Subject: Mikisew Cree First Nation (MCFN) review of Shell ... · Information Requests (SIRs) Shell...

i

Shell Canada Energy

400 – 4th

Avenue S.W. T2P 0J4

P.O. Box 1480, Station M T2P 2L6

Calgary, Alberta

Tel (403) 691-3111

Fax (403) 264-7058

Internet www.shell.ca

September 28, 2011

Melody Lepine

Director, MCFN GIR

208-9715 Main Street

Fort McMurray, AB

T9H 1T5

Dear Melody,

Subject: Mikisew Cree First Nation (MCFN) review of Shell’s Energy Resources

Conservation Board (ERCB) and Alberta Environment (AENV) Supplemental

Information Requests (SIRs)

Shell is in receipt of MCFN’s review of Shell’s ERCB and AENV Supplemental Information

Requests (SIRs) for the Jackpine Mine Expansion (JPME) and Pierre River Mine (PRM) Projects

(the Projects) including:

- Review of Shell’s Jackpine Mine Expansion Update, AENV and ERCB SIRs, MSES,

June 2010;

- Review of Shell’s Supplemental Information Round 2 for the Pierre River Mine Project

to AENV and ERCB, MSES, August 2010;

- Review of Shell’s Jackpine Mine Expansion AENV and ERCB SIRs Round 2, MSES,

September 2010; and

- Technical Review of Shell’s Pierre River Mine AENV and ERCB SIRs Round 1 and

Pierre River Mine and Jackpine Mine Expansion AENV and ERCB SIRs Round 3,

MSES, February 2011

While MCFN and Shell may have differing views regarding certain aspects of Environmental

Impact Assessment (EIA) methodology and Project development, Shell’s approach to the EIA

and subsequent SIRS has been to address questions, comments or requests for information in

accordance with the Terms of Reference.

ii

Please find attached Shell’s response to MCFN’s review of Shell’s regulatory SIR responses.

Shell trusts that this review and the previously completed technical review of the EIA have

helped the MCFN to further understand and to provide input to the Projects. Shell also

appreciates MCFN’s ongoing participation in consultation with Shell on the Projects.

Yours truly,

Jason Plamondon

Advisor, Aboriginal and Community Relations

Shell Canada Energy

cc: Pat Marriott, AENV

Tara Rogers, ERCB

Sheila Risbud, CEAA

Linda Jefferson, Shell

Sebastien Fekete. MCFN

Cathleen O’Brien, MCFN

Encl.

sinclairr

Typewritten Text

<original signed by>

Jackpine Mine Expansion and

Pierre River Mine Projects

Shell Canada Response to MCFN Review of ERCB and AENV SIRs

September 2011

By Shell Canada Energy on behalf of Shell Canada Limited

Shell Canada Response to MCFN Review of ERCB and AENV SIRs September 2011

2

1. BACKGROUND & APPROACH

Shell filed its regulatory applications for the Jackpine Mine Expansion (JPME) and Pierre River Mine

(PRM) Projects in December 2007, and provided an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

Update in May 2008 to provincial and federal regulators. The Mikisew Cree First Nation (MCFN)

provided a technical review of the JPME and PRM project regulatory applications and EIA Update,

entitled Review of Shell Canada’s Jackpine Mine Expansion & Pierre River Mine Project Application

(July 2009). Shell and MCFN had a number of meetings to discuss concerns that were raised, and

Shell provided a formal response to the MCFN technical review in August 2010.

Subsequent to the May 2008 EIA Update, Shell filed supplemental project information which included

updates, errata and responses to Supplemental Information Requests (SIRs). MCFN provided a

technical review of this supplemental information in the following reports:

• Review of Shell’s Jackpine Mine Expansion Update, AENV and ERCB SIRs (June 2010)

• Review of Shell’s Supplementary Information Round 2 for the Pierre River Mine Project to

AENV and ERCB (August 2010)

• Review of Shell’s Jackpine Mine Expansion AENV and ERCB SIRs Round 2 (September

2010)

• Technical Review of Shell’s Pierre River Mine AENV and ERCB SIRS Round 1 and Pierre

River Mine and Jackpine Mine Expansion AENV and ERCB SIRs Round 3 (February 2011)

Shell is submitting this document to MCFN in response to these four MCFN technical review reports.

The structure of the responses is as follows:

• For questions related to new project information that was filed by Shell (i.e. Updates or

errata), a response is provided.

• For questions related to Shell’s responses to SIRs, Shell has focused the response on

broader community concerns rather than specific differences of opinion on the aspects of

assessment approach, certainty of findings or the impact mitigations proposed by Shell.

These specific issues have been discussed in meetings between MCFN and Shell in 2009,

2010 and 2011. Shell also provided written responses to the initial MCFN Technical Review

in the document entitled Shell Response to MCFN Technical Review (August 2010).

Shell has grouped its response in terms of the following themes:

• Sufficiency of Proposed Mitigations

o Has Shell appropriately mitigated potential impacts to the exercise of MCFN

Aboriginal and Treaty rights?

• Dealing with Uncertainty

o Where there is uncertainty, is Shell’s approach appropriate?


3

• Monitoring & Adaptive Management

o Will monitoring detect issues and will Shell respond appropriately?

• Assessment Methodology

o Can MCFN trust that Shell’s methods result in reasonably accurate predictions?

2. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ON PROJECT UPDATES & ERRATA

The following are Shell’s responses to six specific questions that were raised by MCFN on either the

updates or errata in the application documents.

2.1. MCFN Review of JME Update AENV and ERCB SIRs

Section 2.2.1.2; EIA Update; page 16

In reference to: JPME Supplemental Information, Volume 1, Section 6.1, Page 6-1, Appendix B

As a result of the Kearl Lake Levee, the water levels in Kearl Lake and Imperial’s proposed

Kearl Compensation lake will be increased, which will cause flooding around the lake. The

levee is an embankment that will be built around Kearl Lake to prevent flooding of the

surrounding area. No rationale or explanation is apparent for the conclusion that the

environmental consequences ratings remain the same for all wildlife key indicator resources

(KIRS) affected by the levee.

The Mikisew Cree should request that Shell explain how the levee and associated flooding do

not change impact predictions for wildlife.

Response:

The effects of the Kearl Lake Levee were discussed in detail in Volume 2 of the Jackpine Mine

Expansion Round 1 SIRs, Appendix B. The effects to wildlife as detailed in the report are

summarized below.

Effects to birds are not predicted to be a valid linkage because clearing will be done in the winter

months (i.e., outside of the nesting periods), in accordance with Shell’s existing approvals, and adult

birds can move away from disturbance. Direct mortality due to site clearing for construction of the

levee may still occur for some wildlife species. However, the additional effect will be highly localized

and occur over a small area in relation to the Project as a whole. As such, there will be no changes

to the Project environmental consequence for mortality due to site clearing.

Temporary increases in traffic surrounding Kearl Lake during construction of the levee may result in

vehicle-wildlife collisions. However, any increase in collisions will be highly localized and of a

temporary nature. Therefore, construction of the Kearl Lake Levee will not result in any changes to

the Project environmental consequence for mortality due to an increase in vehicle-wildlife collisions.


4

Noise related to the construction of the Kearl Lake Levee may potentially affect wildlife species in the

area. However, noise resulting from construction of the levee will be of very short duration, and will

not continue during operation of the Project. Construction and operation of the levee will not result in

any changes to the Project environmental consequence for changes in abundance due to sensory

disturbance.

Construction of the Kearl Lake Levee will require the clearing of 30 ha of terrestrial habitat, and 62

ha of wetlands surrounding Kearl Lake, for a total of 92 ha cleared. This will result in a net loss of

wildlife habitat prior to reclamation. Overall, the Project will result in the clearing of 30,957 ha of

habitat. An additional clearing of 92 ha represents a less than 1% increase in the amount of habitat

to be cleared during Project construction and operation. As such, the clearing of habitat for the Kearl

Lake Levee will not affect the environmental consequence assessed for direct habitat loss for the

Project.

Impoundment of the area between Kearl Lake and the levee will flood and alter local vegetation.

Changes to vegetation communities may affect the wildlife habitat quality in the area. The alteration

of habitat will likely have positive effects for some wildlife species, and negative effects for others. In

total, 3 ha of terrestrial habitat will become submerged, along with 74 ha of wetlands. After

reclamation, there will be a 25 ha increase in upland ecosites. This will provide additional habitat

(e.g., d1, d2) for many KIRs such as fisher, black bear, black-throated green warbler and barred owl.

For other KIRs, the net change after reclamation will result in further losses of habitat. Yellow rail will

lose an additional 117 ha of potential breeding habitat (i.e., FONG and FONS wetlands). The overall

effects of the levee on beavers and Canadian toads are potentially negative and positive for both

species. While there will be an incremental loss of wetlands that could result in a negative impact,

the levee will also result in the juxtaposition of aquatic habitat with additional upland. For beavers,

this could mean increased access to preferred food sources (e.g., aspen). If over-wintering habitat

for Canadian toads is in short supply around Kearl Lake, the levee could provide suitable habitat for

over-wintering burrows. Dykes are currently used by Canadian toads at Suncor (Suncor 2007). In

any event, these changes are all negligible in relation to the amount of habitat affected by the Project

overall, and will not affect the environmental consequence assessed for indirect habitat loss for the

Project on any KIR.

Sensory disturbance may result in the indirect loss of habitat by reducing habitat effectiveness (i.e.,

areas subjected to sensory disturbance are used less by some species). The effects of noise as a

result of construction and operations of the Project has been assessed in the EIA Update (Shell

2008). As with the effects of sensory disturbance on wildlife abundance (Section 2.7.4.2 of Shell

2008), noise as a result of levee construction will be short in duration. Noise will increase in the

vicinity of the lake only during levee construction. Due to the short duration of noise increases and

the localized effect of levee construction, there will be no changes to the Project’s environmental

consequence for indirect habitat loss through sensory disturbance.

After closure and reclamation, the Kearl Lake Levee is not predicted to create a barrier to wildlife

movement. As such, there are no changes to the Project environmental consequence for wildlife

movement.


5

References

Shell (Shell Canada Limited). 2008. Application for Approval of the Jackpine Mine Expansion &

Pierre River Mine Project Environmental Impact Assessment Update. Submitted to the

Energy Resources Conservation Board and Alberta Environment. May 2008.

Suncor (Suncor Energy Inc.). 2007. Suncor Energy Wildlife Monitoring Program and Wildlife

Assessment Update Year 2005/2006. Submitted to Suncor Energy Inc. March 2007. Fort

McMurray, AB.

1. Section 2.3.1.1 page 36

In reference to: JPME Supplemental Information, Errata – Project Description, -14

It is noted that Shell is no longer committing to comply with ERCB Directive 060 Upstream

Petroleum Industry Flaring, Venting and Incineration, but will now only have regard for it.

Although flaring is an important safety feature, it must be minimized through design and

operational practices. Shell has not provided the methods that will be used to minimize

flaring.

Following filing of the regulatory applications for JME and PRM, Shell recognized that it had

committed to an ERCB Directive that is not applicable to oil sands mining projects. Therefore, Shell

modified the commitment to indicate that ERCB Directive 60 was used to inform our emergency

flaring requirements. As stated in our SIR response, Shell plans to minimize flaring to upset and

emergency situations and potentially short-duration transitional periods, such as start-up,

commissioning, and plant turnarounds.

2.2. MCFN Review of PRM Round 1 & Round 3 SIR Responses


In reference to: PRM Supplemental Information, Volume 1 – Project Update Section 7.2 page 7-61

Shell states that nickel concentrations noted in water quality modelling at small streams was

“unrealistically high”. It should be stated whether the nickel data originates from samples

taken and analyzed and if measured nickel concentrations were too high given contamination

or errors were made in sample preparation, analysis or calculation; or if this is data

originating from models of the impact of inputs to the Muskeg River from the Syncrude

Aurora North Project. Without clarification, we are unconvinced of the justification of

changing input nickel distributions to be “representative of regional nickel levels”.


6

Please clarify what is meant by “unrealistically high” nickel concentrations or exactly where

the data originates from.

Response:

The cause of the high values was a transcription error. As described in Volume 4B, Appendix 4-2,

operator-specific data were used to represent Shell and Syncrude projects where the data were

statistically different, and where sufficient data were available for each operation. If either condition

was not met, regional data were applied. In the case of nickel, regional data were applied, but the

input timeseries for naphthenic acids, which precedes nickel alphabetically, was erroneously applied.

Thus, an erratum was issued. As a quality control measure, all other input timeseries were

subsequently checked for this error, and no other errors were identified.


In reference to: PRM Supplemental Information, Volume 1 – Project Update Section 7.2 page 7-61

Although the reasoning behind the correction in modelling of water quality is understood, the

original modelling method for the Application Case was correct but only for the period after

2021. From construction date 2021, it would be correct to use the updated model; however, in

reality, it is likely that in 2021 the construction of the Pierre River and extended CNRL

diversion channels (to merge with the Pierre River diversion channel) would be a staged

process.

We recommend that an additional model should be undertaken for the Application Case

which includes input from the Pierre River diversion channel only to the Athabasca River.

This makes modelling more complicated but would reduce uncertainty. Similar reasoning

should be applied to the other stream diversions in the project areas and Table 1.2-1 should

be updated to show staged Base and Application median and peak key indicator

concentrations for the Athabasca River.

Response:

Additional modelling could be completed in one of two ways to account for the CNRL diversion

channel. First, the CNRL diversion channel could be assumed to be unchanged from Base Case to

Application Case, and in each case unaffected by the Pierre River Channel. This modelling would

yield results that are essentially the same as those shown in the erratum; the model does not include

fate processes in small streams, so the only possible changes in concentrations could be those

caused by changes in the timing of mass loadings (i.e., flow routing). A second method would be to

exclude the CNRL diversion channel from the model altogether. This modelling would yield results

that are slightly lower than those in the erratum for both the Base Case and Application Case. In


7

either case, the conclusions of the assessment would be unchanged, so additional modelling is not

necessary.

2.3. MCFN Review of PRM Supplemental Information Round 2

1. Section 3.2.1.1 page 13 (Comments Regarding Errata).

In reference to: PRM Supplemental Information, Volume 2 page 21-46 (2009) and Table 2-1, PRM

SIRs Round 2 (2010)

PRM SIR 294a was incorrect, in part, because of an error in estimating the potential impacts

to wetlands as a result of a 0.1 m surface water drawdown – instead of the initial estimate of

potentially impacting 9% or 1,099 ha of wetlands within the “watershed areas” the estimate

has been revised to 37% or 7,153 ha of wetlands within the LSA. No reason for this error has

been provided. Please explain how this error occurred and how an almost 7-fold increase in

negative impacts to wetlands will impact wildlife as assessed in the original EIA.

Response:

The error in the EIA was discovered and corrected in the JME Round 1 SIRs, Volume 2, Appendix B,

Section 3.0 (2009), and reported in the Pierre River Mine Project Supplemental Information Round 2

(2010).

The environmental consequences (EC) of the increase in the areal extent of hydrological drawdown

on wildlife were reassessed and discussed in the Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion Round 1 SIRs

(December 2009; Appendix B, Section 3.2.2, pages 34 to35). These changes to habitat availability

for wildlife KIRs are small in relation to the amount of wildlife habitat affected by the Project overall.

Therefore, these changes did not affect the environmental consequences of habitat loss for the

Project on black bear, beaver, moose, fisher/marten, black-throated green warbler, Canada lynx,

Canadian toad, barred owl or yellow rail, as provided in the EIA, Volume 5, Section 7.5.3.3. As stated

in Section 7.5.3.3, the replacement of vegetation communities during reclamation activities did result

in a positive low to high magnitude rating for many KIRs as habitat will be replaced. With the

successful re-establishment of forests, black-throated green warbler, moose, Canada lynx,

fisher/marten, black bear and Canadian toads were still predicted to have increases in high-quality

habitat after reclamation. Barred owl and yellow rail habitats were still predicted to experience high

magnitude, long-term negative environmental consequences in the LSAs. However, the

environmental consequence for barred owl habitat was considered low because, although habitat

loss is high in magnitude at 80 years post closure and reclamation, the reclamation landscape will

likely develop barred owl habitat over 100 years or more.


8

2. Section 3.2.1.1 page 14 (Comments Regarding Errata)

In reference to: PRM Supplemental Information, Volume 1, Section 13.1, page 13-5, SIR 49a and

Table 2-1, PRM SIRs Round 2

AENV noted that Shell has provided no evidence that the use of proposed wildlife corridors to

maintain genetic connectivity between wildlife populations will work in the Alberta Oil Sands

Region. As such, the utility of proposed wildlife corridors along rivers and sandwiched

between development projects such as the Jackpine Mine Expansion and PRM is

questionable, at best. There is no proposed monitoring program to evaluate the apparent

claims made by Shell associated with genetic connectivity and proposed corridors. Shell

claims that they only intended to highlight observations from other studies suggesting the

possibility for maintenance of genetic connectivity as opposed to asserting that genetic

connectivity will be maintained. Shell has not considered specific species to determine

maintenance of genetic connectivity. As such, Shell had to revise their responses to several

earlier SIRs by AENV (See also 3.2.1.3 below).

How confident is Shell that genetic connectivity, distribution, abundance and ultimately

population viability will be maintained via the proposed corridors? Please elaborate and

explain, with respect to what, exactly, any proposed corridors will be connecting and which

wildlife species will benefit with respect to maintaining genetic connectivity, distribution,

abundance and population viability.

Response:

Shell provided evidence that the proposed wildlife corridors should maintain genetic connectivity

between wildlife populations in the RSA in PRM Round 1 SIR 458ci. Specifically:

• Winter track and remote camera corridor monitoring conducted for Shell’s Jackpine Mine –

Phase 1 have documented most wildlife species using habitat within existing corridors along

the Muskeg and Athabasca Rivers adjacent to active mines (Golder 2008). Wide-ranging

species, including wolves, black bears, fishers and martens, were recorded along the

Athabasca River and Muskeg River corridors at least once during the first two years of

monitoring.

• Wildlife movements were monitored for three years along the east side of the Athabasca

River for Suncor’s Millennium and Steepbank Mine projects. Most wildlife species used the

corridors to some extent (Golder 2000, 2001).

• Wildlife corridor monitoring was conducted using remote cameras during non-winter months

along the Athabasca and Steepbank rivers (Suncor 2004, 2005, 2006). Species detected

along the Steepbank River escarpment included black bears and moose, while black bear,

white-tailed deer, coyote, wolf, beaver, fisher and fox were recorded in the Athabasca River

Environmental Buffer Zone (EBZ). The remote camera data indicate that species are not

only using the Athabasca River corridor but also the narrow passageway under the bridge

(less than 10 m from the water’s edge) to travel north and south along the Athabasca River

corridor.


9

This evidence from wildlife corridor monitoring in the Oil Sands Region suggests that a sufficient

number of individuals will cross the clearing (i.e., a minimum of one effective migrant per generation)

to maintain genetic connectivity (PRM Round 2 SIR 54a; Mills and Allendorf 1996; Wang 2004).

Shell is also an active participant in a regional research initiative between industry and government

to examine the effectiveness of wildlife corridors and link wildlife corridor use with population

demographics at the regional scale (JME Round 1 SIR 439a, JME Round 2 SIR 41c). This initiative

has recently begun a program to collect population demographics data using GPS collars and/or

DNA sampling, which will better inform corridor effectiveness.

While the monitoring and research are not designed to “prove” genetic connectivity, the ongoing

monitoring done to date has confirmed the widespread use of the wildlife corridors as predicted in

past EIAs, and suggests that genetic connectivity is being maintained.

In the unlikely event that the regional monitoring and research initiative indicates that a wildlife

corridor proposed in this application is not facilitating wildlife movement and habitat use as expected,

Shell will use these results to help determine appropriate strategies to increase the functionality of

the corridor for selected target wildlife species (JME Round 2 SIR 43aii, PRM Round 2 SIR 49c).

References

Golder (Golder Associates Ltd.). 2000. Suncor Millennium and Steepbank Mine Projects Wildlife

Monitoring Program & Wildlife Assessment Update 2000. Submitted to Suncor Energy Inc.,

Oil Sands. Fort McMurray, AB. 32 pp. + Appendices.

Golder. 2001. Suncor Millennium and Steepbank Mine Projects Winter Wildlife Track Count Surveys

2001: Year Three. Prepared for Suncor Energy Inc. Fort McMurray, AB. 46 pp. +

Appendices.

Golder. 2008. Shell Jackpine Mine-Phase 1 Wildlife Corridor Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report 2007.

Prepared for Shell Canada Ltd. Fort McMurray, AB.

Mills, L.S. and F.W. Allendorf. 1996. The One-Migrant-per-Generation Rule in Conservation and

Management. Conservation Biology. 10(6): 1509-1518.

Suncor (Suncor Energy Inc.) 2004. Wildlife Monitoring Program and Wildlife Assessment Year 1999-

2003. Prepared for Suncor Energy Inc. Fort McMurray, AB.

Suncor. 2005. Wildlife Monitoring Program and Wildlife Assessment Year 2004. Prepared for Suncor

Energy Inc. Fort McMurray, AB.

Suncor. 2006. Wildlife Monitoring Program and Wildlife Assessment Year 2005. Prepared for Suncor

Energy Inc. Fort McMurray, AB.

Wang, J. 2004. Application of the One-Migrant-per-Generation Rule to Conservation and

Management. Conservation Biology. 18(2): 332-343.


10

3. RESPONSES TO ONGOING MCFN CONCERNS

Following are responses to concerns that have been raised by MCFN, as understood by Shell in

examining the MCFN reviews.

3.1. Sufficiency of Proposed Mitigation

In their reviews, MCFN note a number of concerns related to the sufficiency of the mitigations

proposed by Shell to manage potential effects of the JPME and PRM Projects. These concerns

result from MCFN’s traditional ties to the land and desire to maintain traditional uses. Concerns

range across a number of disciplines and include specific concerns related to appropriateness of:

• Pollution control equipment on stationary combustion equipment;

• Selection of mobile equipment engines;

• Managing flaring;

• Energy efficiency;

• Odour and spill management;

• Polishing ponds for water discharge management;

• External Tailings Disposal Area seepage collection;

• Bird deterrence;

• Land clearing practices;

• Pit lake performance; and

• Reclamation.

Shell aims to be a good neighbour and develop projects by selecting mitigations which balance

environmental effects, societal effects, and economic viability. Our early project development efforts

are informed by performance at our existing operations, ongoing technology research and

development, ongoing public consultation and ongoing participation in multi-stakeholder groups that

address regional issues.

Preliminary designs have impacts assessed in an iterative fashion until Shell believes a balance is

struck. These designs are then tested by regulators and our stakeholders in their technical reviews.

At the same time, as additional external information becomes available, such as a Traditional Use

Study from a First Nation neighbour, it is reviewed to determine if project designs and mitigations

might require modification. Where Shell deems modification is required, updates to the regulatory

application are submitted. In Shell’s view, this iterative process involving internal and external

reviews result in robust designs and mitigations.


11

The Joint Review Panel process will examine the appropriateness of Shell’s designs and mitigations

further to determine if the Projects are in the public interest. Where it is deemed to be in the public

interest, the Panel will also recommend additional mitigation as required.

Shell accepts and appreciates the ongoing participation and input provided by the MCFN in respect

of Shell’s designs and mitigations. In consideration of MCFN’s comments, Shell respectfully submits

that the proposed designs and mitigations provide a reasonable and balanced approach to

responsible regional development..

Considerations for Reclamation

Shell recognizes that the MCFN has concerns in respect of reclamation design and mitigations.

Concerns include industry’s ability to deliver on its regulated reclamation requirements, soil

stockpiling, certainty of successional revegetation, wildlife recolonization, integration with other

former operations, monitoring, adaptive management and reclamation targets. Shell appreciates the

MCFN’s desire for a reclaimed landscape that allows MCFN to use the land as it does today.

Shell believes the reclamation plans developed for the Projects are a good first step in delivering

such a closure landscape. Shell’s reclamation plans are based on sound technical principles that

align with the current conservation and reclamation planning requirements for oil sands operations.

The plans have been scrutinized by Alberta Environment and Alberta Sustainable Resource

Development and are supported by Shell’s commitment to reclaim the proposed development area

to an equivalent land capability.

Shell does not view these plans as the end of reclamation planning. Shell regards reclamation

planning as a process occurring over time that allows for adjustment of techniques and activities to

reach end land use requirements. Accordingly, Shell’s own reclamation program actively seeks

Aboriginal participation and the collection of traditional knowledge, contributes to regional

reclamation research and performs site research to inform ongoing reclamation on our sites. Shell

also actively participates in the Government of Alberta Progressive Reclamation Framework, which

tackles reclamation planning improvements including:

• a staged certification process;

• a mine financial security plan; and

• reclamation indicators, benchmarks and targets.

Shell is confident that its evolving reclamation efforts will be a valid and successful mitigation to the

land disturbance impacts of the Projects. Shell looks forward to ongoing input from MCFN to help

inform reclamation techniques and end land uses.

3.2. Dealing with Uncertainty

In its review of AENV and ERCB SIRs, MCFN raises concerns related to Shell’s confidence in

predicted environmental effects and the effectiveness of proposed management plans. MCFN is

concerned with Shell’s ability to deliver on its designs and commitments.


12

Shell recognizes that MCFN would prefer more certainty for specific areas of the applications

including:

• Reclamation;

• Pit lake performance;

• Wildlife corridor effectiveness;

• Wildlife abundance;

• Seepage management; and

• Dewatering effects.

Considerations for Reclamation

Please see foregoing discussion in Section 3.1.

Considerations for Pit Lakes

Shell recognizes MCFN’s concern in respect of pit lake effectiveness given that a fully functioning pit

lake has yet to be developed in the Oil Sands Region. However, Shell is confident in its capability to

design and build successful pit lakes, because:

• fundamental, sound and proven principles of hydrology, limnology and water treatment will

be applied

• accepted, peer-reviewed models that apply conservative assumptions to predict their

performance and refine their design will be applied

• key findings from CONRAD and CEMA research on wetlands, experimental ponds and pit

lakes will be incorporated into the analysis

• several mitigation and contingency options exist to ensure proper performance

• engineered wetlands and pit lakes are not unique to the Oil Sands Region and are used by

numerous mining operations worldwide

• adequate time exists to progressively apply and incorporate key findings from ongoing

research and modelling to resolve uncertainties before and after the first pit lakes are

completed.

Pit lake water quality and potential effects on human and wildlife health risk were assessed in the

EIA. Pit lake water quality is predicted to be non-toxic before the lakes start discharging to the

environment. Key constituents are predicted to have concentrations below aquatic threshold values

and/or within the natural variability of existing local surface waterbodies. Shell will monitor and apply

adaptive management measures, if necessary, as the lakes fill.


13

Shell understands that additional research and monitoring is required, and will continue to leverage

its understanding of pit lake design and operational parameters in conjunction with regional research

and modelling activities cooperatively supported by CONRAD and CEMA, individual operator

experiences and future optimization modelling of Shell’s planned pit lakes.

As a regional issue, pit lake design criteria are being developed by CEMA. Shell is involved in this

work, and will follow these general criteria and modify the design, as necessary, based on site-

specific conditions. Design specifications will be refined as the body of knowledge accumulates.

Shell has made a number of commitments related to the success of pit lakes:

• Shell is committed to reclaiming the pit lakes to aquatic ecosystems that are self-sustaining.

• Shell is committed to monitoring the chemistry of water in the pit lakes at seasonal intervals

before initial release. During the filling period, measured water quality of the lake will be used

to refine the water quality predictions. If the refined predictions show that acceptable quality

cannot be achieved at the time of initial discharge, the rate of filling of the lakes will be

reduced and appropriate treatment will be provided before discharge.

• Shell will continue to participate in research conducted through CONRAD and CEMA End Pit

Lake task group.

Considerations for Wildlife Movement

Shell recognizes that many traditional land use practices revolve around regional wildlife populations

and MCFN would like more certainty that the proposed project designs and mitigations will allow for

healthy populations to be maintained during Project operations and re-established in the reclaimed

Project area. Shell’s intent and obligation is to provide a reclaimed landscape that will allow for

equivalent land capability as that which exists today. Accordingly, our assessment of effects to

wildlife has looked at habitat availability, wildlife abundance, wildlife health and wildlife movement.

The proposed PRM Project would result in a wildlife corridor between the PRM and the Athabasca

River, resulting from a 250 m setback from the Athabasca River. Based on the available wildlife

habitat within the corridor and corridor monitoring, peer-reviewed literature and the specific

environmental conditions between the Pierre River Mine development area and the Athabasca River,

Shell considers the 250 m setback appropriate as it balances resource recovery with maintaining

effective wildlife movement. Shell has also proposed a number of mitigations to minimize sensory

disturbance within corridors (e.g., designing lighting to reduce light pollution).

Shell has considered the issues of wildlife corridors and genetic connectivity for wildlife populations

given this 250 m setback and is confident that wildlife corridors and the PRM bridge underpass will

allow wildlife passage and allow genetic connectivity. Wildlife corridor monitoring has been carried

out in and around the Muskeg and Athabasca rivers, specifically to provide information on wildlife

and distribution in potential corridor areas. Results from monitoring programs have shown that many

species use the riparian and upland areas adjacent to rivers, supporting Shell’s prediction that

genetic connectivity will be maintained for wildlife populations.


14

Shell is currently participating in the Wildlife Habitat Effectiveness and Corridor Program Technical

Committee under CONRAD designed to inform decisions regarding appropriate setback distances

and corridor widths for wildlife along project boundaries and adjacent to rivers.

Shell will use adaptive management to determine appropriate strategies to increase the functionality

of the corridors for selected target wildlife species if wildlife monitoring program indicates that the

river corridors are not facilitating wildlife movement and habitat use as expected.

Considerations for Dewatering and Seepage Management

Shell recognizes that hydrogeological conditions over a large area can vary and thus add uncertainty

to hydrogeological model predictions. However, Shell is confident that it can effectively dewater

existing aquifers and manage project seepage. In addition to the conservatism applied to the model

predictions which inform appropriate mitigations, the designs and mitigation measures proposed

have been successfully applied at Shell’s existing oil sands operations.

Regardless, Shell has also committed to groundwater monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of the

mitigation measures and implementing a groundwater response plan if unforeseen effects are

detected.

Shell also recognizes that MCFN has concerns related to Shell’s removal of a portion of the

Pleistocene Channel Aquifer, or PCA. Shell agrees with MCFN that removal of the PCA will have an

effect on local surficial aquifers and that is why Shell assessed the effects of partial PCA removal on

local receptors, including the Muskeg River. Specifically, anticipated changes in flows and

groundwater quality were considered through the hydrology, water quality, aquatic health, and fish

and fish habitat components of the assessment.

3.3. Monitoring & Adaptive Management

In their reviews, MCFN note concerns over Shell’s ability to effectively monitor for potential effects

and adaptively manage if unforeseen effects are identified. MCFN also notes concerns that

monitoring data is not effectively used to inform future impact assessment predictions and that

detailed monitoring plans are developed too late in the regulatory approval process.

Shell recognizes the importance of monitoring programs and understands MCFN’s desire to see

robust plans prior to Project approval. Shell also believes that monitoring plans should be robust and

transparent. That is why Shell continues to provide opportunities to regulators and First Nation

communities, including MCFN, to review and provide input on proposed monitoring programs.

Prior to Project approval, conceptual monitoring plans, such as those Shell provided in its

applications, provide sufficient information to inform regulators of Shell’s intentions related to

monitoring and adaptive management.

The best time to develop detailed monitoring plans is following Project approval as plans would then

be developed based on detailed project designs and the monitoring requirements of the regulatory

approvals (e.g. EPEA Approval, Water Act Approval, Fisheries Act 35(2) Authorization). It is also

efficient in eliminating rework of detailed plans based on conceptual designs.


15

Shell acknowledges MCFN’s concerns about Shell’s ability to adaptively manage should monitoring

indicate unforeseen incremental impacts. Shell’s approach in the applications has been to

implement controls based on a conservative impact assessment to avoid unforeseen situations and

describe response approaches that can be applied over a variety of potential unforeseen scenarios.

Aspects of this approach include:

1) Addressing uncertainty in impact prediction by using assumptions that result in conservative

assessment of potential effects.

2) Highlighting certainty in the findings for internal and external reviewers so assumptions and

approaches can be tested.

3) Identifying potential accident and malfunction scenarios and the controls Shell will use to

avoid or respond to them.

4) Committing to monitoring to track potential effects, with intent of addressing unforeseen

effects before an incremental impact can occur.

5) In the unlikely event that monitoring confirms an unforeseen effect, responding to the

incident in accordance with incident management procedures. These procedures span

response, notification, reporting, incident review so as to avoid similar incidents in the

future, and mitigation if required.

6) Being prepared for emergency situations including development of emergency response

plans and providing adequate staffing/facilities to respond to emergencies.

Shell is confident that robust and transparent monitoring programs will be developed should the

projects be approved. Shell is also confident that its existing incident management and emergency

response plans for existing operations, when applied to these Projects, will allow Shell to effectively

manage unforeseen effects.

3.4. Assessment Methodology

A number of the items raised in the MCFN review of Shell SIRs are concerns regarding the

assessment methods used in the EIA. Shell understands MCFN’s desire for an assessment that is

comprehensive, conservative and considers traditional knowledge provided by local community

members. Shell has met with MCFN on multiple occasions to discuss these concerns and to clarify

aspects of the assessment methods. The meeting dates and topics include:

• January 27 and 28, 2010 – general EIA technical review meeting

• February 26, 2010 – hydrology-focused meeting

• June 18, 2010 – air quality-focused meeting

• June 13, 2011 – TLU significance assessment meeting


16

Based on the questions provided by MCFN and the aforementioned meetings, Shell believes it

understands the concerns of MCFN on our assessment methodology.

The methods used in the EIA were developed by technical experts and Shell believes they are

appropriate for an EIA. The EIA addresses the requirements of the Project Terms of Reference,

including information to address federal regulations, as well as additional information identified by

other stakeholders. The assessment methods are generally supported by numerous peer-reviewed

literature sources and have been reviewed by multiple regulatory agencies, stakeholders and NGO

groups through this regulatory process and for other oil sands EIAs over the past decade.

Shell recognizes that technical experts will sometimes disagree on the merits of specific assessment

methods for an EIA. Shell believes appropriate consultation and technical review has been

conducted with MCFN on the technical aspects of the EIA.

Specific assessment methods concerns identified in the review include regional groundwater solute

transport modelling, estimation of some hydrological parameters and assumptions regarding the

linkage between habitat loss, carrying capacity and wildlife abundance. Shell has discussed each of

these items with MCFN during their 2010 technical review meetings and responses and Shell

believes the methods used in the EIA are appropriate.

In addition to specific concerns about assessment methods, the MCFN review identifies assessment

components that they believe were not included in the EIA. Each of these assessment components

was included in the EIA, as follows:

• cumulative effects assessment of sediment and water quality in the Athabasca River (EIA,

Volume 4A, Section 6.5.7.3);

• loss of wildlife habitat to other oil sands operators (EIA, Volume 5, Sections 7.5.3.2 and

7.6.3.1);

• effects on old growth forest (EIA, Volume 5, Sections 7.5.2.2 and 7.6.2.1); and

• effects of climate change on hydrology (EIA, Volume 4, Section 6.4.7.3 and Appendix 3-4).

4. CONCLUSION

Shell appreciates MCFN’s participation in the technical review process for the JPME and PRM

Projects. While MCFN and Shell may have differing views regarding certain aspects of the proposed

Projects and the assessment of potential Project effects, the regulatory process provides the

opportunity for these differences to be heard and for a decision to be made in the public interest.

Shell trusts that the technical review process has allowed MCFN the opportunity to understand

Shell’s proposed Projects and facilitated an effective consultation process. Shell welcomes ongoing

dialogue in this regard and appreciates the continuing participation of the MCFN.

Subject: Mikisew Cree First Nation (MCFN) review of Shell ... · Information Requests (SIRs) Shell...

Documents

Transcript of Subject: Mikisew Cree First Nation (MCFN) review of Shell ... · Information Requests (SIRs) Shell...