Re: Identification of Major Deficiencies in the Environmental Impact Assessment Report for the Teck Resources Ltd. Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project

Transcription

1 Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency CDI Building #425, A Street Edmonton AB T5J 2W2 Agence canadienne d évaluation environnementale Edifice CDI #425, A Rue Edmonton (Alberta) T5J 2W2 Phone: (780) Fax: (780) Michelle.Camilleri@ceaa-acee.gc.ca April 5 th, 2012 Ian Mackenzie Regulatory Manager Teck Resources Ltd. Suite 500, th Avenue SE Calgary Alberta, T2G 0R3 Dear Mr. Mackenzie Re: Identification of Major Deficiencies in the Environmental Impact Assessment Report for the Teck Resources Ltd. Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project As you aware, on January 19 th, 2012 the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the Agency) announced the commencement of a federal environmental assessment for Teck Resources Ltd. s (Teck) proposed Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project (the Project). As part of the environmental assessment process the Federal Review Team 1 is actively reviewing the Environmental Impact Assessment report submitted by Teck to federal and provincial departments on November 25 th, During the course of their review the Federal Review Team was requested to identify any major deficiencies. Major deficiencies are defined as those items that may require significant time or additional field work for the Proponent to address or items that may prevent a federal expert from conducting a complete technical review of the environmental effects of the Project. The attached is a description of the major deficiencies that the Federal Review Team has identified to date. These major issues or gaps are being provided to Teck early in the review process as a courtesy to assist in the development of the responses. A formal response from Teck is not required at this time. 1 The Federal Review Team is comprised of experts from the following departments/agencies: Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Transport Canada, Environment Canada, Parks Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Health Canada and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 1

2 These major deficiencies, in addition to any other federal deficiencies that are identified during the course of the review, will be included in the final Federal Supplemental Information Request package submitted to Alberta Environment and Water and Teck in May. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the contents of this letter please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at or (780) Sincerely, Michelle Camilleri Federal Participation Coordinator Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Cc: Marek Janowicz (DFO) Jackie Barker (TC) Leslie Yasul (EC) John Olyslager (PCA) Shelley Ball (NRCan) Rick Grabowecky (HC) Carolyn Dunn (CEAA) Camille Almeida (AEW) Amanda Black (ERCB) 2

3 Federal Major Deficiencies Identified by the Federal Review Team Teck Resources Ltd. Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project April 4 th, Pre-Development Baseline The effects assessment developed by Teck does not include a comparison against a historical pre-oil sands-development base case (hereinafter referred to as the pre-development baseline) which is a requirement for a federal effects assessment. The Federal Review Team disagrees with Teck s premise that the required pre-development baseline information either does not exist or alternatively can not be derived. For example as noted in the report of the Alberta Environmental Monitoring Panel (2011) as well as Environment Canada s (2011) Lower Athabasca Water Quality Monitoring Plan (Phase 1), it is possible to reconstruct pre-development baseline conditions using surrogate data, synoptic information, modelling, other predictive tools, and Traditional Environmental Knowledge. Often this can be done using other existing information; alternatively, in some cases this may entail additional field work (for example, taking core of historic deposits). But whatever the case, it is possible to determine or deduce the pre-development baseline on which to base the comparison during the effects assessment. For the Parks Canada Agency (PCA) this is a requirement of the Canada National Parks Act (CNPA), passed in The CNPA modernized PCA s historic role and affirmed ecological integrity as PCA s first priority when considering all aspects of national park management. According to the CNPA, ecological integrity means, with respect to a park: a condition that is determined to be characteristic of its natural region and likely to persist, including abiotic components and composition and abundance of native species and biological communities, rates of change and supporting processes. To stress this point, a critical implication of this legislated definition is that it distinctly anticipates a pre-industrial development focus. The corollary is that for within the boundaries of the Wood Buffalo National Park (WBNP) (and thus 80% of the Peace Athabasca Delta) the Project assessment must adopt this focus. Reference conditions are briefly described in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report as part of the temporal considerations, unfortunately the effects analysis tended to not carry the comparison through. Action or information required to address this issue: The effects assessment, which must include all the elements within the WBNP, requires a full comparison against a well-founded pre-development baseline. 2. Comparison Criteria for a National Park For all areas that lie within the boundaries of WBNP, there is a need to adopt assessment criteria (including levels of acceptable change) that are commensurate with these waters, lands, air and ecological integrity being special protected areas, pursuant to the CNPA and international conventions (UNESCO World Heritage Site, RAMSAR Wetland of International 3

4 Significance). The CNPA definition of ecological integrity, as provided above, provides direction for suitable assessment criteria. Given these criteria and given the elevated sensitivity of the Peace Athabasca Delta (80% of which is in the WBNP), the potential for a significant adverse effect within the boundaries of WBNP exists even if there may be no significance effect (pursuant to criteria applicable to that area) upstream of, or even lateral to, the park boundaries. Teck has not incorporated the appropriate assessment criteria during the assessment or provided evidence that the ecological integrity of WBNP, as defined by legislation, will be maintained by the Project. More appropriately derived Environmental Quality Standards and Chornic Effects Benchmarks must be used for the assessment to be meaningful. PCA is willing to work with Teck, and others as necessary, to establish these standards and benchmarks. Action of information required to address this issue: For all elements within the WBNP, the effects assessment still requires the identification and use of suitable assessment criteria. 3. Not representative of the Peace Athabasca Delta Proper Teck has taken steps in the direction of addressing the Peace Athabasca Delta (PAD), for example, in Volume 8 Section 7 of the EIA Report. Unfortunately, the majority of analysis is not of the PAD in its true sense. Instead the analysis is predominately of the mainstem of the Athabsaca River at the upstream edge of the PAD, at Embarras. Periodically it is of a mainstem channel within the PAD, or of the Lake Athabasca past the downstream edge of the PAD. This means that the analysis does not incorporate representative deltaic features possessing ecology and hydrology distinct from the mainsteam (e.g., oxbow lakes, backwaters, snyes, smaller delta channels, perched basins and the larger lakes Mamawi, Claire and Richardson). As specifically noted in the October 9 th, 2009 letter regarding Further Federal Terms of Reference Requirements and Clarifications, it was for the delta proper (including the central portion) that the effects analysis were to be conducted. To be clear, this purposeful focus was because the deltaic features of the PAD are more prone to adverse disturbance than the mainstem river and major distributary channels. The deltaic portions are far more complex hydrologically, depositionally, biologically, and chemically. For example, Andrishak and Hicks (2010) noted that the hydrology of the delta proper makes it more sensitive that the mainstem to the impacts of water withdrawals, particularly (but not exclusively) in winter. It has been PCA s experience that, in the Athabasca Delta portion of the PAD, ice jams are just as important as summer high flows in creating critical deltaic recharge conditions. Thus it is conceivable, and perhaps probable, that this elevated susceptibility and sensitivity may result in there being an adverse effect with the PAD, even if there is no measureable effect upstream or downstream of the PAD. Moreover, already there are many indications that the central potion of the PAD has undergone adverse changes, for whatever reasons. Thus, there is further good reason to better assess the delta proper (including the central portion). Without an effective assessment of the implications of potential stressors and changes, future management frameworks may well not be effective in accomplishing their intended purpose. Action or information required to address this issue: For all elements within the WBNP portion of the PAD, the effects assessments still requires a full and complete analysis of the delta (deltaic environments) proper (including the central portion). 4

5 4. Groundwater in relation to the Lake Claire watershed Teck has taken a close look at the surface water hydrology and quality of the Ronald Lake watershed (which is within the Lake Clair watershed) and it is acknowledged that Teck will pursue mitigation measures to ensure that national conditions will be maintained in the Ronald Lake watershed, which is transboundary to WBNP. In addition to surface water regimes, PCA is already aware that groundwater regimes also play a key role in the Lake Claire watershed. Teck does indeed assess groundwater regimes, including in the context of the proposed Main and South Development Areas (MDA and SDA respectively). Of particular relevance to the Lake Claire watershed is the proposed North Pit portion of the MDA. Unfortunately the EIA Report does not provide sufficient information or compelling clarity to assess the implications of the Project on the groundwater regimes of this specific area. For example, there appears to be little in the way of field data for the region. Most of Teck s analysis is instead based on general trends from further south. Yet the EIA Report itself makes statements that indicate that such southern trends are not valid for the North Pit area. For example, statements are made that quarternary groundwater follows topography presumably including that in the vicinity of the proposed North Pit, with the topography sloping northeast aware from the Birch Mountains towards the lake Claire watershed and WBNP. If the groundwater regimes of the WBNP portion of the Lake Claire watershed are interrupted (be it in quantity or temporal patterns), this could have major implications to the ecological integrity of that area of WBNP. Unfortunately, the EIA Report does not provide sufficient or compelling data to address this potential eventuality. Action or information required to address this issue: Given the role of groundwater supply to the WBNP portion of the Lake Claire watershed, and given that Teck s own information indicates a potential adverse issue, there is a critical need for a much more focused analysis of groundwater regimes in the Lake Claire area. This analysis likely requires additional field data to confirm or refute linkages. 5. Species at Risk Teck states in Volume 6, Section of the EIA Report that no assessment was done of several wildlife species that are listed in the Species at Risk Act (SARA), specifically, woodland caribou and whooping crane. These are species that have transboundary movements and distribution with WBNP. There is an imperative need to specifically assess these species at risk, pursuant to the SARA and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). Species at risk are unique in their life-history requirements, and typically are more vulnerable to harm than are more generic Valued Ecosystem Components. The fact that the CEAA explicitly supports the SARA is a strong indication that the legislative intent is for enhanced care and attention to be provided when dealing with species at risk. This includes during environmental assessments. Even though a survey and assessment specifically for whooping crane (which are listed as Endangered by the SARA) has yet to be done, there are already data showing incidental observations in the Oil Sands Region. Given that the region lies directly along the migration 5

6 flight path of the whooping crane, and given that whooping cranes can be expected to rest during migrations or may be forced to ground by bad weather, it is fully expected that the region is used by whooping cranes. This creates a concern not just for direct mortality of individuals (as the EIA Report briefly addressed for whooping crane), but also a loss of important habitat. That few observations have been made in the Oil Sands Region is not at all surprising by their very nature, rare species are rarely seen, especially when they are not being looked for. But this by no means diminishes the importance of any staging habitat that they need. Similar statements could be made for other SARA species (such as woodland caribou) that have transboundary movements and distribution with WBNP. Teck did include the SARA-listed wildlife species wood bison as a key indicator species in the EIA Report. This species also has transboundary movements and distribution with WBNP. As such, it is also of great relevance to the ecological integrity of WBNP, and this is a matter of interest to PCA. The level of care for all three species is thus commensurate to that of wildlife that are protected pursuant to the SARA. This has implications as to what assessment criteria are used. Action or information required to address this issue: Specific assessments are needed for the SARA- listed wildlife species, whooping crane and woodland caribou. Additionally, for all SARA species of relevance to the WBNP (thus including wood bison), the effects assessment still requires the identification and use of suitable assessment criteria. 6. Cumulative Effects Traditional Land Use In the traditional land use section (Volume 8, Sections and 6.5.5, Pages 6-18 & 6-21) Teck has not assessed cumulative effects. In Volume 8 section Teck did not undertake an assessment of the effects of Frontier combined with the Pierre River mine but simply referred to Shell s EIA Report. This is inadequate. In Volume 8 section Teck states No planned developments are expected to alter the Local Study Area or interact with the Project. As such, an effects analysis on traditional land uses was not completed for the Planned Development Case. Action or information required to address this issue: a. Teck should provide an assessment of the base case for traditional land use which includes details of the combined effects of the Frontier project and the Pierre River Mine. b. Teck must undertake a planned development case (cumulative effects assessment) for traditional land use, as there are other planned developments within the Regional Study Area and within the traditional territories of the aboriginal groups. c. Assess what is the potential for the Frontier project and other developments to affect the same key indicators including traditional land use and environmental components that are tied to traditional land use (e.g., water quality and quantity, air quality, wildlife). 6