Proposed Traditional Land Use (TLU) Assessment Methodology for Teck Frontier Project Update

Transcription

1 Teck Resources Limited Suite 1000, th Ave. S.E. Calgary, AB Canada T2G 0R Dir Tel Fax Mobile December 4, 2014 Mikisew Cree First Nation 206, 9401 Franklin Avenue Fort McMurray, Alberta T9H 3Z7 Attention: Melody Lepine (GIR Director) Re: Proposed Traditional Land Use (TLU) Assessment Methodology for Teck Frontier Project Update Dear Ms. Lepine, As you know, Teck is proposing to adjust and update certain aspects of the Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project (the Project Update), and is preparing filings to fulfil regulatory requirements in support of the Update. One of those regulatory requirements is for Teck to determine the impact of the Project Update on traditional uses of the land. We are mindful that Mikisew Cree First Nation (MCFN) is currently undertaking a cultural impact assessment (CIA) with Teck s support, and that Teck and MCFN have also discussed the Project Update as part of the CIA work. Therefore, we have sought to develop a methodology for meeting regulatory requirements for the Project Update which will supplement and support MCFN s CIA. Teck would appreciate MCFN s review and comments on the methodology that we propose to use to complete this assessment. We are attaching a technical memorandum that summarizes Teck s proposed methodology for the assessment of effects on Traditional Land Use (TLU). This proposed approach is not intended as a substitute for the independent cultural impact assessment which MCFN is currently conducting with Teck s support. Rather, Teck proposes that Teck s TLU assessment be limited to an assessment of the spatial and physical effects on TLU areas and TLU resources, while further broader cultural impacts will be addressed through the community-led CIA. Teck acknowledges that a determination of significance applied without the incorporation of additional cultural impacts may not represent a full picture of the significance of effects on MCFN and its members

2 As a result, Teck will include both the TLU assessment and the CIA in the Project Update so that provincial and federal regulators will be able to use the TLU assessment and CIA in conjunction when reviewing the Project Update. In order to allow for consideration of your comments, Teck is respectfully requesting a response by January 9, Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about the proposed methodology or the process outlined above. Sincerely, Sheila Risbud Regulatory Manager, Teck Energy Teck Resources Limited Suite 1000, 205 9th Avenue SE Calgary, AB T2G 0R Tel Fax Attachment: Teck s Proposed Methodology for the Assessment of Effects on Traditional Land Use Cc. Lisa Tuccaro Golosky (Consultation Coordinator, MCFN GIR) Mark Gustafson (JFK Law) Melody Nice (Alberta Consultation Office) Jeffery Johnston (Alberta Consultation Office) Carolyn Dunn (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency) Amanda Black (Alberta Energy Regulator) Janais Turuk (Manager, Community Relations, Teck Resources Limited) Neil Sandstrom (Manager, Environment, Teck Resources Limited) Page 2

3 Teck Resources Limited Suite 1000, th Ave. S.E. Calgary, AB Canada T2G 0R Tel Fax INTRODUCTION Teck is required to determine the impact of development on traditional uses of the land to fulfil regulatory requirements for the Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project (the Project) Update. The following technical memorandum summarizes Teck s proposed methodology for the assessment of effects on Traditional Land Use (TLU). This proposed approach is not intended as a substitute for the independent cultural impact assessments that Aboriginal communities are currently conducting with Teck s support. Teck acknowledges that effects on traditional harvesting and other land use activities have further linkages to impacts on potentially affected communities, the consumption of traditional foods, individual, family and community health and wellness, the transmission of traditional knowledge, traditional lifestyles, and Aboriginal culture. Effects to these cultural elements may in turn result in further effects on the continuance of traditional harvesting and other land use activities. Teck proposes that the TLU assessment be limited to an assessment of the spatial and physical effects on TLU areas and TLU resources, while further intangible cultural impacts will be addressed in the community-led cultural impact assessments. Therefore, cultural themes are not directly incorporated within this proposed assessment methodology of effects on TLU. Teck is inviting potentially affected Aboriginal groups to comment on this proposed methodology. Responses are requested by January 9, 2015 to allow for their consideration in the Project Update. 1.1 Key Questions The 2011 Integrated Application indicated two key questions pertaining to Traditional Land Use: Could the Frontier Project affect traditional land uses? Could the Frontier Project in combination with other developments cumulatively affect the potential for traditional land uses? The Project Update will continue to use these two key questions to address the key issues related to TLU and to focus the assessment on these issues of concern. 2.0 ASSESSMENT METHODS Effects on TLU include effects on traditional hunting, trapping, fishing, plant and berry gathering and other culturally important uses of the land. The Project Update will incorporate the results of the Projectspecific community-led TLU studies that have been completed since the submission of the 2011 Integrated Application. Teck has received Project-specific TLU studies from Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, Fort McKay First Nation (including Fort McKay Métis Local #63), Fort McMurray Métis Local #1935, and Mikisew Cree First Nation. A TLU study is expected to be received from Fort Chipewyan Métis Local #125 in January 2015 The TLU effects assessment will also reflect the updated results from other relevant discipline assessments (e.g., wildlife and wildlife habitat assessment).

4 2.1 Assessment Cases Traditional land use key issues and associated key indicators will be evaluated in the context of three development scenarios (i.e., Base Case, Application Case, and Planned Development Case). 2.2 Spatial and Temporal Considerations The TLU assessment update will consider effects at several spatial scales. Generally, Project effects on TLU will be discussed at a Local Study Area (LSA) and a Regional Study Area (RSA) scale, correlating to the Terrestrial LSA and RSA. However, effects to traditional fishing will utilize the Aquatics LSA and RSA (see Integrated Application, Volume 5, Section 1, Figure 1-1 and 1-2) and effects on bison hunting will use the bison study area (see ESRD/CEAA Round 1 SIR 219c and Appendix 219c.1). Project and cumulative changes will be evaluated at the point of maximum land disturbance. Disturbance at Project decommissioning and abandonment will be provided for reference, but will not be considered for the effects classification or significance determination. Potentially affected Aboriginal communities have expressed concern regarding the multi-generational length of time required for decommissioning and abandonment to occur, and the loss of place-based traditional knowledge and TLU that may occur as a result. Additionally, concerns have been expressed regarding the continued avoidance of previously disturbed areas due to fear of contamination of the land. Therefore, for the purposes of the TLU assessment, all effects are assessed prior to reclamation. 2.3 Effects Assessment Key Indicators The following key indicators have been selected to answer the key questions. Project activities (construction, operations or closure) or cumulative effects have the potential to result in changes to these indicators. Changes to key indicators will be assessed in the effects classification as described below in Section 2.4: opportunities to hunt bison; opportunities to hunt traditionally important wildlife; opportunities to trap traditionally important furbearers; opportunities to harvest traditionally important fish; opportunities to harvest traditionally important plant species; and Opportunities to use culturally important sites and areas Measurable Parameters The assessment of each key indicator considers various measurable parameters. Parameters may be analyzed through qualitative or quantitative methods, or a combination of both. Measurable parameters include the disturbance to preferred use areas, availability of the resource base (e.g. bison, fish, traditional plant potential), changes in access and avoidance considerations. Disturbance to Preferred Use Areas The discussion of preferred use areas will utilize both qualitative and quantitative data and will be specific for each potentially affected Aboriginal community. For the purposes of a quantitative discussion of Page 2

5 Project and cumulative disturbance to preferred use areas, regional, spatially defined areas of use need to be established for each potentially affected community. Teck proposes to use the following areas to represent preferred use areas 1 : The Community of Fort McKay (Fort McKay First Nation and Fort McKay Métis Local #63) Culturally Significant Ecosystems as presented in the Fort McKay Specific Assessment (FMIRC 2010). Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Homeland, Proximate, and Critical Waterway Zones as presented in Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Advice to the Government of Alberta Regarding the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan (ACFN 2010). Mikisew Cree First Nation Traditional territory as reported in Ayapaskowinowak: Ta Kiskissotamak Kayas Pimatisowin Oti Nikan Kichi (Acknowledging the Past, Securing the Future) (MCFN n.d.). Fort McMurray #468 First Nation Traditional territory as presented in Nistawaya: Where Three Rivers Meet (FM ). Fort McMurray Métis Local #1935 and Fort Chipewyan Métis Local #125 the Alberta Government currently considers a Metis harvesting zone to compromise an area within 160 km of a Metis community (Government of Alberta 2010). Therefore, the assessment proposes to consider this 160 km area, from Fort McMurray and Fort Chipewyan that overlaps the applicable study area, to represent each community s respective preferred use area. In regard to effects on the opportunity to traditionally trap, preferred trapping areas will be the Registered Fur Management Areas (RFMAs) held or used by community members, within the applicable study area. This quantitative data will be assessed in conjunction with a qualitative comparison of preferred use areas and sites identified in Project-specific TLU studies received since the submission of the 2011 Integration Application. Disturbance related to preferred fishing areas will rely upon a comparison of fishing areas identified in the Project-specific TLU studies and the expected effects on fish habitat. Availability of the Resource Base To assess Project and cumulative effects on the opportunity to conduct TLU, it is necessary to consider and describe the effects on the biophysical resources important to Aboriginal communities. Therefore, the TLU assessment update reflects the results from other disciplines, including wildlife and wildlife habitat, traditional plant potential, fish and fish habitat and historic resources. Changes in Access The ability to access preferred use areas has been identified as one of the necessary components to TLU. While effects on access are a component of direct disturbance, effects on access will be examined through a comparison of reported access routes within the applicable study area and disturbances that 1 Disturbances in the TLU Project Update are compared only against the portion of a preferred land use area that overlaps the relevant study area, not against the entirety of the preferred land use area. However, the percentage that this overlapping area constitutes of the complete preferred area will be provided for context. Page 3

6 may result in loss of trails and access routes, including those undisturbed portions of trails that have been interrupted due to disturbance. Effects on access will also incorporate changes resulting from reductions in water navigability, restrictions in movements, and barriers or bans on entry to or within areas. Avoidance Considerations Avoidance of preferred use areas has been reported by multiple Aboriginal communities. Avoidance occurs for a multitude of reasons, including concerns regarding contamination of resources, access hindrances and restrictions, increased traffic and sensory disturbance and an increased number of recreational users on the land. In consideration of avoidance, a review of the results from other assessment components that may influence these factors (e.g., noise) will be undertaken. No spatial information regarding the extent of areas avoided around existing development has been identified, and avoidance likely has variability due the individual tolerances of factors, such as noise, for Aboriginal land users. To provide context a summary of responses that were reported by affected Aboriginal communities will be included. While it is impossible to allocate these effects on a project by project basis, this assessment acknowledges that these factors exist and may adversely affect TLU. 2.4 Effects Classification For each TLU key indicator (e.g., opportunities to hunt traditionally important wildlife) an effects classification will be conducted, applying standard EIA criteria (see Volume 3, Section , Pages 1-20 to 1-21). All effects classifications consider effects prior to reclamation, however applicable mitigation measures that are implemented during Project construction and operations to mitigate the availability or access to culturally important resources, such as mitigation measures designed to reduce wildlife mortality and access agreements are considered in the effects classification. Key indicators for TLU rely upon multiple measurable parameters. Therefore, to classify the effects on a key indicator, the effects on its relevant measurable parameters are analyzed and then considered in combination. The assessment of effects on traditionally used resources relies upon the conclusions of the effects assessment of the resources discipline (e.g., wildlife, fish and vegetation assessments). Effects on access, while a component of disturbance, are assessed by determining whether disturbance will affect access to or within preferred use areas. Avoidance considerations are not assigned a magnitude, rather avoidance is assumed to occur within the region. The following criteria are used to assess the magnitude of changes to measurable parameters. Negligible: no discernible change to the measurable parameter. For example, no change to the access of preferred areas, or less than 1% direct disturbance to a preferred land use area; Low: a noticeable change resulting in a small change to the measurable parameter. For example, a loss of an access route however, multiple alternative access routes to preferred areas remain, or greater than 1 and less than 10% direct disturbance to a preferred land use area; Moderate: a noticeable and potentially detrimental change to a measurable parameter. For example, a loss of access routes, where only limited alternatives remain or greater than 10% and less than 20% direct disturbance to a preferred land use area; High: an effect that is expected to substantially alter a measurable parameter. For example, the access to a preferred area is lost or fundamentally altered, or greater than 20% direct disturbance to a preferred land use areas. Page 4

7 The assessment further considers the duration of an effect to be long duration if the effect lasts 25 years or longer (i.e., the length of a generation). Effects are also considered irreversible if they last 25 years or longer because effects of this duration can interrupt the transmission of traditional and place-based knowledge between generations. 2.5 Determination of Significance As previously stated, Teck understands that effects on traditional harvesting and other land use activities has further linkages to cultural impacts on potentially affected communities, the consumption of traditional foods, individual, family and community health and wellness, the transmission of traditional knowledge, traditional lifestyles, and Aboriginal culture. Effects to these cultural elements may in turn result in further effects on the continuance of traditional harvesting and other land use activities. Teck acknowledges that a determination of significance applied without the incorporation of these additional cultural impacts may not represent a full picture of the significance of effects on Aboriginal culture or Aboriginal people. As a result, Teck recommends that provincial and federal regulators consider the significance assessed to the tangible effects on TLU in the Project Update in conjunction with the effects on intangible cultural impacts to Aboriginal communities as presented in the independent cultural impacts assessments that Aboriginal communities are currently conducting with Teck s support. For the purposes of the Project Update, the overall effects on a TLU are assessed to be either significant or not significant based on the expected result at the Aboriginal community level. The information available on which to base the assessment provides aggregated community level information (i.e., preferred land use areas, access routes, and traditionally important species) and therefore the determination of significance considered the magnitude of effects, duration and reversibility of the effects based on effects on the community as a whole. This is not to suggest that effects that may be experienced by some individuals are not important, or even critical, to their traditional use of land and resources, only that the TLU assessment is focused on the spatial availability of areas where the opportunity to undertake TLU activities is affected. There are no established thresholds or agreed-upon standard at which traditional land and resource use is no longer sustainable. Although it may be possible to set thresholds for purposes of an EIA, it often cannot be demonstrated that there is any consensus on a specific threshold value or what such a threshold means in terms of significance of an effect. As a result, professional judgment is often used in reaching conclusions on the significance for effects on traditional use of land and resources. The following definitions will be used in this assessment to determine the significance of adverse effects for TLU: Not Significant: effects may be experienced by members of a particular Aboriginal community but are not likely to result in substantial changes in the overall patterns of traditional land and resource use for that community. Significant: the overall effect is predicted to result in substantial changes in the overall patterns of traditional land and resource use for a particular community. 2.6 Summary In summary, Teck is inviting potentially affected Aboriginal groups to comment on the proposed methodology for the assessment of effects on TLU. Teck proposes that the TLU assessment be limited to the tangible effects on TLU areas and TLU resources, while further intangible cultural impacts will be Page 5

8 addressed in the community-led cultural impact assessments that are in progress. Responses are requested by January 9, 2015 to allow for their consideration in the Project Update. 3.0 REFERENCES ACFN (Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation) Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Advice to the Government of Alberta Regarding the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan. Provided to the Land Use Secretariat. November 22, Canadian Natural (Canadian Natural Resources Limited) Application for Approval of the Kirby In Situ Oil Sands Expansion Project: Volume 6 Social Aspects. Submitted to the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and Alberta Environment. December FM468 (Fort McMurray #468 First Nation) Nistawaya: Where Three Rivers Meet. Fort McMurray #468 First Nation Traditional Land Use Study. Calgary: Nicomacian Press. FMIRC (Fort McKay Industry Relations Corporation) Fort McKay Specific Assessment: Disturbance and Access Implications for Traditional Use. March, Government of Alberta Métis Harvesting in Alberta. July 2007, updated June Available at: Jun2010.pdf. MCFN (Mikisew Cree First Nation). No date. Ayapaskowinowak: Ta Kiskissotamak Kayas Pimatisowin Oti Nikan Kichi (Acknowledging the Past, Securing the Future). Shell (Shell Canada Limited) Application for Approval of the Jackpine Mine Expansion Project and Pierre River Mine Project: Volume 5 Terrestrial Resources and Human Environment. Submitted to the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and Alberta Environment. December Page 6