review of shell's jackpine mine expansion update, aenv and

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

Prepared for

Mikisew Cree First Nation GIR

June 2010

Prepared by

207 Edgebrook Close NW Calgary, Alberta

T3A 4W5 Canada Phone 403-241-8668

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

Shell JPM Expansion SIR review June 2010

Page i

List of Contributors

Project Management Dr. Petr Komers, P.Biol.

Ms. Shannon Gavin, M.Sc.

Senior Review Dr. Troy Whidden, P.Biol.

Vegetation & Reclamation Dr. Sheri Gutsell

Wildlife Dr. Troy Whidden, P.Biol.

Air Quality Mr. Kris Siriunas, P.Eng.

Water Quality Dr. Mike Vandermuelen

Hydrology Dr. Stefan Kienzle

Hydrogeology Mr. John Balfour, M.Sc., P.Eng.

Mr. Owen Quinn, M.Sc., P.Geo.

Fisheries Mr. Tom Boag

Monitoring & Follow Up Dr. Petr Komers, P.Biol.

Document Integration Ms. Shannon Gavin, M.Sc.


Page ii

Executive Summary

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

Environmental Science (MSES) review Shell’s Supplemental Information Request (SIR) documents for the

Jackpine Mine Expansion Project (JPME). The SIRs include updated or additional information regarding

the project, and responses to Alberta Environment (AENV) and the Energy Resources Conservation

Board (ERCB) information requests. Shell’s responses to the SIRs do not contain any answers to

questions and requests specifically asked by the Mikisew Cree, as outlined in the report “Review of Shell

Canada’s Jackpine Mine Expansion & Pierre River Mine Project Application”, prepared by MSES for the

Mikisew Cree in July 2009.

MSES evaluated the application to determine how and to what extent Shell has addressed the concerns

of the Mikisew Cree surrounding environmental stewardship and to provide recommendations to Shell

as to how these concerns and issues could be incorporated into the application and environmental

management process. Below we have identified the following points as being shortcomings of the

Application or points that require further clarification. Associated rationale and additional potential

issues of concern are presented in the body of this report.

1) The Kearl Channel aquifer at the Shell JPME site is proposed to be mostly mined out as a result

of the JPME mine development. This constitutes a major and irreversible impact on the surficial

aquifer resources of the area, with a permanent reduction in groundwater levels in the surficial

deposits of the area as well as in groundwater discharge to adjacent surface water bodies, such

as the Muskeg River (Hydrogeology).

2) The cumulative impact of all existing and planned destruction of surficial aquifer resources on

groundwater contributions to base flows to the Muskeg and Athabasca Rivers is not discussed

(Hydrogeology).

3) There is potential for significant groundwater contaminant migration from the external tailing

disposal area (ETDA) during post-mine-closure (Hydrogeology).

4) It is not clear what the amount of water withdrawal for the project will be because of

inconsistent reporting of water volume withdrawals (Hydrology).

5) Shell predicts negligible cumulative effects but does not provide literature or data to support the

prediction (Hydrology).

6) There is no discussion about how having pit lakes discharge into each other has the potential to

compound uncertainty associated with establishment of viable biological processes in any single

pit lake. Shell’s response simply states that each project will be responsible for respective

discharges as specified under EPEA approvals (Surface Water Quality).


Page iii

7) AENV responses to Interim Muskeg River Watershed Framework do not enforce the need to

establish water quality guidelines (Surface Water Quality).

8) Shell dismisses the uncertainty associated with final closure scenarios (Surface Water Quality).

9) A basin wide fish health study could help alleviate some concerns associated with small sample

sizes and piece meal data gathering when it comes to investigating contaminant body burden in

fishes in the lower Athabasca River (Fisheries).

10) It is not clear if there is a single regulatory application or two; given that the application

materials (including the SIRs) appear, at times, as both separate applications and a single

application, clarification is required (Wildlife).

11) The Mikisew Cree currently have no way of knowing whether or not wildlife will return to lands

directly and indirectly disturbed by Shell. In turn, Shell does not appear to have asked the

Mikisew Cree or any other Aboriginal people whether or not wildlife living in an artificial

landscape will be suitable for the continuation of traditional land use activities (Wildlife).

12) The Mikisew Cree need Shell to estimate how this 80 year window of habitat loss, and potential

impacts to local and regional fish and wildlife abundance, will impact traditional land use and

Mikisew culture (Wildlife).

13) To date inter-mine (cross lease) coordination and specific detailed planning for wildlife across

leases is not apparent in terms of targets, goals and how success will be defined or measured for

the maintenance of regional wildlife populations and for the recolonization of disturbed lands by

wildlife species (Wildlife).

14) Shell was asked to clarify if they intend to avoid or limit clearing during the time period between

February 15th and April 1st to avoid ungulate calving seasons. In response, Shell states that they

are not aware of any designated calving periods beginning on February 15th in their areas to be

cleared. Clarification is required because portions of the JMPE and Pierre River Mine (PRM)

local study areas (LSAs) are key ungulate zone for moose (Wildlife).

15) Cumulative Environmental Management Association – Sustainable Ecosystems Working Group

(CEMA-SWEG) wildlife key indicator resource (KIR) modelling apparently predicts wildlife KIR

declines during the period of time when Shell will be operating in the Alberta Oil Sands Region,

unlike Shell wildlife KIR modelling results. Shell has only looked at planned developments that

will likely occur 6 months into the future while CEMA-SWEG accounted for projects being

developed within the next 100 years (Wildlife).

16) The concept of ecosystem shifts appears to have been ignored in terms of assessing how

ecosystem shifts will impact the Aboriginal and Treaty Rights of the Mikisew Cree (Wildlife).

17) Shell provides no information or evidence that any of the Mikisew Cree First Nation’s issues of

concern surrounding wildlife or wildlife habitat have been, or will be, addressed by Shell as

requested by SIR #444a (Wildlife).

18) Shell was asked to discuss the relevance of the impact ratings for the regional case and the

regional study area (RSA) size chosen given that the project disturbance is less than 2%.


Page iv

Unfortunately, this question and the answer provided both fail to consider the indirect loss of

wildlife habitat in the RSA and the fact that the vast majority of the RSA has been leased to oil

sands development proponents (Wildlife).

19) Shell’s reclamation plan, which primarily involves relying on natural recovery of plant species, has

been shown to result in vegetation communities with no to very low similarity in species

composition to adjacent native communities (Vegetation & Reclamation).

20) Shell is no longer committing to comply with ERCB Directive 060 Upstream Petroleum Industry

Flaring, Venting and Incineration. Instead, Shell merely commits to having “regard” for it (Air

Quality).

21) Shell will not commit to retrofitting existing mine fleet to meet Tier 4 emission standards

starting in 2011 (Air Quality).

22) The asphaltene fired cogeneration unit could be a significant source of SO2, NOx, and PM2.5

emissions and other hazardous air pollutants if pollution control technology is not working

properly (Air Quality).

23) Shell has not demonstrated that it can convincingly measure that its mitigation and reclamation

measures are effective (Follow Up & Monitoring).

24) It is still unclear how Shell intends to integrate the traditional land use (TLU) information into its

reclamation plans and how Shell will monitor the success of achieving the targets and

benchmarks that would be derived from the TLU studies (Follow Up & Monitoring).


Page v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

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

1.1 Project Description ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Review Approach ................................................................................................................................. 2

2.0 TECHNICAL REVIEW OF THE SIRS ............................................................................. 2

2.1 Aquatic Resources ............................................................................................................................... 2

2.1.1 Hydrogeology ........................................................................................................................ 2

2.1.2 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................... 6

2.1.3 Surface Water Quality ......................................................................................................... 8

2.1.4 Fisheries ................................................................................................................................ 11

2.2 Terrestrial Resources ....................................................................................................................... 14

2.2.1 Wildlife .................................................................................................................................. 14

2.2.2 Vegetation & Reclamation ................................................................................................ 31

2.3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................................... 35

2.3.1 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 35

2.4 Follow Up & Monitoring .................................................................................................................. 38

3.0 DISCUSSION POINTS FOR FOLLOW UP MEETINGS ............................................ 40

4.0 LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................................... 45


Page vi


Page 1

1.0 Introduction The Mikisew Cree First Nation GIR (Mikisew Cree) has requested that Management and Solutions in

Environmental Science (MSES) review Shell’s Supplemental Information Request (SIR) documents for the

Jackpine Mine Expansion Project (JPME). The SIRs include updated or additional information regarding

the project, and responses to Alberta Environment (AENV) and the Energy Resources Conservation

Board (ERCB) information requests. The responses to the SIRs do not contain any answers to

questions and requests specifically asked by the Mikisew Cree, as outlined in the report “Review of Shell

Canada’s Jackpine Mine Expansion & Pierre River Mine Project Application”, prepared by MSES for the

Mikisew Cree in July 2009. The project update includes:

• Updated geological and resource information;

• Information about minor adjustments to mine pit boundaries;

• ERCB approval amendments;

• Information on the tailings management program;

• Information on allowances for the asphaltene energy recovery cogeneration unit and Class II

landfill;

• EIA update (e.g. updated drawdown information);

• Update on public and Aboriginal consultation including the status of traditional ecological

knowledge (TEK) and traditional land use (TLU);

• Update on regional cooperation initiatives; and

• Any corrections, errors, omissions identified.

The commentaries and questions posed throughout this report address the technical quality and the

basis of conclusions reached and predictions made. The technical quality is then related to its usefulness

for follow-up programs, thereby addressing the confidence that the Mikisew Cree may have in the

environmental management programs during the lifetime of the project. MSES understands that

maintaining traditional resource use and cultural activities is important to the Mikisew Cree. We ask

how the presented information can be used by the proponent to develop mitigation measures and how

the effectiveness of the mitigation can be measured to demonstrate the success of achieving the targets

of returning traditional resources to their original state. In its evaluative approach, MSES maintains that it

is essential that scientific rigor be employed when considering the potential impacts of oil sands projects,

and in determining the potential success of reclaiming the land for future generations.

1.1 Project Description

In 2002, Shell applied for approval of the Jackpine Mine-Phase 1 which was based on a bitumen

production level of 200,000 bbl/cd and is expected to start up in 2010. In January, 2009, the ERCB


Page 2

approved Shell’s the expansion of the Jackpine Mine-Phase 1 project area to construct and operate a fish

compensation lake. At that time, the eastern boundary of the project area was modified due to a land

swap with Syncrude Canada Ltd. The expansion of the project in the northeastern corner of the

project area has not been approved because potential project impacts associated with the change have

not been assessed. Shell is seeking approval as part of the Jackpine Mine Expansion application. The

Jackpine Mine Expansion Project will add additional mining area and increase the total mining and

processing capacity of the Jackpine Mine to 300,000 bbl/cd.

1.2 Review Approach

Given the Treaty rights of the FNs in Northern Alberta, the questions posed to environmental mangers

and policy makers are unequivocal: how much will the deprivation of Treaty rights grow in the future and how and when will this deprivation be mitigated? The questions seem simple, but the

devil lies in the detail. In order to fully answer this question, measurements are needed to provide

quantifiable information on how much of the original traditional resource is available to date, and how

much will be left once planned developments go ahead from construction to operation and

decommissioning. These measurements must be the foundation of testable questions, much like in the

process of environmental monitoring described by Burns and Wiersma (2004). In that process, testable

questions are developed, seeking measurable parameters that are subjected to rigorous statistical

analyses.

2.0 Technical Review of the SIRs

2.1 Aquatic Resources

2.1.1 Hydrogeology

The following comments pertain to several responses by Shell in their Supplemental Information report

of December, 2009 that did not adequately address the issues identified. These comments are provided

in the order presented in the Shell document.

2.1.1.1 Comments Regarding AENV SIRS:

1) Issue: Effects on groundwater unlikely to be local


Page 3

Reference: SIR # 249 “When discussing the summary results for the surficial deposits water table

drawdown and the changes to piezometric levels for the basal aquifer resulting from mining, Shell states that

the extent of the drawdown will generally affect only the local area.” Shell is requested to explain what is

causing the difference between the Suncor Voyageur South Mine Project, where mining operations

could cause drawdowns extending over several hundred kilometres versus the Shell Jackpine site.

Concern: Shell’s response to this question is that the dewatering effects for the two projects are

similar, with any differences due to dissimilarities in subsurface environments, as well as in

differences in modeling of the two sites. However, what is not stated is that the Kearl Channel

aquifer at the Shell JPME site is proposed to be mostly mined out as a result of the JPME mine

development. This constitutes a major and irreversible impact on the surficial aquifer resources of

the area, with a permanent reduction in groundwater levels in the surficial deposits of the area as

well as in groundwater discharge to adjacent surface water bodies, such as the Muskeg River.

Similar mining-out of surficial deposits is planned at the adjacent Imperial Oil Kearl oil sands project,

resulting in a further loss of surficial aquifer resources, and a further permanent reduction in

groundwater base flows to local and regional surface drainages such as the Muskeg and Athabasca

Rivers. The permanent loss of groundwater discharge to surface water bodies such as the Muskeg

and Athabasca Rivers is not a local area impact. Question: What is the cumulative impact of all existing and planned destruction of surficial aquifer resources on groundwater contributions to base flows to the Muskeg and Athabasca Rivers?

2) Issue: Potential for significant groundwater contaminant migration from the external tailing

disposal area (ETDA) during post-mine-closure

Reference: SIR #253a “Provide a description of systems at the Albian and Jackpine Phase 1 projects that

demonstrate the high confidence in the likelihood of successful mitigation of ETDA seepage water.” Concern: The Shell response is to list the various components of their proposed ETDA seepage

interception/containment system, including both passive and active relief wells, a groundwater

monitoring well network and a mitigation scheme to address any observed ETDA groundwater

seepage impacts. However, it is noted from a review of the JPME EIA that maximum degradation of

surface water quality from groundwater seepage will occur in several instances beyond the “Far

Future” timeline of 100 years after the start of mine closure in 2065, indicating the need for the

ETDA seepage interception system to continue to effectively function far beyond the end of the

operational period of the mine. Further, the timeline required for capture of all ETDA-sourced

contaminant seepage has not been determined by Shell, with the contaminant transport model

appearing to terminate well before this event. There is also no specific mention in the December

2009 SIRS report regarding if or how the ETDA seepage interception system will be maintained

beyond mine closure in the years following 2065.


Page 4

In addition to general concerns about ongoing operation of the ETDA interception well network by

Shell post-mine closure, there are some specific operational integrity issues associated with the

seepage interception wells over time. First, based on the experience at other oil sands sites, it is

noted that after interception wells become operational, and ETDA-derived nutrients begin to arrive

at the well sites, the wells will begin to bio-foul. As this has been an issue at other oil sands sites,

there is no reason to expect the interception well performance at the Shell JPME site will be any

different.

As a result, replacement wells will be required periodically, both during operation of the JPME

facility, and based on contaminant groundwater modeling, for an additional period in excess of 100

years following mine closure. No mention is made in the SIRS document, however, regarding the

provision of long term (post-closure) operation and maintenance of the well interception network.

As the modeling of ETDA seepage interception by the well network terminates 100 years after the

beginning of mine closure in 2065, it suggests there is no knowledge by Shell of how long the well

interception system would actually be required to operate to capture all contaminant seepage from

the ETDA, or plans to maintain the well interception system, including the installation of the

necessary replacement wells, over that extended, and currently unknown time period.

Second, again based on the experiences of other oil sands projects, it is very likely there will be

areas of ETDA dyke foundation movement over time. Well screens in particular are susceptible to

damage and subsequent siltation, rendering them inoperable. As it is generally impractical to locate

these wells sufficiently downgradient of ETDA facilities to avoid this effect, a reasonably high

replacement requirement should be accounted for, both during mine operation, and in the case of

JPME, for a period well in excess of 100 years post mine closure. However, as in the case above, it

is very unlikely Shell has made provision for such a long term well replacement program, given that,

as noted above, the timeline required to ensure capture of all ETDA-sourced groundwater seepage

is currently unknown. This suggests the potential for significant groundwater contaminant migration

sourced from the ETDA to downgradient receptors at some point during the post-mine-closure

period.

Questions:

• When, and under what regulatory format will Shell determine the timeline required for interception well capture of all ETDA-sourced groundwater seepage?

• Further, what assurances can Shell provide and what contingency plans are in place to ensure that a fully-effective ETDA seepage well capture system will be maintained during the very long post-operational period of the mine during


Page 5

which releases of ETDA-sourced contaminants to the environment will continue to occur, to the end point of such ETDA contaminant releases?

3) Issue: Potential for contaminants exceeding the well interception system Reference: SIR # 253c “Are there any instances of ETDA seepage rates at Albian or Jackpine Phase 1 oil

sands projects, or other nearby oil sands projects that exceeded the well interception system technology

proposed for JPME, requiring supplementary / contingency ETDA seepage interception measures?”

Concern: Shell’s response to this question was that there were no instances of this occurring at

the Muskeg River Mine or at Jackpine Phase 1. However, Shell indicated they were aware of

publicly-reported information on seepage from other ETDAs at other oil sands project sites, but

were unable to provide details of the suspected causes of the exceedance events, or the

interception measures implemented at these sites.

The above response by Shell indicates several historical instances at other oil sands projects of

inadequate designs of well interception systems for containment of contaminant seepage migration

from ETDA facilities, presumably with some migration of ETDA-sourced contaminants to

downgradient receptors.

Question: Given that contaminant seepage rates from ETDAs at several other oil sands projects exceeded the well interception system technology utilized, what assurances can Shell provide that such contaminant seepage exceedances will not occur at JPME, either during mine operation, or during the post-mine-closure period?

4) Issue: Reference: SIR #258 “Shell states once the quality of groundwater reaching the recovery / interception

wells reaches acceptable levels, the wells are to be decommissioned, and regular groundwater flow patterns

re-established. What is the expected timeline for this?”

Concern: The Shell response to this question is that the question is not applicable to the Jackpine

Mine Expansion Project. However, given concerns previously noted regarding potential ETDA-

sourced contaminant releases to the environment, the above question appears to be completely

applicable and relevant to the JPME site. As previously noted, the modeling of contaminant seepage

from the ETDA terminates prior to peak contaminant arrival times at several downgradient model

water quality assessment nodes, and thus the required timeline for operation of the interception

well network appears to be currently unknown. Question: Why is the provision of the expected timeline for the quality of groundwater reaching the recovery / interception wells meeting acceptable levels not applicable to the JPME site, particularly given that it appears to be currently unknown, and is crucial in ensuring capture of all ETDA-sourced contaminant releases to the environment?


Page 6

2.1.2 Hydrology

The following questions are follow-up questions that require further clarification. Question numbers are

related to the numbering system used in the SIR document.

2.1.2.1 Comments Regarding ERCB SIRS

1) Issue: More details regarding water allocation needed

Reference: Response to SIR # 292c

Request: Please address how the water withdrawals will be monitored and reported. Are withdrawal rates accessible to stakeholders? Please provide information on who will be controlling the integrity of the monitoring, especially under conditions when Instream Flow Needs (IFN) regulation requires a reduced withdrawal rate?

2) Issue: Inconsistencies in volume of withdrawals

Reference: Response to SIR # 299a

Concern: The SIR states that 53.3 Mm3/a is the correct actual volume of water withdrawals for the

life of the mine. However, this is in conflict with Answer 300a, where an allocation of 63.5 Mm3/a

until 2018 is stated, followed by 53.3 Mm3/a (35.3 Mm3/a already allocated for Jackpine Mine plus an

additional 18 Mm3/a for Stage 2. Question: Please explain why 53.3 Mm3 are stated to be the volume of withdrawals, when 63.5 Mm3 are requested until 2018.

3) Issue: Unclear how water cap will prevent mixing of settled fines


Question: If the water used for capping ETDAs to about 3m is used to supplement future withdrawal restrictions from the Athabasca River, how does that affect the ability of the water cap to prevent wind action from mixing settled fines into the water column?

2.1.2.2 Comments Regarding AENV SIRS

1) Issue: Lack support for predicted negligible cumulative effects

Reference: Response to SIR #19a

Question: • What is the scientific basis for the prediction that the impact of cumulative oil

sands mining on surface water quantity and quality, and fish and fish habitat


Page 7

effects in the Athabasca River upstream of the Athabasca River Delta and Lake Athabasca are negligible?

• As this is a critical point for the Mikisew Cree, detailed evidence for the basis of this prediction must be provided. Have the effects of recent oil spills been included in the analysis?

2) Issue: Clarity needed regarding usable volume Reference: Response to SIR # 246b

Question: Assuming an annual withdrawal of 63.5 Mm3, the capacity of the raw water storage

pond is approximately 63.5 Mm3 / 12 = 5.29 Mm3. Is this proximal value correct for the minimum usable volume of the proposed raw water storage pond?

3) Issue: Inconsistent values for water to bitumen ratio Reference: Response to SIR # 247c Request: Using the water allocation of 63.5 Mm3/a and the total volume of bitumen extracted over the 40 year life time of the JPME mine, an average water to bitumen rate of 4.33 is calculated. Shell reports the water to bitumen ratio to be 3.2. Please explain the difference.

4) Issue: Different water allocation values

Reference: Response to SIR # 247e

Concern: Table 247-2 in the SIR provides water withdrawal projections. The reported values are

in conflict with the statement that the total water allocation from Athabasca River is 63.5 Mm3. The

withdrawal values expressed in Mm3/a were re-calculated for both mines by multiplying the m3/s

values with 3,600*24*365.25/1,000,000. Based on the re-calculated values, the total mean annual

withdrawals from both is 80.8 Mm3/a.

Request: This value is different from the reported allocation value of 63.5 Mm3. Please explain this difference.

Again using the re-calculated values, 25 out of the listed years in Table 247-2 (58% of the life time of

both projects) are above the allocated withdrawal amount of 63.5 Mm3/a.

Request: Please explain how more water withdrawals are planned for most years than are requested to be allocated?

5) Issue: Use of same evapotranspiration value for watersheds with different precipitation


Concern: Unlike potential evapotranspiration, which only depends on the local climate, areal

evapotranspiration depends on precipitation, soils, and vegetation. Different precipitation values are


Page 8

reported and used in the HSPF model of 433mm/a for JPME and 374mm/a for Pierre River Mine

(PRM), a difference of 59mm, or about 15%. Where less precipitation falls on the same vegetation

type, less water is available for evaporation and transpiration, resulting in lesser areal

evapotranspiration. Consequently, this should result in a higher runoff than the reported 60mm/a for

PRM.

Request: Please explain why the areal evapotranspiration value of 305mm/a is applied for two watersheds with different precipitation.

2.1.3 Surface Water Quality

The information supplied in response to supplemental information requests was generally helpful.

Ample reference was made to the original EIA where material could be found, but this was not done

dismissively and generally included some summary of the material presented previously. Other

responses elaborated appreciably and this was helpful as well. Most water quality concerns relate to

passive remediation of water in end pit lakes and whether it will be of suitable condition for release

when lakes are full. Shell states repeatedly that poor water quality by scheduled release dates is unlikely

given research currently underway, use of conservative assumptions used in modeling, alternative means

of dealing with tailings, and adaptive management. Addressing uncertainty remains an outstanding

concern.


1) Issue: Confidence associated with end pit lakes as means to deal with tailings

Reference: Response to SIR # 296c, page 13-7

Comment: In response to the question regarding alternatives to deposition of mature fine tailings

at the bottom of end pit lakes, it is stated that confidence remains high that the approach will work.

This is a non-answer appealing only to earlier statements made and is representative of many

responses. However, reference is made to SIR 307 where alternatives for mixed fine tailings (MFT)

management are presented.

2) Issue: Passive treatment of process-affected water in pit lakes and wetlands


Request: Please discuss how well passive treatment in pit lakes and wetlands will work to remediate quality of process-affected water.


Page 9

3) Issue: Water quality under the Interim Muskeg River Watershed Framework

Reference: Response to SIR # 298, Page 13-10

Comment: The question refers to one of the goals of the Framework which is “to develop Water

Quality Targets and Limits to protect and maintain physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the

Muskeg River.” Shell has devised plans to divert the Muskeg River to which AENV responded by

stating that “the interim framework has not attempted directly to deal with this proposal at this time. AENV

recommends that the decision on this application be guided by the public interest, considering economic,

social and environmental values.” Shell states that they support this AENV Interim Framework

recommendation. This simply represents delay in imposing definite water quality guidelines; we are no further ahead. Note that the AENV statement has effectively undermined this ERCB SIR.

4) Issue: End pit lakes and adjacent operators


Comment: Several of Imperial’s pit lakes will discharge into those planned for the Jackpine Mine

Expansion. It should be recognized that having pit lakes discharge into each other has the potential

to compound uncertainty associated with establishment of viable biological processes in any single

pit lake. The response simply states that each project will be responsible for respective discharges

as specified under EPEA approvals.

5) Issue: Water quality in the Muskeg River Watershed and IFN for the lower Athabasca River


Comment: There is no particular issue with responses provided here, but it is worth noting that

the Muskeg River Watershed Framework is not yet in place. Similarly, AENV and DFO are still

developing the Phase 2 Instream Flow Needs for the lower Athabasca River. Both these

management policies will have implications for water use and quality. It is appropriate that they are

acknowledged here.

6) Issue: Viability of end pit lakes as final reclamation options

Reference: Response to SIR # 307b, Page 13-22

Comment: When asked about possible alternatives should end pit lakes not perform as predicted,

Shell provided an exposition as to why they are confident the lakes will work. Finally, a bulleted list

of five alternatives that could be examined is presented. Responses should address the questions

rather than being used as a platform for dismissing uncertainty associated with final closure.


Page 10

7) Issue: Alternative active treatments to remediate contaminated pit lake waters

Reference: Response to SIR # 307d,e, Page 13-24

Concern: Alternative active treatment methods are listed, but whether they can feasibly be

implemented remains unclear. Both answers state, again, that it is unlikely that passive remediation

will not work.

Question: Will Shell present a contingency plan if remediation fails?

8) Issue: Pit lakes as self-sustaining biologically productive systems

Reference: Response to SIR # 307f, Page 13-24

Request: The list of five criteria necessary to achieve self-sustaining biologically productive systems in pit lakes is helpful and outlines some possible points against which progress can be measured. Please include timelines.

9) Issue: Pit lakes as self-sustaining biologically productive systems

Reference: Response to SIR # 307g,h,i, Page 13-25

Comment: The description of research underway to evaluate whether pit lakes containing mature

fine tailings is helpful, but does not replace the need to conduct tests at a scale approaching that of

final end pit lakes.

10) Issue: Water quality guidelines


Comment: The preamble to the questions quotes the EIA where some constituents are identified

as not having guidelines and predicted concentrations that will have low to negligible effects on

aquatic health. The responses that follow are helpful, and this reviewer indicated the same in an

earlier review of the EIA; however, Shell must remain vigilant for unanticipated effects produced in

systems (i.e., filled end pit lakes) that do not yet exist.

11) Issue: Monitoring of water quality in end pit lakes and residence time


Comment: Again, the response appeals to the low likelihood of anything failing.

12) Issue: Time frame for end pit lake establishment

Reference: Response to SIR # 312c, Page 13-37

Comment: Criteria cited earlier (SIR 307fii) are re-iterated as benchmarks for aquatic ecosystem

development. Various literature is cited in support of phytoplankton, invertebrate, and fish

populations being able to survive and grow in wetlands and test pits with concentrations of process-

affected waters greater than those likely in end pit lakes considered here. This evidence is

encouraging and ongoing research must be supported. However, this all supports the pit lake


Page 11

concept as a viable closure option, it does not ‘confirm’ it as the concluding sentence of the second

paragraph in answer 312c states. Notwithstanding accumulating technical developments, uncertainty

must be recognized.


1) Issue: Conservative estimates of decay rates for potentially harmful constituents

Reference: Response to SIR # 16a, Page 15-11

Comment: In response to the questions regarding the effectiveness of bioremediation, it is stated

that the most conservative (i.e., slowest) decay rate is used in modelling for each potentially harmful

constituent. This makes sense, and it does indicate that there is understanding about how model

components interact. Using slow rates will lengthen the period until projected acceptable water

quality, but it does not address uncertainty explicitly.

2) Issue: Acidifying emissions


Concern: Acid input rates were above critical for some lakes, but potential effects are deemed

negligible given that increases were projected to be 4% or less.

Request: It is not adequate to dismiss this as negligible when biota may already be stressed if under the Base Case critical loads are exceeded; any incremental increase may by definition of the critical load induce further stress. Please discuss this further.

2.1.4 Fisheries

Water and its allocation, quality and management for both the Muskeg and Jackpine mines comprise

most of the SIR questions raised by the ERCB (Volume I) and AENV (Volume II). Confusion reported

by the ERCB in the allocation of water to be used for operations for individual phases of the expansion

(1 and 2) arise from errors made in volumes reported in the original EIA. Almost all questions relate to

certainty of closure landscape water quality and ecosystem health.

Imperial Oil’s tailing ponds flow through the Shell lease into end pit lakes in the closure landscape.

Drainages on Shell’s lease will flow into the Muskeg River and ultimately the Athabasca River. Both

regulators required clarification or confirmation regarding the water quality discharged from pit lakes

long term. Shell is confident that the mitigation and monitoring measures in place will assure that flow

from pit lakes to neighboring leases or drainages outside their property will meet regulatory standards

imposed. If water quality parameters monitored do not meet AENV and Federal Standards, then water

will not be released from the property. Shell states that discovering poor water quality post treatment


Page 12

will be unlikely. Both regulators are concerned about the certainty of outcomes predicted by models

with respect to replicating successful aquatic ecosystems in compensation and pit lakes in the closure

landscape.


1) Issue: Success of end pit lake evolution to sustainable ecosystems.

Reference: Response to SIR # 307b, page 13-22

Comment: The ERCB inquired as to what alternatives Shell would propose for end pit lakes in

the event they do not perform in terms of sustaining an aquatic ecosystem as predicted. Shell

provides five possible alternatives which include freeze drying, drying (kiln (?) or assume passively),

building poldars, and thickening the MFTs.

Questions: • Have these alternatives been investigated by CEMA, CONRAD or other

researchers? • If so, once treated tailings are capped with water, do hydrophobic contaminants

persist or could they become mobilized over time (once tailings are freeze-, passively dried, etc.)?

• Would ShelI consider one of these alternatives preferable over the others, a combination of them and why?

• These issues may have been discussed by Shell in the EIA; however, they are not discussed in the response given.


1) Issue: Sediment laden run-off into muskeg

Reference: Response to SIR # 318a & b, Page 22-7

Concern: AENV inquired how Shell will manage sediment laden surface run-off from roads and

infrastructure from polluting wetlands. Shell responded that sediment laden run-off would occur

predominantly in the “closed circuit development area”. Consequently, operational infrastructure

associated with roads (ponds, catchments and drainage systems) within the closed circuit

development area will capture run-off and the water recycled. At watercourse crossings, sediment

laden run-off would be directed to muskeg and away from watercourses beyond the closed circuit

development area. The proponent states that adaptive management would be used to manage

runoff before directing it onto native muskeg.


Page 13

Questions: • To minimize the risk to aquatic and wetland resources and simplify

management of sediment laden run-off from gravel access roads outside the closed circuit area, would Shell install sediment capture and/or filtration measures next to their raised infrastructure to minimize sediment pollution of native habitat(s)?

• Silt fences, bar ditches, sediment traps etc., in strategic locations within, or next to ditches, for example.

• Likely discussed in the EIA as “best management practices”; however, not responded to here. If so, how will silt fences be maintained?

• A description of frequency and approach would be helpful.

2) Issue: Strength of data and confidence in predictions


Concern: AENV inquires as to the source and “quality” of data reported from which predictions

are made with respect to fish health and ultimately, aquatic ecosystem and human health as a

consequence of their expanded oil sands operations. Shell states that RAMP, the Northern River

Basins Study, CONRAD and AENV are some of the sources of data used from which predictions

are based.

Data are data; they are as good as what is recorded at the time in the field/laboratory and whether

sample size is sufficiently large for claims made based on its analyses can be defended. Sample sizes

are often limited when dealing with contaminant body burden analyses in fishes since the cost of

individual analyses per sample is appreciable. Nevertheless, sample sizes of 10, 5 and 3 fishes will

provide a qualitative, but not quantitative result on which to predict into the future. Given the

current state of concern in communities downstream from Ft. McMurray regarding the health of

fishes in the river, the claim that ten is the smallest sample size to be deemed “large” is not suitable.

A basin wide fish health study could help alleviate some concerns associated with small sample sizes

and piece meal data gathering when it comes to investigating contaminant body burden in fishes in

the lower Athabasca River. Questions:

• Would Shell (and other oil sands proponents) support a basin wide study of fish health in conjunction with both provincial and federal regulators?

• Comparison of results of body burden tissue samples from the lower Athabasca and those from a “reference collection” such as from the Christina River would be helpful in assessing the relative health of the Athabasca River populations. Would Shell consider this analysis?


Page 14

3) Issue: Confidence in outcomes


Concern: AENV inquires as to the source and “quality” of data reported. Shell reports that they

have a “moderate degree of confidence” in using the CONRAD and NRC research studies to generate

a qualitative assessment of the outcome of expanded operations on aquatic ecosystem health.

Question/Request: • Please define what Shell considers as a “moderate degree of confidence”? • Is it sufficient to allow certainty of predictions made using the data especially

with respect to long term ecosystem health? For example, if confidence is only moderate and adaptive management the tool used to mitigate possible failure of outcome predicted if shortcomings in any parameter monitored arises, who will be accountable for health of trophic levels downstream in the event the relative occurrence of gross pathological indicators increases, or relative numbers of fishes decrease?

2.2 Terrestrial Resources

2.2.1 Wildlife

The Wildlife SIRs generated by the ERCB and AENV and the corresponding supplemental information

provided by Shell were reviewed in the context of the MSES technical review completed earlier on

behalf of the Mikisew Cree. The SIR review was completed to determine if any of the SIRs, and

corresponding supplemental information supplied by Shell, would be of interest to the Mikisew Cree.

Questions and commentaries are posed to either Shell or the Government of Alberta representatives

(i.e., ERCB, AENV, ASRD) for clarification of potential issues of concern with SIRs or SIR responses.

2.2.1.1 General Comments

1. The documents appear to only contain responses and additional relevant project updates to

ERCB and AENV SIRs for the Jackpine Mine Expansion Project. It is not apparent that any of

the information relates to the Pierre River application. As mentioned in the earlier review

completed for the Mikisew Cree, it is not clear if there is a single regulatory application or two;

given that the application materials (including the SIRs) appear, at times, as both separate

applications and a single application, clarification is required. Indeed, it appears that even the

regulatory agencies such as AENV are confused by the approach taken by Shell. For example,

AENV has requested additional information pertaining to wildlife passage under the Athabasca

River bridge on both east and west banks of the river (SIR # 430d, page 23-98). Shell’s


Page 15

response: any questions surrounding wildlife movement under the Athabasca River bridge are

not applicable to the JPME but rather the PRM. Please explain the approach taken in the EIA in the context of wildlife and other environmental parameters which do not necessarily recognize the borders between the JMPE and PRM.

2. To date, there have been no responses from Shell that specifically address the questions,

concerns and comments provided with respect to wildlife that were generated on behalf of the

Mikisew Cree. When will Shell provide responses to the technical review of the Jackpine Mine and Pierre River project EIA completed on behalf of the Mikisew Cree?

3. As Shell has indicated, the pace of oil sands development has currently slowed. Full expansion of

the Jackpine Mine will be delayed until about 2020, two years later than the initial application

indicated. Although there will be changes to the duration and magnitude of certain effects, Shell

claims that the overall significance of the environmental impacts as presented in the May 2008

EIA Update will remain unchanged (Volume 1, page 1-12). Please explain how this was determined for wildlife.

4. As part of their exploration and development program, Shell completed 135 holes in their 2008

drilling program. It is interesting to note that none of these associated activities require any

impact assessment and, as such, it is not apparent how Shell has not considered the ramifications

to wildlife from the 2008 (or any 2009-2010) drilling program (Volume 1, page 2-1; Figure 2-1).

Undoubtedly, loss of habitat and disturbance of wildlife occurs. Please explain.

5. In the JPME application, Shell proposed Jackpine Mine waste to a Class II landfill offsite. Shell is

now proposing to construct a Class II landfill on site (Volume 1, Section 3.2, page 3-10 and

Section 4.2, page 4-6). It is not clear how Shell considered potential impacts to wildlife and

wildlife habitat from this on site landfill, beyond fencing to prevent wildlife access. Please explain.

6. Shell has identified many of the key issues with the Jackpine Mine and Pierre River projects that

were brought forward in community meetings in Fort Chipewyan during open houses in April

2009 (Volume 1, Section 5.2, page 5-15 and 5-16). Some of these were directly and indirectly

related to wildlife and wildlife habitat, and included:

• the lack of direct Government consultation on Aboriginal and Treaty rights associated

with development;

• the need for traditional land use;


Page 16

• gathering traditional ecological knowledge in winter drilling programs;

• environmental monitoring; and

• the effects on wildlife.

However, it remains unclear as to what Shell has done since these meetings to alleviate

concerns associated with potential impacts to wildlife, beyond identifying key issues that have

been apparent to the Mikisew Cree for many years. Please explain.

7. Although the project area in the northeast corner of the Jackpine Mine Phase 1 was expanded,

development approval has not been granted because the environmental impacts were not

assessed in the Jackpine Mine Phase 1 EIA.

2.2.1.2 EIA Update

Additional information is supplied on the Kearl Lake Levee (Volume 1, Section 6.1 page 6-1, Appendix

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

Compensation lake will be increased, which will cause flooding around the lake. The levee is an

embankment that will be built around Kearl Lake to prevent flooding of the surrounding area. No

rationale or explanation is apparent for the conclusion that the environmental consequences ratings

remain the same for all wildlife key indicator resources (KIRS) affected by the levee. The Mikisew Cree should request that Shell explain how the levee and associated flooding do not change impact predictions for wildlife.


1) Issue: Regional Planning: Inter-mine coordination issues between Shell, Syncrude and Imperial

Oil

Reference: Response to SIR # 352a, page 14-5

Comment: The ERCB requested information about the unresolved inter-mine coordination issues

between Shell, Syncrude and Imperial Oil (associated with landform, landscape continuity and inter-

mine closure drainage plans). Shell has reported that discussions are ongoing, but does not consider

inter-mine coordination as being ‘unresolved’. If the latter is true, Shell and other oil sands

development proponents should have co-ordinated, cross-lease plans for wildlife at the operations

and closure stages and the Government of Alberta, as a regulator, should be directing end land use

goals for environmental parameters, including wildlife. However, to date this coordination and

specific detailed planning for wildlife across leases is not apparent in terms of targets, goals and how


Page 17

success will be defined or measured for the maintenance of regional wildlife populations and for the

recolonization of disturbed lands by wildlife species. In addition, the ERCB has also asked “How will

these issues be managed?’ (SIR # 352b, page 14-5). This is perplexing and disturbing as it would seem

that the ultimate responsibility for managing the coordination of inter-mine (cross-lease)

development plans would be the Government of Alberta.

Question: Given that the success of cross-lease planning for wildlife is not apparent to date and that the Government of Alberta, as a regulator, is not prescribing or managing any specific requirements, how can the Mikisew Cree have faith in the efforts by Shell to alleviate First Nation concerns surrounding project impacts wildlife?

2) Issue: Clearing between April 1 and August 30

Reference: Response to SIR # 355a and SIR # 355b, pages 14-9 and 14-10

Comment: In response to the being asked to describe Shell’s procedures to find bird nests if

clearing periods are to happen (in a limited fashion) between April 1 and August 30 Shell gives no

indication as to how frequently clearing might take place between these active nesting dates or how

much land might be cleared during this same time period. Clearly, there are negative consequences

to birds and other wildlife species if clearing takes place between these dates. Although mitigation

strategies are briefly described (see response to SIR# 355b) there is no information provided

regarding how successful these strategies might be, or even if they will be used.

Question: How much land does Shell anticipate clearing between April 1 and August 30? Has Shell ever discovered active bird nests in areas scheduled to be cleared between April 1 and August 30? During past clearing operations, how has Shell actually responded to finding active bird nests in areas that are scheduled to be cleared between April 1 and August 30? Will Shell commit to actually implementing mitigation strategies and not just ‘considering’ mitigation strategies, as indicated in their response to SIR#355b?

3) Issue: Additional linear features-environmental impacts

Reference: Response to SIR # 362b-362e,

Comment: In response to the being asked to provide maps and an updated environmental impact

assessment surrounding additional roads and an additional bridge outside of the mine footprint area,

Shell indicates that no additional roads or bridges are planned for the JPME, but rather the PRM. It is

not clear why impacts from these contiguous, integrated projects are being segregated by Shell;

impacts to wildlife will require full disclosure so the Mikisew Cree can attempt to better understand

impacts to traditional resource use locally and regionally.

Question: When will responses to ERCB SIR #s 362b-362e be provided? Why are impacts to terrestrial resources from the JPME and the PRM apparently being segregated by Shell?


Page 18

4) Issue: Reclaimed lands and capability to support wildlife

Reference: Response to SIR # 363b

Comment: In response to the being asked to describe the capability of reclaimed lands to support

the pre-disturbance range of forest vegetation communities, species diversity and productivity, Shell

does not appear to consider how wildlife will respond to any newly-manufactured landscape, should

they be successful at the scale being proposed. Furthermore, it is not apparent how, or if,

traditional land use was considered. No definition of ‘pre-disturbance’ is provided by the ERCB in

its question.

Question: Does Shell expect any reclaimed lands to be able to support the pre-disturbance (not baseline) range of wildlife? If yes, please provide rational for this conclusion based upon the current scale and pace of local and regional oil sands development scenarios. 5) Issue: Reclaimed landscape-terraced slopes

Reference: Response to SIR # 364a-364e, pages 14-23 and 14-24

Comment: Shell was asked to discuss any potential issues with terraced slopes in the reclaimed

landscape, including analogue with the natural environment, sheet flow, drainage areas, erosion and

long term sustainability. Shell does not expect any issues with slopes that are terraced in the

reclaimed landscape and claims that the reclaimed landscape is designed with undulating topography

that replicates natural drainage systems. Shell’s comparison of terraced slopes with natural drainage

systems appears to be subjective, and not based on any quantitative comparison(s). In addition, Shell

does not provide concrete examples of where they, or anyone else, has reclaimed land in a similar

fashion and scale. Shell appears to be asking for blind faith in their approach; the ERCB and AENV

should require Shell to provide some sort of measurements with respect to how their reclamation

plan, including terraced slopes, will induce wildlife recolonization of what will be an artificial

landscape. The Mikisew Cree currently have no way of knowing whether or not wildlife will return

to lands directly and indirectly disturbed by Shell. In turn, Shell does not appear to have asked the

Mikisew Cree or any other Aboriginal people whether or not wildlife living in an artificial landscape

will be suitable for the continuation of traditional land use activities.

Shell also claims that by providing a range of ecosite types, they will provide the greatest potential

range of end land uses, including wildlife habitat and traditional land use. It is not clear what

information Shell used in support of this conclusion, since no large-scale reclaimed sites exist in the

Alberta Oil Sands Region that are recolonized by wildlife or used by Aboriginal people. Shell

appears to fail to understand that simply building artificial habitats will not guarantee wildlife use or

be meaningful to those wishing to continue to pursue their traditional land use activities.

Question: When and how will Shell integrate Aboriginal standards in their reclamation planning? How will the above issues of concern be addressed by Shell?


Page 19


1) Issue: Habitat loss over project lifetime and impacts to wildlife abundance

Reference: Response to SIR # 423a-c, page 23-86

Comment: Shell was asked to discuss impacts to fish and wildlife abundance as a consequence of

habitat loss over the 80 year project timeline from both a project perspective and a cumulative

perspective. In response to the question, Shell states that the impacts of wildlife abundance as a

result of habitat loss during the 80-year project lifespan were not discussed (or apparently assessed).

As with previous regulatory applications by Shell (and other oil sand development proponents) there

is a blind-faith reliance upon unproven, large-scale reclamation for disturbed lands. In turn, this

reclamation is the primary mitigation measure for local and regional wildlife populations in the

Alberta Oil Sands Region. Shell presents no predictions as to where displaced wildlife populations

will go in the region as most of the area is currently leased and potentially slated for development.

For example, where will bird species returning to large-scale areas of disturbed lands find suitable

breeding and nesting habitat? For Shell to claim that certain species, such as moose, will simply

move to other proximal habitats with lower carrying capacity is misleading because there will soon

be nowhere for moose to move to in the Alberta Oil Sands Region. Shell has not answered the

question surrounding impacts to fish and wildlife abundance as a consequence of habitat loss over

the 80 year project timeline from a project perspective or a cumulative perspective. Many (most)

wildlife species will not reside in the local study area (LSA) as the project moves forward. It is not

clear how Shell claims that these species will not be displaced from the regional study area (RSA),

given that the majority of the RSA is leased for future development or currently under development.

Shell claims that most wildlife species will be displaced to surrounding habitat, including movement

corridors along river valleys and escarpments. As the name implies, movement corridors are

supposed to act as conduits, not substitute habitat, for certain wildlife species.

More importantly, the Mikisew Cree need Shell to estimate how this 80 year window of habitat loss,

and potential impacts to local and regional fish and wildlife abundance, will impact traditional land

use and Mikisew culture. Without any quantification of impacts to traditional land use activities, the

Mikisew Cree have little more than the continued reassurances of Shell and the Government of

Alberta that project impacts will be mitigated. There is an inherent risk that the Mikisew Cree

traditional land use, as it pertains to fish and wildlife, will be lost indefinitely because of project

temporal scenarios and a lack of demonstrated success reclaiming fish wildlife habitat at the large

scale being proposed by Shell. Further, it has yet to be established by any development proponent

in the Alberta Oil Sands region that any large-scale reclamation will be a success or if the results

from large-scale reclamation will be suitable for the Mikisew Cree to practice traditional land use

activities.


Page 20

Question: When will Shell answer the question posed by AENV, taking into account other oil sands leases in the region? Where will existing wildlife species (at minimum, all wildlife indicator species in the EIA) move to when the Shell lease is disturbed (surrounding habitat is not an answer)? How will wildlife species not be displaced from the RSA, given that the majority of the RSA is leased for future development or currently under development? Does Shell envision ‘movement corridors’ as a substitute for resident wildlife habitat? What will impinged movement corridors connect? How does Shell know that the results from large-scale reclamation (i.e., fish and wildlife recolonization), if successful, will be suitable for the Mikisew Cree to practice traditional land use activities? What information has Shell gathered through their consultation with the Mikisew Cree?

2) Issue: Avian mortality


Comment: In response to the question regarding why an avian mortality program was not

conducted in 2006 Shell appears to claim that because there were no active tailings or process

ponds, an avian mortality program was not warranted.

Question: Is Shell claiming that the Jackpine Mine – Phase 1 facilities have resulted in no avian mortality because of a lack of tailings and process ponds? Were no avian mortalities reported from 2006 to date?

3) Issue: Photographic station results

Reference: Response to SIR # 425, page 23-90

Comment: Shell noted in their EIA that photographic record results did not coincide with the

winter tracking data in all cases, and AENV asked Shell to explain this discrepancy between sampling

techniques and to identify how the sampling program (presumably the future sampling program for

any required wildlife monitoring program) has been adapted to address this discrepancy in sampling.

In response, Shell claims that the photographic record station sampling was an additional method of

documenting seasonal use of the LSA by several species for which there was either no information,

such as black bear, or for which data were limited to the winter season, such as wolverine, wolf,

fisher and moose. Although Shell claims that the data collected using remote cameras better

address the requirements for seasonal movement data and were considered an improvement over

previous approaches, their claim is false. To date, the design and implementation of remote camera

surveys for wildlife has been poor throughout the Alberta Oil Sands Region. Shell cannot point to

any measurements from the “data” gathered using remote cameras to date as the picture-related

information is qualitative in nature and cannot be compared to data gathered from field surveys such


Page 21

as winter track surveys or pellet/browse surveys unless sampling stratification and intensity is

improved. Impacts to wildlife from habitat disturbance will occur year-round; if anything, the

qualitative information gathered from remote cameras points to the severity of impacts to certain

wildlife species.

Shell has not provided a satisfactory answer to the question. To date, it appears that the use of

photographic stations to document wildlife distribution and abundance appears to be nothing more

than an expensive public relations tool of industry as no quantifiable information has apparently been

generated to date that contributes to EIA predictions or regional monitoring programs.

Question: If Shell persists in utilizing photographic stations, will they commit to stratifying their sampling in a way that will generate meaningful results? How can Shell use photographic stations to actually quantify the distribution and abundance of wildlife species (i.e., large mammals, some furbearers)?

4) Issue: Ungulate calving seasons


Comment: Shell was asked to clarify if they intend to avoid or limit clearing during the time

period between February 15th and April 1st to avoid ungulate calving seasons. In response, Shell

states that they are not aware of any designated calving periods beginning on February 15th in their

areas to be cleared, but do understand that in provincially designated key ungulate zones, there is a

restricted activity period from January 15th to April 30, and that in north-eastern Alberta, ASRD

requires a February 15th to April 30th activity restriction period in designated key ungulate zones.

Portions of the JMPE and PRM LSAs are key ungulate zone for moose. Clearly, clarification is

required. Ungulates such as moose and caribou are important traditional resources for the Mikisew

Cree.

Question: Can Shell or ASRD clarify what the clearing restrictions will be for ungulates and other wildlife species in the JPME and PRM LSAs, including any deviations from established restricted periods?

5) Issue: Maintaining wildlife movements


Comment: In response to the question regarding the potential use of crossing structures as

effective mitigation for maintaining wildlife movement in a landscape fragmented by linear

disturbance, Shell claims that they have not considered installing any crossing structures to facilitate

wildlife movement on JPME because there are no linear disturbances associated with the JPME.

Merits of crossing structures aside, clarification about how Shell defines ‘linear’ disturbance’ is

required.


Page 22

Question: Can Shell or AENV define the term ‘linear disturbance’? Please clarify in the context of SIR # 430a.

6) Issue: Remnant forested areas


Comment: Shell indicated in their EIA that they will leave remnant forested areas undisturbed

where practical. Presumably, this would aid wildlife in the LSA to some degree. Shell was asked to

discuss the criteria used to determine where this would be practical. However, Shell states that

there will be no remnant forested areas during operation of the JPME. It is not clear why such a

claim was made in the EIA.

Question: Can Shell please clarify why the claim surrounding remnant forested areas was made in the EIA if none are to actually remain to act as potential wildlife habitat?

7) Issue: Removal of hibernating black bears

Reference: Response to SIR # 430c, pages 23-97 & 23-98

Comment: In response to the question regarding how they intended to remove any hibernating

black bears discovered while clearing the JPME site, Shell indicates that they actually have no

standardized plan to carry out the removal of any hibernating bears. This should be a concern to the

Mikisew Cree as it indicates that Shell cannot implement the mitigation measures that it is providing

in the EIA. Further, it makes the reader challenge how Shell has dealt with this issue in the past.

Question: Can Shell commit to implementing the wildlife-related mitigation measures proposed in the EIA by producing formal contingency plans for dealing with hibernating black bears? How has Shell dealt with this matter in the past?

8) Issue: Bird deterrent systems

Reference: Response to SIR # 430g, page 23-99

Comment: Shell was asked to discuss any upgrades planned to ensure that deterrent systems are

effective, address habituation, and meet or exceed industry standards. In short, Shell states that no

upgrades are planned.

Question: AENV should provide the Mikisew Cree with information as to how the effectiveness of deterrent systems is to be quantified, and what industry standards are for bird deterrent systems. More importantly, what are AENV standards? How do industry and AENV standards correlate with Mikisew Cree expectations for bird deterrent systems?


Page 23

9) Issue: CEMA-SWEG wildlife KIR modelling


Comment: Cumulative Environmental Management Association – Sustainable Ecosystems

Working Group (CEMA-SWEG) wildlife KIR modelling apparently predicts wildlife KIR declines

during the period of time when Shell will be operating in the Alberta Oil Sands Region, unlike Shell

wildlife KIR modelling results. When asked why Shell’s wildlife KIR modelling results do not reflect

that of CEMA-SWEG, it appears that the main reason, aside from differing technical approaches, is

that Shell has only looked at planned developments that will likely occur 6 months into the future

while CEMA-SWEG accounted for projects being developed within the next 100 years.

Technicalities aside surrounding approaches, the latter seems to be an intuitive approach to

assessing realistic impacts and generating associated predictions. For the Mikisew Cree, the

prolonged development of their traditional territory (for 100+ years), and impingement of Treaty

and Aboriginal Rights with respect to wildlife, are a very real scenario.

Question: Would it be fair for Shell to say that impacts to wildlife KIRs in the LSA and RSA for the JPME and PRM projects will be influenced by developments outside of what they consider to be the Planned Development Case (PDC)? How does this affect end land use in relation to Mikisew Cree traditional territory?

10) Issue: Impacts and LSA boundaries

Reference: Response to SIR # 435a to 435d pages 23-107 to 23-110

Comment: Shell was asked to provide the rationale behind using a 500m buffer around mining

areas for vegetation and wildlife. In response, Shell claims that the 500m buffer will account for

indirect project effects. Although some peer-reviewed references are provided, they are limited to

only a few wildlife species and disturbances outside of the Alberta Oil Sands Region, and do not

appear to be in areas that are going to potentially experience as extensive development as the oil

sands. Further, it is not clear if Shell purports that the traditional land use activities of the Mikisew

Cree can be carried out > 500m from project facilities. Clarification surrounding the use of a 500m

buffer is required in the context of the potential development scenarios in the Alberta Oil Sands

Region, wildlife KIRs, and Mikisew Cree traditional land use activities.

In addition, there is evidence that the 500m buffer does not capture the potential effects to fens

from surficial aquifer drawdown, and the wildlife that utilize fens. These potential effects extend

beyond the wildlife LSA. Shell does not plan on measuring these potential impacts from drawdown.

Question: What feedback to date has Shell received from the Mikisew Cree with respect to the 500m buffer used in the EIA or Mikisew Cree traditional land use activities < or > 500m from project facilities and mine pits? Will AENV require Shell to assess impacts to wildlife (and wildlife habitat) from drawdown that extend beyond the LSA? If not, why not?


Page 24

11) Issue: Ecosystem shifts

Reference: Response to SIR # 436b pages 23-111 to 23-113

Comment: Shell was asked to discuss generational time, implications of local extirpation, potential

impediments to recolonization and potential long term shifts in the ecology of the area as a

consequence of invasive species such as deer. Although the discussion of this specific example does

have some merit when evaluating the potential impacts to the Aboriginal and Treaty Rights of the

Mikisew Cree, the more important underlying issue that Shell and AENV need to address surrounds

the high potential for long-term, if not semi-permanent (as ecosystems are dynamic) shifts in

ecosystem form and function. For several years, the Mikisew Cree have been requesting that oil

sands development proponents, AENV and the ERCB document and quantify what appears to be

shifts in the local and regional ecology in the Alberta Oil Sands Region. The concept of ecosystem

shifts appears to have been ignored in terms of assessing how ecosystem shifts will impact the

Aboriginal and Treaty Rights of the Mikisew Cree. Shell claims that certain habitat types will

increase for some species and the area in general will go from wet lowlands to drier uplands, but

this claim or plan has no current rationale to define or measure success, and reclamation at the scale

being proposed has never been achieved.

Question: Will Shell or the Government of Alberta evaluate the potential impacts from ecosystem shifts in the Alberta Oil sands Region to Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in the context of wildlife and wildlife habitat? If not, why not? 12) Issue: Environmental consequences for wildlife

Reference: Response to SIR # 436c, pages 23-113

Comment: Shell was requested to further discuss the conclusion that regional environmental

consequences for all resources are predicted to be negligible to low considering the uncertainty

around reclamation success, change from peatland to upland or open water (compensation lakes)

and significant regional scale of these impacts cumulatively. Shell’s response was that regional

environmental consequences for all resources are predicted to be negligible or low because

cumulative impacts are predicted to be negligible or low at the regional scale following closure.

Aside from the somewhat circularity of the answer, Shell still cannot quantify when, exactly

“following closure” will be in terms time. Again, the Mikisew Cree are faced with being asked to

have blind faith in how Shell ‘feels’ concerning the potential for success of reclamation at the local

and regional scales; to date it remains unproven and is not quantified. In turn, the Mikisew Cree

have no idea how long it will take Shell to put the land back in some sort of usable form, or if that

reclaimed landscape and any wildlife that recolonize it will be suitable physically or spiritually to use

in any way. Shell has not provided a satisfactory answer the questions being posed in the SIR.

Question: Will Shell respond to SIR #436c with respect to the wildlife KIRs and Mikisew Cree traditional resource use? If not, why not?


Page 25

13) Issue: Natural areas - definition

Reference: Response to SIR # 437a, pages 23-115 & 23-116

Comment: In response to being asked to define the term ‘natural areas’ in the context being used

throughout the EIA, Shell states that natural areas includes all undisturbed and reclaimed vegetation

types. Shell fails to consider indirect disturbance when defining natural areas. Interestingly, Shell has

predicted that there will be more ‘natural areas’ following closure (whenever that is) than at the

baseline (current) case. This is interesting for several reasons, two of which include: (i) that the LSA

is already heavily disturbed and (ii) the baseline case is not representative of pre-development or

pre-disturbance conditions, so any information pertaining to wildlife should not be used as a target

for recolonization or monitoring programs.

Question: Will Shell commit to estimating pre-disturbance wildlife and wildlife habitat conditions in the LSA and RSA? If not, why not? Please discuss the merits of the wildlife baseline data with respect to the goals and objectives of any future wildlife monitoring programs.

14) Issue: Self-sustaining ecosystem reclamation

Reference: Response to SIR # 437c, pages 23-116 & 23-117

Comment: In response to the question regarding how they intended to actually measure their

high level of confidence in their ability to reclaim disturbed lands that will evolve into self-sustaining

ecosystems (presumably with wildlife recolonizing from some parts unknown) Shell simply reiterates

how confident they are in their abilities, without providing a concrete answer as to how this success

will be defined, measured and gauged. Although Shell points to what they purport as other successes

in measuring wildlife use of areas on Suncor leases, the fact is that certain species, such as moose,

have exhibited a steady decline as indicated by data provided by Suncor.

Question: To reiterate, can Shell provide information on how reclamation success will be defined, measured and gauged in particular for wildlife? At what stage(s) are other Shell lease areas that have been disturbed with respect to reclamation and wildlife recolonization?

15) Issue: Wildlife abundance as related to habitat loss

Reference: Response to SIR # 438a & 438b, pages 23-121 to 23-125

Comment: Shell was asked to discuss wildlife abundance as related to habitat loss and the

implications surrounding habitat removal during construction and mining. In response, Shell only

speaks to moose, purporting, in part, that they will vacate the area before habitat is removed and

that the RSA is generally below the carrying capacity with respect to moose, partially because of

unregulated First Nation harvest which they claim is ‘substantive’. It is not clear how Shell measured

the carrying capacity of the RSA for moose and it is not clear what information was used to

substantiate the claim that First Nations harvesting of moose is substantive.


Page 26

Question: The answer provided by Shell is incomplete as it only pertains to moose and neglects to provide information on the myriad other species in the RSA and wildlife KIRs assessed in the EIA. Please explain to the Mikisew Cree the information that was used to substantiate the statement that First Nation “...unregulated harvest [of moose] is likely substantive.” (SIR 438a, page 23-123)

16) Issue: Wildlife east-west movements

Reference: Response to SIR # 439a & 439b, pages 23-126 to 23-129

Comment: Shell was asked to expand on discussions surrounding east-west wildlife movement

and wildlife corridors locally and regionally. Although Shell is committed to regional research

initiatives that will examine the so-called effectiveness of wildlife corridors, it is disappointing that

Shell, AENV and other oil sands development proponents fail to see that wildlife corridors are

supposed to act as conduits for wildlife to move between habitats, not as substitute habitat.

Further, the concept of movement corridors within riparian habitat relates more to mountainous

regions where wildlife movements are constrained by impassable terrain features. Similarly, riparian

areas may function as corridors where adjacent habitats are barriers to movement (e.g., arid dry

grasslands next to lush riparian areas) but it is not clear if this would apply to the boreal forest and

wildlife species found within the boreal forest. Within the boreal forest, no such impediments to

movements exist for most species. It is difficult to understand why Shell would expect moose and a

few other target species to use these discontinuous features to move in close proximity to intensely

developed and disturbed lands. In addition, given that these so-called corridors are to assist in

maintaining the gene flow within and between populations, it is not clear what, exactly, they will

connect given the present development scenarios in the region.

The Mikisew Cree attended a meeting on 19 February 2010 where the following presentations were

made:

1. History and Overview of the Wildlife Habitat Effectiveness and Connectivity Research (WHEC) Program – by Corey De La Mare, with Golder Associates and the CONRAD Environmental Reclamation Research Group (ERRG).

2. Wildlife Habitat Effectiveness and Connectivity Project – a look at equipment and moose

capture techniques – by Holger Spaedtke, with the University of Alberta.

On several occasions, when questioned, the presenters deferred to AENV and Alberta Sustainable

Resource Development (ASRD) for direction. Unfortunately, AENV and ASRD were conspicuously

absent so they could not be questioned or provide the required direction.


Page 27

As such, the following was highlighted for the Mikisew Cree’s consideration:

1. Although the Regional Wildlife Monitoring Program is looking at aspects of habitat effectiveness and connectivity, it only involves large terrestrial mammals such as moose. Other important traditional wildlife resources such as birds, fish and small mammals are not part of the Regional Wildlife Monitoring Program.

2. There were not enough details presented in either the summary document or the respective

presentations to gain a clear understanding of the methods and rationale behind most aspects of the Regional Wildlife Monitoring Program. Objectives, goals and underlying assumptions need to be made clear.

3. Although the use of remote cameras is highly touted when attempting to measure habitat

effectiveness and connectivity for wildlife, it is not apparent how this will actually be done and for what species. Without establishing a proper sampling regime, the information gathered will be of no use in measuring habitat effectiveness or connectivity. Pictures of wildlife are not, necessarily, an index of wildlife abundance. The limitations of the data to be collected do not appear to be understood, or even acknowledged.

4. In some instances, different methods to measure wildlife distribution and abundance could result

in different trends in wildlife populations. For example, the results of an aerial survey for moose showed no difference at the local versus regional scales, whereas winter tracking survey results did show a difference between local and regional scales.

5. The value in maintaining regional “corridors” in the Athabasca River Valley is not clear in the Regional Wildlife Monitoring Program. Corridors are usually seen as habitat for movement, connecting core patches of habitat. Corridors are not substitutes for habitat lost because of oil sands exploitation. It is currently not clear from the Regional Wildlife Monitoring Program what patches of habitat are being connected by the proposed corridors.

6. Moose capture and radio-collaring is likely already underway in the Alberta Oil Sands region

without any apparent meaningful consultation with the Mikisew Cree.

7. The Mikisew Cree should request that ASRD and AENV explain the rationale behind the Regional Wildlife Monitoring Program:

a. Is it research or is it compliance monitoring? b. Are there targets of population size in the region? c. Are there spatial objectives for the design of a corridor network in the

region?


Page 28

d. Are there patches of core habitat envisioned that need to be or remain connected?

e. What species is the Regional Wildlife Monitoring Program intended for and why?

In addition to our understanding of the need for scientific rigor in any Regional Wildlife Monitoring

Program, our comments and recommendations above are based on our experience in conducting

and reviewing of EIAs and other regulatory submissions associated with the development in the

Alberta Oil Sands Region and follow on our understanding of Mikisew Cree values.

Question: Can Shell, AENV or ASRD expand or provide a clear explanation surrounding the work being done to date on regional wildlife movements – who is doing what and why (see above questions, comments and concerns)? What is the contingency plan if riparian corridors fail to achieve whatever the goals and objectives may be for WHEC?

17) Issue: Shell’s response to First Nation concerns


Comment: Shell was asked to discuss how they have responded to the First Nation community

concerns surrounding the loss of wildlife, wildlife habitat, and Shell’s ability to reclaim areas over the

long term. In addition, the question was raised if these First Nation concerns have been resolved.

Shell’s answer provides no information or evidence that any of the Mikisew Cree First Nation’s

issues of concern surrounding wildlife or wildlife habitat have been, or will be, addressed by Shell or

the Government of Alberta. Shell provides no specific, detailed information pertaining to the

concerns that have been raised by the Mikisew Cree First Nation surrounding Shell or Albian Sands-

related projects. As such, the SIR has not been answered in any sufficient way, shape or form. To

date, Shell has not responded to a third-party technical review of wildlife-related issues of concern

raised by the Mikisew Cree First Nation.

Question: When will Shell meaningfully address the concerns raised by the Mikisew Cree First Nation with respect to wildlife? How has Shell dealt with Mikisew Cree First Nation issues surrounding wildlife that were raised in the past?

18) Issue: RSA disturbance estimates

Reference: Response to SIR # 445a, pages 23-140 to 23-142

Comment: Shell was asked to discuss the relevance of the impact ratings for the regional case and

the RSA size chosen given that the project disturbance is less than 2%. Unfortunately, this question

and the answer provided both fail to consider the indirect loss of wildlife habitat in the RSA and the

fact that the vast majority of the RSA has been leased to oil sands development proponents. MSES


Page 29

has calculated that very little of the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo will be > 250m from any

kind of disturbance within the next two decades (or less) based on the current rates of disturbance

in the region. The Mikisew Cree First Nation are facing and experiencing the loss of remoteness

required to continue to exercise their Treaty and Aboriginal rights with respect to wildlife (and

other environmental and spiritual parameters). Wildlife species are being killed, hunted or pushed

out of the region as a result of the development of oil sands leases.

Question: How much of the RSA is currently > 250m from existing disturbance (including all exploration and development activities)? How much of the RSA is currently leased by other oil sands development proponents?

19) Issue: Shell’s response to questions surrounding the protection of wood bison

Reference: Response to SIR # 449aa & 449b page 23-147

Comment: Shell was asked to provide a position on the protection of wood bison in the PRM.

Shell refused to provide an answer, as the SIR responses were only provided to questions pertaining

to the JPME project.

Question: When will Shell provide an answer to the questions posed concerning bison? This is an extremely important issue to the Mikisew Cree First Nation community. 20) Issue: Wildlife surveys and the abundance of listed species

Reference: Response to SIR # 450b, pages 23-148

Comment: When asked to provide an estimate of the expected proportion of the populations of

certain listed species that is expected to be displaced as a result of wetland loss, Shell’s response is

that the breeding bird, amphibian and marsh bird surveys were not intended to provide detailed

abundance estimates for all listed species.

Question: Rather than focussing on “detailed abundance estimates” could Shell focus on relative habitat use, followed by calculations of habitat amounts before and after disturbance? In this way, one could understand the relative impact on wildlife species.

21) Issue: Site clearing and the abundance of all wildlife KIRs


Comment: Shell was asked to provide an assessment of the effects of site clearing on abundance

for all wildlife KIRs. Shell did not provide the information requested. The Mikisew Cree should

request this information to better understand the potential impacts to local and regional populations

of wildlife.

Question: When will Shell answer the SIR? Does Shell purport that site clearing will not affect the local abundance of wildlife KIRs?


Page 30

22) Issue: Assumptions with site RSA


Comment: Shell was asked to clarify any assumptions that were made on dispersal behaviour and

carrying capacity of avian-receiving habitats. In part, Shell asserts that suitable breeding habitat for

birds in the RSA are not at carrying capacity, so returning birds could potentially find breeding

habitat at these other locations if habitats in the LSA are disturbed. The issue with this train of

thought is that Shell has assumed, likely incorrectly, that the rest of the RSA will remain intact and

has not provided any evidence to support this claim.

Question: What proportion of the RSA is not currently under lease for oil sands exploitation and how does this undermine the above assumption concerning habitat availability in the RSA? How much of the RSA has areas that are > 250m from any kind of existing disturbance?

23) Issue: Wildlife recolonization


Comment: Shell was asked to discuss how further oil sands developments directly adjacent to

JPME and PRM would affect the potential for wildlife recolonization of the reclaimed landscape. This

question from AENV is disturbing for several reasons:

• AENV seems to presume that large-scale reclamation will be successful, even though it has

yet to be proven and no gauges to measure reclamation success have been defined nor

provided;

• this question has been asked by the Mikisew Cree of AENV and various development

proponents in myriad venues since 2001;

• the question points to a lack of regional policy planning by AENV and a paucity of inter-lease

planning by oil sands proponents, and

• Shell does not provide a direct, detailed, answer to this SIR.

Question: What will AENV do to rectify the apparent lack of regional and cross-lease planning for wildlife? Is the response provided by Shell sufficient for AENV? If yes, why is the answer sufficient?

24) Issue: Predator-prey dynamics of ungulates and wolves


Comment: Shell was asked to account for the potential shifting of the predator-prey dynamics in

the population viability analysis (PVA) with respect to ungulates and wolves in the region as a

consequence of increased access and fragmentation. The Mikisew Cree and other First Nations

have realized for some time now that the opening-up of land in the Alberta Oil Sands Region

through disturbance improves access for wolves and human hunters, with many of the hunters not

being Aboriginal. Shell concedes that the effects of changing predator-prey dynamics were not


Page 31

explicitly accounted for in the PVA survival and fecundity numbers and they do not fully understand

the interaction of a number of contributing factors such as the degree of increasing linear corridors

and wildlife species population dynamics.

Question: When will Shell provide a sufficient response to the SIR?

25) Issue: Woodland caribou and potential project impacts

Reference: Response to SIR # 486a, pages 23-216

Comment: Although local people have apparently commented that woodland caribou are

occasionally noted in the area, and that JPME is only 10 km from the delineated Audet herd range, it

is not apparent that sufficient efforts have been made to determine the potential project effects to

woodland caribou from the project. A request was made of Shell to discuss how they would work

with the local ASRD biologist and Alberta Caribou Committee to monitor the abundance,

distribution and movements of woodland caribou associated with the Audet herd to measure any

long-term effects of the project on caribou. Given that ASRD has not yet provided any benchmarks

or targets for maintaining woodland caribou herds and woodland caribou habitat in the Alberta Oil

Sands Region, this may prove difficult for Shell to achieve.

Question: Can ASRD provide specific, detailed benchmarks, targets or thresholds pertaining to woodland caribou and their habitat? If not, why not?

2.2.2 Vegetation & Reclamation

Shell expresses confidence in their ability to achieve equivalent land capability based on the history of

reclamation in the oil sands. Their plan is to reclaim an “equivalent assemblage” of plant species as

compared to the pre-disturbance forest. However, the term equivalent is not defined. In fact,

achieving equivalent land capability does not mean that any pre-disturbance vegetation communities will

be restored. Data from the history of reclamation (as detailed in Appendix F of OVRC 1998) shows

that Shell’s reclamation plan, which relies primarily on natural recovery of plant species, with some tree

and shrub planting, results in vegetation communities with zero to very low similarity to adjacent native

communities.


1) Issue: Effects of wildfires Reference: Response to SIR # 363a “Discuss the concerns and uncertainties of the effects of wildfire

might have on the organic content of reclamation soil and the mineral soils capability to regenerate the

organic matter.”

Concern: Shell’s answer to this question should have simply been an explanation of the fact that

there should be no concerns because wildfire is a natural part of the boreal forest and is required


Page 32

for the regeneration of boreal forest plant species. During wildfires, patches of the LFH layer are

consumed, facilitating regeneration. Therefore, reclamation soils should be handled such that when

placed they are as similar as possible to pre-disturbance, i.e. no mixing will occur and LFH layer will

be maintained as much as possible. Because boreal plant species may regenerate from an intact LFH

layer (if soil is stockpiled for <1yr) and other species regenerate best when mineral soil is exposed

or a thin layer of humus remains after fire (e.g. Charron and Greene 2002), Shell’s reclamation plan

should consist of both careful handling of LFH and mineral soil and creating patches of exposed

mineral soil or thin humus.

Unfortunately, Shell provided a somewhat confused response that shows a lack of understanding of

wildfire and assumes incorrectly that fires have been, are, and should always be suppressed.

Evidence in peer reviewed literature (e.g. Weir et al. 2000) shows that the suppression of large

wildfires (i.e. those that burn most of the area) is not possible. Shell’s assumption of the need for

fire suppression after reclamation means that Shell will handle salvaged soils in an attempt to reduce

the possibility of wildfire by mixing: 1) LFH and underlying mineral soils and 2) organic soils with

mineral soil (peat-mineral mix). While suppression of wildfire may be important during operations,

after reclamation the occurrence of wildfires is necessary for the regeneration of boreal forest

stands.

Requests: • Please explain why mixing LFH and mineral soil in reclamation for the purpose

of reducing the probability of wildfire is part of the reclamation plan when wildfire is required for the regeneration of many boreal forest species.

• In addition, please explain why the LFH and mineral soils are to be mixed if this will compromise the LFH as a potential source of propagules for reclamation.

2) Issue: Reclaiming to equivalent land capability

Reference: Response to SIR # 363b “Discuss the capability of reclaimed lands to support the

predisturbance range of forest vegetation communities, species diversity, and productivity.”

Concern: Shell is confident that reconstructed soils can be used to return reclaimed land to

equivalent land capability. The definition of equivalent land capability is "the ability of the land to

support various land uses after reclamation is similar to the ability that existed prior to any activity being

conducted on the land, but the ability to support individual land uses will not necessarily be equal after

reclamation (Alberta Environmental and Protection Act 1993).” There is no requirement that the

same pre-disturbance vegetation communities, as defined by species composition, relative density,

percent cover, abundance of species, are present after reclamation is complete. Therefore,

achieving equivalent land capability does not mean that any pre-disturbance vegetation communities

will be restored. In fact, Shell’s reclamation plan, which primarily involves relying on natural

recovery of plant species, with some tree and shrub species planted, has been shown to result in


Page 33

vegetation communities with no to very low similarity in species composition to adjacent native

communities (Appendix F in OSVRC 1998). The few species that were similar between native

communities and reclaimed sites were the trees and shrubs planted.

Shell also states that “Time is an essential factor for ecosystem development.. and.. While the timeline to

achieve full diversity is not yet know with certainty, full diversity will eventually return, based on positive

reclamation results over the last 30 or more years.” In other words, Shell believes that given enough

time, many of the species found in pre-disturbance communities will disperse into reclamation sites

and become re-established. However, data from (Appendix F in OSVRC 1998) shows that after 50

years of reclamation, sites have no to very low similarity in species composition to native forested

sites.

Request: Please explain why Shell does not consider planting and seeding a wide variety of species to ensure that reclamation sites are similar in terms of species composition and species diversity to pre-disturbance communities.

3) Issue: Mitigation strategies during reclamation needed

Reference: Response to SIR # 363c “Discuss mitigation strategies to address the concerns and

uncertainties as in a) and b) above.”

Concern: Shell states that “the key mitigation is developing soil layers that support the establishment of

target boreal forest reclamation ecosystems.” However, it is not clear what soil layers will be

developed. They do not appear to provide specific mitigation strategies because they believe that

over time a succession of species will re-establish through natural recovery. However, as noted

above, there is no evidence that natural recovery over time will occur. We recommend stating that

the mitigation strategies for preserving the LFH and mineral soil layers should be careful soil handling

so that the LFH and mineral soil are not mixed. In addition, after placement, areas of bare mineral

soil or thin humus should be created and a wide variety of plant species planted or seeded (including

the appropriate trees, shrubs, and herbaceous species for each ecosite to be targeted for

reclamation).

Request: Please provide a specific list of mitigation strategies that will be employed in reclamation.


1) Issue: Definition and targets for equivalent assemblages

Reference: Response to SIR # 12a “How will Shell meet the goal of not impairing the environment for

use by future generations?” (pg 15-8)

Concern: Shell does not plan to reclaim development areas such that they are similar as possible

to pre-development native ecosites. Instead, Shell’s plan is to reclaim an equivalent assemblage of


Page 34

plant species. However, the term equivalent is not defined and therefore it is not clear when

equivalency would be achieved.

Request/Question:

• Please define an equivalent assemblage of species and explain how this will be measured.

• What is the target for this measure that would define when equivalency had been achieved?

2) Issue: Natural successional processes and reclamation

Reference: Response to SIR # 368a “Based on the definition of reversibility criteria provided (i.e. if

natural successional processes are restored) does Shell consider that all of the disturbance caused by the

project can be reversed?”

Concern: Shell’s states that “they will reclaim disturbed areas in a manner that supports and maintains

natural successional processes and provides functional ecosystem processes.” However, data from

oilsands developments (e.g. Appendix F in OSVRC) and peer-reviewed journals (e.g. Charron and

Greene 2002 and Chipman and Johnson 2002) do not support the belief that a succession of plant

species establish over long periods of time within vegetation communities. Rather, evidence shows

that most species found within forested and reclaimed stands recruit within the first few years after

fire or the start of reclamation.

Question: If a succession of species have not yet recruited in reclaimed sites that are up to 50 years old (i.e. Appendix F in OSVRC), then when does Shell expect that they will recruit? Also, how will Shell “provide functional ecosystem processes?” What does this mean practically?

3) Issue: Natural successional processes and reclamation

Reference: Response to SIR # 368b “These statements are based upon an assumption that the

natural successional pathway can be retained. Provide scientific information, relevant to the oil sands area,

which will support this assumption.”

Concern: Shell states that there are several successional pathways that may be retained. They also

state that scientific research into the range of possible pathways is underway.

Questions: • If 50 years of data (OSVRC 1998) show that there are no successional pathways,

then why does Shell continue to believe that they will find pathways with additional research?

• What direct evidence can Shell provide that demonstrates clearly that one or more pathways exist?


Page 35

4) Issue: Monitoring program details needed

Reference: Response to SIR # 388a “What monitoring plans are planned...for vegetation communities

in the reclaimed landscape?”

Concern: Shell states that the monitoring program will be designed to evaluate the success of

reclamation. They also state that monitoring programs might be designed to evaluate indicators of

ecological functionality compared to adjacent benchmark communities.

Questions: • What will be measured in the monitoring program? • What targets or thresholds of those measures will define reclamation success? • Please define indicators of ecological functionality. • Please provide examples to illustrate.

5) Issue: Measuring reclamation success

Reference: Response to SIR # 402b “Describe Shell’s confidence that equivalent capability will be

achieved within the 80 year time frame described for closure.”

Concern: Shell is confident based on the history of reclamation activities in the oil sands that

reconstructed soils will be able to support ecosites of equivalent capability. They are putting in place

the conditions to sustain ecosites of equivalent capability at 80 years and have a monitoring program

planned to manage the progress of reclaimed sites. As noted above, achieving equivalent land

capability does not mean that any pre-disturbance ecosites will be restored. In addition, the 50 year

history of reclamation in the oil sands region (as detailed in Appendix F in OSVRC 1998) clearly

shows that reclaimed sites show zero to very low similarity as compared to adjacent native

communities. Therefore, it is unclear why Shell is confident that their reclaimed soils will support

ecosites that bear any resemblance to pre-disturbance sites. In addition, as noted above, details of

the monitoring program are not provided by Shell and therefore it is difficult to determine when and

how reclamation success will be determined.

Request: Please describe what is meant by ecosites of equivalent capability and what measures will be used to determine when this has been achieved.

2.3 Air Quality

2.3.1 Air Quality

The main issues discussed in the ERCB and AENV air quality SIRs for the JPME Project were:

• Clarification of air modelling approach;

• Asphaltene fired cogeneration units;


Page 36

• Mine fleet emissions;

• Visibility;

• Odours, and;

• Greenhouses gases and climate change.

Shell’s responses to the SIRs were thorough. However, based on their responses there remain issues in

regard to the affect that the JPME will have on the Mikisew Cree. The main issues in regard to air

quality remain the asphaltene fired cogeneration units and the mine fleet. These are the main emission

sources associated with the JPME and can pose a significant health risk to the Mikisew Cree if not

properly designed and maintained.

After all the work on the air assessment and response to SIRs for the JPME, the main conclusion that

can be made is that there is a potential for off lease adverse impacts from air emissions on the Mikisew

Cree. The impacts could be from nuisance odours to severe health effects during upset conditions. It

can be argued that the incremental risk is low; however, this is an imposed risk on the Mikisew Cree.

Shell must endeavour to ensure the risk to the Mikisew Cree from air emissions is as low as reasonably

possible.

2.3.1.1 Comments Regarding Project Update

1) Issue: Flaring

Reference: Errata – Project Description page 7-14

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

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

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

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

Questions: • How will Shell minimize flaring associated with the JPME? • Has Shell followed the CAPP Best Management Practice for Facility Flare

Reduction when designing the JPME? • Will Shell commit to no flaring except in emergency situations?


1) Issue: Developed Areas in Modelling

Reference: Response to SIR# 212

Comment: It is not clear in the response to SIR# 212 whether the areas considered as

“developed” fit the regulatory definition. Receptors used in the modelling that are located in areas


Page 37

where public and wildlife access is restricted by a physical barrier can be removed when comparing

modelling results to Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives (AAAQO). The reason for this is that

in areas where public access is restricted, the Occupational Health and Safety standards apply rather

than the AAAQO. Shell has defined a developed area as “any area altered from its natural state”. This

is not consistent with the regulatory definition. If a person or animal is not restricted in gaining

access to an area, then that area cannot be considered developed. Therefore, the modelling

assessment is deficient and needs to consider the correct regulatory definition of developed areas.

2) Issue: Auxiliary Boilers

Reference: Response to SIR# 214

Concern: It is noted in the response to SIR# 214 that it is possible that Shell could have two

auxiliary boilers operating during winter operations. It is also noted that future design initiatives

may remove this need. However, at this time these auxiliary boilers are part of the current

application, could operate at the same time as the cogeneration units and have not been accounted

for in the modelling.

Request: That is viewed as a deficiency and we request that the modelling account for these two auxiliary boilers operating with the cogeneration unit at the JPME.

3) Issue: Mine Fleet emissions

Reference: Response to SIR # 215

Concern: It is noted that Shell will not commit to retrofitting existing mine fleet to meet Tier 4

emission standards starting in 2011.

Question: Considering the figures in response to SIR # 211 show potential impacts from NOx emissions from mine fleet emissions, will Shell show due diligence and leadership in the oil sands areas and reduce the impacts from mine fleet emissions to as low as reasonably possible using best available technology? If yes, please provide details.

4) Issue: Emissions from Asphaltene fired cogeneration unit

Reference: Response to SIR # 213 and AENV SIR # 233

Concern: It is noted that the asphaltene fired cogeneration unit is a significant source of SO2, NOx,

and PM2.5 emissions and other hazardous air pollutants if pollution control technology is not

working. The Mikisew Cree are concerned with Shell’s plans to operate the facility when the

pollution control technology is off-line. It is acknowledged that Shell would switch the fuel to natural

gas within 15 minutes if the pollution control equipment were to fail but we recommend that a fail

safe system should be in place to ensure these emission events are minimized in frequency and

duration.


Page 38

Questions: • How will Shell ensure the Mikisew Cree that asphaltene will not be used as fuel

for longer than 15 minutes when any pollution control equipment fails? • Why won’t Shell commit to continuous emission monitoring on the

cogeneration stack? • Will Shell commit to ensuring that VOC, PAHS, and metals will be tested for in

the manual stack surveys of the cogeneration stack in addition to SO2, NOx, and PM2.5?

• Will Shell commit to making these manual stack surveys available to the Mikisew Cree?


1) Issue: Odours

Reference: Response to SIRs # 218-221, 223

Concern: It is noted that there is a potential for off-lease odours associated with the operation of

the JPME.

Questions: • How will Shell minimize the potential for off-site odours? • What process is in place for Mikisew Cree members to report an odour

associated with the operation of a Shell facility?

2.4 Follow Up & Monitoring

There were only few comments and responses from Shell on the monitoring programs. There does not

appear to be any section in the SIRs that is specifically dedicated to monitoring and follow-up. This is

unfortunate as our original review revealed a number of serious concerns in this regard. The most

overarching concern is surrounding the concrete and quantifiable measurements of the effectiveness of

mitigation. In other words, as it stands, Shell has not demonstrated to the Mikisew Cree that it can convincingly measure that its mitigation and reclamation measures are effective.

Several disciplines noted issues of concern regarding monitoring in Shell’s SIRs. For example, hydrology

needs to be more explicit on how water withdrawals will be monitored and reported. In light of urgent

concerns relating to the protection of a minimum in-stream flow of the Athabasca River (and others),

the Mikisew Cree need to be kept abreast of any activities regarding current and future water


Page 39

management. As to water quality and fish, Shell appears to prepare its monitoring approach to water contamination with the mindset that undesired effects will not occur. This is a hazardous approach because a monitoring program that is not designed to address unexpected levels of contamination may not be able to detect or respond to the unexpected outcomes.

Central to reclamation efforts, Shell states that the monitoring program will be designed to evaluate the

success of reclamation, and that monitoring programs might be designed to evaluate indicators of

ecological functionality compared to adjacent benchmark communities (AENV SIR #388a). No more

detail is given. This is an untenable response by Shell, as it dismisses the myriad of concerns raised in the

past about reclamation success. At no point in time has Shell actually demonstrated its ability to measure

the effective and successful reclamation or restoration of terrestrial ecological resources. The Mikisew Cree should be gravely concerned about Shell’s continued dismissal of the need for detailed monitoring programs that actually test the success of reclamation.

Further to the concerns raised by the Mikisew Cree, Shell’s update lists several activities and

communications that Shell was involved in as part of the consultation with the Mikisew Cree. The

following is an excerpt from Shell’s Update (Jackpine Mine Expansion Supplemental Information Volume

2, Section 16.1, p. 16-5):


Page 40

We raise this point here as part of the issues surrounding monitoring and follow-up because the

development of a TLU is an essential foundation for the development of targets and benchmarks of

reclamation and restoration activities that would accommodate the Mikisew Cree’s Aboriginal and

Treaty Rights. Given that the Mikisew Cree raised their concerns many times in the past, and Shell

repeatedly dismissed or ignored the concerns, Shell’s claim that it has not received a timely reply is

unconvincing. Particularly to the monitoring and follow-up programs that Shell was requested to develop

in detail, it is still unclear how Shell intends to integrate the TLU information into its reclamation plans and how Shell will monitor the success of achieving the targets and benchmarks that would be derived from the TLU studies.

3.0 Discussion Points for Follow Up Meetings This section lists discussion points that may facilitate discussions, workshops, or action plans between

the Mikisew Cree and Shell that may assist the Mikisew Cree in advancing towards their vision of

resource use. Although the points below highlight the overarching issues, they do not replace comments

and questions raised throughout the report and are not, necessarily, mutually exclusive. The Mikisew

Cree may wish to engage the discipline experts retained by either party in a technical dialogue to discuss

the specifics of the main body of the reviews above.


Page 41

Hydrogeology:

1) What is the cumulative impact of all existing and planned destruction of surficial aquifer

resources on groundwater contributions to base flows to the Muskeg and Athabasca Rivers?

2) what assurances can Shell provide and what contingency plans are in place to ensure that a

fully-effective ETDA seepage well capture system will be maintained during the very long post-

operational period of the mine during which releases of ETDA-sourced contaminants to the

environment will continue to occur, to the end point of such ETDA contaminant releases?

3) Given that contaminant seepage rates from ETDAs at several other oil sands projects exceeded

the well interception system technology utilized, what assurances can Shell provide that such

contaminant seepage exceedances will not occur at JPME, either during mine operation, or

during the post-mine-closure period?

Hydrology

1) Please address how the water withdrawals will be monitored and reported. Are withdrawal

rates accessible to stakeholders? Please provide information on who will be controlling the

integrity of the monitoring, especially under conditions when Instream Flow Needs (IFN)

regulation requires a reduced withdrawal rate?

2) What is the scientific basis for the prediction that the impact of cumulative oil sands mining on

surface water quantity and quality, and fish and fish habitat effects in the Athabasca River

upstream of the Athabasca River Delta and Lake Athabasca are negligible?

3) The SIR states that 53.3 Mm3/a is the correct actual volume of water withdrawals for the life of

the mine. However, this is in conflict with Answer 300a, where an allocation of 63.5 Mm3/a until

2018 is stated, followed by 53.3 Mm3/a (35.3 Mm3/a already allocated for Jackpine Mine plus an

additional 18 Mm3/a for Stage 2). Please explain why 53.3 Mm3 are stated to be the volume of

withdrawals, when 63.5 Mm3 are requested until 2018.

4) Table 247-2 in the SIR provides water withdrawal projections. The reported values are in

conflict with the statement that the total water allocation from Athabasca River is 63.5 Mm3.

The withdrawal values expressed in Mm3/a were re-calculated for both mines by multiplying the

m3/s values with 3,600*24*365.25/1,000,000. Based on the re-calculated values, the total mean

annual withdrawals from both is 80.8 Mm3/a. This value is different from the reported allocation

value of 63.5 Mm3. Please explain this difference.

Surface Water Quality

1) Please discuss how well passive treatment in pit lakes and wetlands will work to remediate

quality of process-affected water.

2) Shell has devised plans to divert the Muskeg River to which AENV responded by stating that

“the interim framework has not attempted directly to deal with this proposal at this time. AENV

recommends that the decision on this application be guided by the public interest, considering economic,


Page 42

social and environmental values.” Shell states that they support this AENV Interim Framework

recommendation. This simply represents a delay in imposing definite water quality guidelines; we

are no further ahead. 3) Various literature is cited in support of phytoplankton, invertebrate, and fish populations being

able to survive and grow in wetlands and test pits with concentrations of process-affected

waters greater than those likely in end pit lakes considered here. This evidence is encouraging

and ongoing research must be supported. However, this all supports the pit lake concept as a

viable closure option, it does not ‘confirm’ it as the concluding sentence of the second paragraph

in answer 312c states. Notwithstanding accumulating technical developments, uncertainty must

be recognized.

4) Acid input rates were above critical for some lakes, but potential effects are deemed negligible

given that increases were projected to be 4% or less. It is not adequate to dismiss this as

negligible when biota may already be stressed if under the Base Case critical loads are exceeded;

any incremental increase may by definition of the critical load induce further stress. Please

discuss this further.

Fisheries

1) Shell proposes several alternatives for end pit lakes in the event they do not perform in terms of

sustaining an aquatic ecosystem as predicted. Have these alternatives been investigated by

CEMA, CONRAD or other researchers? If so, once treated tailings are capped with water, do

hydrophobic contaminants persist or could they become mobilized over time (once tailings are

freeze-, passively dried, etc.)? Would ShelI consider one of these alternatives preferable over

the others, a combination of them and why? These issues may have been discussed by Shell in

the EIA; however, they are not discussed in the response given. 2) Would Shell (and other oil sands proponents) support a basin wide study of fish health in

conjunction with both provincial and federal regulators?

3) Comparison of results of body burden tissue samples from the lower Athabasca and those from

a “reference collection” such as from the Christina River would be helpful in assessing the

relative health of the Athabasca River populations. Would Shell consider this analysis?

4) Please define what Shell considers as a “moderate degree of confidence”? Is it sufficient to allow

certainty of predictions made using the data especially with respect to long term ecosystem

health? For example, if confidence is only moderate and adaptive management the tool used to

mitigate possible failure of outcome predicted if shortcomings in any parameter monitored

arises, who will be accountable for health of trophic levels downstream in the event the relative

occurrence of gross pathological indicators increases, or relative numbers of fishes decrease?


Page 43

Wildlife

1) Given that the success of cross-lease planning for wildlife is not apparent to date and that the

Government of Alberta, as a regulator, is not prescribing or managing any specific requirements,

how can the Mikisew Cree have faith in the efforts by Shell to alleviate First Nation concerns

surrounding project impacts on wildlife?

2) Does Shell expect any reclaimed lands to be able to support the pre-disturbance (not baseline)

range of wildlife? If yes, please provide rationale for this conclusion based upon the current scale

and pace of local and regional oil sands development scenarios.

3) How does Shell know that the results from large-scale reclamation (i.e., fish and wildlife

recolonization), if successful, will be suitable for the Mikisew Cree to practice traditional land

use activities? What information has Shell gathered through their consultation with the Mikisew

Cree?

4) Ungulates such as moose and caribou are important traditional resources for the Mikisew Cree.

Can Shell or ASRD clarify what the clearing restrictions will be for ungulates and other wildlife

species in the JPME and PRM LSAs, including any deviations from established restricted periods?

5) What feedback to date has Shell received from the Mikisew Cree with respect to the 500m

buffer used in the EIA or Mikisew Cree traditional land use activities < or > 500m from project

facilities and mine pits? Will AENV require Shell to assess impacts to wildlife (and wildlife

habitat) from drawdown that extends beyond the LSA? If not, why not?

6) Can Shell provide information on how reclamation success will be defined, measured and gauged

in particular for wildlife? At what stage(s) are other Shell lease areas that have been disturbed

with respect to reclamation and wildlife recolonization?

7) Will Shell or the Government of Alberta evaluate the potential impacts from ecosystem shifts in

the Alberta Oil sands Region to Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in the context of wildlife and

wildlife habitat? If not, why not?

8) Can ASRD provide specific, detailed benchmarks, targets or thresholds pertaining to woodland

caribou and their habitat? If not, why not?

9) Can Shell, AENV or ASRD expand or provide a clear explanation surrounding the work being

done to date on regional wildlife movements – who is doing what and why (see detailed

questions, comments and concerns in Section 2.2.1.4, point #16)? What is the contingency plan

if riparian corridors fail to achieve whatever the goals and objectives may be for WHEC?

10) MSES has calculated that very little of the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo will be > 250m

from any kind of disturbance within the next two decades (or less) based on the current rates of

disturbance in the region. How much of the RSA is currently > 250m from existing disturbance

(including all exploration and development activities)? How much of the RSA is currently leased

by other oil sands development proponents?


Page 44

Vegetation & Reclamation

1) Please explain why Shell does not consider planting and seeding a wide variety of species to

ensure that reclamation sites are similar in terms of species composition and species diversity to

pre-disturbance communities.

2) If a succession of species have not yet recruited in reclaimed sites that are up to 50 years old

(i.e. Appendix F in OSVRC), then when does Shell expect that they will recruit? Also, how will

Shell “provide functional ecosystem processes?” What does this mean practically?

3) What will be measured in the monitoring program? What targets or thresholds of those

measures will define reclamation success? Please define indicators of ecological functionality.

Please provide examples to illustrate.

4) Please describe what is meant by ecosites of equivalent capability and what measures will be

used to determine when this has been achieved.

Air Quality

1) Considering the figures in response to SIR # 211 show potential impacts from NOx emissions

from mine fleet emissions, will Shell show due diligence and leadership in the oil sands areas and

reduce the impacts from mine fleet emissions to as low as reasonably possible using best

available technology? If yes, please provide details.

2) How will Shell ensure the Mikisew Cree that asphaltene will not be used as fuel for longer than

15 minutes when any pollution control equipment fails? Why won’t Shell commit to continuous

emission monitoring on the cogeneration stack? Will Shell commit to ensuring that VOC,

PAHS, and metals will be tested for in the manual stack surveys of the cogeneration stack in

addition to SO2, NOx, and PM2.5? Will Shell commit to making these manual stack surveys

available to the Mikisew Cree?

3) How will Shell minimize the potential for off-site odours? What process is in place for Mikisew

Cree members to report an odour associated with the operation of a Shell facility?

Follow up & Monitoring

1) Shell has not demonstrated that it can convincingly measure that its mitigation and reclamation

measures are effective.

2) How does Shell intend to integrate the TLU information into its reclamation plans and how will

Shell monitor the success of achieving the targets and benchmarks that would be derived from

the TLU studies?


Page 45

4.0 Literature Cited

Alberta Environmental and Protection Act. 1993. Government of Alberta. ISBN 0-7785-3743-9.

Burns, D.A. and G.B. Wiersma. 2004. Conceptual Basis of Environmental Monitoring Systems: A

Geospatial Perspective. In: Environmental monitoring (Ed. by Wiersma, G. B.), pp. 1-35. Boca

Raton, Florida: CRC Press.

Charron, I., and Greene, D.F. 2002. Post-wildfire seedbeds and tree establishment in the southern

mixedwood boreal forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32, 1607-1615.

Chipman, S.J. and Johnson, E.A. 2002. Understorey vascular plant species diversity in the mixedwood

boreal forest of western Canada. Ecological Applications 12: 588-601.

OSVRC (Oil Sands Vegetation Reclamation Committee). 1998. Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest

Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region. ISBN 0-7785-0411-5.

Weir, J.M.H., Johnson, E.A., and Miyanishi, K. 2000. Fire frequency and the spatial age mosaic of the

mixedwood boreal forest in western Canada. Ecological Applications 10: 1162-1177.

review of shell's jackpine mine expansion update, aenv and

Documents