Métis Nation of Alberta Association Fort McMurray Local ...

Métis Nation of Alberta Association Fort McMurray Local Council 1935

441 Sakitawaw Trail, Fort McMurray, AB, T9H 4P3 P: 780-743-2659 | F: 780-791-2654

E: [email protected] | T: McMurrayMetis | W: www.FortMcMurrayMetis.org

of 3

October 17, 2016 David Haddon, Panel Manager 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 [email protected] Re: Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Review (CEAA Reference #65505) – McMurray Métis (MNA Local 1935) comments on Sufficiency of Information to Proceed to a Public Hearing Dear Mr. Haddon, We are writing to you regarding Joint Review Panel notice seeking comments from Indigenous groups and the public on the proposed Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), the project applications under the Oil Sands Conservation Act, Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, and Water Act, and on additional information submitted by the proponent, Teck Resources Ltd; and whether the information submitted by Teck to date is sufficient to proceed to a public hearing. McMurray Métis submitted a Statement of Concern and technical review of Teck’s 2015 Project Update (2015) in December 2015 (“MM SOC”). Teck provided a response to McMurray Métis (April 2016), which has also been submitted to the JRP. Please find attached our detailed review and assessment of the sufficiency of Teck’s responses to 1) the MM SOCs and 2) the Round 5 Supplemental Information Responses to the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA). Based on our review, Teck’s responses to MM SOCs and the regulators SIRs are too general and provide insufficient detail. We have identified deficiencies in information and level of detail related to air quality, hydrogeology, hydrology, water quality, aquatic resources, fish habitat offsetting plan, wildlife, vegetation and wetlands, biodiversity, soils, closure, conservation and reclamation plan, traditional land use, socio-economics, and cumulative effects and these are described in detail in the attached sufficiency review. We request that the JRP not proceed to a public hearing until Teck addresses these information gaps. McMurray Métis identified numerous deficiencies relating to information regarding the proposed Athabasca River Bridge. Teck indicated to CEAA that, “…The potential effects of the construction and operation of the proposed Athabasca River bridge crossing will be assessed as part of the Project’s draft Detailed Fisheries Offsetting Plan.” McMurray Métis views this as a significant deficiency with the current project application. We request that the JRP requires, prior to any approval being issued for the project, Teck to complete an environmental assessment on the potential effects of the construction and operation of the proposed Athabasca River bridge crossing and that McMurray Métis be engaged in the environmental assessment. Of significant concern is Teck’s assessment of effects on McMurray Métis traditional land use. Teck did not provide a determination of significance of potential adverse effects to McMurray Metis, as is required by the terms of reference. In addition to the absence of a proper determination of significance for the potential impacts to McMurray Métis TLU, Teck did not adequately justify and explain its consequence ratings, which it used in lieu of a determination of significance. Teck also assumed a “preferred use” area for McMurray Métis, which is inappropriate and likely




of 3

underestimates the impacts of the Project on McMurray Métis TLU by measuring potential effects against a large and unsubstantiated “preferred use area”. We request that the JPR does not proceed to a public hearing Teck and McMurray Métis have a agreed process to determine a community-based “preferred use area” for the assessment of impacts to TLU and to complete consultation with McMurray Metis regarding the recommendations of the Cultural Impact Assessment, potential mitigation, offsetting, and compensation measures, and the determination of significance of effects on McMurray Métis TLU. Teck did not directly address the specific deficiencies identified in McMurray Métis’ review of the socio-economic assessment. Rather, Teck referred all specific concerns to general statements organized into one of four proponent-identified themes. The general statements provided by Teck do not address the specific concerns raised by McMurray Métis in relation to the sufficiency of Teck’s assessment of potential Project effects to the socio-economic status of the McMurray Métis community and potential measures to mitigate, offset, compensate. We request that the JPR not proceed to a public hearing until Teck has either provided or reached an agreement with McMurray Métis to conduct a community-led Métis-specific socio-economic baseline study and impact assessment for the proposed Project. Management plans, monitoring and follow-up programs are essential parts of the environmental assessment and our view is that Teck’s plans are not complete require more fulsome engagement with McMurray Métis in their development and that this should be done prior to proceeding to a public hearing. This includes the Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, Fisheries Offsetting Plan, Groundwater and Seepage Control Monitoring Plan, Air, Water, Wetlands and Biodiversity Management and Monitoring Plans. We also request that the JRP require Teck to complete foundational draft of the Access Management Plan in collaboration with McMurray Métis and other land users. Furthermore, we have outlined deficiencies in Métis Consultation with Alberta. We recommend that the JRP does not proceed with a hearing until Alberta engages with McMurray Métis. As we have indicated above and in our detailed sufficiency review, this Application is incomplete and further information, assessment and engagement with McMurray Metis by Teck is needed prior to the JRP proceeding to a public hearing on the Frontier Project. If you have any questions regarding this submission please contact me at the following: information: Dan Stuckless McMurray Métis (MNA Local 1935) 441 Sakitawaw Trail Fort McMurray, AB T9H 4P3 *****TEMPORARY MAILING ADDRESS****** PO Box 6462 Fort McMurray, Alberta T9H 5N4 Phone: 780-743-2659 Ext. 222 Email: [email protected]

<email address removed>




of 3

Sincerely,

Dan Stuckless, General Manager, McMurray Métis (MNA Local 1935) Encl. Teck Resources Limited Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project McMurray Metis Sufficiency Review CC: Neil Sandstrom, Manager of Environment, Teck Resources Limited

Janais Turuk, Manager, Community Relations, Teck Resources Limited Sheila Risbud, Regulatory Manager, Teck Resources Limited Candace Anderson, Crown Consultation Coordinator, CEAA

<Original signed by>

Teck Resources Limited Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Revised Applications submitted to Alberta Energy Regulator and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Oil Sands Conservation Act Application No. 1709793 Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act Application No. 001-00247548 Water Act File No. 00303079 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Reference number 65505 Technical Review Sufficiency Review prepared for: Métis Nation of Alberta Association Fort McMurray Local Council 1935 Prepared by: Dr. Timothy Clark, Willow Springs Strategic Solutions Kim Dertien-Loubert, Woven Paths Consulting Inc. Dr. Gillian Donald, Donald Functional & Applied Ecology Inc. Kelly Finigan, Lagimodiere Finigan Inc. Douglas Geller, Western Water Associates Ltd. Lorne Gould, Gould Environmental Ltd. Pascale Méra, Big Sky Consulting Dr. Brenda Miskimmin, Associated Environmental Consultants Inc. Danlin Su, Emerald Environmental Consulting October 2016

Teck Resources Ltd. -i- October 2016 Frontier Oil Sands Mine Sufficiency Review

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 1 1.1. Purpose of a Sufficiency Review ............................................................ 1 1.2. Reviewers ............................................................................................... 2

2. MÉTIS CONSULTATION AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE CROWN ............................ 3 2.1. McMurray Métis .................................................................................... 3 2.2. Métis Consultation and Impacts to Aboriginal Rights ........................... 3 2.3. Requests to the Crown ......................................................................... 10

3. PROJECT OVERVIEW ...................................................................................... 12 3.1. Timing ................................................................................................... 12 3.2. Location, Access and Traffic ................................................................. 12

4. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ................................................................................... 14

5. AIR ................................................................................................................ 15

6. HYDROGEOLOGY ........................................................................................... 18

7. HYDROLOGY ................................................................................................. 21 7.1. Regarding Part 1: Responses to Provincial SIRs (AER) ......................... 21 7.2. Regarding Part 2: Responses to Federal SIRs (CEAA) ........................... 21 7.3. Overall Insufficiencies .......................................................................... 23

8. SURFACE WATER QUALITY AND AQUATIC RESOURCES ................................. 27

9. FISH HABITAT OFFSETTING PLAN .................................................................. 33

10. WILDLIFE ....................................................................................................... 36

11. VEGETATION AND WETLANDS ...................................................................... 43

12. BIODIVERSITY ............................................................................................... 47

13. SOILS ............................................................................................................. 49

14. CLOSURE, CONSERVATION AND RECLAMATION PLAN .................................. 50

Teck Resources Ltd. -ii- October 2016 Frontier Oil Sands Mine Sufficiency Review

15. TRADITIONAL LAND USE ............................................................................... 55 15.1. Provincial SIRs (AER) ............................................................................. 55 15.2. Federals SIRs (CEAA) ............................................................................ 59 15.3. McMurray Métis (MNA Local 1935) ..................................................... 63

16. SOCIO-ECONOMICS ....................................................................................... 71 16.1. McMurray Métis (MNA Local 1935) ..................................................... 71

17. SUMMARY AND OVERARCHING REQUESTS TO THE JRP ................................ 79 17.1. Key themes ........................................................................................... 79

18. BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................. 83

Figures Figure 8-1: General Site Layout with Waterways, Diversions and FHCL

(Teck’s Figure 48-1) ........................................................................................ 28

Teck Resources Ltd. -1- October 2016 Frontier Oil Sands Mine Sufficiency Review

1. Introduction The Joint Review Panel (JRP) reviewing the proposed Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project (Project) is seeking public comments on the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), the project applications under the Oil Sands Conservation Act, Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, and Water Act, and on additional information submitted by the proponent, Teck Resources Ltd. (Alberta Energy Regulator and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 2013).

Teck Resources Ltd.’s (Teck) proposed Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project would be a new 260,000 barrel per day (bpd) oil sands mining operation located approximately 110 km north of Fort McMurray, Alberta. The project is a truck and shovel mine that includes an open pit, ore preparation plant, bitumen processing plant, tailings facilities, cogeneration facilities, support utilities, disposal and storage areas, river water intake, fish habitat compensation lake, bridge, roads, airfield and camp.

1.1. Purpose of a Sufficiency Review

The purpose of the Sufficiency Review is to submit comments in writing to the JRP on whether the information submitted by Teck is sufficient to proceed to the public hearing. The following documents were reviewed to complete the review:

• Teck’s responses to Supplemental Information Requests (SIRs) Round 5 (Teck Resources Ltd. 2016a)

o Part 1 – Responses to Provincial SIRs (AER) o Part 2 – Responses to Federal SIRs (CEAA)

• Teck’s responses to McMurray Métis (MNA Local 1935)’s Technical Review and Statement of Concern (Teck Resources Ltd. 2016b)– Note: these are abbreviated in this document as “MM SOCs”.

The reviewers were requested to:

• summarize deficiencies, where applicable highlighting deficiencies specific to each community, if deficiency affects both communities then present as an overall deficiency; and

• define requests to the JRP based on deficiencies identified.

Deficiencies and requests might apply to more than one SIR or MM SOC. For consistency through the document, the specific SIRs and MM SOCs are referenced in a footnote associated with the deficiency topic/heading.


1.2. Reviewers

The review was coordinated by Gillian Donald (Donald Functional & Applied Ecology Inc.), Environment and Land Advisor to McMurray Métis. Specific components were reviewed by the following individuals:

• Kim Dertien-Loubert, Woven Paths Aboriginal Relations, Research and Consulting Inc.– Consultation/Aboriginal Rights Impacts

• Danlin Su, Emerald Environmental Consulting – Air Quality • Douglas Geller, Western Water Associates Ltd – Hydrogeology • Dr. Brenda Miskimmin, Associated Environmental Consultants Inc. – Surface

Water Quality and Aquatic Ecology • Dr. Gillian Donald, Donald Functional & Applied Ecology Inc. –terrain and soils,

vegetation, biodiversity, cumulative effects, conceptual conservation and reclamation plan

• Dr. Timothy Clark, Willow Springs Strategic Solutions – Traditional Land Use and Socio-economics (McMurray Métis)

• Pascale Mera, Big Sky Consulting – Socio-Economics (Fort Chipewyan Métis) • Kelly Finigan, Lagimodiere Finigan Inc. – Hydrology • Marie Lagimodiere, Lagimodiere Finigan Inc. – Senior Review


2. Métis Consultation and Obligations of the Crown

2.1. McMurray Métis

McMurray Métis is a rights-bearing Métis community that meets all the criteria set by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Powley (R. v. Powley 2003).1. Members of the community continue to engage in the traditional and subsistence harvesting practices in their Traditional Territory, including hunting, trapping, harvesting, fishing, and gathering. McMurray Métis community members are concerned that additional industrial development will further restrict their ability to exercise these constitutionally-protected Aboriginal rights.

McMurray Métis is bound by the bylaws of the Métis Nation of Alberta Association (MNAA).2 Membership is defined in Articles 5-10 of said bylaws and outlined in the Registration Guide of the Métis National Council.3 To become a member of McMurray Métis one must meet the requirements of belonging to a Métis Local, which is better understood as belonging to a “Local Community.” Specifically, Article 4.8 stipulates that a Local Community is defined as “a Métis Local affiliated with the MNAA and means:

1. a minimum of ten (10) Métis Lifetime Members in good standing;

1. Who have obtained the consent of the Provincial Council to use the name “Métis Nation” in its name;

2. Who have obtained the consent of a majority of the members of their Regional Council at a meeting of the Regional Council; and

3. Who are presently incorporated pursuant to the Societies Act of Alberta.”

2.2. Métis Consultation and Impacts to Aboriginal Rights

The Duty of the Crown to consult with potentially impacted Aboriginal communities has been confirmed by the Supreme Court. Recently the Special Representative appointed by the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, Thomas Isaac, to dialogue on Section 35 Métis Rights, released a report entitled, A Matter of National and Constitutional Import: Report of the Minister’s Special Representative on Reconciliation with Métis: Section 35 Métis Rights and the Manitoba Métis Federation Decision (the “Isaac Report”; Isaac 2016).

1 Clark, T.D., D. O’Connor and P. Fortna. 2015. Fort McMurray: Historic and Contemporary Rights-Bearing Métis Community. Unpublished report prepared for McMurray Métis (MNA Local 1935), Fort McMurray, Alberta. https://www.academia.edu/14943775/Fort_McMurray_Historic_and_Contemporary_Rights-Bearing_M%C3%A9tis_Community. (Last accessed 19 August 2015). 2 Métis Nation of Alberta Association, Bylaws, http://www.albertaMétis.com/MNAHome/MNA2/MNA-Bylaws.aspx. (Last accessed 19 August 2015). 3 Métis National Council, Registration Guide, http://www.Métisnation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/M%C3%A9tis-Registration-Guide.pdf. (Last accessed 19 August 2015);


The Isaac report covers an overview of Métis Law in Canada and the misconceptions, challenges and obstacles regarding the Métis relationship with Canada and the Provinces, and reconciliation between the Crown, federal and provincial, and Métis peoples.

The Métis are central to the history and development of Canada, are a unique people with rich identity and culture, and represent one of three identified Aboriginal peoples in Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (Section 35).4 Rights held by Métis peoples under Section 35 are constitutionally recognized and affirmed by the Constitution of Canada (Isaac, 2016: 2).

Isaac clarifies, “Reconciliation is more than platitudes and recognition. Reconciliation flows from the constitutionally protected rights of Métis protected by Section 355 and is inextricably tied to the honour of the Crown, and must be grounded in practical actions. The Supreme Court of Canada’s (SCC) seminal 2013 decision of Manitoba Métis Federation v. Canada (A.G.)6 (MMF Decision) stated: “The unfinished business of reconciliation of the Métis people with Canadian sovereignty is a matter of national and constitutional import.” (Isaac, 2016: 3)

Reiterating the tenets of existing Canadian law regarding Métis, Isaac reaffirms that the test for establishing who is Métis for the purposes of Section 35 is set out by the SCC in 2003 in R. v. Powley7, and a starting point for any discussion for a Métis rights framework.

When discussing the term “government” as meaning the system by which a community is governed8, Isaac clarifies that, “for Métis communities this takes at least two forms: (a) more traditional geographic governments like the Métis Settlements in Alberta, and (b) governments that have the legal authority to represent their constituents’/communities’ interests and, in particular, their

4 Subsection 35(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 states: “In this Act, “aboriginal peoples of Canada” includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.” 5 Ibid. 6 Manitoba Métis Federation v. Canada (A.G.), [2013] 1 S.C.R. 623, 2013 SCC 14, at para. 140 (MMF Decision). 7 28 R. v. Powley, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 207, 2003 SCC 43 (Powley), at paras. 31–33 the SCC stated: “First, the claimant must self-identify as a member of a Métis community. This self-identification should not be of recent vintage: While an individual’s self-identification need not be static or monolithic, claims that are made belatedly in order to benefit from a s. 35 right will not satisfy the self- identification requirement. Second, the claimant must present evidence of an ancestral connection to an historic Métis community. This objective requirement ensures that beneficiaries of s. 35 rights have a real link to the historic community whose practices ground the right being claimed. We would not require a minimum “blood quantum”, but we would require some proof that the claimant’s ancestors belonged to the historic Métis community by birth, adoption, or other means. [...] Third, the claimant must demonstrate that he or she is accepted by the modern community whose continuity with the historic community provides the legal foundation for the right being claimed. Membership in a Métis political organization may be relevant to the question of community acceptance, but it is not sufficient in the absence of a contextual understanding of the membership requirements of the organization and its role in the Métis community. The core of community acceptance is past and ongoing participation in a shared culture, in the customs and traditions that constitute a Métis community’s identity and distinguish it from other groups. [...] The range of acceptable forms of evidence does not attenuate the need for an objective demonstration of a solid bond of past and present mutual identification and recognition of common belonging between the claimant and other members of the rights-bearing community. [Emphasis in original.] 8 Oxford Dictionary of English, Third Edition, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 757.


Section 35 rights. For some Métis, their communities might very well exist within existing publicly-governed communities, but that should make them no less able to have the ability to govern in respect of their unique Métis heritage and Section 35 rights. Of course, in the case of the latter, there must be a clear authorization from the Métis government or Métis individual(s) to so authorize its/their representation by another.9

“For the purpose of establishing a Section 35 right, the SCC held in Powley that Métis claimants must establish that they belong to an identifiable Métis community, defined as “a group of Métis with a distinctive collective identity, living together in the same geographic area and sharing a common way of life.”10 The SCC went on to enumerate three factors that provide the indicia of Métis identity for the purpose of claiming Métis rights under Section 35: (a) self-identification as a member of the Métis community; 11 (b) evidence of an ancestral connection to an historic Métis community; 12 and (c) a demonstrated acceptance by a modern Métis community,”13 (Isaac, 2016: 15).

To date the Government of Alberta has not in any circumstance required consultation by a proponent with McMurray Métis Community to be part of its Consultation Plan, nor has the Government of Alberta undertaken consultation with the McMurray Métis Community with respect to any project. The Government of Alberta has not completed a Métis Consultation Policy despite the comments of the Shell Jackpine Mine JRP Panel and the Panel’s recommendation that the Government of Alberta do so. Three years have gone by since the observations and the recommendations below were made by the JRP.

[1550] The Panel believes that if government wants to streamline regulatory proceedings, clarifying expectations and providing guidance with respect to Métis consultation would be helpful. The regulatory process would be more efficient if interveners did not find it necessary to advance their arguments related to Aboriginal rights and Crown consultation in the regulatory proceedings for individual projects. The Panel, therefore, recommends that Alberta consider developing a Métis consultation policy that outlines expectations and provides guidance with respect to Métis consultation.

9 For the purpose of a Section 35 Métis rights framework, it is imperative that those governments or organizations asserting representation of Métis can demonstrate that they in fact represent Section 35 rights-bearing Métis peoples. In Behn v. Moulton Contracting Ltd., [2013] 2 S.C.R. 227, 2013 SCC 26, at para. 30, the Supreme Court of Canada stated the following regarding who can represent Aboriginal peoples in the context of the Crown’s duty to consult: “The duty to consult exists to protect the collective rights of Aboriginal peoples. For this reason, it is owed to the Aboriginal group that holds the s. 35 rights, which are collective in nature: [...] But an Aboriginal group can authorize an individual or an organization to represent it for the purpose of asserting its s. 35 rights”. 10 Powley, at para. 12. 11 Ibid. at para. 31. 12 Ibid. at para. 32. 13 Ibid. at para. 33.


Recommendation 70 -The Panel recommends that the Government of Alberta consider developing a Métis consultation policy that outlines expectations and provides guidance with respect to Métis consultation (Effects on Aboriginal Traditional Land Use, Rights, and Culture) (Excerpted from JRP 2013)

Alberta’s correspondence to McMurray Métis has been sparse and confusing; when the McMurray Métis has sought clarification of the process the Government of Alberta employs for Métis Consultation through the Aboriginal Consultation Office (“ACO”) there has generally been no response. Such Consultation is to take place on a case by case basis; however, the Government of Alberta has admitted that there has not yet been a case where the ACO has required consultation with a Métis Community in Alberta. In 2014 the ACO began to issue decisions to proponents on projects in the area stating that no consultation is required with the Métis Communities in the area. In May 2016, two Local Communities sought judicial review of a number of these decisions. No Decision on the correctness of such direction from the ACO has been issued by the Courts.

To date Alberta has refused to recognize the Statements of Concern filed by the McMurray Métis in this matter. On June 4, 2012 in accordance with the deadlines set by the Government of Alberta a Statement of Concern (SoC) was submitted by MNA Region 1, the same group that had participated at the Shell Jackpine JRP. on behalf of its member Locals. On July 19, 2012 the Government of Alberta asked for detailed information to be provided by Region 1. On August 31, 2012 this information was provided. On October 10, 2012 the Government of Alberta rejected the Statement of Concern from Region 1 stating:

“[Y]our submission will not be considered a Statement of Concern…Your letter of June 4, 2012 states that Métis Nation of Alberta Region 1 is the association which represents the interests of Métis people living in Northeastern Alberta. However we have received direct correspondence from various Métis Locals in the region who have shown they are directly and adversely affected by the activities proposed in the subject application.”

McMurray Métis interpreted the correspondence from the Government of Alberta as a suggestion by Alberta that the local communities were being asked to file on their own behalves and McMurray Métis filed a SoC on April 10, 2013. This SoC was rejected by the Government of Alberta stating that the submission was too late as the “[t]he notice period for submissions of statements of concern ended on June 4, 2012.”

Looking beyond Isaac’s report, inherent in Section 35 rights are the principles and practices of land stewardship, akin to an Aboriginal land management approach. This cultural custom of land management and sustainability of resources is supported and preserved in case law, national recommendations, and international declarations and conventions.


1) United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP):

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is an international instrument adopted by the United Nations on September 13, 2007, to enshrine (according to Article 43) the rights that “constitute the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of the indigenous peoples of the world.” The UNDRIP protects collective rights that might not be addressed in other human rights charters that emphasize individual rights, and it also safeguards the individual rights of Indigenous people.14

The first of the UNDRIP’s 46 articles declares that, “Indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognized in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law.” The Declaration goes on to guarantee the rights of Indigenous peoples to enjoy and practice their cultures and customs, their religions, and their languages, and to develop and strengthen their economies and their social and political institutions. Indigenous peoples have the right to be free from discrimination, and the right to a nationality.15

Significantly, in Article 3 the UNDRIP recognizes Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination, which includes the right “to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” Article 4 affirms Indigenous peoples’ right “to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs,” and Article 5 protects their right “to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions.” Article 26 states that “Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired,” and it directs states to give legal recognition to these territories. The Declaration does not override the rights of Indigenous peoples contained in their treaties and agreements with individual states, and it commands these states to observe and enforce the agreements. 16 [Emphasis added]

2) Convention on Biodiversity Article 8(j):

Focusing on indigenous land users being instrumental and vital to sustainability of biodiversity by virtue of their culturally specific, ecologically centered, land use and management practices, “The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) recognizes the dependency of indigenous and local communities on biological diversity and the unique role of indigenous and local communities in conserving life on Earth. This recognition is enshrined in the preamble of the Convention and in its provisions. It is for this reason that

14 http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/global-indigenous-issues/un-declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html 15 ibid. 16 ibid.


in Article 8(j) of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Parties have undertaken to respect, preserve and maintain the knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities relevant for the conservation of biological diversity and to promote their wider application with the approval of knowledge holders and to encourage equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the use of biological diversity. Furthermore, because of its relevance to the work of the Convention, considerations relating to the traditional knowledge of indigenous and local communities are also being incorporated in all the programmes of work under the Convention.”17 [Emphasis added].

“The Convention adopted the Akwé: Kon Guidelines for the conduct of cultural, environmental and social impact assessments regarding developments proposed to take place or which are likely to impact on sacred sites and on lands and waters traditionally occupied or used by indigenous and local communities. These guidelines are intended to provide a collaborative framework ensuring the full involvement of indigenous and local communities in the assessment of cultural, environmental and social concerns and interests of indigenous and local communities of proposed developments. Moreover, guidance is provided on how to take into account traditional knowledge, innovations and practices as part of the impact-assessment processes and promote the use of appropriate technologies.”18

3) The Truth & Reconciliation Commission Recommendations:

The spirit of reconciliation is building a just future together—collaboratively. Recommendations 43 and 44 support not only the full adoption of the UNDRIP, but national action plan strategies and other concrete measures to achieve the goals of the UNDRIP. Recommendation 92 calls upon the corporate sector in Canada to adopt the UNDRIP as a reconciliation framework to apply to corporate policy and operational activities involving Indigenous peoples, their lands and resources. This includes committing to meaningful consultation, building respectful relationships, obtaining free, prior, and informed consent, equity of and long-term benefits from economic development projects, and education and awareness of the history of Aboriginal peoples, legacy of residential schools, UNDRIP, Treaties and Aboriginal rights, Indigenous law, and Aboriginal-Crown relations.19 [Emphasis added].

17 https://www.cbd.int/convention/wg8j.shtml 18 ibid. 19 Reconciliation: The Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Vol. 6. McGill-Queen’s University Press. P; 208; 229.


4) Examples of other provinces where co-management is enshrined: Government of Northwest Territories; Manitoba Métis Federation Land & Resource Management Agreement; Métis Nation of Ontario Framework Agreement

Alberta has thus far proliferated the exclusion of Aboriginal peoples from truly collaborative land management and stewardship practices regarding culturally significant resources and the ecological integrity of their habitats. Cultural continuity and sustenance require a high expectation of ecosystem integrity, health and biodiversity, and the ability and opportunity to conduct cultural and harvesting practices in order to thrive (dignity and well-being), not just survive. Section 35 rights cannot have the right be empty. It is a significant infringement on Section 35 rights, the future of those rights, and food and water sovereignty, to be offered anything less than co-management regarding the preservation and sustainability of ecological integrity and traditional resources required for cultural continuity. The benchmark should be at minimum one that meets everyone’s needs, not the lowest environmental expectation with a higher stress threshold on the land. Aboriginal rights exist in the Constitution for the maintenance of a lifeway and cultural existence, and for which those practices require resources to be sustainable, leading to the conclusion that knowledge of these life-ways is fundamentally required in effective collaborative co-management for resource sustainability. It requires agreement on the basic understanding and acceptance of a common intrinsic value the land provides to different peoples, one above commoditization.

Deficiencies noted

1) Teck uses comparatively differential communication terms between a stakeholder body, (assumed to be COSIA) and western science bodies, and Aboriginal rights-holders and other stakeholders, which implies unequal application of importance of knowledge systems and perspectives provided from different ‘stakeholders’:

“Influenced by engagement with Aboriginal communities, regulatory and government agencies and stakeholders” and “Informed by collaboration with existing oil sands developments and regional research Consortia” (Responses to Fort McMurray Métis Local 1935 Statements of Concern Regarding the Project Update, pg 13)

2) Teck uses the problematic Shell JME JRP statement (Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Responses to Supplemental Information Request, No. 5, Part 2: Responses to Federal SIRs, CEAA, Response 161 a, pg 566) for justification in creating its own criteria for study areas development:


“The Panel does not believe that use of the entire traditional territory of a First Nation or Aboriginal group is an appropriate basis for determining the significance of effects. These traditional territories tend to be very large and not all areas of the traditional territory may be used or are readily accessible for TLU or cultural activities.” (Excerpted from JRP 2013 [s. 1265], p. 214)

The problems with this culturally biased statement are:

• The Panel’s ethnocentric ‘belief’ is irrelevant, and their lack of cultural awareness and understanding of what constitutes a traditional territory demonstrates their inability for fair decision-making.

• As a traditional territory is regarded by the Aboriginal group as an integrated holistic environment that supports or affects the health of their resources and themselves, determining the significance of effects from an Aboriginal perspective (Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44.), is appropriate given the potential impact and infringement on Section 35 rights.

• The Tsilhqot’in Nation Decision determined that Aboriginal title is territorial in scope, not limited to ‘small spots’ intensively used by aboriginal peoples. The ‘full beneficial interest’ in the land, and the duty to safeguard and preserve it for future generations is what the determination of significance of effects is about. The idea that because one area might be significantly affected then implies an Aboriginal group can go elsewhere has been refuted.

• Project-specific and cumulative effects have the potential to impact both specific areas and wider territory ecology.

[1] Request to JRP

Approval conditions should ensure Aboriginal collaboration and equity in land stewardship, management and mitigative decision-making opportunities. We suggest the JRP require a foundational draft of mitigation and monitoring agreed-to principles, expectations, criteria, and goals for Aboriginal collaboration in the development, planning, and implementation of mitigation, monitoring, and management plans prior to approval conditions. This will remove narrow applications of meaningful participation processes, such as ‘input’, ‘engagement’, ‘feedback’, for more equitable, collaborative, and constitutionally fulfilling processes.

2.3. Requests to the Crown

Given the context described above, McMurray Métis has specific requests for Alberta and Canada.


Requests to the Crowns

[2] Request for Alberta

McMurray Métis requests that Alberta and Canada:

i. develops a comprehensive and inclusive Métis consultation policy, in collaboration with McMurray Métis and other Métis groups;

ii. directs proponents, including Teck, to consult with McMurray Métis on existing and planned projects occurring or potentially influencing McMurray Métis’ Traditional Territory;

iii. directs the Aboriginal Consultation Office (ACO), Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) and the Alberta Energy Regulatory (AER) to grant standing to and consult with McMurray Métis regarding the Teck Frontier Project and other projects within McMurray Métis’ Traditional Territory;

iv. involves McMurray Métis and other Métis organizations in a meaningful way in regional planning, cumulative effects management and monitoring; and

v. negotiate a mitigation and accommodation agreement with McMurray Métis to address existing impacts on McMurray Métis’ rights.

[3] Request for Canada

McMurray Métis requests that:

i. CEAA and other federal departments continue to consult with McMurray Métis regarding the Teck Frontier Project, and that these consultations are meaningful and that an appropriate level of capacity funding is made available for these consultations; and

ii. Canada negotiate a mitigation and accommodation agreement to address existing impacts on McMurray Métis’ rights.


3. Project Overview

3.1. Timing

Teck proposed to begin vegetation clearing in 2019 with first oil production expected in the first quarter of 2026. Mine production life is estimated to be 41 years, ending in 2066, with reclamation continuing until the end pit lakes are filled in 2080.

Project Schedule – Delays, Risks and Uncertainties

[4] Request to JRP

McMurray Métis requests that the AER requires Teck, before the application is deemed complete, to provide a risk management plan describing how Teck will modify mitigation, monitoring and reclamation schedules should there be any delays in the project’s construction and operation and to address risks associated with bankruptcy and economic uncertainties.

3.2. Location, Access and Traffic

The project’s planned access route will follow Highway 63 north from Fort McMurray to the Fort Chipewyan winter road. From that point, the access road and Athabasca River bridge proposed by Shell for the now-withdrawn Pierre River Mine (PRM) project will be used to cross to the west side of the river. From the bridge, an all-weather access road will proceed north along the west bank of the Athabasca River to the plant site.

Because Shell has withdrawn its regulatory application for the PRM, Teck stated in the Project Update that it intended to build the bridge as part of the project and will complete all necessary regulatory applications before starting construction of the bridge and access road.

The bridge location and design will remain the same as originally proposed by Shell; however, Teck is planning two changes from what was proposed by Shell in that it will not:

• decommission the bridge as Teck assumes the bridge will have value to the Government of Alberta or neighbouring developments in 2081 when project access is no longer required by Teck (licences of occupation will be transferred); and

• use the bridge to support pipelines because Teck believes that third-party service providers will seek to install project pipelines on the west side of the Athabasca River.


Managing Access

Prior to oil sands exploration activity and field surveys related to the proposed project and Shell’s PRM, the lands in this area were remote and mainly used by local Aboriginal land users, including members of McMurray Métis.

Since oil sands exploration activity has been occurring in Teck’s leases, beginning in the mid-2000s, more and more non-Aboriginal land users are accessing the lands and other industrial land uses such as forestry are occurring.

The cumulative effects of oil sands development in this area of McMurray Métis’ Traditional Territory are therefore a concern and critical issue, particularly in light of the existing impacts elsewhere in McMurray Métis’ Traditional Territory.

[5] Request to the Government of Alberta

McMurray Métis requests that the Government of Alberta identifies how it plans to address access management in this area to avoid impacting or infringing on Aboriginal rights or access to traditional resources use.

[6] Request to Teck

McMurray Métis requests that Teck continues to engage McMurray Métis in matters related to access management and safety, road upgrades and maintenance, traffic safety and management, and spill prevention. McMurray Métis also requests that Teck provides an opportunity for McMurray Métis’ review and comment on these plans.

[7] Request to Teck and the Government of Alberta

McMurray Métis requests that Teck and the Government of Alberta provide opportunities for consultation and engagement on the permanence of the proposed bridge and that a decision for the final decommissioning of the bridge includes input from McMurray Métis.


4. Cumulative Effects

Cultural Impact Assessment20

The Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) by McMurray Métis demonstrated that the cumulative effects assessment methods used in the Integrated Application21 do not adequately assess cumulative effects to Métis culture.

[8] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires, as a condition of any approval issued, that Teck supports the implementation of the projects described in MM SOCs #190 to 194.

Access Management22

Access management planning is incomplete.

[9] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires, as a condition of any approval issued, that Teck addresses MM SOC#4, 5, 6, 196, 197 and finalizes an Access Management Plan with a set timeline for implementation and with participation of McMurray Métis.

Peace-Athabasca Delta23 Response 161 a to SIRs (CEAA)

The Peace-Athabasca Delta was not included in Teck’s study areas.

[10] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP directs Teck to redo the environmental assessment and include the PAD in the study area prior to any approval being issued.

20 MM SOC 190, 191, 192, 193, 194 21 Clark completed the Cultural Impact Assessment (Clark 2015) prior to the submission of the Project Update but the timing of submission of the CIA did not provide inclusion of the CIA findings in the Project Update. 22 MM SOC 4, 5, 6, 196, 197 23 Response 161 a to SIRs (CEAA)


5. Air

Emissions Management Through BATEA and Best Practice24

In the SOC response to McMurray Métis, Teck referred to Key Themes: Agreement and Regulator Requests section in response to the noted SOC concerns. A number of these concerns pertaining to emissions management through Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA) or best practices are Agreement items that the McMurray Métis intend to consider in their negotiations with Teck, though they are not explicitly listed in Section 2.4.1 Agreement Requests.

It is the community’s expectation that Teck will commit to applying controls and/or management approaches that represent “best in class” in various aspects of its operations.

[11] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP considers BATEA and industry best practice in the control and management of emissions and other impacts from various aspects of the Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project, such as mine fleet NOX emissions, cogeneration technology and emissions, phasing and optimization, diluent loss management, as well as visibility and lighting.

Odour Management Plan25

In the SOC response to McMurray Métis, Teck referred to Key Themes: Agreement and Regulator Requests section, which commits to working with neighbouring communities on a plan to report, identify and manage detectable odours at identified receptor locations. It should be noted that the identified receptor locations are established reference locations and that traditional land use activities might occur in other areas in the vicinity to the Project site. It is therefore important that the odour management plan addresses concerns from all areas in the vicinity of the Project site.

24 MM SOC 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 25 MM SOC 12


[12] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP acknowledges the need for a comprehensive plan between Teck and the communities for managing odour issues. Such a plan should cover not only reporting on and identifying aspects of odour management, but also follow-up and mitigation of any issues identified in all areas in the vicinity of the Project site that might have an impact on the communities’ enjoyment of their traditional lands. The plan should also be associated with Teck’s environmental management program whereby any trends observed would act as input into short or long term process improvement and optimization to management odourous emissions.

Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Technology

In Round 5 SIR 48, Teck indicated that there will be a complete study during future stages of engineering to further evaluate the feasibility of SRC technology.

[13] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requests or reviews submissions by Teck related to feasibility and implementation of SCR at the Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project. Based on results of the discussion, the JRP is also requested to establish Terms of Reference for the future detailed study that Teck is to conduct at the engineering stage.

Emissions Related to Increased FFT Storage Volume26

Teck did not expect the increase of peak FFT inventory from 63 Mm3 to 242 Mm3 to affect tailings pond emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), total reduced sulphur (TRS), or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PACs), based on a review of the 2013 surface flux chamber measurements from regional ponds. Flux chamber measurements provide a short snapshot in time of emissions for the tailings ponds studied and there are many factors that contribute to emissions from these ponds.

Teck acknowledged that there is a potential for the FFT to produce methane that could be proportional to the volume of FFT in the pond and noted that methane formation is often delayed. It is therefore important that peak GHG emissions are further assessed, particularly with methane being a more potent GHG than CO2.

26 MM SOC 11


[14] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP seeks further information from Teck regarding expected increases in emissions associated with the increased FFT volume; in particular, GHG emissions, taking into consideration that the delay in peak methane formation should be assessed.


6. Hydrogeology

Hydrogeology Resources27

Teck referred to Key Themes: Agreement and Regulator Requests section in response to the noted SOC concerns. The response for all the hydrogeology SOCs is See Key Theme – Agreement and Regulator Requests (Section 2.4) but Section 2.4 has no specific responses that address the groundwater SOCs.

A number of these concerns pertaining to groundwater resources are Agreement items that McMurray Métis intend to consider in their negotiations with Teck, though they are not explicitly listed in Section 2.4.1 Agreement Requests. It is the community’s expectation that Teck commits to responding to each of these specific requests as opposed to placing them under “themes” that will be dealt with later, i.e. after approval.

[15] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires Teck to commit to addressing the requests in MM SOC #24 ,25, 26, and 27 SOCs. Each of these SOCs is discussed briefly below in the context of the deficiency, parallel concerns identified in the SIRs and a summary of the specific requests to the JRP.

Groundwater Assessment, Seepage Control/Groundwater Monitoring28

McMurray Métis has requested that Teck provides the opportunities for Métis review the proposed seepage control system performance and monitoring plan that is submitted to government. McMurray Métis further requests that Teck regularly (i.e., annually) briefs the communities on project performance reports, and the information contained within those reports, such as estimates of the percentage of process-affected seepage captured by the extraction wells during operations.

As noted above, this request has been placed in Teck-defined Key Themes and no further response has been provided, indicating consultation has not occurred.

[16] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP ensures that a groundwater and seepage control monitoring plan and monitoring report consultation with communities is a condition of any approval for the Frontier project, and that Teck’s commitment to conduct this consultation is formalized.

27 MM SOC 24, 25, 26, 27 28 MM SOC 24


Groundwater – Seepage Control Timing29

In these two related SOCs, the McMurray Métis requested that Teck consults with the communities on whether or not it is feasible to install the post-closure seepage interception barriers (e.g., trench or cut-off wall) earlier, before operations cease, if there are indications of process-affected seepage flowing downgradient of interceptor wells that might travel beyond the location of closure-phase passive interception facilities by the time of closure.

Similarly, community requested consultation on the timing of, and basis for, decisions to terminate operation of the active pumping wells in the seepage control system.

(We note that SIR Round 5, Question #79 also highlighted reviewer concerns around the project update assessment of the seepage control system at closure).

[17] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP ensures that consultation with communities on decisions around the implementation of seepage control facilities during and after operations is based on monitoring results, and is a condition of any approval for the Frontier project, and that Teck’s commitment to conduct this consultation is formalized.

Funding of Relevant Groundwater-Related Project Initiatives30

McMurray Métis has recommended that Teck helps fund completion of relevant groundwater-related CEMA project initiatives so that recommendations can be forwarded to government that have multi-stakeholder involvement and consensus on potential frameworks.

By way of background, these projects include Aquifer Reclamation Concepts Phase 2 and Groundwater Monitoring Objectives & Guidelines at Mine Tailings Facilities at Closure.

[18] Request to JRP

We request, should approval be granted for the Project, that the JRP makes it a condition of approval that Teck funds and participates in these relevant groundwater-related projects, and supports the forwarding of the project deliverable to government for consideration in adopting guidelines and frameworks.

29 MM SOC 25, 26 30 MM SOC 27


Groundwater model verification / validation

McMurray Métis notes that Teck’s impact assessment for groundwater relied on the application of groundwater models. Aspects of these models involve using proprietary codes (as opposed to open-source codes) that make objective third-party review/verification of model results problematic.

We note that the Round 5 SIRs included numerous questions/concerns around groundwater models. To increase the comfort level of stakeholders, groundwater model results should be made more accessible and at the very least should continually be checked, and validated through a feedback mechanism involving the use of detailed monitoring data compared against model predictions.

[19] Request to JRP

We request, should approval be granted for the Project, that the JRP makes it a condition of approval that Teck subjects its groundwater flow models to verification and validation by making comparisons between actual monitoring data and the model predictions, and to make this information accessible to the communities. Further, and as noted in the SIRs, if the model is found to have under-predicted impacts, it should be a requirement that Teck has in place clearly stated mitigation plans to prevent or reverse unanticipated groundwater impacts.


7. Hydrology

7.1. Regarding Part 1: Responses to Provincial SIRs (AER)

Water Management – Question 33

Teck has amended its project fenceline to clearly include an Athabasca River crossing and connecting road corridor to the project site.

Teck has not provided environmental information about the crossing as per request in SOC 19.

[20] Request to JRP

This response is insufficient. We request that Teck is required to provide detailed responses to SIR 33 prior to the JRP proceeding to a public Hearing on this project.

Section 5 Environmental Impact Assessment

Hydrology – Question 85

Teck intends to maintain Unnamed creek 2 throughout mining (not diverting it to the OSSP as a result of concerns from Aboriginal communities of SOC 22 and AER SIR 22 of Round 5). However, Teck intends to route Unnamed creek 2 to fill a mine pit when mining is over (e.g., in 2081). This removes fish habitat.

Teck’s rationale for different project phases in not coherent.

[21] Request to JRP

This response is insufficient. We request that Teck is required to provide detailed responses to SIR 85 prior to the JRP proceeding to a public Hearing on this project.

7.2. Regarding Part 2: Responses to Federal SIRs (CEAA)

Tailings Management and End Pit Lakes – Question 154

AEP has convened a new WMWG. Teck should revisit its tailings strategies to provide leadership in salinity management / removal and in the context of integrated water use-reuse-treatment.


[22] Request to JRP

This response is insufficient given the WMWG existence. We request that the JRP requires Teck to revisit its tailings and management strategies in the context of the Water Management Working Group (WMWG) prior to proceeding to a public Hearing on this Project.


The SIR is clearly driving for a numerical response. Teck has provided generalities but no quantitative response, or range of responses.

[23] Request to JRP

This response has not been answered and is insufficient. We request that Teck is required to provide detailed responses to SIR 85 prior to the JRP proceeding to a public Hearing on this project.


AEP has convened a new WMWG. Teck should revisit its tailings strategies to provide leadership in salinity management / removal and in the context of integrated water use-reuse-treatment.

[24] Request to JRP

This response is insufficient given the WMWG existence. We request that Teck is required to provide a detailed response to SIR 156 prior to the JRP proceeding to a public Hearing on this project.

Aggregate - CEAA Round 5, SIR 158.

Teck provided conceptual source locations for aggregate. Teck indicated it will require 7.8% of all economic aggregate resources in the region.

Teck provided no indication of environmental impacts (e.g., landscape, water, air, wildlife impacts) associated with finding, mining, refining / washing / crushing, creating spoil piles, transporting, or remediating landscape for aggregate production.

[25] Request to JRP

This response is insufficient. In order to determine the public interest ‘test’ more information should be provided.


Navigability – Question 168

Teck proposed to remove Unnamed lake 1 and Unnamed lake 2 for an external dump area. Teck indicated Big Creek, Unnamed Creek 2 and Unnamed Lake 2 are all not navigable. This assertion must be validated by members of McMurray Métis and other local communities.

A list of Aboriginal land use studies is cited; however, no study appears for McMurray Métis. Also, all discussion revolves around fishing. Validation must consider use not only for fishing purposes but also for other traditional activities including hunting access, trapping access, berry picking and harvesting access.

[26] Request to JRP

This response regarding navigability and traditional use of Unnamed lake 1 and Unnamed lake 2 requires validation by local land users and Aboriginal communities including McMurray Métis, prior to the JRP proceeding to a public Hearing.

7.3. Overall Insufficiencies

In addition to the already stated insufficiencies above, we note the following for review by the JRP:

1. The project should consider a true pre-development baseline condition set before the Suncor / Great Canadian Oil Sands project was built in the 1960’s.

2. The hydrology modelling for oil sands often have predicted outcomes that don’t meet the future. We expect this could be improved by:

a. requiring Teck to perform model validation every five years based on running actual data (e.g., precipitation, temperature, streamflow) and comparing to forecasts to refine model calibration.

b. Requiring Teck to incorporate TEK (Traditional Ecological Knowledge)/ TLU (Traditional Land Use) information from local Aboriginal peoples during hydrologic model development and calibration processes

3. Teck has elected to respond to any of the SIR’s and SOC’s to date by lumping them into a category entitled “Agreements and Regulatory”. The JRP needs to ensure such proposed Agreements are in fact entered into by Teck to the satisfaction of local Aboriginal peoples.

4. Hydrologic models have inaccuracies and uncertainties. The model Teck has used is controlled by Golder Associates. The JRP needs to compel, in the public interest, the Alberta and Federal governments to create an open-source model and to validate the model to best reflect actual observations including those from Aboriginal land users.

5. Local Aboriginal peoples feel they need a process to address (for example) trapper issues and observations and that this process should provide an ability


to validate community information. The current and ongoing practice is that the government essentially takes industry’s word at face value. The more this occurs, the more the community feels loss and impact; also need to validate with community information

We propose two significant issues to the JRP regarding Teck’s lack of assessment of the Peace Athabasca Delta:

a. the Frontier project is much closer to the Peace Athabasca Delta than any other existing / Approved project

b. we believe all existing oil sands mines should have considered (and did not) impacts to the Peace Athabasca Delta; thereby, Teck’s assessment is the same as all others…insufficient.

6. Teck’s EIA, as all previous oil sands mine EIAs, has omitted analysis of impacts within the Peace Athabasca Delta (PAD) that might result from “peak flow shaving” of the Athabasca River. Alberta government policy or operating practices are skewed to encourage mine water withdrawal from the Athabasca River during high / peak water flows. Historically, the geomorphology of the PAD was shaped in part by hydrodynamics and sedimentation events associated with large flood events. Construction of the WAC Bennett dam “peak shaved” large flow events from the Peace River. Encouraging water withdrawal from the Athabasca Rover for oil sands water supply during high flows might “peak shave” those high flow events. Potential impacts to PAD flow volumes, velocities, sedimentation, channel shapes and overall morphology has not been assessed. These impacts need to be assessed and mitigated.

7. Teck is planning to wipe out two lakes for some unspecified savings in air quality. Teck has been asked to provide an assessment of the air benefit but has not done so. Lakes are scarce in the region. Teck decided to make environmental trade-offs (lake versus some undefined air quality improvement). This is not Teck’s decision to make in isolation from land users and communities. Teck must be made to provide rationale (hard figures) and allow the broader community to make the trade-off considering there are alternate approaches to improving air quality. In effect, Teck is saying that the lakes “have to go” because we have a different ultimate landscape in mind, and “we value reduced haul length more than we value these lakes”. Notably, there are very few lakes in the Project area, so losing these might be significant. In addition, there are other ways to achieve reduced air emissions (e.g., NOx control, electric trucks, renewable heating and electricity) if that is a real objective.

[27] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP considers the insufficiencies listed above and requires Teck to address these prior to the JRP setting a public Hearing for this Project.


Finally, two major developments have occurred recently:

1. In 2016 there were extensive wildfires in the Athabasca / proposed Project region. Based on wildfires in other jurisdictions and on basic hydrologic theory, we anticipate the following landscape features and landscape responses have likely changed:

o reduction in forest cover; o reduction in rainfall interception; o reduction in rainfall “harvesting” by plant roots; o increased forest litter; o increased potential for runoff volume; o quicker time to peak runoff; o increased potential for sediment and/or debris flow.

[28] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires Teck:

i. to review its hydrology, sediment yield and water quality assessments in context of the “new baseline” of 2016;

ii. to validate forecast / predicted hydrologic metrics which might have changed, including peak runoff volumes and timing, low flow values, sediment yields; and

iii. confirms whether impact assessment validity has changed in any direction or magnitude.

Currently, we cannot consider hydrology sufficient in the absence of a revalidation to accounts for the 2016 wildfires.

2. AEP has, in 2016, convened a Water Management Working Group (WMWG) with the intent of examining all aspects of water withdrawal, use, reuse and potential release to the environment. Teck and AER are members of this group. Notably, no Federal agency is part of the group. This group’s mandate has forecast development of leading-edge water management guidelines by mid to late 2017.


[29] Request to JRP

We request that:

i. appropriate Federal agencies (e.g., DFO) take an active participant role in this group;

ii. Teck is compelled to develop a more ambitious water use, reuse and treatment plan to minimize water use; and

iii. Teck is compelled to develop a salinity management plan to allow for more benign tailings product that might be ultimately amenable for release to the Athabasca River


8. Surface Water Quality and Aquatic Resources See Figure 9-1 below, which is Figure 48-1 from Teck’s SOC response to McMurray Métis (Teck 2016b), as a general reference for this section showing waterways, diversions and Teck’s proposed Fish Habitat Compensation Lake (FHCL).

Muskeg and Overburden Drainage – Mercury31

Teck did not adequately discuss or model mercury transport to downstream habitats from muskeg and overburden drainage and/or mercury from disturbed habitat within and around the project area, including the FHCL.

[30] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires Teck to model mercury and methylmercury loadings to the Fish Habitat Compensation Lake (FHCL) and any downstream waters, including the Athabasca River and PAD. Models should consider potential augmentation of mercury export from disturbed or drained landscapes and methylmercury production under both the Application and Planned Development (cumulative impact) cases.

Methylmercury toxicity to wildlife – Mercury in Fish32

Teck did not refer to the CCME tissue residue guideline for methylmercury of 0.033 mg/kg, although it did note that wildlife would likely consume fish in the total mercury concentration range of 0.1 mg THg/kg.

CCME indicates the methylmercury tissue residue guideline of 0.033 mg MeHg/kg is within the range that might cause chronic effects to mink and ducks depending on consumption rates.33

[31] Request to JRP

Given that Teck’s prediction of future fish tissue residue for mercury under the application case is close to seven times higher than the current level (and ten times higher than the Tissue Residue Guideline for wildlife that consume aquatic biota), we request that the JRP requires Teck to describe how it will mitigate potential impacts to wildlife that consume fish, including waterbirds in and around the FHCL and downstream in the Aquatics Regional Study Area, including the Peace Athabasca Delta (PAD).

31 MM SOC 30 32 MM SOC 35 33 CCME factsheet. 2000. Canadian TRG for the protection of wildlife consumers of aquatic biota – Methylmercury


Figure 8-1: General Site Layout with Waterways, Diversions and FHCL (Teck’s Figure 48-1)


S 5.3 Tailings Impoundment Failure and seepage34

Teck indicated that tailings management was among the plans that "need not be finalized at this stage of the Project", meaning prior to approval, and that they would be developed in consultation with communities and regulators in future phases of the project. It referred to one of its “Key Themes”, which does not address the concern about either dam failure or seepage, therefore it is inadequate.

[32] Request to JRP

Given the massive breach that occurred at the Mount Polley Tailings Storage Facility, which shows such failures can occur in Canada, we request that the JRP requires Teck to provide a thorough discussion about the impacts of potential tailings impoundment failure to downstream habitats. Further, we request that the JRP considers the insight and recommendations in the report: Independent Expert Engineering Investigation and Review Panel-Report on Mount Polley Tailings Storage Facility Breach (Province of British Columbia, January 2015. 156 pp).

[33] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP also requires Teck to fully assess the potential impacts of tailings impoundment seepage (52 m³/d) to the fish habitat compensation lake (near the inflow), the Athabasca River and downstream habitats.

Downstream water and sediment quality35

Teck did not agree as requested to add the polycyclic aromatic compound, dibenzothiophene in sediments to the list of monitored substances for any watercourses downstream or downgradient of the Project, plus sediments of pit lakes and the FHCL.

Further, Teck did not agree to notify communities when there is a water-related incident, accident or serious water quality guideline exceedance associated with the Frontier Project.

[34] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires Teck to include oil sands characteristic substance dibenzothiophene as a monitored substance for any watercourses downstream or downgradient of the Project, plus sediments of pit lakes, streams in the Project area, the FHCL and the PAD.

34 MM SOC 28 35 MM SOC 29


[35] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires Teck to report to communities at the same time as it reports to regulators when there is a water-related incident, accident or serious guideline exceedance associated with the Frontier Project.

Pit lake residual toxicity and research36

There is no specific mention of participation in pit lake research, and no reference to the specific areas of research needed for pit lakes. Teck indicated it "…will consider Aboriginal community views on multi-stakeholder organizations now and in the future".

[36] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires Teck to describe its plans to participate in and fund pit lake research including studies on all aquatic components of pit lakes, including sediments, biota and aquatic vegetation.

Access management plans – constitutionally-protected right of community members to harvest as defined under R. v. Powley (2003)37

Access to culturally significant land and waters has not been confirmed. Teck says it will develop access management that will balance stakeholder land use with public safety, site development and mining operations. It referred to one of its “Key Themes”.

[37] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires Teck to develop and implement, in consultation with Aboriginal communities, an Access Management Plan prior to proceeding to public Hearing.

Climate change impacts on water availability38

Referring to the updated hydrology assessment, Teck believes it has met the requirements of discussing climate change on aquatic habitat. It provided no further assessment of the impact of future water availability on fish, but stated it would be considered as part of fisheries offsetting plans; and Teck would adaptively manage for climate change impacts.

36 MM SOC 31 37 MM SOC 39 38 MM SOC 40


[38] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires Teck to specifically evaluate and consider how climate change in addition to all industrial demands might reduce water quantity or impact water availability for its project and for fisheries and aquatic resources in the Athabasca River mainstem, and in the PAD, considering all other water uses and losses.

Future water monitoring – Community Involvement39

Regarding concerns about involvement in community-based monitoring (CBM), Teck indicated that project-specific and regional monitoring will be part of ongoing operations. Also, "collaborative monitoring with Aboriginal communities and regulators, whether through operational or regional monitoring initiatives, is an area of interest for Teck".

Monitoring plans have not been developed at this time. Teck failed to specifically mention community-based water monitoring, but only a referral to a “Key Theme”.

[39] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires Teck, prior to proceeding to a public Hearing, to develop, water monitoring plans that are comprehensive, agreeable to communities, accepting of community input on design, and include funding for monitoring by community representatives.

[40] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires Teck to share with communities all environmental monitoring data summaries and reports submitted to regulators.

Chronic Effects Benchmarks (CEB) should not replace established Water Quality Guidelines40

Teck did not feel obliged to adhere to published CCME or AEP water quality guidelines for its project. It should accept established guidelines for all substances for which they are available until such time as CCME, the provincial government or outside scientific experts evaluate and approve the benchmarks derived by the company.

In some cases, Teck’s CEBs are significantly higher (less protective) than existing guidelines. Requiring external oversight is not “a difference in professional opinion”,

39 MM SOC 42 40 AER EIA SIR5 89, CEAA SIR5 140


but is the scientifically defensible approach. Regulators are aware of this reiterated request but have yet to act upon it.

[41] Request to JRP

We request that, prior to proceeding to a public Hearing the JRP:

i. requires Teck to compare monitoring data with published water quality guidelines, where they exist, until such time as its Chronic Effects Benchmarks are supported by external scientific scrutiny, and are judged to be appropriate to replace the existing guidelines;

ii. requests that regulators complete the necessary scientific oversight of Teck’s calculated guidelines (CEBs), or arrange to outsource the task to external experts in academia or the private sector; and

iii. requires Teck to provide the repeatedly requested tabulation of CCME/AEP WQGs side-by-side with its derived CEBs so they can be readily compared and evaluated by reviewers.


9. Fish Habitat Offsetting Plan

Habitat Calculations and Replacement Ratio41

Teck did not indicate how its fish habitat compensation ratio differs from its original (pre-Update) calculations, other than to say any changes were due to changes in disturbance area, additional baseline data and assumed fish distributions.

DFO formerly expected at least 2:1 replacement of lost fish habitat, but the current expectations are unclear.

[42] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires Teck (through DFO) to provide at least 2:1 fish and fish habitat replacement in its offsetting plans, and should commit to consulting with Aboriginal communities about these plans, including offsets and complementary measures that are meaningful to communities.

Fish Rescue from Destroyed or Diverted Streams and Lakes42

Teck indicated it might not rescue fish in habitats where they are found if those waters were previously deemed “non-fish bearing”.

In the response to AER's SIR, Teck indicated that it would consult with DFO about rescue requirements if fish were encountered in these habitats.

[43] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires Teck to:

i. rescue all fish in any habitat during destructive project activities, regardless of whether they were ever found there in the past (i.e., even if deemed “non-fish bearing”); and

ii. use an independent environmental monitor for oversight of all fish rescue operations, giving Aboriginal communities the first option to provide that service.



Mercury in the FHCL and Downstream Transport43

Teck indicated that mercury issues will be addressed in the detailed fisheries offsetting plan (DFOP), which has not been finalized. Teck will estimate using a "worst-case" prediction that uses rates of increase from flooded hydroelectric reservoirs.

Methylmercury bioaccumulation by fish in the FHCL, and downstream transport, has not been well addressed despite the fact that the compensation lake has long been accepted as the key planned offset.

[44] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires Teck to commit to consulting with Aboriginal communities until the issue of mercury in the FHCL, downstream transport and uptake by piscivorous fish and water birds is satisfactorily addressed, prior to proceeding to a public Hearing. DFO should not approve habitat destruction or issue a Fisheries Act Authorization until communities confirm this has occurred.

Tissue Residue Guideline – Mercury in Fish44

Teck used an inaccurate method of calculating fish tissue mercury concentrations, by considering uptake from water directly (water uptake is insignificant compared to diet uptake; the bioconcentration factor, BCF, used was too low), which is the possible reason the future predicted Hg levels were comparatively low.

There are fish mercury concentrations measured in piscivorous fish (e.g., walleye) in the Athabasca River and other parts of the region [by the Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program (RAMP], and these should be used as a more appropriate baseline of prediction instead. While existing studies are mentioned, the values these studies measured in fish are not used; e.g., Teck should refer to the publication by Evans & Talbot (2012), which indicates walleye average Hg concentrations from 1998-2011 in the Athabasca development area, as measured by RAMP, ranged from 0.25 - 0.41 mg/kg (Evans and Talbot 2012).

These should be the starting point for future predicted mercury in fish tissue, not 0.058 mg/kg as Teck used. Diet uptake should be the basis of the calculations, rather than the low bioconcentration factor used (BCF for fish Hg can be up to 1 million times water concentrations) based on a negligible water concentration. Alternatively, Teck should use a more realistic (higher) BCF value for predicting tissue concentrations.



[45] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires Teck to revisit its approach to predicting future fish mercury concentrations based on the deficiency summarized above.

Consultation – Proposed Bridge over the Athabasca45

Impacts to navigation or fish habitat with respect to the Athabasca Bridge have not yet been addressed. Teck indicated to CEAA that "…The potential effects of the construction and operation of the proposed Athabasca River bridge crossing will be assessed as part of the Project’s draft Detailed Fisheries Offsetting Plan".

It would seem that the Detailed Fisheries Offsetting Plan (DFOP) will be held up unnecessarily by the delayed assessment of the bridge project.

[46] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires Teck to consult with Aboriginal communities in a timely manner about the potential impacts to navigation and aquatic resources of the planned bridge over the Athabasca River, and the JRP should ensure the Detailed Fisheries Offsetting Plan (DFOP) is not delayed by the bridge project.

Aquatics Regional Study Area (ARSA) Should be Expanded

Teck has not agreed to extend the ARSA beyond Embarras to include the Peace Athabasca Delta and western Lake Athabasca, despite past requests from local communities. Teck referred to “Key Theme” – Agreement and regulator requests.

[47] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires Teck to:

i. commit to extending the Aquatics Regional Study Area (ARSA) to include the Peace-Athabasca Delta (PAD) region;

ii. ensure the PAD is included in regional monitoring plans; and

iii. provide a re-evaluation of the Planned Development Case, based on the expanded ARSA, to regulators and Aboriginal communities.

45 CEAA SIR5 165; MM SOC 41


10. Wildlife

Wildlife Survey Methods and Results46

Teck collected various wildlife data from 2005 to 2014 but did not include all data in the most recent EIA update in 2015 (Teck Resources Limited 2015).

Teck should have included all survey data in the EIA update to;

• confirm there was sufficient data to determine population parameters (e.g., species density),

• determine scientific robustness (i.e., confidence limits, statistical power, etc.), and

• if wildlife populations were stable between 2005 and 2014 (e.g., baseline populations not changing because of other factors).

Teck indicated that all baseline data would be incorporated into the wildlife mitigation and monitoring plan to confirm the EIA results. Teck analyzed breeding bird data in response to SIR Question 137 and the results show a great deal of variation that would limit monitoring and the ability to determine mitigation success for songbirds. This raises concerns with regard to other wildlife baseline data collected.

[48] Request to JRP

We request, prior to a public Hearing on the Project, that the JRP requires Teck to analyze all wildlife baseline data collected (e.g., winter track counts) and determine if it is of adequate quality and of sufficient quantity to calculate scientifically robust population parameters for confirming EIA predictions and measuring mitigation success.

Bridge Mitigation and Movement Corridors47

The Project is located within a Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zone (KWBZ) that was established to maintain habitat and river corridors for ungulates. The Project includes a bridge that will impede wildlife movement along the Athabasca River.

As mitigation, Teck indicated that the bridge will have a wildlife under passage. Teck did not present sufficient scientific evidence that the wildlife passage will be effective at mitigating impacts to bison, moose, or caribou movement.

Further, Teck did not provide alternative solutions to mitigate wildlife movement such as wildlife overpasses.

46 SIR Questions 117, 118, 119, 129, 137 47 SIR Questions 120, 123, 133; MM SOC 102, 103, 104


[49] Request to JRP

Teck has not provided strong scientific evidence that the proposed wildlife passage will mitigate impacts to wildlife movement or provided alternative strategies should the wildlife passage be ineffective (e.g., construct wildlife overpasses). We request that the JRP requires Teck, prior to proceeding to a public Hearing, to complete a thorough review and study on wildlife crossing size, types, and adaptive management options to ensure the integrity of wildlife movement is maintained along the Athabasca River.

Air Traffic Disturbance48

McMurray Métis is concerned about noise impacts to land users and wildlife. To assess impacts of disturbance Teck used a Zone of Influence (ZOI) of up to 400 m from the disturbance such as a Boeing 737-600 aircraft.

Teck provided no scientific evidence that 400 m is a sufficiently large ZOI for a Boeing 737-600 aircraft. Further, Teck was unable to provide a map of the flight paths over bison habitat.

Understanding the width of the flight path would provide an estimate of noise impacts to bison, other wildlife, and land users.

[50] Request to JRP

We request, prior to proceeding to a public Hearing, that the JRP requires Teck to provide scientific support of the ZOI, as well as to obtain the flight paths from Transport Canada to determine the level of disturbance and levels of impact to various receptors.

Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zone (KWBZ)49

The Project is located within a Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zone (KWBZ) for which the management intent is to maintain the long-term integrity and productivity of ungulate winter ranges and river corridors.

Teck had justified the destruction of the KWBZ because it is within the mineable oil sands area (MOSA), the Government of Alberta has identified the importance of oil for economic growth, and it meets an outcome of the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan.

Teck has not evaluated the cultural and economic value of moose, bison, and other wildlife for members of McMurray Métis along with other land users of the Project area.

48 SIR Question 121; MM SOC 109, 110 49 SIR Question 126


In addition, Teck has not protected the ecological integrity of the KWBZ by mitigating wildlife habitat loss or habitat connectivity.

[51] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires Teck to develop a plan that ensures that:

i. high quality habitat for moose, caribou, and bison are secured,

ii. populations are demonstrated to be stable or increasing, and

iii. project impacts are fully mitigated prior to Frontier proceeding.

Moose and bison are important both culturally and economically but the future of moose, caribou, and bison populations in the area are uncertain.

Wildlife Health50

There is concern regarding the health of wildlife near and downriver of the Frontier Project and the effects of water and airborne chemicals on these animals. A reasonable effort has not been made to assure land users that wildlife species are healthy and safe to use in the Frontier Project area; for example, Teck has not produced a wildlife health report that is understandable to a lay audience.

Teck has failed to adequately consult McMurray Métis with regard to the health of wildlife in the region.

[52] Request to JRP

We request, prior to proceeding to a public Hearing, that the JRP requires Teck to compile a plain-language wildlife health report and consultation strategy to address concerns about wildlife health.

Odours51

Teck indicated that data is unavailable on the effects of odours on wildlife and; therefore, has not meaningfully evaluated the effects; however, it is clear that odours are an issue for McMurray Métis members and other inhabitants of the region.

The effects of odours were confirmed by a recent study completed by Alberta Health and the Alberta Energy Regulator on the Community of Fort McKay. It is reasonable to assume that if odours are affecting humans that many wildlife species are also being affected.

50 Question 127, 136 51 Question 127


[53] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires Teck to quantify and assess odour impacts on wildlife to determine health and displacement effects (e.g., pushing bison north). If the assessment identifies impacts, Teck should propose mitigation to reduce or eliminate the sources of the odours.

Ronald Lake Bison Herd – Bison Assessment 52

Project impacts on the Ronald Lake Bison Herd are not fully understood as Teck and others continue to collect behavioural and habitat data to fill basic ecological gaps such as home range size and forage habitat quantity and quality; for example, new land-cover data for habitat classification data and additional GPS collar information will be obtained and analyzed in 2017.

This data will improve the assessment on the Ronald Lake Bison Herd with regard to forage materials, bison home range size and bison habitat use, providing a better understanding of Frontier Project’s effects. In addition, McMurray Métis has traditional knowledge that suggests the Ronald Lake Bison Herd might be comprised of two smaller herds.

[54] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires Teck to complete its impact assessment on bison using the best available data. The assessment of Project impacts on bison needs to be completed prior to a public Hearing. Input from members of McMurray Métis should be included in the assessment.

Ronald Lake Bison Herd – Bison Status

The Government of Alberta has not completed a management plan for the Ronald Lake Bison Herd and the Ronald Lake Bison Herd Technical Team has not fulfilled its mandate to fully identify knowledge necessary for management, to complete studies to obtain necessary knowledge, and to use the knowledge to inform regulatory and management decisions.

The Ronald Lake Bison herd is very important to members of McMurray Métis and proper management is critical.

[55] Request to JRP

The status of Ronald Lake Bison herd has changed and a management plan is needed prior to development approval.

52 SIR Question 122, 130; MM SOC 72, 73,7 4, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87


Ronald Lake Bison Herd – Bison Barrier

Ronald Lake Bison herd is isolated from nearby diseased bison herds. The loss of habitat and mine disturbance (e.g., operations and aircraft) might push the Ronald Lake Bison Herd towards diseased bison herds (e.g., in Wood Buffalo National Park).

Teck has not demonstrated that the project will not displace bison nor shown that there is a barrier to prevent the Ronald Lake Bison moving and interacting with diseased bison.

Teck stated that the nature of the inferred barrier between the Ronald Lake bison herd and other populations is not understood (i.e., whether the barrier is physical or biogeographical).

[56] Request to JRP

The health of the Ronald Lake Bison Herd is in jeopardy. We request that the JRP requires Teck to prepare a management plan that will maintain the health the Ronald Lake Bison Herd prior to proceeding to a Hearing.

Biodiversity and Conservation Offsets53

Teck proposed to have a positive impact on biodiversity and might not require conservation offsets. Teck provided a conceptual plan but did not provide sufficient detail on how biodiversity will be measured and if biodiversity includes wildlife that will allow traditional land uses to continue.

[57] Request to JRP

We request that prior to proceeding to a public Hearing the JRP requires Teck to provide more details on the biodiversity plan and how it will incorporate traditionally used wildlife species. Traditional knowledge from McMurray Métis should be included in any biodiversity plan.

Reclamation54

There is a great deal of uncertainty pertaining to reclamation success and the ability to ensure wildlife communities are re-established in the oil sands region.

Teck stated it was confident that it could reclaim the mine based on previous experience but it is unclear if this includes experience reclaiming bogs and fens and other complex boreal ecosystems. As a response to the re-establishment of wildlife communities, Teck indicated that “wildlife” use CNRL reclaimed lands but

53 SIR Question 131 54 SIR Question 132; MM SOC 77, 85, 88, 92, 99


provided no details such as the composition of the wildlife community and presence of Species at Risk and traditionally used species.

[58] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires Teck to demonstrate, prior to proceeding to a public Hearing, that it has the ability to reclaim boreal ecosystem and wildlife communities. Wildlife use data from reclaimed land (e.g., CNRL data) in the oil sands region needs to be analyzed to determine if boreal wildlife communities that include species at risk and culturally important wildlife species are represented. Input from McMurray Métis should be included.

Migratory Birds – Breeding Bird Densities55

Teck calculated the density and standard error for songbird species within the various ecosite phases of the LSA.

Teck indicated that this data will be incorporated in the Project’s planned wildlife mitigation and monitoring program; however, the songbird density data has too much variation (e.g., large standard errors) to provide meaningful baseline values to determine mitigation and reclamation success.

[59] Request to JRP

Teck does not have songbird baseline data that can be relied upon to determine mitigation and reclamation success. We request that the JRP requires Teck to develop a mitigation and monitoring plan that uses regional data (e.g., ABMI) to develop thresholds to measure songbird density in areas where monitoring is required such as reclaimed areas.

Mercury and Migratory Birds

The Peace Athabasca Delta is an important breeding area for migratory birds such as whooping cranes, terns, and various waterfowl. In addition, many of these birds are or provide traditional foods to land users.

Teck has failed to provide an easily understandable document about impacts to wildlife health to the public.

[60] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires Teck to write and present a plain-language wildlife health assessment.

55 Questions 136, 137, 138, 139; MM SOC 30, 36, 105, 106


Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring Plan56

Teck provided very few details on its wildlife mitigation and monitoring plan. The lack of detail makes it impossible to evaluate if it will be capable of confirming EIA predictions and assessing mitigation effectiveness. Although Teck referred to its plan repeatedly, it has not stated that its wildlife mitigation and monitoring plan will be scientifically robust and sound.

McMurray Métis has expressed a strong desire to contribute and be involved in the development and implementation of the wildlife mitigation and monitoring plan.

[61] Request to JRP

We request that prior to proceeding to a public Hearing, the JRP requires Teck to prepare a wildlife mitigation and monitoring plan that is comprehensive and scientifically rigorous. The wildlife mitigation and monitoring plan should have independent third-party scientific review and also incorporate traditional knowledge.

56 SIR Questions 117, 120, 124, 125, 128, 129, 130, 131, 133, 135, 139; MM SOC 75, 78, 79, 80, 84, 85, 94, 95, 105, 110


11. Vegetation and Wetlands

COSIA Drawdown and Wetlands Research57

Teck refers to a Canada’s Oil Sands Innovation Alliance (COSIA) project investigating interaction of mined land and adjacent wetlands and stated that it had no current knowledge of drawdown of surface water effects on adjacent wetlands and vegetation. The deficiency is that there is no information sharing of COSIA research with Métis communities on water drawdown effects on wetlands adjacent to mines.

In addition, there has been continuous organizational change since 2012 (i.e., Alberta Environment to Alberta Environment and Water to Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development to Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP), Alberta Energy Regulator was established, CEMA’s operations are currently suspended due to a lack of funding resulting from the removal of EPEA approval requirements for industry to participate in and financially support CEMA , Canadian Oil Sands Network for Research and Development Environmental and Reclamation Research Group to Canada’s Oil Sands Innovation Alliance, Joint Oil Sands Monitoring Program to Alberta’s Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Agency to AEP Environmental Monitoring and Science Division) which has resulted in a loss of institutional knowledge and interfered with continuity of projects.

A regional wetlands monitoring program was developed at CEMA and recommended to Alberta by the CEMA Board, but no regional monitoring program exists for wetlands McMurray Métis has not had any opportunity to provide input into implementation of a regional wetlands monitoring program. Based on Teck’s response, it is not possible to validate assumptions in EIAs regarding water drawdown. In addition, the wildfire in 2016 demonstrates dryness of the landscape. More information is required regarding water drawdown effects on wetlands and there is a need for an open, transparent research process that includes Métis.

[62] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP directs Teck to facilitate participation of McMurray Métis in COSIA research to study the effects of oil sands mining and surface water drawdown on the adjacent wetlands and vegetation.

57 AER EPEA SIR Question 6


Fen Reclamation58

CEAA asked for a summary of fen reclamation, use of reclaimed wetlands by wildlife and migratory birds, and how Teck will conduct research on peatland reclamation and incorporate results into the CC&R Plan. Teck referred to its answer from ESRD/CEAA Round 1 SIR 475 and answered by describing natural peatland formation and some information from the Suncor and Syncrude fen reclamation projects.

Teck referred to oil sands process water and challenges around this with plant establishment. Teck said it is not aware of any study specifically designed to study wildlife use of reclaimed wetlands. Specifically, the deficiency is that no guidance for construction of treatment wetlands for oil sands mine exists, no data describing wildlife use of reclaimed wetlands are available and only two fen reclamation research projects have been initiated.

As members of COSIA, operators other than Suncor and Syncrude contributing funds to the two fen reclamation research projects currently achieve their EPEA approval requirements to complete wetland reclamation research but are not conducting any research on their own leases.

[63] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires Teck, as a condition of any approval issued, to conduct wetland reclamation research within the Frontier Project lease boundary.

[64] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires Teck as a condition of any approval issued to address the current knowledge gap regarding wildlife and migratory bird use of reclaimed wetlands.

[65] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires Teck as a condition of any approval issued to develop swamp reclamation research and guidance and this work should include participation of McMurray Métis.

[66] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires Teck to develop guidance for constructing treatment wetlands on oil sands mines and this work should include participation of McMurray Métis.

58 CEAA SIR Question 145; MM SOC 66, 67, 140, 141


Cultural Impact Assessment 59

No follow up or action occurred after the Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) was completed to collect pre-disturbance baseline on vegetation measures of Métis Environmental and Cultural Components relating to traditional land uses. This also includes a lack of information regarding the cultural impacts of the loss of old-growth forests in Métis Traditional Territories.

[67] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP directs Teck, as a condition of any approval issued, to implement recommendations from the McMurray Métis CIA and to support further assessment work to adequately quantify impacts to Métis culture.

Traditional Knowledge Framework

CEMA’s TKWG completed an Indigenous Traditional Knowledge Framework in 2015 to inform on the use of Indigenous Traditional Knowledge in environmental decision-making (Firelight and CEMA-TKWG 2015). The Framework states, “…The success or failure of industry, government, and regulatory bodies, acting within their scope, to meaningfully and successfully include Indigenous Traditional Knowledge in environmental decisions will hinge on whether they adopt, monitor and enforce rules and policies requiring that inclusion”.

The deficiency is that the Government of Alberta withdrew Alberta’s membership in CEMA, removed the EPEA approval requirements for industry to participate in and financially support CEMA, resulting in suspension of CEMA’s operations and no response from the Government of Alberta has been issued regarding implementing recommendations of the Indigenous Traditional Knowledge Framework.

[68] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP directs the Government of Alberta to move forward with implementing the Indigenous Traditional Knowledge Framework.

Herbicides60

Teck’s responses to; MM SOC 68, 69, 70, 71 related to use of herbicides do not address the concerns of McMurray Métis.

59 MM SOC 55, 59 60 CEAA SIR 146; MM SOC 68, 69, 70, 71


[69] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP directs Teck to address MM SOC 68, 69, 70, 71 (regarding herbicide use) prior to proceeding to a public hearing.


12. Biodiversity

Biodiversity Management Plan61

Teck referred to the biodiversity management plan in its response to this SIR. Teck had not yet addressed any feedback provided to it by McMurray Métis regarding the proposed biodiversity management framework.

[70] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP directs Teck, as a condition of any approval issued, to incorporate feedback from McMurray Métis community into the biodiversity management plan and to ensure that the biodiversity management plan addresses the cultural aspects of biodiversity described in the SOCs related to the biodiversity management plan (CEAA SIR 152; MM SOC 114, 115, 120, 121, 122, 124, 125, 127, 130).

We also request that the JRP directs Teck, as a condition of any approval issued, to follow up on the recommendations in McMurray Métis’ CIA and to align the biodiversity management plan with the UN Convention on Biodiversity Article 8(j).

The AER removed all conditions relating to biodiversity reclamation in the CNRL Horizon Mine EPEA approval renewal (see EPEA Approval 149968-01-00 Effective August 5, 2015). These changes were made by the AER without any consultation with McMurray Métis and eliminated regulatory approval conditions to achieve biodiversity reclamation outcomes previously detailed in the EPEA approvals (see EPEA Approval 228044-00-00 Effective Date: September 6, 2011).

[71] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP directs the AER to include in any EPEA approval issued to Teck the conditions for Teck to develop a Plan for Reclamation Biodiversity as detailed in EPEA Approval 228044-00-00 Effective Date: September 6, 2011.

Cumulative Environmental Management Association62

The Government of Alberta withdrew Alberta’s membership in the Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA) and has provided no alternative venue to complete the unfinished work of the RWG. This includes developing biodiversity reclamation guidance.

61CEAA SIR 152; MM SOC 114, 115, 120, 121, 122, 124, 125, 127, 130 MM SOC 62, 126 62 MM SOC 62, 126


[72] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP directs Teck, as a condition of any approval issued, to proceed with supporting development of a biodiversity reclamation guidance document and completing the unfinished workplan of the CEMA RWG relating to development of biodiversity reclamation guidance. A five-year workplan was outlined by the RWG in 2015 and it remains incomplete.


13. Soils

Soil Drainage Classes63 -- AER EPEA SIR 13 and 16 and AER EIA SIR 106

Teck assigned an imperfect drainage class to coarse-textured coversoil over coarse-textured substrate on mid-to-upper slope position on external tailings area (ETA) dykes and predicts a b1 ecosite phase target on imperfectly drained soil. The Land Capability Classification System (LCCS) notes that available water holding capacity modifiers for determining soil moisture regime are a soft spot with respect to textural bands, slope aspects and slope locations (Alberta Environment 2006).

Research by Barbour, et al64 investigated available water holding capacity in coarse-textured soils and led the Reclamation Working Group (RWG) of Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA) to recommend developing reclamation guidance for the creation of heterogeneous soil profiles for reclamation prescriptions targeting ecosites associated with coarse-textured soils.

The expansion of oil sands development to the north into the Athabasca Plain Natural Sub-region in Teck’s Lease and Teck’s assignment of an imperfect drainage class to the homogeneous coarse-textured reclamation cover prescription on mid-to-upper slope highlights the need for this guidance to be developed. Teck has not provided sufficient information to support the determination of imperfect drainage class.

Teck’s response to AER EIA SIR 106 contradicts the response to AER EPEA SIR 13c. For SIR 13c Teck stated “…A b1 ecosite is possible on imperfectly drained soil in an upper slope position, which is consistent with the conceptual closure plan”. For SIR 106, Teck stated imperfectly drained on mid and lower slopes and well drained at crest and moderately well drained in upper to mid-slope locations.

[73] Request

We request that the JRP requires Teck to re-evaluate assignment of imperfect drainage class to reclamation coversoil prescriptions consisting of coarse-textured coversoil over coarse-textured substrate on mid-to-upper slope position on external tailings area (ETA) dykes.

We also request that the JRP directs the regulators to complete the work recommended by the Reclamation Working Group of Cumulative Environmental Management Association to develop reclamation guidance for the creation of heterogeneous soil profiles for reclamation prescriptions targeting ecosites associated with coarse-textured soils.

63 AER EPEA SIR 13 and 16 and AER EIA SIR 106 64 see Canadian Journal of Soil Science May 2011 issue, available at: http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/toc/cjss/91/2


14. Closure, Conservation and Reclamation Plan

Climate Change and Reclamation65

CEAA (SIR 147) asked Teck to describe how projected future climate change might affect or alter current reclamation plans and anticipated outcomes and for Teck to describe adaptive management for changes caused by altered climate.

Teck said the CC&R plan is designed to reflect current climate conditions and did not incorporate climate change adaptation for reclamation planning. A decision support tool (DST) for reclamation planning in the mineable oil sands was created by CEMA’s RWG and co-funded by Natural Resources Canada (Welham, et al. 2015).

[74] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires, as a condition of any approval for the Project, Teck to use the decision support tool (DST) developed by CEMA and co-funded by NRCan to develop a climate-change adaptive-management strategy for a CC&R Plan. It is no longer acceptable for oil sands mines to continue to develop closure plans without directly addressing potential impacts of climate change on reclamation outcomes.

Rare Plant Mitigation66

No information is available regarding best management practices for rare plant mitigation or effectiveness of rare plant mitigation strategies for the oil sands mines.

[75] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires, as a condition of approval, Teck to create a Reclamation Working Group with potentially affected Aboriginal communities to conduct participatory reclamation planning and rare plant and traditional use species mitigation and monitoring.

We also request that the JRP requires Teck to develop a rare plant mitigation and monitoring best practices guidance document prior to proceeding to a public Hearing, with participation of McMurray Métis.

65 CEAA SIR 147; MM SOC 97, 98, 129, 130, 146 66 CEAA SIR 150; MM SOC 60, 61


Dust Deposition67

No existing data are available documenting effects of dust deposition on revegetation of oil sands sites. Teck suggested that COSIA will do this work.

[76] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires, as a condition of any approval, Teck to conduct research on the effects of dust deposition on vegetation re-establishment on reclaimed lands in the oil sands and that this work includes participation by the Métis community.

Closure Planning68

CEAA in SIR 57 asked for evidence supporting Teck’s closure planning assumptions for ecosite re-establishment and a rationale for why the Frontier Project would achieve reclamation success, how much time would be required to re-establish traditional use (TU) species supporting exercise of Aboriginal rights, and how net positive impact on biodiversity could be achieved.

Teck referred to Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region 2nd Ed. (Alberta Environment 2010) for assumptions on ecosite re-establishment and referred to Criteria and Indicators (C&I) Framework for Oil Sands Mine Reclamation Certification (Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development 2013) and specifically to operators and regulators determining reclamation certification.

Teck referred to the C&I Framework for Oil Sands Mine Reclamation Certification and a process that operators and regulators can use to determine whether a site is ready for reclamation certification. The deficiency is that additional work is required to complete this framework, specifically work to develop indicators for assessing the criterion that reclaimed lands provide opportunities for traditional uses.

A project was initiated in collaboration between the Traditional Knowledge Working Group (TKWG) and RWG of CEMA to develop indicators for assessing this criterion of the C&I Framework but was not completed because of lack of funding.

[77] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires, as a condition of any approval, Teck to complete the unfinished work of the TKWG and RWG to develop indicators for assessing the criterion that reclaimed lands provide opportunities for traditional uses with the participation of McMurray Métis and other Aboriginal communities.

67 CEAA SIR 151; MM SOC 64 68 CEAA SIR 152, 153; MM SOC56, 147, 148


Another deficiency is that no data are available to validate assumptions used in the EIA regarding reclamation performance despite reclamation being a legal requirement of operating approvals. No operator has demonstrated that capability to support traditional uses has been re-established on reclaimed lands in oil sands mines.

[78] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires, as a condition of any approval, Teck to support completing the CEMA RWG and TKWG projects to develop a reclamation monitoring program with McMurray Métis to assess reclamation performance with respect to providing opportunities for traditional uses.

Quantitative Reclamation Planning Tools69

No quantitative reclamation planning tool is required to be used by oil sands mine operators for reclamation planning. The CEMA RWG developed quantitative state-and-transition simulation models for reclaimed wetland and upland land units directly aligned to the Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region 2nd Ed. (Alberta Environment 2010) and the Guideline for Wetland Establishment on Reclaimed Oil Sands Leases Third Edition (Cumulative Environmental Management Association 2014) as part of the climate change adaptation DST (Welham, et al. 2015).

[79] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires, as a condition of any approval issued, Teck to apply the decision support tool (DST) developed by CEMA and co-funded by NRCan in reclamation planning. This includes working with McMurray Métis to parameterize the models as per the details in the MM SOCs58.

Re-vegetation Guidance70

No revegetation guidance is available to conduct revegetation planning for lands located within the Athabasca Plain Natural Sub-region. Teck indicated in its response to MM SOC 134 that the ecosites for the boreal mixedwood ecological area and that the site types identified in the Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands 2nd Ed (Alberta Environment 2010) apply to the Athabasca Plain Natural Sub-region (AP NSR).

This is not correct. The Natural Regions Committee (2006) updated the sub-region boundaries in 2006 and portions of the Central Mixedwood Natural Sub-region (CMW NSR) were assigned to the AP NSR (Natural Regions Committee 2006).

69 MM SOC 57, 58 (Related also to CEAA SIR 147) 70 MM SOC 134


Beckingham and Archibald was issued in 1996 based on earlier subregion boundaries (Beckingham and Archibald 1996). In Beckingham and Archibald, the Boreal Mixedwood Ecological Area is within the CMW NSR. This does not apply to the areas assigned to the AP NSR in 2006. In Beckingham and Archibald (1996) the AP NSR was part of the Canadian Shield Natural Region and a different group of ecosites are described in the field guide for this area.

This is an important deficiency because the planting density guidelines in the Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands 2nd Edition (Alberta Environment 2010) are derived from permanent sample plots in the CMW NSR. The site types defined in AENV 2010 are based on the CMW NSR, Boreal Mixedwood Ecological Area permanent sample plots and do not apply to the AP NSR (See (Cumulative Effects Management Association; Reclamation Working Group 2006, Geographic Dynamics Corp. and FORRx Consulting Inc. 2008 and Geographic Dynamics Corp. 2009). No equivalent analysis has been conducted to derive planting density guidelines for the AP NSR.

In 2015, The Terrestrial Subgroup of the Reclamation Working Group of CEMA discussed developing guidelines for the AP NSR because portions of Suncor Fort Hills oil sands mine occur in the AP NSR and Suncor acknowledged that no planting density guidance exists for this NSR.

[80] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires, prior to any approval being issued, Teck to reclassify the portions of the PDA located in the AP NSR and to contribute to research and analysis for the development of planting density guidance for the AP NSR as an update to Alberta Environment 2010. Any project initiated to develop the planting density guidance should include participation of McMurray Métis.

Reporting to Métis Communities 71

The current EPEA approvals for oil sands mines do not require operators to present and report annually to Métis communities on reclamation performance, activities or monitoring.

[81] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP, as a condition of any approval, directs the AER to include conditions for Teck to conduct an annual monitoring program including McMurray Métis and other Métis communities; hosts an annual workshop to present updates on reclamation activities and performance; and conducts a tour of reclamation areas with community members.

71 MM SOC 143


LARP Conservation Areas

The Government of Alberta did not consult with McMurray Métis community during the delineation of conservation areas under the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan and Teck indicated negotiations for determining a conservation agreement are occurring with the Government of Alberta.

[82] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP directs the Government of Alberta and Teck to engage in consultation with McMurray Métis regarding any negotiations for identifying land in its Traditional Territory as a conservation offset to be included under a conservation agreement for Teck.


15. Traditional Land Use

15.1. Provincial SIRs (AER)

Deficiencies identified in Response 93 (b) to provincial SIRs (AER)

Teck does not provide a discussion as requested of how it will:

1. maintain the road for year-round access;

2. provide details, or an outline, for how the Access Management Plan (AMP) should ‘address’ access and management for traditional use of the road such as, guiding principals or expectations discussed by Aboriginal land users, beyond prioritizing worker and visitor safety on; or how management will ensure access for land users;

3. prioritize traditional use of the road in the face of potentially increased traffic and competing land use; and

4. ensure safe passage in consideration of increased traffic from bridge access as well as south River Road access.

[83] Request to JRP

We request that the regulators and JRP, prior to proceeding to a public Hearing, require a first foundational draft of the Access Management Plan (AMP) outlining:

i. guiding principles and expectations conceived by both proponent and Aboriginal rights holders, which fulfill consultation adequacy through appropriate and considered mitigation respecting s. 35 rights of land use and land stewardship;

ii. concerns that must be resolved by final draft, and

iii. what the method and level of collaboration will be for further development and refinement of the AMP, and priority to ensure Aboriginal access rights before potential approval conditions are set.

Deficiencies identified in Response 94 a to provincial SIRs (AER)

Teck does not discuss making third-party contractors aware that its Integrated Land Management strategies will also need to accommodate the developer’s plans and obligations to land users’ movements and access to areas. This will need to be built into ILM strategies between developer and contractors, as well as any COSIA member alignments. Reducing footprint intensity of oil sands operations is not just on land and wildlife, but on rights-holding land users as well.

Teck also does not provide that it should identify its third-party contractors to land users.


[84] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires all third-party contracts or COSIA member alignments to contain disclosure of Teck’s AMP and approval conditions regarding access management for land users. We also request that the JRP requires Teck to disclose its contractors to land users.

Deficiencies identified in Response 95 b to provincial SIRs (AER)

Teck omits from discussion that other ‘stakeholders’, (including rights-holders), in addition to the other associated regulatory body approvals (NEB, DFO) referred to, would need to be consulted on pipelines traversing a major traditional resource, transportation/access route and fish habitat.

[85] Request to JRP

We request, prior to proceeding to a public Hearing, that the JRP requires an additional Environmental Assessment regarding any changes in bridge function or utility, particularly if pipelines are constructed on the bridge.


Teck has not provided any evidence of survey data or studies supporting its assumptions that:

• ground travel time over an hour will restrict the availability and qualifications of its workforce; or

• that a dedicated aerodrome will provide a competitive advantage over other developments in the area.

This limited scope in Teck’s rationale for constructing a new aerodrome has excluded practical consideration of:

1. how much of its workforce it is planning on hiring locally from Fort McMurray or Fort McKay, or Fort Chipewyan;

2. when this competitive advantage assumption was made;

3. comparative cumulative effects studies to determine the best option between yet another aerodrome in the region that will add to existing air emissions and concerns of impacts, or additional emissions from fleets bussing in a workforce over partially existing and planned linear disturbance areas; and

4. using those comparative cumulative effects studies for exploration of potential synergies, partnerships, funding support with operators of existing aerodromes, such as Shell, and government Ministries of Transportation.


Teck has not demonstrated that it has explored discussions with COSIA and the Alberta or federal governments regarding the extent of sharing the mutual burden of transporting a workforce for expanding development in the region and obligations of reducing linear disturbance and cumulative effects under the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan.

[86] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires Teck to submit a draft proposal for submission to COSIA and Alberta Environment & Parks, and the Ministry of Environment & Climate Change regarding a need for coordinated workforce transportation hubs in the region, which would service growing development utilizing existing and expanded infrastructure in order to reduce the need for additional aerodromes and cumulative effects in the region. The proposal would include discussion of potential Lease asset exchange, subsidy, purchase and expansion with COSIA operators and government.


Teck’s response is inadequate and deflects sharing any planning information or preliminary site layouts due to only, “…progressing to stages of engineering for the purpose of regulatory approval…” as described in Section 12.3.1 of the Project Definition, deferring to a time when it can produce a detailed Project execution plan and engineering design specifications that will be the basis for subsequent detailed engineering.

Teck can provide a preliminary layout plan and information that includes: site preparation, clearing plans and methods; what kind of bridge will access Dalkin Island and River Water Intake (RWI) facilities; if the RWI pipeline will be buried under the channel crossing; what the water intake pipeline orientation, length, and depth of intake pipeline might be from the bank/water surface.

Teck also does not provide any discussion on what the disturbance to the geomorphology of the channel behind Dalkin Island would be; or what the turbidity of water in the Athabasca River would be from input and removal of a coffer dam; or what change in river navigation would be like around the coffer dam.

[87] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires a preliminary site layout plan that details the above deficiencies in information regarding the River Water Intake (RWI) and pipeline and potential bridge access to Dalkin Island. Considering all Aboriginal concerns regarding visual aspects, noise, light, bank disturbance, and navigability, we also request that the JRP requires a first engineering draft and earthworks of the RWI facilities.



Teck’s response lacks substance and again deflects the question by discussing moving the RWI pipeline location to Option 3, which does not provide detail regarding the disturbance level of Teck’s preferred direct route.

Teck’s decision not to integrate the pipeline, to some degree, with the access road because of economics conflicts with landscape management and reducing footprint disturbance under LARP. Teck provided no discussion of what the disturbance is of the planned RWI pipeline route below the frostline or of how it is traversing the back channel off Dalkin Island to main land.

Teck needs to provide discussion of how the pipeline is leaving Dalkin Island, how much disturbance is required to vegetation and soil, what and how much habitat fragmentation would occur to bury the pipeline along the direct route, versus how much ‘more’ disturbance there is along an already planned linear disturbance area.

Teck should provide discussion on why the RWI access road could not follow along the direct pipeline route, then veer off along the perimeter of the two BS pits/areas to reduce the large fragmented area adjacent the river and current RWI access road route?

[88] Request to JRP

We request that prior to proceeding to a public Hearing the JRP requires Teck to provide a comparison of vegetation and soil disturbance, and habitat fragmentation between the RWI pipeline following along the access road versus burying it below the frostline on the direct route.


Teck’s response lacks substance in how successful wildlife passage design was determined.

How has Teck included traditional knowledge into determining appropriate wildlife mitigation regarding successful wildlife passage design? What references and resources has Teck used regarding implementing successful wildlife passageways and their best design?

[89] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP, prior to proceeding to a public Hearing, requires Teck to provide references to traditional knowledge and other proven methods of successful wildlife passage design used in its preliminary design of wildlife mitigation for the bridge.



The deficiency identified is Teck’s assumption that submitting a first draft of the AMP after potential approval conditions have been received is acceptable to Aboriginal rights-holders and regulators, subsequently scheduling engagement workshops over a long time-span. In fact, the proponent and the Crown have an obligation to ensure rights-holders’ access to lands for traditional purposes, through adequate consultation and necessary accommodations or mitigations made, as per s.35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and to inform the regulator of adequate consultation (Department of Justice 1982).

This should entail at least a foundational draft plan; for example, agreed-to guiding principles, expectations and concerns that must be resolved, which are acceptable to the rights-holders, and upon which can be further defined and finalized later in fulfillment of consultation adequacy and potential approval conditions.

If not ensured by the regulator, Aboriginal expectations of a meaningful and collaborative process might be compromised and their involvement in consultation reduced to top-down, disempowered informants only providing “input” for Teck to “consider”.

[90] Request to JRP

We request that the regulators and JRP require a first foundational draft of the AMP prior to proceeding to a public Hearing outlining:

i. guiding principles and expectations conceived by the proponent and Aboriginal rights holders, which fulfill consultation adequacy through appropriate and considered mitigation respecting s. 35 rights of land use and land stewardship;

ii. concerns that must be resolved by final draft, and

iii. a method and level of meaningful collaboration for further refinement and priority to ensure Aboriginal access rights before potential approval conditions are set.

15.2. Federals SIRs (CEAA)

Deficiencies identified in Response 161 a to SIRs (CEAA)

Teck’s response that the existing Traditional Land Use (TLU) regional study area (RSA) is appropriate is inadequate, deficient in several fundamental areas, and unsupported according to Teck’s own selection criteria:

“Teck selected study areas to encompass the spatial extent of potential effects on traditional land and resource use areas that have the potential to be affected by the Project, either alone or in combination with other regional developments.


Study areas for traditional land and resource use were selected to correspond to the study areas used in assessing effects on the underlying resources used in traditional harvesting. This allows for the discussion of effects on the traditional activity and resource base to be conducted at the same scale.” (Project Update, Vol 3, 17-8)

“Teck’s traditional land use RSA is unchanged from the Integrated Application. It is based on the RSA used for the vegetation and wildlife assessments…This RSA was delineated to capture all direct effects associated with the Project, combined with effects from operating, approved and planned developments.” (Project Update, Vol 3, 17-9)

Several inconsistencies are apparent:

1. the TLU RSA extends south to include McMurray Métis and the southern portion of the Aquatic Regional Study Area (ARSA), but not north to include wildlife movements or the northern portion of the ARSA—an important exclusion as the downstream direction of flow of the Athabasca River is north, carrying project-specific and cumulative effects to these areas and resources. Relatedly, according to Teck’s view in its above statements and the omission of the ARSA from the TLU RSA, harvesting resources are tied only to vegetation and wildlife, not including drinking water as a resource for land users or looking at the effects to the “underlying resources” referred to in Section 17.3 of the Project Update in determining criteria for TLU RSA selection, such as water that feeds vegetation and wildlife and providing healthy habitat for fish species;

2. Teck was asked by CEAA to include areas north of the Embarras to the Wood Buffalo National Park in its assessment since CEAA’s April 5, 2012 letter. Teck’s response in the Project Update is that this is unneccesary due to assumed negligible effects, was inadequate.

3. Teck stated that “…There are no established guidelines or requirements for selecting TLU study areas”. In fact, several works regarding methodology and criteria exist that speak to appropriate considerations when developing a TLU study area. Best practices used by recognized professional practitioner associations and current social science practitioners are the accepted standard, particularly in consideration of Aboriginal perspectives on land use and values. Vetting through academic and practitioner forums keeps methodology robust by being responsive to indigenous views and reducing the potentiality of systemically biased, ethnocentric approaches. Academic and professional assessment literature use what is more importantly appropriate to community-value components for a TLU study area, so that an “apples to apples” assessment can be conducted instead of “apples to oranges” because a proponent has inappropriately come up with its own criteria. Further, Teck used this argument to sidestep the Terms of Reference issued for the Project by Alberta Environment (Alberta Environment 2009), who define the RSA as,


“the area within which there is the potential for cumulative and socio-economic effects, and that may be relevant to the assessment of any wider-spread effects of the Project” (s. 3.1.2.2). Teck chose instead to follow problematic commentary from the Joint Review Panel for the Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion, as justification for defining its own criteria for the RSA TLU.

4. Changes in air quality and surface water quality have the potential to result in effects on traditional use activities and resources used in traditional harvesting outside the existing TLU RSA by virtue of their mobile nature, and should be included as a conservative measure in a more appropriate and reflective TLU RSA.

[91] Request to JRP

As Teck has not provided an answer, we request that the JRP requires Teck to provide a modified TLU RSA to capture the extent of any potential effects related to the changes in air quality and surface water quality on traditional resources that are predicted to occur north of the existing TLU RSA. This updated RSA should consider all areas where traditional uses are known to occur.

Deficiencies identified in Response 161 b to SIRs (CEAA)

Teck’s deficient response focused inconsistently on the valued components for which potential direct and cumulative effects are predicted to occur within the modified TLU RSA, but also using the existing TLU RSA for aquatic health, and only examines those “underlying resource” value components (air, surface water and wildlife) in a narrow context (sensory changes and changes in resources consumed by harvesters), and does not discuss them from community-identified TLU values, or include traditional knowledge regarding the effects of existing oil sands development on TLU.

Specifically, Teck did not provide discussion on how air quality is and will further affect numbers and migration of waterfowl outside the TLU RSA, nor does Teck discuss dust and other particulate deposition observed by land users on vegetation resources such as berries.

Teck downplayed its surface water quality assessment regarding concentrations of some substances predicted to exceed water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life (Alberta Environment and Sustainable Development 2014) at locations north of the traditional land use RSA, including the Athabasca River at Embarras and Ronald Lake, with further assessment of aquatic health at Ronald Lake and Athabasca River to a negligible determination, but did not look at locations north of the traditional land use RSA.

Teck also did not provide discussion on land user observations on aquatic health including deformities found on fish, or the change in taste experienced by land users.


Teck concluded that Project-related changes in air, water and soil quality were not expected to result in population-level effects on wildlife in the region (including areas north of the traditional land use RSA); however, land users are concerned about the health and quality of individual animals being harvested, which can be affected depending on where they are moving, and where they are consuming water and food, as evidenced by particular indications on internal organs.

[92] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires proper assessments based on a modified TLU RSA that includes areas north of the existing TLU RSA, and includes considerations of traditional knowledge and observations shared by land users in determining significance of effects in that modified TLU RSA.


Teck’s response is inadequate as it has not provided an explanation of how it plans to incorporate traditional knowledge into the AMP; further Teck has not provided a description of the methods it would use to incorporate cultural and spiritual values, address avoidance reactions and facilitate preferred TLU activities into the AMP.

Teck has spoken of Aboriginal communities as providing “input” or “feedback” in its engagement process on the AMP, but has not approached its involvement as collaborative partners in helping determine what the process should entail for including traditional knowledge or the methods to be used to include cultural and spiritual values, address avoidance reactions and facilitate preferred TLU activities into the AMP.

If asked directly, Aboriginal rights holders could help Teck define these processes now as a potential guide to follow in a draft guideline for further development of the AMP.

[93] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP requires a draft guideline outlining the expected and accepted process by both the proponent and the rights holders for inclusion of traditional knowledge, cultural and spiritual values, and addressing avoidance reactions and preferred TLU activities, and the collaborative development of the AMP.


Teck’s assessment concluded that high consequence effects on traditional land use are currently being experienced at Base Case conditions, and are expected to


continue at Application Case and Planned Development Case for the Aboriginal communities considered in the assessment.72

This is consistent with the findings of the cultural impact assessments; however, Teck’s response is insufficient as it does not provide the requested description for how Teck proposes to mitigate potential residual effects to Aboriginal culture (for example, the loss of cultural and spiritual relationship with the land), socio-economics, health and the opportunity to exercise Aboriginal or treaty rights.

Teck did not discuss additional mitigation measures for these residual effects or if that is possible. Also not addressed is the other residual effect Teck contributes to—reducing or removing land stewardship (management) practices inherent in land use and s. 35 rights. As yet, management plans are not fully collaborative regarding development, planning and implementation.

Teck said it would have “on-going discussions” with Aboriginal communities on how to mitigate, but uncertainty for the process and its success is left in the air.

[94] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP:

i. reads the CIA, and Aboriginal TLUS together as they are complimentary and from an Indigenous perspective, there is not a division. Cultural impacts will also be inferred within the TLUS;

ii. recommends “collaboration” over “cooperative” engagement; and

iii. requires a list of residual effects that cannot be mitigated as a way to provide an understanding of matters related to potential impacts to Aboriginal or treaty rights, which need to be understood for consultation purposes.

15.3. McMurray Métis (MNA Local 1935)

In its Responses to Fort McMurray Métis Local 1935 Statements of Concern Regarding the Project Update (herein “Responses”), the proponent did not directly address the specific deficiencies identified in McMurray Métis’ review of the TLU information contained in the Project Update. Rather, the Teck referred all specific concerns to general statements organized into one of four proponent-identified themes.

This method of responding to specific concerns indirectly through general statements is dismissive and inadequate. The general statements provided by Teck do not address the specific concerns raised by McMurray Métis in relation to the sufficiency of Teck’s assessment of potential Project effects to McMurray Métis TLU and measures to mitigate, offset, compensate and monitor potential impacts therein. McMurray Métis considers Teck’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

72 Project Update, Volume 3, Section 17.8


and additional information submitted insufficient to assess and mitigate the concerns raised by McMurray Métis with respect to the community’s TLU.

This sufficiency review is organized into three categories:

a. Significance or Consequence Determination,

b. Preferred Use Area, and

c. Mitigation, Monitoring, and Follow-Up.

In each section, the review will explain the remaining deficiencies and make recommendations to the JRP on how gaps in the assessment of Project impacts on McMurray Métis TLU could be addressed by both the JRP and Teck.

Significance/Consequence Determination

The Final Terms of Reference (FTOR) issued by Alberta Environment required that the Proponent “provide a description of the process and criteria used to determine the significance of environmental effects” and “describe the residual effects and their significance” for each environmental component.73

The EIA and Project Update submitted by Teck did not provide a determination of significance for the potential impacts to TLU. Rather, Teck provided a “Consequence Rating”, which is explained by the fact that “…It is the responsibility of the Governor-in-Council to identify whether effects are significant”.74 CEAA guidelines on the determination of impact significance, however, clearly expect proponents to render a determination of significance (“Proponents are expected to determinate whether their project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects”) and CEAA clearly distinguishes the proponent determination from those of the Minister and Governor-in-Council (“Such determinations of significance are separate from, but may inform, the decision made by the Minister”).75

The fact that the Minister and the Governor-in-Council must decide whether the proposed Project will likely hold significant adverse effects does not acquit Teck of its responsibility to make such a determination as part of its EIA.

[95] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP deems the application submitted by Teck incomplete and insufficient until Teck has worked with McMurray Métis to provide a significance determination for potential adverse effects to McMurray Métis TLU that is consistent with the FTOR and CEAA guidelines.

73 Alberta Environment, Final Terms of Reference, p. 11. 74 Teck Resources, Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project – Project Update, June 15, 2015, Volume I, p. 18-4. 75 Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Determining Whether a Designated Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (Operational Policy Statement), November 2015, p. 3.


In addition to the absence of a proper determination of significance for the potential impacts to McMurray Métis TLU, Teck did not adequately justify and explain its consequence ratings, which it used in lieu of a determination of significance. As mentioned above, the FTOR requires that Teck determines impact significance on the basis of magnitude, extent, duration, frequency and reversibility. Similarly, CEAA guidance states that significance determinations should be based on magnitude, geographic extent, timing, frequency, duration and reversibility.76 In the Project Update, however, the consequence ratings included only magnitude, duration, and extent, meaning they excluded frequency, reversibility and timing.77

CEAA guidelines are clear that Teck must provide a rationale where a particular criterion is not deemed relevant (“A rationale must be presented if a particular criterion is deemed not relevant”).78 Teck, however, did not explain why timing was excluded from its consequence rating. What’s more, the explanations for the exclusion of frequency and reversibility are manifestly inadequate. With respect to frequency, Teck stated the following:79

“…frequency: is often not a useful criterion for the assessment of cultural aspects of the human environment. Although there are isolated exceptions, most cultural effects are experienced continuously by people. Therefore, frequency is only applied by exception.”

An assertion is not a rationale. Teck provided no support for this contention via references to scholarly or professional literature. The relevant question when deciding the criteria to be employed in determinations of consequence and significance is not whether these meet a threshold of variance but whether they tell you something useful and important about the nature and character of the impact itself, and thus of its potential significance for affected groups.

The fact that impacts to TLU tend to be experienced continuously, it could be argued, is central to comprehending and assessing their consequence and significance. To eliminate frequency from the determination of consequence (and by extension significance, since not properly discussing frequency in the determination of consequence limits the information presented for the determination of significance) has the effect of minimizing the significance of the potential Project effects on McMurray Métis TLU.

The same reasoning applies to the exclusion of reversibility from the consequence rating. Teck claimed that “…for the purposes of the traditional land use assessment, any potential effect that is long-term in duration is considered irreversible and

76 Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Determining Whether a Designated Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Effects, p. 5. 77 Teck Resources, Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project – Project Update, Volume III, p. 17-21. 78 Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Determining Whether a Designated Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Effects, p. 6. 79 Teck Resources, Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project – Project Update, Volume III, p. 17-20.


reversibility is only applied by exception.”80 There is no support provided for this decision via references to scholarly or professional literature. To repeat: the fact that effects are irreversible does not justify their exclusion from the determination of consequence and/or significance. The relevant question when deciding the criteria to be employed in determinations of consequence and significance is not whether these meet a threshold of variance but whether they tell you something useful and important about the nature and character of the impact itself, and thus of its potential significance for affected groups. That impacts are irreversible, it could be argued, is central to comprehending and assessing their consequence and significance.

To eliminate reversibility from the determination of consequence (and by extension significance, since not properly discussing reversibility in the determination of consequence limits the information presented for the determination of significance) has the effect of minimizing the significance of the potential Project effects on McMurray Métis TLU.

The definitions and explanations for the consequence ratings are similarly insufficient. CEAA guidance states that:81

“When using quantitative or qualitative descriptions of magnitude, clear definitions of terms should be provided” and “If using qualitative terms [like rare or sporadic], these should be defined for each VC [Valued Component].”

Teck has neither clearly defined its ratings nor properly explained how they were determined. The Project Update defines three possible consequence ratings:

• Low: the opportunity to undertake traditional land use activities in the study area is minimally disrupted

• Medium: the opportunity to undertake traditional land use activities in the study area is somewhat changed, such as having to use less preferred areas or resources in the study area

• High: the opportunity to undertake traditional land use activities in the study area is substantially diminished.82

These definitions are unduly vague. There are no clear definitions for the terms “minimally”, “somewhat”, or “substantially”. CEAA guidance also states that the determination of significance “…should be presented in a rational, defensible way and the reasons for the determination should be clearly documented”.83 And yet, Teck provided little information as to how classifications for extent, duration and

80 Ibid. 81 Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Determining Whether a Designated Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Effects, pp. 9-10. 82 Teck Resources, Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project – Project Update, Volume III, p. 17-21. 83 Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Determining Whether a Designated Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Effects, p. 6.


magnitude ‘determine’ the consequence rating. It is customary in impact assessments for a consequence or significance determination to provide thresholds, e.g., for the consequence or significance rating to be high, the extent must be regional, the duration must be long-term, the reversibility must be low, magnitude must be high.

There is a reason regulatory guidelines request that proponents define qualitative terms such as slight, small, and noticeable, and provide clear explanations for how determinations of significance were made: clear and precise assessments of impact require clear and precise definitions and methodological explanations. Because Teck has provided neither clear definitions nor clear explanations of the process by which consequence ratings were determined, it is nearly impossible to determine the sufficiency and defensibility of the methods and conclusions. These are not minor or technical disagreements: questions of methodology and methods are central to the accuracy and transparency of impact assessments and to the confidence of stakeholders and the wider public in the regulatory and impact-assessment processes.

[96] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP deems the application submitted by Teck incomplete and insufficient until it has consulted with McMurray Métis to develop adequate criteria for the determination of significance of the potential Project effects on McMurray Métis TLU.

Preferred Use Area

The FTOR requires Teck to “…provide the scientific rationale used to define the spatial and temporal aspects, considering the location and range of probable Project and cumulative effects” for each study area used in the assessment of potential Project effects.84 Teck employed a key study area to the assess potential effects to McMurray Métis TLU, however, it lacked a clear, scientific rationale.

In its assessment of potential impacts to TLU, Teck used a “preferred use area” for each potentially affected Indigenous community, against which the geographic extent of potential effects was assessed. For McMurray Métis, Teck employed the 160 km radius area used by the Government of Alberta for the purposes of Métis harvesting rights as a proxy for the preferred use area of the community.85

Using the 160 km radius around Fort McMurray to assess impacts lacks scientific rationale and relies upon unstated and unsubstantiated assumptions that potentially distort the assessment of impacts. There is no evidence provided that the 160 km radius accurately reflects the spatial distribution of historic and current McMurray Métis TLU. Indeed, Teck recognized the radius is politically

84 Alberta Environment, Final Terms of Reference, p. 11. 85 Teck Resources, Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project – Project Update, Volume III, p. 17-47.


imposed, rather than based in knowledge of the traditional use patterns of the community. Teck’s use of the radius also assumes that all land within a 160 km radius of Fort McMurray is of the same utility and importance for traditional purposes to the McMurray Métis.

This assumption is dangerous because it potentially distorts and underestimates the impacts of the Project on McMurray Métis TLU by measuring potential effects against a large and unsubstantiated “preferred use area”.

[97] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP deems the assessment of impacts to McMurray Métis TLU and the determination of significance to be based upon flawed methodological assumptions and methods, thus incomplete and insufficient.

[98] Request to JRP

We request that the JPR requires Teck to provide resources to McMurray Métis to determine a community-based “preferred use area” for the assessment of impacts to TLU, the design of mitigation, offsetting, and compensation measures, and the determination of effect significance.

Mitigation, Monitoring, and Follow-Up

For each environmental component, the FTOR requires Teck to “provide plans to minimize, mitigate, and eliminate negative effects and impacts” and “present a plan to manage environmental change”.86

Teck indicated that “potential effects to traditional land uses resulting from the Project will be mitigated primarily through access management and reclamation”,87 and provided a list of measures designed to mitigate the potential impacts of the Project to TLU. For many of the measures, however, Teck only expressed intent instead of clear plans and firm commitments, with frequent mention that it “plans to” and “intends to”. An intention is not the same as a plan. McMurray Métis is concerned that non-binding commitments and conditions attached to project approval could be ignored.

Teck has similarly committed to elaborating on an Access Management Plan (AMP) and a Wildlife Monitoring and Management Plan (WMMP); however, these plans might not be completed until after Project approval. McMurray Métis is concerned that its role in the design and monitoring of these plans will prove unacceptable, particularly if the Project has been approved prior to plan completion.

86 Alberta Environment, Final Terms of Reference, p. 11. 87 Teck Resources and SilverBirch Energy, Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project – Integrated Application, September 2011, Volume VIII, p. 6-22.


As the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) has noted, mitigation measures – which for McMurray Métis include management plans – should be developed and presented during the assessment process; consultation – or the commitment to consult in the future – does not constitute mitigation.88

[99] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP deems the application submitted by Teck incomplete and insufficient and does not proceed to a public Hearing until Teck has developed mitigation, offsetting and compensation measures with McMurray Métis, including management plans.

The FTOR requires that Teck “…identify any follow-up programs necessary to verify the accuracy of the environmental assessment and to determine the effectiveness of measures taken to mitigate adverse environmental effects”.89 Similarly, Section 19(1) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 lists “the requirements of the follow-up program” as one of the ‘factors to be considered’ in assessing potential impacts; and CEAA identifies follow-up as one of the five steps for the assessing potential environmental effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. 90

The Project Update, however, contained no mention of a Follow-Up and Monitoring Program for TLU. Teck failed to provide such a program despite a request from federal reviewers that it:91

“Provide a follow-up and monitoring program for Traditional Land Use, including Métis use”,

“Describe additional mitigation measures that Teck will implement if the monitoring program indicates that the currently proposed mitigation measures are not successful”, and

“Explain how Teck will involve potentially affected Aboriginal groups in this follow up and monitoring program, including discussing methodology and results.”

88 Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB), Supplemental Information Request No. 2 – Teck Resources Limited Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project, June 6, 2013, p. 79. 89 Alberta Environment, Final Terms of Reference, p. 11. 90 Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Determining Whether a Designated Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Effects, p. 2. 91 Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Teck Resources Ltd. Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project – Federal Supplemental Information Requests – Round 3, submitted to Alberta Environment and Water, December 23, 2013, p. 9.


[100] Request to JRP

We request that the JRP deems the application submitted by Teck incomplete and insufficient and does not proceed to a public Hearing until Teck has consulted with McMurray Métis and developed a Follow-Up and Monitoring Program for the potential Project effects to McMurray Métis TLU.


16. Socio-Economics

16.1. McMurray Métis (MNA Local 1935)

In its Responses, Teck did not directly address the specific deficiencies identified in McMurray Métis’ review of the Project Update. Rather, Teck referred all specific concerns to general statements organized into one of four proponent-identified themes. This method of responding to specific concerns indirectly through general statements is dismissive and inadequate. The general statements provided by Teck do not address the specific concerns raised by McMurray Métis in relation to the sufficiency of Teck’s assessment of potential Project effects to the socio-economic status of the McMurray Métis community and measures to mitigate, offset, compensate and monitor potential impacts therein.

McMurray Métis considers the EIA and additional information submitted by Teck insufficient to assess and mitigate the concerns raised by McMurray Métis with respect to the potential impact of the Project on the community’s socio-economic status.

This sufficiency review is organized into five categories:

a. McMurray-Métis Specificity,

b. Significance Determination for Socio-Economic Effects,

c. Cumulative Socio-Economic Effects,

d. Training, Employment, and Contracting, and

e. Mitigation, Monitoring, and Follow-Up.

In each section, the review will explain the remaining deficiencies and make recommendations to the JRP as to how these gaps in the assessment of Project impacts on the socio-economic status of the McMurray Métis could be addressed by the both the JPP and Teck.

McMurray-Métis Specificity

Among the most significant flaws of the Integrated Application and Project Update is the lack of McMurray Métis-specific socio-economic information and the absence of an assessment of potential socio-economic impacts on the McMurray Métis community. The FTOR requires that Teck “…describe the existing socio-economic conditions in the region, including for the communities in the region” and that Teck assesses impacts related to socio-economic “effects on First Nations and Métis”.92

92 Alberta Environment, Final Terms of Reference, p. 25.


Teck conceded that “each potentially-affected Aboriginal community may have different challenges in addressing specific effects”,93 and yet reiterates its “continued belief that the level of detail of analysis applied in the Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (SEIA) is sufficient to identify concerns and interests of Aboriginal communities to enable the regulator to assess the Project for a public interest determination”.94

This response is inadequate. Teck provided no McMurray Métis-specific socio-economic baseline data. As such, Teck has not – and indeed cannot – assess the potential socio-economic impacts of the Project on the community. To contend that the assessment of potential effects in Fort McMurray represents an adequate proxy for potential effects to the McMurray Métis commits the logical fallacy of division: that what is true for the whole is true for each of its parts. This is simply not true.

To provide a simple example: a 5% increase in rental prices might not represent a significant burden for the statistically average citizen, but for low-income families such an increase might indeed be the difference between access to independent housing or not.

A socio-economic assessment carried out only at the town level would miss this distribution of effects, which are of particular relevance to vulnerable groups.

The preliminary socio-economic information the McMurray Métis has suggests that the Métis face a distinct set of socio-economic challenges compared to the average Fort McMurray resident, in both social and economic terms. The absence of McMurray Métis-specific socio-economic baseline information and impact assessment is even more egregious when one considers the scale of the cumulative socio-economic effects to the community that have never been properly assessed.

From the 1960s to the present the McMurray Métis went from the dominant ethno-cultural group in the small Indigenous town of Fort McMurray (approximately 1,100 residents in the early 1960s) to a small minority in a boom-town of more than 70,000 inhabitants, not including the “shadow population”.95

Given that these extraordinary cumulative socio-economic effects have never been properly assessed, it is unacceptable to the McMurray Métis that Teck refuses to gather – and regulators have yet to demand provision of – socio-economic baseline data and a proper assessment of the cumulative socio-economic effects of the Project on the McMurray Métis community.

93 Teck Resources, Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project – Project Update, Volume I, pp. 16-29 and 16-30. 94 Teck Resources, Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project – Project Update, Volume I, pp. 16-29. 95 See Clark, Timothy David, Dermot O’Connor, and Peter Fortna, Fort McMurray: Historic and Contemporary Métis Community, submitted to McMurray Métis, February 2015.



We request that the JPR deems the application incomplete and insufficient until Teck has either provided or reached an agreement with McMurray Métis to conduct a community-led Métis-specific socio-economic baseline study and impact assessment for the proposed Project.

Significance Determination for Socio-Economic Effects

The FTOR requires that Teck “provide a description of the process and criteria used to determine the significance of environmental effects” and “describe the residual effects and their significance” for each environmental component.96 The SEIAs submitted as part of the Integrated Application and Project Update, however, do not provide a proper significance determination.

The SEIA submitted by Teck did not include:

• a discussion of the methodology utilized to characterize effects and determine residual effects;

• a proper and clearly-organized characterization of potential Project effects, i.e., magnitude, frequency or duration; or

• a determination of the significance of residual effects.

As such, the SEIAs submitted by Teck did not meet the requirements of the FTOR and are, in the view of the McMurray Métis, incomplete and insufficient to assess the potential socio-economic effects to the community.


We request that the JRP deems the application incomplete and insufficient until Teck has either provided or reached an agreement with McMurray Métis to provide a SEIA with a proper determination of the significance of potential socio-economic effects of the Project on the McMurray Métis community.

Cumulative Socio-Economic Effects

Both the FTOR and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 require Teck to provide an assessment of the potential cumulative effects of the proposed Project.97 As well, the agreement to establish the JRP for the Project requires that the Panel assesses the cumulative effects of the Project, including a pre-industrial case and in consideration of CEAA’s Operational Policy Statement and technical

96 Alberta Environment, Final Terms of Reference, p. 11. 97 Alberta Environment, Final Terms of Reference, p. 11; CEAA 2012, Section 19 (1)(a).


guidance for assessing cumulative effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012.98

Unfortunately, the cumulative-effects component of the SEIA did not meet the expectations outlined in CEAA guidance. In the most general terms, the level of effort simply did not align with CEAA guidance, which is worth quoting at length to emphasize the inadequacy of the information submitted by Teck. CEAA describes the Cumulative-Effects Assessment (CEA) process under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 as follows:99

CEAA 2012 requires that each EA of a designated project take into account any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the designated project in combination with the environmental effects of other physical activities that have been or will be carried out.

The practice of project EA calls for examining potential environmental effects of the project on Valued Components (VCs) and considering mitigation measures. A cumulative environmental effects assessment allows for the consideration of additional mitigation measures. This is done prior to determining the significance of adverse environmental effects…and for the implementation of the follow-up program.

The approach and level of effort applied to assessing cumulative environmental effects in a project EA is established on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration: the characteristics of the project; the risks associated with the potential cumulative environmental effects; the state (health, status or condition) of VCs that may be impacted by the cumulative environmental effects; the potential for mitigation and the extent to which mitigation measures may address potential environmental effects; and, the level of concern expressed by Aboriginal groups or the public.

All cumulative environmental effects assessments should include the five steps described below – scoping, analysis, mitigation, significance, and follow-up. EA documentation must clearly explain and justify the methodologies that have been used to assess cumulative environmental effects.

According to CEAA guidance, in order for a CEA to meet the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, it must be carried out as a complete and separate process after the identification of residual effects but prior to the determination of significance. The CEA should consist of five stages, including

98 Agreement to Establish a Joint Review Panel for the Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Between the Minister of the Environment, Canada, and the Alberta Energy Regulator, Alberta, http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/document-eng.cfm?document=114558. 99 Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Assessing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (Ottawa: CEAA, 2015), pp. 2-3.


scoping, analysis, mitigation, significance and follow-up. Teck clearly has not met these requirements in its SEIA.

There is no separate CEA containing each of the five steps identified by CEAA and Teck failed to integrate prior industrial effects in a systematic and rigourous fashion. The historical baseline (or “Reference Conditions”) provided in the Integrated Application consisted of fewer than two pages of information for the entire region. The section on the “Evolution of the Wage Economy” consisted of four sentences and contained no citations to the literature on the subject.

There was no discussion of the evolution of wage employment in Fort McMurray from the 1910s to the 1960, from the saw mills and salt mines to Abasands Oil Ltd. There was no discussion of the primarily Indigenous population of Fort McMurray in the pre-1960s period, which is to say there is no meaningful historical baseline to assess impacts on the McMurray Métis.

Because of the lack of historical data and the lack of integration of said data into the impact assessment, the SEIA baseline is the pre-Application present. The absence of a historic or “pre-development” baseline is inconsistent with the JRP’s mandate and is unacceptable to the McMurray Métis, an Indigenous community based mostly in Fort McMurray that has experienced 50 years of dramatic and cumulative socio-economic effects as a result of oil-sands development.

If a pre-industrial baseline was appropriate for assessing impacts to TLU, then why not for socio-economic impacts?

The absence of a pre-industrial baseline, moreover, goes against CEAA guidance on the matter. In its Technical Guidance for Assessing Cumulative Environmental Effects, CEAA is quite clear that using current conditions as a baseline “may not be fully representative of the variations in natural conditions, due to natural variability, historical shifts, or effects from other human activity. Setting a past temporal boundary allows for gathering of past data and information that will provide a more meaningful picture of the VC [Valued Component], allowing the practitioner to credibly state whether the baseline condition is representative or is at a particular point in a cycle”.100

The document goes on to provide a series of questions to help determine whether an assessment of past impacts is required that includes:101

Does information or data indicate that another physical activity has affected the state of a VC in the past or that the VC is currently under stress?

Do comments from the public, Indigenous groups, or expert reviewers indicate an interest in having a description of the past state of a VC?

Is an understanding of the incremental effects of multiple physical activities in the past necessary to understand or predict cumulative effects?

100 Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Technical Guidance for Assessing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, Draft (Ottawa: CEAA, 2014), p. 22. 101 Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Technical Guidance for Assessing Cumulative Environmental Effects, pp. 22-23.


Is the understanding of past environmental conditions for specific VCs required to contextualize cumulative effects (e.g., area of habitat lost to date, or limitations to current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes to date)?

Would information about how past physical activities influenced the state of the VC be valuable in understanding the vulnerability of the VC to future perturbations by the project and other future physical activities?

Would past information or data on the state of a VC support the identification of mitigation measures or the design of a follow-up program?

Is the information reasonably attainable, including through ATK and/or surrogate data from other regions with comparable conditions?

Will the information provide a reasonable level of certainty in predicting the future state of the VC?

Would the information influence the determination of whether significant adverse cumulative effects would occur?

Teck provided no clear and convincing explanation for why its CEA of the potential socio-economic effects is inconsistent with CEAA guidance. The possible argument that a high level of effort is not required for this Project is easily rebutted by factors provided by CEAA in the establishment of the appropriate level of effort: the scale and duration of the Project, its location in a region heavily impacted by oil-sands projects, the dramatic cumulative effects already experienced by the McMurray Métis, and the level of community concern, as expressed in this review.

The JRP has a mandate to assess the cumulative effects of the proposed project and it is the view of the McMurray Métis that the information provided to date by Teck is insufficient to support this task.


We request that the JRP deems the application incomplete and insufficient until Teck has either provided or reached an agreement to provide a proper CEA of the potential socio-economic effects of the Project on the McMurray Métis.

Training, Employment, and Contracting

Teck made a variety of laudable commitments to maximize the potential economic benefits of the Project to Aboriginal communities, including:102

• working with local Aboriginal communities to develop procurement policies and provide opportunities for hiring Aboriginal people, including developing Aboriginal employment and business development policies and programs; and

102 Teck Resources and SilverBirch Energy, Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project – Integrated Application, September 2011, Volume I, p. 16-39.


• undertaking workforce development support, including a workforce assessment and support for regional and Aboriginal community training and education programs.

McMurray Métis welcomes the commitment to work collaboratively with Indigenous communities to address concerns and interests in relation to training, employment and contracting opportunities; however, Teck did not adequately specify the potential economic benefits to the McMurray Métis community and there are no firm, targeted commitments. Many McMurray Métis community members and business owners have expressed concerns regarding the fulfilment of employment and contracting commitments for previous oil sands projects.

Clarity regarding commitments to training, employment and contracting opportunities is more than just a practical benefit to community members; without a clear picture of the distribution of the potential economic benefits of the Project, it is very difficult for McMurray Métis and the JRP to assess properly the net socio-economic effects of the Project on the McMurray Métis community.

Vague commitments from Teck cannot and should not be treated by stakeholders and regulators as if they were concrete measures to mitigate negative effects and enhance positive ones. In the absence of clear and negotiated commitments from Teck regarding the training, employment and contracting opportunities for its community members, the McMurray Métis consider the SEIA submitted to the JRP as incomplete and insufficient.


We request that the JRP does not proceed to a public Hearing until Teck has negotiated clear targets with respect to training, employment, and contracting opportunities for McMurray Métis community members.

In addition to commitments regarding employment and contracting opportunities, there exists the serious problem of the practical obstacles faced by many McMurray Métis community member to employment in the oil sands. Teck recognized the issue of “existing gaps in labour market readiness” as a concern for Indigenous communities, but provided neither an assessment of these gaps nor concrete proposals to remedy them in relation to the McMurray Métis.

Commitments to provide employment and contracting opportunities to the McMurray Métis community are tenuous unless there is a proper analysis of the obstacles faced by community members in accessing job and contract opportunities. In the absence of such information and a corresponding plan to address the obstacles identified, McMurray Métis considers the information provided by Teck insufficient to assess the potential socio-economic effects of the Project on the community.



We request that the JRP deems the application incomplete and insufficient until Teck has consulted with McMurray Métis and agrees to provide an assessment of the labour-market readiness of community members and a plan to address the obstacles identified.

Mitigation, Monitoring and Follow-Up

For each environmental component, the FTOR requires Teck to “…provide plans to minimize, mitigate, and eliminate negative effects and impacts” and “present a plan to manage environmental change”.103 Similarly, Section 19(1) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 lists “the requirements of the follow-up program” as one of the “factors to be considered” in assessing potential impacts; and CEAA identifies follow-up as one of the five steps for the assessment of potential environmental effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012.104

The Integrated Application and Project Update contain few firm commitments in terms of socio-economic mitigation and monitoring initiatives for the McMurray Métis. Because Teck has not provided an assessment of the potential socio-economic effects of the Project on the McMurray Métis, it cannot be considered to have proposed adequate mitigation for the potential effects on the community. Finally, Teck has not provided clear socio-economic-effect monitoring and follow-up plans, despite the requirement of the FTOR that such plans are provided for each environmental component.


We request that the JRP does not proceed to a public Hearing until Teck has properly assessed the potential socio-economic effects of the Project on McMurray Métis and worked with the community to design and implement mitigation measures.


We request that the JRP does not proceed to a public Hearing until Teck has consulted with McMurray Métis and developed a Follow-Up and Monitoring Program related to the potential socio-economic effects of the Project on the McMurray Métis community and the associated mitigation measures.

103 Alberta Environment, Final Terms of Reference, p. 11. 104 Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Determining Whether a Designated Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Effects, p. 2.


17. Summary and Overarching Requests to the JRP

17.1. Key themes

Based on the sufficiency review completed by discipline in the previous sections, common deficiencies occur across disciplines and must be addressed by Teck prior to a Hearing. These over-arching deficiencies are summarized below.

Monitoring

Teck has multiple project-specific monitoring requirements and has engaged McMurray Métis in wildlife mitigation and monitoring and fish habitat offset planning, which includes monitoring. Through this engagement, McMurray Métis has repeatedly provided feedback and requested information to support our participation in developing monitoring plans and implementing monitoring programs.

For example, we have suggested to Teck to provide opportunities for land users to conduct baseline studies to evaluate the trade offs associated with the size of the proposed fish habitat compensation lake and resulting loss of bison habitat but have had no opportunity to gather data to complete this assessment. Teck’s responses to our SOCs regarding monitoring (as noted in discipline-specific recommendations) are insufficient and do not address our original requests.

In many cases, Teck indicated this work will be completed post-approval and from McMurray Métis’ perspective this is not acceptable and does not provide adequate participation of McMurray Métis in the development and implementation of these monitoring plans (see Recommendations #[16], [34], [39], [40], [61], [75], [99], [100] and [107]).

There is precedent for specific approval conditions requiring participation of Aboriginal groups in monitoring programs. For example, in the decision report105 for the NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL) system expansion project, the National Energy Board stated that it is sufficiently convinced by the submissions of Aboriginal Participants that their participation would be worthwhile and that NGTL can accommodate active monitoring by Aboriginal groups while balancing its safety concerns, and would impose Certificate Condition 12 (Appendix III of the decision report), requiring NGTL to file a plan describing the participation of Aboriginal groups in monitoring construction activities. The Board further stated that it expects this plan to cover construction activities from the commencement of construction through final clean up and reclamation.

105 National Energy Board. 2016. National Energy Board Report NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. GH-002-2015. June 2016.



We request that the JRP requires, prior to the hearing for the Project, Teck to develop an overarching monitoring program design and implementation plan to ensure Aboriginal collaboration and equity in monitoring program design, implementation and analysis and decision-making opportunities.


We suggest that the JRP requires a foundational draft of monitoring agreed-to principles, expectations, criteria, and goals for Aboriginal collaboration in the development, planning, implementation and analysis of monitoring programs prior to approval conditions.

Maintenance and Updating of Regulatory Guidelines

CEMA is mandated to “…make recommendations to manage the cumulative environmental effects of regional development on air, land, water and biodiversity,”106 and “…to produce recommendations and management frameworks pertaining to the cumulative impact of oil sands development in North-Eastern Alberta, which are, once complete, forwarded to the Provincial and Federal government regulators”.107

Many of these recommendations are considered as living documents and the terms of reference of the working groups of CEMA outlined revision schedules and each group developed three to five year workplans to support content development and updating of recommendations (see Recommendations [18], [36], [65], [66], [72], [73], [77], [78] and [80]).

Since the Government of Alberta withdrew Alberta’s membership in CEMA, no direction by Alberta has been provided indicating how the work to maintain and update the recommendations and management frameworks will continue. Discipline-specific recommendations in our sufficiency review highlight current gaps and define how Teck could support addressing these gaps.


We request that the JRP directs Alberta to establish a multi-stakeholder body to continue the unfinished work of CEMA to ensure maintenance and updating of regulatory guidelines is completed with the participation of McMurray Métis.

106 Cumulative Environmental Management Association. 2012. About CEMA. Available at: http://cemaonline.ca/index.php/about-us. Accessed October 13, 2016. 107 Ibid.



We request that the JRP requires, prior to any approval being issued for the Project, Teck to contribute funding to support a multi-stakeholder body to continue the unfinished work of CEMA to ensure maintenance and updating of regulatory guidelines.


We request that the JRP requires, prior to any approval being issued for the Project, Teck to develop project-specific workplans with participation of McMurray Métis to address the deficiencies identified in our sufficiency review regarding unfinished CEMA projects (see Hydrogeology and Closure, Conservation and Reclamation Plan).

Annual Reporting, Site Visits and Performance Updates

McMurray Métis has clearly communicated to Teck the expectation to be fully informed of activities occurring at the Project if approval is granted to ensure that members are enabled to participate in ongoing mitigation and monitoring and evaluation of Teck’s performance under LARP management frameworks and other policy requirements (see Recommendations #[35] and [81].


We request that the JRP requires, as a condition of any approval issued for the Project, Teck to complete annual performance presentations and site tours on tailings management, fish habitat offsetting, water management, reclamation and wildlife mitigation and monitoring, at a minimum, for staff, members and technical advisors of McMurray Métis.

Capacity Funding

Land use planning and implementation (i.e., Tailings Advisory Committee, Water Working Group, Stakeholder Interest Group, Land-use Management Plan development), project-specific activities and other regional initiatives (i.e., oil sands monitoring program) require large investment on McMurray Métis’ part to ensure full participation in these activities.

Resources are required by McMurray Métis to participate in these initiatives and lack of capacity funding limits McMurray Métis’ ability to fully participate in all initiatives (see Recommendation #[62]).



We request that the JRP requires, as a condition of any approval issued for the Project, Teck to provide capacity funding to McMurray Métis to participate in land use planning and implementation (i.e., Tailings Advisory Committee, Water Working Group, Stakeholder Interest Group, Landuse Management Plan development), project-specific activities and other regional initiatives (e.g., oil sands monitoring programs).

Proposed Athabasca River Bridge

McMurray Métis identified numerous deficiencies relating to information regarding the proposed Athabasca River Bridge. Teck indicated to CEAA that, “…The potential effects of the construction and operation of the proposed Athabasca River bridge crossing will be assessed as part of the Project’s draft Detailed Fisheries Offsetting Plan.” McMurray Métis views this as a significant deficiency with the current project application (see Recommendations #[7], [9], [37], [49] and [85]).


We request that the JRP requires, prior to any approval being issued for the project, Teck to complete an environmental assessment on the potential effects of the construction and operation of the proposed Athabasca River bridge crossing and that McMurray Métis be included in the environmental assessment.


18. Bibliography Alberta Energy Regulator and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 2013. "Report

of the Joint Review Panel - Shell Canada Energy - Jackpine Mine Expansion Project, Application to Amend Approval 9756." http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2013/acee-ceaa/En106-119-2013-eng.pdf or http://www.aer.ca/documents/decisions/2013/2013-ABAER-011.pdf.

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Development. 2014. Environmental quality guidelines for Alberta surface waters. Guidelines, Water Policy Branch. Policy Division, Edmonton: Government of Alberta.

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. 2013. Criteria and indicators framework for oil sands mine reclamation certification. Prepared for Cumulative Environmental Management Association, Reclamation Working Group by Charette Pell Poscente Environmental Corp. http://cemaonline.ca/index.php/administration/cat_view/2-communications/18-rwg- recommendations.

Alberta Environment. 2009. Final Terms of Reference environmental impact assessment report for the Proposed UTS Energy Corporation/Teck Cominco Limited Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project. Terms of Reference, Edmonton: Government of Alberta.

Alberta Environment. 2010. "Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region, 2nd Edition." Prepared by the Terrestrial Subgroup of the Reclamation Working Group of the Cumulative Environmental Management Association, Fort McMurray.

Alberta Environment. 2006. Land capability classification system for forest ecosystems in the Oil Sands Region, 3rd Edition. Edmonton: Government of Alberta.

Beckingham, J.D., and J.H. Archibald. 1996. Field Guide to Ecosites of Northern Alberta, Canadian Forest Service Northwest Region. Special Report 5, Edmonton: Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Services, Northwest Region, Northern Forestry Centre.

Cumulative Effects Management Association; Reclamation Working Group. 2006. Development of site types: Classification through the groupings of ecosites and interpretations for reclamation. Cumulative Effects Management Association .

Cumulative Environmental Management Association. 2014. Guideline for wetland establishment on reclaimed oil sands leases. 3rd edition, Fort McMurray: Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA).

Department of Justice. 1982. Constitution Act. Ottawa: Government of Canada.

Evans, Marlene S., and André Talbot. 2012. "Investigations of mercury concentrations in walleye and other fish in the Athabasca River ecosystem with increasing oil sands developments." Journal of Environmental Monitoring. doi:10.1039/c2em30132f.


Firelight and CEMA-TKWG. 2015. "Indigenous traditional knowledge framework principles for the inclusion of Indigenous traditional knowledge in environmental decision-making for North East Alberta." http://www.cemaonline.ca/index.php/working-groups/tek/89-cema-news/press-releases/press-release-articles/213-tek.

Geographic Dynamics Corp. and FORRx Consulting Inc. 2008. Vegetation data synthesis in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region. Prepared for the Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA) Reclamation Working Group (RWG) Soil/Vegetation Subgroup (SVSG).

Geographic Dynamics Corp. 2009. Characteristic species thresholds: Ecosites f, g, and h. A supplemental report to the vegetation data synthesis in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region, Prepared for Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA) Reclamation Working Group (RWG) Soil/Vegetation Subgroup (SVSG).

Isaac, Thomas. 2016. A Matter of National and Constitutional Import: Report of the Minister’s Special Representative on Reconciliation with Métis: Section 35 Métis Rights and the Manitoba Métis Federation Decision. Indigenous and Northern Affairs, Ottawa: Government of Canada, 50. https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1467641790303/1467641835266.

Natural Regions Committee. 2006. Natural Regions and Subregions of Alberta, Pub. No. T/852. Compiled by D.J. Downing and W.W. Pettapiece, Edmonton: Government of Alberta.

Teck Resources Limited. 2015. Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project – Project Update EPEA Application No. 001- 247548, Water Act File No. 303079, CEAA Reference No. 65505 and AER Application No. 1709793. Project Update, Calgary: Teck Resources Limited.

Teck Resources Ltd. 2016a. Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project - Responses to Supplemental Information Request No. 5. Calgary: Teck Resources Ltd.

Teck Resources Ltd. 2016b. Responses to Fort McMurray Métis Local 1935 Statements of Concern regarding the Project Update (received January 2016). Calgary: Teck Resources Ltd.

Welham, C., B. Seely, L. Frid, and C. Daniel. 2015. A tool for adaptation decision-making in oil sands reclamation under risk of climate change. Final report (draft), Cumulative Environmental Management Association - Reclamation Working Group.

Métis Nation of Alberta Association Fort McMurray Local ...

Documents

Transcript of Métis Nation of Alberta Association Fort McMurray Local ...