Re: Teck Frontier Oils Sands Mine Project: Responses to Supplemental Information Requests (SIRs)

Transcription

1 Fort Chipewyan Métis Local 125 Métis Nation of Alberta February 27, 2013 Carolyn Dunn Crown Consultation Coordinator Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Re: Teck Frontier Oils Sands Mine Project: Responses to Supplemental Information Requests (SIRs) Dear Ms. Dunn, Please accept this letter as a formal response from the Fort Chipewyan Métis on our review of Teck s responses to the SIRs. The proposed mine footprint is located within and adjacent to Fort Chipewyan Métis traditional cultural, harvesting, and livelihood lands in which we have Aboriginal Rights enshrined in the 1982 Constitution. The Project will have direct and adverse impacts on our ability to practice and maintain our traditional livelihood and lifestyle, including, but not limited to, hunting, fishing, trapping, commercial (part of Métis rights).and gathering activities. It should be noted that no impact assessment has been conducted on the potential effects of the project on our livelihood and Métis traditional practices. In addition, we are not involved in the technical review of the EIA, nor have we been provided the capacity to retain the services of scientific and social scientists to conduct a comprehensive technical review of the SIRs. Our review is based on funding provided from the CEAA funding envelope for participants. We have nonetheless provided comment based on the concerns of our members pertaining to the anticipated environmental impacts of the Project. Although our comments will not be at the level or detail delivered by technical experts, we will identify and articulate in layman s terms 1

2 observations and experiences derived from our traditional knowledge as to the potential impacts we anticipate the project will have on the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems within lands we have historically utilized for our livelihood and wellbeing. Our concerns are outlined in greater detail below. The SIRs contain 131 questions from the ERCB and 527 from ESRD and CEAA, many of which are very technical and can only be analyzed by highly specialized scientists. Because we lack that expertise and capacity, we will provide input based on our knowledge and experience, and regarding the environmental impacts we expect from the project, and will articulate how these effects will affect our Aboriginal rights, culture, and livelihood. Our first comments address questions and responses in the ESRD and CEAA section of the SIRs and pertain to traditional use and the lack of consideration of Fort Chipewyan Métis rights and practices: 1. Direct disturbance to traditional lands, Question 3: ESRD and CEAA responses. We note that NO Métis peoples were considered in this response, and while the uses of our neighbours ACFN and MCFN have been considered, the uses of our community have not. This is a grave omission in our opinion. 2. CEAA Question 8 regarding access to traditional hunting areas. As the Teck Frontier project is located on a trapline where one of our members raised her family, we would certainly hope that they would consider our members and our use and rights as part of the access management plan as well. 3. CEAA Question 9, regarding the collection of TEK. We note that the Teck responses address traditional land use, but not traditional environmental knowledge. We hold these two things to be different and distinct. Our use is distinct from our knowledge of the land as Aboriginal peoples. In the responses, Teck notes that they have used information from the oral history work they did with one of our members for their project planning. We would like to understand how and where? Also, they note the contributed to our traditional use and occupancy study. This study was historic only, and focused on gathering information from our older members. The use of the information and documents indicated in NO WAY constitutes an assessment of potential impacts to our lifeways and livelihoods. 2

3 As identified in our May 28, 2012 Statement of Concern, the anticipated environmental impacts that will be generated from the proposed project that gravely concern Métis Local 125 members the most are: 1. Project contribution to cumulative impacts. We hold the view that the proposed development will contribute and exacerbate the existing levels of cumulative effects within Fort Chipewyan Métis traditional lands. However, one of the answers that address cumulative impacts questions in the SIR, namely Response 73 asserts, Cumulative effects are predicted to be negligible because direct effects either did not extend that far north [to the PAD] (i.e., groundwater, aquatics, terrestrial) or predicted effects were well below established guidelines at that distance (i.e., air and health). Despite, this claim of negligible cumulative effects from the proponent, we are still of the view that the project will exacerbate cumulative effects within and adjacent to our traditional areas. 2. Reduced water flow to the Athabasca River and tributaries of the Peace-Athabasca Delta (PAD). We have grave concerns about the Project s impacts to water quantity and quality in the lower Athabasca River and PAD, as these aquatic ecosystems play a crucial role in sustaining the culture and livelihood of the Fort Chipewyan Métis. Despite Response 69 that claims, Teck is committed to meeting the Athabasca River Water Management Framework. The framework considers periods of low flow when Teck would not be allowed to withdraw water from the Athabasca River. During these periods, Teck would rely on water storage in the off-stream storage pond for water supply for the Frontier Project. We hold firm to our concern in regards to this issue. 3. Risk to the ability of Big (Oakley) Lake ecosystem to sustain itself in context of proposed water management plan for the mine and impacts to surrounding aquatic ecosystems and associated migratory birds breeding behavior and proposed activities around Big and Sandy lakes. It was extremely disappointing to discover our concerns pertaining to the aforementioned impacts to water bodies within our traditional lands were ignored! 4. High environmental risk associated with long term storage of tailings and reliance of new tailing technologies that have not been tried and proven to mitigate risks. The large tailings ponds associated with the project pose a threat for wildlife and waterfowl, and there are many uncertainties around long term de-watering and tailings reclamation. According to ERCB Response 54, Teck believes that the overall 3

4 fines capture assumptions presented are achievable. We take this opportunity to point out that believes does not equated to proven, therefore our concern with this matter has not been addressed! 5. Negative impacts to Ronald Lake Wood Bison herd, woodland caribou, moose and other wildlife due to habitat removal. Table 204b-1 in ERSD and CEAA SIRs states, Woodland caribou were not included as none of the current herd range boundaries overlap the Project assessment area (PAA). Response 234(a) from the same document claims, Based on this temporary disturbance (clearing for the project) it was concluded that the Project would not result in a substantial reduction in hunting opportunities. This would include hunting by potentially affected Aboriginal communities, who value this resource. Following reclamation and closure of the Project, moderate to highhabitat availability for moose was predicted to increase. Again, we are gravely concerned that no attempt was made to ascertain the existence of Woodland Caribou in the proposed project area and the reliance upon unproven reclamation and closure plans. 6. The unproven track record for reclamation in the oil sands makes us question the capability for land to be reclaimed and returned pre-disturbance levels. To our knowledge, no mined lands in the Athabasca Region have been so far returned to historical uses - after 40 years of mining. Response 162 (b) the the ERSD and CEAA question state: Teck s progressive reclamation plan (see Volume 1, Section , Page 13-58) was developed in consideration of current government acts, regulations and guidance documents listed in Volume 1, Section 13.2, Pages 13-5 to In our view, the aforementioned government documents do not recognize that our definition of success of reclamation will be measured by disturbed lands being restored to a state whereby Métis valued resources and species are re-established so our cultural and livelihood practices can be resumed. Furthermore, we would like to reiterate the social, cultural, and economic impacts of the proposed project on Fort Chipewyan Métis community and rights. The proposed project will have long-term environmental and social impacts that will significantly impact and impede our ability to maintain and practice our traditional cultural, and livelihood pursuits and activities, in our preferred manner. It is not only our traditional harvesting activities have the potential to be affected, but the commercial barging activities of our membership may be impacted as well. 4

5 Next, we hold the view that Teck has inadequately assessed the impacts of the proposed project on our use and Aboriginal rights. As a result, our Aboriginal rights, livelihood, and lifestyle are still not fully understood relative to the impacts the project will have upon the valued cultural components we have identified in this letter. In addition, we strongly feel, we have not benefited from the economic benefits of this proposed project that is proportionate to the long-term impacts our culture, Aboriginal rights, and livelihood will experience for the life of the mine. It is our wish that we can address our concerns in an adequate and meaningful manner, so that we may contribute to Teck s environmental decision-making process. 5