minimized. Traditional Land Use and Traditional Ecological Knowledge We are pleased to see that the proponent is required to include traditional environmental knowledge (TEK) in both the EIA and in reclamation planning. We have added many comments within the EIA component sections and the TLU and TEK sections of this TOR that describe that level of detail, quantification and analysis expected by Fort McKay. We request that the proponent contact the Fort McKay IRC for our updated Fort McKay Traditional Plant Species and Wildlife lists. We request that each relevant section of the EIA (e.g., air, vegetation, wildlife, conservation and reclamation) incorporate TEK and demonstrate how it was used in the baseline, impact assessment, determination of mitigation measures and reclamation planning. We request that traditional land use impacts be reported from the perspective of the traditional land users and that Shell work with the Aboriginal communities to develop mitigation strategies. We request that the proponent report specific concerns and suggested mitigation measures identified by Elders, trappers and community members during the course of consultation and the traditional land use and TEK studies. We also request that the proponent report their response to these concerns and proposed mitigation measures (i.e., does the proponent plan to implement a given proposed mitigation measure and if not, why not or what is proposed instead). Fort McKay input into TOR It is important for Fort McKay to understand how its input is incorporated into EIA TOR. We would appreciate a copy of the ‘track changes’ version of the TOR that shows what changes the regulators had made between the draft and final TOR. We appreciate the opportunity to review these TOR and look forward to continued participation in the EIA for this project.

Sincerely, Lisa Schaldemose, Executive Director Cc: Jim Boucher, Chief, Fort McKay First Nation Jean L’Hommecourt, Fort McKay IRC

Ron Quintal, President, Fort McKay Métis Local 63 Cort Gallup, Fort McKay Métis Local 63

Michael Saretsky, Shell Canada Limited Brad Bricker, Energy and Utilities 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.

DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) REPORT

FOR THE

SHELL CANADA LIMITED

JACKPINE EXPANSION & PIERRE RIVER MINING AREAS

DATE: May 2007

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 THE EIA REPORT ..................................................................................................................1 1.2 SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT..................................................1 1.3 PUBLIC CONSULTATION ....................................................................................................2 1.4 PROPONENT’S SUBMISSION..............................................................................................2

2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW .................................................................................................... 2 2.1 THE PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT AREA (PDA) AND EIA STUDY AREAS ..................2 2.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS AND DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE........................................3

3.0 REGULATORY AND PLANNING FRAMEWORK ..................................................... 3 3.1 EIA SUMMARY......................................................................................................................4

4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND MANAGEMENT PLANS ........................................ 4 4.1 PROJECT NEED AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ...................................................5 4.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS AND SITE SELECTION............................................................5 4.3 PROCESS SELECTION AND DESCRIPTION......................................................................6 4.4 MATERIALS STORAGE........................................................................................................7 4.5 UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION .................................................................................7 4.6 WATER SUPPLY, WATER MANAGEMENT AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT (ADDITIONALLY ADDRESS APPENDIX) ....................................................................................8 4.7 AIR EMISSIONS MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................9

4.7.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Management.................................................... 10 4.8 HYDROCARBON, CHEMICAL AND WASTE MANAGEMENT.....................................11 4.9 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND CONTINGENCY PLANS...........11 4.10 RECLAMATION AND CLOSURE (SEE APPENDIX) .......................................................12 4.11 PARTICIPATION IN REGIONAL COOPERATIVE EFFORTS .........................................14

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT............................................................................. 14 5.1 INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT......15 5.2 STUDY AREAS.....................................................................................................................16 5.3 CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ......................................16 5.4 CLIMATE, AIR QUALITY AND NOISE.............................................................................16

5.4.1 Air Quality...................................................................................................... 16 5.4.2 Noise .............................................................................................................. 17 5.4.3 Climate Change .............................................................................................. 18

5.5 LAND AND WATER USE, ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS AND AGGREGATE RESOURCE CONSERVATION ...........................................................................................................................18 5.6 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS ..............................................................19

5.6.1 Biodiversity..................................................................................................... 19 5.6.2 Geology, Soils, Terrain .................................................................................... 20 5.6.3 Vegetation ...................................................................................................... 21 5.6.4 Wildlife........................................................................................................... 23 5.6.5 Groundwater (Additionally Address Appendix).................................................. 25 5.6.6 Surface Water ................................................................................................. 26 5.6.7 Aquatic Resources ........................................................................................... 28

6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING............................................................................ 30 7.0 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ................................................................................. 30 8.0 TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE AND LAND USE......................... 31 9.0 HISTORICAL RESOURCES AND LAND USE ASSESSMENT ............................... 32 10.0 SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS ................................................................................... 33 11.0 PUBLIC CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS .......................................................... 33 APPENDIX.................................................................................................................................. 35

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

- 1 -

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 THE EIA REPORT The purpose of these Terms of Reference is to identify for the public and Shell Canada Limited (Shell) the information required by federal and provincial government agencies for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report. Shell will prepare and submit an EIA report to explain the environmental effects of the construction, operation and reclamation of the proposed Jackpine Expansion and Pierre River Mining Areas (the Project). The proposed Project will be located approximately 100 kilometres north of Fort McMurray in Townships 96 and 97, Ranges 8 and 9 W4M and in Townships 97, 98, 99 and 100, Ranges 9, 10 and 11 W4M. The Project will consist of oil sands mining areas and bitumen extraction facilities capable of producing approximately 300,000 barrels of bitumen per day. The Jackpine Expansion mining areas expand the approved Jackpine Mine and could include development activities on Leases 88, 89, 15, 631 and 632. Subject to conclusion of satisfactory commercial arrangements, this proposed expansion may potentially include lease exchange areas acquired from other companies as well as adjacent Fort McKay First Nation Lands. The Pierre River mining areas involving mining and bitumen processing activities on the west side of the Athabasca River, initially on Leases 9 and 17 and could progress to Leases 309, 310, 351 and 352.

1.2 SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT The EIA report will be prepared in accordance with the requirements prescribed under the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA), and any other federal legislation which may apply to the Project. It will form part of Shell’s application to the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) for approval under the Oil Sands Conservation Act (OSCA) and any other federal legislation, which may apply to the Project. The EIA report will: a) assist the public, Aboriginal groups and government in understanding the environmental

and socio-economic consequences of the Project’s development, operation and reclamation plans and will assist Shell in its decision-making process;

b) present:

i) Project impacts, including cumulative effects; ii) mitigation options and confidence in their effectiveness; iii) residual effects relevant to the assessment of the Project including, as

appropriate, those related to other industrial operations; and iv) as appropriate for the various types of impacts, present predictions in terms of

direction, magnitude, frequency, duration, seasonal timing, reversibility, geographic extent and uncertainty;

c) discuss possible measures, including established measures and possible improvements

based on research and development to: i) prevent or mitigate impacts; ii) assist in monitoring effectiveness of environmental protection measures in

managing impacts; iii) identify residual environmental impacts and their significance including

cumulative and regional development considerations; and

Formatted: Indent: Left: 86.4 pt,Hanging: 30.6 pt, Numbered +Level: 1 + Numbering Style: i, ii, iii,… + Start at: 3 + Alignment: Left +Aligned at: 86.4 pt + Tab after: 122.4 pt + Indent at: 122.4 pt,Tabs: Not at 122.4 pt

- 2 -

d) form part of Shell’s application to the EUB. A summary of the EIA report will also be included as part of the EUB Application document.

1.3 PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Shell’s public consultation program will facilitate communication with members of the public who may be affected by the Project and will provide them with an opportunity to participate in the Environmental Assessment process. The EIA report will document the results of the public consultation program (see Section 11) and will provide information to address the issues raised.

1.4 PROPONENT’S SUBMISSION Shell is responsible for the preparation of the EIA report and related applications for Project approval. The EIA report will be based upon these Terms of Reference and issues raised during the public consultation process. The EIA report will include references for sources of information used,a glossary of terms and a list of abbreviations (including definition source) to assist the reader in understanding the material presented. The EIA report will include tables that cross-reference the report (subsections) to the EIA Terms of Reference and the applications pursuant to the EPEA, Water Act and appropriate federal statutes, as applicable.

2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW

Provide a corporate profile clearly outlining the ownership structure of the corporation, an overview of the Project, the key environmental, resource management and socio-economic issues that are important for a public interest decision, and the results of the Environmental Assessment. Identify those responsible for the development, management and operation of the Project. Provide a brief history of Shell’s exploration in the oil sands area. 2.1 THE PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT AREA (PDA) AND EIA STUDY AREAS

The Principal Development Area (PDA) includes all lands subject to direct disturbance from the Project and associated infrastructure, including access and utility corridors. For the PDA, provide: a) the legal land description; b) the boundaries of the PDA; c) a map that identifies the locations of all existing and proposed development

activities; and d) a map showing the area proposed to be disturbed in relation to existing topographic

features, township grids, wetlands, watercourses and waterbodies. Study Areas for the EIA report include the PDA and other areas based on individual environmental components where an effect from the proposed development can reasonably be expected. Provide: e) the rationale used to define Local and Regional Study Areas (LSA and RSA), also

discussed in Section 5.3, considering the location and range of probable Project and cumulative effects, including those related toregional or cumulative effects consistent with but not limited to the direction of the Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA)/Regional Sustainable Development Strategy (RSDS); and

f) illustrate boundaries and identify the LSAs and RSAs chosen to assess impacts on maps of appropriate scale. Temporal boundaries should include the return of equivalent capability for all users.

Formatted: Indent: Left: 63 pt,Hanging: 27 pt, Numbered + Level:1 + Numbering Style: a, b, c, … +Start at: 4 + Alignment: Left +Aligned at: 57.6 pt + Tab after: 75.6 pt + Indent at: 75.6 pt, Tabs:Not at 75.6 pt

Comment [ML1]: Note that meaningful consultation that includes mitigation and accommodation is required with affected First Nations.

Comment [ML2]: We are concerned about the size of the regional study area that has been used in recent oil sands EIAs; it is arbitrary in size and does not reflect the significance of impacts on the landscape in relation to Fort McKay. We request that the regulators and Shell consider and discuss with Fort McKay including an additional, smaller regional study area in this and future environmental impact assessments that would more accurately reflect the significance of the true magnitude of environmental impacts to the community of Fort McKay.

- 3 -

2.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS AND DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE Provide a development plan and overview of the Project components proposed for approval. Discuss the following: a) the phases of development; b) rates and total volume of bitumen recovery; c) field maintenance operations; d) processing facilities; e) buildings; f) transportation infrastructure; and g) utility corridors. Provide an outline and/or drawings of the Project activities and components. Discuss the following: h) temporary structures; i) processing/treatment facilities; j) buildings and infrastructure (e.g. roads, bridges, pipelines and utilities); k) transportation and access routes; l) containment structures such as berms, dams, dykes and retention ponds; m) water source wells and intakes; n) aggregate resources and other road construction material required and on-site

availability; o) types and amounts of waste materials, waste storage area and disposal sites; p) activities associated with development of the area, operations, reclamation and

development; q) closure; and r) proposed method of product transportation to markets. Provide a development schedule outlining the proposed phasing, sequencing and duration of components, including: s) pre-construction; t) construction; u) operation; v) decommissioning; w) reclamation; x) a detailed schedule for any reclamation and related activities envisaged during the first

decade of operations; and y) the key factors controlling the schedule and uncertainties.

3.0 REGULATORY AND PLANNING FRAMEWORK

a) Identify the federal, provincial and municipal legislation, policies, approvals and current multi-stakeholder planning initiatives applicable to the review of the Project;

b) list the major components of the Project that will be applied for and constructed under the EPEA, Water Act and the Public Lands Act (PLA);

c) address other regulatory authorizations that exist or will be required for the Project under federal, provincial and municipal government requirements, and describe the schedule and mechanisms Shell will engage to comply with these regulatory processes;

d) discuss the primary focus of each regulatory requirement, such as resource allocation, environmental protection, land use development and the elements of the Project that are subject to that regulation;

Formatted: Indent: Left: 57.6 pt,Hanging: 28.8 pt, Numbered +Level: 1 + Numbering Style: a, b, c,… + Start at: 11 + Alignment: Left +Aligned at: 36 pt + Tab after: 72 pt+ Indent at: 72 pt, Tabs: Not at 72pt


- 4 -

e) discuss any regulatory systems that apply to the Project, such as solid waste or air pollution classifications, land use zones, wildlife management areas and forest management areas; and

f) provide a summary of the regional, provincial or national objectives, standards or guidelines that have been used in the classification and evaluation of the importance of effects.

3.1 EIA SUMMARY

a) Provide a summary of the results of the EIA report including:

i) the Project components and development activities which have the potential to affect the environment;

ii) existing and pre-development conditions in the study areas, including existing uses of lands, waterways, and resources and other activities, which have potential in combination with proposed development activities, to affect the environment;

iii) the environmental effects which are anticipated; iv) proposed environmental protection plan(s), mitigation measures and

monitoring; v) residual effects; and vi) the effects of the environment on the Project.

b) Identify the environmental, cultural, and socio-economic impacts of the Project including the regional, temporal, and cumulative effects. As appropriate, impact significance should be explained in terms of direction, magnitude, frequency, duration, seasonal timing, reversibility, geographic extent and uncertainty. Where possible, predictions are to be quantified.

c) Include suitable maps, charts and other illustrations to identify the components of the Project, the existing conditions, and the environmental and the socio-economic implications of the development.

d) Discuss the key environmental issues of the Project important for the achievement of sustainable environmental and resource management. Differentiate between emerging issues with uncertainties, issues with important environmental consequences and issues that can be mitigated through available technology and with existing management approaches. Describe how and when ongoing uncertainties and emerging issues will be addressed.

4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND MANAGEMENT PLANS

The scope and detail of the project description information shall be sufficient to allow quantitative assessment of the environmental consequences. If the scope of information varies among components or phases of the Project, Shell shall provide a rationale demonstrating that the information is sufficient for EIA purposes, and identify how information gaps will be addressed. Describe the Project components, infrastructure and activities. Discuss the alternatives considered, the alternative selection process (including how environmental, socio-economic and traditional use information was considered in the selection of alternatives), the potential effects that activities and infrastructures may have on the environment and the natural resources to be used for the Project. Outline the management systems and plans to minimize the discharge of pollutants, manage wastes, reclaim disturbed lands and waterbodies, optimize resource use, and manage and monitor environmental effects. Describe all of the activities and components of the Project that are proposed for approval. Provide outlines of the relevant management plans for these activities. Technical information required in this Section may also be required for federal and provincial government approvals (see Appendix). Information required in this Section may be provided in

Formatted: Indent: Left: 86.4 pt,Hanging: 28.8 pt, Numbered +Level: 1 + Numbering Style: i, ii, iii,… + Start at: 5 + Alignment: Left +Aligned at: 72 pt + Tab after: 108pt + Indent at: 108 pt, Tabs: Not at 108 pt

Comment [M3]: If the proponent indicates that on-going uncertainties are to be addressed by CEMA, the proponent should indicate when CEMA will be addressing the particular issue and the work plan and funding that is in place.

- 5 -

other parts of Shell’s submission(s) provided that the location of the information is appropriately referenced in the EIA report. 4.1 PROJECT NEED AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Discuss the need for oil sands development on the leases, the alternatives to the Project and the potential alternatives of not proceeding with it or delaying development. Include the following: a) an analysis of the key project alternatives that were considered, including need for the

Project, alternative projects, and scope of the Project (major components included or excluded). For the Project components, include a comparison of their environmental and technical performance potential and other relevant variables;

b) provide the rationale for the decisions made by Shell about Project component alternatives and the status of any ongoing analyses, including a discussion of options not chosen and the rationale for their exclusion; Discuss how environmental, socio-economic and traditional use criteria influenced the selection of the proposed alternatives

c) contingency plans if major Project components or methods of the Project prove to not be feasible or do not perform as expected;

d) the implications of a delay in proceeding with the Project, or any phase of the Project; and

e) potential cooperative development opportunities for the Project (e.g. shared infrastructure and the implications of the Project for ongoing regional management and research initiatives).

4.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS AND SITE SELECTION

Describe the nature, size, design capacity, location and duration of the components of the Project including, but not limited to, the following: a) the oil sands mine area required to support the life of the Project; b) design capacities associated with the Project; c) the bitumen extraction, bitumen processing facilities, tailings management,

overburden storage areas, any chemical storage locations and any off-site facilities; d) dewatering and water control facilities, processing/treatment facilities and temporary

structures; e) buildings and infrastructure, transportation, utilities, access routes (including

watercourse crossing structures), storage areas and mining operations; f) the type and amount of solid and liquid waste materials and the location of those

waste storage and disposal sites; g) the location of components on a site development plan and the proposed phasing and

sequencing of components and development phases. Include a development schedule, explaining: i) timing of key construction, operational, reclamation and decommissioning

activities; ii) expected duration of each development phase for the life of the Project; and iii) key factors controlling the schedule and uncertainties related to the Project;

h) the total land area disturbed during each stage of the Project, a projection of the maximum amount of disturbance at any given moment, and a list of reclamation milestones to be met through the Project life, such as the reclamation of overburden dumps;

i) the environmental implications of alternative mining methods considered, including approaches to minimize the size and duration of disturbances;


- 6 -

j) potential cooperative ventures with other oil sands operators and other resource users to minimize the environmental impact of the Project or the environmental impact of regional oil sands development, including but not limited to water management. Discuss how Shell will work to develop such cooperative opportunities and identify a timeframe for their implementation to minimize the environmental impact of the Project. Indicate how regional stakeholders including Aboriginal communities will have input into the development of these plans to help ensure that the reclaimed landscape meets stakeholder targets Identify environmental implications of lease boundary agreements with adjacent operators and indicate plans to address any lease boundary issues that may arise including but not limited to water management and closure drainage plans;

k) the activities to date, including but not limited to, resource delineation through seismic activity and core hole drilling programs; and

l) how Shell has incorporated both community information and elements of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) and Traditional Land Use into Project design and mitigation.

Discuss the site selection process for the various Project components including: m) the process and factors that were considered in evaluating and delineating the oil

sands ore body to determine the preferred locations for the mine area included in the Project, plant site and associated processing facilities;

n) siting factors with respect to existing activities or other resources and the need to either adjust the development, compensate for or relocate the existing activity; and

o) the rationale for selecting the proposed sites, including external tailings ponds and overburden dumps, and how technical, geotechnical and environmental criteria were considered in decision-making, and the decision criteria used.

Include a discussion of the following: p) Shell’s efforts to use existing seismic lines, linear corridors and other existing

disturbances and describe the types and spatial extent of any additional disturbance resulting from Project development;

q) planned accommodations and transportation for the workforce during construction and operations, including plans to minimize disturbance and provide for site reclamation after construction is complete for those facilities located within the study area; and

r) how surface disturbance (extent and duration) will be minimized, including co-operation with other developments.

Provide the following maps showing: s) the location of existing and proposed Project facilities and infrastructure; t) all existing surface leases and clearings and illustrate how these areas will be used for

Project development; u) all existing seismic lines and other linear corridors (e.g. pipeline, utility corridors and

trap lines); and v) the locations of development components of the Project relative to all terrestrial and

aquatic components including, but not limited to, soils, topography, waterbodies, vegetation, wildlife habitat, watersheds and wetlands, Registered Fur Management Areas and traditional land use areas of Aboriginal peoples.

4.3 PROCESS SELECTION AND DESCRIPTION

Comment [ML4]: Fort McKay is pleased to see this requirement to incorporate TEK into project design and mitigation

- 7 -

Provide material balances, flow diagrams and descriptions of the processes to be used for each production stage of development under normal operating conditions (annual average calendar day rates) and at maximum expected rates (stream day rates). Describe oil sands mining and bitumen extraction, and associated facilities. Document and discuss the following: a) alternative technologies that are technically and economically feasible and the

rationale for selection of the technologies chosen. b) the Project inputs such as energy and water including the sources of these inputs, and

the outputs such as emissions and chemical wastes, including the short- and long-term fate of these outputs (recycling, disposal), and efforts to minimize these inputs and outputs;

c) the energy and process efficiency of the technologies chosen, including greenhouse gas emissions;

d) the effect of technology selection on tailings characteristics including, but not limited to, quantity, quality, physical characteristics, generation and storage requirements, air and water discharges, toxicity, water and energy requirements, chemical and hydrocarbon waste streams, bitumen recovery and effects to reclamation programs; and

e) opportunities to reduce surface disturbance, emissions, chemical and hydrocarbon wastes and energy consumption through structural and process integration of mining and extraction facilities and processes, or through other means.

4.4 MATERIALS STORAGE

Identify the location and amount of all on-site and adjacent storage associated with bitumen production, including storage of chemicals, products, by-products, intermediates and associated wastes. Explain containment and environmental protection measures with reference to relevant provincial and federal guidelines.

4.5 UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION

Describe the Project energy requirements, associated infrastructure and other infrastructure requirements. Specifically: a) discuss the steps taken to integrate the needs of other stakeholders into the location

and design of access infrastructure to reduce and manage overall environmental impacts from resource development;

b) include a map showing transportation access to the site from provincial highways; c) discuss reducing or mitigating visual impact during operation of infrastructure; d) discuss how public access to, or within the PDA or lease will be managed during the

development phases of the Project; e) discuss the impact of increased vehicle traffic and requirements for access

improvements on Highway 63 and roads in the oil sands development area as a result of the Project, considering other existing and planned developments and operations in the region including what measures will be taken to reduce traffic and enhance vehicle safety on Highway 63;

f) discuss any expected change in traffic volume by Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) and any seasonal variability in traffic volume (include mitigation measures) prior to construction, during construction and at full site operation;

g) discuss consultations with the local transportation authorities and other stakeholders, including transportation studies that are underway or planned;

- 8 -

h) discuss the sources, location and availability of road construction and reclamation materials, including an estimate of the volume of materials needed and expected number of hauls used to transport this material along provincial highways; and

i) discuss the options considered for supplying the power required for the Project and the environmental implications, including opportunities to increase the energy efficiency of the Project with the use of waste heat and electrical power;

j) identify the potential energy source, product pipeline, electrical power transmission and access routes to the Project. If regional infrastructure is required, identify who will potentially be responsible for installation and approval of these facilities; and

k) identify and locate any potential river and stream crossings and discuss the adequacy of their design, including consideration of spill prevention, timing of construction and environmental protection plans. Discuss contingency plans for spill response and any environmental risks associated with product releases or management practices.

4.6 WATER SUPPLY, WATER MANAGEMENT AND WASTEWATER

MANAGEMENT (ADDITIONALLY ADDRESS APPENDIX) Provide the following information for the Project: a) a water balance for each phase of the Project; b) process and potable water requirements for both normal and emergency operating

situations and any seasonal or annual variability throughout the life of the Project (e.g. start-up, operation, closure and reclamation, end pit lake filling);

c) how these requirements will be met, the various supply options considered (including on and off site storage and cooperative ventures) and the rationale for choosing the preferred option;

d) the location of sources/intakes and associated infrastructure (e.g. pipelines for water supply) Include the constraints mapping process used to locate the intake and associated infrastructure and environmental, socio-economic and traditional use and other criteria used in the selection of locations/routes;

e) proposed well locations, aquifer intervals including completion depth and estimated quantities for groundwater withdrawal;

f) raw water treatment requirements; g) measures for ensuring efficient use of water, including alternatives to reduce

freshwater consumption such as water minimization, use of saline water, recycling of process and other water and other conservation techniques;

h) the impact of low flow conditions and instream flow needs (IFN) on water and wastewater management strategies including contingency plans for water sourcing or management alternatives to manage potential low flow withdrawal restrictions; and

i) discuss potential cooperation with other oil sands companies with regard to water-related infrastructure and management including, but not limited to, water intakes, pipelines, water storage and withdrawals, flow monitoring and reporting and ecological monitoring.

Provide a Water Management Plan, document and discuss the following: j) site runoff volumes and containment, erosion control, surface and groundwater

protection, muskeg dewatering, mine pit dewatering and the discharge of aqueous contaminants;

k) factors used in the design of water management facilities, including expected flood levels and flood protection.

l) permanent or temporary alterations or realignments to waterbodies and wetlands; and

- 9 -

m) measures taken by Shell to contribute to the improvement in efficiency and productivity of water use as identified in Water For Life: Alberta’s Strategy for Sustainability to ensure efficient use of water for the Project.

Provide a Wastewater Management Plan for the Project, describe and discuss: n) the source, quantity and composition of wastewater streams from each component of

the proposed operations (e.g. oil sands mining, bitumen extraction, and associated facilities) for all Project conditions, including normal, start-up, worst case and upset conditions;

o) the design of facilities that will handle, treat and store wastewater streams and the type and quantity of any chemicals used in wastewater treatment, including measures taken in the design to prevent or minimize potential impacts to the environment;

p) the options for wastewater treatment, including the rationale for selecting the preferred options, including a discussion of options not chosen and the rationale for their exclusion;

q) the options for the disposal of wastewater in the context of best management practices and best available technologies, including the rationale for choosing the preferred options and the measures taken to prevent impacts on potable groundwater, aquatic ecosystems and vegetation;

r) how make-up water requirements and disposal volumes will be minimized; s) discharges to the surrounding watershed from existing and reclaimed sites, including

the tailings management areas and end pit lakes and the management strategy for handling such releases;

t) the potable water and sewage treatment systems for both the construction and operation stages. Discuss the sewage treatment system options considered including the rationale for the option selected; and

u) a monitoring plan for wastewater releases, including the rationale used to determine the frequency of sampling, the parameters to be measured. Discuss how monitoring programs are compatible with regional multi-stakeholder monitoring programs and how Shell plans to incorporate aquatic and wetland (where applicable) monitoring programs into the management of water withdrawals and discharges from their project. Discuss the thresholds that would be used to trigger mitigation and other adaptive management responses.

4.7 AIR EMISSIONS MANAGEMENT

Identify and describe emissions for the Project, including point and area sources, fugitive emissions (including tailings management areas and mine faces), and emissions from mining vehicles. Estimate the range of emissions from all sources under normal and upset conditions. For upset conditions include the duration and intensity. Discuss the following from a management perspective: a) potential odorous or visual emissions; b) the amount and nature of any acidifying emissions, as well as, probable deposition

areas and potential effects to soils, vegetation and waterbodies; (note: acidifying emissions are to include all sulfur and nitrogen emissions unless a rationale is provided for not considering all these emissions acidifying).

c) the potential effects on human health from ingesting plants with high deposition loads or fish harvested from affected water;

- 10 -

d) the amount and nature of any nitrogen emissions, the likely atmospheric transformations of these emissions, resulting probable deposition area and the effects on vegetation with regard to eutrophication.

e) the amount and nature of any emissions, including fugitive emissions, that have a potential effects on human health; and f) emissions associated with slash burning as well as opportunities to manage and reduce

these; g) the emission control technologies proposed for the Project in the context of available

practicable technologies and best available technology economically achievable (BATEA). Discuss the following:

i) how air emission and quality issues were considered in the evaluation and selection of processes and operational procedures;

ii) the evaluation of emission minimization options that was undertaken and the basis for determining that the proposed emission control technologies for the Project represent BATEA

iii) use of both combustion and post-combustion (NOx) control technologies for turbines and boilers, heaters and/or cogeneration units

iv) how fleet emissions will be minimized having regard to the USEPA Tier 4 standards, possible retrofit emission control measures, early adoption of improved Nonroad Heavy Duty Diesel Engines and low-sulphur fuel to minimize mobile emission sources;

v) plans if any to minimize fleet emissions having regard to the USEPA Tier 4 standards

vi) fugitive emissions control program to detect, measure and control emissions and odours from equipment leaks having regard for the CCME Code of Practice for Measurement and Control of Fugitive VOC Emissions;

vii) use of technology to meet or exceed the CCME Environmental Guidelines for Controlling Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds from Aboveground Storage Tanks and Alberta Environment Guidelines for Secondary Containment for Aboveground Storage Tanks;

vi) emergency flaring scenarios and proposed measures to ensure flaring events are minimized having regard for EUB Directive 60 and design criteria to ensure that flares operate at high efficiency;

vii) gas collection, conservation and technology for vapour recovery for the Project’s air emissions;

viii) technology or management programs to minimize the direct emissions and secondary formation of particulate matter, ozone and trace metals of concern having regard to the provisions of the Canada Wide Standard for particulate matter and ozone; and

ix) monitoring programs Shell will implement to assess air quality and the effectiveness of mitigation during Project development and operation. Discuss how these programs are compatible with regional multi-stakeholder air quality management initiatives and how Shell plans to incorporate air quality monitoring programs into the management of air emissions from their facility. Discuss the thresholds that would be used to trigger adaptive management responses.

xii) Discuss how air quality monitoring results will be communicated to Fort McKay, particularly during an unforeseen release event.

4.7.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Management

Provide the following:

Formatted: Indent: Left: 36 pt,Numbered + Level: 1 + NumberingStyle: a, b, c, … + Start at: 1 +Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 57.6 pt+ Tab after: 75.6 pt + Indent at: 75.6 pt


Deleted: low oxides of nitrogen

Comment [M5]: There are now draft interim NOx guidelines that supercede CCME but regardless companies should do the assessment for BATEA independent of existing guidelines.

Deleted: having regard for the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) National Emissions Guidelines for Stationary Combustion Turbines and CCME National Emissions Guideline for Commercial/Industrial Boilers and Heaters;

Deleted: <#>use of other applicable NOx emission reduction technology (Ultra Low NOx burners, Selective Catalytic Reduction, Selective Non Catalytic Reduction Technology) for stationary NOx;¶

- 11 -

a) the expected annual and total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the Project;

b) the Project’s contribution to total provincial and national GHG emissions on an annual basis;

c) the intensity of GHG emissions per unit of bitumen produced and discuss how this intensity compares with similar projects and technology performance;

d) how the Project design and GHG management plans have taken into account the need for continuous improvement with respect to GHG emissions; and

e) Shell’s overall GHG management plans, any plans for the use of offsets, (nationally or internationally) and the expected results of implementing the plans.

4.8 HYDROCARBON, CHEMICAL AND WASTE MANAGEMENT

Characterize and estimate the volumes of hydrocarbon and chemical waste streams generated by the Project. Identify how each waste stream will be managed. Demonstrate that the selected options for waste management are consistent with best industry practice. Provide the following information: a) a classification of the wastes generated and a characterization of each stream under the

EPEA Waste Management Regulations; b) the location, nature and amount of on-site hydrocarbon storage. Discuss containment

and other environmental protection measures; c) a listing of chemical product consumption for the Project. Identify products containing

substances that are Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) toxic chemicals, on the Priority Substances List (PSL 2), on the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI), or Track 1 substances targeted under Environment Canada’s Toxic Substances Management Policy;

d) in general terms, how chemical products will be stored and managed to ensure safety and environmental protection;

e) the chemical make-up and quantity of exploratory drilling wastes produced by the Project;

f) the management plan for exploratory drilling wastes, produced tailings, overburden and other mining wastes, as well as any by-products. Include evaluations to minimize fine fluid tailings production, considering mining methods and the proposed extraction process;

g) the strategy for on-site waste disposal versus off-site waste disposal and an analysis of environmental implications of proposed options. Identify the location of on-site waste disposal locations, including industrial landfills. Identify on- and off-site waste treatment areas; and

h) how, using specific examples, the principles of pollution prevention, waste minimization and recycling have been incorporated into the Project design.

4.9 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND CONTINGENCY PLANS

Summarize key elements of Shell’s environment, health and safety management system and discuss how it will be integrated into the Project. Provide the following information: a) corporate policies and procedures, operator competency training, spill and air

emission reporting and monitoring procedures and emergency response plans; b) plans to prevent or minimize the production or release into the environment of

substances that may have an adverse effect;

Formatted: Indent: Left: 86.4 pt,Hanging: 30.6 pt, Numbered +Level: 1 + Numbering Style: a, b, c,… + Start at: 4 + Alignment: Left +Aligned at: 86.4 pt + Tab after: 104.4 pt + Indent at: 104.4 pt,Tabs: Not at 104.4 pt

Deleted: marginal

Deleted: it

- 12 -

c) a conceptual contingency plan that considers environmental effects associated with operational upset conditions, such as serious malfunctions or accidents, or extreme weather events;

d) discuss confidences inherent in mitigation strategies, including how Shell intends to address low frequency, high consequence events;

e) the procedures specified in the emergency response plan to deal with potential negative effects and public safety (e.g., evacuation plans) and communication procedures;

f) quality assurance and quality control (QA-QC) programs Shell plans to implement to ensure the ongoing operation of environmental management systems meet regulatory standards (such as the CCME leak detection and repair program) and how their QA-QC program compares to industry best management practices;

g) participation in regional mutual aid programs h) environmental monitoring done independently by Shell in addition to monitoring

performed in conjunction with other stakeholders and publicly available monitoring information. Provide a comprehensive summary of all proposed monitoring, research and other strategies or plans to minimize, mitigate and manage any potential adverse effects;

i) describe new monitoring initiatives that may be required as a result of the Project and outline Shell’s commitment to adaptive environmental management; and

j) Describe the flexibility built into the plant design and layout to accommodate future modifications required by change in emission standards, limits and guidelines. Discuss any follow-up programs and adaptive management considerations.

4.10 RECLAMATION AND CLOSURE (SEE APPENDIX)

Provide a conceptual, comprehensive, progressive reclamation and closure plan for the Project. Outline reclamation concepts and objectives, proposed end land use objectives and consultation process and other factors necessary for this plan to be implemented. Discuss the following: a) residual effects and their environmental consequences including uncertainties

associated with reclamation and reclamation research plans; b) consideration of baseline (including pre-development) information with respect to

land capability, vegetation, commercial and non-commercial forest, forest productivity (including actual measures of forest productivity not just those based on calculations from the Land Capability Classification System), recreation (including navigation), wildlife, birds, fisheries, aesthetics, traditional lands and their use, and other land use resources;

c) efforts to identify and address knowledge gaps; d) reclamation sequencing for each phase of development. Provide a table and graph that

shows cumulatively, for each year and for the entire mine life, the land disturbed by clearing, land disturbed through drainage, land disturbed by soil removal (or covering), the total land reclaimed and the land that remains un-reclaimed. Discuss how mine design, tailings technology and reclamation planning have contributed to an accelerated (compared to existing projects) pace of reclamation;

e) re-establishment of topography, watercourse and vegetation communities of natural function and appearance that are integrated with the surrounding landscape and adjacent land disturbances. Include in the discussion out-of-pit structure design, riparian areas and other developments, and the return to equivalent land capability that existed prior to the Project development, including forest productivity ,wildlife habitat and traditional land use opportunities;

f) document the return of land capability through the application of management strategies for reclamation. Discuss where equivalent capability cannot be achieved

Deleted: and

- 13 -

and why and discuss if this is due to mine design or limitations of the reclamation technologies;

g) reforestation plan at the ecosite phase levels to achieve land use capabilities on similar land area equivalent to those that existed prior to the Project development;

h) a conceptual schedule for the return of the forest resource landbase, by area, species and productivity;

i) restoration of traditional land-based uses; j) soil replacement and revegetation; k) end pit lakes, wetlands (include the natural range of wetland types) and other

components of the reclaimed landscape; l) indicate how the proposed reclamation methods have performed in similar situations, including the establishment of a diversity of ecosites and ecosite phases and the repopulation of these areas by plant and wildlife species of importance. Include in this discussion the plants and animals included in the Aboriginal communities’ traditional species lists. m) current examples of successful re-establishment of equivalent capability on overburden and

waste dumps, reclaimed tailings storage facilities and consolidated tailings for the various land uses described in b) above. n) the timeframe for completion of reclamation phases and release of all lands affected

by the Project back to the Crown, including previously disturbed lands and public access. Provide an estimate of outstanding reclamation liability for intervals throughout the project (e.g., 10 years, 20 years etc.);

o) how the Shell closure plan will: i) return land to the equivalent capability for the range of users and uses that

existed prior to the Project development having regard for ecological integrity, regulatory requirements and stakeholder end land use preferences. Describe what reclamation performance indicators will be used to ensure this requirement will be met. Describe how Shell plans to monitor/measure capability for factors other than soil capability for forest production;

ii) be developed so that it is consistent with the Fort McMurray/Athabasca Oil Sands Sub-regional Integrated Resource Plan (IRP); and

iii) address the issues raised by the Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA);

p) plans to monitor biodiversity in the reclaimed landscape, considering the use of regional control sites as benchmarks for comparison with reclaimed areas, and considering use of Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Program protocols, as practical. Using the biotic pre-disturbance assessment factors, compare pre-disturbance to post-disturbance biodiversity; and

Describe the following: q) how the closure plan will achieve the desired final landforms through the integration

of mine planning and development and reclamation and goals within the IRP for reclamation to natural landforms;

r) the aquatic components of the closure landscape, including streams, wetlands and end pit lakes. Discuss issues related to the design of a self-sustaining and productive aquatic ecosystem for a range of users and uses, including implications of the selected tailings technology. Explain processes and activities Shell will undertake to address issues of uncertainty surrounding the long-term ecological viability of end pit lakes. Include a hydrological analysis of the closure landscape, including an assessment of performance uncertainties including potential climate change and discussion of contingency plans should performance not match expectations. Contrast the pre-

Formatted: Indent: Left: 36 pt,Hanging: 18 pt, Numbered + Level:1 + Numbering Style: a, b, c, … +Start at: 11 + Alignment: Left +Aligned at: 36 pt + Tab after: 72 pt+ Indent at: 72 pt

- 14 -

development aquatic ecosystem to the closure ecosystem. This comparison should include all pre-development wetland types; and

s) how the closure plan incorporates topographical diversity, size and extent of vegetation and wetland types into the final design. Discuss how waste materials, which have a high potential to discharge saline water, will be identified during mining and placed in locations to minimize their contact with surface and groundwater flows. Discuss the potential for creating a range of wetland types including any wetland reclamation research plans. Identify the closure plan goals for biodiversity. Explain how achieving biodiversity goals will promote end land use that has equivalent land capability. Discuss the compatibility of these two goals.

t) Discuss Shell’s role in CEMA’s reclamation working group and any research initiatives regarding wetland restoration

u) Discuss how Shell will involve Aboriginal communities in closure planning.

4.11 PARTICIPATION IN REGIONAL COOPERATIVE EFFORTS a) Discuss Shell’s current and planned participation including staff resources, time and

fiscal resources in regional cooperative efforts to address environmental and socio-economic issues associated with regional development including, but not limited to, CEMA, the Wood Buffalo Environmental Association (WBEA) and the Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program (RAMP) and their working groups. Include Shell’s participation in regional air, water and other environmental monitoring programs, health studies, research, TEK and socio-economic studies. For monitoring activities describe the thresholds that will be used (or the mechanisms that will be put into place to determine the thresholds) to trigger mitigation or other adaptive management approaches.

b) Describe where Shell intends to rely upon information from CEMA, WBEA, RAMP, and Canadian Oil Sands Network for Research and Development (CONRAD) to design mitigation measures for Project-specific and/or cumulative effects, and regional monitoring programs or research programs.

c) In general, for the environmental assessment and planned monitoring and adaptive management, use key indicator resources, criteria and thresholds that have been defined by CEMA, WBEA and RAMP. If these are not being used, describe the rationale.

c) Describe how Shell will contribute to the effective design and implementation of proposed management plans and objectives, mitigation, monitoring programs and research programs within these regional cooperative efforts.

d) Describe how Shell will involve stakeholders in the design and assessment of environmental research activities.

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Define assessment scenarios including:

a) a Pre-development Case, which includes environmental conditions that existed prior to oil sands development

b) an existing case, which outlines current environmental conditions a) a Base Case, which includes existing environmental conditions, existing and approved

Projects or activities; b) an Application Case, which includes the Base Case plus the Project; and c) a Planned Development Case (PDC), which includes past studies, existing and

anticipated future environmental conditions, existing and approved projects or activities, plus planned projects or activities.

Comment [M6]: A true pre-development baseline is required to adequately assess the impact on traditional users. According to Fort McKay traditional knowledge holders, there has, for example, already been a noticeable decrease in moose populations. To only assess the net change from the current situation or the current situation plus approved ignores the previous loss.

Comment [M7]: This provides the information necessary to assess how much change has occurred and will occur under the three development scenarios i.e. base, application and planned

- 15 -

Note: For the purposes of defining assessment scenarios, “approved” means approved by any federal, provincial or municipal regulatory authority. “Planned” is considered any project or activity that has been publicly disclosed prior to the issuance of the Terms of Reference or up to six months prior to the submission of the Project Application and EIA report, whichever is submitted sooner.

5.1 INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The EIA report will include the following basic environmental information requirements for the five assessment scenarios: a) quantitative and qualitative information about the environmental and ecological

processes in the study areas, TEK and an overview of trends or uncertainties arising from that review;

b) a description of any deficiencies or limitations in the existing environmental databases, how deficiencies and/or limitations were addressed, and their impact on the analysis and any appropriate follow-up;

c) specifics of the data used for assessment including time series and number of replicates for collected data; process and original data set used for computer generated data, provide relevant statistical measures including, but not limited to, range, standard deviation, mean and median.

c) information about the human activities in the study areas and the nature, size, location and duration of their potential interactions with the environment; e.g. land disturbance, discharges of substances, changes to access status and any significant effect the Project may have on the present and future capacity of renewable resources;

d) discuss Visual Resource Management for the Project footprint and any associated development in the vicinity of the project;

e) information about ecological processes and natural forces that are expected to produce changes in environmental conditions (e.g. forest fires, flood or drought conditions);

f) the demonstrated use of appropriate predictive tools and methods, consistent with CEMA, WBEA and RAMP and any other relevant initiatives including integrated land management, to enable quantitative estimates of future conditions with the highest possible degree of certainty;

g) definition of the system employed to classify and evaluate the effects associated with the Project. The classification system will include qualitative and quantitative descriptions of the effects, and as appropriate, will have regard for direction, magnitude, frequency, duration, seasonal timing, reversibility, geographic extent and uncertainty (CEAA Responsible Authority’s Guide). The evaluation system will rank the consequences of the residual effects measured quantitatively against management objectives or baseline conditions, and described qualitatively with respect to the views of the proponent and stakeholders;

h) management options and plans to prevent, minimize or mitigate adverse effects and to monitor and respond to expected or unanticipated conditions, including any follow-up plans to verify the accuracy of predictions or determine the effectiveness of mitigation plans. Provide a record of all assumptions, confidence in data to support conclusions regarding reclamation and mitigation success;

i) a discussion of residual effects and their environmental consequences, having regard for regional management initiatives; and

j) document any assumptions or transformations required to combine or manipulate data. k) document any assumptions used to obtain modelling results and other predictions

submitted as part of the EIA report. Clearly identify the limitations of the model(s) including sources of error and relative accuracy.


Deleted: three

- 16 -

5.2 STUDY AREAS Define and provide the rationale for the spatial and temporal boundaries for the study areas used for the assessment. The spatial boundaries shall include all areas where measurable changes in the environment may be caused by the Project regardless of any political boundaries, such as provincial or national park borders. The boundaries should take into consideration relevant CEMA, WBEA and RAMP initiatives. Temporal boundaries should extend through the pre-development, exploration, construction, operation and reclamation and closure phases of the Project. Provide resource maps of suitable scale that include legal land descriptions, topographical and other natural features of the PDA and other study areas.

5.3 CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT a) Assess and discuss the cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from

the Project in combination with other existing, approved and planned projects in the region that could reasonably be considered to have a combined effect. Include industrial projects, as well as activities associated with land use and infrastructure.

b) Explain the approach and methods used to identify and assess cumulative effects, including cooperative opportunities and initiatives undertaken to further the collective understanding of cumulative effects.

c) Provide a record of relevant assumptions. Discuss the confidence in the assessment and the basis for this confidence level. Describe deficiencies or limitations in the existing database on environmental components.

5.4 CLIMATE, AIR QUALITY AND NOISE

Describe air quality in the study areas and any anticipated environmental changes for air quality. Review emission sources identified in Section 4.7 and model under normal and upset conditions.

5.4.1 Air Quality

Discuss the following: a) the selection criteria used to determine the study areas, including information

sources and assessment methods; b) baseline climatic conditions, including the type and frequency of

meteorological conditions, that may result in poor air quality; c) fate and effects of appropriate air quality parameters including, but not limited

to, sulphur dioxide (SO2), hydrogen sulphide (H2S), Total Reduced Sulphur Compounds (TRS), total hydrocarbons (THC), Nitrous oxide (NO), Nitric oxide NO2, volatile organic compounds (VOC), individual hydrocarbons of concern in the THC and VOC mixtures including odorous compounds, particulates (PM10 and PM2.5), trace metals, acid deposition, nitrogen deposition, and ground-level ozone;

d) estimates of ground-level concentrations of the appropriate air quality parameters, include frequency distributions for air quality predictions in communities and sensitive receptors located close to the Project, and include an indication of maximum and 99.9 percentile for hourly predictions (98th percentile for any 24-hour modelling predictions of PM2.5);

e) any expected changes to acidic deposition patterns; f) justification of models used, model assumptions, and any model shortcomings

or constraints on findings. Discuss the meteorological data model input set

Comment [M8]: Page: 16 Fort McKay is concerned about the size of the regional study area that has been used in recent oil sands EIAs; it is arbitrary in size and does not reflect the significance of impacts on the landscape in relation to Fort McKay. We request that the regulators and Shell consider and discuss with Fort McKay including an additional, smaller regional study area for inclusion in this and future environmental impact assessments that would more accurately reflect the significance of and the true magnitude of environmental impacts to the community of Fort McKay.

- 17 -

used to run the model and provide a rationale for the choice of data set Conduct an air quality dispersion model run using wind data from the WBEA air monitoring network and compare and discuss the results in relation to any other air quality model runs conducted using other meteorological wind datasets);

g) the modelling in accordance with Alberta Environment’s Air Quality Modelling Guidelines (March 2003);

h) for acid deposition modelling, provide deposition data from maximum levels to areas within the 0.25 keq/ha/yr and 0.17/keq/ha/yr Potential Acid Input (PAI) isopleth and discuss the possible implications in terms of over or underestimating deposition; include analysis of PAI deposition levels consistent with the CEMA acid deposition management framework (note: acidifying emissions are to include all sulphur and nitrogen emissions unless a rationale is provided for not considering all these emissions acidifying.

i) the regional, provincial and national and international objectives for air quality that were used to evaluate the significance of emission levels and ground-level concentrations, including the Canada Wide Standard for particulate matter and ozone;

j) a discussion of air quality concentration changes relative to the concept of keeping clean areas clean and the application of BATEA.

k) predicted air quality concentrations compared with the appropriate air quality guidelines where available;

l) predicted air quality concentrations compared with the actual existing air quality monitoring results

k) any implications of the expected air quality for environmental protection and public health including: i) including reporting air quality predictions specifically for the

Community of Fort McKay and any cabins located near the Project ii) sensitive receptors in the receiving environment which are likely to be

exposed to air quality and deposition changes; ii) the likely exposure levels, either acute or chronic, experienced by the

receptors, their effects on the receptors and the ability of the receptors to recover from those effects;

iii) the potential for decreased air quality iv) the potential for odour detection, the nature of the odours and the

potential for odour related health or nuisance impacts; and v) the implications for sustaining regional air quality within emerging

regional air quality objectives; vi) air quality impacts resulting from the Project and their implications for

other environmental resources including, but not limited to, habitat diversity and quantity, vegetation resources, water quality and soil conservation;

l) how air quality impacts resulting from the Project will be mitigated; and m) ambient air quality monitoring that will be conducted during operation of the

Project.

5.4.2 Noise a) Provide representative baseline noise levels and a description of the

measurement/prediction methods used; b) identify components of the Project that have the potential for creating increased

noise levels at sensitive receptors and discuss the implications and measures to mitigate. Present the results of a noise assessment (as specified by EUB Directive 038 (2007), Noise Control). Include:


Comment [M9]: The significance of odour issues to the Community of Fort McKay warrants that these issues be specifically covered in the EIA.

Deleted: , including odours

- 18 -

i) potentially-affected people, including workers living on site, and wildlife;

ii) The Community of Fort McKay and any cabins located near the project iii) an estimate of the potential for increased noise resulting from the

development; iv) the implications of any increased noise levels; and v) proposed mitigation measures and their anticipated effectiveness.

c) an estimate of the potential for increased light in the night sky resulting from the project and the potential to affect people and wildlife in the area.

5.4.3 Climate Change

Discuss the following: a) in accordance with the guideline document Incorporating Climate Change

Considerations in Environmental Assessment: General Guidelines for Practitioners, review and discuss climate change and the local and/or regional inter-provincial/territorial changes to environmental conditions resulting from climate conditions, including trends and projections where available;

b) identify stages or elements of the Project that are sensitive to changes or variability in climate parameters. Discuss what impacts the change to climate parameters may have on elements of the Project that are sensitive to climate parameters; and

c) comment on the adaptability of the Project in the event the region’s climate changes. Discuss any follow-up programs and adaptive management considerations.

5.5 LAND, ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS AND AGGREGATE RESOURCE

CONSERVATION Describe land, access to public lands and the availability of aggregate resources in the study areas. Explain the significance of land use changes for regional land management, aggregate resource conservation, other industrial uses in the region, the maintenance of traditional lifestyles, and recreational uses. Provide information on land uses and seasonal variations. Discuss the following: a) the selection criteria used to determine the study areas, including information sources

and assessment methods; b) unique sites or special features in the study areas, such as Natural Areas or

Environmentally Significant Areas or culturally significant sites. Discuss any impacts of the Project on these features and indicate possible mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate their effects. Indicate the location and values of other protected areas, if present;

c) the existing land uses, including the metallic and industrial minerals development, oil sands development, tourism, forestry, fishing, hunting, cultural and traditional use, and outdoor recreation;

d) access to fish, wildlife and vegetation resources for existing and potential domestic, traditional and recreational activities;

e) how access by traditional land users, Shell employees and the public will be managed; f) the nature, location and duration of anticipated land changes; g) the land use, resource management, planning and applicable directives as they relate

to the Project; h) whether and to what extent, the development is consistent with the intent of the

applicable land use and resource management and planning directives. Identify:


Formatted: Indent: Left: 57.6 pt,Hanging: 28.8 pt, Numbered +Level: 1 + Numbering Style: a, b, c,… + Start at: 4 + Alignment: Left +Aligned at: 72 pt + Tab after: 108pt + Indent at: 108 pt, Tabs: Not at 108 pt

- 19 -

i) the relevant boundaries for the application of guidelines and objectives, including management areas, sub-areas and relevant ecosystem classifications with functional linkages mapping;

ii) mitigation or research requirements proposed to satisfy the applicable guidelines; and

iii) the proposed setbacks from waterbodies and watercourses with regard for applicable guidelines and management objectives. Discuss the rationale for the location of proposed facilities in the context of the proposed setbacks;

i) the existing recreational use and implications of the Project on those activities; j) identify all sources of aggregate impacted and/or required by the Project, and discuss

quantity and quality, as well as proposed mitigation and management of the resource. Provide exploration maps including resource type and depth;

k) the process for addressing activities of other users such as trappers and holders of Forest Management Agreements (FMA) and Timber Quota holders. Determine the impact of development on these uses and identify possible mitigation strategies to reduce or eliminate this impact; and

l) how reclamation and closure planning processes, completed or underway, will replace existing land use potential considering the recommendations of applicable guidelines. Indicate how relevant land users including but not limited to trappers, traditional land users, and holders of FMAs and Timber Quotas were consulted to determine meaningful end land use (i.e., future land use potential) ; and

m) how access to the site will be managed, how Aboriginal groups will be consulted regarding access management and how access for traditional users will be maintained.

5.6 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS

Describe ecosystem characteristics in the study areas. Explain the significance of any anticipated environmental changes for ecosystem integrity. Include the sustainability of biodiversity, critical wildlife sites and fisheries habitat, wildlife corridors, habitat quality, and productivity and changes to fish and wildlife populations. Discuss the traditional activities related to the collection and use of plants and animals, existing recreational pursuits and industrial activities and, if appropriate (as agreed to by stakeholders) provide the locations of these sites.

5.6.1 Biodiversity

Determine a suite of biotic biodiversity indicators for terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems that characterize naturally functioning ecosystems in the study areas and represent broader taxonomic assemblages. In addition: a) discuss the selection process and rationale used to select biotic biodiversity

indicators . Indicate now the appropriate CEMA indicators were considered in this process and the rationale for excluding any that were excluded;

b) include TEK (including but not limited to traditional plant and animal species lists, and identified sites of cultural significance) as appropriate in the determination of indicators, and discuss how it contributed to the assessment

b) within selected taxonomic groups (including traditional use species), discuss the regional presence and abundance of species in each ecosite phase or ecological type;

c) provide species lists and summaries of observed and estimated species richness and evenness and vigor (when appropriate). Baseline information collected in each terrestrial and aquatic vegetation community will be accompanied by sufficient plots in each ecosite phase to provide reliable data using a suitable


- 20 -

proportional sampling method and to provide a measure of biodiversity on baseline sites that are representative of the proposed reclamation ecosites;

d) rank each ecological unit for biodiversity potential by combining measures of species richness, overlap in species lists, importance of individual species or associations (to ecosystem function, wildlife, and humans), uniqueness and other appropriate measures. Describe the techniques used in the ranking process;

e) discuss the contribution of the Project to any anticipated changes in regional biodiversity, including measures to minimize such change and the potential impact to local and regional ecosystems, including consideration of offsite mitigation techniques;

f) discuss the implications of the Project’s incremental contribution to habitat fragmentation on biodiversity with regard to regional levels of habitat fragmentation as well as SEWG Land Management Areas 4 and 5, provide pre-development baseline, baseline and cumulative scenarios;

g) discuss biodiversity on proposed reclamation ecosites and the implications or the project’s incremental effects on biodiversity in the event that the assumption or completely successful reclamation does not prove accurate.

h) identify and describe Shell’s individual programs and participation in regional biodiversity programs (e.g. Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Program) to monitor and track changes to biodiversity on lease areas, determine management thresholds and to measure and manage cumulative effects in the region;

i) discuss how Aboriginal communities may be involved in biodiversity monitoring, such as through on-going dialogue about the process and results of monitoring efforts and/or partnering with the community-based monitoring programs (currently being developed in First Nation’s communities in the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo)

j) discuss pre- and post-Project topography, soil and parent material conditions and their contribution to biodiversity; and

k) discuss terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem diversity.

5.6.2 Geology, Soils, Terrain Describe the bedrock and surficial geology, soils and terrain in the study areas. Where appropriate, use maps of suitable scale, cross-sections and figures to illustrate these features. Explain the significance of any changes for the regional landscape, biodiversity, productivity, ecological integrity, aesthetics and the future use of the regional landscape area. Discuss the following: a) the selection criteria used to determine the study areas, including information

sources and assessment methods; b) the overburden geology and mineralogy including a detailed description and

location of strata that have a high potential to leach saline salts; c) the distribution of soil types in the proposed study areas using appropriate soil

survey procedures as outlined in the Soil Survey Handbook, Vol. 1 (Agriculture Canada, 1987);

d) the soil survey maps should show approximate soil inspection and sampling locations corresponding to appropriate survey intensities in the footprint areas. The soil survey report should include necessary landscape and soil characteristics for land capability rating The reliability or soil survey maps, both boundaries and map-unit descriptions, should be dicussed;

- 21 -

e) the sensitivity and buffering capacity of the local and regional soil types to potential acid deposition from the proposed development and the predicted deposition patterns;

f) the predicted acidifying and eutrophying impacts to local and regional soils resulting from the Project with reference to local studies, current guidelines and management objectives for acidifying emissions consistent with the CEMA acid deposition management framework;

g) the implications of environmental effects on ecosystem sustainability and regional management, including: i) any constraints or limitations to achieving vegetation restoration based

on anticipated soil conditions and topography. Provide examples from the region;

ii) an assessment of soil types for reclamation suitability and the approximate volume of suitable soil materials for reclamation, this assessment should include LFH depth and volume and an assessment of the potential to strip LFH separately from topsoil;

iii) the potential for soil erosion and measures to minimize the effects of any such erosion; and

iv) any other issues that will affect the soil capability of the study areas or the reclaimed landscape and the mitigation measures proposed for each of the multiple used indicated in Section 4.10b;

h) an estimate of the effects of surface disturbance on geological features and soils, including: i) the type and extent of changes to the pre-disturbance topography; ii) the overburden characteristics in relation to the needs of post-mining

reclamation programs; and iii) an assessment and maps of the pre- and post-disturbance land capability

for each of the multiple uses indicated in Section 4.10b and resiliency of the PDA and a description of the changes to land capability classes resulting from the Project.

5.6.3 Vegetation

Describe and map vegetation communities in the EIA study areas, using, as appropriate, the Alberta Vegetation Inventory (AVI) Standard AVI 2.1, The Field Guide to Ecosites of Northern Alberta (Beckingham and Archibald, 1996) and the Alberta Wetland Inventory Standards Manual (AWI) Version 1.0. Map the Project development footprint at a scale of 1:20,000. Conduct verification of vegetation mapping to provide reliability equivalent to the soils mapping. Discuss the following: a) the selection criteria used to determine the study areas, including information

sources and assessment methods, this should include consultation with affected traditional land users to establish relevant and meaningful study areas;

b) ecosite phases based on their potential to support rare plant species, traditionally used species, old growth forests or other communities of restricted distribution (e.g. fens). Verify the presence of species of rare plants and the ecosites in which they are found using recommended survey methods; File all rare plant survey locations with the Alberta Natural Heritage Information Centre (ANHIC);

c) the species associated with each ecosite phase and address with consideration for seral stage: i) special status plant species (rare, threatened or endangered); ii) species which are important to wildlife as food or shelter or are indicator

species for environmental effects. Include an estimation of the relative

Comment [M10]: Page: 21 It is important that the changes to area of land capability classes are documented. The impact assessment should discuss how much the classes have changed in area, not just the percentage change.

- 22 -

abundance of these species. Cross reference this list with the Fort McKay Traditional Wildlife Species List;

iii) the importance of the size, distribution and variety of vegetation units assessed in habitat suitability indices for wildlife and riparian habitat and for ecosystem function, in general;

iv) the importance of wetlands species within landscape units for local and regional habitat, sustained forest growth, traditional uses, the hydrologic regime and water quality;

v) the rarity or abundance of peatlands and other wetland types from a regional, provincial and national perspective; and

vi) plant species used for food, medicinal and cultural purposes including but not limited to the plants listed in the Fort McKay Traditional Plant Species List;

d) the sensitivity to disturbance of each of the vegetation communities and their ability to be restored in this region (document examples); the techniques used to estimate sensitivity to disturbance and reclamation (e.g. sensitivity to air emissions), particularly for those communities for which a high degree of uncertainty currently exists around potential and methods for successful reclamation;

e) the nature, size, distribution and timing of changes to vegetation communities, including the effects of air emissions (acidifying and eutrophying) and groundwater changes;

f) the significance of the changes to vegetation for: i) the availability in terms of species richness, abundance and vigor and

quality of plants (as per the Fort McKay Traditional Plant Species List) for traditional, food and medicinal and other cultural purposes;

ii) the sustainability of peatlands and other wetlands in conjunction with other Project-induced variations in air quality, hydrology, water quality and quantity, habitat quality and wildlife populations;

iii) the area of merchantable and non-merchantable forest land base that will be disturbed and taken out of production during the life of the Project. Provide the total merchantable volume breakdown per species over the Project area. Discuss by species and productivity, ecosite phase and age class and include any other information needed to amend the appropriate FMA. Describe Shell’s plans for the return of pre-disturbance forest ecosites by area, species and productivity;

iv) ecosystem fragmentation; v) introduction of non-native plant species on native species composition

and potential plant changes to communities; vi) the area and distribution of all vegetation communities existing prior to

the Project development and expected at closure, including relative percent change in those communities; and

vii) habitat diversity and quantity, water quality, erosion potential, soil conservation, recreation and other uses, both at baseline and closure;

f) Shell’s plans to manage the adverse effects of site clearing and other development activities and operations on vegetation. Include rare plant species and those used for traditional food, medicinal and cultural purposes and eradication of invasive species. Include implications for these mitigation actions as they relate to reclamation planning (e.g., what traditional plant species will be used in reclaiming particular ecosites, which rare plant species will be targeted for re-establishment). Discuss the potential for special status species to be restored;

g) Shell’s planned activities to support the restoration of bog and fen wetlands; and h) discuss how environmental plans for the Project will address applicable

provincial and federal policies and Aboriginal traditional values for wetlands.


Comment [M11]: Fort McKay has recently updated its traditional wildlife species list. Contact the Fort McKay IRC for a copy.

Comment [M12]: Fort McKay has recently updated its traditional plant species list. Contact the Fort McKay IRC for a copy.

- 23 -

5.6.4 Wildlife

Describe existing wildlife resources (amphibians, reptiles, birds and terrestrial and aquatic mammals), their use and potential use of habitats in the study areas. Include number, timing and location of surveys and statistical parameters used to determine population estimates such as range, confidence limits and power analyses. Document the anticipated changes to wildlife in the study areas. Discuss the following: a) the selection criteria used to determine the study areas, including information

sources and assessment methods; b) the criteria and selection process for wildlife indicator species if any CEMA

key indicator species are excluded provide the rationale; c) wildlife species composition, distribution, relative abundance, key habitat areas,

seasonal movements and movement corridors, and general life history requirements. Indicate to what extent the information is based on actual survey data and/or hunting data, TEK, scientific peer-reviewed literature and modelling (include citations); and

d) current field data and how it was used in the environmental impact assessment, using recognized and publicly available sampling protocols for all species of concern, including CEMA key indicator species, important traditional use species as per the Fort McKay Traditional Wildlife Species List those listed by Alberta (at risk, may be at risk, and sensitive list species in the General Status of Alberta Wild Species 2005, or update), COSEWIC lists (most current available) and federal Species at Risk Act (endangered, threatened, and special concern species).

e) cite studies indicating the required corridor width for relevant species; f) review existing TEK documents and consult with Aboriginal peoples to

ascertain information on key wildlife species and wildlife use areas and indicate how impacts to these areas and resources were assessed.

g) data sharing agreements with other operators and how this data was incorporated into the environmental impact assessment.

Provide an impact assessment for wildlife indicators and listed wildlife species in the study area including: g) potential adverse impacts on wildlife populations, habitat use, availability and

quality, and food supply during all phases of the Project. Model habitat supply within the study areas for the selected indicator species, population viability analysis should be completed on key species that are species of concern or have populations in decline. Habitat models used to evaluate impacts should be modified/calibrated by comparing model predictions with wildlife data from the study areas;

h) habitat loss, abandonment, reduced effectiveness, fragmentation or alteration as it relates to reduced reproductive potential and recruitment for regional wildlife populations over the life of the Project and time required to recolonize and sources for recolonization. If habitat models are used to evaluate impacts, discuss how the models will be modified/calibrated by comparing model predictions with wildlife data from the study areas.

i) the spatial and temporal changes to habitat (type, quality, quantity, diversity and distribution) and to wildlife indicator species distribution, relative abundance, movements, habitat availability and the potential to return the area to pre-disturbed wildlife habitat and population conditions, including:

Deleted: may be necessary for some key species

- 24 -

i) anticipated effects on wildlife as a result of changes to air, water, including both acute and chronic effects on animal health;

ii) anticipated effects on the quality of traditionally consumed species including ungulates, rabbits and game birds; and

ii) anticipated effects on wildlife due to improved or altered access into the area (e.g. vehicle collisions with wildlife, obstructions to daily or seasonal movements, facilitated predator movement from linear disturbances;

iii) noise effects and hunting mortality during operations and after Project closure;

iv) the availability for species for traditional use considering habitat loss and changes, habitat avoidance, road-kills and other secondary impacts and increased non-Aboriginal hunting pressure

j) map the changes in habitat fragmentation, and the potential for habitat patch isolation, anticipated from the Project and other planned activities on a local and regional level; and

h) how Shell will ensure the protection and maintenance of riparian habitats, interconnectivity of such habitat and the unimpeded movement by wildlife species using the habitat. Discuss movement corridor data already collected.

Provide the following information: j) identify residual impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat and discuss their

significance in the context of local and regional wildlife populations. Identify impacts on wildlife species for each scenario to the opportunities for local Aboriginal residents to hunt and trap successfully compared to pre-development conditions; and

k) a strategy and mitigation plan to minimize impacts on habitat and wildlife populations through the life of the Project and to return productive wildlife habitat to the area, considering: i) habitat enhancement measures within the lease areas, and a schedule for

the return of habitat capability to areas impacted by the Project. Discuss habitat enhancement and wildlife species populations it will support;

ii) consistency of the plan with applicable regional, provincial and federal wildlife habitat objectives and policies;

iii) the need for access controls or other management strategies to protect wildlife during and after Project operations;

iv) monitoring programs to assess wildlife impacts from the Project and the effectiveness of mitigation strategies and habitat enhancement measures; Monitoring programs including wildlife surveys using standardized protocols (i.e. those developed by the Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Plan)

v) environmental management procedures that Shell will use should monitoring indicate that mitigation measures are unsuccessful; Provide definitions of what is considered success.

vi) the deterrent systems that will be incorporated into the Project to reduce

the impacts on birds and other wildlife attracted to open ponds or wastewater ponds Support choice of deterrent system with data;

vii) an assessment of the timeframe required to develop habitat of suitable quality and quantity on reclaimed lands, and the effects on re-colonization for each species identified; and

viii) potential impacts on traditionally used wildlife. Develop mitigation plans and strategies in consultation with Aboriginal peoples that minimize


Deleted: h

Deleted: i

- 25 -

impacts on traditional wildlife activities (e.g., hunting, trapping) and provide opportunities for these activities during reclamation

5.6.5 Groundwater (Additionally Address Appendix)

Describe baseline groundwater conditions and map the groundwater regime in the study areas. Discuss the following: a) the selection criteria used to determine the study areas, including information

sources and assessment methods; b) any new hydrogeological investigations, including methodology, piezometer

and water well locations and results; c) justification of hydrogeological models used for the assessment, including

sensitivity analysis and any model shortcomings or constraints on findings and how any limitations were addressed;

d) discuss groundwater issues with Aboriginal people and review existing relevant TEK to inform the assessment and indicate how this influenced the assessment process. Convey how concerns raised in these discussions were addressed. Cross reference this with other sections of the EIA as appropriate

d) the suitability of on-site waste disposal and supporting hydrogeological information;

e) the potential for hydraulic connection between geological zones affected by the Project (e.g. disposal, bitumen production, groundwater production and the land surface);

f) surrogate parameters to be used as indicators of potential aquifer contamination including, but not limited to, total phenols, dissolved organic carbon, naphthenic acids, hydrocarbon fractions F1-F2, chlorides, sulphides, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX) and trace elements, including arsenic;

g) the potential for changes in the groundwater regime and the effects of these changes, including: i) potential or expected changes in groundwater quality for any aquifer

resulting from Project operations; ii) the effects from the Project and cumulative effects on local and regional

groundwater regimes, including vertical gradients and aquifer recharge rates and changes resulting from any proposed diversions;

iii) a field-verified inventory of all groundwater users. Identify water use conflicts and proposed resolutions;

iv) the potential impact of decreased recharge to aquifers under prolonged drought conditions and the potential impacts of groundwater withdrawal due to Project activities under drought conditions;

v) the effect of groundwater withdrawal/dewatering and its implications for other environmental resources, including habitat diversity and quantity, surface water quality and quantity, aquatic resources, vegetation, and wetlands;

vi) a numerical model to obtain a long-term prediction of the effects due to groundwater withdrawal/dewatering; discuss model validation. Provide details (e.g. location, completion) on any observation well network used to calibrate the model;

vii) the inter-relationship of the groundwater to the surface water and the potential for impacts on water quality and quantity due to recharge from and discharge to local waterbodies and wetlands; and

viii) a conceptual plan, implementation program, and contingency plan for the protection of groundwater resources.

- 26 -

Provide the following information: h) major aquifers, aquitards and aquicludes, and groundwater flow direction and

velocity. Include Quaternary deposits and bedrock formations down to and including any bitumen producing zones and any disposal zones;

i) the lithology, stratigraphic and structural continuity, thickness, hydraulic properties and groundwater quality of the geologic units down to and including the bitumen producing zones and disposal zones in the study areas;

j) maps and cross-sections that include groundwater table and piezometric surfaces based on identifiable groundwater systems and accurate data sources, such as drill holes; and

k) potential aquifers for any deep disposal of wastewater. Characterize any formations chosen for deep well disposal, including water quality, chemical compatibility and containment potential within the disposal zone.

5.6.6 Surface Water

Discuss baseline hydrological conditions in the study areas including seasonal hydrographs for rivers and streams and variations in lake-levels, as appropriate. Identify Project activities that may affect surface water during all stages of the Project, including site preparation, construction, operation, reclamation and decommissioning. Provide an inventory of all surface water users in the study areas. Discuss the following: a) the selection criteria used to determine the study areas, including information

sources and assessment methods; b) plans for water sourcing and the impacts of water withdrawals. Include

cumulative effects and consider emergency operating, low-flow conditions and in-stream flow needs criteria established for the Athabasca River and potential climate change over the life of the Project;

c) the effect on vegetation, wildlife, fish, fish habitat, traditional users and navigation of withdrawing water from any potential surface water source to meet the requirements for the Project during a range of seasonal flow regimes Discuss measures that Shell will put in place to minimize environmental effects as described in Section 4.6; discuss surface water issues with Aboriginal people and review existing relevant TEK to inform the assessment and indicate how this influenced the assessment process. Convey how concerns raised in these discussions were addressed. Cross reference this with other sections of the EIA as appropriate;

d) the potential impact of any alteration in flows, including all temporary and permanent stream losses, realignments, diversions or other disturbances, their extent and duration; discuss proposed mitigation and/or compensation measures;

e) riparian and other buffers (setbacks) for streams and waterbodies in the LSA and their rationale;

f) the pre- and post-disturbance alignment and condition of all permanent streams and waterbodies, including those created by the Project. Consider: i) the entire flow frequency distribution presented as changes in

exceedance curve, relate these to potential changes in fluvial dynamics across the range in flows;

ii) the 1:100 year flood level; including the potential for flooding during heavy precipitation events and spring runoff. Address the effects of


- 27 -

probable maximum flood and precipitation events on ponds, containment structures and infrastructure; and

iii) other activities in the watersheds affected by the Project that, together with the proposed development, have potential to influence water quantity (e.g. existing and approved oil sands activities, commercial timber harvesting programs);

iv) the effects of potential climate change on the sustainability of the post-disturbance streams and water bodies as per Section 5.4.3;

g) Shell’s planned mitigation to prevent or minimize potential impacts, addressing:

i) how Shell is addressing the concepts of keeping clean areas clean and BATEA in the context of water management planning

ii) water recycle and other water conservation and minimization strategies, plans for water sources (including on-site or off-site storage and management strategies to manage low-flow restrictions) iii) how permanent stream realignments and other disturbances can enhance

existing or rebuilt streams to increase habitat productivity for aquatic resources and recreation potential;

iv) measures to prevent or reduce impacts to stream, wetlands and waterbodies;

v) regional initiatives such as the CEMA Surface Water Working Group; and

vi) a monitoring program to identify hydrological impacts and to assess performance of water management systems and predictive modelling in the LSA.

Describe the existing and anticipated water quality of waterbodies. Discuss the following: h) the selection criteria used to determine the study areas, including information

sources and assessment methods i) include how waterbodies and areas of importance to traditional users were

identified and addressed in the assessment. Discuss how changes in water quality may impact opportunities and desire (resulting from perceptions of health safety) to pursue traditional activities.

i) pre-development and baseline water quality data, its seasonal variation and relationship to flow and other controlling factors. Consider appropriate water quality parameters (e.g. temperature, pH, conductivity, cations and anions, metals, dissolved oxygen, suspended sediment, dissolved solids, nutrients and other oil sands water contaminants, such as naphthenic acids) and potential tainting compounds;

j) describe baseline sediment quality including, but not limited to, particle size, carbon content, organics, metals, sediment toxicity, and oil sands sediment contaminants, such as PAHs and potential tainting compounds;

k) Project activities that may influence water quality; l) calculate probability distributions for concentrations of contaminants in any

surface sediments and water receiving site drainage, discharges, or groundwater influenced by proposed activities;

m) water quality conditions in reclaimed waterbodies and any other waterbodies potentially affected by the Project. Include: i) the impacts on sediments and compare data with the Canadian Interim

Sediment Quality Guidelines; ii) the potential effects of Project and cumulative acidic deposition on water

quality, aquatic biota and habitat conditions of surface waterbodies

- 28 -

consistent with the CEMA acid deposition management framework. Identify waterbodies that are sensitive to acid deposition;

iii) the potential for seasonal variations in acid input to waterbodies (spring acid pulse);

iv) any water quality implications of the tailings deposits, including the amount and quality of water or leachate released, their permeability and groundwater characteristics;

v) other activities in the watersheds affected by the Project that, together with the proposed development, have potential to influence water quality (e.g. existing and approved oil sands activities and commercial timber harvesting programs). Discuss the potential changes in water quality anticipated from these other activities during the life of the proposed development. Consider their magnitude, extent, timing, duration and significance; and

vi) water quality of the reclaimed site; n) a comparison of existing and predicted water quality, using as appropriate, the

Surface Water Quality Guidelines for Use in Alberta, the Canadian Water Quality Guidelines, relevant United States Environmental Protection Agency Guidelines and any available CEMA water quality objectives. Consider the recommended procedures described in the document entitled: “Protocol to Develop Alberta Water Quality Guidelines for Protection of Freshwater Aquatic Life”;

o) proposed monitoring plans implemented for the Project. Justify the selection of monitoring locations, and the integration of these sites into an overall aquatic assessment and monitoring program;

p) identify any cooperative monitoring and assessment initiative(s) (e.g. with regional stakeholders) in which Shell is participating or may participate;

q) the residual effects for each stage of the Project, including post-reclamation. Predict and describe water and sediment quality conditions and suitability for aquatic biota in constructed waterbodies, such as end pit lakes; and

r) proposed water quality and sediment quality monitoring programs for metals and other relevant substances (e.g. polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and potential tainting compounds. Consider seasonality, sampling medium (water, sediment, biota) and other factors such as waterbodies sampled, sample sites, sample timing, precipitation and runoff levels, downstream and point-source discharges.

5.6.7 Aquatic Resources Describe existing aquatic resources (e.g. fish and benthic invertebrates), their use and potential use of associated habitats in watercourses, wetlands and other waterbodies in the study areas. Document the anticipated changes to aquatic resources in the study areas. Discuss the following: a) the rationale used to determine the study areas, including information sources

and assessment methods; b) current field data, using recognized sampling protocols, for all sensitive

species, including those listed by Alberta Environment (at risk, may be at risk, and sensitive list species in the General Status of Alberta Wild Species 2000, or update) and federal Species at Risk Act (endangered, threatened, and special concern species);

c) historical and current studies on fish and other aquatic resources in the LSA;

Deleted: mitigation plans for any monitoring

- 29 -

d) the rationale for the selection of key indicator species and if any CEMA indicators are excluded include a rationale;

e) the life stages and requirements for key species and what, if any, effects the Project will have on them;

f) the aquatic biological resources in waterbodies affected by the Project, including composition, distribution, relative abundance, critical or sensitive seasonal habitat use and movement patterns;

g) TEK, such as fishing practices and associated ecosystem knowledge (gathered through existing reports as well as community consultation) as appropriate for both the description of existing fisheries and aquatic resources and the impact assessment

h) the implications of any construction, operation and reclamation activities in the study areas for aquatic biological resources and habitat. Clarify how stream alterations, changes to substrate conditions, stream flow conditions, water quantity and water quality may affect these resources and habitat;

i) if any surface withdrawals are considered describe the effects of the withdrawals including cumulative effects on aquatic resources. Also, describe how the water intake has been designed to avoid entrapment and entrainment of fish;

j) the nature of the potential effects, their duration, whether they are site-specific, local or regional in spatial extent, and the mitigation measures and habitat enhancement techniques that will be implemented to prevent or minimize any anticipated adverse effects. Discuss: i) the potential for tainting of fish flesh, survival of eggs and fry, chronic or

acute health effects, changes in the invertebrate community and food base; and increased stress on fish populations from release of contaminants, sedimentation, flow alterations, and habitat changes due to temperature and other water quality alterations;

ii) potential impacts on riparian areas in the LSA that could impact aquatic biological resources and productivity;

iii) potential for increased fishing pressure and the potential impacts that could result from increased use of the area and increased access in the area; any plans to restrict employee and visitor access and

iv) potential impacts on traditional use of fisheries resources; k) the implications of potential effects on fish productivity and the need for access

controls or other management strategies to protect the resources. Discuss plans to offset any incremental loss in the productivity. Indicate how environmental protection and compensation plans for the Project will address applicable provincial and federal policies for fish habitat, including the No Net Loss Guiding Principle;

l) programs to monitor aquatic habitat quality and the effectiveness of mitigation strategies;

m) environmental management procedures should monitoring indicate that mitigation strategies are not effective;

n) how increased habitat productivity for aquatic resources can be incorporated into permanent stream realignments and any other associated developments;

m) any monitoring programs that have been, or will be, conducted in cooperation with other oil sands operators or multi-stakeholder initiatives to identify and manage effects from the Project and to confirm the effectiveness of mitigation strategies employed; and

n) residual impacts on aquatic resources and their significance in the context of local and regional aquatic resources, including fisheries.

Formatted: Indent: Left: 86.4 pt,Hanging: 28.8 pt, Numbered +Level: 1 + Numbering Style: a, b, c,… + Start at: 13 + Alignment: Left +Aligned at: 36 pt + Tab after: 72 pt+ Indent at: 72 pt

- 30 -

6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING Describe environmental monitoring and reporting that Shell will undertake to verify and manage environmental impacts, confirm performance of mitigative measures and improve environmental protection strategies to further the understanding of the Project’s impact on the environment. Discuss the following: a) all monitoring activities and initiatives that Shell is proposing to conduct independently of

other stakeholder activities in the region. Include a discussion of how such monitoring activities are compatible with regional monitoring initiatives;

b) all monitoring activities that Shell is proposing to conduct collaboratively with other stakeholders. Include the role that Shell anticipates taking in each of the programs. Include a discussion of how Aboriginal communities may be included in monitoring efforts, such as through consultation or partnerships with community-based monitoring programs (currently being designed);

c) any monitoring activities that may be conducted outside Alberta to confirm that the Project does not impact on sensitive receptors outside of Alberta;

d) mechanisms for sharing results, reviewing findings and adjusting programs should monitoring identify unanticipated consequences of Shell’s operations or mitigation plans, including: i) corporate adaptive management strategies; ii) steps that Shell will take to involve regulators and public stakeholders; and iii) steps to communicate unanticipated conditions to regulators and regional management

forums and stakeholders if regional environmental conditions may be affected.

7.0 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

Describe those aspects of the Project that may have implications for public health including the delivery of regional health services for the Wood Buffalo region including information specifically related to Aboriginal communities. Determine whether there may be implications for public health arising from the Project. Specifically: a) identify and discuss the data and methods used by Shell to assess the impacts of the Project

on human health and safety; b) assess the potential health implications of the compounds that will be released to the

environment from the proposed operation in relation to exposure limits established to prevent acute and chronic adverse effects on human health (indicate the agency establishing the exposure limit);

c) the potential health implications, if any, for compounds for which no exposure guidelines currently exist;

d) identify the human health impact of the potential contamination of country foods and natural food sources taking into consideration all Project activities as well as the impact that this may have on opportunities and desire (resulting from perceptions of health safety) for traditional activities;

e) potential for contamination of fish relative to fish consumption guidelines (e.g., mercury and PAHs) as well as the potential for tainting of flavour and how this may affect opportunities and desire (resulting from perceptions of health and safety) for traditional activities

f) discuss the potential to increase human exposure to contaminants from changes to water quality (including drinking water), air quality, and soil quality. Discuss possible mitigative actions;

g) discuss the cumulative health effects that are likely to result from the Project in combination with other existing, approved, and proposed projects;


- 31 -

h) describe how the information in a to g will be communicated to Aboriginal communities in an on-going and culturally appropriate manner;

i) provide information on samples of selected species of vegetation known to be consumed by humans for food or medicinal purposes;

j) as appropriate, identify anticipated follow-up work, including regional cooperative studies. Identify how such work will be implemented and coordinated with ongoing air, soil and water quality initiatives;

k) consult with Aboriginal stakeholders regarding the impact of the project and cumulative industrial development on overall community health and wellness and possible mitigation strategies.

l) Specifically assess, for the Community of Fort McKay, the relevant public health and safety issues outlined in a to j, above

m) provide a summary of Shell’s emergency response plan and discuss mitigation plans that will be implemented to ensure workforce and public safety during pre-construction, construction, operation and reclamation of the Project. Include prevention and safety measures for wildfire occurrences, accidental release or spill of chemicals to the environment and failures of structures retaining water or fluid wastes;

n) describe how local residents will be contacted during an emergency and what type of information will be communicated to them;

o) describe a contingency plan for evacuation of workforce and local residents during an emergency;

p) describe existing agreements with area municipalities or industry groups such as, safety co-operatives, emergency response associations and municipal emergency response agencies;

q) identify and discuss potential health and safety impacts due to higher regional traffic volumes and the increased risk of accidental leaks and spills. Include highway traffic accident, injury and death rates based on a unit volume of traffic and indicate the changes in unit volume for the project and cumulatively.

r) document health and safety concerns raised by stakeholders during consultation on the Project; and

8.0 TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE AND LAND USE

Provide details on the consultation undertaken with Aboriginal communities with respect to traditional ecological knowledge and traditional land use: a) provide results of consultation with Aboriginal stakeholders and review existing reports to

determine the extent of traditional land use of the LSA. The results should include a clear summary of traditional land uses, project-related concerns, recommended mitigation measures as well as Shell’s response to these. Provide a summary table for easy referencing.

b) Detailed project information should be provided to the communities during project consultation (e.g., maps containing lease boundaries, traplines, mine plan, pipelines etc.) and any specific TLU or TEK studies.

c) Provide references of information gathered during consultation/interviews in a format similar to literature citations (e.g., Last Name or Participant Code and date). This will help to clearly identify information sources

d) Discuss the following: a. access to traditional lands on the lease site (including pre-development, baseline,

operational and closure scenarios) b. traditionally meaningful land reclamation c. trapper compensation d. on-going impacts to traditional lands and culture

e) Discuss the vegetation and wildlife used for nutritional and medicinal purposes, and any potential effects the Project may have; Include the following:

Formatted: Bullets and Numbering

Comment [M13]: It is important that the proponent enter into information-sharing agreements with Aboriginal groups whose traditional land use information and TEK they seek and that they area aware that the Aboriginal group has the right to control how traditional knowledge information is used. Aboriginal groups retain ownership of the information throughout the process. Page: 31

Comment [M14]: Traditional land use study areas should be developed in consultation with Aboriginal peoples and should take into account both the full extent of Aboriginal traditional lands and areas most valued for resource harvesting and other traditional pursuits) and how these overlap with the proposed projects as well as other approved & planned projects. Limiting the discussion of TLU to the LSA may not be appropriate. As discussed in our comments in Section 5.0 and 5.2 appropriately sized study areas and a pre-development baseline are critical to providing an adequate assessment of impacts on traditional land use.

Comment [M15]: In discussing on-going impacts to traditional land use and culture the proponent needs to consider the impacts of existing development on changes to access and traditional use patterns.

- 32 -

i) a quantitative assessment of impacts to traditionally important wildlife species (including, but not limited to, the Fort McKay Traditional Wildlife Species List). Include mitigation strategies to address those impacts. Cross-reference this information with the wildlife section of the EIA;; ii) a list of the culturally important plant species (including, but not limited to, the Fort McKay Traditional Plant Species List) that will be used in reclamation and indicate the species that are presently available commercially and can be used successfully in reclamation. Cross-reference this information with the vegetation section of the EIA; iii) An assessment of the richness, abundance and vigor of culturally important species collected during project vegetation surveys and include a summary of that information in both the vegetation and traditional land use sections of the EIA. Discuss the impacts of project development on those species (and the ecosites that support them) as well as mitigation and reclamation strategies that will be employed to address those impacts;

f) identify the traditional land uses including fishing, hunting, plant harvesting (nutritional or

medicinal), and cultural use with specific regard given to local Aboriginal peoples; and g) identify cabin sites, spiritual sites and graves, traditional trails and resource activity patterns. h) Determine the Project and cumulative effects of development on these uses described in a) to

g) (from the perspective of Aboriginal people) and identify possible mitigation strategies in consultation with First Nation and Metis peoples.

i) Describe how Traditional Ecological Knowledge was incorporated into the technical components of the EIA report. Cross-reference sections of the EIA that address or relate to TEK ( e.g. socio-economic, vegetation, wildlife) as appropriate.

j) Describe how TEK will be considered during operations (i.e. through on-going community consultation and review of existing reports) and in the development of reclamation plans. Cross-reference this in the Mine Plan and Reclamation and Closure Plan. .

9.0 HISTORICAL RESOURCES AND LAND USE ASSESSMENT

Provide details of the consultation with Alberta Community Development and Aboriginal communities with respect to Historical Resources. Include the Historical Resource Impact Assessment (HRIA) for the Project, and: a) provide a general overview of the results of any previous historical resource studies that

have been conducted in the study areas, including archaeological resources, palaeontological resources, historical period sites, and any other historical resources as defined within the Historical Resources Act;

b) summarize the results from the field program conducted to assess archaeological, palaeontological and historical significance of the Project;

c) document any stakeholder concerns with respect to the development of the Project based on the historical significance of the study areas; and

d) as appropriate, provide an outline of the program and schedule of field investigations that may be required to further assess and mitigate the effects of the Project on historical resources.

e) Consult with Aboriginal stakeholders with regard to historical resources in the Study Area(s) including but not limited to their knowledge of existing historical resources, their concerns and recommendations regarding these and opportunties for participation (e.g., blessing ceremony on know burial grounds, participation in HHRA field studies). Document any concerns and proposed mitigative actions.

- 33 -

10.0 SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS

Provide information on the socio-economic effects of the Project and the Project’s contributions to the cumulative social impact of oil sands development in the Study Areas. Discuss the following: a) the selection of the study areas, information sources and assessment methods; b) the number and distribution of people who may be affected by the proposal, including Fort

McKay; and describe those effects. If Fort McKay is not affected by this project in the view of Shell, state why and provide the rationale for this conclusions;

c) the social impacts and benefits of the Project on the study areas and on Alberta, including: i) local employment and training and job transportation including Aboriginal hiring and

procurement policies and programs and how Shell will maximize local Aboriginal workers, show its increases in hiring over time and state how many foreign workers it intends to bring in.;

ii) local procurement; iii) population changes in each community within the Study Area; iv) demands on local services and infrastructure including but not limited to social

agencies, medical services, and housing in each community within the Study Area ; v) potential community-specific, regional and provincial economic benefits; vi) trapping, hunting and fishing and gathering impacts and loss f land required to carry

out traditiona pursuits guaranteed under Treaty 8 and the Constitution of Canada; and vii) effects on First Nations and Métis (e.g. traditional land use, social implications and

current cultural implications); d) the economic impacts of the Project on the study areas and on Alberta, having regard for

capital, labour and other operating costs and revenue from services. In addition, discuss Shell’s policies and programs respecting the use of local, Alberta and Canadian goods and services. Provide an estimated breakdown of local, Alberta, other Canadian and non-Canadian industrial benefits from project management/engineering, equipment and materials, construction labour and operations;

e) the employment and business development opportunities the Project may create for First Nations, Métis, local communities and the region. Provide a breakdown of the type of employment and number of employees with respect for the construction and operational workforces. Identify the source of labour for the proposed Project;

f) the systemic barriers that obstruct advancement in Aboriginal education, training, employment and business development and describe how Shell with address those barriers;

g) describe and provide copies of Shell’s policies and practices that will be implemented to design, manage, monitor and evaluate the company’s employment and business development opportunities for First Nation and Metis peoples in the region

h) strategies to mitigate socio-economic concerns raised by the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo and other stakeholders in the region. Include a discussion on the potential impacts to housing availability and the social ramifications of that impact by community. Document the work with other industry partners and the Regional Municipality to continue use and development of the urban population prediction model developed for baseline socio-economic purposes; and

i) impacts of the proposed Project on potential shortages of affordable housing and the quality of health care services. Identify and discuss the mitigation plans to address these issues. Provide a summary of any discussions that have taken place with the Municipality and the Regional Health Authority concerning potential housing shortages and health care services respectively.

11.0 PUBLIC CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS

Deleted: and culture

- 34 -

Undertake a consultation program during the preparation of the EIA report including, but not limited to, the following stakeholders: a) residents in the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo; b) recognized land users of the LSAs; c) specifically with local First Nations and Métis communities that may be directly affected by

the Project in accordance with community consultation protocols; d) industrial, recreational, environmental groups and individuals expressing a formal interest in

the Project; e) Federal, Alberta and Saskatchewan governments, and Alberta local municipalities; f) directly-affected communities outside of Alberta; and g) other operating or planned oil sands developers in the region. h) provide Shell’s assessment of the effectiveness of its Aboriginal consultation process. Describe and document the public consultation program implemented. Record any concerns or suggestions made by the public and demonstrate how these concerns have been addressed. Discuss: h) how the concerns and issues identified by Shell and stakeholders influenced the Project

development, design, impact mitigation and monitoring, or how it was addressed or discounted;

i) the type of information provided and the issues discussed, including those that have been resolved and those that remain outstanding;

j) in consideration of unresolved issues, the key alternatives which have been identified by Shell and stakeholders for future consultations as well as mechanisms and timelines for that resolution;

k) plans to maintain and support the public consultation process following completion of the EIA review; and

l) any agreements reached with stakeholders regarding Shell’s operations and activities.

- 35 -

APPENDIX

The following information is necessary to be submitted as part of the application to obtain a Water Act (WA) license and approval, and an Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) approval. It may not be necessary to be considered as part of the EIA report completeness decision-making process under Section 53 of EPEA. Upon review of the information submitted, a final determination will be made if it is necessary for the following information to be considered as part of the EIA report completeness decision.

Water Supply, Water Management and Wastewater Management Provide the following information for the Project: a) technical information on how the water requirements for the Project will be met addressing the

Alberta Environment’s Groundwater Evaluation Guidelines as required, and include annual volumes from each source (for non-saline groundwater sources and site dewatering activities);

b) the design of facilities that will handle, treat and store wastewater streams; c) the type and quantity of any chemicals used in wastewater treatment; and d) design details for the potable water and sewage treatment systems for both the construction and

operation stages. Groundwater Provide a detailed plan and implementation program for the protection of groundwater resources, addressing: a) a groundwater monitoring program for early detection of potential contamination and assistance in

remediation planning; b) groundwater remediation options to be considered for implementation in the event that adverse

effects are detected; and c) a program to monitor the sustainability of groundwater production. Conservation and Reclamation Plan Provide the following information for the Project within the context of a 10-year EPEA approval period: a) a plan for the integration of mining, reclamation activities and closure planning within the approval

period, and within the Project life span. The plan should be consistent to that provided in the EUB application for amendment and demonstrate integration with the life of mine closure plan;

b) a detailed schedule for annual mine development plans, and related reclamation activities and describe how the mine plan has been developed to reduce the area of land that must be disturbed at any time, how the mine plan has been designed to allow progressive reclamation to occur and how the mine plan has been designed to reduce the time period between land disturbance and reclamation;

c) a detailed conservation and reclamation plan including, but not limited to, the following: i) a discussion of soil reclamation requirements and a table of pre-disturbance land capability

classes and post-disturbance land capability classes, demonstrating a return of equivalent land capability for commercial forest production in the development areas on equal land areas;

ii) predicted landscape, soil horizon/layer sequences of reclaimed soils that are likely to achieve equivalent land capability for commercial forest production at the development areas and

- 36 -

discuss the possible assumptions and limitations of such approaches. This discussion should include documented results from existing reclaimed sites in the region;

iii) a description and tables for approximate calculation/rating for pre- and post-disturbance land capability classes at the development areas;

iv) a discussion and tables of approximate reclamation material balance to achieve post disturbance land capability ratings as specified in c) i) and ii) Include in this discussion what an effect an increase in required dept of soil would have on this material balance and how it could be achieved;

v) the criteria to be used in soil salvage for reclamation; vi) an assessment of sources/availability of suitable reclamation materials based on pre

disturbance soil information; including soil resources from the entire development footprint (e.g., plant sites and in areas where out of pit waste areas will be located);

vii) soil salvage plans indicating salvage areas, techniques, depths, types, quality and volumes of soils to be salvaged and length of time to be stored before use, and planned use of the materials with reference to reclamation material balance. Discuss whether organic soil materials (LFH and/or peat) will be salvaged or removed including approximate depths/volume as well as an assessment of the potential to strip LFH separately from topsoil. For organic soil materials also described the expected decomposition and how this will be managed and how any volume changes will be accommodated in the reclamation plan;

viii) the storage and handling of soils and potential locations for soils stockpiles; and ix) methods to deal with potential soil compaction and contamination;

d) a detailed description of the reclamation topography for all development areas, identifying contouring objectives, water development (surface and near-surface flow) and erosion control including relevant reclamation examples from the region. Discuss how the reclaimed topography is integrated with adjacent undisturbed areas;

e) a detailed re vegetation plan, that is integrated with soil and topography plans, that specifies the ecosites and productivity proposed for the establishment of predevelopment capabilities for traditional land use, wildlife, commercial forestry, watershed and recreation;

f) a detailed plan for the re-establishment of naturally occurring organic wetlands that specifies the

topography, soil materials, surface and groundwater flows and quality and re-vegetation methods; g) possible mitigation options to reduce the potential impact from disturbance to key soil

characteristics, re-vegetation practices, surface and groundwater properties and aquatic resources; and

h) references to examples of demonstrated success with respect to proposed reclamation techniques on various types of reclamation features (e.g., overburden and waste dumps, sand tailings, consolidated tailings) , where applicable.

Deleted: fores

Director, Envhnnmtd Assessment Noxtb:ernRepjan, AfbertaEnviro~ne~ 11 1, Twin AtriaBddhg 4999 - 9P Avenue Edmonton, AB, T6B 2x3 F~x: (780) 427-91 02

k Sir:

RE: S f l ~ . ~ * + c 4 0 , 4 ' &TO. -f&llp,,& 6 x p 4 r 5 A d o u l P ~ ~ a t & t U 4 4 Proposed Teams of Refmme

I Y ~ ~ Y E S

W ~ ~ ~ b m i ~ ~ ~ o n t b e P r o ~ T c r m r o f ~ p u r s u a n t p o ~ d a i g i o l l i m d t r e a t y @ & t s ~ b y ~ o n 3 5 o f t b e C o ~ n A c E , 1% AstbsupmneCoartof C m d a h a s n w E d i n ~ d a c i s i o a s h c h k g ~ C r s e F i r ~ N r m o n ~ . C m w d o MNSlrr q f o f Rmis~ge), Pad v. W h Coiwnbia p o m i Appsnk WVR) and

W n V. PQW&Y, ~~ rights must b qpmpkkly d d u s d and ~CCOXUI-

~ w ~ e E a ~ I m p M A s s c u m e D i ~ ~ f a n ~ e c t s i n d ~ ~ m e * +-

, Ace p"~t/p&= K t d LQ - pr\ S YE&- e *a'&m:' LW - ..;. h j & s popoeod witbin the traditimal pra marp of & ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p t ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ a n d w h o w i l l b c d h a o t l y . f f i s t c d b y m ~ ~ m e d d ~ ~ r d m C f o m , o f ~ v a l ~ ~ , t h i s p j j o o t 'IhclifeoftbirpJs~wIIl a f f s n o w W t i O n a l ~ o f t h a r I a n & f o r m ~ p s i o d d t i m c . $ j W % . . ~ b y b haft Tams of I M ~ ~ I c c 0 imqomte community infinmation attd mda of Traditiommdosicsl-@ W e ~ m g s ~ s o b e n q ~ t ~ ~ t e o m ~ t u t i d l ~ ~ d ~ ~ r i g b p a i r * o m s a o j e r n m d e p d f ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ t s i n s h h g ~ ~ w a n d m h & g ~ . T h c u l p u l a t i v t c P I s n o f ~ ~ t a m our traditional use of tbis area mast be wi&i~~ &e &I. W e . I m v p ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ * ~ ~ ~ s i m i l a r u , t b e ~ r n i o c d b y m c ~ ~ n a l ~ o f ~ i r m d M ~ ~ w i t h t h e i m p a c t s ~ n U s i n g a n d ~ c o ~ t i o f l ~ f o r a ~ i n l h i s ~ f d-di-. Ud&%#ATUiy a 4 r c r t b u + 5 ~ R C muck clo*cF. ?-5

c#flY* We look forwad to w d q with ~g.@rmd A I M I3t-a to f d y UBYder and amvnmodate our Wtional zlse and c a n m

fr6h Malcolm

--

AUG/31/2007/PRI 02:22 PM ktis Local 1 s FAX NO. 180-791-2654 P, 001

METIS L O C A L 1935 F O R T MCMURRAY

$6 ~ V i r n r n A j r F-: flLIq3.L; 427 - pages: -5 , including covershmt

~ h : ate: Ad 3 / /o 3 J /

Re: Cc:

0 Urgent D F O ~ Rtview Lt f'lfas Commnt R ~leax Reply R ~ C ~ C I ~

Pb*: 780-743-2659 Fax: 786-791 -2654 Em: -ti1 935@il(cIus.dt(

AUG/31/2007/FRI 0 2 : 2 2 PM Metis Local 1935

Mktk Nation of Alberh - Locd 1935 Fort M d u n q -

g. 'Ibt gffectn of hehigh n ~ m k of shadow p@pWb populatioa the community a f h s ~veryone dm~deally a chis a t populstion has no re1ationsl-i~ or e~mmitmtnt to tbh ammuniry: how Shell CanadaLimited ddresses &is is unclear.

h, Tbe in- in cons of gods a d services has a great= shain an living costs, what M t is this project to the Metis?

i. The u&r Living out oftown AHowance prwiaui to pmple frwn out oftown is hard for l o d Business to ~~nucbwikwiI I loca lbus iaesaeshaveapr iar j tymdW~ . -d?

j. The-- on~&tionshipe by the mobilt &ow-- has been and challenging andthme is a high p~tionofdiwrccJapdbmkups. Wnthaekaeampeflyins~howtvillthiemmbe-ed?

5. The Etlvimmmt is of great cxmeem for the membgtx I t nads tobt mid that ~ I I I C this Local is sitpatbd m Fort McMmny m q peaple am heendants of familim born Fort Smith ta Laro La Bike, md my w b ~ in bttwtcn, which is FM McKay, k c , Janvier and Conklin and still d l a cammuniti*r along tho?re -9. TlreMetis Leadm o f t b e mmmudias unvdad to each oLm communities and h d t h w c very aroctms;

a. M ~ ~ ~ ~ c e m ~ b w t ~ s h t h e ~ o f p a m i d g e , ~ y w m t h o f i s h s p o n g y w ~ s a R , t h e wau~'t laading in the a r q the Pen was being &&d.

b. Is the in- in and d i w due to air. and plant qualiv F. IS the low w s h tablt on the dtlta due to wa use ofmtc~ by Indusay?

6. The Accumulation ofdawlopnmts and thus, the mxmdatdd creared by devdrprm~ on thc h d , the &tat, tlke animals, the bids, the air, and thc M&s d c has &I Tkis one p m j ~ not L fiipifimt impact but the aeeumnlasion of h e projck- thm&cut ihc presents like a qu& laving b u s & On an thee- mwhgs, lands and water system This is lmown iimugb the sbriw of the e l m .

7. ThGwatu on h rim MI l a b , sloughs and muskeg is dmnaly important b d thc d c , thc Iand, thc fbmt and t h ~ peopk *coaecm is Wt this water in being -wed md contaminated, not ~ g h or nor usable.

8 Is Wildlife affkctedby this dwelopmmt? m Sites mak pollution to aU living animals m SitEs a w e h c t i o n of Wife m o m sad thcir habitats.

9 The h k ofCepacify to do xwa& on the ~ ~ t a l issues lea- us with a lot ofqaestioru a d limitations to spmk m-1~-

10 'l"fIe lands in dlk region are traditianal M&8 lantts. M& have lived off this land since 1700's. The M&s wcse here before Canada or A h d a dstcd, thus the daim #, & i a rn as wadirid rezritorytory This chin esn be d e d by the h l s w of Port Cbipewyan and Fwt Vamillion he two 10agb8t lcnom Mti8 CcmrrnmicEes in the north. FOI? MEMway was a namd a~ss o w , portage and w i n g rees far travelera through dxse mns Today people are r ab id to a- on thelands for hunting, Fding, piding &ria gathuing d i d - opll&g hwbs md simply enjoying the time ia tht bush, 'by the lakes or in the k c s t The -cal has betn without &need 6.r Lice-, phmits, approvnls from fivate, industry andfor g o w m d what is the signilimnae of thw? 'flaw &&ns have a majrrr impact on accessfbrlity to pracrice M&

f 1 The Metis mn't praceict our Mend uae of- like hunting, picking bairn or fishiak bGearree of the datmctiw tn the en-t by oil snd gas dcvclapment.

w Mmbers w n m a b o ~ t chemid frroduct spraying on bemies end plank ar, M e m k sxpm moems abwr Ehaaieal pioducts &ar crmt~~inarefkh. oo Members me concern about d i n g thc wildlifc a We h o w little of how this p j & will @act in this manna.

12 The Fir& Natiom huw6vdd b ~ n t m t a Witham CQltrpetition, mainly due in iheirhistorid claim the thtory. The M& mala a hi claim. Thc Mctis ham been in this Taritory before hdumy, this town, this municipality, this provincq and -was I t p i h i d . nlhc historical Claim of the Metis is m e dAbofi@n& in ~ ~ o c S h 35 of the Conscitudoll of Canada As one ofthe a h i g i d mkfblde-s in this tdtw h M& of Fort McMurray is insi-g h a t our atgankdon be granted thc oppadm* to d v e contrwta fw i s brrsmess members or mmmnn* based business oa sole sourcing basis where q p l i i t .

13 'happus; Mitis LoeaI membes have held bap?ines h @ m u i the ragion. They have had success #&ng a living in this manner for many years. This way ofI% has hem n e d y climinatcd for many with the few whb are I& they

441: Sakltawaw Trail, I% McMurray, Alberta TgH4P3 T: (780) 743-2659 F: (780) 791-26!3 + E-rn; [email protected]

M a Nation o f A l b m - L m d I935 Fort M ' u r r a y

14 C u l b l -has baa *cad with tht d d n h g numk ofgwopIo mwing to Fart MFM- and has k e a t a d the MGcis i d d t y , hnily, land nses, & o i d Shes, cabin living, W g h o b mltraal pntdices and c oheshrencss W e b a v e n o ~ i f f h i s e o m p y asrespcetfulorevenawareoftheM&and~mthe *m-

15 ~ i t i m r l ~ ~ ~ ~ . w t b r a ~ c P r r c e m c d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a n 8 ~ M ~ kappms, ~IUUS, Wiug Mliw to i n 0 a v i ~ thm W E k thc $rt &6wand cansidcrato t h ~ y a r ~

s L i i ~ g t d X m a l p w p I e d t h t f i e i n ~ o f ~ ~ ~ p a p ] t ~ a g r b t a r ~ o f t h C i r ~ l i E a t i ~ n , ~ ~ beliew this appm& is bias and cwFivt. We arc FonccmedTTactitibaa1 Knowltd@ 5 being d d h OW m a n b e R w i t h w t ~ ~ m o r ~ l a t i n . W e ~ d ~ t i t ~ u n e t h i d t ~ ~ c t i s a r J s i n g i ~ d ~ magnitude by pksional pmple and not ham M& " d tmnslam availab1a We p d ~ Xt$s g o v m work with the M&s -mi& and i n d u s ~ MI bLing d h d y in- d tn m l t w~B M a peaple.

16 With Out Psqjudioc - Ths M& businem d emplopz w&ng far industry f b l tbey are being -ad far being asscrei*aad with I Metis Iacal and particula~y ifftrey m ~~ in. The io8um-y plrycrf nmd to deal witb Metis ~ ~ W D I S wifhout~udict due tb their -Q aad j u d ~ b u s h ~n bllBiot38. NO '0 0908hOULd h8YtM bohIBadBDdeall~~mlcssitiSa$y~~cp~00~98.AnOth~cvay # r ~ y i t i s i f ~ * y ~ ~ f o r i n ~ k ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ o r ~ e ~ u ~ d i l i l a a g a ~ ~ m d W ~ ~ t O ~ 1 con- then tbat is aaz&lemcthod ofm-imk but i f canbcbrs (anp1~ arcbeing died in bcorwse the

1'1 h~1~~wi#r~hofhnnm~@uc#rbecxpre8ecd Inahsnd~mbmiesion,alc~hrr k b e l d a f t h c & t h p t s b d ~ q ~ t ' s t i m f w I n ~ t a ~ ~ ~ s o B ~ ~ e g w i l h ~ M a t i s . Thet14a s~~providingonceentfor~achbamlwouldbcawrytos~emptt0m~upbDrtbe~db~sctOf~8M~ and a posiliva m y to umm M~tis h d t now and in tht Ltwn"

18 O C A P i a a n ~ ~ o a y m f a p . ~ i p , C o 1 1 h 1 , ~ a n d P d o n . T h i s c n n c e p t i s a ~ p r o c n s ~ l w b s i n g in@bte#byPirwNpimscmnmunitiesaf~rrss&mh W e ~ t t h t i n ~ ~ w t h ~ ~ ~ ~ : e p & ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d s a ~ a l l ~ w b n & i n g ~ ~ h M & T e r r i t o r y t o r y Attllis tirne&eM&sLiuaIdpesnc4havt~ #r onydfthcstudiesbeingamdwkd. T h u s t h e n b b d m m e k e t b c ~ t t h ~ t t h e M & ~ ~ i ~ intent mgpin bomc OwnerJbi~ a and P m o f f b t m e and studies bdUWyh as wdl its 00llduUhg indqadmt f i t s .

19 T h e h p a c t d h i s ~ d i r c e t l y m m ~ n b a s b a s c d m t h e ~ ~ o o h T b e s i e e i n d i ~ f i 8 n 4 t dirwdy Eqadng individds but the acarmulativG tn M y -Ed situtimissigni5Elnt to m b A d of Fort McMumy in dationship to this project &be SheH Canadb LimM

20 M&aImolll:l9Sh*sbcLnesgsgtd&theEn ' r t a l a r d ~ t i o a a l l a n d u s e ~ H a w c v a t h e w Staff and El* admit t8c languee is t d m i d md l@; Wixe d W t to m c k m d -y we an asking yux miqm~y to gFovide Wnical- fnr a mh, in- and a teddbm to -and to the isma b y y ~ ~ a p p l i m t i ~ ~

Our-ddbave to e o n t b a ~ ~ m w i t h Sbdl CllnadaLiited b h ~ ~ r t s p o a d t ~ t h c t t p p l W ~ ~ ; h ~ a , t a e t i m e t c r r e s p a n d i s ~ ~ n n i ~ b t h i s c o u I d w a r r . ~ M ~ ~ M t ~ e d t a ~ i t 5 ~ b ~ ~ m the- W e ~ a n c e d f o h w e k e i s w e ~ f o ~ o ~ r m m h ~ h k ~ ~ ~ b o p ~ tb& health, Ldr &W$ fMm% the la& and limit 1- tha M a s peopk

Shovld you wish to diswsf any portion dCi lttter please cmm us or tbe (3eneml M m , &ism Faputt at the ddQeePs Iw#6

441 Saln'pawaw Trail, Fort M u m y , Alberta TgH4P3 T: (780) 743-2659 + F: (7M) 701-2654 + E-m: m e t l ' l ~ ~ s . n e t

FAX No. 780-791-2654 P. 005

Bill Loutitt M& Local 1935 Prasidcnt

441 Sakhvaw Trail, Fort MchRurtay, Alberta T9H4P3 -

T: (780) 745.2659 + F: (780) 791-2654 E-m: [email protected]

Melanie Daneluk

From: Sherwin Shih [[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 6:53 PM

To: Ernie Hui; AENV Environmental Assessment

Cc: [email protected]; 'Melody Lepine'

Subject: pToR letter and review

Importance: High

Attachments: Shell JP-PR pToR review.pdf

11/4/2009

Dear Mr. Hui: Please find attached the Mikisew Cree First Nation’s (Mikisew Cree) initial response to and technical review for Shell Canada’s draft Terms of Reference for the Jackpine Expansion and Pierre River EIA. Please confirm, in writing, receipt of this email with attachment. Should have any questions, feel free to contact the undersigned below. Regards, Sherwin Shih M.E.M, P. Biol., CEPIT Environmental Affairs Coordinator Mikisew Cree First Nation Industry Relations (IRC) 9715 Main Street, Suite 208 Fort McMurray, Alberta T9H 3G5 Tel: (780) 714-6500 ext. 225 Fax: (780) 715-4098 [email protected]

1

September 3, 2007 Ernie Hui Regional Director, Northern Region Alberta Environment 111, Twin Atria Building, 4999 – 98 Avenue Edmonton, AB T6B 2X3 Fax: 780-427-7824 Dear Mr. Hui: Re: Draft Terms of Reference (ToR), Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report for the

Shell Energy Canada Limited Jackpine Expansion and Pierre River Mining Areas The Mikisew Cree First Nation (Mikisew Cree) has read the above-mentioned document and wishes to submit the following letter as an initial response to the proposed Terms of Reference (pToR). A list of concerns about the pToR has been provided in this letter with more specific details described in the attached technical report. The Mikisew Cree is developing capacity through its Industry Relations Corporation (IRC) to try and effectively manage the uncontrolled rate of resource development on its traditional territories. The First Nation has grave concerns pertaining to the cumulative environmental, social, economic, and cultural impacts of oil sands development. The combination of these impacts is putting the future of the Mikisew Cree, as an Aboriginal people, at risk. In reviewing the pToR, the Mikisew Cree are concerned about a number of issues, a few of which are listed below. Please refer to our detailed technical report for specific requests and recommendations.

• Include a condition that the EIA should discuss benchmarks for reclamation and potential adaptive managements if benchmarks are not met (Vegetation & Biodiversity).

• The ToR should make a commitment to the use of control sites as benchmarks for monitoring biodiversity, rather than simply considering the use of benchmarks (Vegetation & Biodiversity).

• Request a provision in the ToR that 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 admittedly insufficient in establishing a meaningful baseline scenario for wildlife populations, additional data collection must be required (Wildlife).

• Request a discussion of specific targets or benchmarks and their performance over time with respect to wildlife habitat use and the successful re-colonization of reclaimed landscapes by wildlife. The Mikisew Cree would envision an official request in writing for the aforementioned information to the appropriate Government of Alberta representatives and/or request why this information is not available for long-term planning in the Alberta Oil Sands Region (Wildlife).

• 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. Request an addition of a provision that requires the proponent to address ecosystem shifts (Wildlife).

MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION Industry Relations - IRC Suite 208, 9715 Main Street Fort McMurray, AB T9H 1T5 Phone: (780) 714-6500 Fax: (780) 715-4098

2

• An oil spill dispersion study should be carried out by the proponent, with the potential collaboration of other oil sands operators. 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. This point is a critical addition to the ToR and will affect the wording of a number of points throughout the ToR (Hydrology).

• The water resources section (Section 4.2) should contain a section requesting a discussion of the effects of groundwater removals (both overburden and bedrock) on surface water quantity and quality. Such a discussion should include a complete water balance of the entire water resource/wastewater discharge regime (Hydrogeology).

• Include regional groundwater quality monitoring in the ToR and regional groundwater quantity monitoring (Hydrogeology).

• ToRs should now include the requirement to thoroughly review the traditional land use of all affected First Nations and to assess the cumulative effects on traditional land use of all First Nations in the McMurray Oil Sands Area. This will lend support to the consultation process that the Government must undertake before a project is approved (Socio-economics).

• Address specific recommendations within each discipline. The Mikisew Cree truly hope that the feedback and recommendations presented are constructive and incorporated into decision-making that will improve the quality of project applications. We feel that our input at the ToR stage may assist in addressing some of Mikisew Cree’s concerns with the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process. Given the rapid proliferation of projects in the region, the implementation of appropriate methods to make clear and practical impact predictions is vital, as the accuracy and validation of these predictions is of paramount importance to the Mikisew Cree. The Mikisew Cree request assurance that the concerns expressed through the EIA regulatory process, including the review of the pToR are not only considered but also demonstrably integrated into government action and policy aimed at managing the pace and impacts of oil sands development. We would also request that rationale be provided, in writing, when concerns identified in the report are omitted or not addressed. I trust this meets with your satisfaction and should you have any questions please contact me at the IRC. Respectfully, Melody Lepine, IRC Director MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION cc: Mikisew Cree Chief & Council

Michael Saretsky, Shell Canada Limited

Review of Shell Canada’s Proposed Terms of Reference for the Jackpine Mine Expansion and Pierre River Mining

Areas Environmental Impact Assessment

Prepared for

Mikisew Cree First Nation IRC

August 2007

Prepared by

207 Edgebrook Close NW Calgary, Alberta

T3A 4W5 Canada Phone (403) 241-8668

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

Shell Jackpine/Pierre River ToR Review August 2007

Page i

List of Contributors

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

Senior Review Dr. Petr Komers, P.Biol.

Vegetation & Biodiversity Dr. Elizabeth Dickson, P.Biol.

Hydrology Dr. Stefan Kienzle, Ph.D.

Hydrogeology Mr. Doug Bernard, P.Eng.

Socio-economics Dr. Jim Tanner, Ph.D.

Report Compilation & Integration Ms. Shannon Gavin, P.Biol.


Page ii

Executive Summary

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

Environmental Science (MSES) review Shell Canada’s (Shell) Proposed Terms of Reference (ToR) for the

Jackpine Mining Expansion and the Pierre River Mining Areas (Project) Environmental Impact

Assessment (EIA). MSES evaluated the ToR to determine how and to what extent Shell proposes to

address the concerns of the Mikisew Cree, and to provide recommendations to Shell as to how these

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

disciplines: terrestrial resources, vegetation, biodiversity, hydrology, hydrogeology, and socio-economics

and traditional land uses. General key recommendations have been summarized from each discipline and

are provided below within this executive summary. Please see the review for specific requests and

recommendations.

• Include a condition that the EIA should discuss benchmarks for reclamation and potential

adaptive managements if benchmarks are not met (Vegetation & Biodiversity).

• The ToR should make a commitment to the use of control sites as benchmarks for monitoring

biodiversity, rather than simply considering the use of benchmarks (Vegetation & Biodiversity).

• Request a provision in the ToR that 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 admittedly insufficient in establishing a meaningful baseline scenario for

wildlife populations, additional data collection must be required (Wildlife).

• Request a discussion of specific targets or benchmarks and their performance over time with

respect to wildlife habitat use and the successful recolonization of reclaimed landscapes by

wildlife. The Mikisew Cree would envision an official request in writing for the aforementioned

information to the appropriate Government of Alberta representatives and/or request why this

information is not available for long-term planning in the Alberta Oil Sands Region (Wildlife).

• 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. Request an

addition of a provision that requires the proponent to address ecosystem shifts (Wildlife).

• An oil spill dispersion study should be carried out by the proponent, with the potential

collaboration of other oil sands operators. 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. This point is a critical addition to the ToR and will affect the wording of a number of

points throughout the ToR (Hydrology).


Page iii

• The water resources section (Section 4.2) should contain a section requesting a discussion of

the effects of groundwater removals (both overburden and bedrock) on surface water quantity

and quality. Such a discussion should include a complete water balance of the entire water

resource/wastewater discharge regime (Hydrogeology).

• Include regional groundwater quality monitoring in the ToR and regional groundwater quantity

monitoring (Hydrogeology).

• ToRs should now include the requirement to thoroughly review the traditional land use of all

affected First Nations and to assess the cumulative effects on traditional land use of all First

Nations in the McMurray Oil Sands Area. This will lend support to the consultation process

that the Government must undertake before a project is approved (Socio-economics).

• Address specific recommendations within each discipline.


Page iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

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

2.0 REVIEW ............................................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................................... 2

2.1.1 Specific Concerns and Requests ....................................................................................... 3 2.2 Vegetation and Biodiversity............................................................................................................... 5

2.2.1 Specific Concerns and Requests ....................................................................................... 5 2.3 Hydrology .............................................................................................................................................. 6

2.3.1 Specific Concerns and Requests ....................................................................................... 8 2.4 Hydrogeology .....................................................................................................................................11

2.4.1 Specific Concerns and Requests .....................................................................................11 2.5 Socio-economics ................................................................................................................................13

2.5.1 Specific Concerns and Requests .....................................................................................14

3.0 CLOSURE ........................................................................................................................ 16

4.0 LITERATURE .................................................................................................................. 17


Page 1

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

Science (MSES) to review and assess Shell Canada Limited’s (Shell) Proposed Terms of Reference (ToR)

for the Jackpine Expansion and Pierre River mining areas Environmental Impact Assessment. The EIA

will address the environmental effects of construction, operation and reclamation in the Jackpine

Expansion and Pierre River Mining project areas. The project will involve the construction of an oil

sands mining and bitumen extraction facility located approximately 100 km north of Fort McMurray

(leases located in all or portions of Townships 95 to 100, Ranges 9 to 11, W4M). Shell Canada already

holds regulatory approval for the Jackpine Mine development that includes a 200,000 bbl/d mining and

extraction facility. The proposed mine expansion could increase output to 300,000 barrels a day.

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

are relevant to the concerns of the Mikisew Cree and make recommendations to Shell and the Mikisew

Cree on ways to fill those gaps. The document reviewed by MSES was the following:

• Draft Terms of Reference Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report for the Shell Canada

Limited Jackpine Expansion and Pierre River Mining Areas – May 2007

This document provides details for the public and Shell with respect to what the representative agencies

of the Canadian Federal and Alberta Provincial Governments require for an EIA report.

In its review, MSES evaluated the ToR 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 Shell 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, Biodiversity, Wildlife);

• Aquatic Ecosystems (Groundwater, Surface Water, Water Resources); and

• Project boundaries in relation to Mikisew Cree traditional land uses.

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 both the Mikisew Cree and Shell can use in the process of

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

Jackpine mining expansions and Pierre River mining areas project.


Page 2

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

and page numbers of the reviewed documents. Direct quotes from the ToR are presented in italics

while questions, requests for changes or additions to the ToR appear in bolded font.

It should be noted that while the development of individual ToR for EIA reports sometimes appears to

be a mechanical formality that is a precursor to the inevitable EIA submission, the team of reviewers

have collectively suggested to the Miksew Cree that such a form-letter approach does not lend itself to

the development of ideas for “doing these things better”. As such, it is hoped that proponent and

government alike will possess the vision to change the EIA process for the better through the

establishment of ToRs that are robust and are based on sound underlying principles that have

considered all input in a meaningful way.

2.1 Wildlife

The ToR for the EIA Report for Shell’s Project is written in the typical format for most oil sands

developments – quite generalized and lacking any specific targets or benchmarks of performance over

time with respect to wildlife habitat use and the successful recolonization of reclaimed landscapes by

wildlife. As indicated in previous ToR reviews and meetings with regulatory agencies, if the drafting of a

ToR for an EIA is to be a meaningful process, then serious thought needs to be given to considering the

long-term evaluation of EIA predictions via the establishment of dynamic benchmarks or targets for

conservation, reclamation, and ultimately, end land use. Without benchmarks or targets to strive

towards (which could change over time and during the course of a project) it is not clear how the

proponent and 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.

Although there is some indication that the proponent should consider “…the use of regional control sites

as benchmarks for comparison with reclaimed areas, and considering use of Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring

Program protocols, as practical. “ (see PToR Section 4.10(n)), the wording is so vague and open-ended that

the proponent does not actually have to do anything, only consider the possibility (if practical, no less)

of using a large control area for comparing/contrasting with development. 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 development proponents and the Government of Alberta

have apparently failed to foster this approach.


Page 3

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 the proponent 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 the proponent and

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 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.

2.1.1 Specific Concerns and Requests

1) Data Quality

The most significant concern is that there is no provision that would require the development

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 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. 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.

The ToR contains the following provision related to Habitat models:

Section 5.6.4 (e) “…Habitat models used to evaluate impacts should be modified/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 that indicates that either (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.

a) We suggest the following changes to 5.6.4 (e): “Habitat models used to evaluate impacts should

be modified/calibrated by comparing model predictions with wildlife data from the Study Area. If


Page 4

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 admittedly 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”.

b) We suggest the following additional requirement to 5.6.4(d):

“Provide rationale behind sampling protocols and field methods implemented.”

2) Benchmarks and Targets

We suggest that the following sections be added after 5.6.4 (k):

Provide the following information for all wildlife indicator species selected for the impact assessment:

(l) Benchmarks and targets for wildlife populations over the lifetime of the project (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 (see point 5.6.4(f)).

The Mikisew Cree would envision an official request in writing for the aforementioned information to

the appropriate Government of Alberta representatives and/or request why this information is not

available for long-term planning in the Alberta Oil Sands Region.

3) Ecosystem Shifts

Ecosystem shifts are likely to occur in areas where disturbance approaches 50% of the landscape

(Andren 1994, Hargis et al. 1998, Komers 2002). 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 the propoment and 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:

Provide the following information for all wildlife indicator species selected for the impact assessment:


Page 5

(m) Discussion and consideration of the effects of ecosystem shifts with respect to

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

RSA.

2.2 Vegetation and Biodiversity

The ToR for the Jackpine Expansion and Pierre River Mining Projects addresses most of the vegetation

and biodiversity issues traditionally included in oil sand EIA baselines. In order to assess the

environmental impacts of any proposed development, future conditions are predicted using conceptual

and mathematical models. Since estimations of residual impacts depend on successful reclamation and

detections of model deviations rely on monitoring, both reclamation and monitoring are critical for

confidence in EIA predictions.


1) Reference: 4.10 Reclamation and closure, pg 12, part h.

Concern: The EIA will discuss “a conceptual schedule for the return of the forest resource landbase

by area, species and productivity”. Please include a condition that the EIA should discuss benchmarks for reclamation (such as the density of plant species, 5 years, 10 years, and 20 years post reclamation) and potential adaptive managements if benchmarks are not met.

2) Reference: 4.10 Reclamation and closure, pg 12, part n

Concern: The ToR pledges to discuss “plans to monitor biodiversity in the reclaimed landscape,

considering the use of control sites as benchmarks for comparison with reclaimed areas, and using

Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Program protocols, as practical.” The ToR should make a commitment to the use of control sites as benchmarks for monitoring biodiversity, rather than simply considering the use of benchmarks.

3) Reference: 5.3 Cumulative environmental effects assessment, pg 14, part a.

Concern: The ToR states that the proponent will “assess and discuss cumulative environmental

effects that are likely to result from the Project in combination with other existing, approved and planned

projects in the region that could reasonably be considered to have a cumulative effect.” For the cumulative effects assessment, please consider changing this to include all environmental effects of Shell’s activities in the region, including those activities prior to past approvals, such as exploration.


Page 6

4) Reference: 5.6.1 Biodiversity pg 17 part c.

Concern: “Baseline information collected in each terrestrial and aquatic vegetation community will be

accompanied by sufficient plots in each ecosite phase to provide reliable data using a suitable

proportional sampling method and to provide a measure of biodiversity on baseline sites that are

representative of the proposed reclamation ecosites;” In order to understand the natural variability

of biodiversity measures within ecosites, sufficient control plots should be established at baseline and monitored throughout the project lifetime and closure. Having measures

of natural variability of biodiversity from control sites would provide a basis for determining

whether measures from reclaimed ecosites fall within the natural range of variability of local

undisturbed ecosites.

2.3 Hydrology

The wording of the Suncor (April 2007) and the Shell May 2007 Terms of References are different. The

organization of the chapters is sometimes also different. If all ToR relevant chapters were worded the

same, then a comparison between different ToRs would be easier, and the consistent evolution of the

ToRs would be transparent. Further, it would clearly indicate the impact of our reviews on the

evaluation of ToRs, and, therefore, allow the monitoring of our impact.

The Mikisew Cree requests, in the name of public interest, that an oil spill dispersion study be carried out by the proponent, 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. 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.

This point is a critical addition to the Terms of Reference (ToR) and will affect the wording of a number

of points throughout the ToR.

The recommended oil spill dispersion study will follow the philosophy of public health and safety

(Section 7.0), as outlined in the ToR: “h) provide a summary of Shell’s emergency response plan and discuss mitigation plans that will be implemented

to ensure workforce and public safety during pre-construction, construction, operation and reclamation of the

Project. Include prevention and safety measures for wildfire occurrences, accidental release or spill of chemicals

to the environment and failures of structures retaining water or fluid wastes;…


Page 7

k) identify and discuss potential health and safety impacts due to higher regional traffic volumes and the

increased risk of accidental leaks and spills.” It is important to the Mikisew Cree that the oil spill dispersion analyses are 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 are that:

• 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,

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

assumptions.

Accordingly, the Mikisew Cree request the inclusion of this important point in the ToR. As

well, the following points should have the corresponding additions: Reference: Section 2.1 The principal development area (PDA) and EIA study areas, pg 2.

“e) the rationale used to define Local and Regional Study Areas (LSA and RSA), also discussed in Section 5.3,

considering the location and range of probable Project and cumulative effects, including those related to regional

or cumulative effects consistent with but not limited to the direction of the Cumulative Environmental

Management Association (CEMA)/Regional Sustainable Development Strategy (RSDS), and considering the results of comprehensive oil spill dispersion analyses; and”

Reference: Section 4.5 Utilities and Transportation, pg 7.

“k) ….Discuss contingency plans for spill response and any environmental risks associated with product releases

or management practices, based on comprehensive oil spill dispersion analyses.”

The oil spill dispersion study will also benefit the following point:

Reference: Section 4.9 Environmental Management System and Contingency Plans

“a) corporate policies and procedures, operator competency training, spill and air emission reporting and

monitoring procedures and emergency response plans;”


1) Reference: Section 1.2 Scope of Environmental Assessment Report, pg 1.


Page 8

Concern: 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 condition: “The EIA report will…

b) present:…

v) 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.”

2) Reference: Section 2.1 The principal development area (PDA) and EIA study areas, pg 2.

Concern: The Mikisew Cree requests that, until such time as when the oil spill dispersion

study results are available (as requested above), the Regional Study Area includes major water

bodies previously excluded from previous oil sands EIAs. The Mikisew Cree, therefore, request the addition of the following point: g) The Regional Study Area will include the Peace Athabasca Delta (PAD) and Lake Athabasca. Previous contamination sites will be identified in the EIA.

Mikisew Cree Elders have identified areas where oil sands contamination has seriously degraded

the aquatic environment in the Peace-Athabasca Delta (PAD) and caused temporary shutdowns

of fishing in Lake Athabasca. The contamination sites must be identified in the EIA in

consultation with and to the satisfaction of the Mikisew Cree.

3) Reference: Section 4.6 Water Supply, Water Management and Wastewater Management

(Additionally address appendix), pg 8.

Concern: The Mikisew Cree are concerned with their land and associated changes, particularly

after reclamation. Two definitions of the term “water balance” are provided for clarification:

• A calculation of the inflows, outflows, and change in storage for a particular control

volume (such as a lake or a catchment) over a particular time period (Hornberger et al.

1998)

• Precipitation minus surface runoff minus ground water flow minus evaporation minus

transpiration equals change in storage in a specified time period (Bedient and Huber

2002)

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 the reclamation success,

as it provides the necessary water and nutrients for the plants. Shell is, therefore, requested to


Page 9

provide detailed information on the soil water balances and their behaviour during flood and

multi-year drought events. Please change the following statement: “a) 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;”

4) Reference: Sections 4.6, 5.1, and 5.6.6, pgs 8, 13 and 23.

Concern: The following points request the discussion of floods:

Section 4.6 Water Supply, Water Management and Wastewater Management (Additionally

address appendix - “Provide a Water Management Plan, document and discuss the following: k) factors

used in the design of water management facilities, including expected flood levels and flood protection.”

Section 5.1 Information Requirements for the Environmental Assessment - “The EIA report will

include the following basic environmental information requirements for the three assessment scenarios:

e) information about ecological processes and natural forces that are expected to produce changes in

environmental conditions (e.g. forest fires, flood or drought conditions);”

Section 5.6.6. Surface Water - “f)the pre- and post-disturbance alignment and condition of all

permanent streams and waterbodies, including those created by the Project. Consider:

i) the entire flow frequency distribution presented as changes in exceedance curve, relate these to

potential changes in fluvial dynamics across the range in flows;

ii) the 1:100 year flood level; 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; and

iii) other activities in the watersheds affected by the Project that, together with the proposed

development, have potential to influence water quantity (e.g. existing and approved oil sands activities,

commercial timber harvesting programs);”

For the expected life span of the proposed project of 40 years (and much longer if the duration

for the settling of tailings ponds and reclamation are included), there is a 33.1 % probability that

the 1:100-year flood will occur. The Mikisew Cree is very concerned that the maximum flood

that could occur during the life of the proposed project could be significantly higher than the

1:100-year flood, and result in severe spillages into the river system and reach downstream

water bodies. It is in the interest of all Albertans to minimize the risk of spillages, and, therefore, please consider planning for a more extreme event than the 100-year flood. Even the 1:1000-year flood has a 3.9% probability of occurring at least once during the 40

year project.

5) Reference: Section 5.6.6 Surface Water, pg 23.


Page 10

Concern: The proposed ToR states:

“f) the pre- and post-disturbance alignment and condition of all permanent streams and waterbodies,

including those created by the Project. Consider:

i )the entire flow frequency distribution presented as changes in exceedance curve, relate these to

potential changes in fluvial dynamics across the range in flows;

ii) the 1:100 year flood level; 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;”

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 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, the Mikisew Cree is 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 percent 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.


Page 11

2.4 Hydrogeology

Groundwater concerns of the proposed Jackpine Mine Expansion and the Pierre River Mining Areas are

primarily identified in the Terms of Reference for the EIA in Section 5.6.5. Other minor groundwater

information requests are contained within subsections 2.2 (m), 4.2 (d), 4.6 (e) and in the Appendix. The

data requests are typical industry standard requirements for a major oil sand mine and plant operation.

In general, we believe the requirements are appropriate and thorough. Two possible general additions

are noted as follows.

While details are still preliminary, similar projects in the area use a combination of surface water from

the Athabasca River and water produced as a result of dewatering and depressurization requirements.

Because of the “stovepipe” nature of the ToR, and the resulting Approval, the interrelationship between

surface and groundwater resources is sometimes duplicated in several sections with a somewhat limited

perspective. We suggest that the water resources section (Section 4.2) should contain a section requesting a discussion of the effects of groundwater removals (both overburden and bedrock) on surface water quantity and quality. Such a discussion should include a complete

water balance of the entire water resource/wastewater discharge regime. The discussion would include

the impaction of “Planned and Approved Developments” to include the implications of cumulative

effects.

The ToR makes no reference to participation in regional monitoring of either groundwater quality or

quantity. In contrast, the surface water resources section includes details or proponent participation in

regional monitoring programs such as CEMA and RAMP. It is noted that recent approvals from AENV

have included requests for participation in regional groundwater quality monitoring. Please consider including regional groundwater quality monitoring in the ToR and regional groundwater quantity monitoring as well.


1) Reference: Section 2.2 (m), pg 3.

Concern: This section requests information on water source wells. More specific information should be stated such as number and location of source wells, proposed production volumes and sequencing.

2) Reference: Section 4.2 (d), pg 5.

Concern: This section requests information on dewatering wells; specific requests include

information on estimated water volumes and disposal location. It is recommended that these

requests be expanded to include information from both dewatering (overburden) and depressurization (bedrock) activities. In addition, a specific water flow path


Page 12

should be outlined providing proposed dewatering/depressurization locations, discharge locations, anticipated annual pumpage, and use (i.e. plant makeup, surface water flow augmentation, etc.). The impacts should be addressed in both quantity and quality.

3) Reference: Section 4.6 (e), pg 8.

Concern: This section is a specific request for the proponent to provide details relating to

proposed water source well locations and estimated production quantities. This appears to be a

request for details as noted in our comment 2.2 (m). This duplication seems somewhat

arbitrary and it is our recommendation to remove the request in Section 2.2 (m) as it is fully captured in this request.

4) Reference: Section 4.6 (j), pg 8.

Concern: The water management plan requested in this section should provide most

information requested in our comment to Section 4.2 (d). However, the water balance information does not include estimates for water source makeup (both surface and groundwater) and evaporation loss (both pond evaporation and water vapour in stack emissions). Rather, the request appears to be more one of environmental management

practises than entire water management.

5) Reference: Section 5.6.5, pg 21, Appendix.

Concern: The information requests in this section are generally considered appropriate and

industry standard but please consider these comments.

Condition 5.6.5 (f) Surrogate parameters of contamination are noted but the proponent should provide provisional “trigger values” that would constitute the implementation of the conceptual remedial action plan as noted in Section 5.6.5 (g) viii).

Condition 5.6.5 (g) Potential changes to groundwater regime should include a discussion on the implication of regional effects of proposed and approved developments.

Condition 5.6.5 (g) iii) The inventory should be up to date and not be entirely dependent upon

outputs from the data base provided by the Groundwater Information Centre; this may require the provision for field verification.

The groundwater monitoring and remediation plan requested in the Appendix is a fine idea but

requires the identification of the “trigger values” for key parameters, as noted in item 5.6.5 (f). Such

requirements are typically provided in the Groundwater Monitoring Proposal that is typically

requested once an approval is issued. However, there is no reason why monitoring and


Page 13

contingency planning not be included in the initial EIA document. Please consider adding this as a condition to the ToR. This would provide a more complete picture during

future reviews as these plans provide critical information specific to the methodology for

groundwater protection.

2.5 Socio-economics

Typically, the goal of the ToR process is to define the range of issues required by provincial and federal

legislation and regulations that a project must satisfy. The ToR process lays out the topics that need to

be included in the EIA and SEIA to meet the regulatory approval requirements. To date, non-legislated

requirements, such as the requirement to consult on aboriginal rights, have been omitted from the ToR

requirements. However, the EUB has now been mandated in Alberta Provincial legislation to deal with

constitutional issues including issues with respect to the sufficiency of Aboriginal consultation and the

infringement of their rights (Administrative Procedures and Jurisdiction Act). However, it appears from

this recent draft ToR that these issues are still not proposed to be included in the ToR process.

The Alberta Provincial Government has been relying upon the proponents of large oil sands projects to

initiate consultation processes with the Aboriginal Groups in the McMurray oil sands area. These

industry driven consultation processes have involved a mixture of a generalized public consultation and

reluctant acknowledgement of the importance of Aboriginal tenure and the project effects on Aboriginal

land use. However, the Crown cannot completely delegate its responsibility to consult (Haida, at para

53). This industry driven process in the oil sands does not meet the obligation of the Crown to consult

and other Provincial attempts at consultation have failed resulting in more expectations being placed

upon the industry.

Although the Project specific EIA review processes have been funded within a system of support for

Aboriginal run Industry Relations Corporations (The ATC/ARD All Parities Core Agreement) and

support in the form of direct funding similar to intervener funding, the assessment of the infringement of

aboriginal rights has not been properly addressed nor has complete information been collected to allow

the proper assessment of aboriginal rights. Therefore, currently the consultation system falls short of

the requirements of the law (Passelac-Ross 2007).

The Supreme Court has stated that consultation must take place before approvals are made. The

reliance of the Provincial Government on the industry and the basic requirement for information with

respect to aboriginal rights and land use implies that the ToRs should include information required to

assess the project’s effects on aboriginal rights and the cumulative effects on aboriginal rights of the

project combined with all other projects in the area. Although some wording in the proposed ToR


Page 14

approaches this requirement, it appears that no direct requirement or intent has yet been included in

the ToRs that require this level of information to be gathered or presented.

If an appropriate level of information is not gathered in this ToR process, in order to meet the

requirements of the law, a new and more thorough process would have to be conducted by the

Government which would undoubtedly duplicate much of the partial information required in the

proposed ToR requirements. We recommend that ToRs should now include the requirement to thoroughly review the traditional land use of all affected First Nations and to assess the cumulative effects on traditional land use of all First Nations in the McMurray Oil Sands Area. This will lend support to the consultation process that the Government must undertake before a project is approved.


1) Reference: Section 2.1.

Concern: The process for determining study areas is outlined. Please include a reference to the importance of study areas in determining the effects on aboriginal land use. The definition of a study area has major impacts on the results of a land use study. The study

areas for TLU analysis may have to be different than for other study purposes. Note that CEMA

has failed the First Nations and as a result several First Nations have pulled out. Using CEMA

based study areas is not adequate for First Nations.

2) Reference: Section 3.0 Regulatory and Planning Framework.

Concern: No mention of the role or right of aboriginal peoples is made. Although there are

rights defined as priority rights by the Supreme Court of Canada, these rights appear to be

completely ignored by this section. Planning frameworks must now take into consideration

aboriginal rights. Please consider addressing this in the ToR.

3) Reference: Section 3.1 EIA Summary, pg 4, part b.

Concern: It is stated that the EIA should “Identify the environmental, cultural, and socio-economic

impacts of the Project including the regional, temporal, and cumulative effects.” This must refer to the

cultural effects that the project would have on aboriginal communities and the cumulative effects

it would have on such communities. We recommend that the condition is changed to specifically state that it refers to aboriginal people.

4) Reference: Section 4.2 pg 6.


Page 15

Concern: This section requires the production of traditional land use maps. This should state

“Provide the following in traditional land use impact analysis including maps showing:…”

rather than just maps.

5) Reference: Section 4.10 Reclamation.

Concern: Please include a section discussing how Shell will meet Aboriginal concerns such as continued traditional land use including the use of medicinal plants and game habitat. Special consideration should be given to the future populations of

Aboriginal people in the area and how all those people would be able to use such lands.


Concern: Please include a discussion of how Shell will adapt to the shortcomings of CEMA and other regional groups in meeting the requirements of First Nations.

7) Reference: Section 8.0 Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Land Use, pg 27, part a.

Concern: This section asks for traditional land use within the local study area (LSA). If the

local study area is not large enough to take into consideration the extent of a First Nation’s

traditional land use the result of this exercise will not gather useful TLU information.

Identification of a few hunting, fishing or cabin sites within a small area says very little about the

effects of projects on a First Nation and does very little to address cumulative effects.

Therefore, the misspecification of the study area renders the other requirements in subsections

b) and c) ineffective. Please consider changing the condition to identify the entire traditional land use of aboriginal people who use the project area and determine if the project or the cumulative effects of project development in the area have had or will have significant effects on the First Nation’s ability to maintain their traditions, culture and livelihood. Also, it is important to recognize that many of the First Nations in

the region share close family relationships with members of the other First Nations. This leads

to an intimate relationship between their traditional activities and of course their traditional

lands. The grouping of aboriginal peoples into First Nations or Bands under the Indian Act was

not a traditional process but rather one of convenience for the Government representatives.

When a proponent limits the analysis to one specific traditional land use area of people

registered to one First Nation, it also inappropriately limits the information and excludes other

land users and ignores their rights.


Concern: This section mentions TEK and appears to confuse the two issues. The misuse of TEK is one of the major reasons that some First Nations have left CEMA. TEK is an integral

part of the culture and traditional livelihood of the First Nation and should not be separated

from the more thorough and complete analysis. First Nations have always been happy to share


Page 16

their knowledge of the environment but they are not willing to provide their knowledge if it is

being misused.

9) Reference: Section 10.0 Socio-economic Factors, pg 27, parts c) vi and vii.

Concern: This section includes trapping, hunting and fishing and effects on First Nations and

Métis (e.g. traditional land use and culture) which could be a duplication of the new

requirements as set out above. Certainly the effects on the culture and the traditional livelihood

are socio-economic issues and need to be included in the SEIA analysis. It is important to include the combined effects of all the traditional land use of all of the First Nations and Métis groups together because the cumulative demand for resources is much larger than the demand from any one group. In addition, it is important to include

competitive hunting, berry picking and other land use in the analysis because other land use also

consumes otherwise traditional land use opportunities. A complete effects analysis must include

competitive uses cumulatively.


Concern: In this section, the possible socio-economic effects on various stakeholders are

discussed. We recommend including a cost benefit assessment on the stakeholders.

This type of cost benefits analysis would be important information for the First Nation and for

any consultation process.


Concern: This section includes local First Nations and Métis groups under the heading of public

consultation. This is an inappropriate designation of the duty to consult and is misleading. A

more complete discussion of the delegation of the responsibilities should be outlined.

3.0 Closure Many general and specific points are outlined above in the hopes that these constructive criticisms will

enable those with the ability to assist in making important planning decisions to do so. It is important

that if the requested changes are not made to the Final ToR that the rationale behind such decisions are

provided, in writing, to the Mikisew Cree. Given the increased frequency of such projects in the region,

the implementation of appropriate methods to make clear and accurate impact predictions should

become more common, as the accuracy of these predictions is of paramount importance to local

stakeholders such as the Mikisew Cree.


Page 17

4.0 Literature

Administrative Procedures and Jurisdiction Act, S. A. 2006, c. A-3, and Designation of Constitutional

Decision-Makers Regulation, A.R. 69/2006.

Bedient PB and Huber WC 2002: Hydrology and Floodplain Analysis. Prentice Hall.

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.

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

Haida, at para 53.

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.

Hornberger GM, Faffensperger JP, Wiberg PL and Eshleman KN 1998: Elements of Physical Hydrology.

John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, London.

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.

Passelac-Ross, M. 2007. Crown Consultation with Aboriginal Peoples in Oil Sands Development: Is it

Adequate, is it Legal? Canadian Institute of Resources Law and Verónica Potes LL.M Student, Faculty of

Law, University of Calgary, Working Paper.

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.

The ATC/ ARD All Parties Core Agreement.


Page 18

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.

Melanie Daneluk

From: Melanie Daneluk

Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 1:21 PM

To: Kate Spencer

Subject: FW: OSEC comments on draft TOR for Jackpine Expansion and Pierre River Mining Areas

Attachments: OSEC Cover Letter - JackpineX and PierreRiver Mining Areas Draft TOR_Aug 24.pdf; Shell Jackpine exp and Pierre River TOR_OSEC's edits _Aug 24.doc

11/4/2009

From: Jennifer Grant [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 11:47 AM To: Melanie Daneluk Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; 'Simon Dyer'; [email protected]; 'Myles Kitagawa'; 'Dan Woynillowicz'; 'Terra Lesack' Subject: OSEC comments on draft TOR for Jackpine Expansion and Pierre River Mining Areas Dear Ms. Daneluk, Attached are the Oil Sands Environmental Coalition’s comments on the draft Terms of Reference for Shell’s Jackpine Expansion and Pierre River Mining Areas projects, and an accompanying cover letter. Please don’t hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. Sincerely, Jennifer On behalf of OSEC Jennifer Grant, M.Sc. Policy Analyst The Pembina Institute 200, 608-7th Street SW Calgary, AB T2P 1Z2 Phone: 403-538-7784 Fax: 403-678-4665 [email protected] Oil sands in-depth: www.oilsandswatch.org Support Wind Power: www.pembina.org/wind

OOiill SSaannddss EEnnvviirroonnmmeennttaall CCooaalliittiioonn c/o Suite 200, 608 – 7 St. SW.

Calgary, T2P 1Z2

Ph. (403) 538-7784

24 August 2007

Melanie Daneluk

Register of Environmental Assessment Information

Alberta Environment

111 Twin Atria

4999 – 98 Avenue

Edmonton, Alberta

T6B 2X3

Re: Proposed Terms of Reference for the Jackpine Expansion & Pierre River Mining Areas

Dear Ms. Daneluk,

I am writing to you on behalf of the Oil Sands Environmental Coalition (OSEC) to provide

comments on the Proposed Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Jackpine Expansion & Pierre River

Mining Areas. Consistent with Alberta Environment’s previous preference for detailed

comments, OSEC has provided an electronic version of the Terms of Reference with comments

inserted in the text. In addition to these changes, OSEC has provided suggestions for Alberta

Environment’s consideration that we believe will improve the quality of Environmental Impact

Assessment (EIA).

Methodological Guidance

OSEC believes that Alberta Environment should take a more active role in providing guidance

and directives that specify methodologies, study areas and assessment cases. This should include,

as a minimum:

• A more detailed description of the consideration and assessment of alternatives to

facilitate reviewers’ understanding of the process and its outcomes. This is currently

constrained due to matters of confidentiality and proprietary information.

• A pre-disturbance baseline model to allow the assessment to take into consideration all

of the cumulative impacts on the landscape rather than solely the project-related impacts

occurring in addition to existing disturbance. This approach would better serve the intent

of cumulative effects assessment and is consistent with recommendations being put

forward by numerous stakeholders (Fort McKay IRC, Environment Canada and OSEC).

• Assessing the magnitude of an impact on an indicator by describing the changing state of

the indicator over time (i.e. baseline vs. closure) as opposed to an arbitrary area (e.g.

local study area).

• A consistent regional study area to allow comparison between projects.

• A detailed discussion of the uncertainty associated with the assessment that gives

consideration to the uncertainty involved with determining the environmental

consequence of an effect.

• The harmonization of the assessment of impacts between Federal processes that define

significance and Provincial processes that define parameters of impact.

Environmental Consequence Criteria - Uncertainty

Very little area directly affected by oil sands mining operations has been restored to land with

equivalent capability to the pre-mining land, and no oil sands operations have yet to receive a

reclamation certificate from the government of Alberta. Since its operations began in 1967,

Suncor has reclaimed only 949 hectares, or 7.2% of the total land disturbed1, and this has yet to

receive certification from the Alberta government. Syncrude’s operations have disturbed 15,349

hectares, with only 4,624 hectares of land reclaimed.2 None of Syncrude’s land has been certified

as reclaimed to date.3

Given the track record of industry veterans, Suncor and Syncrude, it is overly optimistic to

assume that utilizing the same practices for proposed projects will result in successful

reclamation. It should be noted that the uncertainty associated with the predictions made in past

EIAs was not explicitly included in the environmental consequence criteria (direction, magnitude,

geographic extent, duration, reversibility, frequency) commonly used. As such, the TOR should

require a discussion of the ongoing uncertainties associated with reclamation, and this uncertainty

should be included in the determination of residual effects.

Baseline Efforts to produce EIAs as quickly as possible to accelerate the pace of clearing regulatory

hurdles, coupled with a pace of development far outstripping the pace and ability of the

Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA) to establish ecological thresholds

and management systems, significantly increases the importance of thorough and high quality

EIAs. This necessitates that proponents and the consultants preparing the EIA ensure that

adequate data is collected. The TOR proposes to use a baseline of environmental conditions that

includes Existing/Approved projects. The Existing/Approved case serves as the baseline against

which the Project Development and Cumulative Effects Assessment cases are assessed. As such,

the TOR do not require a comparison to a pre-development, or historic, baseline scenario

representing an intact regional ecosystem, which would provide a more accurate portrayal of both

local and regional ecological integrity. Ross (1998) defined cumulative effects as “effects of the

project under review in combination with the effects of other past, present or future human

activities (emphasis added)”4. Karr and Chu (1997)

5 similarly state that the “…temporal scale of

sampling should detect and foster understanding of human influences…” they further state,

“Understanding reference conditions-the baseline against which human effects can be compared-

requires distinguishing and classifying ecological systems…It also requires defining standards

1 Suncor Energy Inc. A Closer Look at Our Journey toward Sustainability: 2007 Report on Sustainability.

Calgary, Alberta, 2007. Page 39. 2 Syncrude Canada Ltd. "2006 Sustainability Report." Place Published, 2007.

http://sustainability.syncrude.ca/sustainability2006/download/SyncrudeSD2006.pdf (accessed 13

August 2007). Page 52 3 Alberta Environment. 2005. Oil Sands Development and Reclamation.

http://www3.gov.ab.ca/env/soe/land_indicators/41_oilsands_reclamation.html. (accessed 13

August 2007).

4 Cited in J.M. Piper “Barriers to Implementation of Cumulative Effects Assessment” J. of Environment

Assessment Policy and Management, Vol. 3, No. 4 (Dec. 2001) pp. 465-481. 5 J.R. Karr and E.W. Chu “Biological Monitoring: Essential Foundation for Ecological Risk Assessment –

DRAFT” Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 3: 993-1004

for each of those systems, that is, quantitative benchmarks corresponding to conditions with little

or no human influence. (emphasis added)”

In their discussion of the effect of uncertainty in EIAs, Geneletti et al. (2003) stated, “The quality

of the database built-up during the baseline study is strongly bound to the quality of the results:

all errors and inaccuracies contained in such a database will propagate throughout the impact

prediction and assessment stages…” As such, OSEC believes that the use of a “pre-development”

baseline that includes existing disturbance is a more appropriate method for conducting an

assessment. Again, we note that this is consistent with the recommendations put forward by both

Environment Canada and the Fort McKay IRC for the Imperial Kearl TOR.

Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries Inc. (Al-Pac) recently completed an assessment of the pre-

industrial forest condition pertaining for its FMA in effort to set responsible management

objectives. The National Boreal Standard (FSC) defines pre-industrial forest as “a native forest,

which has not been subjected to large-scale harvesting or other forms of human management. A

forest area such as existed prior to human settlement occupied by the forest.”6 OSEC encourages

AENV to examine this report as a credible reference to indicate the pre-disturbance baseline

model for the oil sands region. In addition to the pre-development baseline there is a need for the

proponent to identify regional reference sites that may act as controls. Alberta Environment can

support this process by considering the need to establish representative benchmarks in the oil

sands region as identified by numerous industry proponents and stakeholders.

Definition of Mitigation OSEC is concerned that proponents generally do not propose appropriate mitigation strategies

due to a lack of clarity about what mitigation actually means. Proponents generally focus only on

minimizing development impacts when mitigation is actually a broad term that covers a suite of

potential management strategies. Formally incorporating a definition of mitigation with the Terms

of Reference will aid proponents in the development of mitigation strategies. More relevant

definitions of mitigation are provided below (emphasis added):

“The elimination, reduction or control of the adverse environmental effects of the project, and

includes restitution for any damage to the environment caused by such effects through

replacement, restoration, compensation or any other means” (emphasis added).

- Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency “Mitigation includes: (a) avoiding; (b) minimizing the impacts by limiting the magnitude or

degree; (c) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring; (d) reducing or

eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of

the action; and (e) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources

or environments.”

-US Government, Center for Environmental Quality

Both definitions include a focus on replacement, compensation or provision of substitute

resources that to date are generally not evident in proponents’ applications. Mitigation measures

proposed by proponents to date are invariably operationally focused and based only on

minimizing the effects of development activities. This represents only a small component of

6 Smith, M.L., and R.G. D’Eon. "Pre-Industrial Forest Condition Report for the Alberta-Pacific Forest

Industries Inc.Forest Management Agreement Area." Place Published: Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries

Inc., 2006. http://www.alpac.ca/content/files/PIFC_Report_23aug06.pdf (accessed August 13, 2007).

available mitigation techniques, and will not effectively deal with the cumulative impacts of

multiple developments in northeastern Alberta.

Regional-Level Biodiversity Monitoring OSEC is supportive of the recognition of the Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute (ABMI) as

an appropriate mechanism for proponents to support monitoring of regional changes in

biodiversity. OSEC is a strong supporter of the ABMI, and believes this represents the primary

tool for the proponent to effectively meet biodiversity monitoring obligations. OSEC also

believes that proponents should identify regional-level control sites that will act as reference areas

to compare to disturbed landscapes, and demonstrate how their security as reference areas will be

maintained.

Consideration of Alternatives

Recent EIAs have narrowly assessed alternative options for proposed projects, and have not

provided adequate information for stakeholders to understand the assessments conducted.

Steinemann7 (2001) states that an inherent problem in proponents’ assessments of alternatives

stems from the fact that project objectives are defined so narrowly as to limit and exclude

reasonable competing alternatives, driven by the fact that proponents often view –– and can

create –– alternatives as less attractive options to their proposed action. As a result, EIAs may fail

to illuminate crucial tradeoffs, incorporate public values and explore more environmentally sound

approaches. Therefore, stakeholders have not been able to effectively understand and contribute

to the process to ensure that the scoping and screening of alternatives account for the comments

and concerns of stakeholders (See comments in Section 4.1 and 4.3).

At a minimum, the process undertaken to consider, assess and weigh alternatives must be

described in detail, as it is a key element of designing a project that will minimize its

environmental footprint. To date, this has been poorly done, with little if any description of the

process undertaken or meaningful information (both quantitative and qualitative) informing

stakeholders of the rationale for selecting technologies/approaches.

Greenhouse Gas Management Planning OSEC notes a growing recognition within the investment community that GHG emissions

pricing, and climate change more generally, represent major emerging financial liabilities for

companies. For example, in specific reference to oil and gas projects, Innovest Strategic Value

Advisors, an investment research and advisory firm based in New York City, states “Costing

carbon into new investments is becoming a critical risk management tool.”8 Another recent report

commissioned by the United Kingdom’s third largest pension fund recommended that:

“Institutional investors should request that sell-side brokers comment on a company’s relative

exposure to climate related risks (environmental, product-related and policy-related) and the

management’s capabilities and positioning on climate change.” 9 OSEC also notes Canadian

Natural Resources’ recognition that the management of GHG emissions and the financial

liabilities resulting from those emissions are an integral component of project development,

design and implementation, and are important for the determination of the public interest, and

7 OSEC Submission for the Horizon Joint Panel Review, September 17, 2003

8 Ibid., p. 57.

9 M. Mansley and A. Dlugolecki, Climate Change – a Risk Management Challenge for Institutional

Investors, Universities Superannuation Scheme, p. 41.

their commitment to include GHG reduction targets, offset criteria and a detailed plan for GHG

emission reductions in future Applications.1

As such, OSEC recommends that the TOR require that Shell’s Jackpine Expansion & Pierre

River Mining Areas Projects EIA discuss the economic viability and financial liabilities of the

Project under different carbon pricing, and emissions target scenarios.

Shell Canada has a corporate approach to managing GHG emissions from its operations that

includes a commitment that all new oil sands operations will achieve the emissions intensity level

of the best commercially available supply alternative at start-up. For previous oil sands projects

this has resulted in emissions targets of 50% below business as usual. Targets of this order of

magnitude and greater will be needed for large industry to do its part in combating climate

change. As such it is imperative that the TOR require the EIA to describe in detail any emissions

reduction targets for the project as well as the manner in which the targets will be met.

The Alberta government has recently introduced regulations to limit the emissions of GHGs from

large industry, however the TOR fails to mention these regulations. It is important that the EIA

for the Project provide a full description of how Shell intends achieve compliance with all

existing and anticipated federal and provincial regulations.

Consistency with CEMA Management Frameworks

OSEC remains concerned about the weak linkage between the EIA process and the work of

CEMA to establish management frameworks, thresholds and limits to ensure that the

environment is protected in the RM of Wood Buffalo. OSEC expects that the application should

clearly demonstrate how it is compatible with CEMA recommendations, particularly

recommendations of terrestrial limits and landscape zoning expected from the Sustainable

Ecosystems Working Group and the management plan for the Muskeg River Watershed. Without

objectives to compare project impacts to, OSEC is concerned that the assessment is essentially

meaningless.

Of particular relevance to CEMA’s Watershed Integrity Task Group, is Shell’s proposed plan to

mine over 20 kilometres of the upper reaches of the Muskeg River. OSEC expects protection and

avoidance of the river at least equal to setbacks in as part of the Muskeg River Mine Project and

strongly opposes mining and diversion of the Muskeg River. This is contradictory to the stated

goals of the Watershed Integrity Task Group and a substantial impediment to development of a

responsible mine application. OSEC eagerly anticipates learning more on the projected impacts to

the Muskeg River as indicated in section 5.6.7 (e.g., “the implications of any construction,

operation and reclamation activities in the study areas for aquatic biological resources and habitat.

Clarify how stream alterations, changes to substrate conditions, stream flow conditions and water

quality may affect these resources and habitat”).

Conclusions

These and other problems make it extremely difficult for stakeholders to gain an accurate

assessment of project impacts, challenges the ability of regulators to make informed public

interest decisions, and undermines the confidence of the public when regulators deem an EIA

complete. Public’s lack of confidence in regulatory decision making is magnified when the

opportunity to publicly comment on projects’ TOR occurs far too late in the process to

meaningfully affect and enhance the EIA under consideration. OSEC requests that the TOR be

issued earlier on the regulatory review process so our detailed comments genuinely will begin to

address many of our concerns. We also strongly urge Alberta Environment to initiate a process in

cooperation with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) that will bring

together stakeholders to develop more detailed guidelines for the preparation of EIAs as soon as

possible. This will allow regulators to more accurately and effectively determine the

completeness of EIAs, and ensure that the best possible information is being utilized for project

planning and design, regulatory review and decision-making.

We look forward to a response describing Alberta Environment’s perspective on the proposed

changes described herein and rationale for rejecting proposed changes, should this arise.

Should you have any questions regarding this matter please don’t hesitate to contact me at (403)

538-7784.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Grant

Policy Analyst, Pembina Institute

For the Oil Sands Environmental Coalition

DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) REPORT

FOR THE

SHELL CANADA LIMITED

JACKPINE EXPANSION & PIERRE RIVER MINING AREAS

DATE: May 2007

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 THE EIA REPORT ..................................................................................................................1 1.2 SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT..................................................1 1.3 PUBLIC CONSULTATION ....................................................................................................2 1.4 PROPONENT’S SUBMISSION..............................................................................................2

2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW .................................................................................................... 2 2.1 THE PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT AREA (PDA) AND EIA STUDY AREAS ..................2 2.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS AND DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE........................................4

3.0 REGULATORY AND PLANNING FRAMEWORK ..................................................... 4 3.1 EIA SUMMARY......................................................................................................................5

4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND MANAGEMENT PLANS ........................................ 5 4.1 PROJECT NEED AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ...................................................6 4.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS AND SITE SELECTION............................................................6 4.3 PROCESS SELECTION AND DESCRIPTION......................................................................8 4.4 MATERIALS STORAGE........................................................................................................8 4.5 UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION .................................................................................8 4.6 WATER SUPPLY, WATER MANAGEMENT AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT (ADDITIONALLY ADDRESS APPENDIX) ....................................................................................9 4.7 AIR EMISSIONS MANAGEMENT .....................................................................................10

4.7.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Management.................................................... 11 4.8 HYDROCARBON, CHEMICAL AND WASTE MANAGEMENT.....................................12 4.9 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND CONTINGENCY PLANS...........12 4.10 RECLAMATION AND CLOSURE (SEE APPENDIX) .......................................................13 4.11 PARTICIPATION IN REGIONAL COOPERATIVE EFFORTS .........................................15

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT............................................................................. 15 5.1 INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT......15 5.2 STUDY AREAS.....................................................................................................................16 5.3 CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ......................................16 5.4 CLIMATE, AIR QUALITY AND NOISE.............................................................................17

5.4.1 Air Quality...................................................................................................... 17 5.4.2 Noise .............................................................................................................. 18 5.4.3 Climate Change .............................................................................................. 18

5.5 LAND AND WATER USE, ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS AND AGGREGATE RESOURCE CONSERVATION ...........................................................................................................................19 5.6 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS ..............................................................19

5.6.1 Biodiversity..................................................................................................... 20 5.6.2 Geology, Soils, Terrain .................................................................................... 20 5.6.3 Vegetation ...................................................................................................... 21 5.6.4 Wildlife........................................................................................................... 23 5.6.5 Groundwater (Additionally Address Appendix).................................................. 24 5.6.6 Surface Water ................................................................................................. 25 5.6.7 Aquatic Resources ........................................................................................... 27

6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING............................................................................ 29 7.0 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ................................................................................. 29 8.0 TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE AND LAND USE......................... 30 9.0 HISTORICAL RESOURCES AND LAND USE ASSESSMENT ............................... 30 10.0 SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS ................................................................................... 30 11.0 PUBLIC CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS .......................................................... 31 APPENDIX.................................................................................................................................. 32

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

- 1 -

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 THE EIA REPORT The purpose of these Terms of Reference is to identify for the public and Shell Canada Limited (Shell) the information required by federal and provincial government agencies for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report. Shell will prepare and submit an EIA report to explain the environmental effects of the construction, operation and reclamation of the proposed Jackpine Expansion and Pierre River Mining Areas (the Project). The proposed Project will be located approximately 100 kilometres north of Fort McMurray in Townships 96 and 97, Ranges 8 and 9 W4M and in Townships 97, 98, 99 and 100, Ranges 9, 10 and 11 W4M. The Project will consist of oil sands mining areas and bitumen extraction facilities capable of producing approximately 300,000 barrels of bitumen per day. The Jackpine Expansion mining areas expand the approved Jackpine Mine and could include development activities on Leases 88, 89, 15, 631 and 632. Subject to conclusion of satisfactory commercial arrangements, this proposed expansion may potentially include lease exchange areas acquired from other companies as well as adjacent Fort McKay First Nation Lands. The Pierre River mining areas involving mining and bitumen processing activities on the west side of the Athabasca River, initially on Leases 9 and 17 and could progress to Leases 309, 310, 351 and 352.

1.2 SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT The EIA report will be prepared in accordance with the requirements prescribed under the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA), and any other federal legislation which may apply to the Project including the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). It will form part of Shell’s application to the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) for approval under the Oil Sands Conservation Act (OSCA) and any other federal legislation, which may apply to the Project. The EIA report will: a) assist the public and government in understanding the environmental and socio-

economic consequences of the Project’s development, operation and reclamation plans and will assist Shell in its decision-making process;

b) present:

i) Project impacts, including cumulative effects; ii) mitigation options where the definition of mitigation: “The elimination,

reduction or control of the adverse environmental effects of the project, and includes restitution for any damage to the environment caused by such effects through replacement, restoration, compensation or any other means”

-- Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency ; iii) residual effects relevant to the assessment of the Project including, as

appropriate, those related to other industrial operations; and iv) as appropriate for the various types of impacts, present predictions in terms of

direction, magnitude, frequency, duration, seasonal timing, reversibility, geographic extent and uncertainty;

- 2 -

c) discuss possible measures, including established measures and possible improvements based on research and development to: i) prevent or mitigate impacts; ii) assist in monitoring effectiveness of environmental protection measures in

managing impacts; iii) identify residual environmental impacts and their significance including

cumulative and regional development considerations; and d) form part of Shell’s application to the EUB. A summary of the EIA report will also be

included as part of the EUB Application document.

1.3 PUBLIC CONSULTATION Shell’s public consultation program will facilitate communication with members of the public who may be affected by the Project and will provide them with an opportunity to participate in the Environmental Assessment process. The EIA report will document the results of the public consultation program (see Section 11) and will provide information to address the issues raised.

1.4 PROPONENT’S SUBMISSION Shell is responsible for the preparation of the EIA report and related applications for Project approval. The EIA report will be based upon these Terms of Reference and issues raised during the public consultation process. The EIA report will include references for sources of information used,a glossary of terms and a list of abbreviations (including definition source) to assist the reader in understanding the material presented. The EIA report will include tables that cross-reference the report (subsections) to the EIA Terms of Reference and the applications pursuant to the EPEA, Water Act and appropriate federal statutes, as applicable.

2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW

Provide a corporate profile clearly outlining the ownership structure of the corporation, an overview of the Project, Project schedule, and the bitumen production rate used to prepare the EIA, the key environmental, resource management and socio-economic issues that are important for a public interest decision, and the results of the Environmental Assessment. Identify those responsible for the development, management and operation of the Project. Provide a brief history of Shell’s exploration in the oil sands area. 2.1 THE PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT AREA (PDA) AND EIA STUDY AREAS

The Principal Development Area (PDA) includes all lands subject to direct disturbance from the Project and associated infrastructure, including access and utility corridors. For the PDA, provide: a) the legal land description; b) the boundaries of the PDA; c) a map that identifies the locations of all existing and proposed development

activities; and d) a map showing the area proposed to be disturbed in relation to existing topographic

features, township grids, wetlands, watercourses and waterbodies. Study Areas for the EIA report include the PDA and other areas based on individual environmental components where an effect from the proposed development can reasonably be expected. Provide: e) the rationale used to define Local and Regional Study Areas (LSA and RSA), also

discussed in Section 5.3, considering the location and range of probable Project and

- 3 -

cumulative effects, including those related to regional or cumulative effects consistent with but not limited to the direction of the Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA)/Regional Sustainable Development Strategy (RSDS); and

f) illustrate boundaries and identify the LSAs and RSAs chosen to assess impacts on maps of appropriate scale.

- 4 -

2.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS AND DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE Provide a development plan and overview of the Project components proposed for approval. Discuss the following: a) a description of the activities to date (resource delineation through seismic activity, core-hole drilling programs etc.) b) the phases of development; c) rates and total volume of bitumen recovery; d) field maintenance operations; e) processing facilities; f) buildings; g) transportation infrastructure; and h) utility corridors. Provide an outline and/or drawings of the Project activities and components. Discuss the following: h) temporary structures; i) processing/treatment facilities; j) buildings and infrastructure (e.g. roads, bridges, pipelines and utilities); k) transportation and access routes; l) containment structures such as berms, dams, dykes and retention ponds; m) water source wells and intakes; n) aggregate resources and other road construction material required and on-site

availability; o) types and amounts of waste materials, waste storage area and disposal sites; p) activities associated with development of the area, operations, reclamation and

development; q) closure; and r) proposed method of product transportation to markets. Provide a development schedule outlining the proposed phasing, sequencing and duration of components, including: s) pre-construction; t) construction; u) operation; v) decommissioning; w) reclamation; x) a detailed schedule for any reclamation and related activities envisaged during the first

decade of operations; and y) the key factors controlling the schedule and uncertainties.

3.0 REGULATORY AND PLANNING FRAMEWORK

a) Identify the federal, provincial and municipal legislation, policies, approvals and current multi-stakeholder planning initiatives applicable to the review of the Project; Indicate the extent and duration of Shell’s involvement in these multi-stakeholder planning initiatives

b) list the major components of the Project that will be applied for and constructed under the EPEA, Water Act and the Public Lands Act (PLA);

c) address other regulatory authorizations that exist or will be required for the Project under federal, provincial and municipal government requirements, and describe the schedule and mechanisms Shell will engage to comply with these regulatory processes;

Deleted: a

Deleted: b

Deleted: c

Deleted: d

Deleted: e

Deleted: f

Deleted: g

Deleted: Inidcate

- 5 -

d) discuss the primary focus of each regulatory requirement, such as resource allocation, environmental protection, land use development and the elements of the Project that are subject to that regulation;

e) discuss any regulatory systems that apply to the Project, such as solid waste or air pollution classifications, land use zones, wildlife management areas and forest management areas; and

f) provide a summary of the regional, provincial or national objectives, standards or guidelines that have been used in the classification and evaluation of the significance of effects.

3.1 EIA SUMMARY

a) Provide a summary of the results of the EIA report including:

i) the Project components and development activities which have the potential to affect the environment;

ii) existing conditions in the study areas, including existing uses of lands, waterways, and resources and other activities, which have potential in combination with proposed development activities, to affect the environment;

iii) the environmental effects which are anticipated; iv) proposed environmental protection plan(s), mitigation measures and

monitoring; v) residual effects; and vi) the effects of the environment on the Project.

b) Identify the environmental, cultural, and socio-economic impacts of the Project including the regional, temporal, and cumulative effects. As appropriate, impact significance should be explained in terms of direction, magnitude, frequency, duration, seasonal timing, reversibility, geographic extent and uncertainty. Where possible, predictions are to be quantified.

c) Include suitable maps, charts and other illustrations to identify the components of the Project, the existing conditions, and the environmental and the socio-economic implications of the development.

d) Discuss the key environmental issues of the Project important for the achievement of sustainable environmental and resource management. Differentiate between emerging issues with uncertainties, issues with important environmental consequences and issues that can be mitigated through available technology and with existing management approaches. Describe how ongoing uncertainties and emerging issues will be addressed through an EIA follow-up and validation process.

4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND MANAGEMENT PLANS

The scope and detail of the project description information shall be sufficient to allow quantitative assessment of the environmental consequences. If the scope of information varies among components or phases of the Project, Shell shall provide a scientifically defensible rationale demonstrating that the information is sufficient for EIA purposes, and identify how information gaps will be addressed. Describe the Project components, infrastructure and activities. Discuss the alternatives considered, the alternative selection process, the potential effects that activities and infrastructures may have on the environment and the natural resources to be used for the Project. Outline the management plans to minimize the discharge of pollutants, manage wastes, reclaim disturbed lands and waterbodies, optimize resource use, and manage and monitor environmental effects. Describe all of the activities and components of the Project that are proposed for approval. Provide outlines of the relevant management plans for these activities. Where no management plan exists, identify how future management initiatives will be incorporated into Project design, construction and operation.

Deleted: importance

- 6 -

Technical information required in this Section may also be required for federal and provincial government approvals (see Appendix). Information required in this Section may be provided in other parts of Shell’s submission(s) provided that the location of the information is appropriately referenced in the EIA report, and is made readily accessible to all stakeholders. 4.1 PROJECT NEED AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Discuss the need for oil sands development on the leases, the alternatives to the Project and the potential alternatives of not proceeding with it or delaying development. Discuss the need for the bitumen or synthetic crude oil product at a local, provincial and national level. Include the following: a) an analysis of the key project alternatives that were considered, including need for the

Project, alternative projects, scope of the Project (major components included or excluded) and alternative mining methods. For the Project components, include a detailed qualitative and quantitative comparison of their environmental and technical performance potential and other relevant variables. Provide the relative ranking of alternatives considered for each parameter of consideration (environmental, technological, economic, etc.) and, within the confines of proprietary information, clearly identify the rationale for the ranking.;

b) provide the rationale for the decisions made by Shell about Project component alternatives and the status of any ongoing analyses, including a discussion of options not chosen and the rationale for their exclusion;

c) detailed contingency plans if major Project components or methods of the Project prove to not be feasible or do not perform as expected;

d) the implications of a delay in proceeding with the Project, or any phase of the Project; and

e) potential cooperative development opportunities for the Project (e.g. shared infrastructure and the implications of the Project for ongoing regional management and research initiatives).

4.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS AND SITE SELECTION

Describe the nature, size, design capacity, location and duration of the components of the Project including, but not limited to, the following: a) the oil sands mine area required to support the life of the Project; b) design capacities associated with the Project; c) the bitumen extraction, bitumen processing facilities, tailings management,

overburden storage areas, any chemical storage locations and any off-site facilities; d) dewatering and water control facilities, processing/treatment facilities and temporary

structures; e) buildings and infrastructure, transportation, utilities, access routes (including

watercourse crossing structures), storage areas and mining operations; f) the type and amount of solid and liquid waste materials and the location of those

waste storage and disposal sites; g) the location of components on a site development plan and the proposed phasing and

sequencing of components and development phases. Include a development schedule, explaining: i) timing of key construction, operational, reclamation and decommissioning

activities; ii) expected duration of each development phase for the life of the Project; and iii) key factors controlling the schedule and uncertainties related to the Project;

Deleted: and

- 7 -

h) the total land area disturbed during each stage of the Project, a projection of the maximum amount of disturbance at any given moment, and a list of reclamation milestones to be met through the Project life, such as the reclamation of overburden dumps;

i) the environmental implications of alternative mining methods considered, including approaches to minimize the size and duration of disturbances;

j) potential cooperative ventures with other oil sands operators and other resource users to minimize the environmental impact of the Project or the environmental impact of regional oil sands development. Discuss how Shell will work to develop such cooperative opportunities and identify a timeframe for their implementation to minimize the environmental impact of the Project. Identify environmental implications of lease boundary agreements with adjacent operators and indicate plans to address any lease boundary issues that may arise;

k) the activities to date, including but not limited to, resource delineation through seismic activity and core hole drilling programs; and

l) how Shell has incorporated both community information and elements of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) into Project design and mitigation.

Discuss the site selection process for the various Project components including: m) the process and factors that were considered in evaluating and delineating the oil

sands ore body to determine the preferred locations for the mine area included in the Project, plant site and associated processing facilities;

n) siting factors with respect to existing activities or other resources and the need to either adjust the development or relocate the existing activity; and

o) the rationale for selecting the proposed sites, including external tailings ponds and overburden dumps, and how technical, geotechnical and environmental criteria were considered in decision-making, and the decision criteria used.

Include a discussion of the following: p) Shell’s efforts to use existing seismic lines, linear corridors and other existing

disturbances and describe the types and spatial extent of any additional disturbance resulting from Project development and efforts to offset this disturbance;

q) planned accommodations and transportation for the workforce during construction and operations, including plans to minimize disturbance and provide for site reclamation after construction is complete for those facilities located within the study area;

r) How camp personnel will be managed to minimize or prohibit hunting and fishing that will compete with traditional uses and local recreation use; and

s) how surface disturbance (extent and duration) has been and will be minimized, including co-operation with other developments.

Provide the following maps showing: t) the location of existing and proposed Project facilities and infrastructure; u) all existing surface leases and clearings and illustrate how these areas will be used for

Project development; v) all existing seismic lines and other linear corridors (e.g. pipeline, utility corridors and

trap lines); and w) the locations of development components of the Project relative to all terrestrial and

aquatic components including, but not limited to, soils, topography, waterbodies, vegetation, wildlife habitat, watersheds and wetlands and traditional land use areas of Aboriginal peoples.

Deleted: r

Deleted: s

Deleted: t

Deleted: u

Deleted: v

- 8 -

4.3 PROCESS SELECTION AND DESCRIPTION Provide material balances, flow diagrams and descriptions of the processes to be used for each production stage of development under normal operating conditions (annual average calendar day rates) and at maximum expected rates (stream day rates). Describe oil sands mining and bitumen extraction, and associated facilities. Document and discuss the following: a) alternative technologies that are technically and economically feasible and the

rationale for selection of the technologies chosen and excluded. Include a detailed qualitative and quantitative comparison of their environmental and technical performance potential and other relevant variables. Provide the relative ranking of alternatives considered for each parameter of consideration (environmental, technological, economic, etc.) and, within the confines of proprietary information, clearly identify the rationale for the ranking. Provide the rationale for the decisions made by Shell about project alternatives and the status of any ongoing analyses including a discussion of options not chosen and the rationale for their exclusion;

b) the Project inputs such as energy and water including the sources of these inputs, and the outputs such as emissions and chemical wastes, including the short- and long-term fate of these outputs (recycling, disposal), and efforts to minimize these inputs and outputs;

c) the energy and process efficiency of the technologies chosen, including greenhouse gas emissions;

d) the effect of technology selection on tailings characteristics including, but not limited to, quantity, quality, physical characteristics, generation and storage requirements, air and water discharges, toxicity, water and energy requirements, chemical and hydrocarbon waste streams, bitumen recovery and effects to reclamation programs; and

e) opportunities to reduce surface disturbance, emissions, chemical and hydrocarbon wastes and energy consumption through structural and process integration of mining and extraction facilities and processes, or through other means.

4.4 MATERIALS STORAGE

Identify the location and amount of all on-site and adjacent storage associated with bitumen production, including storage of chemicals, products, by-products, intermediates and associated wastes. Explain containment and environmental protection measures with reference to relevant provincial and federal guidelines.

4.5 UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION

Describe the Project energy requirements, associated infrastructure and other infrastructure requirements. Specifically: a) discuss the steps taken to integrate the needs of other resource users into the location

and design of access infrastructure to reduce and manage overall environmental impacts from resource development;

b) include a map showing transportation access to the site from provincial highways; c) discuss reducing or mitigating visual impact during operation of infrastructure; d) discuss how public access to, or within the PDA or lease will be managed during the

development phases of the Project; e) discuss the impact of increased vehicle traffic and requirements for access

improvements on Highway 63 and roads in the oil sands development area as a result

Deleted: stakeholders

- 9 -

of the Project, considering other existing and planned developments and operations in the region including what measures will be taken to reduce traffic and enhance vehicle safety on Highway 63;

f) discuss any expected change in traffic volume by Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) and any seasonal variability in traffic volume (include mitigation measures) prior to construction, during construction and at full site operation;

g) discuss consultations with the local transportation authorities and other stakeholders, including transportation studies that are underway or planned;

h) discuss the sources, location and availability of road construction and reclamation materials, including an estimate of the volume of materials needed and expected number of hauls used to transport this material along provincial highways. Identify the size and location of any borrow pits; and

i) discuss the options considered for supplying the power required for the Project and the environmental implications, including opportunities to increase the energy efficiency of the Project with the use of waste heat and electrical power;

j) identify the potential energy source, product pipeline, electrical power transmission and access routes to the Project. If regional infrastructure is required, identify who will potentially be responsible for installation and approval of these facilities; and

k) identify and locate any potential river and stream crossings and discuss the adequacy of their design, including consideration of spill prevention. Discuss contingency plans for spill response and any environmental risks associated with product releases or management practices.

4.6 WATER SUPPLY, WATER MANAGEMENT AND WASTEWATER

MANAGEMENT (ADDITIONALLY ADDRESS APPENDIX) Provide the following information for the Project: a) a water balance for each phase of the Project; b) process and potable water requirements for both normal and emergency operating

situations and any seasonal or annual variability throughout the life of the Project (e.g. start-up, operation, closure and reclamation, end pit lake filling);

c) how these requirements will be met, the various supply options considered (including on and off site storage) and the rationale for choosing the preferred option;

d) the location of sources/intakes and associated infrastructure (e.g. pipelines for water supply);

e) proposed well locations, aquifer intervals including completion depth and estimated quantities for groundwater withdrawal;

f) raw water treatment requirements; g) measures for ensuring efficient use of water, including alternatives to reduce

freshwater consumption such as water minimization, use of saline water, recycling and other conservation techniques;

h) the impact of low flow conditions and instream flow needs (IFN) on water and wastewater management strategies including contingency plans for water sourcing or management alternatives to manage potential low flow withdrawal restrictions; and

i) discuss potential cooperation with other oil sands companies with regard to water-related infrastructure and management including, but not limited to, water intakes, pipelines, water storage and withdrawals.

Provide a Water Management Plan, document and discuss the following: j) site runoff volumes and containment, erosion control, groundwater protection, muskeg

dewatering, mine pit dewatering and the discharge of aqueous contaminants;

- 10 -

k) factors used in the design of water management facilities, including expected flood levels and flood protection.

l) permanent or temporary alterations or realignments to waterbodies and wetlands; and m) measures taken by Shell to contribute to the improvement in efficiency and

productivity of water use as identified in Water For Life: Alberta’s Strategy for Sustainability to ensure efficient use of water for the Project.

Provide a Wastewater Management Plan for the Project, describe and discuss: n) the source, quantity and composition of wastewater streams from each component of

the proposed operations (e.g. oil sands mining, bitumen extraction, and associated facilities) for all Project conditions, including normal, start-up, worst case and upset conditions;

o) the design of facilities that will handle, treat and store wastewater streams and the type and quantity of any chemicals used in wastewater treatment, including measures taken in the design to prevent or minimize potential impacts to the environment;

p) the options for wastewater treatment, including the rationale for selecting the preferred options, including a discussion of options not chosen and the rationale for their exclusion;

q) the options for the disposal of wastewater in the context of best management practices and best available technologies, including the rationale for choosing the preferred options;

r) The quantity, quality and timing of any proposed wastewater releases and their potential environmental effects

s) how make-up water requirements and disposal volumes will be minimized; t) discharges to the surrounding watershed from existing and reclaimed sites, including

the tailings management areas and end pit lakes and the management strategy for handling such releases;

u) the potable water and sewage treatment systems for both the construction and operation stages. Discuss the sewage treatment system options considered including the rationale for the option selected; and

v) a monitoring plan for wastewater releases, including the rationale used to determine the frequency of sampling, the parameters to be measured.

4.7 AIR EMISSIONS MANAGEMENT

Identify and describe emissions for the Project, including point and area sources, fugitive emissions (including tailings management areas and mine faces), and emissions from mining vehicles. Estimate the range of emissions from all sources under normal and upset conditions. Discuss the following from a management perspective: a) potential odorous or visual emissions; b) the amount and nature of any acidifying emissions, as well as, probable deposition

areas and potential effects to soils, vegetation and waterbodies; c) emissions associated with slash burning as well as opportunities to manage and reduce

these; d) the emission control technologies proposed for the Project in the context of available

practicable technologies and best available technology economically achievable (BATEA). Discuss the following: i) use of low oxides of nitrogen (NOx) technology for turbines and boilers having

regard for the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME)

Deleted: r

Deleted: s

Deleted: t

Deleted: u

- 11 -

National Emissions Guidelines for Stationary Combustion Turbines and CCME National Emissions Guideline for Commercial/Industrial Boilers and Heaters;

ii) use of other applicable NOx emission reduction technology (Ultra Low NOx burners, Selective Catalytic Reduction, Selective Non Catalytic Reduction Technology) for stationary NOx;

iii) How the selected control technology will enable the Project to achieve the anticipated provincial Emission Guidelines for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) for New Boilers, Heaters and Turbines using Gaseous Fuels For the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo North of Fort McMurray Based on a Review of Best Available Control Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA), as well as the anticipated federal regulations under the Clean Air Regulatory Framework.

iv) early adoption of improved Nonroad Heavy Duty Diesel Engines and low-sulphur fuel to minimize mobile emission sources;

v) fugitive emissions control program to detect, measure and control emissions and odours from equipment leaks having regard for the CCME Code of Practice for Measurement and Control of Fugitive VOC Emissions;

vi) use of technology to meet or exceed the CCME Environmental Guidelines for Controlling Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds from Aboveground Storage Tanks and Alberta Environment Guidelines for Secondary Containment for Aboveground Storage Tanks;

vi) emergency flaring scenarios and proposed measures to ensure flaring events are minimized having regard for EUB Directive 60 and design criteria to ensure that flares operate at high efficiency;

vii) gas collection, conservation and technology for vapour recovery for the Project’s air emissions;

viii) technology or management programs to minimize the direct emissions and secondary formation of particulate matter, ozone and trace metals of concern having regard to the provisions of the Canada Wide Standard for particulate matter and ozone; and

ix) monitoring programs Shell will implement to assess air quality and the effectiveness of mitigation during Project development and operation. Discuss how these programs are compatible with regional multi-stakeholder air quality management initiatives and how Shell plans to incorporate air quality monitoring programs into the management of air emissions from their facility.

4.7.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Management

Provide the following: a) the expected annual and total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the

construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the Project; b) the Project’s marginal contribution to total provincial and national GHG

emissions on an annual basis; c) the intensity of GHG emissions per unit of bitumen produced and discuss how

it compares with similar projects and technology performance; d) how the Project design incorporates a detailed plan for continual reduction of

the GHG emissions of the Project; e) Shell’s overall GHG management plans, how this Project will affect these

plans, any GHG emission reduction targets that will be adopted for the project as part of the overall management plans and a description of how these targets


Formatted: Font: Not Bold

Formatted: Font: Italic


Deleted: intensity

Deleted: and GHG management plans have taken into account the need for continuous improvement with respect to GHG emissions

Deleted: and

- 12 -

will be met, any plans for the use of offsets, (nationally or internationally) and the expected results of implementing the plans.

f) the economic viability and financial liabilities of the Project under different carbon pricing and emissions target scenarios including a description of the range of scenarios and methodology employed;

g) the measures that will be taken to meet emission reduction requirements under the Specified Gas Emitters Regulation and the anticipated federal regulation, including any plans to purchase offsets or pay into available compliance funds.

h) the measures that will be taken to meet obligations under the Specified Gas Reporting Regulation, including a detailed description of the methodologies to be employed to estimate the Projects GHG emissions.

4.8 HYDROCARBON, CHEMICAL AND WASTE MANAGEMENT Characterize and estimate the volumes of hydrocarbon and chemical waste streams generated by the Project. Identify how each waste stream will be managed. Demonstrate that the selected options for waste management are consistent with best industry practice. Provide the following information: a) a classification of the wastes generated and a characterization of each stream under the

EPEA Waste Management Regulations; b) the location, nature and amount of on-site hydrocarbon storage. Discuss containment

and other environmental protection measures; c) a listing of chemical product consumption for the Project. Identify products containing

substances that are Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) toxic chemicals, on the Priority Substances List (PSL 2), on the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI), or Track 1 substances targeted under Environment Canada’s Toxic Substances Management Policy;

d) in general terms, how chemical products will be stored and managed to ensure safety and environmental protection;

e) the chemical make-up and quantity of exploratory drilling wastes produced by the Project;

f) the management plan for exploratory drilling wastes, produced tailings, overburden and other mining wastes, as well as any by-products and show how this management plan is consistent with industry best practice. Include evaluations to minimize fine fluid tailings production, considering mining methods and the proposed extraction process;

g) the strategy for on-site waste disposal versus off-site waste disposal and an analysis of environmental implications of proposed options. Identify the location of on-site waste disposal locations, including industrial landfills. Identify on- and off-site waste treatment areas; and

h) Discuss how any wastes requiring transport off-site will be transported and discuss the environmental implications of accidents or spills during transport, with special attention to hazardous wastes; and

i) how, using specific examples, the principles of pollution prevention, waste minimization and recycling have been incorporated into the Project design.

4.9 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND CONTINGENCY PLANS

Summarize key elements of Shell’s environment, health and safety management system and discuss how it will be integrated into the Project. Provide the following information:







Deleted: h

- 13 -

a) corporate policies and procedures, operator competency training, spill and air emission reporting and monitoring procedures and emergency response plans;

b) plans to prevent or minimize the production or release into the environment of substances that may have an adverse effect;

c) a conceptual contingency plan that considers environmental effects associated with operational upset conditions, such as serious malfunctions or accidents, or extreme weather events;

d) discuss confidences inherent in mitigation strategies, including how Shell intends to address low frequency, high consequence events;

e) the procedures specified in the emergency response plan to deal with potential negative effects and public communication procedures;

f) How Shell will ensure such initiatives will be consistent with multi-stakeholder monitoring initiatives,

f) quality assurance and quality control (QA-QC) programs Shell plans to implement to ensure the ongoing operation of environmental management systems meet regulatory standards (such as the CCME leak detection and repair program) and how their QA-QC program compares to industry best management practices;

g) environmental monitoring done independently by Shell in addition to monitoring performed in conjunction with other stakeholders and publicly available monitoring information. Provide a comprehensive summary of all proposed monitoring, research and other strategies or plans to minimize, mitigate and manage any potential adverse effects;

h) describe new monitoring initiatives that may be required as a result of the Project and outline Shell’s commitment to adaptive environmental management; and

i) Describe the flexibility built into the plant design and layout to accommodate future modifications required by change in emission standards, limits and guidelines. Discuss any follow-up programs and adaptive management considerations as well as examples from other Shell operations.

4.10 RECLAMATION AND CLOSURE (SEE APPENDIX)

Provide a conceptual, comprehensive, progressive reclamation and closure plan for the Project. Outline reclamation concepts and objectives, proposed end land use objectives and consultation process and other factors necessary for this plan to be implemented. Discuss the following: a) residual effects and their environmental consequences including uncertainties

associated with reclamation Include efforts and contingency plans to reduce these uncertainties and the reclamation success to date in the oil sands.

b) consideration of baseline information with respect to land capability, vegetation, commercial and non-commercial forest, forest productivity, recreation (including navigation), wildlife, birds, fisheries, aesthetics, traditional lands and their use, and other land use resources;

c) efforts to identify and address knowledge gaps; d) reclamation sequencing for each phase of development through identification of

measurable objectives for each phase of reclamation, including time estimates; e) re-establishment of topography, watercourse and vegetation communities of natural

function and appearance that are integrated with the surrounding landscape and adjacent land disturbances. Include in the discussion out-of-pit structure design, riparian areas and other developments, and the return to equivalent land capability that existed prior to the Project development, including forest productivity and wildlife habitat;

Deleted: Inlcude

Deleted: ;

- 14 -

f) document the return of land capability through the application of management strategies for reclamation. Discuss where equivalent capability cannot be achieved and why;

g) reforestation plan at the ecosite phase levels to achieve land use capabilities equivalent to those that existed prior to the Project development;

h) a conceptual schedule for the return of the forest resource landbase, by area, species and productivity;

i) restoration of traditional land-based uses; j) soil replacement and revegetation; k) end pit lakes, wetlands and other components of the reclaimed landscape; l) the timeframe for completion of reclamation phases and release of all lands affected

by the Project back to the Crown, including previously disturbed lands and public access;

m) how the Shell closure plan will: i) return land to the equivalent capability for the range of users and uses that

existed prior to the Project development having regard for ecological integrity, regulatory requirements and stakeholder end land use preferences. Describe what reclamation performance indicators will be used to ensure this requirement will be met;

ii) be developed so that it is consistent with the Fort McMurray/Athabasca Oil Sands Sub-regional Integrated Resource Plan (IRP); and

iii) address the issues raised by the Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA);

n) plans to monitor biodiversity in the reclaimed landscape, considering the use of regional control sites as benchmarks for comparison with reclaimed areas, and considering use of Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute protocols, as practical. Using the biotic pre-disturbance assessment factors, compare pre-disturbance to post-disturbance biodiversity; and

o) off-site mitigation techniques that will be incorporated for habitat types that cannot be reclaimed.

Describe the following: o) how the closure plan will achieve the desired final landforms through the integration

of mine planning and development and reclamation and goals within the IRP for reclamation to natural landforms;

p) the aquatic components of the closure landscape, including streams, wetlands and end pit lakes. Discuss issues related to the design of a self-sustaining and productive aquatic ecosystem for a range of users and uses, including implications of the selected tailings technology. Explain processes and activities Shell will undertake to address issues of uncertainty surrounding the long-term ecological viability of end pit lakes. Include a hydrological analysis of the closure landscape, including an assessment of performance uncertainties and discussion of contingency plans should performance not match expectations. Contrast the pre-development aquatic ecosystem to the closure ecosystem; and

q) how the closure plan incorporates topographical diversity, size and extent of vegetation and wetland types into the final design. Identify the closure plan goals for biodiversity. Explain how achieving biodiversity goals will promote end land use that has equivalent land capability. Discuss the compatibility of these two goals.

r) Discuss plans to monitor biodiversity in the reclaimed landscape, considering the use of off-site control sites as benchmarks for comparison with reclaimed areas. Using the biotic and abiotic pre-disturbance assessment factors, compare pre-disturbance and post-disturbance biodiversity.


Deleted: n)

Deleted: Program

- 15 -

4.11 PARTICIPATION IN REGIONAL COOPERATIVE EFFORTS a) Discuss Shell’s current and planned participation in regional cooperative efforts to

address environmental and socio-economic issues associated with regional development including, but not limited to, CEMA, the Wood Buffalo Environmental Association (WBEA) and the Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program (RAMP) and their working groups. Include Shell’s participation in regional air, water and other environmental monitoring programs, health studies, research, TEK and socio-economic studies.

b) Describe where Shell intends to rely upon information from CEMA, WBEA, RAMP, and Canadian Oil Sands Network for Research and Development (CONRAD) to design mitigation measures for Project-specific and/or cumulative effects, and regional monitoring programs or research programs and describe how this information will be incorporated.

c) Describe how the application is consistent witth the limits, thresholds and management frameworks recommended by CEMA for all environmental aspects of the project. Describe how Shell will contribute to the effective design and implementation of proposed management plans and objectives, mitigation, monitoring programs and research programs within these regional cooperative efforts.

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Define assessment scenarios including:

a) a “pre-development “ case based on available data and backcast predictions, to reflect predevelopment conditions with associated natural range of natural variability;

b) a Base Case, which includes existing environmental conditions, existing and approved Projects or activities;

c) an Application Case, which includes the Base Case plus the Project; and d) a Planned Development Case (PDC), which includes past studies, existing and

anticipated future environmental conditions, existing and approved projects or activities, plus planned projects or activities.

Note: For the purposes of defining assessment scenarios, “approved” means approved by any federal, provincial or municipal regulatory authority. “Planned” is considered any project or activity that has been publicly disclosed prior to the issuance of the Terms of Reference or up to six months prior to the submission of the Project Application and EIA report, whichever is submitted sooner and leases for unannounced projects that are undergoing intense disturbance associated with lease evaluation under the The Oil Sands Tenure Regulation 50/2000

5.1 INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The EIA report will include the following basic environmental information requirements for the three assessment scenarios: a) quantitative and qualitative information about the environmental and ecological

processes in the study areas, TEK and an overview of trends or uncertainties arising from previous reviews or the review in question;

b) a description of any deficiencies or limitations in the existing environmental databases, how deficiencies and/or limitations were addressed, and their impact on the analysis and any appropriate follow-up;

c) information about the human activities in the study areas and the nature, size, location and duration of their potential interactions with the environment; e.g. land disturbance, discharges of substances, changes to access status and any significant effect the Project may have on the present and future capacity of renewable resources;

Formatted: Not Highlight

Deleted: a

Deleted: b

Deleted: c

Deleted: .

Deleted: that

- 16 -

d) discuss Visual Resource Management for the Project footprint and any associated development in the vicinity of the project;

e) information about ecological processes and natural forces that are expected to produce changes in environmental conditions (e.g. forest fires, flood or drought conditions);

f) information about potential changes in environmental conditions associated with predicted climate change.

g) the demonstrated use of appropriate predictive tools and methods, consistent with CEMA, WBEA and RAMP and any other relevant initiatives including integrated land management, to enable quantitative estimates of future conditions with the highest possible degree of certainty;

h) definition of the system employed to classify and evaluate the effects associated with the Project. The classification system will include qualitative and quantitative descriptions of the effects, and as appropriate, will have regard for direction, magnitude, frequency, duration, seasonal timing, reversibility, geographic extent and uncertainty (CEAA Responsible Authority’s Guide). The evaluation system will rank the consequences of the residual effects measured quantitatively against management objectives or baseline conditions including consideration of pre-development conditions and variability, and described qualitatively with respect to the views of the proponent and stakeholders;

i) management plans to prevent, minimize or mitigate adverse effects and to monitor and respond to expected or unanticipated conditions, including any follow-up plans to verify the accuracy of predictions or determine the effectiveness of mitigation plans. Provide a record of all assumptions, confidence in data to support conclusions regarding reclamation and mitigation success;

j) a discussion of residual effects and their environmental consequences, having regard for regional management initiatives; and

k) document any assumptions or transformations required to combine or manipulate data. l) document any assumptions used to obtain modelling results and other predictions

submitted as part of the EIA report. Clearly identify the limitations of the model(s) including reliability of data (including synthetic data), sources of error and relative accuracy.

5.2 STUDY AREAS

Define and provide the rationale for the spatial and temporal boundaries for the study areas used for the assessment. The spatial boundaries shall include all areas where measurable changes in the environment may be caused by the Project regardless of any political boundaries, such as provincial or national park borders. The boundaries should take into consideration relevant CEMA, WBEA and RAMP initiatives. Include areas for which such changes might reasonably be expected but that at present may not demonstrate measurable responses (add to baseline data for areas where there are likely to be future impacts). Temporal boundaries should extend through the exploration, construction, operation and reclamation and closure phases of the Project. Provide resource maps of suitable scale that include legal land descriptions, topographical and other natural features of the PDA and other study areas.

5.3 CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT a) Assess and discuss the cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from

the Project in combination with other existing, approved and planned projects in the region that could reasonably be considered to have a combined effect, and this includes impacts not rated as significant in the application case of the specific Project. Include industrial projects, as well as activities associated with land use and infrastructure.


- 17 -

b) Explain the approach and methods used to identify and assess cumulative effects, including cooperative opportunities and initiatives undertaken to further the collective understanding of cumulative effects.

c) Provide a record of relevant assumptions. Discuss the confidence in the assessment and the basis for this confidence level. Describe deficiencies or limitations in the existing database on environmental components and propose measures to deal with these deficiencies and limitations.

d) Provide a comprehensive summary of all proposed monitoring, research and other strategies as well as plans to minimize, mitigate and manage any potential adverse effects.

5.4 CLIMATE, AIR QUALITY AND NOISE

Describe air quality in the study areas and any anticipated environmental changes for air quality. Review emission sources identified in Section 4.7 and model under normal and upset conditions.

5.4.1 Air Quality

Discuss the following: a) the selection criteria used to determine the study areas, including information

sources and assessment methods; b) baseline climatic conditions, including the type and frequency of

meteorological conditions, that may result in poor air quality; c) Future climatic conditions, including the type and frequency of meteorological

conditions, that may result in poor air quality; d) Include a comparison of baseline conditions to a “pre-development” case to

reflect the change from pre-development conditions. e) fate and effects of appropriate air quality parameters including, but not limited

to, sulphur dioxide (SO2), hydrogen sulphide (H2S), Total Reduced Sulphur Compounds (TRS), total hydrocarbons (THC), NOx, volatile organic compounds (VOC), individual hydrocarbons of concern in the THC and VOC mixtures, particulates (PM10 and PM2.5), trace metals, acid deposition and ground-level ozone;

f) estimates of ground-level concentrations of the appropriate air quality parameters, include frequency distributions for air quality predictions in communities and sensitive receptors located close to the Project, and include an indication of maximum and 99.9 percentile for hourly predictions (98th percentile for any 24-hour modelling predictions of PM2.5) as well as average annual predictions;

g) any expected changes to particulate or acidic deposition patterns; h) justification of models used, model assumptions, and any model shortcomings

or constraints on findings. Discuss the meteorological data model input set used to run the model and provide a rationale for the choice of data set. Discuss how the data set used compares to average conditions for the region;

i) the modelling in accordance with Alberta Environment’s Air Quality Modelling Guidelines (March 2003);

j) for acid deposition modelling, provide deposition data from maximum levels to areas within the 0.25 keq/ha/yr and 0.17/keq/ha/yr Potential Acid Input (PAI) isopleth; include analysis of PAI deposition levels consistent with the CEMA acid deposition management framework;

Deleted: .

Deleted: c

Deleted: d

Deleted: e

Deleted: f

Deleted: g

Deleted: h

- 18 -

k) the regional, provincial and national objectives for air quality that were used to evaluate the significance of emission levels and ground-level concentrations, including the Canada Wide Standard for particulate matter and ozone;

l) predicted air quality concentrations compared with the appropriate air quality guidelines where available;

m) any implications of the expected air quality for environmental protection and public health including: i) sensitive receptors in the receiving environment which are likely to be

exposed to air quality and deposition changes (receptors include human animal and vegetation);

ii) the likely exposure levels, either acute or chronic, experienced by the receptors, their effects on the receptors and the ability of the receptors to recover from those effects;

iii) the potential for decreased air quality, including odours; and iv) the implications for sustaining regional air quality within emerging

regional air quality objectives; v) air quality impacts resulting from the Project and their implications for

other environmental resources including, but not limited to, habitat diversity and quantity, vegetation resources, water quality and soil conservation;

n) how air quality impacts resulting from the Project will be mitigated; and o) ambient air quality monitoring that will be conducted during operation of the

Project.

5.4.2 Noise a) Provide representative baseline noise levels and a description of the

measurement/prediction methods used; b) identify components of the Project that have the potential for creating increased

noise levels at sensitive receptors and discuss the implications and measures to mitigate. Present the results of a noise assessment (as specified by EUB Directive 038, Noise Control). Include: i) potentially-affected people, including workers living on site, and

wildlife; ii) an estimate of the potential for increased noise resulting from the

development; iii) the implications of any increased noise levels; and iv) proposed mitigation measures and their anticipated effectiveness.

5.4.3 Climate Change

Discuss the following: a) in accordance with the guideline document Incorporating Climate Change

Considerations in Environmental Assessment: General Guidelines for Practitioners, review and discuss climate change and the local and/or regional inter-provincial/territorial changes to environmental conditions resulting from climate conditions, including trends and projections where available;

b) identify stages or elements of the Project that are sensitive to changes or variability in climate parameters. Discuss what impacts the change to climate parameters may have on elements of the Project that are sensitive to climate parameters; and

Deleted: i

Deleted: j

Deleted: k

Deleted: l

Deleted: m

- 19 -

c) comment on the adaptability of the Project in the event the region’s climate changes. Discuss any follow-up programs and adaptive management considerations.

5.5 LAND, ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS AND AGGREGATE RESOURCE

CONSERVATION Describe land, access to public lands and the availability of aggregate resources in the study areas. Explain the significance of land use changes for regional land management, aggregate resource conservation, other industrial uses in the region, the maintenance of traditional lifestyles, and recreational uses. Provide information on land uses and seasonal variations. Discuss the following: a) the selection criteria used to determine the study areas, including information sources

and assessment methods; b) unique sites or special features in the study areas, such as Natural Areas or

Environmentally Significant Areas. Discuss any impacts of the Project on these features. Indicate the location and values of other protected areas, if present;

c) the existing land uses, including the metallic and industrial minerals development, oil sands development, tourism, forestry, fishing, hunting, cultural and traditional use, and outdoor recreation;

d) access to fish, wildlife and vegetation resources for existing and potential domestic, traditional and recreational activities;

e) how access by traditional land users, Shell employees and the public will be managed; f) the nature, location and duration of anticipated land changes; g) the land use, resource management, planning and applicable directives as they relate

to the Project; h) whether and to what extent, the development is consistent with the intent of the

applicable land use and resource management and planning directives. Identify: i) the relevant boundaries for the application of guidelines and objectives,

including management areas, sub-areas and relevant ecosystem classifications with functional linkages mapping;

ii) mitigation or research requirements proposed to satisfy the applicable guidelines; and

iii) the proposed setbacks from waterbodies and watercourses with regard for applicable guidelines and management objectives. Discuss the rationale for the location of proposed facilities in the context of the proposed setbacks;

i) the existing recreational use and implications of the Project in all seasons during and after development activities , on those recreational activities;

j) identify all sources of aggregate impacted and/or required by the Project, and discuss quantity and quality, as well as proposed mitigation and management of the resource. Provide exploration maps including resource type and depth;

k) the process for addressing other users such as trappers and holders of Forest Management Agreements (FMA) and Timber Quota holders. Determine the impact of development on these uses and identify possible mitigation strategies; and

l) The use of the fish resources by existing and potential domestic, traditional and aport fisheries; and

m) how reclamation and closure planning processes, completed or underway, will replace existing land use potential considering the recommendations of applicable guidelines.

n) Discuss the assumptions associated with reclamation and/or mitigation success incorporated into the assessment.

5.6 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS


- 20 -

Describe ecosystem characteristics in the study areas. Explain the significance of any anticipated environmental changes for ecosystem integrity. Include the sustainability of biodiversity, critical wildlife sites and fisheries habitat, wildlife corridors, habitat quality, and productivity and changes to fish and wildlife populations. Discuss the traditional activities related to the collection and use of plants and animals, existing recreational pursuits and industrial activities and, if appropriate, provide the locations of these sites.

5.6.1 Biodiversity

Determine a suite of biotic and abiotic biodiversity indicators for terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems that characterize naturally functioning ecosystems in the study areas and represent broader taxonomic assemblages. In addition: a) discuss the selection process and rationale used to select biotic and abiotic

biodiversity indicators; b) within selected taxonomic groups, discuss the regional presence and abundance

of species in each ecosite phase or ecological type; c) provide species lists and summaries of observed and estimated species richness

and evenness. Baseline information collected in each terrestrial and aquatic vegetation community will be accompanied by sufficient plots in each ecosite phase to provide reliable data using a suitable proportional sampling method and to provide a measure of biodiversity on baseline sites that are representative of the proposed reclamation ecosites;

d) rank each ecological unit for biodiversity potential by combining measures of species richness, overlap in species lists, importance of individual species or associations, uniqueness and other appropriate measures. Describe the techniques used in the ranking process;

e) discuss the contribution of the Project to any anticipated changes in regional biodiversity, including measures to minimize such change and the potential impact to local and regional ecosystems, including consideration of offsite mitigation techniques;

f) discuss the implications of the Project’s incremental contribution to habitat fragmentation on biodiversity with regard to cumulative regional levels of habitat fragmentation;

g) identify and describe Shell’s participation in regional biodiversity programs (e.g. Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Program) to monitor and track changes to biodiversity on lease areas, and to measure cumulative effects in the region;

h) discuss pre- and post-Project topography, soil and parent material conditions and their contribution to biodiversity; and

i) discuss terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem diversity. j) discuss the potential effects of predicted climate change on ecosystem diversity

relative to biodiversity baseline; and k) discuss assumptions associated with reclamation and/or mitigation success

incorporated in the assessment

5.6.2 Geology, Soils, Terrain Describe the bedrock and surficial geology, soils and terrain in the study areas. Where appropriate, use maps of suitable scale, cross-sections and figures to illustrate these features. Explain the significance of any changes for the regional landscape, biodiversity, productivity, ecological integrity, aesthetics and the future use of the regional landscape area. Discuss the following:

- 21 -

a) the selection criteria used to determine the study areas, including information sources and assessment methods;

b) the overburden geology and mineralogy; c) the distribution of soil types in the proposed study areas using appropriate soil

survey procedures as outlined in the Soil Survey Handbook, Vol. 1 (Agriculture Canada, 1987);

d) the soil survey maps should show approximate soil inspection and sampling locations corresponding to appropriate survey intensities in the footprint areas. The soil survey report should include necessary landscape and soil characteristics for land capability rating;

e) the sensitivity and buffering capacity of the local and regional soil types to potential acid deposition from the proposed development and the predicted deposition patterns;

f) the predicted acidifying impact to local and regional soils resulting from the Project with reference to local studies, current guidelines and management objectives for acidifying emissions consistent with the CEMA acid deposition management framework;

g) the implications of environmental effects on ecosystem sustainability and regional management, including: i) any constraints or limitations to achieving vegetation restoration based

on anticipated soil conditions and topography; ii) an assessment of soil types for reclamation suitability and the

approximate volume of suitable soil materials for reclamation; iii) the potential for soil erosion and measures to minimize the effects of any

such erosion; and iv) any other issues that will affect the soil capability of the study areas or

the reclaimed landscape and the mitigation measures proposed; h) an estimate of the effects of surface disturbance on geological features and

soils, including: i) the type and extent of changes to the pre-disturbance topography; ii) the overburden characteristics in relation to the needs of post-mining

reclamation programs; and iii) an assessment and maps of the pre- and post-disturbance land capability

and resiliency of the PDA and a description of the changes to land capability classes resulting from the Project.

5.6.3 Vegetation

Describe and map vegetation communities in the EIA study areas, using, as appropriate, the Alberta Vegetation Inventory (AVI) Standard AVI 2.1, The Field Guide to Ecosites of Northern Alberta (Beckingham and Archibald, 1996) and the Alberta Wetland Inventory Standards Manual (AWI) Version 1.0. Map the Project development footprint at a scale of 1:20,000. Discuss the following: a) the selection criteria used to determine the study areas, including information

sources and assessment methods; b) ecosite phases based on their potential to support rare plant species,

traditionally used species, old growth forests or other communities of restricted distribution (e.g. fens). Verify the presence of species of rare plants and the ecosites in which they are found using recommended survey methods;

c) the species associated with each ecosite phase and address: i) special status plant species (rare, threatened or endangered);

- 22 -

ii) species which are important to wildlife as food or shelter or are indicator species for environmental effects. Include an estimation of the relative abundance of these species;

iii) the importance of the size, distribution and variety of vegetation units assessed in habitat suitability indices for wildlife and riparian habitat and for ecosystem function, in general;

iv) the importance of peatlands and wetlands species within landscape units for local and regional habitat, sustained forest growth, the hydrologic regime and water quality;

v) the rarity or abundance of peatlands and other wetland types from a regional, provincial and national perspective; and

vi) plant species used for food, medicinal and cultural purposes; d) the sensitivity to disturbance of each of the vegetation communities and their

ability to be restored in this region; the techniques used to estimate sensitivity to disturbance and reclamation (e.g. sensitivity to air emissions), particularly for those communities for which a high degree of uncertainty currently exists around potential and methods for successful reclamation. Discuss the potential for special status species to be restored i.e. specific habitat requirements: location, size and protection status of other local populations of the species and dispersion capabilities;

e) the nature, size, distribution and timing of changes to vegetation communities, including the effects of air emissions, climate change and groundwater changes;

f) the significance of the changes to vegetation for: i) the availability and quality of plants for traditional, food and medicinal

and other cultural purposes; ii) the sustainability of peatlands and other wetlands in conjunction with

other Project-induced variations in air quality, hydrology, water quality and quantity, habitat quality and wildlife populations;

iii) the area of merchantable and non-merchantable forest land base that will be disturbed and taken out of production during the life of the Project. Provide the total merchantable volume breakdown per species over the Project area. Discuss by species and productivity, ecosite phase and age class and include any other information needed to amend the appropriate FMA. Describe Shell’s plans for the return of pre-disturbance forest ecosites by area, species and productivity;

iv) ecosystem fragmentation; v) introduction of non-native plant species on native species composition

and potential plant changes to communities and how this will be mitigated;

vi) the area and distribution of all vegetation communities existing prior to the Project development and expected at closure, including relative percent change in those communities; and

vii) habitat diversity and quantity, water quality, erosion potential, soil conservation, recreation and other uses, both at baseline and closure;

g) Shell’s plans to manage the adverse effects of site clearing and other development activities and operations on vegetation including rare plant species. Discuss the potential for special status species to be avoided; and

h) discuss how environmental plans for the Project will address applicable provincial and federal policies for wetlands.

i) Discuss how Shell will offset specific ecosite types, including wetland area, affected by the Project.

j) Discuss the assumptions associated with reclamation and/or mitigation success incorporated in the assessment


Formatted: Indent: Left: 86.4 pt

Deleted: and

Deleted: restored

- 23 -

5.6.4 Wildlife

Describe existing wildlife resources (amphibians, reptiles, birds and terrestrial and aquatic mammals), including the reliability and confidence levels in the data and their use and potential use of habitats in the study areas. Document the anticipated changes to wildlife in the study areas. Discuss the following: a) the selection criteria used to determine the study areas, including information

sources and assessment methods; b) the criteria and selection process for wildlife indicator species; c) wildlife species composition, distribution, relative abundance, key habitat areas,

seasonal movements and movement corridors, and general life history; and d) current field data, using recognized sampling protocols, for all species of

concern, including those listed by Alberta (at risk, may be at risk, and sensitive list species in the General Status of Alberta Wild Species 2005, or update) and federal Species at Risk Act (endangered, threatened, and special concern species).

e) Current draft thresholds and modeled impacts on wildlife indicators produced by the Sustainable Ecosystems Working Group of CEMA

Provide an impact assessment for wildlife indicators and listed wildlife species in the study area including:

e) potential adverse impacts on wildlife populations, habitat use, availability and quality, and food supply during all phases of the Project. Model habitat supply within the study areas for the selected indicator species, population viability analysis may be necessary for some key species. Habitat models used to evaluate impacts should be modified/calibrated by comparing model predictions with wildlife data from the study areas and be consistent with modeling completed by the Sustainable Ecosystems

Working Group of CEMA; f) habitat loss, abandonment, reduced effectiveness, fragmentation or alteration as

it relates to reduced reproductive potential and recruitment for regional wildlife populations over the life of the Project and time required to recolonize and sources for recolonization. If habitat models are used to evaluate impacts, discuss how the models will be modified/calibrated by comparing model predictions with wildlife data from the study areas.

g) the spatial and temporal changes to habitat (type, quality, quantity, diversity and distribution) and to wildlife indicator species distribution, relative abundance, movements, habitat availability and the potential to return the area to pre-disturbed wildlife habitat and population conditions, including: i) anticipated effects on wildlife as a result of changes to air, water,

including both acute and chronic effects on animal health; and ii) anticipated effects on wildlife due to improved or altered access into the

area (e.g. vehicle collisions with wildlife, obstructions to daily or seasonal movements, noise effects and hunting mortality during operations and after Project closure;

h) map the changes in habitat fragmentation, and the potential for habitat patch isolation, anticipated from the Project and other planned activities on a local and regional level compared to both the baseline case and a pre-development case; and

i) how Shell will ensure the protection and maintenance of riparian habitats, interconnectivity of such habitat and the unimpeded movement by wildlife species using the habitat.

Formatted: Indent: Left: 86.4 pt,Hanging: 28.8 pt, Line spacing: Exactly 12 pt

Deleted: requirements

- 24 -

j) discuss the assumptions associated with reclamation and/or mitigation success incorporated in the assessment

Provide the following information: j) identify residual impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat and discuss their

significance in the context of local and regional wildlife populations; and k) a strategy and mitigation plan to minimize impacts on habitat and wildlife

populations through the life of the Project and to return productive wildlife habitat to the area, considering: i) habitat enhancement measures within the lease areas, and a schedule for

the return of habitat capability to areas impacted by the Project; ii) consistency of the plan with applicable regional, provincial and federal

wildlife habitat objectives and policies; iii) the need for access controls or other management strategies to protect

wildlife during and after Project operations; iv) monitoring programs to assess wildlife impacts from the Project and the

effectiveness of mitigation strategies and habitat enhancement measures; v) environmental management procedures that Shell will use should

monitoring indicate that mitigation measures are unsuccessful; vi) the deterrent systems that will be incorporated into the Project to reduce

the impacts on birds and other wildlife attracted to open ponds or wastewater ponds;

vii) an assessment of the timeframe required to develop habitat of suitable quality and quantity on reclaimed lands, and the effects on re-colonization for each species identified; and

viii) an assessment of the likelihood of the proposed mitigation strategies achieving the desired outcomes.

ix) potential impacts on traditionally used wildlife.

5.6.5 Groundwater (Additionally Address Appendix) Describe baseline groundwater conditions and map the groundwater regime in the study areas. Discuss the following: a) the selection criteria used to determine the study areas, including information

sources and assessment methods; b) any new hydrogeological investigations, including methodology and results; c) justification of hydrogeological models used for the assessment, including

sensitivity analysis and any model shortcomings or constraints on findings and how any limitations were addressed;

d) the suitability of on-site waste disposal and supporting hydrogeological information;

e) the potential for hydraulic connection between geological zones affected by the Project (e.g. disposal, bitumen production, groundwater production and the land surface);

f) surrogate parameters to be used as indicators of potential aquifer contamination including, but not limited to, total phenols, dissolved organic carbon, naphthenic acids, hydrocarbon fractions F1-F2, chlorides, sulphides, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX) and trace elements, including arsenic;

g) the potential for changes in the groundwater regime and the effects of these changes, including:


Deleted: vii)

- 25 -

i) potential or expected changes in groundwater quality for any aquifer resulting from Project operations;

ii) the effects from the Project and cumulative effects on local and regional groundwater regimes, including vertical gradients and aquifer recharge rates and changes resulting from any proposed diversions;

iii) an inventory of all groundwater users. Identify water use conflicts and proposed resolutions;

iv) the potential impact of decreased recharge to aquifers under prolonged drought conditions and the potential impacts of groundwater withdrawal due to Project activities under drought conditions;

v) the effect of groundwater withdrawal/dewatering and its implications for other environmental resources, including habitat diversity and quantity, surface water quality and quantity, aquatic resources, vegetation, and wetlands;

vi) a numerical model to obtain a long-term prediction of the effects due to groundwater withdrawal/dewatering; discuss model validation. Provide details (e.g. location, completion) on any observation well network used to calibrate the model;

vii) the inter-relationship of the groundwater to the surface water and the potential for impacts on water quality and quantity due to recharge from and discharge to local waterbodies and wetlands; and

viii) a conceptual plan, implementation program, and contingency plan for the protection of groundwater resources that will be initiated should monitoring indicate adverse impacts including plans for preventing further impacts and remediation of existing impacts.

Provide the following information: h) major aquifers, aquitards and aquicludes, and groundwater flow direction and

velocity. Include Quaternary deposits and bedrock formations down to and including any bitumen producing zones and any disposal zones;

i) the lithology, stratigraphic and structural continuity, thickness, hydraulic properties and groundwater quality of the geologic units down to and including the bitumen producing zones and disposal zones in the study areas;

j) maps and cross-sections that include groundwater table and piezometric surfaces based on identifiable groundwater systems and accurate data sources, such as drill holes; and

k) potential aquifers for any deep disposal of wastewater. Characterize any formations chosen for deep well disposal, including water quality, chemical compatibility and containment potential within the disposal zone as well as any potential impacts to groundwater systems that have connectivity to the potential aquifers.

5.6.6 Surface Water

Discuss baseline hydrological conditions in the study areas. Identify Project activities that may affect surface water during all stages of the Project, including site preparation, construction, operation, reclamation and decommissioning. Provide an inventory of all surface water users in the study areas. Discuss the following: a) the selection criteria used to determine the study areas, including information

sources and assessment methods; b) the impacts of water withdrawals. Include cumulative effects and consider

emergency operating, low-flow conditions, prolonged periods of drought and

- 26 -

in-stream flow needs criteria established for the Athabasca River. Discuss the reliability of the data and indicate confidence limits;

c) the effect on vegetation, wildlife, fish, fish habitat and navigation of withdrawing water from any potential surface water source to meet the requirements for the Project during a range of seasonal flow regimes;

d) the potential impact of any alteration in flows, including all temporary and permanent stream realignments or other disturbances, their extent and duration; discuss proposed mitigation measures;

e) buffers for streams and waterbodies in the LSA and their rationale; f) the pre- and post-disturbance alignment and condition of all permanent streams

and waterbodies, including those created by the Project. Consider: i) the entire flow frequency distribution presented as changes in

exceedance curve, relate these to potential changes in fluvial dynamics across the range in flows;

ii) the 1:100 year flood level; 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; and

iii) other activities in the watersheds affected by the Project that, together with the proposed development, have potential to influence water quantity (e.g. existing and approved oil sands activities, commercial timber harvesting programs, climate change);

g) Shell’s planned mitigation to prevent or minimize potential impacts, addressing: i) how permanent stream realignments and other disturbances can be

minimized or potentially enhance existing or rebuilt streams to increase habitat productivity for aquatic resources and recreation potential;

ii) measures to reduce impacts to wetlands and waterbodies; iii) regional initiatives such as the CEMA Surface Water Working Group;

and iv) a monitoring program to identify hydrological impacts and to assess

performance of water management systems and predictive modelling in the LSA.

Describe the existing and anticipated water quality of waterbodies. Discuss the following: h) the selection criteria used to determine the study areas, including information

sources and assessment methods; i) baseline water quality data, its seasonal variation and relationship to flow and

other controlling factors. Consider appropriate water quality parameters (e.g. temperature, pH, conductivity, cations and anions, metals, dissolved oxygen, suspended sediment, dissolved solids, nutrients and other oil sands water contaminants, such as naphthenic acids), including a discussion of data reliability and confidence limits;

j) describe baseline sediment quality including, but not limited to, particle size, carbon content, organics, metals, sediment toxicity, and oil sands sediment contaminants, such as PAHs;

k) Project activities that may influence water quality; l) calculate probability distributions for concentrations in any surface water

receiving site drainage, discharges, or groundwater influenced by proposed activities;

m) water quality conditions in reclaimed waterbodies and any other waterbodies potentially affected by the Project. Include:

- 27 -

i) the impacts on sediments and compare data with the Canadian Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines;

ii) the potential effects of Project and cumulative acidic deposition on water quality, aquatic biota and habitat conditions of surface waterbodies consistent with the CEMA acid deposition management framework. Identify waterbodies that are sensitive to acid deposition;

iii) the potential for seasonal variations in acid input to waterbodies (spring acid pulse);

iv) any water quality implications of the tailings deposits, including the amount and quality of water or leachate released, their permeability and groundwater characteristics;

v) other activities in the watersheds affected by the Project that, together with the proposed development, have potential to influence water quality (e.g. existing and approved oil sands activities and commercial timber harvesting programs). Discuss the potential changes in water quality anticipated from these other activities during the life of the proposed development. Consider their magnitude, extent, timing, duration and significance; and

vi) water quality of the reclaimed site; n) a comparison of existing and predicted water quality, using as appropriate, the

Surface Water Quality Guidelines for Use in Alberta, the Canadian Water Quality Guidelines, relevant United States Environmental Protection Agency Guidelines and any available CEMA water quality objectives. Consider the recommended procedures described in the document entitled: “Protocol to Develop Alberta Water Quality Guidelines for Protection of Freshwater Aquatic Life”;

o) proposed mitigation plans for any monitoring implemented for the Project. Justify the selection of monitoring locations, and the integration of these sites into an overall aquatic assessment and monitoring program;

p) identify any cooperative monitoring and assessment initiative(s) (e.g. with regional stakeholders) in which Shell is participating or may participate;

q) the residual effects for each stage of the Project, including post-reclamation. Predict and describe water and sediment quality conditions and suitability for aquatic biota in constructed waterbodies, such as end pit lakes

r) Propose wetland specific conservation offsets that could be used to offset residual effects; and

r) proposed water quality and sediment quality monitoring programs for metals and other relevant substances (e.g. polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Consider seasonality, sampling medium (water, sediment, biota) and other factors such as waterbodies sampled, sample sites, precipitation and runoff levels, downstream and point-source discharges.

5.6.7 Aquatic Resources Describe existing aquatic resources (e.g. fish and benthic invertebrates), their use and potential use of associated habitats in watercourses, wetlands and other waterbodies in the study areas. Document the anticipated changes to aquatic resources in the study areas. Discuss the following: a) the rationale used to determine the study areas, including information sources

and assessment methods; b) current field data, using recognized sampling protocols, for all sensitive

species, including those listed by Alberta Environment (at risk, may be at risk,

- 28 -

and sensitive list species in the General Status of Alberta Wild Species 2000, or update) and federal Species at Risk Act (endangered, threatened, and special concern species);

c) historical and current studies on fish and other aquatic resources in the LSA; d) the rationale for the selection of key indicator species; e) the life stages and requirements for key species and what, if any, effects the

Project will have on them; f) the aquatic biological resources in waterbodies affected by the Project,

including composition, distribution, relative abundance, critical or sensitive seasonal habitat use and movement patterns;

g) the implications of any construction, operation and reclamation activities in the study areas for aquatic biological resources and habitat. Clarify how stream alterations, changes to substrate conditions, stream flow conditions and water quality may affect these resources and habitat;

h) how stream crossing will be minimized, how many stream crossings are expected and when they are necessary how they will be done in the winter whenever possible.

i) the nature of the potential effects, their duration, whether they are site-specific, local or regional in spatial extent, and the mitigation measures and habitat enhancement techniques that will be implemented to prevent or minimize any anticipated adverse effects. Discuss: i) the potential for tainting of flesh, survival of eggs and fry, chronic or

acute health effects, changes in the invertebrate community and food base; and increased stress on fish populations from release of contaminants, sedimentation, flow alterations, and habitat changes due to temperature alterations;

ii) potential impacts on riparian areas in the LSA that could impact aquatic biological resources and productivity;

iii) potential for increased fishing pressure and the potential impacts that could result from increased use of the area and increased access in the area; and

iv) potential impacts on traditional use of fisheries resources; j) the implications of potential effects on fish productivity and the need for access

controls or other management strategies to protect the resources. Discuss plans to offset any incremental loss in the productivity. Indicate how environmental protection and compensation plans for the Project will address applicable provincial and federal policies for fish habitat, including the No Net Loss Guiding Principle;

k) programs to monitor aquatic habitat quality and the effectiveness of mitigation strategies;

l) discuss the potential effects of predicted climate change on aquatic systems relative to baseline;

m) environmental management procedures should monitoring indicate that mitigation strategies are not effective;

n) how increased habitat productivity for aquatic resources can be incorporated into permanent stream realignments and any other associated developments;

o) any monitoring programs that have been, or will be, conducted in cooperation with other oil sands operators or multi-stakeholder initiatives to identify and manage effects from the Project and to confirm the effectiveness of mitigation strategies employed; and

p) residual impacts on aquatic resources and their significance in the context of local and regional aquatic resources, including fisheries.

q) discuss the assumptions associated with reclamation and/or mitigation success incorporated in the assessment

Formatted: Indent: Left: 90 pt,Hanging: 25.2 pt


Deleted: h

Deleted: i

Deleted: j

Deleted: k

Deleted: l

- 29 -

6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING Describe environmental monitoring and reporting that Shell will undertake to verify and manage environmental impacts, confirm performance of mitigative measures and improve environmental protection strategies to further the understanding of the Project’s impact on the environment. Discuss the following: a) all monitoring activities and initiatives that Shell is proposing to conduct independently of

other stakeholder activities in the region. Include a discussion of how such monitoring activities are compatible with regional monitoring initiatives;

b) all monitoring activities that Shell is proposing to conduct collaboratively with other stakeholders. Include the role that Shell anticipates taking in each of the programs;

c) any monitoring activities that may be conducted outside Alberta to confirm that the Project does not impact on sensitive receptors outside of Alberta;

d) mechanisms for sharing results, reviewing findings and adjusting programs should monitoring identify unanticipated consequences of Shell’s operations or mitigation plans, including: i) corporate adaptive management strategies; ii) steps that Shell will take to involve regulators and public stakeholders; and iii) steps to communicate unanticipated conditions to regulators and regional management

forums and stakeholders if regional environmental conditions may be affected.

7.0 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

Describe those aspects of the Project that may have implications for public health including the delivery of regional health services. Determine whether there may be implications for public health arising from the Project. Specifically: a) identify and discuss the data and methods used by Shell to assess the impacts of the Project

on human health and safety; b) assess the potential health implications of the compounds that will be released to the

environment from the proposed operation in relation to exposure limits established to prevent acute and chronic adverse effects on human health;

c) identify the human health impact of the potential contamination of country foods and natural food sources taking into consideration all Project activities;

d) discuss the potential to increase human exposure to contaminants from changes to water quality (including drinking water), air quality, and soil quality;

e) discuss the cumulative health effects that are likely to result from the Project in combination with other existing, approved, and proposed projects;

f) provide pre-disturbance information on samples of selected species of vegetation known to be consumed by humans and provide follow up information of the same nature once the Project is in operation and after decommissioning;

g) as appropriate, identify anticipated follow-up work, including regional cooperative studies. Identify how such work will be implemented and coordinated with ongoing air, soil and water quality initiatives;

h) provide a summary of Shell’s emergency response plan and discuss mitigation plans that will be implemented to ensure workforce and public safety during pre-construction, construction, operation and reclamation of the Project. Include prevention and safety measures for wildfire occurrences, accidental release or spill of chemicals to the environment and failures of structures retaining water or fluid wastes;

- 30 -

i) describe how local residents will be contacted during an emergency and what type of information will be communicated to them;

j) describe existing agreements with area municipalities or industry groups such as, safety co-operatives, emergency response associations and municipal emergency response agencies;

k) identify and discuss potential health and safety impacts due to higher regional traffic volumes and the increased risk of accidental leaks and spills.

l) document health and safety concerns raised by stakeholders during consultation on the Project as well as the responses given and make them available to other stakeholders.

8.0 TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE AND LAND USE

Provide details on the consultation undertaken with Aboriginal communities with respect to traditional ecological knowledge and traditional land use: a) provide results of consultation with Aboriginal stakeholders to determine the extent of

traditional land use of the LSA. Discuss the vegetation and wildlife used for nutritional and medicinal purposes, and any potential effects the Project may have;

b) identify the traditional land uses including fishing, hunting, plant harvesting (nutritional or medicinal), and cultural use with specific regard given to local Aboriginal peoples; and

c) identify cabin sites, spiritual sites and graves. Determine the Project and cumulative effects of development on these uses and identify possible mitigation strategies.

9.0 HISTORICAL RESOURCES AND LAND USE ASSESSMENT

Provide details of the consultation with Alberta Community Development and Aboriginal communities with respect to Historical Resources. Include the Historical Resource Impact Assessment (HRIA) for the Project, and: a) provide a general overview of the results of any previous historical resource studies that

have been conducted in the study areas, including archaeological resources, palaeontological resources, historical period sites, and any other historical resources as defined within the Historical Resources Act;

b) summarize the results from the field program conducted to assess archaeological, palaeontological and historical significance of the Project;

c) document any stakeholder concerns with respect to the development of the Project based on the historical significance of the study areas; and

d) as appropriate, provide an outline of the program and schedule of field investigations that may be required to further assess and mitigate the effects of the Project on historical resources.

10.0 SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS

Provide information on the socio-economic effects of the Project. Discuss the following: a) the selection of the study areas, information sources and assessment methods; b) the number and distribution of people who may be affected by the proposal; c) the social impacts of the Project on the study areas and on Alberta, including:

i) local employment and training; ii) local procurement; iii) population changes; iv) demands on local services and infrastructure; v) regional and provincial economic benefits; vi) trapping, hunting and fishing; and

Deleted: ; and

- 31 -

vii) effects on First Nations and Métis (e.g. traditional land use and culture); d) the economic impacts of the Project on the study areas and on Alberta, having regard for

capital, labour and other operating costs and revenue from services. In addition, discuss Shell’s policies and programs respecting the use of local, Alberta and Canadian goods and services. Provide an estimated breakdown of Alberta, other Canadian and non-Canadian industrial benefits from project management/engineering, equipment and materials, construction labour and operations;

e) the employment and business development opportunities the Project may create for First Nations, Métis, local communities and the region. Provide a breakdown of the type of employment and number of employees with respect for the construction and operational workforces. Identify the source of labour for the proposed Project;

f) strategies to mitigate socio-economic concerns raised by the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo and other stakeholders in the region. Include a discussion on the potential impacts to housing availability and the social ramifications of that impact. Document the work with other industry partners and the Regional Municipality to continue use and development of the urban population prediction model developed for baseline socio-economic purposes; and

g) impacts of the proposed Project on potential shortages of affordable housing and the quality of health care services. Identify and discuss the mitigation plans to address these issues. Provide a summary of any discussions that have taken place with the Municipality and the Regional Health Authority concerning potential housing shortages and health care services respectively.

11.0 PUBLIC CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS

Undertake a consultation program during the preparation of the EIA report including, but not limited to, the following stakeholders: a) residents in the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo; b) recognized land users of the LSAs; c) local First Nations and Métis communities that may be directly affected by the Project; d) industrial, recreational, environmental groups and individuals expressing a formal interest in

the Project; e) Federal, Alberta and Saskatchewan governments, and Alberta local municipalities; f) directly-affected communities outside of Alberta; and g) other operating or planned oil sands developers in the region. Describe and document the public consultation program implemented. Record any concerns or suggestions made by the public and demonstrate how these concerns have been addressed. Discuss: h) how the concerns and issues identified by Shell and stakeholders influenced the Project

development, design, impact mitigation and monitoring, or how it was addressed or discounted;

i) the type of information provided and the issues discussed, including those that have been resolved and those that remain outstanding;

j) in consideration of unresolved issues, the key alternatives which have been identified by Shell and stakeholders for future consultations as well as mechanisms and timelines for that resolution;

k) plans to maintain and support the public consultation process following completion of the EIA review; and

l) any agreements reached with stakeholders regarding Shell’s operations and activities.

- 32 -

APPENDIX

The following information is necessary to be submitted as part of the application to obtain a Water Act (WA) license and approval, and an Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) approval. It may not be necessary to be considered as part of the EIA report completeness decision-making process under Section 53 of EPEA. Upon review of the information submitted, a final determination will be made if it is necessary for the following information to be considered as part of the EIA report completeness decision.

Water Supply, Water Management and Wastewater Management Provide the following information for the Project: a) technical information on how the water requirements for the Project will be met addressing the

Alberta Environment’s Groundwater Evaluation Guidelines as required, and include annual volumes from each source (for non-saline groundwater sources and site dewatering activities);

b) the design of facilities that will handle, treat and store wastewater streams; c) the type and quantity of any chemicals used in wastewater treatment; and d) design details for the potable water and sewage treatment systems for both the construction and

operation stages. Groundwater Provide a detailed plan and implementation program for the protection of groundwater resources, addressing: a) a groundwater monitoring program for early detection of potential contamination and assistance in

remediation planning; b) groundwater remediation options to be considered for implementation in the event that adverse

effects are detected; and c) a program to monitor the sustainability of groundwater production. Conservation and Reclamation Plan Provide the following information for the Project within the context of a 10-year EPEA approval period: a) a plan for the integration of mining, reclamation activities and closure planning within the approval

period, and within the Project life span. The plan should be consistent to that provided in the EUB application for amendment and demonstrate integration with the life of mine closure plan;

b) a detailed schedule for annual mine development plans, and related reclamation activities; c) a detailed conservation and reclamation plan including, but not limited to, the following:

i) a discussion of soil reclamation requirements and a table of pre-disturbance land capability classes and post-disturbance land capability classes, demonstrating a return of equivalent land capability for commercial forest production in the development areas;

ii) predicted landscape, soil horizon/layer sequences of reclaimed soils that are likely to achieve equivalent land capability for commercial forest production at the development areas and discuss the possible assumptions and limitations of such approaches;

iii) a description and tables for approximate calculation/rating for pre- and post-disturbance land capability classes at the development areas;

iv) a discussion and tables of approximate reclamation material balance to achieve post disturbance land capability ratings as specified in c) i) and ii);

v) the criteria to be used in soil salvage for reclamation;

- 33 -

vi) an assessment of sources/availability of suitable reclamation materials based on pre disturbance soil information;

vii) soil salvage plans indicating salvage areas, techniques, depths, types, quality and volumes of soils to be salvaged, and planned use of the materials with reference to reclamation material balance. Discuss whether organic soil materials (LFH and/or peat) will be salvaged or removed.

viii) the storage and handling of soils and potential locations for soils stockpiles; and ix) methods to deal with potential soil compaction and contamination;

d) a detailed description of the reclamation topography for all development areas, identifying contouring objectives, water development (surface and near-surface flow) and erosion control;

e) a detailed reforestation plan, that is integrated with soil and topography plans, that specifies the ecosites and productivity proposed for the establishment of predevelopment capabilities for traditional land use, wildlife, commercial forestry, watershed and recreation;

f) possible mitigation options to reduce the potential impact from disturbance to key soil characteristics, re-vegetation practices, surface and groundwater properties; and

g) references to examples of demonstrated success with respect to proposed reclamation techniques, where applicable.

Documents

SHEET 12. - Alberta€¦ · SEP-04-2007 TUE U4: 00 PM DENESOL INE FAX No* 780-791-9102 P. 005 Jaokpine Expansion & Pierre River Mining Pmjad- Draft EIA TOR Review (ACFN) 4.3 Process