ATHABASCA CHIPEWY AN FIRST NATION INDUSTRY RELATIONS CORPORATION ZDT NJNO/ACRE&:ENT, F<RT 1'/CM.mAY,ALBERr A T9<0T4 1E rfAX lm

Transcription

1 ATHABASCA CHIPEWY AN FIRST NATION INDUSTRY RELATIONS CORPORATION ZDT NJNO/ACRE&:ENT, F<RT 1'/CM.mAY,ALBERr A T9<0T4 1E rfAX lm October 17, 2016 Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 160 Elgin Street, 22"d Floor Ottawa, ON KIA OH3 Via Frontier.Review@ceaa-acee.gc.ca Attention: David Haddon, Panel Manager Dear Mr. Haddon Re: Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency ("CEAA") Reference No.: Further to the Joint Review Panel's invitation for public comment posted on CEAA' s website on August 17, 2016, please fmd enclosed the Comments on the Insufficiency of Information Provided by Teck Resources Limited ("Teck"), on behalf of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation IRC, with respect to the Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project. Yours truly, <Original signed by> Doreen Somers cc: Chief Allan Adam, Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation

2 ATHABASCA CHIPEWYAN FIRST NATION INDUSTRY RELATIONS CORPORATION 220 TAIGANOVA CRESCENT, FORT MCMURRAY, ALBERTA T9K 0T4 TEL FAX FRONTIER OIL SANDS MINE PROJECT ( Project ) COMMENTS ON THE INSUFFICIENCY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BY TECK RESOURCES LIMITED ( TECK ) Submitted by: Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Industry Relations Corporation 110B 9816 Hardin Street Ft. McMurray, AB T9H 4K3

3 Table of Contents I. Introduction... 1 II. Why (In)sufficient information matters... 2 III. Insufficient information to assess cumulative impacts; regional planning initiatives unreliable... 3 IV. Insufficient Regional Study Areas... 7 A. Terms of Reference... 7 B. Local Study Area... 8 C. Vegetation and Wildlife RSA... 8 D. TLU RSA... 9 E. Bison Study Area... 9 V. Insufficient information VI. Mitigations insufficiently considered VII. Impacts on Aboriginal and Treaty rights not considered VIII. Conclusion Appendix A: Ronald Lake Bison Study Area

4 1 I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN) is an Athabascan speaking Dené people, who have lived for thousands of years on lands surrounding Lake Athabasca, Lake Claire, and Ronald Lake, and south along the Birch Mountains and on both sides of the Athabasca River. These lands include the site of the proposed Project. One of ACFN s reserves is less than 20 km from the Project Disturbance Area. 2. ACFN members hunt, trap, and gather throughout this traditional territory. But ACFN s relationship to the land extends beyond these mere harvesting activities. The land is the essence of ACFN culture, values, and spirituality. Respect for the land is the fundamental principle underpinning ACFN s relationship to the land. 3. As ACFN Elders tell us, living on the land requires a close relationship to the land and all that is connected to it. This is not a simple relationship. Rather, it is one that demands constant attention and nurturing, as a person s very existence hangs in the balance. 4. Teck has not brought to its Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) an appropriate degree of attention to, and respect for, the land and its inhabitants. The EIA does not even satisfy the standards set by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA). 5. The Joint Review Panel has invited comments in writing on whether the information submitted by the proponent is sufficient to proceed to the public hearing These are ACFN s comments. ACFN urges the Joint Review Panel to require Teck to identify and gather the information necessary to ensure the Joint Review Panel can understand the true impacts of the Project information that Teck has yet to provide. 1 August 17, 2016, Public Notice Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Public Comment Invited (CEAA Registry Document # 214).

5 2 II. WHY (IN)SUFFICIENT INFORMATION MATTERS 7. When ACFN s Elders signed Treaty 8 in 1899, they did so as a Peace and Sharing Agreement with the Crown. The Treaty Commissioners assured them that the treaty would not lead to any forced interference with the Dene mode of life. 2 History shows us that the Treaty Commissioners promise has not been kept. Nonetheless, the Canadian court system has affirmed that, where the Crown takes up land within ACFN traditional territory, the Crown must inform itself of the impact that this incompatible use will have on ACFN s Aboriginal and Treaty rights, and ensure that ACFN members can meaningfully exercise their rights within their traditional territory Ministerial Orders issued under the Responsible Energy Development Act, s. 67, identify the AER s responsibility to consider adverse impacts of energy applications on ACFN s s. 35 rights. 4 The Joint Review Panel has a mandate to consider: Any potential effects on current uses of lands and resources by Aboriginal persons for traditional purposes; Any effects (including the effects related to increased access, fragmentation of habitat and displacement of the exercise of traditional activities) on hunting, fishing, trapping, cultural and other traditional uses of the land (e.g. collection of medicinal plants, use of sacred sites), as well as related effects on lifestyle, culture, health and quality of life of Aboriginal persons; Any effects of alterations to access into areas used by Aboriginal persons for traditional uses; Any adverse effects of the project on the ability of future generations to pursue traditional activities or lifestyle. 5 2 David Laird, J.H. Ross, J.A.J. McKenna, Report of the Treaty Commissioners for Treaty 8, 22 nd September 1899; Mikisew Cree First Nation v Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), 2005 SCC 69 at para Mikisew Cree First Nation v Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), 2005 SCC 69 at paras 48, Energy Ministerial Order 105/2014; Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Ministerial Order 53/2014, Appendix: Aboriginal Consultation Direction 5 Agreement to Establish a Joint Review Panel for the Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Between The Minister of the Environment, Canada and The Alberta Energy Regulator, Alberta, Appendix I Terms of Reference, Part III Aboriginal Rights and Interests (CEAA Registry Document # 199).

6 3 9. Where Teck fails to provide sufficient information, the Joint Review Panel cannot satisfy its mandate to consider the effects of the project on Aboriginal or treaty rights The risks of holding a public hearing, when Teck has not provided sufficient information to understand Project impacts, are significant. The Joint Review Panel is likely to underestimate the seriousness of the impacts that this Project will have on ACFN, and certainly cannot determine adverse effects or effects based on the present information. 11. For Teck, this Project is about making money. And the public interest assessment that the Alberta and federal governments traditionally perform weighs financial benefits against environmental impacts. But for ACFN, truly understanding the effects of this Project is an issue of physical and cultural survival. A public hearing must not take place in the absence of the information required by the Panel to make an informed and conscientious assessment. III. INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO ASSESS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS; REGIONAL PLANNING INITIATIVES UNRELIABLE 12. The Joint Review Panel s mandate requires it to undertake a cumulative effects assessment, considering Project impacts beyond the incremental impacts it will have on existing conditions. The Joint Review Panel s Terms of Reference require it to include the pre-industrial case to allow the Joint Review Panel to take into account the effects that may have already been experienced prior to the project; and future foreseeable projects or activities as of the issuance of the Joint Review Panel's Terms of Reference In past project assessments, review panels have deferred serious consideration of cumulative impacts to regional planning initiatives. In the Joint Review Panel Report, Shell Canada Energy, Jackpine Mine Expansion Project, Application to Amend Approval 9756, 2013 ABAER 101 (July 9, 2013) (Jackpine Report), the Joint Review Panel 6 Ibid. 7 Agreement to Establish a Joint Review Panel for the Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Between The Minister of the Environment, Canada and The Alberta Energy Regulator, Alberta, Appendix I Terms of Reference, Part III Aboriginal Rights and Interests (CEAA Registry Document # 199).

7 4 recognized that Lower Athabasca regional planning remained a work in progress, but relied on assurances that this work was being undertaken. 14. The Jackpine Report provided the following recommendations (amongst many others): Recommendation 37 The Panel recommends that the Government of Alberta continue to work toward timely completion of the LARP biodiversity management framework and that it include wildlife-habitat-loss thresholds to guide the development of future oil sands projects. (Effects on Wildlife and Their Habitat) Recommendation 46 The Panel recommends that the Government of Alberta work in cooperation with EC towards the expeditious completion of range plans for caribou in the oil sands region to ensure that immediate action occurs as prescribed in the federal recovery strategy. (Effects on Wildlife and Their Habitat) Recommendation 47 The Panel recommends that the Government of Alberta work with Aboriginal groups during development of the biodiversity management framework under LARP to specifically address issues related to caribou in the oil sands region. The Panel further recommends that during development of the biodiversity management framework, consideration be given to principles such as no net loss of caribou habitat, limiting linear disturbances in critical caribou habitat, and restoration of historical and present caribou ranges. (Effects on Wildlife and Their Habitat) Recommendation 48 The Panel recommends that the Government of Canada consult with Aboriginal groups to help inform the federal recovery strategy for wood bison and ensure its expeditious delivery. The Panel also recommends that critical habitat for bison be identified in the federal recovery strategy to provide context for decisions on future oil sands development in the oil sands region. (Effects on Wildlife and Their Habitat) Recommendation 49 The Panel recommends that the Government of Alberta include updated management objectives for moose for the Lower Athabasca planning region in the biodiversity management framework being developed under LARP. (Effects on Wildlife and Their Habitat) Recommendation 65 The Panel recommends that the Government of Alberta develop and implement a TLU management framework for the Lower Athabasca region as a component of the LARP. The Panel recommends that the Government of Alberta develop this framework in conjunction with the Government of Canada, other stakeholders and all of the Aboriginal peoples affected by industrial development that practice their rights in the oil sands region. The Panel recommends that this framework be maintained and adapted over time to ensure the protection of Aboriginal land use and treaty rights in the oil sands region. (Effects on Aboriginal Traditional Land Use, Rights, and Culture, Regional Effects)

8 5 Recommendation 73 The Panel recommends that the Government of Canada and Alberta incorporate both the biodiversity management framework and a comprehensive assessment of Aboriginal TLU into the development of the regional landscape management plan. The Panel believes it is critical that these are incorporated even if the completion of the integrated landscape management plan is delayed. (Regional Effects) Although Alberta has repeatedly relied on the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan ( LARP ), a LARP Review Panel provided Alberta with a scathing report about LARP on June 22, Alberta quietly released the report to the public approximately one year later. Among other things, the LARP Review Panel said the following 9 : The Review Panel recommends that, for any effective land-use planning to proceed in the Lower Athabasca Region, the Government of Alberta must initiate plans to develop a Traditional Land Use Management Framework. Failing to implement such a framework leaves industry, regulators, stakeholders, governments and First Nations asking important questions about Aboriginal Peoples constitutionally-protected rights in their Traditional Land Use territories, which conflict with future development activities in the Lower Athabasca Region. The Review Panel strongly suggests that failing to address this important issue leaves the remainder of the LARP land-use plans and strategies in a state of uncertainty and non-compliance. 16. The LARP Review Panel also made a number of suggestions to the Minister regarding the management of cumulative effects, including completing and implementing all proposed management frameworks, recognizing that the land footprints of First Nations are being reduced every year by increased development, moving away from a project-by-project approach to acknowledge cumulative effects, and completing adequate health studies The LARP Review Panel also noted that, despite LARP s conservation areas, the cumulative impacts on wildlife have exceeded or are reaching thresholds resulting in significant adverse effects on biodiversity, some of which are likely permanent Appendix 6 List of Panel Recommendation, pp Review Panel Report 2015: Lower Athabasca Regional Plan, pp Ibid., p Ibid., p.198.

9 6 18. The LARP Review Panel further expressed its concern that the Government of Alberta is still issuing energy leases in key habitats occupied by the endangered woodland caribou in the Lower Athabasca Region, and recommended that Alberta complete its range plans for woodland caribou, in consultation with First Nations in the Lower Athabasca Region In spite of these findings and recommendations, government inaction continues: Alberta has yet to produce a biodiversity management framework. No immediate action has occurred to address caribou recovery instead Alberta s caribou recovery strategy plans for the extirpation of caribou herds in and around the oil sands region and adjacent to Wood Buffalo National Park. No wood bison recovery strategy has been implemented. Critical habitat for bison has not been identified. No TLU management framework has been developed. 20. As a result, and in the absence of appropriate biodiversity management, caribou and bison recovery plans, and TLU management, it is impossible for the Joint Review Panel to adequately assess the significance of cumulative and Project impacts. 21. ACFN urges the Panel to defer any public hearing on the Teck Project until these regional planning initiatives have concluded: failure to do so may result in infringement of Aboriginal and Treaty rights. Furthermore, given the lack of regional planning initiatives, the Panel cannot rely on assurances from Alberta and Canada that cumulative impacts will be addressed. 22. Should the Panel choose to move forward in the face of government inaction, the Panel must require Teck to adduce sufficient information to assess cumulative impacts on bison, caribou, biodiversity, and Aboriginal and Treaty rights. The Project Terms of Reference require Teck to identify where deficiencies in information exist and describe 12 Ibid., p.211.

10 7 UTS/Teck s plan, including a rationale, for providing the necessary information. Where required, undertake studies and investigations to obtain additional information to address the information deficiencies. 13 IV. INSUFFICIENT REGIONAL STUDY AREAS A. Terms of Reference 23. The Terms of Reference 14 require Teck to identify Project impacts within appropriate regional study areas: Local and Regional Study Areas [A] The Local Study Area (LSA) is the area existing outside the boundaries of the Project Area where there is a reasonable potential for immediate environmental impacts due to ongoing Project activities. [B] The Regional Study Area (RSA) is the area within which there is the potential for cumulative and socio-economic effects, and that may be relevant to the assessment of any wider-spread effects of the Project. [C] The study area for the EIA report shall include the Project Area as well as the spatial and temporal limits of individual environmental components outside the Project Area boundaries where an effect can be reasonably expected. The Study Area includes both Local and Regional Study Areas. [D] For each LSA and RSA: a) provide the scientific rationale used to define the special and temporal aspects, considering the location and range of probable Project and cumulative effects; and b) identify LSA and RSA boundaries on maps of appropriate scale that show existing township grids, wetlands, watercourses, waterbodies and other topographical features. [E] Identify the traditional land use areas within the Study Area, as provided by aboriginal communities and groups. 13 Final Terms of Reference: Environmental Impact Assessment Report for the Proposed UTS Energy Corporation/Teck Cominco Limited Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project, issued by Alberta Environment February 11, 2009, 3.1.4[B]a) (CEAA Registry Document #9) 14 Final Terms of Reference: Environmental Impact Assessment Report for the Proposed UTS Energy Corporation/Teck Cominco Limited Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project, issued by Alberta Environment February 11, (CEAA Registry Document #9)

11 8 24. The Joint Review Panel is not in a position to hold a public hearing into Project impacts in light of Teck s refusal to identify appropriate local and regional study areas, including as follows. B. Local Study Area 25. The Local Study Area leaves out the ACFN Poplar Point reserve, which is only 16 km away from the Project. Teck should be required to amend the LSA to include this reserve. C. Vegetation and Wildlife RSA 26. The Vegetation and Wildlife RSA can be found at Figure of the Frontier Project Update Volume 1: Project Description, Section 18: EIA Summary. Even the RSA does not extend north so as to fully encompass the ACFN s Poplar Point reserve 16 km from the Project Disturbance Area. But the RSA extends south past Fort McMurray itself approximately 110 km from the Project Disturbance Area. 27. In spite of repeated requests from CEAA, Teck has failed to provide an adequate explanation for why it has chosen to assess environmental impacts south, to areas already disrupted by oil sands development, but not north into National and Provincial Parks. By making this selection, Teck is saying that the Project may have wide-spread effects on areas already impacted by development, but not on much closer protected parks, ACFN preferred hunting areas, and critical bison and caribou habitat. This is an absurd position and strains Teck s credibility. 28. Teck s RSA selection has a significant impact on ACFN s (and ultimately the Crown s) ability to understand the effects the Project will have on ACFN s Aboriginal and Treaty rights and way of life. ACFN exercises rights north of the RSA, but Teck has refused to assess the impact that its Project will have on them. 29. Teck is gaming the system with its RSA selection. By assessing the RSA in the way that Teck has, Teck can conclude that traditional use within the RSA has already been significantly impacted, and its Project would not, on its own, cause further cumulative impacts on traditional use. An RSA that took into account an equivalent area to the north of the Project footprint would show the significant, novel adverse impacts that the Project will have on wildlife, vegetation, and Aboriginal and Treaty rights.

12 9 30. The Joint Review Panel cannot hold a public hearing while Teck is refusing to provide the information required to consider Project impacts. In ACFN s respectful view, should the Panel accept Teck s RSA selection, the credibility of this process will be significantly undermined. D. TLU RSA 31. The TLU RSA is based entirely on the Vegetation and Wildlife RSA. This is inadequate. As ACFN has previously identified: TLU, LSA, and RSA, do not capture the full landscapes where TLU effects are likely to manifest. The TLU LSA excludes culturally important and preferred TLU areas at ACFN s Poplar Point Reserve, Ronald Lakes area, the Firebag River, and areas just east of the proposed Project, on the east side of the Athabasca River. [ ] The RSA excludes all the landscape north of ACFN Reserve 201G and south of Township 105, on both sides of the Athabasca River. This area is of great importance for TLU and is less disturbed than areas to the south. No concrete evidence is provided in the Project Update to substantiate that Project specific and/or cumulative development effects have not, or will not impact on TLU outside of the selected RSA Teck has refused to address CEAA s concern that the RSA for TLU does not extend far enough north to include the locations where the potential effects resulting from these changes in air quality and water quality may occur. As a result, the potential effects of these changes on known traditional land uses have not been assessed and are undescribed. 16 E. Bison Study Area 33. The Ronald Lake Bison Herd is disease-free and genetically distinct from the wood bison herd resident in Wood Buffalo National Park. The Ronald Lake Bison Herd has a range that directly overlaps with the Project Disturbance Area. This Herd is currently the 15 ACFN and MCFN Project Update and SIR#4 Review Appendix D, Page SIR#5, Question #161, Teck Response page 566. Teck rejects CEAA s direct request that the traditional land use be expanded and updated to capture effects occurring north of the RSA, but provides no reason for doing so other than the absence of prescribed guidelines for selecting a traditional land use RSA, a statement from the Jackpine Report that assessments need not consider the entirety of a First Nation s traditional territory (which is not what ACFN is asking), and Teck s belief that the current traditional land use RSA is sufficient. This response is woefully inadequate and fails to meaningfully address the substance of ACFN and CEAA s concerns with respect to the information gaps in the traditional land use study.

13 10 subject of a Technical Table and collared study. The Herd s range extends beyond the Vegetation and Wildlife RSA that Teck has identified. Teck has in turn identified a separate Ronald Lake Bison Study Area, attached as Appendix A to these submissions for ease of reference The Ronald Lake Bison Study Area, however, does not extend as far north as the Ronald Lake Bison Herd roams. The Study Area stops at the southern border of Wood Buffalo National Park but the Herd does not. The Ronald Lake Bison situation is so dire that the federal government is now carrying out a threat assessment on the herd. Given the importance of preserving the genetic distinctiveness and health of this Herd, the failure to include the relevant part of Wood Buffalo National Park within the Bison Study Area is a glaring omission that has no basis in fact Project impacts on critical habitat availability, carrying capacity, and other factors affecting the Herd s survival must be considered in light of the most current range boundaries. The Ronald Lake Bison are at a stage where their habitat must be identified and protected. As such, the Bison Study Area must be revised and a new assessment performed prior to any public hearing. 19 The Panel requires this information in order to make an informed decision, as acknowledged by recommendation 48 from the Jackpine Report: The Panel also recommends that critical habitat for bison be identified in the federal recovery strategy to provide context for decisions on future oil sands development in the oil sands region. 20 V. INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION 36. In addition to these significant overarching concerns, Teck should be required to provide the following: a. A pre-industrial base case against which to assess cumulative impacts. 17 Figure 11-3: Ronald Lake Bison Study Area, Project Update Volume 3: Assessment Update, Section 11: Wildlife. 18 MSES, R5 p.ix-x 19 MSES, R4/PU p. vii 20 Joint Review Panel Report, Shell Canada Energy, Jackpine Mine Expansion Project, Application to Amend Approval 9756, 2013 ABAER 101 (July 9, 2013), Appendix 6 List of Panel Recommendation, pp

14 11 b. A viability analysis for the Ronald Lake Bison Herd. 21 c. A meaningful assessment of how the Ronald Lake Bison Herd is expected to respond to disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat fragmentation; evidence of risk of disease spreading to Ronald Lake Bison Herd as a result of any disturbances. 22 d. An assessment of the impact of aerodrome and air traffic on bison. 23 e. An assessment of the effect of large-scale caribou redistribution relative to human disturbance. 24 f. Evidence about the effectiveness of caribou mitigation measures in the region. 25 g. An assessment of impacts on caribou that exist between different ranges. 26 h. Information on the percentage of the caribou population represented by radiocollars in the Project Disturbance Area; this is required to understand impacts on the Red Earth caribou herd. i. Identification of the impact of Teck s past and on-going work in the LSA and RSA. j. An assessment of Teck s mine water dynamics based on the more recent Lower Athabasca Surface Water Quantity Management Framework. k. Consideration of water withdrawals from direct tributaries of the Athabasca River in assessing flow reductions. l. Identification of navigation pinch points affecting boat access concerns. m. An assessment of Athabasca River flow reduction in relation to the current state of impaired navigability. 21 MSES, R5 p. ix-x 22 SIR#5, Question #130, Teck Response page 450; SIR#5, Question #134. Teck s response to CEAA s questions discusses the matter of disease spread to the Ronald Lake Bison Herd in a very general way. 23 SIR#5, Question #121. Teck Response page 392. Teck has yet to model aircraft routes and altitudes to provide an assessment of impacts on wildlife. 24 MSES, R4/PU p. vii 25 MSES, R4/PU p. vii 26 MSES, R5 p. x

15 12 n. Evidence for Teck s conclusion that there is low permeability between the Project Disturbance Area and the Basal McMurray Aquifer. 27 o. Potential for a habitat offset plan to mitigate habitat loss during operation, particularly for migratory birds and species at risk. 28 p. An assessment of whether invasive species exist within reclaimed oil sands sites. 29 VI. MITIGATIONS INSUFFICIENTLY CONSIDERED 37. Teck has proposed a number of measures to mitigate Project impacts. These measures have not been sufficiently particularized so as to assess their potential effectiveness. A public hearing should not be called until Teck provides additional information about its proposed mitigation measures. 38. In the alternative, if Teck refuses to provide the detail required, the following Teckidentified measures should not be taken into account when assessing mitigation of Project impacts: A Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, developed collaboratively with First Nations. 30 An access Management Plan to allow land-based travel and access by ACFN members within and through the proposed project area. A biodiversity management plan. 31 Tailings plans, including an assessment of the effectiveness of earthen barriers. A wetlands monitoring plan SIR#5, Question 1, Teck Response pages 3-8. When asked to provide additional evidence for the claim that there is low permeability along the entire extent of the subsurface Quaternary channel Teck s response is merely that no transmissive material was encountered. However, Teck has only completed a handful of sample boreholes and has not conducted any conductivity tests in the channel. 28 MSES R5, p.x; SIR# SIR#5, Question 146, Teck Response page MSES, R4/PU p. iii; MSES, R5 p. ix 31 Project Update, V SIR#5, Question 159, Teck Response page 560. Teck is asked to provide a summary of a proposed monitoring plan to determine effects of water drawdown on wetlands. Teck provides a circular and self-referencing answer

16 13 Conservation Agreements. Activities to conserve or preserve rare plants and traditional plants. 33 VII. IMPACTS ON ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS NOT CONSIDERED 39. On past applications, joint review panels have noted proponents poor quality of reporting and assessment of impacts on Aboriginal and Treaty rights. In assessing Project impacts, it is not enough to consider impacts on Aboriginal and Treaty rights by considering impacts on the individual species that First Nations hunt, fish, trap, and gather. Any effects assessment must recognize that impacts on Aboriginal and Treaty rights are a distinct threshold for concern and must specifically consider mitigation of these impacts. 40. Teck is seeking to disrupt ACFN s ability to exercise Aboriginal and Treaty rights within its traditional territory for 47 years, even on Teck s own analysis. Teck s consideration of reclamation and reversibility of Project impacts is based on regulatory requirements that do not support the conditions needed for the resumption of Aboriginal and Treaty rightsbased activities. 34 The Project s impacts on Aboriginal and Treaty rights will be felt long after the Project Disturbance Area has been reclaimed. 41. Significant public information is available about ACFN s history and rights including ACFN exercise of rights in an appropriate Regional Study Area. ACFN has already provided Teck with sufficient information to identify and address potential Project impacts, at least on a preliminary basis. Teck has not sufficiently reviewed this information so as to provide the Joint Review Panel with a starting point for its assessment. which in the end amounts to Teck saying that a wetlands monitoring program will likely be required and, if so, will be developed in the future. No meaningful details are provided. 33 SIR#5, Question 150, Teck Response page Teck merely states that it is committed to co-creating a Reclamation Working Group with Aboriginal communities to identify plant species of traditional importance. Teck provides no details on how conservation of these plants will be carried out beyond saying that Aboriginal input will be weighed against the broader biodiversity and reclamation objectives of the project and whether such conservation of traditionally important species is cost-effective. This answer is both vague and non-committal and doesn t meaningfully address the question of how conservation of traditionally important plant species will occur. 34 MSES R5, p.ix

17 To ensure that proponents provide information about impacts to affected First Nations within Project EIAs, Teck should be required to correct the deficiencies in its reporting of publicly-available information about ACFN Aboriginal and Treaty rights before the Application goes to public hearing. 43. The information filed by Teck does not provide the Panel with information sufficient to fulfil its mandate: Any potential effects on current uses of lands and resources by Aboriginal persons for traditional purposes; Any effects (including the effects related to increased access, fragmentation of habitat and displacement of the exercise of traditional activities) on hunting, fishing, trapping, cultural and other traditional uses of the land (e.g. collection of medicinal plants, use of sacred sites), as well as related effects on lifestyle, culture, health and quality of life of Aboriginal persons; Any effects of alterations to access into areas used by Aboriginal persons for traditional uses; Any adverse effects of the project on the ability of future generations to pursue traditional activities or lifestyle During the hearing process, ACFN will attempt to educate the Joint Review Panel to the best of its ability about the impact that regional oil sands development including the Project has had and will have on ACFN Aboriginal and Treaty rights and culture. However, this does not, and should not, relieve Teck of its independent duty to provide sufficient information to the Panel about the impacts of the Project on ACFN. VIII. CONCLUSION 45. Teck s Project Application cannot go to public hearing given the significant gaps in Teck s EIA. ACFN requests that the Joint Review Panel require Teck to fill the gaps ACFN has identified both in these submissions and through its technical reviews and requests for supplementary information before proceeding to a public hearing. 35 Agreement to Establish a Joint Review Panel for the Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Between The Minister of the Environment, Canada and The Alberta Energy Regulator, Alberta, Appendix I Terms of Reference, Part III Aboriginal Rights and Interests (CEAA Registry Document # 199).

18 Appendix "A"