Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion Project - ceaa.gc.ca€¦ · Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion Project – ACFN Review Report October 2010 DS Environmental Consulting Inc. iii Executive

Reviewof

ShellJackpineMineExpansionProject

ApplicationandEnvironmentalImpactAssessment

For:

AthabascaChipewyanFirstNationIndustryRelationsCorporation

October2010(V. 4)

DS Environmental Consulting Inc.

Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion Project – ACFN Review Report

October2010 DS Environmental Consulting Inc. ii


October2010 DS Environmental Consulting Inc. iii

ExecutiveSummary

TheAthabascaChipewyanFirstNation(ACFN)commissionedDSEnvironmentalConsultingtoreviewShellCanada’s (Shell) submissionspertaining to the JackpineMineExpansionProject (JPME). Shelloriginally applied for this project inDecember 2007 alongwith the Pierre RiverMine Project. AnupdatetotheEnvironmentalImpactAssessment(EIA)forbothprojectswasreleasedinMay2008toseparate the impacts of each project. Shell also issued a project update and supplementalinformationontheJPMEinDecember2009,andsupplementalinformationfiledinJune2010intheformofresponsestoquestionsfromAlberta’sregulators.

The proposed JPME would be an expansion of the Shell Jackpine Mine Phase 1, increasing itsbitumenproductioncapabilityby100000barrelsperday,toatotalof300000barrelsperday.

Allreviewsmadeinthisreport(fromassessingthemethodologyusedintheEIA,toreviewingShell’sassessment of the project’s impacts on air quality, noise, aquatic resources, terrestrial resources,reclamation,humanhealth,landuse,andcumulativeeffects)weredonewithconsiderationoftheACFN’sbeliefs,expectations,andTreatyRights.Wherevernecessary,specificcomments,questions,andrequestsaremadeforShelltoaddress.

Summarizedbelowaretheoveralldeficienciesandissuesidentifiedinthisreport.

EIAMethodology:

Lackofpre‐industrialbaselines;

Cumulativeeffectsarenotadequatelyaddressed,resultinginanunderestimationoftheproject’simpacts;

LackofTraditionalKnowledge(TK)andTraditionalLandUse(TLU)information;

OverlylargeRegionalStudyArea(RSA)boundariesandartificiallyhighBaseCasescenariosdonotallowformeaningfulassessment;

Portionsoftheassessmentbasedonweak/unsupportedassumptionsorpoorscientificmethods.

Groundwater:

Long lasting adverse groundwater impacts, which may in turn affect aquatic resources,includingsurfacewaterflows,surfacewaterquality,wetlandsandterrestrialvegetation;

Seepagefromexternaltailingsdisposalareaeffectsongroundwaterandsurfacewaterquality;

Predictedchangesingroundwaterlevels,flows,flowdirections,andquality.

Surfacewaterquality:

Waterqualityassessmentinadequateduetoimpactsoftenbeingdownplayed;

Manywaterqualityuncertaintiesduetopoormethodology;


October2010 DS Environmental Consulting Inc. iv

Unknownproject‐relatedandcumulativeimpactsonKearlLake;

Unknown project‐related and cumulative water quality impacts related to tailings pondseepagesandendpitlakedischarges.

Aquatichealthandfish/fishhabitatscomponents:

Aquatichealthimpactsdownplayedandaquatichealthbenchmarkexceedancesdismissed;

Unknownproject‐relatedandcumulativeaquatichealthimpactsrelatedtotailingspondseepagesandendpitlakedischarges;

Mercurycontaminationinthecompensationreservoirnotassessed;

Concernsabouttheapprovalandconstructionofmineswithoutaclearunderstandingofthefishhabitatcompensationplan.

Hydrology:

SignificantimpactstothelocalecologyduetodiversionofupperportionsoftheMuskegRiveranditswatershed;

ImpactstoKearlLake,asitwouldbefullysurroundedbyoilsandsprojects;

CumulativeImpactstotheAthabascaRiverandDeltanotassessed.

Airquality:

Poorunderstandingofsecondarypollutantsandtheirimpacts;

Incompleteunderstandingofgreenhousegasemissions;

FoulodourimpactonlocationsofimportancetotheACFN;

PotentialAcidInputlevelspredictedtoexceedguidelines;

Unknownimpactsofmultipleprojectsonregionalairquality.

Wildlife:

Significanthabitatloss; Riskstowildlifehealth; Wildlifesurveygaps;

Uncertaintiesrelatedtocumulativeimpactsofmultipleprojectsonwildlife;

Eliminationofregionallysignificantripariancorridor;

Cumulativeeffectsoftailingspondsonmigratorybirdpopulationsnotassessed;

Concernswithvalidityofimpactpredictions;

Shell’smodelingresultsconflictwithfielddataandTK.

Vegetation,wetlands,andbiodiversity:

Significantandirreversiblelossofwetlands(includingtheMcClellandLakeWetlandComplex);


October2010 DS Environmental Consulting Inc. v

Decreaseinplantandanimalbiodiversity,especiallyinwetlandshabitats;

Lossofrareplants,rareplanthabitat,andoldgrowthforests; Unclearimpactsofairemissionsonvegetation;

Cumulativeimpactsofregionallossofwetlands.

Reclamation,soils,andlandforms:

Closurelandscapesthatareverydifferentfromthebaselinelandscape;

Reclamationstrategiesaresimplisticandrelyheavilyonunsupportedassumptions;

Large‐scaledisturbancewithnospecificreclamationtimeline,andrelianceonadaptivemanagement;

Uncertaintiesrelatedtoreclamationofwettailings;

Uncertaintiesrelatedtoreclamationofwetlandsasuplandforest.

TraditionalLandUse:

EIAdoesnotcomplywiththeTermsofReferencefortraditionaluseassessment;

ACFNmembersnotdirectlyconsultedabouttheirtraditionallandsortheiruseofspecificareasproposedfordisturbance;

Longtermlossoftraditionallandandtheassociatedtraditionallanduses;

Uncertaintiesrelatedtotimingandsuccessofreclamationoftraditionallands;

Cumulativeimpactstotraditionalusers.

HumanHealth:

HumanHealthRiskAssessmentnotasconservativeasportrayedintheapplication;

Realisticandcomprehensiveviewsofindividualandcommunityhealthnotaddressed;

Poorunderstandingofacuteinhalationhealthriskforthemostsensitiveindividuals.

In addition to assessing the JPME EIA and updates, this review addresses Shell’s responses totechnical questions submitted to them by the ACFN, requesting additional information orclarification.OnlyasmallportionofthequestionsposedbytheACFNwereadequatelyaddressed.Most responses fromShellwere found tobedeficient. InmanycasesShell refused toanswer thequestion.Manyoftheserequestsarere‐statedinthisreport.


October2010 DS Environmental Consulting Inc. vi

ListofAcronyms

AAAQO‐AlbertaAmbientAirQualityObjectives

ACFN‐AthabascaChipewyanFirstNation

AENV‐AlbertaEnvironment

ANHIC‐AlbertaNaturalHeritageInformationCentre

ANPC‐AlbertaNativePlantCouncil

AOSERP‐AlbertaOilSandsEnvironmentalResearchProgram

AVI‐AlbertaVegetationInventory

bgs–BelowGroundSurface

CC&R‐Closure,Conservation,andReclamation

CCME‐CanadianCouncilofMinistersoftheEnvironment

CCP‐ConceptualCompensationPlan

CEMA‐CumulativeEnvironmentalManagementAssociation

CONRAD‐CanadianOilSandsNetworkforResearchandDevelopment

COPC‐ChemicalofPotentialConcern

CWS‐Canada‐WideStandards

DFO‐FisheriesandOceansCanada

EC‐EnvironmentalConsequences

EIA‐EnvironmentalImpactAssessment

ERCB‐EnergyandResourcesConservationBoard

ETDA‐ExternalTailingsDisposalArea

GHG‐GreenhouseGas

ha‐Hectares

HHRA‐HumanHealthRiskAssessment

JPME‐JackpineExpansionMine

KIR‐KeyIndicatorResource

LCCS‐LandCapabilityClassificationSystem

LSA‐LocalStudyArea


October2010 DS Environmental Consulting Inc. vii

MDL‐MethodDetectionLimits

MFT‐MatureFineTailings

NNL‐NoNetLoss

NOEC‐NoObservableEffectsConcentration

NRV‐NaturalRangeofVariation

NSMWG‐NOx‐SO2ManagementWorkingGroup

OGF‐OldGrowthForest

PAH‐PolycyclicAromaticHydrocarbons

PAI‐PotentialAcidInput

PDC‐PlannedDevelopmentCase

PM‐ParticulateMatter

PRM‐PierreRiverMine

PVA‐PopulationViabilityAnalysis

RAMP‐RegionalAquaticsMonitoringProgram

RPP‐Rareplantpotential

RSA‐RegionalStudyArea

RSF‐ResourceSelectionFunction

SEWG‐SustainableEcosystemWorkingGroup

SIR‐SupplementalInformationRequest

SSOB‐SalineSodicOverburden

TK‐TraditionalKnowledge

TLU‐TraditionalLandUse

TOR‐TermsofReference

TRV‐ToxicityReferenceValues

TUS–TraditionalUseStudy

USEPA‐UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency

VOC‐VolatileOrganicCompound

WMF‐WaterManagementFramework


October2010 DS Environmental Consulting Inc. viii

TableofContents

ExecutiveSummary .................................................................................................................... iii

ListofAcronyms ......................................................................................................................... vi

1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................1

2.0 ProjectDescription .............................................................................................................1

3.0 TraditionalandTreatyRights ..............................................................................................2

4.0 SubjectAreasReviewed......................................................................................................4

4.1 EIAMethodology ............................................................................................................4 4.1.1 Overview..................................................................................................................4 4.1.2 DiscussionandAssessmentReview ..........................................................................5 4.1.3 ConcernsandRequests ............................................................................................7

4.2 CumulativeEffects ........................................................................................................ 11 4.2.1 Overview................................................................................................................ 11 4.2.2 DiscussionandAssessmentReview ........................................................................ 11

4.3 Groundwater ................................................................................................................ 13 4.3.1 Overview................................................................................................................ 13 4.3.2 DiscussionandAssessmentReview ........................................................................ 13 4.3.3 ConcernsandRequests .......................................................................................... 14

4.4 SurfaceWaterQuality................................................................................................... 17 4.4.1 Overview................................................................................................................ 17 4.4.2 DiscussionandAssessmentReview ........................................................................ 18 4.4.3 ConcernsandRequests .......................................................................................... 18

4.5 AquaticHealthandFish/FishHabitat .......................................................................... 23 4.5.1 Overview................................................................................................................ 23 4.5.2 DiscussionandAssessmentReview ........................................................................ 24 4.5.3 ConcernsandRequests .......................................................................................... 25

4.6 Hydrology ..................................................................................................................... 32 4.6.1 Overview................................................................................................................ 32 4.6.2 DiscussionandAssessmentReview ........................................................................ 33 4.6.3 ConcernsandRequests .......................................................................................... 34

4.7 AirQuality..................................................................................................................... 36 4.7.1 Overview................................................................................................................ 36 4.7.2 DiscussionandAssessmentReview ........................................................................ 36 4.7.3 ConcernsandRequests .......................................................................................... 37


October2010 DS Environmental Consulting Inc. ix

4.8 Wildlife ......................................................................................................................... 41 4.8.1 Overview................................................................................................................ 41 4.8.2 DiscussionandAssessmentReview ........................................................................ 42 4.8.3 ConcernsandRequests .......................................................................................... 43

4.9 Vegetation,Wetlands,andBiodiversity ........................................................................ 49 4.9.1 Overview................................................................................................................ 49 4.9.2 DiscussionandAssessmentReview ........................................................................ 49 4.9.3 ConcernsandRequests .......................................................................................... 50

4.10 Reclamation,Soils,andLandforms................................................................................ 62 4.10.1 Overview................................................................................................................ 62 4.10.2 DiscussionandAssessmentReview ........................................................................ 62 4.10.3 ConcernsandRequests .......................................................................................... 63

4.11 TraditionalLandUseandTraditionalKnowledge .......................................................... 67 4.11.1 Overview................................................................................................................ 67 4.11.2 DiscussionandAssessmentReview ........................................................................ 68 4.11.3 ConcernsandRequests .......................................................................................... 69

4.12 HumanHealth............................................................................................................... 72 4.12.1 Overview................................................................................................................ 72 4.12.2 DiscussionandAssessmentReview ........................................................................ 73 4.12.3 ConcernsandRequests .......................................................................................... 73

5.0 LiteratureCited................................................................................................................. 78

AppendixA ..................................................................................................................................A

LetterdatedFebruary1,2010fromLisaKing,ACFNIRCtoAlvaroLoyola,SeniorAdvisor,AboriginalRelations,AlbertaEnvironmentandtoJohnAbbot,EVPHeavyOil,ShellCanadaEnergy,RE:ShellCanadaLtd.–JackpineMineExpansionandPierreRiverMineProjectEPEAApplicationFilenumbers:001‐00245358,005‐00153125,006‐00153125,WaterActFilenumbers:00245489,00186157 ...............................................................................................A

AppendixB ..................................................................................................................................B

TechnicalInformationRequestsfromtheAthabascaChipewyanFirstNation..........................B

AppendixC ..................................................................................................................................C

TableofTechnicalQuestionsontheShellJackpineMineExpansionProjectSubmittedbytheAthabascaChipewyanFirstNationtoShellinDecember2009andShell’sResponsestotheseQuestions ................................................................................................................................C

AppendixD................................................................................................................................. D

AppendixD‐1............................................................................................................................ i


October2010 DS Environmental Consulting Inc. x

ShellJackpineMineExpansionandPierreRiverMineProject–EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentMethodologyReviewforAthabascaChipewyanFirstNation–April5,2010,byC.DanaBushofBushEcology ...............................................................................................i

AppendixD‐2........................................................................................................................... ii CumulativeEffectsReviewofShellPierreRiverMineandShellJackpineMineExpansionProjectsforAthabascaChipewyanFirstNation,August2010,byDanielSmithofDSEnvironmentalConsultingInc. .............................................................................................ii

AppendixD‐3.......................................................................................................................... iii ShellJackpineMineExpansionProject–EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReport–ReviewforAthabascaChipewyanFirstNation–GroundwaterComponent–September2008,byLewFahnerofAguaConsulting.............................................................................iii

AppendixD‐4.......................................................................................................................... iv ShellJackpineMineExpansionandPierreRiverMineProjectsResponsestoACFNSIRs–EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReportReviewforAthabascaChipewyanFirstNation–GroundwaterComponent,August2009,byLewFahnerofAguaConsulting....................... iv

AppendixD‐5........................................................................................................................... v ShellJackpineMineExpansionProjectEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReport‐ReviewforAthabascaChipewyanFirstNation,September25,2008,byFayWestcottofClearwaterEnvironmentalConsultants ..................................................................................................v

AppendixD‐6.......................................................................................................................... vi ShellJackpineMineExpansionProject–ApplicationAmendmentandResponsetotheACFNReview,October2,2009,byFayWestcottofClearwaterEnvironmentalConsultantsvi

AppendixD‐7......................................................................................................................... vii ShellPierreMineProject–ConceptualFishHabitatCompensationPlanReviewforAthabascaChipewyanFirstNation,September25,2008,byFayWestcottofClearwaterEnvironmentalConsultants ................................................................................................vii

AppendixD‐8.........................................................................................................................viii ShellCanada–JackpineMineExpansion–EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReport.ReviewforAthabascaChipewyanFirstNation,February17,2009,byBrendaMiskimmin,SummitEnvironmentalConsultantsLtd. ...........................................................................viii

AppendixD‐9.......................................................................................................................... ix ShellCanadaLimitedJackpineMineExpansionProjectandPierreRiverMineProject–EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReport‐ReviewforAthabascaChipewyanFirstNation,October2008,byDr.KarenMcDonald................................................................................ ix

AppendixD‐10......................................................................................................................... x WildlifeReviewoftheShellJackpineMineExpansionandPierreRiverMineProjects–Reviewfor:AthabascaChipewyanFirstNation,May2010,byDaveWestworthofPumaEnvironmentalLtd. ..............................................................................................................x

AppendixD‐11........................................................................................................................ xi


October2010 DS Environmental Consulting Inc. xi

JackpineMineExpansionandPierreRiveMineProject‐EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReport‐ReviewforAthabascaChipewyanFirstNation–Vegetation,WetlandsandForestResourcesComponent,April29,2010(revised),byC.DanaBushofBushEcology .............xi

AppendixD‐12....................................................................................................................... xii ReviewoftheShellJackpineMineExpansion:Terrain,Soils,andReclamation–Reviewfor:AthabascaChipewyanFirstNation,July2010,byLenKnapikofPedocanLandEvaluation .xii

AppendixD‐13.......................................................................................................................xiii ShellCanadaLimitedJackpineMineExpansionandPierreRiverMineProjectsEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReport–ReviewforAthabascaChipewyanFirstNation–TraditionalLandUseandTraditionalKnowledge,October2008,byJanelleBakerofLittleSeedConsulting ................................................................................................................xiii

AppendixD‐14.......................................................................................................................xiv HumanHealthRiskAssessment:ReviewofJackpineMineExpansionProjectandPierreRiverProjectEIAs,September282008,byDr.JohnDennis,ofSolAeroLtd. .....................xiv

AppendixD‐15....................................................................................................................... xv AcroleinIssuewithintheShellPierreRiverMineProjectandJackpineMineExpansionProjectHHRA,byDr.JohnDennis,ofSolAeroLtd. ............................................................. xv


October2010 DS Environmental Consulting Inc. 1

1.0 Introduction

The Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation’s (ACFN) Industry Relations Corporationcontracted DS Environmental Consulting Inc (DS Environmental) to review theapplicationbyShellCanada(Shell) fortheproposedJackpineMineExpansionoilsandsProject.

This report is the culmination of a two and half year review and involved detailedtechnicalreviewsofallthepubliclyfiledreportsontheapplication.Thereviewincludedthefollowingreports:

JackpineMineExpansionProjectapplication(Volume1,December2007);

EnvironmentalImpactAssessment(EIA)reports(Volumes3‐5,December2007);

EnvironmentalSettingReports(ESR)[4volumes];

EIAUpdate‐JackpineMineExpansionandPierreRiverMine(May2008);

JackpineMineExpansionProjectUpdate&SIRResponse(December2009);

Shell’sresponsestoACFN‘stechnicalquestionsontheproject(July2009),and;

Jackpine Mine Expansion Project Supplemental Information – Round 2 (June2010);

JackpineMineExpansion/PierreRiverMineProjectSupplementalInformation–Round3(August2010).

ThePierreRiverMineProjectwasreviewedinaseparatereport.

2.0 ProjectDescription

TheJackpineMineExpansionProject(JPME)isanapplicationtoaddadditionalminingareaandanother100000barrelsperdayprocessingtrain,increasingtheJackpineMineproductionto300000barrelsperday.TheexpansionwouldtakeplaceintheeasternportionofLease13attheJackpineMine,extendingfromsouthwestofKearlLaketotheFortHillsandtheMcClellandLakeWetlandComplex,eastoftheAthabascaRiver.ThisexpansionwouldmineoutalargeportionoftheMuskegRivermainstem.TheMuskegRiverflowwouldberoutedthroughpipelinesduringtheminingoperation,andwouldbedivertedthroughanewcanalaftermining.ShouldtheJPMEbeapproved,initialproductionwasoriginallyproposedtotakeplacein2012,butduetorecenteventsinthemarketplace,productionisnowproposedtobeginin2014.



3.0 TraditionalandTreatyRights

TheAthabascaChipewyanFirstNation(ACFN)isasignatorytoTreaty8andholdsTreatyandAboriginalrightswhichareprotectedunderSection35oftheConstitutionAct.Forthepurposesofthisreview,weunderstandtheTreatyandAboriginalrightsoftheACFNtoincludetherightstohunt,fish,andtrapthroughouttheirtraditionallands.TheTreatyandAboriginal rightsalso comprise the incidental rights (e.g., access, sufficient qualityand quantity of resources, including water resources, values associated with pristineenvironments,accesstosafelandswithinwhichtopracticerights,etc.)thatsupportthepracticeoftheTreatyrights‐collectivelyreferredtoastheACFN’sRights(or‘Rights’)inthisreport.AccordingtotheACFN,themeaningfulpracticeoftheirRightsisdependentupon the ecological conditions of their traditional lands and resources, as well as onothersocio‐culturalandeconomicfactors.

Acompleteunderstandingoftheproject’simpactsontheACFN’sRightsandtraditionalpractices requires scientifically credible and culturally appropriate information on theACFN’s land and resource needs – including criteria and indicators to measure theACFN’sabilitytopracticetheirRightsandcarryouttheirtraditionalwayoflife.TheACFNhaveputAlbertaonnoticethatthatlandandresourceusedecision‐makingandplanningmust consider theirRights, that theseRightsare sustained for futuregenerations,andthatimpactstotheirRightsmustbeassessed(i.e.letterdatedFebruary1,2010fromLisaKing, ACFN IRC to Alvaro Loyola, Senior Advisor, Aboriginal Relations, AlbertaEnvironmentandtoJohnAbbot,EVPHeavyOil, ShellCanadaEnergy,RE:ShellCanadaLtd. – Jackpine Mine Expansion and Pierre River Mine Project EPEA Application Filenumbers: 001‐00245358, 005‐00153125, 006‐00153125, Water Act File numbers:00245489,00186157(“theApplication”)(AppendixA).Forthepurposesofthetechnicalreview, several key areas are considered important to the ACFNwhen determining ifShell’s information is adequate and relevant such that decision‐makers are able toevaluatewhethertheACFN’sRightsareimpacted.Thesekeyareasare:

AretheACFN’sRightsexplicitlyacknowledgedandassessedintheEIA?

Is theresufficientdiligence inscientificmethodtoprovidecertaintyaboutShell’sconclusionsofinteresttotheACFN?

DoesShelldemonstrateanaccurateunderstandingoftheproject’simpactsontheenvironment(socio‐economic,culturalandecological)?

Aremonitoringplans,mitigationstrategies,andreclamationexpectationsrealistic?

Should the proposed Jackpine Mine Expansion Project (JPME) receive approval andproceed as planned, there would be a number of project‐related impacts that couldultimatelyaffecttheACFN’straditional livelihoodand infringeupontheirRights.Listedbelow are some specific examples of how the JPME could adversely impact on theACFN’sRights:



Landdisturbance:o Directlossoftraditionallands‐leadstoalossofharvestingareas,

spiritualsites,oraltraditions(storieslinkedtospecificlandscapefeaturesthattransmitimportanttraditionalknowledge),hereditaryharvestingandhuntingrights(linkedtoacomplexsocialnetwork)‐aswellastraditionalknowledgerelatedtoalltheabove;

o Impactedaccess,connectivity,use,andoccupancyoftraditionallyimportantareas.

Aquaticecosystemimpacts:o Long‐lastingandadverseimpactsongroundwaterandsurfacewater

quality,andtheirpotentialusebyACFNmembers,duetoseepagefromtheproposedexternaltailingsdisposalarea(ETDA);

o Impactsonwaterquality,aquatichealth,fish,andfishhabitat‐plusapersistentuncertaintyaboutthequalityandintegrityoftheseresourcesfromproject‐relatedandcumulativeeffectstowater;

o Diversions,withdrawals,andwatersheddisturbanceswhichwillcontributetoflowreductionsintheAthabascaRiverandtoimpactsonthePeace‐AthabascaDelta.

Airecosystemimpacts:o Increasesinfoulodouroccurrencesatsomecabinlocationsand,

potentially,attheACFN’sPoplarPointReserve;

o Impactsofdegradedairqualityonhumanhealth,wildlifehealth,andplanthealth‐plusapersistentuncertaintyaboutthequalityandintegrityoftheseresourcesfromproject‐relatedandcumulativeeffectstoair;

o Increasedacidicdepositionaffectingwaterandtraditionalplants.

Terrestrialecosystemimpacts:o RestrictedwildlifemovementalongtheAthabascaRiver(amajor

regionalwildlifemovementcorridor)andrelatedeffectsontheexercisingoftheACFN’sRightswithintheirtraditionalterritories,includingthesuccessandqualityofthosehunts.

o Lossofwildlife,wetlands,andtraditionallyimportantplants;

o Long‐lasting(orpermanent)changesinbiodiversityandhabitat;

o Unprovenreclamation,resultinginsimplifiedlandscapesandmoreopenwater(intheformofpitlakes).



4.0 SubjectAreasReviewed

A full technical reviewof theShell’s application andenvironmental impactassessmentreportsfortheproposedJackpineMineExpansionProject(JPME)wasundertakenbyDSEnvironmentalonbehalfoftheACFN’sIndustryRelationsCorporation.Listedbelowarethesubjectareasreviewedandaddressedinthisreport,followedby(inparentheses)theauthoroftheoriginaltechnicalreviewreportforthatsubject:

EIAmethodology(BushEcological‐C.DanaBush);

Cumulativeeffects(DSEnvironmentalConsulting–DanielSmith);

Groundwater(AguaConsulting‐LewFahner);

Surfacewaterquality(ClearwaterEnvironmentalConsultants‐FayWestcott);

Aquatichealthandfish(ClearwaterEnvironmentalConsultants‐FayWestcott);

Hydrology(SummitEnvironmentalConsultants–Dr.BrendaMiskimmin);

Airqualityandclimate(Dr.KarenMcDonald);

Wildlife(PumaEnvironmental‐DaveWestworth);

Vegetation,Wetlands,andBiodiversity(BushEcological‐C.DanaBush);

Reclamation,soils,andlandforms(PedoCanLandEvaluation‐LenKnapik);

Traditionallanduse/Traditionalknowledge(LittleSeedConsulting‐JanelleBaker);

Humanhealth(SolAeroLtd.‐Dr.JohnDennis).

Each subject area discussed below includes an overview highlighting the keyenvironmentalissuesarisingfromtheJPME,abriefreviewofShell’sassessmentofthesubject matter, followed by a description of the specific concerns and requests foradditionalinformationfromShell.Asummarylistoftheseconcernsandrequestscanbefound inAppendixB.Many of the requests in this report repeat theoriginal technicalquestions posed to Shell in December 2009 (Appendix C, which includes Shell’sresponses to the original technical questions) as Shell’s responses to the ACFN werelargelyinadequate.AppendixDcontainstheoriginalDSEnvironmentaltechnicalreviewreports,aswellasadditionalreportsrelatedtothereviewoftheJPME.

4.1 EIAMethodology

4.1.1 Overview

This section includes an examination of Shell’s approach to assessing environmentalimpacts related to the Jackpine Mine Expansion Project (JPME), and whether thisapproachreflectsacceptablepractice.



ThekeyenvironmentalissuesarisingfromtheJPMEwithrespecttomethodologyare:

Lackofpre‐industrialbaselines1intheassessment;

Cumulativeeffectsnotadequatelyaddressed;

Lackoftraditionalknowledgeandtraditionallanduseinformation;

Regionalstudyareaistoolargetodeterminesignificance;

Portionsoftheassessmentarebasedonweak/unsupportedassumptionsorusepoorscientificmethods.

Forcompletedetails,pleaserefertothefulltechnicalreviewreport:

JackpineMine Expansion and Pierre RiverMine Project – Environmental ImpactAssessmentMethodologyReviewforAthabascaChipewyanFirstNation–April5,2010,byC.DanaBushofBushEcology,attachedtothisreportasAppendixD‐1.

Cumulative Effects Review of Shell Pierre River Mine and Shell Jackpine MineExpansionProjects forAthabascaChipewyanFirstNation,August2010,byDanielSmithofDSEnvironmentalConsultingInc.–attachedtothisreportasAppendixD‐2.

4.1.2 DiscussionandAssessmentReview

ThemethodsusedbyShellwhenassessingtheJackpineMineExpansionProject(JPME)haveadirectbearingonthe interpretationoftheproject’s impactontheenvironmentandpeople. It is imperative that soundmethodologicalpracticesbecarried out inanyassessment.Shell’sassessmentoftheJPMEcontainsanumberofmethodologicalflaws.

A significant methodological failing in Shell’s impact assessments, including thecumulative effects assessment, is the lack of a pre‐industrial baseline. The ACFN’straditional(pre‐Treaty)andTreatyrightsaretiedtoapre‐industriallandscape.Failuretoassess changes caused by industry against this pre‐industrial landscape disregardsinfringement on theACFN’s Rights and fails to provide the ERCB and other regulatorswithinformationessentialtothePublicInterestDetermination.

IntheJPMEassessmentall impactswerecomparedagainstanartificialBaseCasethatconsists of all currently operating projects plus all previously approved (but not yetoperating)projects.SuchaBaseCaseservestomaskanypossibleimpactstheproposedproject would have – especially when applied to the excessively large Regional StudyAreas(RSAs)oftenusedinthisassessment.Theseoverly‐largeRSAsobscurecumulativeeffectsbyincreasingthelikelihoodthatthecontributionofJPME‐relatedimpactswillbeconsiderednegligible.

1 Inthisreport,a“pre‐industrialbaseline”referstoenvironmentalconditionsin1965.ThisdatewasselectedasitisshortlybeforethecommercialproductionofoilsandsbeganintheAthabascaOilSandsRegion.



Another methodological failure in the JPME assessment pertains to Shell’s limitedPlanned Development Case (PDC). The Planned Development Case is supposed toinclude all known and reasonably expected projects (i.e., those with applications forapprovalandanyprojectspubliclyannouncedatthetimethattheEIAwasprepared–projectsdisclosed since July2007werenot included in theassessment). ThePDCalsoincludes the JPME and all existing and approved projects (known as the ‘ApplicationCase’). However, for the JPME, the PDC assessment only included those potentialimpactsthatweredeemedsignificantintheApplicationCase(theJPMEandallexistingandapprovedprojects)assessment.ShellcarriedoutaPDCassessmentonlywhentheJPME‐related impacts predicted for the Application Case were rated greater thannegligible, in the local or regional scale. Shell’s PDC Case represents their cumulativeeffects assessment. Shell’s approach reflects a fundamental failure to comprehend orimplementtheconceptofcumulativeeffectsassessment,andfailstoprovidetheERCBandotherregulatorswithessentialinformation.

Shell’s artificially high Base Case and limited PDC constitute an unreasonable andunacceptable approach to cumulative effects assessment and the outcome is a biasedanduninformativeassessment.Shellpresumesthatbecausetheeffectsrelatedtopastprojectsweredeterminedtobeof lowenvironmentalconsequence,thattheeffectsoftheJPMEwillnotbesignificant.TheACFNrejectthislogic.

It is important that industry followsoundpracticeswhenassessingproject impacts. Inthe JPME assessment, there aremany instanceswhere the assessments are based onweakorunsupportedassumptionsorusepoorscientificmethods.Examplesincludetheunsupported assumptions that reclamation will be successful, and arbitraryenvironmentalconsequenceratingsthatdonotprovideassurancesthattheACFNTreatyrightswillbeprotectedandsustained intothefuture.TheACFNrejectthese lessthancredible assessmentmethods.Whenplanning a project in an area used by traditionalpeoples for millennia, it is essential that the traditional and ecological knowledge ofthesepeoplebeconsideredatgreat length.TraditionalKnowledge(TK)wasnotwidelyconsidered intheJPMEapplicationandassessment,andonat leastoneoccasion,wasdiscounted2. The lack of TK included in the EIA is a methodological failing; furthercontent‐specificconcernsrelatingtotraditionalknowledgeandlanduseareidentifiedintheTraditionalLandUse/TraditionalKnowledgesegment(Section4.11)ofthisreport.ShellshouldconcludetheworkonACFN’sTK/TLUand incorporatethiswork intotheEIAbeforeproceedingwiththeapplication.

If theACFN’s TK information is not used, specific steps and commitments need to bedefinedwithShellonhowandwhen itwillbeapplied,andhow itsapplicationwillbeassessed.

2Shellpredictsthatblackbearandmoosepopulationswouldincreaseovertime,despitereportstothecontraryfromtrappersandotherFirstNationspeopleandwiththeresultsofotherregionalmodeling.



4.1.3 ConcernsandRequests

In addition to the aforementioned concerns, the following EIAmethodology concernsandrequestswereidentified:

1. Athabasca Chipewyan FirstNation’s TK and TLUnot used. The project applicationandEIAdonotmakegooduseoftheavailableTKandTLUinformation.Thereisnodemonstration in the EIA that TK and TLU were considered in the rating ofenvironmentalconsequencesorinthechoicesofmitigations.

Requests:

i. Re‐assesstheimpactsoftheproposedprojectusingapre‐industrialbaselineandfullyintegratingavailableTKandTLUinformation,includingtheupdatedTraditionalUseStudy.

ii. Clearly identify all instances where TK and TLU changes the outcome ofenvironmentalconsequenceratings.

iii. Incorporate TK and TLU into the development ofmitigation strategies, andidentifyallinstancesthischangesthemitigationortheapproach.

2. Impact description criteria do not consider confidence in the final impact rating.Shellclassifiesproject‐relatedimpactsformostEIAcomponentsusingthefollowingquantification criteria to determine environmental consequence: direction,magnitude, geographic extent, duration, reversibility, and frequency (Volume 3,Section 1.3.6.1, page 1‐33, Table 1.3‐4). While ‘confidence’ is used as an initialassessmentcriterion, it isnotusedinthedeterminationofthefinal impactratingsand therefore there is no quantification of uncertainty. Predictionswith a low (oreven moderate) ‘confidence’ rating should influence the final classification ofproject‐relatedimpacts;and,assuch,shouldbeincludedintheImpactDescriptionCriteriatable.

Request:

Provide confidence ratings in the final impact ratings, including in the summarytable(Table1.3‐4).

3. Pre‐industrial baselines not included. The current Base Case assessment scenariodoesnotsupportanacceptablecumulativeeffectsassessment.Shellstatesthatthe“BaseCase includesconsiderationoftheexistingenvironmentalconditionsaswellas existing and approved projects or activities within the study area” (Volume 3,Section 1.3.3).While AENV accepts pre‐existing disturbance in the definition of aBase Case, this practice does not allow for a true elucidation and examination ofimpactstoACFNtreatyRightsandtraditionallivelihood.



By using an artificial Base Case, the assessment is incapable of determining andassessingtheimpactsofactivitiesthathavetakenplaceuptothepresentseparatefromtheapprovedprojectsasthere isnopre‐industrialor ‘undeveloped’scenarioforcomparison.Incrementalimpactsfromeachnewprojectintheregionadverselyaffect local and regional environmental conditions. Shell’s use of artificially highbaselinesmasksthetruemagnitudeofenvironmentalimpacts.InthecontextoftheACFN’s constitutionally‐protected rights, thepredictedchanges for theprojectarenearmeaninglessifitisnotalsounderstoodhowmuchchangehasalreadyoccurred– not just what might occur if all the approved projects are operating at theirmaximum extent. This only serves to minimize the impacts of each new project.Historical surveys, satellite data, and air photos are available for most keyparametersforthepre‐industrialdisturbanceperiod.

Other EIAs3 have used a ‘hypothetical baseline”where the impacts of existing oilsandsprojectsareliftedoffandthepolygonsjoinedtogether.Thisapproachallowsformoreaccurateevaluationsofcurrentimpacts(andthedeterminationofwhetheror not these are already significant). This also allows for a more meaningfulassessment of the impacts of the proposed project using the commonly usedassessment scenarios: project‐only, project and the approved, and project withapprovedandallplannedindustrialprojects.

Requests:

i. Repeat key assessments within the EIA based on a pre‐industrial baseline,incorporatingthelatestTLUinformation.

ii. Update the PDCagainst the pre‐industrial baseline, using currently availableprojectdata.

iii. Provide documentation that Shell has obtained the ACFN’s verification ofShell’sinterpretationoftheACFN’sdata.

4. Regional Study Area too large. The large size of the Regional Study Area (RSA)obscuresthecumulativeeffectsby increasingtheprobabilitythatthecontributionofproject‐relatedeffectswillbeassessedas‘negligible’.

In addition, the ‘one size fits all’ approach used in this assessment does notmeaningfully address effects on all receptors. For example, a wildlife RSAappropriate for large roaming animals such asmoose is inappropriate for smalleranimalssuchasbeaverandCanadiantoad.Thesameflawinmethodisapparentforvegetationandaquaticresources.

TheentireterrestrialLSArepresentslessthanonepercentoftheRSA.Therefore,itis impossible fora local‐scale impacttobesignificantattheregionalscale (even if100%oftheLSA).

3Petro‐Canadausedapre‐industrialbaselineintheassessmentoftheirMacKayRiverExpansionProject.



Requests:

i. Documentthepurposeandprocess forthesizingofanRSA,andexplainhowarea‐basedkeyindicatorresources(KIRs)couldbesignificantintheRSA.

ii. Reassess the impacts on wildlife using LSAs and RSAs appropriate for eachspecies.

5. Assumptions that reclamation will be successful are unsupported. In manyinstances, Shell’s reclamation plans involve assumptions that ecosystems will bereclaimed with a capability equivalent to pre‐disturbance, with little mention oflandscapediversity.Shellreliesonunspecifiedandlong‐termtimelinesto“support”the assumption that biodiversity would eventually be restored, and uses a ‘farfuture’ time frame that is unspecified for the reversibility of some of the projectimpacts.Shellcorrectlystatesthatforanyreclaimedecosystem,thereareanumberof potential pathways. Yet Shell assumes that ecosite phases would be restored,mitigatingthelossesinhabitatandspeciesdiversity.

These reclamation assumptions do not seem to be supported by any data orexperience on a similar scale of disturbance. By using a low diversity reclaimedlandscape in an unspecified time‐line as a goal, Shell can confidently claim thatreclamationwillbesuccessfulandthatmostimpactswillbereversible.Thereisnocertainty,however,thatthisclaimcanbemetinreality.

Requests:

i. Identifywhattimeframeisconsideredtobe‘farfuture’forfullreversibilityofimpactsoftheproject.

ii. ExplainwhyecositephasesareusedintheassessmentcalculationsandwildlifemodelseventhoughShelladmitsthatitisnotpossibletopredictthefinalcommunitytype.

iii. IfShellmaintainsthatecositephaseswillberestored(includingthedominantforbs),thenprovidespecifictargets(numberofspecies,speciescomposition,coveretc.)foreachecositephase/wetlandtypetomonitorandevaluatereclamationsuccess.

iv. If Shell admits that ecosite phases will not be restored, then re‐analyze thedatausing“ecositeanalogues”orsomeothercategorythatindicatesthelackofsimilarityandunpredictabilityofthefinallandscape.

v. Explain how Shell overcomes the fact that theapproval of end pit lakes hasbeensubjecttotestand,asyet,nosuchtesthasbeensuccessfullycompleted.

vi. Explain how Shell plans to incorporate the objective expressed in the ERCBDirective074(tominimizeandeventuallyeliminatelong‐termstorageoffluidtailingsinthereclamationlandscape)withthisapplication.



6. Long‐term monitoring and mitigation not fully addressed. Monitoring may notdetectproblems(suchaswithreclamation,animalorplantrepopulation,orseepageofcontaminatedwaterintothegroundwater)formanydecades.Detectionmaybetoo late for adaptive management, especially in the case of groundwatercontamination. However, the application includes few details on long‐termmonitoringormitigationplans–includingactionplanstoaddresscontingencies.

It is importanttotheACFNthattheyare involved inthedesignofmonitoringandresearch plans. Shell has not discussed its plans for environmentalmonitoring fortheproposedprojectwiththeACFN,includingmanyelementssuchaswaterquality,groundwater, wildlife, and reclamation. Shell suggests that theACFN’s request toreview monitoring and research plans might be discussed as part of futurenegotiations towardsanagreement.Establishinga transparentprocess todevelopmonitoringprogramsthatallowformeaningfulFirstNations inputshouldbedoneprior to ERCB adjudication about whether the project is in the Public Interest. Amonitoringplanneedstobeprovidedforeachenvironmentalcomponentaspartofthe project application information to assure regulators and the ACFN that theprogramwould address the needs of theACFN and thatmitigation strategies areeffective.

Requests:

i. Addresslong‐termmonitoringandmitigationofimpactsthatmaytakeyears,evendecades,tobedetected.

ii. Providepreliminarymonitoringplansoroutlinesofmonitoringplansforeachmajorenvironmentaldiscipline(wherenotalreadyprovidedintheapplication)for the JPME. Discuss Shell’s commitment to provide the ACFN with theopportunity to review and make recommendations about these monitoringandresearchplanspriortoahearing.

7. Environmental consequences ratings for high magnitude impact unclear. There islittleguidanceonwhatconstituteshigh,medium,orlowimpactsforenvironmentalconsequenceratings;differentEIAshavedifferentthresholds,somehighlyarbitrary.Shell has chosen 20% as the cutoff for highmagnitude impacts for the JPME EIA,which the ACFN consider too high. Other recent EIAs have had high magnitudeimpactssetlowerat10%and14%.

Request:

ExplainwhyShellhas chosen20%as the cutoff forhighmagnitude impacts formany parameters, including the scientific basis for this number. Provide peer‐reviewedreferences,documentationthattheACFNhavehadthesepeer‐reviewedreferences provided to them, and that the ACFN have verified this assessmentcriterion.



8. Environmental consequences ratings for reversible impacts unclear. In the JPMEAENV SIR 374 (Shell JPME Supplemental Information, First Round SIR Responses,December 2009), Alberta Environment questions the application of a (‐3)reversibilityratingaspartoftheenvironmentalconsequencesratingssystem(fromTable1.3‐4,Volume3,Section1.3.6.2,page1‐37).Shell respondedbystatingthat“A numeric score of (0) for reversibility would not account for the ecologicalendpoint’s potential ability to recover, and would overstate the environmentalconsequencefortheendpoint”.

The Impact Description Criteria denotes (0) as no or negligible impacts formagnitude, geographic extent, duration, and frequency; however, (0) forreversibilityisusedforpartiallyreversibleimpacts.Theconsequenceofthisscaleisthata‘reversible’impact(+3)outweighstheimpactofaregionalgeographicextent(+2), long term impacts (+2), or continuous frequency (+2). Therefore, a negativeenvironmentalimpactcouldbecomeapositiveimpactifitisdeemedreversible.

Request:

Explain, in biological terms, how a reversible impact could be a positive force,rather than a neutral force, including the scientific basis for these numbers.Provide peer‐reviewed references, and documentation that the ACFN have hadthesepeer‐reviewedreferencesprovidedtothemandthattheACFNhaveverifiedtheseassessmentcriteria.

4.2 CumulativeEffects

4.2.1 Overview

Asdiscussedabove(Section4.1),ShelldidnotproperlyassessthecumulativeeffectsoftheJPMEincombinationwithothercompleted,existing,andplannedregionalprojectson the environment, and with consideration of traditional lands, traditional use, andRightsoftheACFN.


Cumulative Effects Review of Shell Pierre River Mine and Shell Jackpine MineExpansionProjects forAthabascaChipewyanFirstNation,August2010,byDanielSmithofDSEnvironmentalConsultingInc.–attachedtothisreportasAppendixD‐2.


Cumulativeeffectsare the long‐termchanges thatmayoccurnotonlyasa resultofasingle impactbutthecombinedeffectsofeachsuccessive impactontheenvironment.



These incremental impactsmaybesignificanteventhoughthe impactsofeachaction,when independently assessed, are considered insignificant. Concerns about thecumulative effects of industrial activity in the region and the management of theseeffectshavebeenraisedateachprojecthearingoverthepasttwodecadesandbytheACFNinallcommunicationswithregulatorsconcerningnewprojects.

Anaccuratepre‐industrialbaselineagainstwhichimpactscanbeassessedisrequiredtorealistically predict cumulative impacts from industrial projects in the Athabasca OilSands Region. Also important aremeaningful assessment cases that, when comparedwith one another andwith a true baseline, reveal environmental changes. As alreadystatedinSection4.1ofthisreport,ShellfailedtoassesscumulativeeffectsfortheJPME.

The cumulative effects assessment required by the Terms of Reference is limited andinadequate,yetShellfailstoachieveeventhisminimalcondition.CurrentlytheAlbertagovernment supports cumulative assessments that take a narrow, project‐specificapproach,examiningcumulativeeffectspredominantlywhentheproject inquestion ispredictedtohaveasignificanteffectatalocalscale.However,cumulativeeffectscanberelatively insignificantat theproject‐scale,but significantat larger scalesof spaceandtime.

Inaninformativeandaccuratecumulativeassessment,Shellwouldfirstneedtoconsiderthe current baseline,which should be inventoried and comparedwith a pre‐industrialbaseline to determine if the degree of change in detected impacts are acceptable.Secondly Shell would verify that the anticipated impacts of the approved project areacceptable,giventhenewbaseline.Finally,thenewpredictedimpactsoftheproposedprojectwouldbeassessedandtestedagainstcurrentand‘approved’cases.

TheEIA, including thecumulativeeffectsassessment, isnarrowly scopedand,as such,failstoaddressissuesrelatedtoACFNRightsandtraditionaluse.Therearenoregionalmanagementtargets,policyguidelines,orthresholdsforthemajorityofthetraditionalresources important to the ACFN; such objectives are necessary to ensure traditionalresourcesaresustainedatlevelswhichwouldallowtheACFNtopracticetheirRights.Inabsence of these targets, guidelines, and thresholds, Shell’s impact predictions andpromisestomonitorandrestoreenvironmentalimpactsareoflittleworth.

Inadditiontomethodological failures, thisreport identifiesspecificdeficienciesrelatedtotheJMPEcumulativeeffectsassessment.OfgreatconcerntotheACFNarethemanydeficiencieswhichresultinaninaccurateassessmentofimpactsthatwouldaffecttheirability to use their traditional lands and to exercise their Rights with respect totraditionaluse.Specificconcernsrelatedtocumulativeeffectsareidentifiedthroughoutthisreport,accordingtosubjectmatter.



4.3 Groundwater

4.3.1 Overview

Several of the activities associated with the Jackpine Mine Expansion Project (JPME)wouldimpactthegroundwaterresourcesintheprojectarea,andpossiblyonaregionalscale.

ThekeyenvironmentalissuesarisingfromtheJPMEwithrespecttogroundwaterare:

Changesingroundwaterlevels,flows,flowdirections,andquality;

Hydrologicalimpactsmayinturnaffectaquaticresources,includingsurfacewaterflows,surfacewaterquality,wetlands,andterrestrialvegetation;

Long‐lastingandadverseimpactsongroundwaterquality(anditspotentialusebyACFNmembers)duetoseepagefromtheexternaltailingsdisposalarea(EDTA);

Long‐lasting and adverse impacts on groundwater quality and availability (and itspotentialusebyACFNmembers).

Forcompletedetails,pleaserefertothefulltechnicalreviewreports:

ShellJackpineMineExpansionProject–EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReport– Review for Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation – Groundwater Component –September 2008, by Lew Fahner of Agua Consulting, attached to this report asAppendixD‐3.

Shell JackpineMineExpansionandPierreRiverMineProjectsResponsestoACFNSIRs–EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReportReviewforAthabascaChipewyanFirst Nation – Groundwater Component, August 2009, by Lew Fahner of AguaConsulting,attachedtothisreportasAppendixD‐4.


Severalcomputermodelsimulationshavebeenusedtopredictproject‐related impactsonareagroundwaterresources.Thevariousparametersused inthemodelsarewithinacceptable limitsandShelloftenuses “worst caseconditions” toprovide conservativepredictions. Computermodeling predictions are always subject to possible errors as aresult of the hydrogeological uncertainties in a complex environment, and hence thepotential impacts could be under‐ or over‐estimated. Ongoing groundwater level andgroundwater chemistry monitoring is necessary to ensure computer‐predicted resultsarevalid.

The proposed mitigation measures are not unreasonable to prevent contamination;however,confirmationthatthesemitigationstrategieswork,especiallythoserelatedtoreclamationand themineclosure landscape, is essential.Alsoessential is the need to



understandandaddresstheimpactstogroundwaterthattakeplaceovertime,throughmonitoring,reporting,andmitigationplanning,andmanagementresponse.

In response to technical questions from theACFN, Shellwould not commit to specificaction regarding groundwater incident reporting, and was not willing to presentgroundwatermonitoringdatainasimplifiedformatforeasierreviewbytheACFN.Boththe incident reporting and data presentation should be provided now so they can beconsidered as part of the project application – the ERCB and other regulators cannotassess thePublic Interestaspectsof thisapplicationwithout fulldisclosure of relevantinformation.


Thefollowinggroundwaterconcernsandrequestswereidentified:

9. ImpactsofETDAongroundwaternotassessed.TheJMPE’sExternalTailingsDisposalArea(ETDA)wouldbefilledby2024,andreclamationisplannedfor2065whentheETDAwouldbecappedandreclaimed.TheETDAwouldseeptailingsliquidsintotheground forcloseto40years (ormore).Also,becausethisETDA(andothersimilartailingsstorage/disposalareas)wouldbeelevatedwithrespecttothesurroundingareas,theETDAwouldeffectivelybecomeanelevatedgroundwaterrechargezone.The added elevation (about 60 metres) would increase the hydraulic pressureexerteddownwardsonthetailingsliquidsforcingthemintotheunderlyingstrata.

Process‐affected seepage from the ETDA could be expected to enter the shallowsurficial deposits (Quaternary) and possibly the Basil Aquifer as well. Once theprocess‐affected seepage reaches these deposits it would enter into the local orregional groundwater flow system, reducing the quality of groundwater releases.The Pleistocene Channel Aquifer beneath the ETDA would become a preferentialflowpathforprocess‐affectedgroundwaterwhichmayflowtowardsKearlLakeortheKearlCompensationLake.Shellplansto interceptandpumpoutcontaminatedgroundwaterback into the tailingsdisposalpond.Thismay reduce,butwouldnoteliminate contamination reaching surfacewater interfaces. Themagnitude of theseepageisdifficulttopredict.Althoughthequalityofprocess‐affectedgroundwaterwould gradually improve over time (if no further contamination occurs), theimprovements in quality would be very slow. It could take many decades, if notcenturies, to fully remediate the impactsongroundwaterquality from the tailingspondseepages.

Requests:

i. Identify the impact of ETDA on the discharge of tailings liquids intogroundwater.

ii. Identifyengineeringmethodsavailabletoreducethisdischargetozero.



iii. Explain why reclamation of the ETDA would require 40 years or more afterfillingiscomplete.

iv. IdentifythetimeperiodestimatesforfullremediationofgroundwaterqualityfromETDAseepages,andthebasisfortheseestimates.

10. GroundwaterincidentreportingtotheACFNunconfirmed.ItisunclearwhethertheACFNwouldbeadvisedofanyunexpectedchangesingroundwaterquantityand/orquality.

Discussion:

ShellstatesitwoulddiscussgroundwaterincidentreportingwiththeACFNaspartoffuturenegotiationstowardsanagreement.Shellneedstodealwiththisnow,asanessentialpartoftheapplication;notaspartofsomefuturenegotiations.

Requests:

i. DiscusshowtheACFNwouldbeadvisedofanygroundwater incidentsattheJPMEthatarereportedtogovernmentagencies.

ii. Explainwhy Shell does not think that impacts on groundwater (and thus onpresentandfutureusersofthatgroundwater)arenotpartoftheERCB’sPublicInterestDetermination.

11. Commitment to presenting groundwater monitoring data to the ACFN unclear.Groundwatermonitoringmust demonstrate that project activities are proceedingwithout unacceptable impacts on the groundwater resources in the area. Thepredicted impacts of the project on groundwater are based on computermodelsthathaveinherentuncertainty.

Discussion:

Shell indicates that the “predictions and conclusions presented in this EIA aretherefore not considered sensitive to the degree of hydrogeological predictionuncertaintyassociatedwithchangesingroundwaterdischargefromtheQuatenarydepositstosurfacewater”(Volume4A,Section6.3.2.11,page6‐63).

ShellincludedaproposedgroundwatermonitoringprograminVolume4B,Appendix4‐9, Section 2.1. The proposed monitoring program has not been designed toconfirm computer‐predicted results and professional judgments on impacts ongroundwaterresources.Itisimportanttoconfirmthatthepredictedimpactsarenotunder‐estimated,especiallyontraditional‐useland.

InresponsetoACFN’stechnicalquestiononthis issue,Shellstateditmayagreetoreassessmitigationmeasuresaspartoffuturenegotiationsbuttheydidnotexpress



any willingness to simplify the presentation of groundwater monitoring data foreasierreviewbyACFNcommunityresidents.

Shellshoulddealwiththisnow.Anyre‐assessmentofproposedmitigationmeasuresmust be done as part of the project assessment, not deferred for "futurenegotiations".

Requests:

i. CommittopresentinggroundwatermonitoringdatatotheACFNinaformthatwill gain the ACFN’s confidence by demonstrating that the groundwatermonitoringisaccurateandresponsivetopotentialimpacts.ThisshouldincludecomparisonswithdatafromShell’sexistingoperations.

ii. Explain why Shell does not think that data on groundwater quantity andqualityshouldnotbeheldinthepublicdomainwhenthatresourceisused(ormay be used in the future) by Treaty and Aboriginal rights‐bearing FirstNations,includingtheACFN.

12. Groundwater contamination transport within the region poorly understood. Shellacknowledgesthattheprojectcouldcontributetogroundwaterqualityimpactsasaresultofanumberof factors (i.e. ETDAseepages,pitbackfill, reclamationeffects,and plant facility construction and operations). 3‐D models were developed forsolutetransportatalocalscale(seeVolume4,Appendix4‐1,Section1.3),butsolutetransportmodellingwasnotdoneonaregionalscale.Theimpacttosurfacewatersfromthelocal‐scaletransportthatwasmodelledwasjudgedbyShelltobeminimal.Thisisunverifiedbyfielddata.Extensivegroundwatermonitoringwouldhavetobecarriedouttoverifythisconclusionandtoconfirmthatthequalityofthesoluteinthe groundwater potentially being discharged to the surface waterbodies (andstreams)asbaseflowdoesnotexceedanticipatedconcentrations.Additionalworkshouldalsobedonetoassesssolutetransportataregionalscale.

Requests:

i. Assess the impact of solution transport of contaminated groundwater onsurfacewaterintheregionusinga3‐Dsolutetransportmodel.

ii. DiscussShell’splanstomonitorandverifytheresultsofthelocalscalesolutetransportmodelling.

iii. DiscussShell’scommitmenttoregionalgroundwatermodeling.

iv. Discuss Shell’s commitment to a timely and coordinated managementresponseifissuesareidentifiedinthelocalorregionalmonitoring.



13. Access and use of traditional groundwater sources may be impacted. ACFNmembers could be impacted by the loss of groundwater sources (waterwells,muskegs, or springs) usedwhen visiting traditional lands located in the proposedmine site or the immediate surrounding area. Shallow groundwater from fens isoften used during traditional pursuits as a water source as the inflow‐outflow ofgroundwatermakesitsuitableforconsumption.Groundwatersourcesintheminingareawouldbepermanentlyimpactedand/orbemadeunsuitableforfurtheruse.Groundwater sources located in the surrounding area may be permanently ortemporarily impacted and may be unsuitable for further use after closure andreclamation.

Discussion:

InresponsetoACFN’stechnicalquestiononthisissue,Shellindicatesitisnotawareofanygroundwateruse,otherthanpossiblyattrappers’cabins. IfACFNmembersuse4 groundwater from the Local Study Area then the assessment may notadequatelydetermineimpactsontheirtraditionaluseandontheirRights.

Request:

Confirm that Shell has discussed the possible locations of groundwater sourcesusedbyACFNmembersinamannerthatensuresthatACFNmembersareawarethat thewater sources they use are in fact groundwater‐dependent (e.g., fens)andmaybeaffectedby theproject.Provide thedocumentation indicatingboththatthisinformationexchangehasoccurred,andthattheACFNhaveverifiedthisexchange.

4.4 SurfaceWaterQuality

4.4.1 Overview

The key environmental issues arising from the JPME with respect to surface waterqualityare:

Waterqualityassessmentinadequateduetoimpactsoftenbeingdownplayed;

Unknownproject‐relatedandcumulativeimpactsonKearlLake;

Manywaterqualityuncertaintiesduetopoormethodology;

Unknownproject‐relatedandcumulativeimpactsoftailingspondseepagesandendpitlakedischargesonregionalwaterbodieswaterquality.

4Thisconceptofuseisnotlimitedtotheactualpresentuse,butalsoextendstothepastuseandanypotentialfutureuseaswell.




ShellJackpineMineExpansionProject‐EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReport‐Review for Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, September 25, 2008, by FayWestcott of Clearwater Environmental Consultants, attached to this report asAppendixD‐5.

ShellJackpineMineExpansionProject–ApplicationAmendmentandResponsetotheACFNReview,October2,2009,byFayWestcottofClearwaterEnvironmentalConsultants,attachedtothisreportasAppendixD‐6.


When impacts to water quality are identified in the assessment, their significance isoften downplayed. If benchmarks can be so easily disregarded, then amore stringentmethodofdeterminingbenchmarksmustbeemployed,sothatmeaningfulresultscanbedetermined.


Thefollowingsurfacewaterconcernsandrequestswereidentified:

14. Impacts to Kearl Lake unclear. Shell states (EIA Vol. 4, Section 6.5.5.3) that theintegrated drainage plan for this project (including Kearl Lake) and other projectshasbeenchanged.ItisunclearwhetherKearlLakewasalwaysintendedtoreceivedirectdischargefromtheAuroraSouthEndPitLake.TheACFNhaveraisedconcernswithImperialandSyncrudeontheimpactsto,anduncertaintiesabout,theviabilityandintegrityofKearlLake.

Discussion:

In response to the ACFN’s technical question on this issue, Shell states that thedetails regarding the changes to the integrated drainage plan during Closure arepresentedintheClosureDrainagePlanfortheEIA(Volume4,Appendix4‐3).ShellalsostatesthattheAuroraSouthPitLakedischargewasnotchangedasresultoftheproposed drainage integration, and that the Aurora South Pit Lake was alwaysintendedtodirectlydischargeintoKearlLake.Followingareviewofthissectionofthe EIA, this question remains unanswered, as impacts on the water quality andsedimentqualityofKearlLakearenotdiscussed.

Request:

Provide additional information on the predicted impacts on the water andsedimentqualityofKearlLake.



15. Regulatoryguidelineexceedances inappropriatelyusedas impact thresholds. ShellconcludesthatfortheMuskegRiver,JackpineCreekandKearlLake,theimpactsonwaterqualityare lowtonegligible.Shelloutlines inthe impactdescriptioncriteria(Table1.3‐4)whetheraconstituenthasaguideline.Theimplicationsoftheseratingsdiffersubstantially,suchthatwhenaparameterhasaguidelineassociatedwith it,onlyguidelineexceedancesareconsideredtobesignificant.Allabsoluteincreasesintheactualvaluesarecompletelydiscounted.

Several of the aquatic parameters are predicted to increase by over a degree ofmagnitude,butbecause theguideline isn’texceeded, theyare ratedashavingnoimpact. Substantial changes in water quality may still impact aquatic organisms,even if guidelines are not exceeded, particularlywithin natural systems and not acontrolledlaboratory.

Discussion:

InresponsetotheACFN’stechnicalquestiononthisissue,Shellstatesthatthemoststringentguidelines(AENV,CCMEandUSEPA)wereappliedandthatguidelinesaremeanttoprotectthemostsensitivelifestageofthemostsensitivespeciesoverthelong term. While this may be true, Shell does not address the issue. Absolutechangesinthenumericalvaluesofthewaterqualityparameterswerenotdiscussed.Sole reliance on guideline compliance does not necessarily ensure that theecosystemremainsunimpactedorunchanged.

Request:

Provideadditionaldiscussionontheimpactsofabsoluteincreasesinparameterswithguidelines,irrespectiveofwhetherguidelineexceedancesoccurred.

16. Information in the water quality impact tables insufficient. Although the ratingscriteria used the percentage increase to determine the magnitude of change forwaterqualityconstituents,nopercentageincreasevaluesareprovidedinthetextortables.Asaresult, it isverydifficult tochecktheresultstablesagainsttheratingscriteria to determine how the ratings have been applied and whether they havebeenappliedcorrectly.

Discussion:

InresponsetotheACFN’stechnicalquestiononthisissue,ShellstatesthatthereissufficientinformationfortheACFNtocalculatethepercentagechangeofthedata.This is true, but it isn’t the ACFN’s responsibility to complete tables for the EIA.InformationpresentedintheEIAshouldbeclearandinformativetoRightsholdersand decision makers. Is Shell really requesting that reviewers conduct their ownmanipulationsofthedata?Thecalculationofpercentagechangeanditsapplicationtotheratingscriteriaisaminorpoint;inthebiggerpicture,thisisnotanapproach



thatShell shouldpermit tobeappliedand this tactic shouldnotbecondonednordeemedsufficientbytheregulators.

Request:

Provide the percentage change, as well as the absolute change, in the resultstables for the water quality assessment to allow comparison with the ratingscriteria.

17. Ratings system for constituents with guidelines unclear. Where water qualityguidelineexceedancesarefoundtoresultfromtheproject,itisunclearwhethertheratings criteria use the higher acute guideline or the lower chronic guideline, orboth, to determine the ratings impact. The ratings criteria are vague and givesubjective criteria (low is when the release contributes slightly to existingbackgroundvaluesoverguidelines,mediumisamarginalcontributionandhighisasubstantialcontribution).Thedefinitionsof“slightly”,“marginal”and“substantial”areunclear.

Discussion:

In response to theACFN’s technical question on this issue, Shell clarifies that thechronic guideline is appliedwhen both chronic and acute guidelines are present.Shelldoesnotclarifytheratingssystemprovided intheEIA.Theratingscriteria inthissectionoftheEIAareprovidedaslow(whenthereleasecontributesslightlytoexistingbackgroundvaluesoverguidelines),medium(amarginalcontribution),andhigh (a substantial contribution). Definitions of “slightly”, “marginal” and“substantial”arenotprovidedintheEIAandarenotincludedintheresponsetotheACFNasrequested.Shellstatesthatthesetermswerenotusedto rateguidelinesexceedances. This explanation appears to combine two separate approaches toassessdata:firsttheactualwaterqualityassessment,andthentheuseofthewaterqualitydatainthesubsequentAquaticHealthandHumanHealthcomponents.Thisrequestappliesonlytotheratingsofthewaterqualitycomponent.

Request:

Provide additional rationale and clear criteria for the ratings system whenguidelines are present. Statewhether the rating is provided against changes totheacuteguideline, chronicguidelineorboth.Define “slightly”, “marginal”and“substantial”exceedances.

18. Pit lakes littoralzonestoosmall.Shellstatesthatthe littoralzonesofthepit lakeswould be adequate to provide biological activity and support a viable ecosystem.The littoral zones would be up to 15% of the total area. This is relatively smallcompared to other reclamationwaterbodies, in which generally 20 to 30%of the



area of the lake is comprised of littoral zone. Since the littoral zone is the mostproductive part of a lentic system, its relative area should be maximized, notminimized.

Discussion:

In response to the ACFN’s technical question on this issue, Shell states that thelittoral zones of the pit lakeswould be between 10 to 30% and that exact areaswouldbedeterminedduringthedetaileddesignstage.Thisisaverylargedifferenceandshouldbenarrowedatthisstageoftheprojectassessment.

Request:

Ensurethatlittoralzonesforpitlakesarewithintherangeof20to30%andnotonthelowerendoftheexpectedrange(i.e.10‐15%).

19. Impactsofpit lakedischargeontraditionalwateruseunclear.Shellstatesthatthepit lakes would discharge to surface waters from this project only when waterqualityisofsufficientqualityandwhendischargewaterqualitylimitsaremet.It isunclearwhatisconsideredsufficientqualityandwhatthesedischargelimitswouldbe.Itisreasonabletohopethatthelimitswouldbethesameasthecurrentwaterquality guidelines. However, this is not likely the intent, since at closure, whendischarge would begin, natural concentrations (for many constituents) andguidelines(forPAHgroup2,andiron)maybeexceededinthepitlakes.Additionally,Shell must commit that the Treatment Lake will only discharge into regionalwaterbodiesifdischargewaterqualitylimitsaremet

Discussion:

In response to the ACFN’s technical question on this issue, Shell states that themanagementofpitlakesandtheTreatmentLakewouldmeetdischargecriteriathatare currently being developed by Cumulative Environmental ManagementAssociation(CEMA)andwouldbeenforcedbyAENVinthefuture.

Thereare serious concernsabout theapprovalandconstruction ofmineswithoutcleardetailsandspecificcommitmentsastothequalityofwatertobedischargedbythesepitstotheenvironment.

Requests:

i. Identify how the pit lake release criteria will consider potential impacts ontraditionaluseofwaterdownstreamandtheconsequenteffectsonTreatyandAboriginalrights.

ii. Discuss the role of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and other federalregulators in the selectionof relevant releaseparametersand theprocessof



permittingthereconnectionofpit lakestothewatersheddrainagesystemoftheAthabascaRiver.

20. Pit lake sedimentqualitynotmodelled. Shellprovides the sedimentqualityof theMatureFineTailings(MFT)tobeaddedtothebottomofthepitlakes,butdoesnotcharacterizethesedimentqualityofthelakesatthetimeofclosure.Similarly,inthepitlakewhereMFTwillnotbestored,thesedimentshavenotbeencharacterized.Itisunacceptablethatthesehavenotbeenmodeled.Inadditiontobeingrequiredaspart of the Directive 074 annual reporting (item 14 of Appendix E), thesecharacterizationsareessentialaspectsofthePublicInterestconsideration.

Discussion:

InresponsetotheACFN’stechnicalquestiononthisissue,ShellstatesthattheMFTthatwouldbeaddedtothepit lakes isexpectedtobecomparabletotheMFTforexistingoil sandsoperations.However,everyoil sandsoperation isdifferent,withvariationsingeologyandextractionandprocessingmethods.Thereforethewastes,including the MFT, will be unique. Regardless, the question asked was what thesediment quality of the pit lakeswould be at closure, not the quality of theMFTinitiallyadded.

Requests:

i. Describecharacterizationofpitlakesedimentatclosure.

ii. DescribehowthestorageofMFTinpitlakescorrespondstotheperformancerequirements of ERCB Directive 074 and more generally how this unproventechnologycorrespondswiththeobjectiveofminimizingtheretentionoffluidtailingsinthereclamationlandscape.

iii. Describe Shell’s environmental and economic liabilities associated with theretentionofmixedfluid‐containingstructuresinareclamationlandscape.

21. Cumulative effects of the discharges from multiple end pit lakes into regionalwaterbodies not adequately assessed. Shell did not adequately assess thecumulativeeffectofsimultaneouswaterdischargefrommultipleendpitlakesintoregional waterbodies. Many of the region’s oil sands projects are operating onsimilartimelinesandconsequentlywillhavepit lakesworkingatthesametime. Ifseveral end pit lakes are discharged within similar timeframes into regionalwaterbodies,suchasKearlLake,theremaybeincrementalincreasesincontaminantandnutrientloadingstotheseregionalwaterbodies,possiblyimpactingtheirwaterquality. The lack of guidelines for the release of pit lake waters adds to theuncertainties related to contaminant concentrations of regional water quality.Dilutingwaterqualityconstituentstobelowguidelineslevelsdoesnotdiminishthe



issue of the incremental and cumulative effects ofmultiple releases on receivingwaters.

Requests:

i. Discuss the current status of the testing of end pit lakes, as a provisionallyapproved mining feature, and prospective options to displace this as yetunproventechnology.

ii. Assess the cumulative impact of the discharges of multiple pit lakes in theregion on water quality in regional waterbodies and on downstreamecosystems.

iii. Identify how the cumulative impact of multiple pit lakes discharges in theregion would affect the ACFN’s Rights and traditional use of the regionalwaterbodies.

22. Cumulative impacts on regional waterbodies from process‐affected seepage notassessed. Tailings ponds (both in‐pit and out‐of‐pit varieties) are amajor physicalfeatureofconventionaloilsandsoperations.Currentestimatesarethatthepresentpondscontain840000Mm3ofcontaminatedwater(ERCB,2010).TheJPMEwouldaddtothis inventory.Theseponds leakandthe seepage isknowntocontaminateunderlying groundwater and contribute toxins from baseflow to regionalwaterbodies. The current and future cumulative effect of all the current andplanned tailings ponds in the region on regional waterbodies is unknown. Theresidual impacts on groundwater and surface waters could last decades, if notcenturies,afterthesepondsareclosedandreclaimed.

Requests:

i. Identifytheimpactofthecumulativeeffectsofregionaltailingsseepageongroundwaterandsurfacewaterqualityandondownstreamecosystemsagainstapre‐industrialbaseline.

ii. DiscusshowthecumulativeimpactsofregionaltailingsseepagewillaffecttheACFN’sRightsanduseoftraditionalresources.

4.5 AquaticHealthandFish/FishHabitat

4.5.1 Overview

ThekeyenvironmentalissuesarisingfromtheJPMEwithrespecttofishandfishhabitatandaquatichealthare:



Disregarded impacts of predicted exceedances of toxicological benchmarks foraquatichealthandfishtissueanalyses;

Several constituents (total dissolved solids, aluminum, cadmium, chromium,strontium, and iron) were found to exceed the benchmarks for aquatic healthwithintheMuskegRiverwatershedandthepitlake;

Mercury contamination in the Compensation Lake was neither discussed norassessedintheEIA;

Serious concerns about the approval and construction of mines without a clearunderstanding of the fish habitat compensation plan. A large number ofuncertainties related to the No Net Loss Plan (NNP) and the ConceptualCompensationPlan(CCP);

Unknown impacts of loss and diversions of watershed and upper portions of theMuskegRiverintheregion;

Unknown project‐related and cumulative impacts of tailings pond seepages andendpitlakedischargesonaquaticsandfishofregionalwaterbodies.


ShellJackpineMineExpansionProject‐EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReport‐Review for Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, September 25, 2008, by FayWestcott of Clearwater Environmental Consultants, attached to this report asAppendixD‐5.

ShellJackpineMineExpansionProject–ApplicationAmendmentandResponsetotheACFNReview,October2,2009,byFayWestcottofClearwaterEnvironmentalConsultants,attachedtothisreportasAppendixD‐6.

Shell Pierre River Project Conceptual FishHabitat Compensation Plan Review forAthabasca Chipewyan First Nation, September 25, 2008, by Fay Westcott ofClearwaterEnvironmentalConsultants,attachedtothisreportasAppendixD‐7.


As with the surface water quality assessments, when impacts were identified, theirsignificance was often downplayed. For example, several constituents (e.g., totaldissolved solids, aluminum, cadmium, chromium, strontium, and iron) were found toexceed thebenchmarks foraquatichealth,but the impactswereconsiderednegligiblebecause the benchmarks did not really represent an impacted state or were notappropriate for the area. In addition, othermetals, forwhich impactswere predicted,were considered to be overestimated due to the conservative assumptions used tocompletetheassessment.

The Conceptual Compensation Plan (CCP) puts forward a combined plan for both thePRMandJPMEprojects.Thehabitatunitsandactualproductivecapacityoffishhabitat



tobelostineitherthePRMorJPMEprojectswerenotdeterminedatthisstage,norwasthe productive capacity of the proposed compensation habitats. The proposedcompensationwouldbeaconstructedreservoirandtwoengineeredchannels,whichareintendedtocompensateforthehabitatlossesforbothprojects.SimilartootherregionalmineCCPs,themajorityofthecompensationappearstobeforlacustrinehabitat,whilethemajorityoflosseswouldbeforriverinehabitat.Withoutadditionalinformation,andinparticular,habitatunit information, it isnot possible toassess theadequacyof thiscompensation plan. The issue ofmercury contamination of thewaters and fish in thereservoir was raised in the NNL planning process but was not discussed in theassessmentofthisproject.


The following aquatic health and fish / fish habitat concerns and requests wereidentified:

23. Benchmark exceedances of several aquatic health constituents dismissed. Theresultsoftheaquatichealthandfishtissueanalysisfoundthatseveralconstituents(totaldissolvedsolids,aluminum,cadmium,chromium,strontium,and iron)wouldexceedthetoxicologicalbenchmarks.However,thesefindingsareratedashavinganegligible impactonaquatichealthwhichShell justified inseveralways, including:the benchmarks do not really represent an impacted state, baseline levels arealready high, or the benchmarks are overestimated due to the conservativeassumptionsusedtocompletetheassessment.

If the benchmarks can be so easily disregarded, then perhaps a more stringentmethodofdeterminingbenchmarksshouldbeemployed,sothatmeaningfulresultscanbedetermined.

Discussion:

In response to the ACFN’s technical question on this issue, Shell states that thequestion is a statement of disagreement with their methods, and should bediscussedfollowingcompletionofthetechnicalreview. Itisunclearwhyjustificationoftheirmethodologycannotbeprovided inresponsestotheACFNquestions.Thepurposeof thisquestion is to identifyagap in theassessmentand to request theinformationtofillthatgap.

Requests:

i. Provide appropriate and meaningful pre‐industrial benchmarks for aquatichealth constituents, such that compliance and non‐compliance can be betterassessed.

ii. Discussthecurrentutilityofthesebenchmarks,howtheymaybeimprovedinthefuture.



iii. DescribeShell’scommitmenttoimprovethescienceinthiscriticalinputtotheERCB’spublicinterestdetermination.

24. Assessment on aquatic health for benchmark exceedances lacking. SeveralmetalsarepredictedtoexceedtheirbenchmarkswithintheLocalStudyArea(LSA)andthepitlakes,includingtotaldissolvedsolids,aluminum,cadmium,chromium,strontium,andiron.Whiletheimpactsareratedintermsofduration,frequency,locationetc.,noinformationontheactualimpactsoftheseexceedancesisincluded.Itisessentialtoknowthepotentialimpactsofthemetals,individuallyandsynergistically,onthesurvival,growth,reproduction,andbehaviourofaquaticlife.

Discussion:

In response to the ACFN’s technical question on this issue, Shell states that thefindingsoftheassessmentwerethatnoneoftheparameterswouldposelong‐termimpactstoaquatichealth.Anyexceedancesofbenchmarkswereflaggedforfurtherassessment. It isunclearwhatadditionalassessmentoftheseexceedancesShell isplanningonconductingand the timeline for its completion.Thepotential impactson aquatic life were not discussed, apart from the unsupported conclusion thatimpactswouldbenegligible.

Requests:

i. Discuss the potential effects of the predicted benchmark exceedances onaquatichealth.

ii. Describe Shell’s monitoring plan for predicted benchmark exceedances onaquatichealth,bothonleaseandofflease.

iii. Discussthemethodsavailableandtheircoststoreversetheimpactspredicted.

iv. Discuss Shell’s commitment to change its technical methods and associatedemissionsifactualcontaminantlevelsexceedpredictedvalues.

25. Effectsonfishhabitatarenotextrapolatedtofishabundance.WhileShelldiscussesthe impacts on fish habitat as a result of several impact pathways and linkages,thesepotentialchangesarenotextrapolatedtotheimplicationsforfishabundanceor populations. For example, there is no discussion of the implications on fishabundance as a result of the elimination of many of the Local Study Area (LSA)watercourses and waterbodies, and replacement by diversion channels. Becausesome of these channels will be temporary, they will not be built to the samespecifications as closure diversion channels would. Presumably fish abundancewithin the LSA would be reduced until permanent, self‐sustaining channels wereconstructed and capable of supporting fish populations. Similar concerns exist forimpactsofdecreasedfishpassageandaccessibilityonfishabundance.



Discussion:

In response to the ACFN’s technical questions on this issue, Shell states thatadditional information will be provided in their No Net Loss (NNL) Plan, oncecompleted.ShellnotesthattheACFNwithdrewfromtheNNLconsultationprocess.The ACFN are not part of the NNL planning process because it felt the processpresupposesprojectapproval, apresumptionwhich theydidnotwant tosupport.The ACFN were also concerned that constitutionally‐protected Section 35 Rightswould not be considered in the NNL planning process (ACFN IRC, 2009). NNLplanningdoesnotdirectlyaddressthepotentialimpactsofaprojectonTreatyandAboriginalrights‐ instead, itassumesthatatrade‐off isadequatetodealwithanyfisheries‐related concerns. NNL planning does not address the issue of taking upnewlandsfortheconstructionofcompensation lakes,alterationoftheecosystemandlandscape,etc.

Thereareseriousconcernsabouttheapprovalandconstructionofmineswithoutaclear understanding of the impacts on fish and fish habitat, traditional use, andRightsoftheFirstNationsanditsmembersasdiscussedinSection3ofthisreport.

Requests:

i. Discuss the potential impacts of changes to fish habitat, on fish abundance,andlocalandregionalfishpopulations.

ii. Assess the change in impacts if Shell fully adopts the intention of ERCBDirective074andcommitstonoresidualfluidtailings(andthusnoassociatedliabilities)inthereclamationlandscape.

26. Productive capacity of fish habitat not determined. Compensation for fish habitatlosses isbasedontheproductivecapacityof fishhabitat.However, theproductivecapacity of fish habitat has not been determined for any of the habitat lossesproposedasaresultoftheproject.ShellstatesthatthiswillbecompletedaspartofthedetailedNoNetLoss(NNL)Plan.Untiltheproductivecapacityofalltheexistingand compensation habitats have been calculated, it is impossible to determinewhether the compensation efforts proposed are comparable, appropriate, andadequatefortheproject.

Shell states that a lake with an area of 4 km2 is sufficient to provide adequatecompensation.The lengthsofthecompensationchannelswouldbe13and15km.Generally,thisprojectwouldrequireat leasta2:1habitatcompensationratio,butnoinformationisprovidedtodocumentthattheproposedhabitatwouldmeetthisratio.Despitethis,Shellstatesthatanetgainintheproductivecapacityofavailablefishhabitatwouldoccurwithnopredictedadverseimpactsonfishhabitat.Withoutthedetailedhabitatunitinformation,itisimpossibletodeterminewhetherthegoalofnonetlossofproductivecapacitywillbeachieved.



Inaddition,withoutspecies‐specifichabitatlosses,itisnotpossibletodetermineifthe project would exacerbate the stresses and population declines alreadyexperiencedbyseveralfishspeciesintheregion.

Discussion:

In response to the ACFN’s technical questions on this issue, Shell states that theadequacy of the estimated compensation requirements will be confirmed in thefuturewhentheNNLPlanisprepared.ShellnotesthattheACFNwithdrewfromtheNo Net Loss consultation process. The ACFN are not part of the NNL planningprocess because it felt the process presupposes project approval, a presumptionwhich they did not want to support. The ACFN were also concerned thatconstitutionally‐protected Section 35 Rights would not be considered in the NNLplanning process (ACFN IRC, 2009). NNL planning does not directly address thepotential impactsofaprojectonTreatyandAboriginalrights ‐ instead, itassumesthatatrade‐offisadequatetodealwithanyfisheries‐relatedconcerns.Inaddition,the NNL reservoir will not provide compensation for the lost aquatic resource ortraditionaluseastherearesignificantuncertaintiesandagenerallackofconfidenceonthepartoftheACFN intheedibilityandsafetyoffishfromtheNNLpondsandreservoirs.Therefore,thesepondsdonotprovideadequatereplacementforthelostresourceortraditionaluse.Additionally,NNLplanningdoesnotaddresstheissueoftaking up new lands for the construction of compensation lakes, alteration of theecosystemandlandscape,etc.

Thereareseriousconcernsabouttheapprovalandconstructionofmineswithoutaclearunderstandingofthefishhabitatcompensationplan.

Requests:

i. Provide details on the productive capacity of the habitat losses andcompensationhabitat.

ii. Provide all information necessary to prove that the compensation habitatwouldprovideatleasta2:1compensationratio.

iii. Provide species‐specific habitat losses, and discuss these impacts on fishspeciescurrentlyexperiencingstressandpopulationdeclinesintheregion.

iv. Given the uncertainties with the ability of the Compensation Lake toadequately compensate for lost aquatic resources or traditional use, discusshowtheNNLCompensationLakewillimpacttheACFN’sTreatyandAboriginalrights.

v. ProvidetheACFNwiththedraftNoNetLossPlan,whenavailable,forreviewandcomment.



27. Compensationforriverinehabitatlacking.TheConceptualCompensationPlan(CCP)doesnotidentifytheproportionofriverineorlacustrinehabitatunitslostorcreatedasaresultof theproject.Presumably, themajorityof fishhabitat losseswouldbefrom riverine habitat. However, the CCP can be assumed to consist primarily oflacustrinehabitat.Moreefforttocreatingriverinehabitatmaybewarranted.Whileopportunities for compensation in the form of newly created riverine habitat orenhancementofexistinghabitatmaybelimitedintheregion,thisisnotdiscussedintheCCP.Noexplanationisgivenforwhymoreriverinehabitatcannotberecreatedlocally or enhanced regionally in order to replace lost habitat with like habitat.Furtherassessmentofoptionstocreateriverinehabitatiswarranted.

Discussion:

In response to the ACFN’s technical questions on this issue, Shell states that thisshouldbediscussedaspartoftheNoNetLoss(NNL)consultationprocess.TheACFNare not part of theNNL planning process because it felt the process presupposesprojectapproval,apresumptionwhichtheydidnotwanttosupport.TheACFNwerealso concerned that constitutionally‐protected Section 35 Rights would not beconsidered in theNNL planning process (ACFN IRC, 2009).NNL planning does notdirectlyaddressthepotentialimpactsofaprojectonTreatyandAboriginalrights‐instead, it assumes that a trade‐off is adequate to dealwith any fisheries‐relatedconcerns.NNLplanningdoesnotaddress the issueof takingupnew lands for theconstructionofcompensationlakes,alterationoftheecosystemandlandscape,etc.


Requests:

i. Discussthelackofriverinehabitatandtheregionalimplicationsfromthisplanandother fisherieshabitat compensationplans ‐which focusalmostentirelyonlacustrinehabitatcompensation.

ii. DiscussShell’scommitmenttoaddressthiscriticalaspectoftheimpactsontheACFN’sTreatyandAboriginalrights,andtoprovidetheERCBwithinformationessentialtothePublicInterestdetermination.

28. Compensation timing details unknown. Shell states that the Compensation Lakewould be constructed early in the project and that the compensation channelswouldgenerallybeconstructedlaterintheproject,butnodatesareprovided.Asaresult, it isunclearhowthecompensationhabitatswouldbedevelopedinatimelymanner to provide available fish habitat.While construction of the CompensationLakemayoccuratthesametimelineasthebeginningoftheexistinghabitatlosses,this isnotthesameasprovidinghabitatactuallycapableofsupportingfish.Therewould be a time lag between construction and development of productive fish



habitat(andactualusebyfish).Thistimescaledifferencesandthepotentialimpactson local fish populations are not clearly outlined in the Conceptual CompensationPlan (CCP). Regional impacts are also not discussed, although this same time lagissueexistsforallmineprojects.

Discussion:

InresponsetotheACFN’stechnicalquestionsonthis issue,ShellstatesthatthesespecificsarebeingdeterminedintheNoNetLoss(NNL)Plan.TheACFNarenotpartof the NNL planning process because it felt the process presupposes projectapproval,apresumptionwhichtheydidnotwanttosupport.TheACFNwerealsoconcerned that constitutionally‐protected Section 35 Rights would not beconsidered in theNNL planning process (ACFN IRC, 2009).NNL planning does notdirectlyaddressthepotentialimpactsofaprojectonTreatyandAboriginalrights‐instead, it assumes that a trade‐off is adequate to dealwith any fisheries‐relatedconcerns.NNLplanningdoesnotaddress the issueof takingupnew lands for theconstructionofcompensationlakes,alterationoftheecosystemandlandscape,etc.


Request:

Providedetailsregardingthetimingoftheconstructionofcompensationhabitat,andwhentheywillbecapableofsupportingfishandotheraquaticorganismsaspart of a sustainable and diverse ecosystem. Discuss the local and regionalimplications of this and other compensation plans that will not providecompensationhabitatatthesametimeashabitatlosses.

29. ImpactsofmercuryreleasesfromNNLcompensationreservoirnotconsidered.Shelldid not discuss the potential for the formation of methylmercury duringdevelopmentoftheplannedCompensationLake.ItisincumbentonShelltoassessthe potential for mercury (and other metal) contamination andmobilization andconversionofmercurytomethylmercuryduring theconstructionandoperationoftheCompensationLakeintheJPMEEIA.

Requests:

i. Discusstheconcentrationsofmercuryandmethylmercurylikelytobepresentwithin the aquatic ecosystem (including sediment, water column, aquaticplants, plankton, benthic invertebrates and fish), at a variety of time‐scales(e.g. construction, 1 year post‐construction, 5 years post‐construction, farfuture,etc.)



ii. Discussmitigationsplannedtominimizemercurymobilization(andconversiontomethylmercury)andremovalofmercuryfromthesystem.

iii. Discuss monitoring plans to document and track over time the presence ofmercury and methylmercury within the aquatic ecosystem of the plannedCompensationLake.

iv. Describe the potential for the mobilization and conversion of mercury tomethylmercuryduringtheconstructionandoperationoftheNNLlake.

30. Regional and cumulative effects on fish populations and habitat productivity notassessed.Oilsandsoperatorsplantoreplacedisturbedfishhabitatwithconstructedhabitatona case‐by‐casebasisas requiredby the federal FisheriesAct.However,the process for replacing fish habitat is experimental and unproven. In addition,therehasneverbeenanassessmentofthecumulativeimpactofalloftheregionalNoNetLoss(NNL)projects.Ideally,eachNNLpondwouldreplacethehabitlosttooilsandsprojectsinadvanceofthedestructionandona2:1basis.However,sincethere are no functioning NNL projects in the region, it is uncertain how wellcompensation habitats will work or how long before they reach their fullproductivity(i.e.minimallyreplacinglosthabitat,andpossiblycontributingtogainsin fish habitat). Fisheries andOceans Canadawill require long‐termmonitoring toverify the habitat replacement and productivity gains. There should be acontingencyplanincasetheNNLplan(s)doesnotmeetexpectations.

Withthemining‐relatedlossoffishhabitatandtheconstructionofNNLhabitat,therewillbeashiftofriverine(streamandriver)habitattolacustrine(lakes)habitats.Onaregionalscalethiscouldbesignificantandshouldbeassessed.

Inaddition,thereisaconcernaboutthereleaseofmercury,fromtheconstructionof the NNL reservoirs into aquatic environments and subsequently into fish andother aquatic organisms, and ultimately humans. This is likely also a cumulativeeffect due to the number of NNL reservoirs being planned or built in the region,which may affect the regional waterbodies and downstream ecosystems. NoassessmentofthecumulativeeffectsofthereleaseofmercuryfromallregionalNNLreservoirshasbeencompleted.

Requests:

i. Assess the regional and cumulative effects on fish populations (includingspecies richness) and habitat productivity of multiple NNL fish habitatcompensationprojects.Includeimpactson:

a. regionalfishpopulationandspeciesrichness;

b. totaleffectivehabitatunits(byfishspecies);



c. productivityofhabitat;

d. formofhabitat–changefromriverinetolacustrine;

e. mercurylevelsinfishandaquaticsystemsfromNNLprojects.

ii. Identify the impact of the cumulative effects noted above on the ACFN’straditionalresourceuseandtheirRights.Specifically,identifyhowtheshiftsinspeciesandhabitattypes,alongwiththetimelagsandmercurycontaminationof fish, would affect the ACFN’s traditional use and ability to exercise theirRights. Provide documentation to the regulators that these predicted effectshavebeensubmittedtotheACFNforverification.ProvidedocumentationthattheACFNhaveprovidedthisverification.

iii. CommittoworkwiththeACFNtodevelopacontingencyplan inthepossiblecase that the NNL plan(s) does not meet regulatory expectations and/orcommitmentsShellhasmadetotheACFN,otherRightsholders,andotherlandusers.

31. Inadequate assessment of impacts from losses ofmultiple streams in the region.Manysmallstreamsarebeingimpactedorlostbyincreasingregionaldisturbances.There are many unknowns about the role these streams play, collectively, onregionalaquatichealthandhydrology.

Requests:

i. Assessthecumulativeeffectsofthelossoftheregion’smanysmallertributarystreamsonaquaticsandhydrology.

ii. Document changes in species richness and quality of habitat, range andpopulations of affected species, and predicted timeframe(s) to replace theselossesinqualityandquantityofhabitat.

4.6 Hydrology

4.6.1 Overview

TheJackpineMineExpansionProject(JPME)wouldsignificantlyimpact localhydrology,by removing the upper mainstem of theMuskeg River and significant portions of itswatershed, contributing to the impacts on Kearl Lake, and requiring significantwithdrawalsfromtheAthabascaRiver.

ThekeyenvironmentalissuesarisingfromtheJPMEwithrespecttohydrologyare:



Significant impactstothe localecologyduetodiversionofupperportionsoftheMuskegRiveranditswatershed;

Project‐related diversions and watershed disturbances would contribute to flowreductionsintheAthabascaRiver;

ImpactstoKearlLake,asitwouldbefullysurroundedbyoilsandsprojects;

CumulativeImpactstotheAthabascaRiverandDeltanotassessed.


Shell Canada – Jackpine Mine Expansion – Environmental Impact AssessmentReport. Review for Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, February 17, 2009, byBrenda Miskimmin, Summit Environmental Consultants Ltd., attached to thisreportasAppendixD‐8.


ThecumulativeimpactstohydrologythatwouldbecausedbyJPMEandotherprojectsin the area are significant. Watercourses and water bodies will ultimately bear littleresemblancetotheirpre‐developmentcondition.

The JPME would result in the gradual removal of large portions of theMuskeg Rivermainstemanditswatershed,divertingmanytributariesaroundthemineinpipelinesandditches.Intheearlyyears,flowsandsuspendedsedimentconcentrationsintheMuskegRiverwouldincreaseassurfaceareasareclearedanddewatered.Overtime,openwaterflows in theMuskegRiverwould be steadily reduced.Whenwatershed areas are lostthroughclosed‐circuitingordiversion,downstreamflowsare reduced,causingfishandotherbiotatolosetheirhabitatandlocalpeopletoloseavaluableresource.

Around2044,theJPMEwouldreplacetheupperreachesoftheMuskegRivermainstemwithapipeline (orpossiblyaditch). In the final stages,approximately22kmof thesereacheswouldbereplacedbyamassiveendpitlake.TheleveearoundKearlLakewouldbeamongthechangesmakingthe lake inaccessible,unnatural‐lookingandof littleusefortraditionallandactivities.AverageflowsintheAthabascaRiverwouldbereducedinallseasonsrelatedtocumulativelossesfromallprojectsintheregionalstudyarea.

Kearl Lakewouldbealteredby the replacementof itsnaturaloutflow (MuskegCreek)with an outflow channel, construction of an adjoined compensation lake (associatedwithImperialOil’smine),andincreasedflowsfromotherdiversions.Thelake,whichhasbeen of high spiritual value for generations of local people, will be completelysurroundedbyoilsandsminesby2049Thevegetation‐richnaturalshorelinewouldbereplaced by amanmade levee to prevent flooding of project areas caused by the re‐directiontothelakeofmanytributariesthatnaturallyflowedelsewhere.

FlowsintheAthabascaRiverandDeltawouldbeimpactedcumulativelybybothnon‐oilsandsandoil sandsusers. Shell indicates thatof the totalpredicted futurecumulative



annualaveragewaterrequirementofAthabascaRiverwaterof22.2m3/s,16.3m3/s isexpectedtobeforoilsandsprojectsalone,with16%(2.6m3/s)oftheoilsandsdemandcomingfromtheJPME.

Themitigationstepspresentedare insufficienttooffsetthe impacts.Furthermore,thereliance onRAMP formonitoring falls short of the level ofmonitoring that should berequiredfortheproject.There isnoguaranteethatRAMPwillnotchange itssamplingstations or protocol related to financial or other reasons beyond the control of Shell.Furthermore, RAMP’s program is not designed to monitor project‐specific changes tosurfacewater.


Thefollowinghydrologyconcernsandrequestswereidentified:

32. Waterwithdrawalplansnotdetailed.InJanuary2009,industrywasdirectedundertheWaterManagementFramework(WMF)toreducewaterwithdrawalswhentheAthabascaRiverenteredthe“yellowzone”.

Discussion:

InresponsetotheACFN’stechnicalquestionsonthis issue,Shelldoesnotprovideadditionaldetailsonthewaterstorageneedsfortheproject,statingitwillcomplywiththeWaterManagementFrameworkforthelowerAthabascaRiver.

Requests:

i. DescribeShell’splansforwaterstorageanduseduringtimeswhenrestrictionsareimposed(withinandbeyond30daysplannedstorage).

ii. Commit to abide by the lower Athabasca River WMF restrictions, notablyduringlowflowperiods.

33. ACFN not included in development of monitoring program and research plans.Establishing a transparent process to developmonitoring programs that allow formeaningfulFirstNationinputshouldbedonepriortoapproval (shouldtheprojectbeapproved).

Request:

DiscussShell’s commitment toprovide theACFNwith theopportunity to reviewandmakerecommendationsaboutthesemonitoringandresearchplans.

34. Additional NNL compensation lakewater details required. The plan for filling theCompensationLakewithwaterfromtheAthabascaRiverisnotpresentedintheEIA,



nor is itclearwhetherthiswater isacomponentofthe55Mm3/yrrequestedfortheearlyphaseoftheproject.

Discussion:

The water license application indicates that the purpose for the river waterrequested is for industrialprocessanddomesticuse.However, in response to theACFN’s technicalquestions on this issue, Shellnotes that filling the lakewould beoneoftheusesforthe55Mm3/yrwaterfromtheAthabascaRiver.YetinresponsetoERCBSIR316c(ShellPRMSupplementalInformation,FirstRoundSIRResponses,Volume1,May 2009), Shell states that “Over 90%of thewater consumedby theprojectsgoes to filling tailingspore space”with the restbeing lost toevaporationandseepage.

These responsesappear tobecontradictory,making itunclearas tothe sourceofwatertobeusedfortheCompensationLake.

Request:

Clarifywhetherwater from theAthabasca River required to fill Redclay Lake isincluded in the requested 55Mm3/yr. If not, provide details of the timing andquantityofwaterwithdrawalsforthispurpose.

35. Cumulative impactstotheAthabascaDeltanotassessed.Shellassesseschanges inwater depths and flows in theAthabasca River, but does not assess the effect ofcumulativechangesinwaterdepthsontheAthabascaDelta.ChangesindepthandflowaffecttheDeltaandreduceflushingofsidechannelsandperchedwaterbodies.ChangestotheDeltadirectlyaffectarearesidents.

Discussion:

In their responses to the ACFN’s technical question on this issue, Shell did notaddressthisquestion,referencinginsteadanotherresponsethatwasnotrelatedtothis question (#34 in theACFN Technical questions on Pierre RiverMine Project).Shellsuggestedthatthis“maybediscussedaspartof futurenegotiationstowardsanagreement”.Thisinformationshouldbeprovidednow,notaspartofsomelaternegotiation, so that it may be included and considered as part of the projectapprovaldecision.

Request:

i. ExtendtheRegionalStudyArea(RSA)forsurfacewaterhydrologyfromEmbarrasPortagetotheinflowofLakeAthabasca(i.e.encompasstheAthabascaDelta).

ii. Re‐calculatetheimpacts,includingthoseontheAthabascaDelta.



iii. GiventhesignificanceoftheDeltatotheACFN,committoprovidethepredictiveresultstotheACFNandtoseektheACFN’sverificationofthesepredictionsbasedontheTKoftheACFN.

4.7 AirQuality

4.7.1 Overview

ThekeyenvironmentalissuesarisingfromtheJPMEwithrespecttoairqualityare:

Poorunderstandingofsecondarypollutantsandtheirimpacts;

Incompleteunderstandingofgreenhousegasemissions;

FoulodoursmayimpactuseofsomelocationsofimportancetotheACFN;

PotentialAcidInputlevelsarepredictedtoexceedguidelines;

Cumulativeimpactsonregionalairqualitynotassessed.

Mostof the technicalquestions raisedby theACFNwerenotadequatelyansweredorresolved.Manyof theair issues identifiedare repeatedwitheachandeveryoil sandsprojectintheregion,andhavepersistedforanumberofyears.


Shell Canada Limited Jackpine Mine Expansion Project and Pierre River MineProject – Environmental Impact Assessment Report ‐ Review for AthabascaChipewyan First Nation, October 2008, by Dr. KarenMcDonald, attached to thisreportasAppendixD‐9.


Shell is predicting that project‐related increases in ambient air quality concentrationswouldhaveanegligibleenvironmentalconsequence.However,itisdifficultforthereaderto truly assess impacts this project may have on air quality due to the lack of a pre‐industrialbaseline,Shell’suseofanever‐changingBaseCase,andtheremovalofambientconcentrationchangeswithintheindustrialfootprintfromtheairqualityassessment.

Shell predicts that project‐related increases in fine particulate matter (PM2.5) will benegligible. The PM2.5 assessment is based on achievement of the Canada‐WideStandards,whichisinadequategiventheincreasingbodyofliteratureindicatingthatthispollutantdoesnothaveathresholdforimpactstohumanhealth.Inaddition,ShellonlyconsideredsecondaryPMfromsulphatesandnitrates,andnotorganicPM.

Shell admitted itwas unable to clearly assessground level ozone due to the scientificuncertaintiesassociatedwithozonesourcesintheOilSandsRegion.Althoughtheissue



ofground‐levelozonehasbeenraisedineveryimpactassessmentoverthepastdecade,thereisverylittleadvancementevidentinthisarea.

Theareapredictedtoexceedthe1.0keq/ha/yrlevelforPotentialAcidInput(PAI),duetoboththePierreRiverMineProjectandtheJPME(excludingtheindustrializedareas),is12%aboveBaseCase.This impact is rankedasnegligible,butthisrankingappearstoolowgiventhelargespatialrangeandhighdegreeofPAIintheregion.

WhileFortChipewyanisnotpredictedtoexperiencefoulodoursfromthisproject,somecabinlocationsandpossiblythePoplarPointReserve,arepredictedtohavefoulodoursfromtimetotime(ShellEIA,Dec2007,Volume3,Table3.4‐29).

Shell predicts that emissions from the JPME are not expected to cause a significantdeterioration of visibility in the region.However, thevisualaesthetics componentwasnotclearlyassessedintheEIA.Theassessmentfocusedonvisibleplumes–consideringonly direct emissions and using a limited 20 km study area. Regional haze, due toenhancedparticulateconcentrations,wasnotdiscussedorassessed.

The integration of TK into the air quality assessment (Volume3, Table 3.3‐2) is a firststep;however, itwould havebeen ofgreatervalue to compare traditional knowledgewiththemodelevaluationscenarioandexistingairquality.

Shelldoesnotprovidean impactclassificationforgreenhousegasemissions,citingtheimpossibilityofcomparingthisprojectdirectlywithotherprojectsthathaveintegratedmine and upgrading activities. It would be useful to have a full understanding ofgreenhousegasemissionsfromotherShellprojects,especiallythosewithintheprovincesuchasthoseintheHeartlandRegionnearEdmonton.


Thefollowingairqualityconcernsandrequestswereidentified:

36. Removalofindustrialareasfromtheassessmentismisleading.Ashastypicallybeendone in previous EIAs for the Oil Sands Region, the disturbed areas are excludedfrom consideration of air impact analysis, minimizing the change in increasedambientconcentrationsandsubsequentdepositionasthesizeofthedisturbedareaincreases. This practice leads to an assumption that industrial disturbed areas inAlbertaareno longerrequiredtomeetairqualitystandardsandguidelines.Urbanregions,whichcouldbeconsidered ‘disturbedareas’,areexpectedtomeettheairqualityguidelineswithintheirboundaries.

Inaddition,Shellstates(Table2.2‐2)thattheeighthighestmodeledconcentrationsof various compounds (e.g. sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, benzene, VOCs) areremoved from outside of the disturbed area. It is not clear if these eight highestconcentrations are also contained within the disturbed areas removed fromconsiderationorifafurthereightcompoundswiththehighestvaluesoutsideofthedisturbedareashavealsobeenremoved.



Discussion:

InresponsetotheACFN’stechnicalquestionsonthisissue,Shell indicatesthatthehighest eight values at each receptor were removed as allowed by the Albertagovernment for the purposes of engineering design. For the purposes of regionalevaluation,however,thisdoesnotenableustoknowwhetherthehighestreceptorone‐hour concentrations were within developed areas or outside of them. Theprovincialmodelguidelinesinsistthattheseeighthighestvaluesmustbeincludedinthe determination of the 24‐hour and annual averages.Within the context of thepublic interest test and Aboriginal rights, the EIA must respond to the project‐specificengineering requirementsbutalso to theunderstandingof thechanges inregionalairquality;thesetwopurposesdonotalwaysrelyonthesamedata.

A similar issue was raised by the ERCB in SIRs 228a and 229b (Shell PRMSupplementalInformation,FirstRoundSIRResponses,Volume1,May2009).

Requests:

i. Provide the results of the re‐evaluation of the 24‐hour and annual averagesincludingtheeighthighestvaluespreviouslyexcluded.

ii. Engage the ACFN to confirm the veracity of the air quality model(s) bycomparisonwiththeACFN’sTK.

iii. Committosubmittingtheoutcome(s)oftheabovedialoguetoregulators.

37. Magnitudeclassificationlevelsnotreflectiveofairguidelinesandstandards.IntheJPME assessment, an exceedance of the Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives(AAAQO) is rated as moderate, downplaying the importance of minimizing theseexceedancesoftheregulatoryobjectives.Exceedancesoftheseobjectivesshouldberated 'high". This would demonstrate Shell's commitment to staying below theobjectives.

Discussion:

In response to theACFN’s technical questions on this issue, Shell refuses to replystating this is a disagreementwith Shell’smethodology or conclusions. The ACFNagreewithShell: This isadisagreementwithmethodologyusedbyShell andwiththeirconclusionsdrawnfromthedataobservedandpresented.Thisconcernshouldbeaddressednowaspartoftheprojectassessment,notlater.Thepurposeofthisquestion was to identify a gap in the assessment of the project, and to requestsupplementalinformationtofillthatgap.



Request:

Reassesstheenvironmentalconsequencesusingthehighermagnituderatingsforexceedances of theAAAQO to better identifywhich issues are approaching theenvironmentallimits.

38. Assessment of secondary pollutants and their impacts deficient. The true impacts(visibility, odour, and acidification) of secondary pollutants (PM2.5 and ozone) arepoorlyassessedintheEIA.

Discussion:

InresponsetotheACFN’stechnicalquestionsonthisissue,Shellstatesitcontinuestosupportresearchandmonitoringofsecondarypollutants’ impacts intheregionby participating as an active member on the Wood Buffalo EnvironmentalAssociation and the Cumulative EnvironmentalManagementAssociation’s (CEMA)NOx‐SO2ManagementWorking Group. These agencies are undertaking air qualitymonitoring in the region but there is little new research on the impacts of airpollutantsonenvironmentalreceptors(includinghealthrisks).Newresearchinthisfieldwould bemore likely if therewere scientifically credible publications of theregionalmonitoringdata.

TheEIAdidnotincludeanevaluationoforganicPMasonlytheCALGRIDmodelwasused to assess secondary PM (sulphates and nitrates only). Regional visibilitydegradationduetoPMconcentrationswasnotassessed.

Despiteapoorunderstandingoftheformationandimpactsofsecondarypollutants,theyareapartoftheregionalmixandmustnotbeignoredintheassessment.Shellneedstousemonitoringdatatotakeactionontheseissues.

Request:

Discuss how and what role Shell will play in further research into secondary airpollutantsandtheirimpactsonenvironmentalreceptors,includinghealthrisks.

39. Potential Acid Input ranking inadequate. The area predicted to exceed the 1.0keq/ha/yrPotentialAcidInput(PAI),duetoboththePierreRiverMineProjectandtheJPME,andexcludingthe industrializedareas, is12%abovetheBaseCase.Thisimpact isrankedasnegligible.Thisrankingappearstoo lowgiventhe largespatialrangeandhighdegreeofPAIintheregion.

An increaseof thearea predicted toexceed thePAIguideline by12% isa seriousconcern and not ‘negligible’. Any increase in area should be considered at least‘moderate’. According to Shell’s EIA methodology for air emission effects a



‘negligible’ magnitude of change is less than 1% change in the endpoint or “nopredictedincreaseinacidity”(Table1.3‐4,Volume1,Section1,Dec2007EIA).

Requests:

i. Describe the current state‐of‐knowledgewith respect to acid deposition andtrendsintheregion.

ii. Explainwhya12%increaseaboveBaseCase intheareapredictedtoexceedthe 1.0 keq/ha/yr Potential Acid Input is ranked as negligible. Describe theenvironmental impact and Shell’s assessment of the significance of thispredictedincrease.

40. Additional details in odour assessment of ACFN locations required. Shell’s odourassessmentindicatesthatodoursmaybeexpectedatseveralcabinlocationsinthearea, and potentially at the ACFN’s Poplar Point Reserve. Shell does not provideadequate details to determine how these odours might affect the ACFN, inparticulartheiruseofthePoplarPointReserve(IR201G).

Request:

Provideadditionalinformationincludingpredictedfrequency,durationandodourspeciesonthepredictedimpactsofincreasedfoulodourexperiencesatthePoplarPointReserve,andontheACFN’straditionaluse.

41. Ground‐level ozone poorly assessed.Ground level ozone is poorly assessed in theEIA. Shell includes very little information about the development of a regionalconceptual model and the resulting physical models necessary to evaluate theoxidizingpotentialoftheregionalairshed.

Request:

Includea rigorousevaluationof theoxidizingpotentialof the regionalair shed,includingcausal factors, synergisticeffects, transportmechanismsand fates,byodourspecies.

42. Climate change impact classification lacking. The EIA does not include any datacomparing the emission intensities of this project with that of other oil sandsprojects.

Shell states that an impact assessment was completed for greenhouse gasemissions,however,no impact classification isprovided. Shell also states that it isnot possible to directly compare emissions intensities from the JPME with otherprojectsthathavebothintegratedmineandupgradingactivities.Shellindicatesthat



theircontributiontogreenhousegasesisbroaderthansimplytheminesitesintheOil Sands Region and should include Shell’s upgrading activities in the IndustrialHeartlandRegionnearEdmonton.

Discussion:

InresponsetotheACFN’stechnicalquestionsonthis issue,Shell inferredthattheACFNshoulddoitsownevaluationoftheGHGemissionsdatafromShell’supgrader.The response seems to indicate that Shell would prefer third party reviewers tosummarizeandpresentthecompany’sGHGdata.

Request:

Provideacomparisonoftherelativeemissionintensities(perunitofproduction)ofthisproject,includingoff‐siteupgrading,withotheroilsandsprojects.

43. Cumulativeeffectofmultipleprojectsonregionalairqualityinadequatelyassessed.Incrementalincreasesinairemissionsfromeachnewprojectintheregionadverselyaffect the overall regional air quality and, ultimately, the health of the ecosystemand animals (including humans). Shell’s method of assessing effects, using anartificially high baseline, masks the true magnitude of this effect. Prior to majorindustrial projects in the late 1960’s emissions of air pollutants were near zero.ThesedaystherecanbenodenyingthemassiveamountsofaircontaminantsbeingemittedintheOilSandsRegion.

Requests:

i. Assessandprovideananalysisonthecumulativeeffectsof thegrowthofairemissions intheregionusingapre‐industrialbaselineandprojectingthisoutby100years–(i.e.from1965to2065).

ii. Provide a summary table of the projects included in the various assessmentcaseswiththeirprojectedemissionslistedoverthesametimeframeasabove.

4.8 Wildlife

4.8.1 Overview

ThekeyenvironmentalissuesarisingfromtheJPMEwithrespecttowildlifeare:

Wildlifebaselineinformationisincomplete;

Largelossofhabitat;

Eliminationofregionallysignificantripariancorridor;



Uncertaintiesrelatedtoimpactsonwildlifehealth;

ConflictsbetweenShell’smodelingresultsandfielddataandTK;

Lack of assessment of the cumulative effects of tailings ponds onmigratory birdpopulations;

Uncertaintiesrelatedtocumulativeimpactsofmultipleprojectsonwildlife.


Wildlife Review of the Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion and Pierre River MineProjects – Review for: Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, May 2010, by DaveWestworthofPumaEnvironmentalLtd.,attachedtothisreportasAppendixD‐10.


Wildlife Indicators: The EIA focuses on a number of Key Indicator Resources (KIRs) thathave been identified by CEMA. The list of KIRs is reasonable in that it includes severalterrestrialspecies,severalaquaticspecies,andseveralspeciesthatdependonoldgrowthforest.However,thelistislackingatleastonewaterfowlspecies(e.g.mallard);ducksandgeese continue to be harvested by Aboriginal people, and some of the nearbywaterbodies (Kearl Lake, Athabasca River, and McClelland Lake) are regionally orprovincially important for waterfowl. The ACFN have expressed great concern over theeffects of tailings ponds on waterfowl. Waterfowl that migrate through the Oil SandsRegionmay becomeexposed to tailings and process‐affectedwater. Those that survivemay travel on to the Peace‐Athabasca Delta where they could be consumed by localpeople.

BaselineSurveys:VariouswildlifebaselinesurveyswereconductedintheLSA.Thesurveymethodsarestandardandappropriateforthesetypesofinventories,althoughtherearesomegapsinthesurveycoverage,includingbreedingbirdsurveysandbatmistnetting.

WildlifeAbundance:ImpactsonyellowrailarepredictedtobehighintheLSA.Modelingfor this project concluded that bothmoose and black bear populationswould increaseunder the Application and Planned Development scenarios. These conclusions do notappearcrediblegiventherapidrateofhabitatloss,blockageofmovementcorridorsandincreasedmortalityduetoincreasedhumanaccess.Inaddition,theseresultsconflictwithreports from trappers and other First Nations people and with the results of otherregionalmodeling.

HabitatLoss:ThelossofhabitatassociatedwiththeJPMEwouldbeverylarge.Therearesignificantpredictedchangesinhabitatforthreeimportanttypesofwildlifehabitatinthemine area:wetlands, riparian habitat, and old‐growth forest. These three habitat typesaccountformuchofthebiodiversityinthearea.

WildlifeMovements: Theability to safelymove across the landscape toaccess requiredhabitatsisimportantforthesurvivalofwildlifepopulations.Shellacknowledgesthatthe



JPMEwould,alongwithotherregionaloilsandsprojects,“createbarrierstomovementintheupperMuskegRiverbasinthatcannotbemitigateduntilafterreclamation”.

Wildlife Health: A primary concern with the wildlife health assessment is that currentToxicityReferenceValues(TRVs)maybetoolimitedtomeaningfullyassessriskstowildlifehealth. Also, insufficient toxicological information existed to assess health risks foramphibians,agroupofanimalsthoughttobethemostsensitivetopollutioneffects. Inaddition,thereareconcernsaboutthelong‐termwaterqualityinreclaimedwetlandsandpitlakesandpotentialwildlifehealtheffects.Therearealsolong‐termhealthconcernsforterrestrial wildlife. The chemistry of reclamation soils is expected to be considerablydifferent than natural surface soils in the region. In addition to concerns related to thepossible bioaccumulation of contaminants inwildlife food chains, there is also concernthat elevated levels of certain chemicals (salts, metals, acids) in reclaimed soils couldaffect the palatability and nutritional value of browse and herbaceous vegetation formooseandotherherbivores.

Validity of Impact Predictions: Shell relies on the use of various computer models topredict the impact of its proposed operations on selected wildlife species. There areseveral instances in thewildlifeassessment, identified below,wheremodel resultsdidnotcorrelatewithfielddata,didnottake important facts intoconsideration,orwheremodelsreliedheavilyonunprovenassumptions.


Thefollowingwildlifeconcernsandrequestswereidentified:

44. WaterfowlspeciesnotselectedasKIRs.AlthoughtheJPMEwouldbesituatedclosetoregionallyorprovinciallysignificantwaterfowlhabitats(e.g.KearlLake,AthabascaRiver, andMcClelland Lake) and ducks and geese are consumed by First Nationsmembers,nowaterfowlspecieswereselectedasKeyIndicatorResources(KIRs).

Discussion:

In response to the ACFN’s technical questions on this issue, Shell states thatwaterfowl species are represented by the choice of beaver as a KIR because theyhave similar habitat requirements. Shell’s assertion that beaver habitat modelingaccurately reflects habitat suitability for ducks and geese is unacceptable. Thebeaver (amammal that feeds primarily on the bark of aspen andwillow) is not areasonable analogue for migratory birds such as waterfowl.Waterfowl do usebeaverimpoundmentsbuttheirecologyandlifehistoryistoodifferent.

Request:

Provideanassessmentoftheimpactstoatleastonespeciesofwaterfowl,suchasthemallard.



45. Gaps inwildlifebaseline surveys.Gaps inbaseline surveys (suchasbreedingbirdsandbats)preventfullunderstandingofwildliferesourcesthatmightbeatrisk.

Discussion:

ShelldidnotaddresstheACFN’squestionsaboutthis issue,statingthatthiswasadisagreementwithShell’smethodologyandconclusions.ThepurposeoftheACFN’srecommendation is that in a couple of cases, there was insufficient sampling,limitingtheunderstandingofwildliferisks.Thisgapmustbedealtwithnow,aspartoftheassessment.

Variouswildlife baseline surveyswere conducted in the LSA. The surveymethodsare standard and appropriate for these types of inventories, although there aresomegapsinthesurveycoverage,aslistedbelow:

a) Breedingbirdsurveys‐FewplotswithintheriparianzonesoftheMuskegRiverweresampled;

b) Bat mist netting ‐ only one sample point in the riparian zones of theMuskegRiver;

Request:

Addressthewildlifebaselinesurveygapsidentifiedinthediscussionabove.GiventhesignificanceofthewildlifetotheACFN’straditionalresourceuseandTreatyandAboriginalrights,committoprovidethepredictiveresultstotheACFNandtoseektheACFN’sverificationofthesepredictionsbasedontheTKoftheACFN.

46. PVAandTK informationconflicting.The resultsofthePopulationViabilityAnalysis(PVA), which predict growth in moose and black bear populations under alldevelopment scenarios, are in disagreement with Traditional Knowledge (TK).trappers and other First Nations people consistently report declining moosenumbers in the region. The PVA results also conflict withmodeling conducted inconjunction with the development of a Terrestrial Ecosystem ManagementFrameworkfortheRegionalMunicipalityofWoodBuffalo(forCEMA).Thismodelingconcludesthatseveralterrestrialecosystemindicators,includingmoose,blackbear,andfisher,arealreadybelowtheirnaturalrangeofvariation(NRV)andwillcontinuetodeclinegivenexpectedratesoflandscapemodification.

Discussion:

Shell did not address theACFN’s technical questions for this issue or conduct theadditional analysis, stating that the question was a disagreement with Shell’smethodologyandconclusions.AlthoughShellwasunwillingtoanswerthisquestion,ShelldidrespondtoessentiallythesamequestionposedbyAlbertaEnvironment‐AENV SIR 450 (Shell PRM Supplemental Information, First Round SIR Responses,



Volume2,May2009).ShellexplainedtoAENVthatbecausetheCEMAmodelsusedadifferentapproachandadifferentsetofassumptionsfromthehabitatmodelingusedintheEIA,theresultsarenotcomparable.Whiletheapproachesaredifferent,thetwomodelingapproachesarepredictingverydifferentoutcomes.

This isnot simplyadisagreementaboutmethodologies– it is a failurebyShell toseriouslyconsiderandintegrate,orevenbewillingtotest,traditionalinformation.There is littlepoint in using traditional information if itwillbedisregarded (whichgoes against the Terms of Reference). This is a clear case of Shell trusting inmodelledpredictionovertheempiricalobserveddatafromTK.

Request:

Address why Shell has disregarded the TK data that contradicts its modelledpredictions.

47. Validity of habitatmodels questionable. Some of the Resource Selection Function(RSF) models developed to assess regional changes in habitat supply and habitatsuitabilityofreclaimedlandsatclosurewerefoundtobeunsuitablewhenvalidatedagainst field data. This may affect the validity of all impact predictions based onthesemodels. RSFmay have advantages overHabitat Suitability Indexmodels forsome species. Further work to refine / develop accurate models is stronglyrecommended.

Discussion:

Shell did not address the ACFN’s technical questions for this issue, stating validmodelswereusedtoassesscumulativeeffectsandthevalueofreclaimedlandsforwildlife at the LSA scale. Assessing cumulative effects at the LSA scale is notmeaningful since it is known that almost the entire LSA will be disturbed by theproject.

Requests:

i. DiscussthepotentialrepercussionsofignoringTKandfielddataandrelyingoninaccurate wildlife habitat modelling on traditional use and Treaty andAboriginalrights.

ii. Considermodellingcalving/post‐calvinghabitatsformoose.

48. Lossofriparianhabitatmaybeunderestimated.Shellpredictsarelativelylargenetlossofwetlandandold‐growthhabitat.Thepredictedlossofriparianhabitatislikelyunderestimated.



Discussion:

ShelldidnotaddresstheACFN’squestionaboutthisissue,statingthatthequestionwasadisagreementwithShell’smethodologyandconclusions.Thepurposeofthequestion was to identify a gap in the assessment of the project, and to requestsupplementalinformationtofillthatgap.

Requests:

i. Reassessriparianhabitatlossesbasedonacceptedscientificcriteria(notjustthe100metermappingoffset).

ii. Discuss additionalmitigation and compensationmeasures that could offsetpermanentriparianhabitatlosses.

49. Regionally significant riparian corridor will be eliminated. The proposed projectwouldresultintheremovalofthemiddlesectionoftheMuskegRiver,eliminatingwhatmightbeconsideredaregionallysignificantripariancorridor.

Discussion:

Shell states that regional developments along theMuskeg River, including JPME,“will createandmaintaina 20km‐long remnant corridorabout400mwidealongtheMuskegRiverfromtheAthabascaRivertoFortHills”.Shellalsostatesthat“Thisremnant corridor is expected to maintain an east‐west connection between theAthabascaRiverandtheeasternareaofundisturbedhabitat.”Itisnotunderstoodhow the ‘remnant corridor’ wouldmaintain a connection between the AthabascaRiverandtheeasternareaofundisturbedhabitatwhentheexpandedJackpineMineis in place. It is not understood how dead‐ending the corridor would affect thepredation risk of wildlife currently using the lower reaches of the Muskeg Rivervalley.

Request:

Discuss how the “remnant corridor” proposed by Shell would maintain aconnection between the Athabasca River and the eastern area of undisturbedhabitatwhentheexpandedJackpineMineisinplace.Includeadiscussionofhowdead‐ending the corridorwould affected the predation risk of wildlife currentlyusingthelowerreachesoftheMuskegRivervalley.

50. Researchanddatadirectlyapplicable towildlife lacking.The lackof field researchandtoxicityreferencedatadirectlyapplicabletowildlife inthisregion(asopposedtolaboratoryanimals)mayaffectthevalidityofthewildlifehealthassessment.Itisalso unclear whether Shell considered potential long‐term, residual effects of



wildlife exposure to contaminants in wetlands and pit lakes containing process‐affectedwaterand/orfluidtailingswhenconductingthewildlifehealthassessment.

Requests:

i. Discuss how the lackof field researchand toxicity reference data onwildlifemayaffectthevalidityofthewildlifehealthassessment.

ii. Discuss how Shell considered the potential long‐term residual effects onwildlife exposure to contaminants in process‐affectedwetlands and pit lakeswhenconductingthewildlifehealthassessment.

iii. Discuss the impacts of uncertainty and possible contamination ofmeat fromwildlifehealtheffectsontraditionaluseandontheACFN’sRights.

iv. Given the significance of the wildlife to the ACFN’s traditional use andAboriginal and Treaty rights, commit to provide the predictive results to theACFNandtoseektheACFN’sverificationofthesepredictionsbasedontheTKoftheACFN.

51. Habitat modeling unclear. Shell’s wildlife impact predictions are based on theassumptionthatreclaimed landswouldhavethesamewildlifehabitatvalueastheundisturbed ecosite phases they aremodeled after. No evidence is presented byShell, or by reclamation progress in the region, to support this assumption. Theassessment fails to identify the current limitations on reclamation knowledge, aswell as the risks or levels of uncertainty associated with these habitat modelpredictions.

Discussion:

ShelldidnotaddresstheACFN’squestionaboutthisissue,statingthatthequestionwasadisagreementwithShell’smethodologyandconclusions.Thepurposeofthisquestion was to identify a gap in the assessment of the project, and to requestsupplementalinformationtofillthatgap.

Although Shell was unwilling to answer the ACFN’s question, information onreclamationexperience intheoilsandsregion isprovidedintheresponsetoAENVSIR456c(ShellPRMSupplementalInformation,FirstRoundSIRResponses,Volume2, May 2009). The description lacks references and detailed descriptions ofreclamationoutcomeswhichwouldbe helpful inevaluatingpredictionsofwildlifehabitatvaluesonreclaimedlands.



Request:

Provide references (for response toSIRAENV456c)anddetaileddescriptionsofreclamation outcomes for re‐evaluating wildlife habitat values on reclaimedlands.

52. Cumulative effects of tailings ponds on migratory bird populations not assessed.Because of the proximity of the JPME to regionally or provincially significantmigratorystagingareas(AthabascaRiver,McClellandLake,KearlLake,etc.),risksofexposureofmigratingwaterbirdstotailingsmightbeincreased.Cumulativeeffectsoftailingspondsintheoilsandsregiononwildlife(includingmigratorybirds)havenotbeenassessed.

Discussion:

TheACFNareconcernedwithmortalityofmigratorybirdsexposedtotailingsponds.Anassessmentof thecumulativeeffectsofall existing,approved,andplannedoilsandstailingspondsshouldbeincludedintheEIA–usingapre‐industrialbaseline.

Shell did not address the issue or conduct the additional analysis, stating thequestion was a “statement of disagreement with Shell’s methodology andconclusions”.Thepurposeofthisquestionwastoidentifyagapintheassessmentoftheproject,andtorequestsupplementalinformationtofillthatgap.

Requests:

i. Providetheresultsofacomprehensiveassessmentofthecumulativeeffectsofoilsandstailingspondsonmigratorybirdpopulationsandhealth–basedonapre‐industrialbaseline.

ii. Discuss the effects of these changes on traditional use and on the ACFN’sRights.

iii. Committoprovidethesefindingstotheregulatorsasakeyinputtothepublicinterestdetermination.

53. Cumulative effect of multiple projects on wildlife inadequately assessed.Incremental increases in disturbed land area fromeach newproject in the regionadverselyaffectbothlocalandregionalwildlife.Shell’smethodofassessingeffects,usinganartificiallyhighbaseline,masksthetruemagnitudeofthiseffect.Priortomajor industrial projects in the late 1960s impacts on wildlife were restricted tolocalhuntingpressures.Currentlywildlifeare impactedbymanymorefactors, themajorityofwhicharerelatedtotheoilsandsindustry.



Requests:

i. Provideestimatesofwildlifepopulations,habitatavailability,andvegetationcommunities (including wetlands) under pre‐industrial conditions, andcomparethesetothepresentdayand‘BaseCase’scenarios.

ii. Identify the expected areaof land fromwhichwildlife and vegetationwouldmigrate back into the reclaimed land, taking into consideration any nearbyoperationswhichwouldbealsobecleared.

iii. Discuss and assess the impacts of the changes in wildlife in the region ontraditionaluseandontheRightsoftheACFN.

iv. GiventhesignificanceofthewildlifetotheACFN’straditionaluseandTreatyandAboriginalrights,committoprovidethepredictiveresultstotheACFNandto seek the ACFN’s verification of these predictions based on the TK of theACFN.

4.9 Vegetation,Wetlands,andBiodiversity

4.9.1 Overview

ThekeyenvironmentalissuesarisingfromtheJPMEwithrespecttovegetation,wetlands,andbiodiversityare:

Significant and irreversible loss of wetlands (including the McClelland LakeWetlandComplex);

Lossofrareplants,rareplanthabitats,andoldgrowthforests;

Unclearimpactsofcombinedairemissionsonvegetation;

Decreaseinplantandanimalbiodiversity,especiallyinwetlandhabitats;

Uncertaintiesrelatedtocumulativeimpactsofregionallossofwetlands.


Jackpine Mine Expansion and Pierre Rive Mine Project ‐ Environmental ImpactAssessmentReport‐ReviewforAthabascaChipewyanFirstNation,April29,2010(revised),byC.DanaBush,attachedtothisreportasAppendixD‐11.


Theproposedexpansionwouldincreasetheareaofsoilandvegetationdisturbancefrom7,839 to 20,555 ha. This disturbance would result in a decrease in plant and animalbiodiversity, and a loss of old growth forest, rare plants and rare plant habitat,traditionallyimportantplants,andwetlandvegetation.



TheJPME isprimarilycomposedofa large,intricatewetlandscomplexthat followstheMuskegRiver.Theprojectarea isbordered to thenorthby theFortHillsproject, andKearlLakeuplandstothesouth.TheMcClellandLakeWetlandComplexislocatedonthenorth‐eastborderoftheproposedproject.Thewetlandscomplex isprimarily fens,butalsoincludesbogsandnon‐peatlandwetlands,includingapatternedfen.TheMcClellandLakeWetland Complex includes several environmentally significant features, includingtheMcClelland Lake Fen,McClelland Lake and theMcClelland Lake Sinkholes (AlbertaParks Heritage Information Centre; Westworth 1990). First Nations people gathertraditional plants in the wetlands for medicinal use (Charlie Voyageur, ACFN Elder,personal communication). Shell proposes to mine into the McClelland Lake WetlandComplex,onthesoutheastside,inthelocationofalargepatternedfen.TheJPMEwouldaffectover2000ha,fromapotential2500ha,ofadjacentfenwetlands.Extensiveareasofwetlands,includingbogsandfenswouldberemoved.Largepatternedfenswouldberemovedoralteredbydewatering in theMcClellandLakeWetlandComplex.Bogsandfenswouldnotbereplacedinthereclaimedlandscape.Thedrawdowneffectsfromtheprojectwouldgofurtherintothelenticularfenthanoriginallypredicted.ShellstatesthatthemitigationmethodsproposedbyFortHillsareunlikelytobeeffective inprotectingthepatternedfens.Shelldoesnotproposealternativemitigationtoprotectthewetlandcomplex.Shellnolongerplanstoincludethelenticularfenintheirwetlandsmonitoringprogram.The JPME ispredicted toaffect theentire642haof the lenticularpatternedfenspecialplantcommunity.

Wetlandsofferthehighestpotential forbiodiversity,aswellashabitat forrareplants,traditionaluseplants,andwildlife.

Shell expects that following closure, re‐vegetation would largely involve directplacement of reclamation materials and “encouraging” successful natural invasion ofnativevegetation.Theseproposedreclamationstrategiesaresimplistic,andrelyheavilyonunprovenassumptionsofsuccess.


The following vegetation, wetlands, and biodiversity concerns and requests wereidentified:

54. KIR frequency ratings between LSA and RSA differ. Three key indicator resources(KIRs) ‐ wetlands, old growth forests, and high rare plant potential ‐ which areassessedashavinglowfrequencyintheLocalStudyArea(LSA),werethenratedashavingahighfrequencyintheRegionalStudyArea(RSA).

Discussion:

In response to ACFN’s technical questions on this issue, Shell states that thedifferenceinfrequencyratingisduetotimingorrateofclearingineachcase;intheApplication Case, the only source of change to the environment is a singledevelopment(theJPME)thatwillbecleared,allatonce‐thefrequencyratingislowfor both the LSA and RSA at the Application Case. For the Planned Development



Case,theclearingofalldevelopmentsareconsideredtobedifferentevents,thusafrequencyratingofhighisassumed.

Request:

Assuming thateachpieceof landwillbe clearedonce,explain the relevancyofratingthefrequencyofclearingfordifferentevents,indifferentlocations.

55. Regional vegetation data lacking. Shell used coarse scalemaps (LANDSAT satelliteimage classification) at the RSA level to develop land cover classes. Land coverclasses are generalized vegetation types (six upland and three wetland nativevegetationtypesplusaburncategory).Thesebroadclassescannotdifferentiatetheimpacts on, for example, patterned fens, or between a marsh and an open bog(Volume 5, Section 7.5.2). Analyses of traditionally‐used plants or rare plantpotentialusingthesecoarsescalemapsisvirtuallymeaningless,astheyincludevastareas of unsuitable habitat. It may be possible to work with the CumulativeEnvironmental Management Association (CEMA) to develop ecological landclassification maps for the regional study area. However, this will require datasharingandtheuseofsimilardatabases.

Requests:

i. Discusshowthe lackofrefined scalemaps(i.e., lackofcurrentandaccurateregionalvegetationdata)affectstheimpactassessmentforthisproject.

ii. DiscussShell’scommitmenttofillthisgap.

iii. Committostandardizeandsharevegetationdatasets (e.g., throughCEMA’sdatabase)withotheroperatorsandgovernmentagencies.

56. Groundwater‐dependenttraditionalplantsmaybeimpacted.TheJMPEispredictedto lower groundwater levels in the area around themine during operations. TheACFNcouldbeimpactedbythelossofgroundwater‐supportedwetlandareaswhichmaycontaintraditionally importantplantsdependentongroundwater forsurvival.Traditionally important plants which are found in non‐wetland areasmay also belostiftheyaredependentongroundwaterthatwouldseelowerlevelsasaresultoftheproposedproject.Suchlosseswouldbepermanent,unlessreclamationprovidessuitable areas where the plants could re‐establish. Wetlands that develop afterreclamation may have the potential to be impacted by process‐affectedgroundwaterfromareaswheretailingshavebeenstoredandmaybelessdesirableareasforthecollectionoftraditionally‐usedplants.



Discussion:

In response to ACFN’s technical questions on this issue, Shell acknowledges thattraditionalplantswouldbeimpactedandthatthemostfeasiblemitigationwouldbeto re‐establish areas capable of supporting traditional plants after reclamation.However,CEMA(2007)indicatesthat,basedoncurrentreclamationknowledgeandexperienceintheregion,organicbogsandfenscannotbereplaced.

TheACFN’saccesstoplantsintheLSAwouldbeimpactedforasignificantperiodoftime.IftheplantsgatheredbytheACFNmembersarefromtheareastobeaffected,then the assessment may not be adequate to determine the impacts on theirtraditional use or on their Rights. Shell promises itwould "re‐establish areaswiththe capacity to support traditional plants", however, this is not the same asreplacing lost plants of traditional use. Because the groundwater‐dependenttraditionalplantgatheringareasmost likelywillnotbereclaimable, it is importantthatShellexplainhowitintendstooffsettheselosses.

Request:

Explain in detail, using an appropriate set of time sequences, how the loss ofgroundwater‐dependenttraditionalplantareas intheactiveminingareaand inthesurroundingareawouldbemitigated,offset,orcompensated.

57. Peatlandslossunclear.Shellestimatesthat13,819haofpeatlandswillbelostasaresult of the both the JPME and Pierre River Mine Project (JPME SupplementalInformation Volume 2, SIR 373a). This impactwas assigned a high environmentalconsequenceatthe locallevel,butnegligibleattheregional level.SeveralwetlandclassesappeartobeuncommonintheRSA(coveringlessthan3%oftheLSA:BFNN,BONN,BONR,BTNI,BTNR,BTXC,FOPN,FTNI,FTNR,FTPN,MONG,andSFNW.

Shellplanstobuilda leveearoundKearlLaketoprevent flooding inthearea.Thisaction is expected to permanently disturbed local plant communities, includingpeatlands. Inaddition,ShellpredictsthatthegroundwaterdrawdownintheJPMEareawouldimpactbothinsideandoutsidetheLSA,inparticular,therarelenticularfen (JPME Supplemental InformationVolume 2, Appendix B, Section 3.2.1.1, Page34).

Requests:

i. PresentdatashowingtheareaofpeatlandsintheRSAandassessthelossofpeatlandsduetotheJPMErelativetothisnumber.

ii. Assess the cumulative loss in the RSA due to other projects in the RSA, theanticipateddrawdownintheJPMEarea,andtheleveeatKearlLake.

58. Project‐relatedandregionallossofwetlandsinadequatelyassessed.Shellproposestomine into theMcClellandLakeWetlandComplex,on the southeast side, in the



location of a large patterned fen. The mining and associated dewatering wouldimpact approximately 2500 ha of the wetland complex (SIR round 2 responses,questions13and22).ShellstatesthatthemitigationmethodsproposedbyFortHillsareunlikelytobeeffectiveinprotectingthepatternedfens.Shelldoesnotproposealternativemitigationtoprotectthewetlandcomplex.Thisprojectwouldproduceirreversible,adversecumulative,environmentaleffectsthatthreatentheecologicalintegrityoftheMcClellandLakeWetlandComplex.Inaddition,ShellplanstobuildaleveearoundKearlLaketoprevent flooding inthearea.Thisaction isexpectedtopermanentlydisturbedlocalplantcommunities.

TheJMPEisjustoneofmanyprojectsthatwouldleadtothedestructionandlossofnatural wetlands in the region. As stated in the CEMA Guideline for WetlandEstablishment on Reclaimed Oil Sands Leases (Harris, 2007), “Natural borealwetlands are a critical habitat for many important wildlife species, includingwoodland caribou, moose, muskrat, waterfowl (particularly diving ducks) andamphibians”, and “Wetlands in the oil sands region are indelibly linked to thetraditional way of life… People of the Fort McKay, Anzac, and Fort Chipewyancommunities continue to use wetlands for subsistence hunting and trapping, forfood and medicinal plant collection, and for spiritual well‐being”. A realisticassessmentofthecumulativelossofwetlandsintheregionandtheeffectsofthislosson the traditional useandRightsof theACFN,usingapre‐industrial baseline,hasnotyetbeenconducted(seesection4.1.2ofthisreport).

Requests:

i. ExplainthelackofcompensationfortheirreversiblelossofasignificantareaofwetlandsintheJMPEprojectarea.

ii. Discussandassess the cumulative impactsarising from the JPME’spredictedpermanentwetlandloss,theKearlLakeLevee,theincreaseddrawdownarea,as well as the total loss of wetlands in the entire Oil Sands Region onbiodiversity, habitat loss, wildlife, traditional users, groundwater, surfacewater,andvegetation.Useapre‐industrialbaselineforallassessments.

iii. IdentifywhatbiodiversityoffsetsShellwouldplanorbewillingtocommittoasa means of lessening the consequences of the inevitable loss of naturalbiodiversity from the JPME Project or for the losses from regional oil sandsindustrialactivities.

iv. DiscusstheimpactofthelossofwetlandsontraditionaluseandontheRightsoftheACFN.

59. Wetlandecologicalequivalencyassumptionunsupported. Impacts towetlandsarerankedashavinga lowenvironmental consequence. Sixpercent of the treed fensand fourpercentof the treedbog /poor fenswould be lost in the regional studyarea (of JackpineMine Expansion and Pierre River Projects combined), and there



wouldbeanincreaseof16%innon‐treedwetlandsafterreclamation(Table7.6‐4,Page7‐139).Theenvironmentalconsequenceassumesthatnon‐treedwetlandsareecologicallyequivalenttopeatlands,whichisnotsupportedinthereport.

Discussion:

In response to theACFN’s technicalquestions on this issue, Shell states thatnon‐treed wetlands and peatlands are similar enough to both be represented by thesame Key Indicator Resource (for all wetlands). Based on generations of use, theACFN disagree with Shell’s response ‐ peatlands and marshes are markedlydissimilarintheirbiodiversityandtheirtraditionallanduse.

Request:

Provide research supporting the assumption that reclaimed non‐treedwetlandsare ecologically equivalent to peatlands, or revise the assessment to reflect thetruesignificanceofthefulllossofthewetlandsinthisprojectarea.

60. Loss of old growth forests inadequately assessed. Shell estimates the area of oldgrowthforesttobebetween20%and28%oftheforestedlandbase,resultinginanestimateof16%oftheRSA.Thisestimationisbasedonamodellingstudyusingan80‐yearfirecycleandaburnrateof0.4%peryear.However,AVImappingforthisproject shows that only 5% of the local study area is old growth (ESR, Section3.5.2.2,Table3.5‐19).

ResearchinWoodBuffaloNationalParkshowsthatthemeanfireintervalmaybe34years(LarsenandMacDonald,1998),or25‐49yearspriorto1959and59‐89yearsbetween1860and1989(Larsen,1997).ResearchinPrinceAlbert,SKshowthatlessthan5%oftheareahasgonemorethan125yearswithoutafire(Weir,JohnsonandMiyanishi,2000). Themore frequent the fires, the smaller theareaofoldgrowthforest remains, therefore using 80 years versus 34 years may over‐estimate theamountofoldgrowthintheRSA.

Shell states that the “projectwill result in the removal of 1,233 ha of old growthforest, representinga lossof2%of theLSA [(combinedLocal StudyArea for bothJackpineMineExpansionProjectand thePierre RiverMineProject)]” (EIASection7.5,pg.7‐74).HoweverTable7.5‐18(EIASection7.5)indicatesthat40%oftheoldgrowth forest in the LSA would be removed. While Table 7.5‐11 does show thepercentageofLSAandpercentageofresource,neitherthenumbersnordiscussionarecarriedthroughtothefinalassessmentratings.

Discussion:

ShelldoesnotaddresstheACFN’stechnicalquestionsforthisissue,statingthatthequestionwasadisagreementwithShell’smethodologyandconclusions.Shellcitesliterature supporting the statement of there being large amounts of old growth



forest,whileomittinganydiscussionoftheliteratureshowingthatthereisonly5%oldgrowthforest.

Requests:

i. Support the use of 80‐year fire cycle and a burn rate of 0.4% per year overotherresearch.Supporttheestimatethat16%oftheregionalstudyareaisoldgrowth forest, explaining alsowhy there is only5%or 6%old growth in theLSA.

ii. Explain why “Magnitude of Impact” in the local study area for loss of oldgrowth forest isnot rankedashigh (>20%),andtherefore theenvironmentalconsequence also not ranked as high (+17) in Table 7.5‐34 (EIA Section 7.5).Explainwhyusinga2%lossofthelocalstudyareaismorebiologicallyrelevantthanusinga40%lossoftheactualfeaturebeingassessed.

iii. Repeattheassessmentusingthe‘high’ranking,asnotedabove.

61. Information on burn areas unclear. Shell classifies 6% of the JPME area LSA asburnedupland(BUu)and10%asburnedwetland(BUw)(TerrestrialESR,Section3.5,Table3.5‐1).Giventhattreeshrubandforbregenerationbeginsshortlyafterafire,itisfeasibletoclassifytheburnareastoecositephase.

InTerrestrialESR,Section3.5.2.1,both inTable3.5‐15andtheaccompanyingtextonpage3‐113,Shellclassifiesburnedareasasdisturbances.

Requests:

i. Classify the burn areas to ecosite phase, or justify why they should not beclassifiedassuch.

ii. Explain why burns are considered a disturbance in Table 3.5‐15, but not inTable3.5‐1.

62. Additional information for weeds and non‐native invasive species required. Shelldoes not address the likelihood of weeds and non‐native species hinderingsuccessful restorationor reclamation.Non‐native speciesare common throughouttheregionalstudyarea,alongroadsandpipelines,andinborrowpitsandwellpads.Althoughnotdocumented inthisEIA,non‐native invasivegrasses (suchassmoothbrome,timothy,Kentuckybluegrassandcurleddock)occurthroughouttheborealforest and can cause problems for reclamation. Non‐native invasive species andlistedweedscanbeintroducedbyconstructionandreclamationequipment,andinreclamationseedmixes.



Discussion:

ShelldoesnotaddresstheACFN’stechnicalquestionsforthisissue;insteadsimplyreferencing three SIRs: PRM SIR #350, 381 and 511 (Shell JPME SupplementalInformation,FirstRoundSIRResponses,July2009).

PRMSIR#381 refers toweedseedmanagementplan,anddoesnotdescribehowcontractorsaretocleantheirvehicles.AlbertaEnvironmentalsorequesteddetailsabout steam cleaning to remove potentialweed seeds from vehicles entering thesite(AENVSIRs381and365).Shell,inresponsetoAlbertaEnvironment’squestions,stated that “…only cleanequipment is allowedaccess for deliveryand useon thesites.Contractorsorpersonnelwithvehiclesnew to the sitemustensure thatthevehicles are clean before entry”. Again, Shell deferred the question. The mostnorthernportionofHwy63northofFortMcMurrayisgravel(todate)andisoftenextremelymuddy. Inaddition, the roadsideshavebeen re‐vegetatedwith smoothbrome, other agronomic grasses, and weeds. Contractors and personnel drivingalong these roads may arrive at times carrying mud and grass seeds on theirvehicles.

PRM SIR #350 refers to vegetation reclamation and to the monitoring program(Volume5Section7.1).

PRMSIR#511 simply statesthatShellwould survey, treatandcontrolweeds,andeducateitspersonnelaboutweedissues.

Requests:

i. ExplainhowShellwouldcontrol the introductionandspreadof invasivenon‐nativespeciesduringconstructionandreclamation.

ii. Clarifywhether theaccess to the construction siteand subsequentplant sitewillbefullypaved,orifnot,howcontractorswouldensurethattheirvehiclesarecleanuponenteringthesite.

63. Impacts to traditionally‐used plants not adequately assessed. Shell identifies theTraditional Plant Potential, in which plant species used as part of a traditionallifestyle are assigned to vegetation type and scored according to presence andcover.Thismethodassumes, inaccurately, thatall theseplantspeciesareofequalimportancetoalltheregionalAboriginalcommunities.

Discussion:

ShelldoesnotaddresstheACFN’stechnicalquestionsforthisissue,statingthatthequestionwasadisagreementwithShell’smethodologyandconclusions.Changesintraditional species composition or loss of traditional plant areas may affect theACFN'straditionaluseandtheirRights.



Requests:

i. Describe which plant species are considered important by the Aboriginalcommunities,andassesstheimpactsonthosespecies.

ii. Identify thresholds/criteria used by Shell to assess potential impacts ontraditionalusersfromlossoftraditionally‐usedplants.

64. Rare plants assumption unsupported. Shell assumes that reclamation wouldcompensate for the loss of rare plants by increasing the rare plant habitat in thereclaimedlandscape.

Discussion:

InresponsetotheACFN’stechnicalquestionsonthisissue,Shellsuggeststhatthereclaimedlandscapewillprovidethepotentialforthenaturalre‐colonizationofrareplants. Shell plans to use direct placement of reclamation materials and expectssuccessfulnaturalinvasionofnativevegetation(includingrareplants),referencingasuccessfulrestorationofarivervalleyinDenmarkbynaturalinvasion(Pedersenetal.2007).

The likelihood of rare propagules surviving direct placement of reclamationmaterials is small. In many cases, rare plants are adapted for specific ecologicalconditions which would not be re‐created immediately (if at all). The long timebetween clearing and reclamation would diminish the probability of the fewsurvivingpropagulesgerminatingandestablishing.

Shell cites (incompletely) a single scientific article (Pedersen et al., 2007) about averydifferentecosystemasevidencethatallrareplantswillre‐colonizeinsituationswhere the degree of disturbance is very significant. This single article does notinspire confidence that rare plants can be successfully re‐colonized in reclaimedlandscapes5orthatthecomplex interactionsofclimate,geology, topsoils,surfaceandgroundwater,vegetationandwildlifeintheregioncaneverberestored.

Request:

Provide scientific evidence, using multiple species of rare plants with differenthabitat requirements and rarity classes, that rare plants would move intoreclaimedhabitatsintheOilSandsRegion.

65. EvaluationofRarePlantPotential inadequate.Shellassesses impactsonhighRarePlantPotential (RPP), referringtoareasthatmighthaverareplants.However, it is

5 Theresearchciteddescribetherestorationof19kmoftheSkjernRiverand22km2ofthecultivatedrivervalleyinDenmark,andincludedacomprehensivemonitoringprogramincludinghydrology,nutrients,fish,meadowvegetation,amphibiansaswellasrivermorphology,in‐streamhabitats,macrophytesandmacroinvertebrates



difficult toaccuratelypredict rareplantoccurrences.Simplyaddingthenumberofspeciesthatcouldoccurinanecositephasewilloverestimatetheareainwhichrareplantswouldactuallybefound.Thismethodforevaluatingrateplantpotentialhaslittlesciencetosupportit.

Discussion:

In response to theACFN’s technical question on this issue, Shell states that “rareplant potential (RPP) does not predict rare plant occurrences, but identifies thoseecosite phases and wetlands types that have been identified as more likely tocontainrareplantsbasedonextensivefieldworkintheOilSandsRegion”.

Shell correctly states that RPP does not predict rare plant occurrences. HoweverShell’sevaluationofRPPhasfourproblems:

a) Overestimationofareasofrareplanthabitat.Mappingrareplantfrequencybyecositephaseassumesthatanyparticularspotwithintheecositephasewouldhavethesamechanceofhavingarareplant.Becausethefactorsgoverningtherarityofmostspeciesareunknown,assumptionscannotbemade.Forexample,knowingthatrareplantAoccursinBM‐d1isalmostmeaningless,givenhowmuchd1occursintheborealforest;

b) Inabilitytodistinguishbetweenveryrarespecieswithonlyoneortwooccurrencesandsomewhatrarespecieswith,forexample,20ormoreoccurrences;

c) Actualimpactstoexistingrareplantpopulationsarenotassessed;

d) Difficultiesinpredictingimpactswhenconsideringcommon/largeecositesversusuncommon/smallecosites.Common/largeecositephaseswithseveralrarespeciesareconsideredtobeofgreaterimportancethanuncommonecositephaseswithfewerrarespecies,buttheimpactonasmallersizedecositemaybeverydifferent:

o Scenario 1 ‐ an uncommon ecosite with three rare species /occurrences:50hectaresoutof50hectares=100%lossandthelossofthreerarespecies/occurrences.

o Scenario 2 ‐ a commonecosite (i.e. BM‐d1)with five rare species /occurrences:50hectares/1,000hectares=5% loss.Thelossofrarespecies is unknown, but probably low given the large area inwhichtheymayoccur.

WhenaskedbyAlbertaEnvironment(SIR44c,secondroundSIR–June2010)howShell will ensure that the JPME does not contribute to the extirpation of a rareplantspredictedtobeeliminatedfromtheLSAbytheproject,Shell respondedbysimplystatingthatthelossofrareplantswithintheprojectareawouldnotresultinextirpation.



Request:

Evaluate the impacts on actual rare plant occurrences using Alberta NaturalHeritageInformationCentre(ANHIC)records(GovernmentofAlberta,2009).

66. Additional details about rare plants in Kearl Lake area required. In the December2009Supporting Information for theShell JPMEandPRMEIAUpdate, Shell statesthat theKearl LakeLeveeand the increasedwaterdrawdownarea ispredicted todisturb riparian communities, old growth forest, peatlands, patterned fens,economic forests, rate plants, and traditional plant potential. Table 2.4‐4 in thesame document lists the rare plant observations in the Kearl Lake area. Of thetwelvespecieslisted,sevenareconsideredrare(S1orS2ontheANHICtrackinglist).FivespecieshaverecentlybeendownlistedtoS3byANHIC.

Shell states that several of the species in the list have numerous occurrences inAlberta. There is no indication that any of these occurrences still exist as mostsurveys in the boreal forest take place in locations scouted for oil sands projects.Three species in the list are suggested to be regionally rare or require specifichabitats,butmitigationisnotplanned,andimpactsarenotassessed.

Request:

EstimatetheimpactsofthelossoftheKearlLakearearareplantlocationsonaprovinciallevel,usingtheNatureServedefinitionofOccurrence.

67. Rareplantsurveyorsnotidentified.TheAlbertaNativePlantCouncil’s(ANPC)RarePlantSurveyGuidelines recommend that surveyors for rare plantsbe identified inreports.

Discussion:

TheACFNtechnicalquestionforthisissuewasonlypartiallyansweredbyShell,whostated that “field protocols were based on guidelines developed by the AlbertaNative Plant Council … and integrated with Golder Rare Plant Survey TechnicalProcedures”.TheANPCguidelines recommend that the report includea signaturesheetwiththenamesandcredentialsofthefieldbiologistsandauthors.Theseniorauthor should sign it, acknowledging that all relevant information is included andthattheyacceptresponsibilityfortheaccuracyofthereport.

Request:

Identifythebotanistsusedfortherareplantsurveysintheassessment,aswellastheir qualifications. Clarify whether these botanists were on all the detailedinventorysurveysaswellastherareplantsurveys.



68. Additional details about the accuracy of vegetation maps required. Shell usesexistingAlbertaVegetationInventories(AVI)asabasisfordevelopingecositephasemaps for the LSA, and LANDSAT satellite image classification at the RSA level.However,thereisnodiscussionoftheaccuracyofthesemapsorwhetherfielddatawereusedtoverifytheiraccuracy(EnvironmentalSettingReportSection3.3.1.7,pg.3‐16). The resultingmapsareused inboth thevegetationandwildlifeassessmentwithoutcommentontheiraccuracy.

Discussion:

In response to ACFN’s technical question on this issue, Shell provides someinformationonmapuse,buttwouncertaintiesremain:theaccuracyoftheoriginalAlbertaVegetationInventory(AVI),andtheaccuracyofthemodelusedtoconverttheAVItoEcositePhase.

Request:

IdentifywhethertheaccuracyofRSAvegetationmapswasdeterminedbygrounddataorfromairphotointerpretation.

69. Negligibleratingforspecialplantcommunityunclear.Theproject’slocalstudyareacomprises the lenticular patterned fen special plant community. The project’soperations and mine area overlap 37 ha (6%) of the southern edge of this fen.Clearing,pitconstruction,anddrawdownarepredictedtobehigh,affecting124ha(21%) of the fen. Shell states that there “is limited regional information on thesespecial plant communities and their distribution within the RSA” (EIA, Volume 5,Section7.5.2.2,pg.7‐86).

Theimpacttothisspecialplantcommunityisconsideredlocal,althoughthelackofdata indicatesthat itmaybeuncommonorrare intheboreal forest. Ithasahighenvironmentalconsequenceinthelocalstudyarea,butnegligibleintheRSA.Lossesoralterationstoregionallyrareplantsorcommunitiesmayhavearegionalimpact,notjustlocal.

Discussion:

ShelldoesnotaddresstheACFN’stechnicalquestionsforthisissue,statingthatthequestionwasadisagreementwithShell’smethodologyandconclusions.

Request:

Explainwhyimpactstoaspecialplantcommunitythatmaybeprovinciallyrare,isconsiderednegligible.



70. Proposedmonitoringvague.Shellstatesitwillmonitortheprojectbyexpandingitsexisting, Alberta Environment‐approved, Jackpine Mine Phase 1 monitoringprograms (EIA Volume 5, Section 7.1.3, Page 7‐12). Shell’s description of theseterrestrialmonitoringprogramsprovidesonlyavaguesuggestionofthemonitoringthatwilltakeplace.

Request:

Describe in greater detail the vegetation reclamation, biodiversity, andwetlandmonitoringprograms.

71. Impacts of combined air emissions on vegetation key indicator resources unclear.Theincreaseinnitrogencausingeutrophicationisaconcern‐nitrogenaccumulatesintheenvironmentcausinglong‐termtopermanentchanges.

While nitrogen is a naturally occurring nutrient, most northern vegetationcommunitiesareadaptedto lownitrogen levels.Theadditionofnitrogentotreedbogsandpoor fensmayresult inashift inspecies,and,potentially,an increase insedgesandshrubsandadecreaseinmossesandlichens(dependingonthespecies).Plantspeciesparticularlyadaptedto lownutrientconditions,suchaspitcherplant(whichisbothrareandcollectedforusebyAboriginalusers)maybeout‐competedinamorenutrient‐richenvironment.Althoughtheareapotentiallyaffectedissmall,thelong‐termimpactsmaybenoticeabletoAboriginalusersandwildlife.

The combined effects of acid deposition, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, andeutrophication on treed / poor bogs may cause more permanent changes thananticipated.TheinterrelationshipsbetweentheseelementsandnorthernCanadianecosystems are notwell understood, and therefore the confidence level in theseassessmentsisnothigh.

Discussion:

InresponsetotheACFN’stechnicalquestiononthisissue,Shellmissedanimportantpoint:notallcombinationsofpollutantsandtheireffectsonplants(oranimals)areadditive;manyaresynergistic.

Request:

Provide a qualitative description of how air emissions (PAI, SO2, NO2, andeutrophication) might cumulatively affect plants around the mine duringoperationsandreclamation,takingsynergisticeffectsintoconsideration.



4.10 Reclamation,Soils,andLandforms

4.10.1 OverviewThekeyenvironmentalissuesarisingfromtheJPMEwithrespecttoreclamation,soils,andlandformsare:

Closurelandscapesthatareverydifferentfromthebaselinelandscape;

Lossof9279haofwetlands;

Reclamationstrategiesaresimplisticandrelyheavilyonunsupportedassumptions;

Disturbanceofover14000ha,withnospecificreclamationtimelineandrelianceonadaptivemanagement;

Uncertaintiesrelatedtoreclamationofwettailings;

Uncertaintiesrelatedtoproject‐scale,andregional‐scalereclamationofwetlandsasuplandforest.


Review of the Shell JackpineMine Expansion: Terrain, Soils, and Reclamation –Review for: Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, June 2010, by Len Knapik ofPedocanLandEvaluation,attachedtothisreportasAppendixD‐12.


Shell is planning to expand the Jackpine Mine, increasing the soil and vegetationdisturbance area by over 14 000 ha. Large oil sands projects, such as the JPME, takeplaceoverseveraldecades.Thereisalongtimelagbetweenwhenaprojectisdesignedandwhenreclamationwouldtakeplace.TheJMPEclosurelandscapeplanssuggestShellassumesaveryoptimisticlevelofsuccessduetoanticipatedadaptivelearningoverthenextfewdecades.

Thelandscapesandlandformsdescribedintheclosureplanswouldbeverydifferentfromnaturallandscapesandlandforms.Thelandformsdonotappeartomimicnaturallandforms.Therewouldbeaverysmallextentofwetlandsinthelandscape,whichmayormaynotbewetallsummer.Thedrainagechannelswouldbeconstructedandwouldbeunlikelytoappearnatural.

Shellhasproposedtousethickenedtailingsatthisproject,whichshould leadtofasterreclamation time lines, but theywould still be relying on large external tailings pondsand end‐pit lakes. It is not clear whether this technology satisfies the intent or thespecificsofERCBDirective074.

Theexistingdrainagebasinsandstreamchannelsofcreekswouldbeminedoutandnewdrainage systems imposed thatwould be very different. The design of new landscape



features(includinghugeoverburdendumps)andnewcreekchannelsisbasedonmodelsthathavenotbeenprovenontheselargelysand‐basedlandscapes.

Shellestimatesthetimerequiredforreclamationtoreverseimpactsandachieveastateof equivalent capability and sustainable ecosystems will be 80 years. A moreconservativeestimatemightbehundredsofyearsforsomeelementsandtheremaybesomeimpactsthatshouldbeconsideredpermanent.

4.10.3 ConcernsandRequestsThefollowingreclamationconcernsandrequestswereidentified:

72. Directplacementofsoilstrategyunclear.Shellindicatesthatonethirdofthetopsoilwould be used for direct placement and that the other two thirds of the topsoilwould be stored in reclamation material piles (EIA Update, Appendix II, Section3.3.2,table27).

Storingsoilsforlongperiodsoftimeinlargepiles,whileconvenient,destroymuchof the living material important for reclamation success. Seeds, propagules, andmycorrhyizaearenotlikelytosurvivethismethodinsufficientquantitiestoenhancesitere‐vegetation.

The success of reclamation is based on several factors: site conditions, weatherconditions during the establishment years, and the seed source available in theestablishmentyears.Reclamationsitesthatarerelativelysmallandsurroundedbyvegetation communities with high species richness are likely to reclaim to rich /diverse communities. Reclamation sites that are large, such asmines, have areasthat are distant from seed sources. The centres of these large reclamation areaswouldhavelowspeciesrichness‐unlesssignificantmanagementstepsaretaken.

Discussion:

Shell does not address the ACFN’s technical questions for this issue, insteadprovidingreferencestobroadstatementsaboutdirectplacement,revegetation,andbiodiversity.

Requests:

i. Estimatetheareathatwouldhavetopsoilplaceddirectlyuponit,ratherthanstoredinthereclamationmaterialsites.

ii. Explain how biodiversity would be enhanced in the areas where directplacementisnotpossible.

iii. Explainhowspeciesrichnesswouldbeenhancedwiththedirectplacementofthetopsoilandthelackofseedingforbs(otherthanintwoshrublands).



iv. Describe Shell’swillingness to prepare contingency plans, including sufficientreserve funds, in the event that the reclamation strategies described in theApplicationdonotmeettheirintendedoutcomes.

v. Describe Shell’s willingness to use the ACFN and other regional Aboriginalcommunities as monitors of Shell’s success in this matter (and othersassociatedwiththeRightsheldbythesecommunities).

73. RelianceonLCCSformeetingreplacementofequivalentlandcapabilityinadequate.Shell states it will reclaim disturbed areas to meet or exceed equivalent landcapability for forestry, anduse theLandCapabilityClassificationSystem forForestEcosystems (LCCS) to do so. Use of the LCCS does not ensure replacement ofequivalent land capability, as is confirmed by the LCCS Field Manual 3rd Edition(CEMA‐LCCS,2006),theCEMASoilsandVegetationSubgroup–ForestProductivityTaskGroup(inTimberline,2008),andtheGovernmentofAlberta.

If Shell has no other data or information to support their assumption of attainingequivalentcapabilityandforestproductivity, thenthemodelassumptionsneedtoberevisitedandtheratingsrevised.

Request:

ExplainwhyShellreliessolelyontheLCCSsystemtopredictequivalentlandcapability.

74. Reclamation of wetlands as upland forest inadequately assessed and planned. Ofthe9,279haofwetlandsremovedasaresultoftheJPM,zerohectaresofmarshesand openwaterwetlandswould be reclaimed. There are no plans for reclaimingbogs or fens. The CEMA Guideline for Wetland Establishment on Reclaimed OilSands Leases (in Harris, 2007) recommends a watershed:wetlands ratio of 2:1 inreclaimedareastocreatesustainableecosystemsintheoilsandsregion.Thismeans33% of the reclaimed watershed should be wetlands, but the JPME closure planshowszeropercent.

Thissamepatternoflossoflargelandscape‐sizedwetlandsishappeningateveryoilsandsmineintheregion.Muchofthelargeareasofwetlandsremovedasaresultofoilsandsminingisexpectedtobereclaimedasuplandforests,constitutingamajorshiftintheecosystemoftheregion.

Requests:

i. Discuss the use of the CEMA Guideline for Wetland Establishment onReclaimedOilSandsLeasesrecommendationofawatershed:wetlandsratioof2:1forthecreationofsustainableecosystemsintheOilSandsRegion.



ii. Present the area of wetlands in the region that would be converted intouplands.

iii. Describe the decisions and cost necessary to implement the 2:1watershed:wetlandsratio.

75. Closure landscape water quality details required. The reclaimed landscape wouldincludeanumberof lowareas,aconstructedchannelfortheMuskegRiver,runoffchannels and streams, and ponds. Poor groundwater quality due to seepage ofprocess‐affectedwater from tailings seems likely to result in salinewetlandswithcontaminationbysalts,hydrocarbons,naphthenicacids,andhydrogensulphide.

Requests:

i. DiscusshowShellplanstoestimatethelocationofthelong‐termwatertableand seepage areas in an areawhen groundwater is being affected by otherminesandclimatechangeislikelybutunpredictable.

ii. Discusshowsurfacewaterwouldbeseparatedfromprocess‐affectedwater(inthefinetailings)inthefinallandscape.

76. Large reclamation knowledge gaps and complex issues related to tailingsmanagement inadequately assessed. There is a lot of information that is stillunknown regarding reclamation of all of the disturbances associated with an oilsandsproject.Itwilltakemanyyearsofintensiveresearchtodeveloptrialsystemsthatmustbemonitored,providefeedbacktovalidateunderstanding,adjustdesignsandmanagement, and then test again. Some of these knowledge gaps are listedbelow6:

• Wetlandreclamationo SeeHarris(2007)GuidelineforWetlandEstablishmentSection7–

AddressingUncertainty • DrainageBasin/Landformgrading,shapinganddrainage.

o Howtoconstructvegetatedwaterways o Howtocontrolsalinity

• EcositeEcologyForeachlandform/material/soiltype(ecosite):o Whatarethewaterandenergybalances(capitalandcirculationrates,

whereandhowmuchwaterisinthelandscape,howisitmovingaroundandwhy);

o Whatarethesaltbalances,includinginorganics,organics,ions,nutrients,metals(capitalandcirculationrates);

6AdaptedfromSyncrude(2006),&Barbouretal.(2007).



o Whataretheplantandecologicalresponsestowater,energyandsaltbalances;

o Whatarethevegetationsuccessionsequencesofreclaimedecosites;o Identifybestmanagementpracticesforestablishmentofborealplant

communitiesinclosurelandscapes,includingtailoredplanting,selectiveLFHandtopsoilsalvageandplacement,andpropagationtechniquesforplantspeciesofconcern.

• SoilsCappingResearchNeedso Suitabilityofcappingprescriptionsfortailingssandsfordrierthanmesic

siteswithwatertables>1.5mbgs.o Scheduleforcapping.o Macroandmicronutrientcyclinganddynamics,includingeffectsof

fertilizationinundisturbedandreconstructedsoils.- Orderofpriority:Nitrogen,phosphorous,micronutrients.- Impactofmoistureregimesonnutrientdynamics.

o Cappingoptionsotherthan“lowrisk”shouldbeexaminedtoraiselevelofconfidenceinlong‐termperformance:- Effectsofclimatecyclingonsaltandwaterbalancesonsand,- EffectsofclimatecyclingonsaltandwaterbalancesonSSOB,- EffectsofelevatedpH(fromtailings‐affectedwater)onecosystem

development,- Improvedunderstandingoftrajectoriesforplantcommunity

developmentonreclaimedsitestobuildconfidencethatreclaimedareasaremovingtowardsdesiredendpoints,

- Slopeandaspecteffectsonwaterandsaltbalances,and- Desodificationofsodiumimpactedsoils.Flushingratesof

dominantlymineralsoilprofiles.• Uncertaintiesrelatedtoreclamationofwettailings‐especiallyinlightof

recentregulatorychangesandnewtechnologiesfordrytailings.

Requests:

i. Clearly identify the limits of demonstrated reclamation technology replaceequivalentcapability.

ii. Provide examples in themineable oil sands regionwhere restoration (ratherthanmerereclamation) ispossible, includinganorderofmagnitudeestimateofthecostcomparedtocurrentmethods.

iii. Discusstheissuesspecifictostabilizationandreclamationofnon‐segregatingtailings.

iv. Review impact assessments and confidence ratings based on demonstratedreclamationsuccess.

v. Discuss how Shell will manage tailings to develop strength to allow timelycappingandmeetreclamationandclosurerequirements.



vi. Discuss how Shell will meet the requirement of having tailings with lowcompressibility so as to minimize settlement and not disrupt the closurelandscape.

vii. Discusshowwaterqualityandsalt loadfromthede‐wateringtailingswillbemanagedtonotcreatelargeareasofsalinesoilsinthereclaimedlandscapes.

viii. Discuss uncertainties regarding tailings reclamation, including the risk offailure with tailings pond dikes and the risk that reclaimed tailings will notsupportecositephases.

ix. Compare and contrast the use of dry tailings technologies versus thickenedtailingsfortheJPME.Includereclamationsuccessinthediscussion.

x. IdentifyanychangesShellisconsideringthatwouldeliminateexternaltailingsponds and the long‐term storage ofwet tailings in the reclaimed landscapeandinendpitlakes.

4.11 TraditionalLandUseandTraditionalKnowledge

4.11.1 OverviewTraditionallandusefortheACFNisawayoflifethatincludesspiritual,cultural,linguistic,medicinal, and subsistence activities. Themany components of traditional land use areinseparableandcrucialforthecontinuationoftheACFN’sRightsandculture.

ThekeyissuesarisingfromtheJPMEwithrespecttoTraditionalLandUseare:

EIAnotincompliancewiththeTermsofReferencefortraditionaluseassessment;

TheACFNnotdirectly consultedaboutmembers’ traditional landsor theiruseofspecificareasproposedfordisturbance;

Longtermlossoflandassociatedwiththeprojectfootprintandcumulativelyintheregion,andtheassociatedlossoftraditionallanduses;

Many uncertainties related to timing and success of reclamation of traditionallands;

Unknowncumulative impactstotheabilityofACFNmemberstocontinuecurrentandfuturetraditionalusepractices;

Adversedirect,indirectandcumulativeeffectsonTreatyandAboriginalrightsnotassessed.


Shell Canada Limited Jackpine Mine Expansion and Pierre River Mine ProjectEnvironmental Impact Assessment Report – Review for Athabasca Chipewyan



FirstNation–TraditionalLandUseandTraditionalKnowledge,October2008,byJanelleBakerofLittleSeedConsulting,attachedtothisreportasAppendixD‐13.


In 2008, Shell received project‐specific Traditional Land Use (TLU) and TraditionalKnowledge(TK)informationfromACFNcommunitymembers.Shell reviewedtheTLU/TKreportsanddeterminedthereportsdidnotcontain informationthatwouldchangetheTLUassessmentreportedintheoriginalEIA.TheACFNidentifiedgapswiththe2008project‐specific Traditional Use Study (TUS), and Shell agreed to a final scope for afurther TUS inSeptember2010.TheEIAwillnotbecompleteuntil Shell has reviewedandintegratedthissupplementalTUSworkintotheEIA.

ThemitigationsproposedbyShelldonotaddresstheACFN’sconcernsorthepredictedimpacts. For example, reclamation in the “far future” and financial compensation totrappersintheprojectareadonotaddressthelossoftraditionalterritoryandassociatedusefortheACFNinitsentirety.Trapper’scompensationismeanttoaddressimpactstothe individual trapper’s commercial activities. The value and use of traplines goesbeyond the commercial trapping activities. Treaty andAboriginal rights are communalrightsthatarenotaddressedthroughtrapper’scompensation.Theterm“far future” isnotdefinedandnotimelineforfarfuturereclamationisprovided.Lossofaccesstoanduse of lands formore than a generation can be considered an irreversible impact, astraditionalknowledge(whichisreinforcedandlearnedthroughongoinguseoflands),islost. Damage to wildlife populations and associated harvesting activities were notassessed in full consideration of their impacts to the ACFN, including not only theirTreaty and Aboriginal rights, but the psychological toll on individuals, and thesociologicalbearingonthecommunity–therelationshipwiththelandisoftantamountimportance to the ACFN. Their history, until very recently, has consisted of over athousand years of living off the land, without manipulating the environment throughagrarian practices or industrialization. Even the physiology of the Aboriginal people isadapted for traditional diets (Baschetti, 1998). There may be no culturally relevantmitigationsforadverseimpactstoharvesting.

ShelldoesnotcomplywiththeTermsofReferencewithrespecttocommunicationwiththeACFNabouttraditionallanduseandhowitwillbeimpactedbytheproject.

Shelldemonstratesalackoffaithintraditionalknowledge.Forexample,ShellsupportstheresultsofthePopulationViabilityAnalysis (PVA)whichpredictsagrowth inmooseandblackbearpopulations.However,trappersandotherFirstNationspeople,aswellasmodeling results conducted in conjunction with the development of a TerrestrialEcosystemManagementFrameworkfortheRegionalMunicipalityofWoodBuffalo(forCEMA),consistentlyreportdecliningmoosenumbersintheregion7.

7 Thisconcernisaddressedinthewildlifesection.



ShellstatesthattheyareconsultingtheACFNonpotentialproject‐relatedimpactsontheirtraditionallandsandAboriginalrights.

4.11.3 ConcernsandRequestsThefollowingTraditionalLandUseconcernsandrequestswereidentified:

77. Traditional landassessmentdoesnotmeet the Termsof Reference. TheTermsofReference for the EIA that state that Shellmust discuss “the extent of traditionallanduseandculturaluseintheStudyArea”(TOR8.0.a)and“projectandcumulativeeffectsofdevelopmenton traditionalusesandmitigation strategies topreventorminimizeeffects”(TOR8.0.b).TheACFNwerenotfullyconsultedonthesetopics.

Request:

DiscusshowShell intendstocomplywiththeTermsofReferencewithregardstoconsultationwiththeACFNontraditionaluseandimpactsoftheJPME.

78. TKandTLUnotseriouslyconsidered intheassessment.Shell isnot"consultingtheACFNon the potential impacts of the project on theACFN's traditional lands andrights"tothe levelofsatisfactiontotheACFN.TheACFNhavetabledanumberofquestionsand suggestionswithShell andAENV toaddress this issueand, todate,therehasbeennoresponse.

Discussion:

InresponsetotheACFN’stechnicalquestiononthisissue,ShellreferstotheACFN’sTLUandTKstudyandclaimsthatfundingthetechnicalreviewispartofconsultation.ShellalsostatestheyareconsultingwiththeACFNonthepotentialimpactsoftheprojectontheACFN’straditionallandsandAboriginalandTreatyrights.However,thisinformationwasnotusedaspartoftheassessmentofthisproject.ShellagreedtoafinalscopeforafurtherTraditionalUseStudy(TUS)inSeptember2010,followingACFN’sidentificationofgapswiththe2008project‐specificTUS.TheEIAwillnotbecompleteuntilShellhasreviewedandintegratedthissupplementalTUSworkintotheEIA.

Requests:

i. ConcludetheworkonTK/TLUandincorporateintotheEIAbeforeproceedingwiththeapplication.

ii. Clarify how the TLU and TK information has been considered in the projectplanning.

iii. Clarify how the TLU and TK information provided by the ACFN will beconsideredintheprojectoperation.



iv. ClarifywhethertheTLUandTKworkiscomplete.

v. Identify the specific instances where the TK information provided bothcorrespondsanddoesnotcorrespondwithscientificinformationintheEIA.

vi. IdentifyhowShellwilladdressACFNconcernsaboutTLUintheprojectarea.

vii. After reconsidering the ACFN’s TK submission, re‐evaluate how the projectwouldimpacttheACFN'sabilitytoexercisetheirRights.

79. Detailsonthelossoftraditionalterritoryrequired.ShellstatesthatasectionoftheACFN’s traditional territory would be disturbed and not reclaimed until the farfuture. No reclamation timeline is provided. This loss of traditional territorytranslates directly into a loss of use, the potential to use the area, and theassociatedimpactsonRightsandculture.

Discussion:

In response to the ACFN’s technical question on this issue, Shell stated it isconsulting with the ACFN on the potential impacts of the project on the ACFN’straditional landsandAboriginal rights.However, this informationwasnotusedaspartoftheassessmentofthisproject.

Request:

Clarifywhether any identified sites of traditional significancewill be avoided orimpactsuponthemmitigated.

80. Cumulativeimpactstotraditionalusersnotfullyaddressed.Shellassumesthatafteranunspecifiedamountoftime,plants,animals,andfishwouldmoveintotheareawithoutassistanceand that the landwouldbe restored toproductive capacity. Insome cases the impacts to terrestrial resources (such as old growth forest andbarredowls)wouldnotbefullyrecovereduntilsometimeinthe‘farfuture’(whichisundefined).However,the intervalbetweenthefirstdisturbanceandthesitebeingfullyrestoredtherewouldbeaconsiderablelengthoftime‐80–100yearsormore(asthistimespansseveralgenerations, traditionalpractices intheJPMEareamaybelost).ThedesiredendstateforFirstNationsisonethatwouldbeproductivefortraditionaluse–includingtheexercisingoftheirRights,inconditionssimilartopre‐industrialization,asthoseconditionswerethebasisofTreatynegotiations.

The ACFN are concerned that the impacts from the JPME and the regionalindustrializationasawholewouldhaveanearpermanentimpactontheACFN’suseofthisareafortraditionalpurposes.



Requests:

i. AddresstheimpactofthelossoftraditionallanduseoftheJPMEontraditionalusesbytheACFNandtheirabilitytoexercisetheirRights.

ii. Re‐assessthecumulativeimpactsfromtheJPMEandnearbyoperations,usingactual data from reclamation efforts from these neighbouring operations.After identifying the gaps between what was promised and what wasdelivered, identifywhatmitigationsShellwouldconsider.Useapre‐industrialbaselinefortheassessment.

iii. Identify how Shell will address the potential liabilities if the plannedreclamationmeasures fail tomeet regulatory requirementsand theneedsofRights‐bearingAboriginalcommunities.

iv. Assess how theACFN’s ability to exercise their Rightswould be impactedbyhavingtocarryouttheirtraditionalpracticesinareclaimedlandscapethatisvastlydifferentthanthepre‐industrializationlandscape.

81. Industrialactivitiesdirectlyand indirectly impactonTLUandpracticeofAboriginalandTreaty rights.The incrementaland increasinglyprevalent impactsof industrialactivity,bothintheregionandlocally,willhaveasignificantandlong‐lastingimpactonFirstNationmembers.Witheachnewindustrialproject intheregionthereareincremental and cumulative impacts that cause increased traffic and congestion;light pollution; noise; odours; off‐road use; hunting pressures; displacement ofwildlife; habitat loss and fragmentation, loss of traditional plants and berries;contamination of traditional foods, air, water, etc. In turn there is increasedcompetition for traditional resources; impediments to access to preferredharvesting areas; deteriorated quality and quantity of traditional resources;deteriorated aesthetic and spiritual qualities of harvesting and occupancy areas;psychosocial barriers to harvesting; and, a decreased ability to pass traditionalknowledgeandculturalpracticestoyoungergenerations.TheadditionalstressandanxietyamongACFNmembers(seeSection4.12–HumanHealth)thatresultsfromboth a lack of confidence in the quality and safety of traditional foods and fromimpacts to cultural and community well‐being as traditional practices begin todecline, is an important effect that goes unexamined and unaccounted for.Whiletheimpactsofeachindividualprojectmayseeminsignificantandgounnoticed,overtimetheadditiveeffectsmayresultinconsiderableandpermanentenvironmental,socioeconomic,andculturallosses.

Combined, these impacts result in a decreased ability to practice Treaty andAboriginal rights, and ultimately in a loss of culture and connection to the land.People use the land less; they take fewer trips and collect fewer foods andmedicines; their ability and desire to use the land for traditional purposes issignificantly and irreversibly impacted, resulting in more store bought foods, lessexercise,fewersocialgatherings,lossoflanguage,andpoorerhealthandwell‐being.



In short, industry’s presence impacts the ACFN and its practice of Treaty andAboriginalrights.

Requests:

i. AssessthedirectandindirecteffectsoftheJPMEincombinationwithallotherregionalprojectsonthewell‐beingandcultureoftheACFN.Takeintoconsiderationtheincrementalandcumulativeeffectsofindustryandotheractivitiesintheregion.

ii. AssessthedirectandindirecteffectsoftheJPMEincombinationwithallotherregionalprojects(inthepast,present,andfuture)ontheabilityoftheACFNtopracticetheirAboriginalandTreatyrights.

4.12 HumanHealth

4.12.1 OverviewShell concludes that theprojectalone,and in conjunctionwithadditionalexistingandfutureregionalindustrialprojects,isnotexpectedtoincreasehealthrisksintheoilsandsregion,andthatconservatismhasbeenwidelyappliedindetermininghealthrisk.Thereare flaws in the Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) that do not support Shell’sconclusion.

ThekeyissuesarisingfromtheJPMEwithrespecttohumanhealthare:

Human Health Risk Assessment is not as conservative as it is portrayed in theapplication;

Realistic and comprehensive views of individual and community health notaddressed;

Poor understanding of acute inhalation health risk for the most sensitiveindividuals.


HumanHealthRiskAssessment:Reviewof JackpineMineExpansionProjectandPierreRiverMineProjectEIAs,September282008,byDr.JohnDennis,ofSolAeroLtd.,attachedtothisreportasAppendixD‐14.

Acrolein Issue within the Shell Pierre River Mine Project and Jackpine MineExpansionProjectHumanHealthRiskAssessments,byDr.JohnDennis,ofSolAeroLtd.,attachedtothisreportasAppendixD‐15.




Shell concludes that the project is not expected to result in a noticeable increase inhealth risks in the oil sands region. This conclusion does not address potential healthimpactstoACFNcommunitymembers.

Shell also concludes that conservatism has beenwidely applied in determining healthrisk. However Shell does not incorporate conservative assumptions to the extentsuggested in the HHRA. While it promotes some legitimate inclusion of conservativeassumptions, it ignores important aspects, including: exclusion of a large number anddiversityofchemicalsofconcernwhicharedifficulttoassess,exclusionofanydiscussionof potential synergism between chemicals of concern resulting in enhanced healthimpact (only potential additive effects of a chemical mixture were considered), andexclusionofarealisticpresentationofthecomplexseriesofsequentialestimates.

Rather than includeanassessmentof thewider impactsonhealth from theproposeddevelopmentonACFNcommunitymembers,theHHRAincludesonlyanarrowdefinitionof health relating to pollutant exposure and does not address the definition of publichealthassharedbyHealthCanadaandAlbertaHealthandWellness.It isclearthatthehealth of both individuals and communities at large need to be based on more thansimplyacceptingsomemaximumlevelofindustrialpollutionwhichiscurrentlythoughttonotcauseill‐health.

There is a widely accepted notion within regional First Nations groups, including theACFN, that pollution fromoil sands projects and other industry presents a real risk tohumanandenvironmentalhealth.Becauseofthisriskperception(whetherrealornot),further industrial activity in the oil sands region would result in individual andcommunity stresswhich in turn can be expected to have an impact on individual andcommunityhealthatanumberoflevels.ShelldoesnotaddresstheroleofstressinbothphysicalandpsychologicalhealthimpactsinACFNindividualsandcommunity.

All of the ACFN’s HHRA technical questions remain unaddressed by Shell. The chiefdifficultieswiththisHHRAliewith:

1. Shell’s inaccurate understanding and use of ‘conservative assumptions’. The ‘vastmajority’ofchemicalshavenotbeenaddresseddirectly–butonlyindirectlythroughgroupingsorsurrogates.

2. The limiting definition of health in the Terms of Reference ‐ Shell and AlbertaEnvironmentmust accept that there are important health determinantswhich falloutsidethenarrowdefinitionofhealthadoptedintheTermsofReference.

4.12.3 ConcernsandRequestsThefollowinghumanhealthconcernsandrequestswereidentified:

82. HHRA conclusion unclear, with details lacking. Shell concludes that overall, “theproject emissions alone, and in combination with other sources of [chemicals ofpotentialconcern]arenotexpectedtoresultinanoticeableincreaseinhealthrisks



intheOilSandRegion”.Theuseoftheterm“noticeable increase inhealth risk” isunclear;itisuncertainwhatandwhodefinestheperceptibilityofachangeinhealthrisk,andwhetherthesehealthrisksarebeingmonitored.

Discussion:

InresponsetotheACFN’stechnicalquestiononthisissue,Shellappearstoconfuse‘healthrisk’and‘healthimpact’.

TheHHRAclearlydemonstratedthatthereisanincreaseinhealthrisk.Thequestionthenbecomeswhetherthe increase inhealthrisk is likelytoproducean increasedadversehealtheffectorimpact.

Requests:

i. Identify who decides what is a ‘noticeable increase’ in health risks (or lackthereof),andhowa‘noticeableincrease’isdefined.

ii. Identifywho,ifanyone, ismonitoringtheoverallhealthrisksandhealthriskstospecificgroupsofpeople intheregion includingFirstNationcommunities,andwhatisbeingdonetoaddresstheexistingandpotentialhealthrisks.

83. ConservativeassumptionsnotfullyincorporatedintotheHHRA.ShellconcludesthatconservativeassumptionswereroutinelyusedwithintheHHRA.However,thereareinstanceswhereconservatismwasnotsupported.

Discussion:

WhileitistruethatmanypagesintheHHRAaredevotedtoexplainingconservativeassumptions being adopted, the imbedded discussion mainly focuses on whenconservatismhasbeenused. Shelldoesnotdiscuss ingreatdetail instanceswhenconservatismhasnotbeenapplied.Forexample,theexclusionofapproximately250chemicalsofpotentialconcernfromtheriskassessmentprocesswasnotmentionedin the discussion of conservative assumptions. This relates to one of these areaswherethe‘vastmajority’ofchemicalshavenotbeenaddresseddirectly–butonlyindirectly through groupings or surrogates. While commonplace practice in thepreparationofHHRAs,thispracticedoesnotpromoteconservatism.

Otherexampleofthisinclude:thepotentialsynergisticeffectsofchemicalmixtureswereneitherconsiderednordiscussedintheHHRA;theuseofsurrogates,etc.

In response to theACFN’s technical question on this issue, it is evident that Shelldoesnotaccept that thereare importantareaswhereconservatismhasnotbeenadopted.Anexampleofthisistheanalysisoftheriskposedbyacrolein(seebelow).



Request:

Re‐assess the uncertainties in the HHRA, specifically in those areas whereconservatismhasnotbeenappliedintheHHRA.

84. Acroleinassessmentflawed.ThereareseriousflawswiththeassessmentofacroleinandreferencetotheacroleinreportintheHHRA.IntheHHRA,Shellsummarizestheriskassessmentforacrolein.Referencingthe2005GolderAssociates(Golder)reportAcroleinMonitoringintheOilSandsRegion,Shellclaimsnodetectableconcentrationsofacroleinwerefoundinalllaboratorysamplescollected“whereMDL[MethodDetectionLimits]rangedbetween0.04and2.6ug/m3”(HHRA,Page5‐87).Shellarguesthattheabsenceofdetectableconcentrationsofacroleinwithinthe2005Golderreportprovidesfurtherevidencethattheirmodeledestimatesofacroleinare‘overlyconservative’.

There are serious errors in the sciencewithin the 2005 Golder report and Shell’sinterpretation of the report’s findings. The 2005 Golder report did not carry outcalculations required to calculate airborne detection equivalent concentrations ofacrolein.WhenthecorrectcalculationswerecarriedoutaspartofthisACFNreview,theaverageconcentrationwasbetween1‐2ug/m3,withsomeconcentrationsfoundto be above 20 ug/m3. In comparison, the USEPA reference concentration valueusedintheHHRAis0.02ug/m3.Inallcases,Golderlistedtheacroleinsamplestobe‘Below Detection Limit’. The USEPA exposure limit is 2‐3 orders of magnitudeBELOWthecalculatedminimaldetectable concentration limits in the 2005Golderreport.According to themethodsused in theGolder report, acrolein levels in thesampleswouldonlybedetectediftheywere100to1,000timestheacceptedsafelimit.

It is recommended that Shell address the inaccuracies relating to airborneconcentrationsofacrolein inthe2005Golder reportand re‐evaluate it’sHHRA foracroleinaccordingly.It isalsorecommendedthatShellprovideevidencethatotherreferencedreportsintheHHRAforthisprojectarenotsimilarlyflawed.

Requests:

i. Discussandaddresstheinaccuraciesintheairborneacroleinconcentrationsinthe2005Golderreportandre‐evaluatetheHHRAforacrolein.

ii. DiscussandaddressthepotentialforsimilarflawedanalysisintheHHRAandelsewhereintheEIA.

iii. Re‐assessthesignificanceofthisanalysisontheRightsoftheACFN.

85. Realistic and comprehensive views of individual and community health notaddressed. Shell’s HHRA includes only a narrow definition of health relating to



pollutantexposureanddoesnotaddressthedefinitionofpublichealthassharedbyHealthCanadaandAlbertaHealthandWellness.

Discussion:

InresponsetotheACFN’stechnicalquestiononthisissue,Shellstatesitrecognizesthat therearemanydeterminantsofhealth other than thosecharacterized in thehumanhealthriskassessment,asaperson’shealthandwell‐beingisinfluencedbymanyfactors,andthatitsapproachtoassessingthehealthrisksassociatedwithitsproposed Project is in accordance with the Terms of Reference (TOR) issued byAlberta Environment. It is accepted that Shell is operating under the TOR set byAlbertaEnvironment;however,itisimportantthatShellacceptsthereareimportanthealthdeterminantswhich falloutside thenarrowdefinitionofhealthadopted intheTOR.ThesehealthdeterminantshavenotbeenaddressedintheHHRAbuttheyareimpactedbytheJPME.TheACFNmadespecificcommentsonthisinrelationtothedraftTORfortheassessment,yetthesehavenotbeenaddressedbyShellintheassessment.

Requests:

i. Discuss the indirect impacts on the individual and community health of theACFNfromthisprojectandotherindustrialactivitiesintheregion.

ii. Discusspotentialmitigationstoaddresstheseimpacts.

86. Acuteinhalationhealthrisksmaynotbeprotectiveofthemostsensitiveindividuals.ShellstatesinSection2.4(Volume3)thattheacutehealthrisksduetoairemissionsaretobecomparedwith“health‐basedguidelinesconsideredprotectiveofthemostsensitive individuals”. However maximum concentrations are compared with theCanada‐Wide Standards (CWS), a standard that is not only health‐based but alsoincludes economic considerations. Rather, Shell should have considered Clean AirStrategic Alliance’s (CASA) Fine ParticulateMatter andOzoneManagement tieredFramework (which incorporates the concepts of keeping clean areas clean andcontinuousimprovement),ortheWorldHealthOrganization’sAirQualityGuidelines(WHO,2005).

Shellmust recognize that the CWS is not aguideline considered protective of themost sensitive individuals as clearly stated in the final documentation for thestandards:“while[theCWS]willsignificantlyreducetheeffectofPMandozoneonhumanhealthandtheenvironment,theymaynotbefullyprotectiveandmayneedto be re‐visited at some future date. (CCME‐CWS, 2000)”. This means that thedecisionsregardingsignificanceofhealtheffectsbasedonconsideringthis levelasprotectivearehighlysuspect.



Request:

Provide a discussion on the use of the Canada‐Wide Standards for particulatematter and ozone in the assessment of health risks from emissions. Considerincorporating CASA’s Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone Management tieredFramework,ortheWorldHealthOrganization’sAirQualityGuidelines.



5.0 LiteratureCited

ACFNIRC.2009.LetterdatedMay12,2009,toBrianMakowecki,DFO,fromLisaKing,ACFNIRC,RE:ShellJackpineMineExpansionandPierreRiverMineApplicationNoNetLossPlanning.

AlbertaParks,HeritageInformationCentretpr.alberta.ca/parks/heritageinfocentre/environsigareas/docs/esa_provincial_overview.pdf.

Barbour,L.,D.Chanasyk,J.Hendry,L.Leskiw,T.Macyk,C.Mendoza,A.Naeth,C.Nichol,M.O’Kane,B.Purdy,C.Qualizza,S.Quideau,andC.Welham.2007.SoilsCappingResearchintheAthabascaOilSandsRegion.Volume1:TechnologySynthesis.Draft.Pp.15‐19.

Baschetti,R.Diabetesepidemicinnewlywesternizedpopulations:isitduetothriftygenesortogeneticallyunknownfoods?JournaloftheRoyalSocietyofMedicine,volume91(12):622‐625.

CCME.CanadianCouncilofMinistersoftheEnvironment‐CanadianEnvironmentalQualityGuidelines[online].Availablefrom:http://ceqg‐rcqe.ccme.ca/.

CCME‐CWS.CanadianCouncilofMinistersoftheEnvironment–Canada‐WideStandardsforParticulateMatter(PM)andOzonePDF[online].2000.Availablefrom:http://www.ccme.ca/ourwork/air.html?category_id=99

CEMA(CumulativeEnvironmentalManagementAssociation).2007.LandCapabilityClassificationSystemforForestEcosystemsintheOilSands,Volume1:FieldManualforLandCapabilityDetermination(thirdedition).53pp.

ERCB(EnergyandResourcesConservationBoard).2010.April232010NewsRelease[online].Availablefrom:http://www.ercb.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_0_303_263_0_43/http%3B/ercbContent/publishedcontent/publish/ercb_home/news/news_releases/2010/nr2010_05.aspx

GovernmentofAlberta.2009.AlbertaNaturalHeritageInformationCentre–VascularandNon‐vascularPlantTrackingandWatchListsPDF[online].Availablefromhttp://tpr.alberta.ca/parks/heritageinfocentre/docs/2009_ACIMS_TL_Sept2009.pdf.

Harris,Megan.2007.GuidelineforWetlandEstablishmentonReclaimedOilSandsLeases(revisedsecondedition).Preparedby:LoraxEnvironmentalforCumulativeEnvironmentalManagementAssociation(CEMA)WetlandsandAquaticsSubgroupoftheReclamationWorkingGroup.FortMcMurray,AB.117pp.

Larsen,C.P.S.&G.M.MacDonald,1998.Fireandvegetationdynamicsinajackandblackspruceforestreconstructedusingfossilpollenandcharcoal.JournalofEcology86(5):815‐828.

Larsen,C.P.S.1997.SpatialandTemporalVariationsinBorealForestFireFrequencyinNorthernAlberta.JournalofBiogeography,Vol.24,No.5:663‐673).



PedersenM.L.,J.M.Andersen,K.Nielsen,andM.Linnemann.2007.RestorationofSkjernRiveranditsvalley:Projectdescriptionandgeneralecologicalchangesintheprojectarea.EcologicalEngineeringVolume30,Issue2,1June2007,Pages131‐144.

Schneider,R.2001.Old‐GrowthForestsinAlberta:EcologyandManagement.Alberta.

SyncrudeCanadaLtd.2006.ApplicationforRenewalofApprovalsAlbertaEnvironmentProtectionandEnhancementAct–VolumeII.

TimberlineNaturalResourcesLtd.2008.AnalyzingtheRelationshipBetweenLCCSRatingsandSite Productivity. Prepared for: Cumulative Environmental Management Association(CEMA).FortMcMurray,AB.4pp.

Weir,J.M.H.,E.A.Johnson,andK.Miyanishi.2000.FirefrequencyandthespatialagemosaicoftheMixed‐WoodBorealForest inWesternCanada.EcologicalApplications,Vol.10,No.4:1162‐1177.

Westworth,D.A.andAssociates1990.SignificantNaturalFeaturesoftheEasternBorealForestRegionofAlberta.AlbertaForestry,LandsandWildlifeTechnicalReport.

World Health Organization. 2005. WHO Air quality guidelines for particulate matter, ozone,nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide ‐ Global update 2005 ‐ Summary of risk assessment.Availablefromhttp://www.who.int/phe/health_topics/outdoorair_aqg/en/index.html.



Appendices

A

AppendixA

LetterdatedFebruary1,2010fromLisaKing,ACFNIRCtoAlvaroLoyola,SeniorAdvisor,AboriginalRelations,AlbertaEnvironmentandtoJohnAbbot,EVPHeavyOil,ShellCanadaEnergy,RE:ShellCanadaLtd.–JackpineMineExpansionandPierreRiverMineProjectEPEAApplicationFilenumbers:001‐00245358,005‐

00153125,006‐00153125,WaterActFilenumbers:00245489,00186157

B

AppendixB

TechnicalInformationRequestsfromtheAthabascaChipewyanFirstNation

C

AppendixC

TableofTechnicalQuestionsontheShellJackpineMineExpansionProjectSubmittedbytheAthabascaChipewyanFirstNationtoShellinDecember2009and

Shell’sResponsestotheseQuestions

D

AppendixD

TechnicalReviewReports‐ShellJackpineMineExpansionProject

i

AppendixD‐1

ShellJackpineMineExpansionandPierreRiverMineProject–EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentMethodologyReviewforAthabascaChipewyanFirstNation–

April5,2010,byC.DanaBushofBushEcology

ii

AppendixD‐2

CumulativeEffectsReviewofShellPierreRiverMineandShellJackpineMineExpansionProjectsforAthabascaChipewyanFirstNation,August2010,byDaniel

SmithofDSEnvironmentalConsultingInc.

iii

AppendixD‐3

ShellJackpineMineExpansionProject–EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReport–ReviewforAthabascaChipewyanFirstNation–GroundwaterComponent–

September2008,byLewFahnerofAguaConsulting

iv

AppendixD‐4

ShellJackpineMineExpansionandPierreRiverMineProjectsResponsestoACFNSIRs–EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReportReviewforAthabascaChipewyan

FirstNation–GroundwaterComponent,August2009,byLewFahnerofAguaConsulting

v

AppendixD‐5

ShellJackpineMineExpansionProjectEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReport‐ReviewforAthabascaChipewyanFirstNation,September25,2008,byFay

WestcottofClearwaterEnvironmentalConsultants

vi

AppendixD‐6

ShellJackpineMineExpansionProject–ApplicationAmendmentandResponsetotheACFNReview,October2,2009,byFayWestcottofClearwaterEnvironmental

Consultants

vii

AppendixD‐7

ShellPierreMineProject–ConceptualFishHabitatCompensationPlanReviewforAthabascaChipewyanFirstNation,September25,2008,byFayWestcottof

ClearwaterEnvironmentalConsultants

viii

AppendixD‐8

ShellCanada–JackpineMineExpansion–EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReport.ReviewforAthabascaChipewyanFirstNation,February17,2009,by

BrendaMiskimmin,SummitEnvironmentalConsultantsLtd.

ix

AppendixD‐9

ShellCanadaLimitedJackpineMineExpansionProjectandPierreRiverMineProject–EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReport‐ReviewforAthabasca

ChipewyanFirstNation,October2008,byDr.KarenMcDonald

x

AppendixD‐10

WildlifeReviewoftheShellJackpineMineExpansionandPierreRiverMineProjects–Reviewfor:AthabascaChipewyanFirstNation,May2010,byDave

WestworthofPumaEnvironmentalLtd.

xi

AppendixD‐11

JackpineMineExpansionandPierreRiveMineProject‐EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReport‐ReviewforAthabascaChipewyanFirstNation–Vegetation,WetlandsandForestResourcesComponent,April29,2010(revised),byC.Dana

BushofBushEcology

xii

AppendixD‐12

ReviewoftheShellJackpineMineExpansion:Terrain,Soils,andReclamation–Reviewfor:AthabascaChipewyanFirstNation,July2010,byLenKnapikofPedocan

LandEvaluation

xiii

AppendixD‐13

ShellCanadaLimitedJackpineMineExpansionandPierreRiverMineProjectsEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReport–ReviewforAthabascaChipewyanFirstNation–TraditionalLandUseandTraditionalKnowledge,October2008,byJanelle

BakerofLittleSeedConsulting

xiv

AppendixD‐14

HumanHealthRiskAssessment:ReviewofJackpineMineExpansionProjectandPierreRiverProjectEIAs,September282008,byDr.JohnDennis,ofSolAeroLtd.

xv

AppendixD‐15

AcroleinIssuewithintheShellPierreRiverMineProjectandJackpineMineExpansionProjectHHRA,byDr.JohnDennis,ofSolAeroLtd.

Documents

Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion Project - ceaa.gc.ca€¦ · Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion Project – ACFN Review Report October 2010 DS Environmental Consulting Inc. iii Executive