SECTION 3.0 – SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT …€¦ · TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 3.0 SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ... Page 3-6 The Baseline Case focuses on a theoretical

Syncrude Canada Ltd. Mildred Lake Extension Project Volume 2 – Environmental Impact Assessment December 2014

Table of Contents

SECTION 3.0 – SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

3.0 SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................................ 3-1

3.1 Study Areas ........................................................................................................ 3-2 3.1.1 Proposed Project Areas ..................................................................... 3-2 3.1.2 Local Study Areas .............................................................................. 3-2 3.1.3 Regional Study Areas ........................................................................ 3-2

3.2 Assessment Cases ............................................................................................. 3-2 3.2.1 Baseline Case .................................................................................... 3-2 3.2.2 Application Case ................................................................................ 3-6 3.2.3 Planned Development Case .............................................................. 3-6

3.3 Identification and Evaluation of Effects ............................................................. 3-16 3.3.1 Direction ........................................................................................... 3-17 3.3.2 Geographic Extent ........................................................................... 3-17 3.3.3 Magnitude ........................................................................................ 3-17 3.3.4 Duration ........................................................................................... 3-18 3.3.5 Frequency ........................................................................................ 3-18 3.3.6 Confidence ....................................................................................... 3-18 3.3.7 Final Effect Rating ............................................................................ 3-18

3.4 References ....................................................................................................... 3-19


Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont)

PAGE

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.2-1: Project Inclusion List for Air Quality Assessment ............................................... 3-7 Table 3.2-2: Project Inclusion List for Noise Assessment ..................................................... 3-10 Table 3.2-3: Project Inclusion List for Hydrogeology Assessment ........................................ 3-10 Table 3.2-4: Project Inclusion List for Aquatic Assessment .................................................. 3-11 Table 3.2-5: Project Inclusion List for Terrestrial Assessment .............................................. 3-12 Table 3.2-6: Project Inclusion List for Historical Resources ................................................. 3-14

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1-1: Proposed Project Areas ..................................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3.1-2: Local Study Areas .............................................................................................. 3-4 Figure 3.1-3: Regional Study Areas ......................................................................................... 3-5 Figure 3.2-1: Baseline Disturbance Areas ............................................................................. 3-15


Page 3-1

3.0 SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The purpose of this environmental impact assessment (EIA) is to identify, evaluate and report the environmental and socio-economic effects of the proposed Mildred Lake Extension Project (MLX Project). This process includes identification of mitigative measures that will be used to reduce or eliminate potential adverse effects, where appropriate. The scope and approach of the EIA was determined based on the Terms of Reference for the MLX Project released on 16 December 2013 (Volume 1, Attachment 1), Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) Draft Directive 023: Oil Sands Project Applications (AER 2013) and the Guide to Preparing Environmental Impact Assessment Reports in Alberta (ESRD 2013). In summary, the EIA will:

determine appropriate local study area (LSA) and/or regional study area (RSA) for each environmental component that would best allow for identifying effects for that component. Study areas will be depicted on figures and a description of how the study area was determined will be provided;

provide information on the environmental and socio-economic resources and resource uses that could be affected by all phases of the MLX Project. Describe the methods used to determine effects to environmental and socio-economic resources. Provide a sufficient base for the prediction of positive and negative effects and the extent to which negative effects may be mitigated by planning, design, construction techniques, operational practices, and reclamation techniques. Demonstrate that modelling completed in the analysis is appropriate for use, and document any rationale or assumptions required during the use of the model;

quantify and assess final effect ratings, taking into consideration spatial, temporal and cumulative aspects. Discuss the sources of information used in the assessment. Information sources will include literature, previous baseline reports and environmental studies, experience from current oil sands operations, industry study groups, traditional knowledge, and government sources. Identify limitations or deficiencies that the information may place on the analysis or conclusions;

describe the stakeholder consultation process including, but not limited to, the public, Aboriginal people, industry, and regulatory representatives. Where required, undertake studies and investigations to obtain additional information for establishing a sound baseline in the study area(s). From a broad-based examination of all ecosystem components including previous environmental baseline work, describe and rationalize the selection of key components and indicators examined; and

for each environmental component:

describe baseline conditions (includes existing and approved projects and activities). Comment on whether the available data are sufficient to assess effects and mitigation measures. Identify environmental disturbance from previous activities that have now become part of baseline conditions;

describe the nature of the environmental effects associated with MLX Project activities;


Page 3-2

present plans to minimize, mitigate, or eliminate negative effects and discuss the key elements of such plans;

identify and rate final effects where possible; and

summarize the mitigation measures and monitoring plans, which Syncrude commits to implement in the MLX Project.

3.1 Study Areas

3.1.1 Proposed Project Areas

The proposed Project Area (PPA) includes all lands subject to direct disturbance from the MLX Project and associated infrastructure (Figure 3.1-1). There are two PPAs, consistent with the MLX Project footprints. The West PPA is located in Townships 93 and 94, Ranges 11 and 12, West of the 4th Meridian and the East PPA is in Township 93, Ranges 10 and 11, West of the 4th Meridian.

3.1.2 Local Study Areas

The LSA is the area surrounding and including the PPA where there is a reasonable potential for immediate environmental impacts due to MLX Project activities. LSA boundaries vary depending on the environmental or social parameter (i.e., air quality, noise, hydrogeology, aquatic resources, terrestrial resources) being assessed (Figure 3.1-2). The rationale used to define the spatial aspects of each specific LSA is described in the appropriate section for each environmental or social parameter.

3.1.3 Regional Study Areas

The RSA is the area within which there is the potential for cumulative and socio-economic effects, and that may be relevant to the assessment of any wider-spread effects of the MLX Project (Figure 3.1-3). RSAs also vary depending on the environmental or social parameter being assessed. The rationale used to define the spatial aspects of each RSA is described in the following sections.

3.2 Assessment Cases

The MLX Project is assessed on the basis of three cases (Baseline, Application and Planned Development), which may vary among the environmental and socio-economic components.

3.2.1 Baseline Case

The Baseline Case provides a standard reference for assessment, which describes the environmental conditions in the relevant LSA and RSA prior to development of the MLX Project. The Baseline Case considers existing and approved projects and activities (i.e., approved by federal, provincial or municipal regulatory authorities).

S:\G

is\P

roje

cts\

CE

\Syn

crud

e_M

LX\C

E04

183_

MLX

_EIA

\Arc

GIS

\App

licat

ionR

epor

tFig

ures

\Vol

2 S

ectio

n 03

- S

cope

of E

IA\F

ig 0

3.01

-01

Pro

p P

roj A

rea.

mxd

¬«63

East Athabasca

Highway

TWP 94TWP 93

RGE 12 RGE 11 RGE 11 RGE 10 W4

TWP 93TWP 92

La SalineNatural

Area

FortMacKay

MacKay

Dover River

River

Athabasca

Beav

er

River

Muskeg

River

SalineLake

Mildred LakeReservoir

River

FortMcKay

174

445000 450000 455000 460000 465000 470000

6320

000

6325

000

6330

000

6335

000

LegendProposed Project Area

Operating and ApprovedOil Sands Development

Community

Indian Reserve

Park/Protected Area

Open WaterReservoir

Defined ChannelUndefined Channel

Road

±

Projection: UTM Zone 12 NAD83Note: Sources: GeoBase®, Spatial Data Warehouse Ltd., Syncrude.

Proposed Project AreasFigure 3.1-1Fig 03.01-01 Prop Proj Area

14-09-11

QA/QC:

KW JH EHHBANALYST:

MLX Project

September 2014DATE:

2 0 2 4

Kilometres1:130,000

AMECPROVIDED BY:

AMECFINAL MAPPING BY:

S:\G

is\P

roje

cts\

CE

\Syn

crud

e_M

LX\C

E04

183_

MLX

_EIA

\Arc

GIS

\App

licat

ionR

epor

tFig

ures

\Vol

2 S

ectio

n 03

- S

cope

of E

IA\F

ig 0

3.01

-02

LSA

.mxd

MacKay

River

Dover

Atha

basc

a R

iver

¬«63

Birch Mountains Wildland

Provincial Park

La Saline Natural Area

Grand Rapids Wildland

Provincial Park

FortMacKay

FortMcMurray

River

TWP90

TWP95

RGE 10W4

RGE 15RGE 20

360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000

6280

000

6300

000

6320

000

6340

000

6360

000

LegendAir Quality LSA

Aquatics LSA

Aquatics Ecology LSA

Historical Resources LSA

Hydrogeology LSA

Noise LSA

Terrestrial LSA


Community

Indian Reserve

Park/Protected Area

Open Water

Watercourse

Road

±

Projection: UTM Zone 12 NAD83Note: Sources: AB TPR, © Department of Natural Resources Canada. All rights reserved, GeoBase®, Spatial Data Warehouse Ltd., Syncrude. Local Study Areas

Figure 3.1-2Fig 03.01-02 LSA14-09-23

QA/QC:

KW JH EHHBANALYST:

MLX Project

September 2014DATE:

6 0 6 12

Kilometres1:600,000

AMECPROVIDED BY:


Sas

katc

hew

an

Alb

erta

¬«63

Fort Chipewyan

Fort MacKay

Fort McMurray

Pelican Portage

LakeAthabasca

LakeClaire

Ath

abas

ca R

iver

Clearwater River

Athabasca River

Fo rt M cK ay 17 4

400000 500000 600000

620

000

063

00

000

640

000

065

00

00

0

LegendAir Quality RSA

Historical Resources RSA

Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo

Terrestrial RSA

Hydrogeology RSA

Aquatics RSA

Community

Indian Reserve

Open Water

Watercourse

Road

±

Projection: UTM Zone 12 NAD83Note: Sources: © Department of Natural Resources Canada. All rights reserved, GeoBase®, Spatial Data Warehouse Ltd., Syncrude.

20 0 20 40

Kilometres1:2,000,000

Pa

th:

S:\

Gis

\Pro

ject

s\C

E\S

yncr

ud

e_M

LX

\CE

04

183

_M

LX_

EIA

\Arc

GIS

\Ap

plic

atio

nR

epo

rtF

igur

es\V

ol 2

Sec

tion

03

- S

cope

of

EIA

\Fig

03.

01-

03 R

SA

.mxd

Regional Study Areas

Figure 3.1-3

September 2014

Fig 03.01-03 RSA14-09-15

HB

ANALYST: QA/QC:

DATE:

KW JH EH

MLX Project

AMEC

PROVIDED BY:

AMEC

FINAL MAPPING BY:


Page 3-6

The Baseline Case focuses on a theoretical point in time when the maximum disturbance of all existing and approved projects occurs simultaneously. Progressive reclamation or closure of project facilities is not considered. Projects included in the Baseline Case are developed or approved for development up to February 2014 and are listed in Tables 3.2-1 to 3.2-6. Information for each of these projects was obtained from publicly available documents (e.g., applications for regulatory approval, monitoring reports submitted to Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD)) or from information provided directly to Syncrude from the companies with the approved projects. Resource delineation disturbances for the MLX/Aurora South Project, which were completed or planned for completion under exploration permits and other regulatory approvals (e.g., seismic lines and exploration operations), are also included. Baseline disturbances in the terrestrial LSA are shown in Figure 3.2-1.

3.2.2 Application Case

The Application Case considers the Baseline Case with the effects of the MLX Project added. The MLX Project contribution is also documented alone for air quality (Volume 2, Section 4.0) and human health (Volume 2, Section 17.0). Where local or regional environmental limits have been set (e.g., air emissions or water use parameters), the Application Case will show if the MLX Project can operate within these limits. The Application Case considers the potential effects associated with the pre-production, operations and closure phases of the MLX Project (see Volume 1, Section 3.0), as appropriate for each environmental or social parameter. Different temporal boundaries or scenarios have been used by some environmental or social parameters and are identified in the specific sections.

3.2.3 Planned Development Case

The Planned Development Case describes environmental conditions that would exist in the RSA as a result of the interaction of the proposed MLX Project with reasonably foreseeable projects expected to occur. Reasonably foreseeable projects and activities include those projects which have been publicly disclosed up to February 2014. The Planned Development Case is used in the assessment of cumulative effects. Cumulative effects may occur as a result of simultaneous activities within the same geographic boundaries and/or activities that occur or interact over time in the same area. The Planned Development Case assessment considers the possibility that combined effects of several projects and activities, while individually acceptable or below established guidelines or threshold criteria, may collectively be deemed unacceptable or may exceed these guidelines or thresholds. Therefore, all potential effects associated with the MLX Project have been assessed in the Planned Development Case.


Page 3-7

Table 3.2-1: Project Inclusion List for Air Quality Assessment

Project Baseline

Case Application

Case

Planned Development

Case

Alberta Oilsands Clearwater West X X X

Athabasca Oil Corp. Dover Central Pilot X X X

Athabasca Oil Corp. Hangingstone Project 1 X X X

Athabasca Oil Corp. Mackay River Commercial X X X

Athabasca Oil Corp. Mackay River Pilot X X X

CNRL Horizon Mine X X X

Connacher Algar X X X

Connacher Great Divide X X X

Connacher Great Divide Algar Expansion X X X

ConocoPhillips Surmont Pilot, Phase 1, and Phase 2 X X X

Dover Commercial North and South X X X

E-T Energy Poplar Creek X X X

Enbridge Athabasca Terminal X X X

Excelsior Energy Hangingstone X X X

Graymont Parsons Creek X X X

Grizzly Oil Sands Algar Lake X X X

Hammerstone Aggregate, Cement Plant, Lime Plant, Wash Plant, and Muskeg Valley Quarry

X X X

Husky Sunrise X X X

Imperial Oil Resources Kearl, Phases 1, 2, and 3 X X X

Ivanhoe Energy Tamarack X X X

Japan Canada Oil Sands Hangingstone Demonstration and Commercial

X X X

Nexen Long Lake North and Long Lake South, Phases 1 and 2 X X X

Northlands Forest Products Fort McMurray Sawmill X X X

Oak Point Energy Lewis Pilot X X X

Shell Jackpine Mine, Phase 1 and Expansion X X X

Shell Muskeg River Mine, Cogen Facility and Expansion X X X

Southern Pacific Resource Corp. McKay SAGD X X X

StatoilHydro Kai Kos Dehseh Corner 1, 2 and Expansion X X X

Suncor Base Plant X X X

Suncor Dover X X X

Suncor Firebag ETS Pilot, ETS 2, Phases 1-6, Phase C&E, and SAGD

X X X

Suncor Fort Hills X X X

Suncor MD9 X X X

Suncor MacKay River, Phases 1 and 2 X X X

Suncor Meadow Creek, Phase 1 and Expansion X X X

Suncor Millennium X X X

Suncor North Steepbank X X X

Suncor Tailings Ponds X X X

Suncor Upgrader Complex X X X


Page 3-8

Project Baseline

Case Application

Case

Planned Development

Case

Suncor Voyageur Upgrader X X X

Sunshine West Ells Pilot, Phase 1, and Phase 2 X X X

Syncrude Aurora North X X X

Syncrude Aurora South X X X

Syncrude Mildred Lake X X X

Total Joslyn, 1 and 2 SAGD and North Mine X X X

Value Creation Terre de Grace Pilot Phase 2 X X X

Williams Energy Fort McMurray Chemical Plant X X X

Gas Production Facilities X X X

Communities and Highways X X X

Syncrude Canada Ltd. - MLX X X

Athabasca Oil Corp. Hangingstone Expansion X

CNRL Horizon in-situ X

Cenovus Telephone Lake X

Husky Energy Sunrise Phase 2 X

Imperial Oil Aspen X

Marathon Oil Birchwood SAGD Demo X

MEG Surmont X

OSUM Saleski X

OSUM Sepiko Kesik X

Shell Pierre River Mine X

SilverBirch Energy Equinox X

Southern Pacific Resource Corp. McKay Thermal Phase 2 X

StatoilHydro Kai Kos Dehseh Hangingstone, and Thornbury Phases 1 and 2 and Expansion

X

Suncor Lewis X

Suncor Voyageur South X

Sunshine Legend Lake X

Sunshine Thickwood X

Teck Equinox X

Teck Frontier X

Total Joslyn 3A X

Total Joslyn South Mine X

Total Northern Lights X

Value Creation Advanced TriStar 1, 2, and 3 X

Value Creation TriStar Pilot X

Athabasca Oil Corp. Hangingstone Expansion X

CNRL Horizon in-situ X

Cenovus Telephone Lake X

Husky Energy Sunrise Phase 2 X

Imperial Oil Aspen X

Marathon Oil Birchwood SAGD Demo X

MEG Surmont X


Page 3-9

Project Baseline

Case Application

Case

Planned Development

Case

OSUM Saleski X

OSUM Sepiko Kesik X

Shell Pierre River Mine X

SilverBirch Energy Equinox X

Southern Pacific Resource Corp. McKay Thermal Phase 2 X

StatoilHydro Kai Kos Dehseh Hangingstone, and Thornbury Phases 1 and 2 and Expansion

X

Suncor Lewis X

Suncor Voyageur South X

Sunshine Legend Lake X

Sunshine Thickwood X

Teck Equinox X

Teck Frontier X

Total Joslyn 3A X

Total Joslyn South Mine X

Total Northern Lights X

Value Creation Advanced TriStar 1, 2, and 3 X

Value Creation TriStar Pilot X


Page 3-10

Table 3.2-2: Project Inclusion List for Noise Assessment

Project Baseline

Case Application

Case

Planned Development

Case

Brion Energy - Dover SAGD Pilot X X X

Brion Energy - Dover VAPEX Pilot X X X

Suncor Energy Inc. - East Athabasca Highway Project X X X

Suncor Energy Inc. - Steepbank Mine & Debottleneck X X X

Suncor Energy Inc. - Base (U1, U2) & Millennium (MVU, MCU) Upgraders

X X X

Suncor Energy Inc. - MacKay River Phase 1 X X X


Syncrude Canada Ltd. - Mildred Lake X X X


Hammerstone Corp. - Hammerstone Project X

Total E&P Joslyn Ltd. - Joslyn South Mine X

Table 3.2-3: Project Inclusion List for Hydrogeology Assessment

Project Baseline

Case Application

Case

Planned Development

Case




X X X

Suncor Energy Inc. - Voyageur Upgraders (1 & 2) X X X




Syncrude Canada Ltd. - Southwest Sand Storage Conversion Project

X X X



Page 3-11

Table 3.2-4: Project Inclusion List for Aquatic Assessment

Project Baseline

Case Application

Case

Planned Development

Case

Athabasca Oil Corp. - Dover Central Pilot X X X



Brion Energy - MacKay River Commercial Project X X X

Brion Energy - MacKay River Pilot Project X X X

Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. (CNRL) - Horizon Phases 1-3 X X X

E-T Energy Ltd. - Poplar Creek X X X

Shell Canada Ltd. (AOSP) - Muskeg River Mine X X X

Shell Canada Ltd. (AOSP) - Muskeg River Mine Expansion X X X

Southern Pacific Resource Corp. - STP McKay Thermal Project X X X



Suncor Energy Inc. - Fort Hills Oil Sands Project X X X


X X X

Suncor Energy Inc. - Millennium Mine & Debottleneck X X X

Suncor Energy Inc. - North Steepbank Extension X X X



Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. - West Ells SAGD Project X X X

Syncrude Canada Ltd. - Aurora North Mine X X X


Total E&P Joslyn Ltd. - Joslyn North Mine X X X


Brion Energy - Dover Commercial Project X

Grizzly Oil Sands - Thickwood Thermal X

Husky Oil Operations Ltd. - Saleski Thermal Experimental Project X

Parsons Creek Aggregates - Limestone Quarry X

Shell Canada Ltd. (AOSP) - Pierre River Mine X

Southern Pacific Resource Corp. - STP McKay Thermal Project Expansion

X

Teck Resources - Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project X



Page 3-12

Table 3.2-5: Project Inclusion List for Terrestrial Assessment

Project Baseline

Case Application

Case

Planned Development

Case

Athabasca Oil Corp. - Dover Central Pilot X X X



Brion Energy - MacKay River Commercial Project X X X

Brion Energy - MacKay River Pilot Project X X X

Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. (CNRL) - Horizon Phases 1-3 X X X

E-T Energy Ltd. - Poplar Creek X X X

Hammerstone Corp. - Muskeg Valley Quarry X X X

Husky Energy Inc./BP PLC - Sunrise Thermal Project X X X

Imperial Oil Ltd./ExxonMobil Canada Ltd. - Kearl Oil Sands Project X X X

Oak Point Energy - Lewis Steepbank SAGD Pilot Project X X X

Shell Canada Ltd. (AOSP) - Jackpine Mine Phase 1 X X X

Shell Canada Ltd. (AOSP) - Jackpine Mine Phase 2 X X X

Shell Canada Ltd. (AOSP) - Muskeg River Mine X X X

Shell Canada Ltd. (AOSP) - Muskeg River Mine Expansion X X X

Southern Pacific Resource Corp. - STP McKay Thermal Project X X X

Suncor Energy Inc. - East Athabasca Highway Project X X X

Suncor Energy Inc. - Firebag Project X X X

Suncor Energy Inc. - Fort Hills Oil Sands Project X X X



Suncor Energy Inc. - Millennium Mine & Debottleneck X X X

Suncor Energy Inc. - North Steepbank Extension X X X

Suncor Energy Inc. - South Tailings Pond X X X



X X X


Syncrude Canada Ltd. - Aurora North Mine X X X

Syncrude Canada Ltd. - Aurora South Mine X X X


Syncrude Canada Ltd. - Southwest Sand Storage Conversion Project

X X X

Total E&P Joslyn Ltd. - Joslyn North Mine X X X

Total E&P Joslyn Ltd. - Joslyn SAGD Phase 1 X X X

Total E&P Joslyn Ltd. - Joslyn SAGD Phase 2 X X X

Value Creation Inc. - Terre de Grace Pilot Project X X X


Brion Energy - Dover Commercial Project X

Grizzly Oil Sands - Thickwood Thermal X

Hammerstone Corp. - Hammerstone Project X

Imperial Oil Resources - Aspen Project X


Page 3-13

Project Baseline

Case Application

Case

Planned Development

Case

Ivanhoe Energy - Tamarack Project X

Ledcor CMI Ltd. - Clearwater Multi-User Access Road X

Parsons Creek Aggregates - Limestone Quarry X

Shell Canada Ltd. (AOSP) - Pierre River Mine X

Southern Pacific Resource Corp. - STP McKay Thermal Project Expansion

X

Teck Resources - Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project X


Value Creation Inc. - Advanced TriStar Project X


Page 3-14

Table 3.2-6: Project Inclusion List for Historical Resources

Project Baseline

Case Application

Case

Planned Development

Case


X X X




S:\G

is\P

roje

cts\

CE

\Syn

crud

e_M

LX\C

E04

183_

MLX

_EIA

\Arc

GIS

\App

licat

ionR

epor

tFig

ures

\Vol

2 S

ectio

n 03

- S

cope

of E

IA\F

ig 0

3.02

-01

Bas

elin

e D

istu

rban

ce.m

xd

¬«63

East Athabasca

Highway

TWP 94TWP 93

RGE 12 RGE 11 RGE 11 RGE 10 W4

TWP 93TWP 92

La SalineNatural

Area

FortMacKay

MacKay

Dover River

River

Athabasca

Beav

er

River

Muskeg

River

SalineLake

Mildred LakeReservoir

River

FortMcKay

174

445000 450000 455000 460000 465000 470000

6320

000

6325

000

6330

000

6335

000

LegendTerrestrial LSA

Proposed Project Area


Community

Indian Reserve

Park/Protected Area

Open Water

Defined ChannelUndefined Channel

Road

Baseline Disturbance3D SeismicCutblockIndustrial/ClearingDitchReservoirROWRoadSeismic/TrailSettlementWellsite

±

Projection: UTM Zone 12 NAD83Note: Sources: ABTPR, Department of Natural Reserves Canada. All Rights Reserved. GeoBase®, Spatial Data Warehouse Ltd . ,Syncrude.

Baseline Disturbance AreasFigure 3.2-1Fig 03.02-01 Baseline Disturbance

14-09-11

QA/QC:

KW JH EHHBANALYST:

MLX Project

September 2014DATE:

2 0 2 4

Kilometres1:130,000

AMECPROVIDED BY:



Page 3-16

The Planned Development Case assessment was completed for those environmental or social parameters where measurable incremental effects could act cumulatively in the RSA with other land use pressures. For each discipline-specific effect carried forward, the MLX Project’s maximum development was considered. The assessment of potential cumulative effects is based on:

the Alberta Environment (AENV), Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB), and Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) Information Letter (AENV, ERCB and NRCB 2000);

guidance and targets provided by the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan and associated frameworks; and

a comprehensive summary of all proposed monitoring, research and other strategies or plans to minimize, mitigate and manage any potential adverse effects.

Projects included in the Planned Development Case are listed in Tables 3.2-1 to 3.2-6. Information used in the Planned Development Case for each of these facilities was obtained from publicly available documents (e.g., applications for regulatory approval, monitoring reports submitted to ESRD) or from information provided directly to Syncrude from the companies in the RSA.

3.3 Identification and Evaluation of Effects

Impact assessments are based upon measured, estimated, or reasonably expected changes (effects) in some attributes of a selected environmental or socio-economic component (i.e., an effect receptor). The identification of effect receptors is dependent upon scientific understanding of the ecological components and their interactions in the overall environment within which the MLX Project will be developed. For each identified receptor, an assessment of the potential effect is made using the attributes of direction, geographic extent, magnitude, duration, frequency, and confidence in the relationships between cause and effect. An overall effect assessment rating for each receptor is derived based upon the individual attributes. A residual effect is defined as an effect that cannot be fully mitigated. Thus, the quantification and description of residual effects, by definition, includes consideration of available mitigation procedures and opportunities. Effects discussed in this EIA include those occurring due to full MLX Project development (i.e., all MLX Project components developed and operating at one time) and those effects remaining after mitigation and reclamation activities have been completed (i.e., the residual effects). The definition of the attributes used in the Application Case and Planned Development Case assessments is described below. Where applicable, definitions of an attribute unique to a specific component are described in the individual sections of Volume 2.


Page 3-17

3.3.1 Direction

This assessment attribute describes the direction of effect as positive (beneficial), negative (detrimental), or neutral:

Positive – measured or estimated effect represents a real or potential increase in abundance, quality or other attribute of the receptor;

Negative – measured or estimated effect represents a real or potential decrease in abundance, quality or other attribute of the receptor; and

Neutral – no measurable or estimated effect on the receptor. A “neutral” direction indicates that there is no change to quantify, and the attributes described in the following sections (extent, magnitude, duration, etc.) were not determined.

3.3.2 Geographic Extent

Effects may be confined to small areas, or may occur over a wide geographic extent:

Local – measured or estimated effect occurs only within the boundaries of the LSA;

Regional – measured or estimated effect extends beyond the boundaries of the LSA and into the RSA;

Provincial – estimated effect occurs beyond the boundaries of the RSA, but within Alberta (for some socio-economic parameters and greenhouse gas emission comparisons); and

Global – estimated effect occurs beyond the boundaries of the RSA (for greenhouse gas emission comparisons).

3.3.3 Magnitude

Three levels of magnitude have been selected:

Low – measured or estimated effect represents a 10% or less change in the receptor (quality, quantity, or other attribute) from baseline conditions, or is within the range of normal variability;

Moderate – measured or estimated effect represents a 10% to 20% change in the receptor (quality, quantity, or other attribute) from baseline conditions, and is unlikely to pose a serious risk to a receptor; and

High – measured or estimated effect represents a 20% or greater change in the receptor (quality, quantity or other attribute) from baseline conditions, and may require special mitigation, management and monitoring to ensure that effects are kept to an acceptable level.

By this definition, a magnitude rating of low (<10% change in the receptor) is applied even when a negligible to small effect is predicted.


Page 3-18

A 20% cutoff for the definition of a high magnitude effect was selected, since it is reflective of the protective nature of the impact assessment process and has been applied in other EIAs within the region (Shell 2010; Total 2010).

3.3.4 Duration

Some effects may persist for short periods of time, while others may be permanent. The following designations for duration of effect are used:

Short-term – measured or estimated effect persists for five years or less;

Mid-term – measured or estimated effect persists for five to 30 years; and

Long-term – measured or estimated effect extends beyond 30 years.

3.3.5 Frequency

Effects can occur with various frequencies:

Infrequent – measured or estimated effect occurs once or only a few times during the life of the MLX Project;

Seasonal – measured or estimated effect occurs during a clearly defined season(s) and recurs annually; and

Continuous – measured or estimated effect occurs continuously.

3.3.6 Confidence

All estimations or judgments of direction, geographic extent, magnitude, duration, and frequency of an effect are made on the basis of available data and information. While every attempt is made to collect and interpret data and information, there remain instances where there is not a complete understanding of the data or where the quantity of available data may not be ideal. To account for this, an expression of confidence is made for each assessment:

Poor – no clear understanding of cause and effect due to lack of information base and/or limited availability of data;

Moderate – moderate understanding of cause and effect from existing knowledge base, but potential for site-specific and time-specific variability, and/or moderate site-specific data available. Limited predictive ability due to variability over time and/or space; and

Good – high understanding of cause and effect from existing knowledge base and/or high site-specific data available. Limited potential for site-specific and/or time-specific variability.

3.3.7 Final Effect Rating

In all attributes, there are both objective and subjective considerations. Objective considerations include quantitative comparisons between predicted residual MLX Project effects and established quantitative limits, such as, ambient air objectives, water quality guidelines, regional


Page 3-19

environmental objectives, and forestry harvest quotas. Subjective considerations are required when effects cannot be predicted quantitatively due to limited data availability or when there are no benchmarks against which to compare predicted quantitative effects. For the assessment of each potential MLX Project effect within each environmental or socio-economic component, a final effect rating of neutral, low, moderate, or high is stated. This is based upon the integration of quantitative analysis (where possible) and professional judgment that takes into account the various rankings for each attribute (direction, magnitude, geographic extent, duration, frequency, and confidence). This is applied to both the Application Case and Planned Development Case assessments. For the Planned Development Case assessment, the MLX Project contribution is documented and rated.

3.4 References

Alberta Energy Regulator (AER). 2013. Draft Directive 023: Oil Sands Project Applications. Calgary, Alberta. http://www.aer.ca/documents/directives/ DraftDirective023_20130528.pdf

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD). 2013. Guide to Preparing Environmental Impact Assessment Reports in Alberta – Updated 2010. Alberta Environment, Environmental Assessment Team, Edmonton, Alberta.

Alberta Environment, Energy Resources Conservation Board and Natural Resources Conservation Board (AENV, ERCB and NRCB). 2000. Cumulative Effects Assessment in Environmental Impact Assessment Reports Required Under the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act. Alberta Environment. Edmonton, Alberta.

Shell Canada Limited (Shell). 2010. Application for the Approval of the Jackpine Mine Expansion Project. Prepared by Golder Associates Ltd. Calgary, Alberta.

Total E&P Joslyn Ltd. (Total). 2010. Joslyn North Mine Project. Joint Hearing of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the Energy Resources Conservation Board. Calgary, AB.

Documents

SECTION 3.0 – SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT …€¦ · TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 3.0 SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ... Page 3-6 The Baseline Case focuses on a theoretical