Draft Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring Plan Frontier Oil Sands … · 2017-06-05 · Wildlife biodiversity mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management is covered in a draft biodiversity

Draft Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring Plan Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project May 2017

Draft Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring Plan Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project

Teck Resources Limited Page i May 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Purpose of Draft Plan .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Limitations ................................................................................................................................. 2

1.2 Document Structure and Nomenclature ........................................................................................ 2

2 REGULATIONS, APPROVALS AND GUIDELINES .............................................................................. 3

3 PLAN PRINCIPLES, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................ 3

3.1 Principles ....................................................................................................................................... 3

3.2 Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................................... 4

4 FRONTIER PROJECT EFFECTS ......................................................................................................... 5

5 PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND CONSULTATION ................................................................................... 5

5.1 Past Engagement .......................................................................................................................... 5

5.2 Future Engagement ...................................................................................................................... 6

5.3 Indigenous Agreements ................................................................................................................ 7

6 MITIGATION PROGRAM ...................................................................................................................... 7

6.1 Summary of Planned Mitigation Measures ................................................................................... 7

6.2 Discussion of Planned Mitigation Measures ............................................................................... 10

7 MONITORING PROGRAM .................................................................................................................. 14

7.1 Summary of Monitoring Program ................................................................................................ 15

7.2 Discussion of Monitoring Program .............................................................................................. 19 7.2.1 Reduce Direct Habitat Loss .................................................................................................... 19 7.2.2 Reduce Indirect Habitat Loss .................................................................................................. 20 7.2.3 Reduce Changes to Landscape Connectivity ......................................................................... 20 7.2.4 Reduce Changes in Mortality Risk .......................................................................................... 21 7.2.5 Traditional Use ........................................................................................................................ 22

8 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM............................................................................................. 22

8.1 Define the Problem ..................................................................................................................... 25

8.2 Design the Adaptive Management Process ................................................................................ 26 8.2.1 Identify Indicators, Trajectories and Triggers .......................................................................... 31

8.3 Implement the Mitigation, Monitor its Effectiveness and Evaluate the Effectiveness ................. 31

8.4 Adjust the Mitigation .................................................................................................................... 32

9 IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................................. 33


Teck Resources Limited Page ii May 2017

9.1 Roles and Responsibilities .......................................................................................................... 33

9.2 Information Management and Reporting .................................................................................... 33

9.3 Change Management .................................................................................................................. 33

9.4 Communication Management ..................................................................................................... 33

10 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 34

LIST OF TABLES

Table 7.14-1: Mitigation Program Overview .............................................................................................. 8 Table 7.14-2: Monitoring Program Overview .......................................................................................... 16 Table 7.14-3: Adaptive Management Program – Plan-Do-Check-Act .................................................... 27 Table 7.14-4: Adaptive Management Program – Active / Passive .......................................................... 29

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 7.14-1: Teck Adaptive Management Process ............................................................................... 24 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment I Relevant Approvals Attachment II Teck Frontier Wildlife Mitigation and Access Management Workshop

Summary 2015 11 05 Attachment III Wildlife and Access Mitigation Workshop Summary 2016 07 13 Attachment IV Wildlife and Access Mitigation Workshop Presentation 2016 07 13 Attachment V Request for Scope of Work Fort Chipewyan Métis Local 125 2017 01 20


Teck Resources Limited Page 1 May 2017

1 INTRODUCTION

A wildlife mitigation and monitoring plan (WMMP) is expected to be a condition of approval (e.g., the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act [EPEA] Approval) issued for the Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project (the Project). In the Project Update (see Volume 3, Section 11), Teck Resources Limited (Teck) committed to developing a WMMP. In Teck’s response to Alberta Energy Regulator/Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (AER/CEAA) Round 4 supplemental information request (SIR) 31, a preliminary framework for the WMMP was provided.

The scope of the plan as originally envisioned has evolved in the following way based on feedback received during the SIR process and in response to Joint Review Panel (JRP) Information Requests (IRs):

• Waterfowl mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management is covered under a draft waterfowl protection plan (WPP) as per JRP IR 7.10.

• The Ronald Lake bison herd is covered in a separate mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management plan as per the response to JRP IR 7.5.

• Wildlife biodiversity mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management is covered in a draft biodiversity management plan (see the response to JRP IR 7.15).

• Mitigation for regional, cumulative effects to predator-prey dynamics, in particular the restoration of previously disturbed habitat (e.g., linear features), is beyond the scope of an individual proponent. Federal, provincial and industry initiatives are underway and Teck is and will participate in these initiatives as appropriate. The restoration of linear features is discussed within the Project’s biodiversity management plan (see the response to JRP IR 7.15).

• Mitigation for regional, cumulative effects to wildlife mortality related to public access outside of Teck’s mineral surface lease (MSL), is beyond the scope of an individual proponent. While Teck has committed to implementing measures to prevent workers from accessing and undertaking recreational pursuits near the Project area to reduce hunting pressure, Teck does not have the authority to manage access outside the MSL; therefore, restrictions on use of areas outside the MSL are not covered further in the WMMP. Teck’s approach to access management planning for the Project, including a draft access management plan, is provided in the response to JRP IR 4.5.

The draft WMMP adheres to a standard format for the Project’s draft mitigation and monitoring plans. This format links predicted Project effects to mitigation, mitigation objectives to monitoring and monitoring results to adaptive management actions. Consequently, Teck is clearly communicating a process to mitigate potential Project effects on wildlife, evaluate mitigation effectiveness and adapt mitigation as warranted and possible. The draft WMMP also presents information on internal responsibilities and communicating monitoring results and WMMP updates to external audiences.

1.1 Purpose of Draft Plan

The draft WMMP has been developed to address the information requested in JRP IR 7.14, which requested the following information:

• a description of the potential effects of the Project that require mitigation



• a description of the uncertainties that necessitate the use of adaptive management

• a clear statement of the mitigation objective being pursued and identification of indicators that will be used to determine whether mitigation measures are effective

• details of the plan to monitor the indicators identified above

• thresholds that monitoring results will be compared to that will trigger the implementation of alternative management actions or mitigation measures

• a description of the technically and economically feasible management actions or mitigation measures that Teck will implement if thresholds are surpassed

This plan presents Teck’s currently available information regarding the mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management programs for managing the potential effects on wildlife related to the Project.

1.1.1 Limitations

The final version of the draft WMMP will rely on the outcomes of the JRP Report, the Decision Statement, future stages of Project planning and input from Indigenous communities and stakeholders. Teck envisions the path forward to finalizing this plan would involve the steps listed below, which are not necessarily sequential. The final form and content of this plan might be modified as a result of these steps.

• Receive a JRP Report and Minister’s Decision Statement following the JRP Hearing.

• Receive an Alberta EPEA approval with conditions.

• Understand the current state of relevant provincial and federal regulations and relevant guidelines to be addressed in the plan.

• Continue engaging with interested regulators, Indigenous communities and stakeholders to develop more clarity around the indicators, metrics and thresholds or objectives to be used to evaluate mitigation effectiveness.

• Finalize plan details in light of future stages of Project planning and engineering, including technical, environmental and commercial details. In some cases, preconstruction monitoring results might be required to finalize a mitigation plan.

• Review final plan with regulators, Indigenous communities and stakeholders prior to finalization and submission to appropriate regulators based on the anticipated condition of an EPEA approval.

1.2 Document Structure and Nomenclature

This draft plan follows a structure that is organized as follows:

• Section 2 provides an overview of regulations, approvals and guidelines

• Section 3 provides the goals and objectives associated with the plan

• Section 4 describes the Project effects on wildlife

• Section 5 discusses the development and consultation for the plan



• Section 6 identifies the mitigation program adopted by Teck to reduce effects to wildlife

• Section 7 discusses a conceptual monitoring program

• Section 8 discusses an adaptive management plan

• Section 9 discusses implementation of the plan

Italicized text in the sections of the plan indicate future content that is not available for inclusion at this time.

2 REGULATIONS, APPROVALS AND GUIDELINES

The Regulations, Approvals and Guidelines section of the plan will list relevant provincial and federal regulations, guidelines and approval conditions relevant to wildlife mitigation and monitoring and provide a concordance of how they are addressed in the plan.

Attachment I will include copies of relevant documentation.

3 PLAN PRINCIPLES, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The draft WMMP has been developed to meet the “follow-up and compliance monitoring” requirements under CEAA’s Operational Policy Statement (Follow-up Programs under the Canadian Environment Assessment Act, CEAA 2011). Compliance monitoring “verifies whether required mitigation measures were implemented”, while a follow-up program “determines the accuracy of the conclusions of the environmental assessment and the effectiveness of the mitigation measures.”

3.1 Principles

The following principles for the WMMP were identified during two workshops held between November 2015 and July 2016. The workshops were attended by Indigenous groups, regulators and Teck (see Section 5):

• The plan will meet or exceed regulatory requirements.

• The plan will meet or exceed the technical scope and detail of other plans in the region.

• The plan will be informed by Indigenous input from the Environmental Impact Assessment review process including past and on-going discussions with Indigenous communities.

• The plan will be scientifically rigorous in design and implementation and include hypothesis-based monitoring studies where appropriate.

• The plan will be informed by a broad range of stakeholders.

• The plan will include a well-designed adaptive management component that will offer examples of alternative mitigation strategies if monitoring discovers that currently planned strategies do not meet objectives.

• The plan will report results readily and transparently.



3.2 Goals and Objectives

The goals of the draft WMMP deliberately link predicted Project effects to mitigation, mitigation objectives to monitoring and monitoring results to adaptive management actions. To achieve the goals, specific, measurable objectives have been nested underneath each goal.

• Goal 1: Reduce changes in wildlife habitat availability, landscape connectivity and mortality risk by applying mitigation to reduce predicted effects.

• Objective 1a: Reduce direct habitat loss.

• Objective 1b: Reduce indirect habitat loss.

• Objective 1c: Reduce change to landscape connectivity.

• Objective 1d: Reduce change to mortality risk.

• Goal 2: Monitor effectiveness of mitigation designed to reduce changes in wildlife habitat availability, landscape connectivity and mortality risk.

• Objective 2a: Monitor wildlife recolonization of reclaimed habitats to evaluate trends toward achieving suitable wildlife habitat in the reclaimed landscape.

• Objective 2b: Monitor wildlife occurrence, distribution and relative abundance in lands adjacent to the PDA to evaluate the effectiveness of reducing sensory disturbance.

• Objective 2c: Monitor use of wildlife underpasses at the Athabasca River bridge and bridge to Dalkin Island to evaluate the effectiveness in maintaining landscape connectivity.

• Objective 2d: Monitor the implementation and effectiveness of mitigation to reduce changes in mortality risk and track and determine cause of wildlife mortality associated with the Project.

• Goal 3: Adapt mitigation designed to reduce changes in wildlife habitat availability, landscape connectivity and mortality risk, as necessary, based on monitoring outcomes.

• Objective 3a: Adapt mitigation if wildlife recolonization of reclaimed habitats is not meeting targets.

• Objective 3b: Adapt mitigation to minimize sensory disturbance, as appropriate and possible, based on monitoring outcomes.

• Objective 3c: Adapt mitigation if wildlife are not using underpasses as predicted.

• Objective 3d: Adapt mitigation if wildlife mortality as a result of contact with Project infrastructure or vehicles is not meeting targets.



4 FRONTIER PROJECT EFFECTS

The Project Update (see Volume 3, Section 11) predicted the following key effects of the Project on wildlife.

• Change in habitat availability

• Direct habitat loss - At maximum build-out, the Project will result in the physical disturbance of approximately 29,000 ha of natural vegetation communities and associated wildlife habitat. Wildlife currently occupying the Project disturbance area (PDA) will be progressively displaced as the mine develops, and are expected to be displaced into adjacent habitats.

• Indirect habitat loss - While direct habitat disturbance resulting from the Project will be limited to the PDA, sensory disturbance associated with construction and operational activities (i.e., noise, fugitive light, air traffic) can discourage wildlife from using otherwise suitable habitat adjacent to Project activities, contributing to habitat loss.

• Change in landscape connectivity - The assessment of change in landscape connectivity provided in the Project Update concluded that sufficient minimal and low hindrance movement habitat would remain within the vegetation and wildlife RSA during Project development and operations to support on-going movements of wildlife, both along the Athabasca River and between the Athabasca River and Birch Mountains. Any animals travelling through the PDA during active life of the mine will be deflected around operations, which could result in a “funneling” of animal movements in some areas (i.e., between the mine and the Athabasca River).

• Change in wildlife mortality risk - Development can lead to increases in direct mortality (e.g., vehicle-wildlife collisions) or can alter factors that lead to increased risk of mortality (e.g., increased hunter access). Sources of potential wildlife mortality risk within the active footprint of the mine (including the access road to the site) are listed below:

• direct mortality risk

• vehicle-wildlife collisions

• wildlife interactions with equipment and infrastructure

• wildlife-human conflicts

• indirect mortality risk

• increased hunter access

5 PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND CONSULTATION

5.1 Past Engagement

Indigenous groups have expressed to Teck that their ability to hunt and trap wildlife in preferred harvesting areas is critical to their ability to meaningfully practice their rights. Indigenous groups have also expressed to Teck that their ability to practice their Aboriginal and treaty rights depends on a sufficient amount of resources that are of sufficient quality, including wildlife resources. Teck’s commitment to establish a WMMP, in consultation with Indigenous groups, is intended to help mitigate these concerns.



In terms of engagement on a WMMP, Teck received feedback from Indigenous groups regarding the need to (1) consult Indigenous groups early in the process of developing a WMMP, (2) confirm that their participation is meaningful and (3) engage regulators and decision-makers in the process. This feedback was responded to by hosting workshops prior to Project approval, which has not been done by past Project proponents. Details of this early engagement are discussed below.

At the request of Indigenous groups, Teck initiated collaborative engagement at the earliest phase; that of identifying guiding principles of a WMMP. Consultation was initiated in November 2015 when Teck brought together Indigenous groups1 and regulators to participate in a workshop where participants were asked to focused on providing their views on guiding principles for a WMMP. Indigenous groups and regulators participated in the workshop in good faith, providing Teck with quality feedback and perspectives on guiding principles for developing a WMMP (see Attachment II).

Teck hosted a second workshop in July 2016 where Teck presented the revised set of guiding principles for a WMMP, shaped by Indigenous input. Teck outlined specific changes that were made to the guiding principles (see Attachments III and IV). The objectives of the July 2016 workshop were two-fold:

1. Develop a list of mitigation measures to avoid or reduce effects on wildlife. The guiding principles that had been developed collaboratively were applied in the workshop as a filter for a broad range of mitigation measures that could be considered for a WMMP.

2. Collect detailed input on future WMMP consultation preferences. Through this feedback, Teck learned that Indigenous groups felt consultation with land users and community members was lacking and that the wildlife mitigation and monitoring planning could benefit from their input.

5.2 Future Engagement

In response to feedback regarding the lack of inclusion of land user and community members in wildlife mitigation and monitoring planning to-date, Teck has proposed next steps to Indigenous groups that would provide the opportunity for land users and community members to provide direct input into developing wildlife mitigation measures. Input will refine this draft WMMP that was developed in response to JRP IR 7.14.

It is difficult to prescribe the consultation plan at this early stage given Teck’s approach is to adjust the consultation plan in real time in response to Indigenous group input. However, as a starting point, the following milestones have been identified for the continued development of the WMMP:

• In 2017, subject to logistical constraints, Indigenous groups that chose to participate will have developed community-specific plans to describe Indigenous values and to recommend mitigation to reduce effects on these values (see Attachment V).

• By end of 2019, subject to logistical constraints, Teck will receive detailed documentation (e.g., written report, annotated photo-journal, documentary) of Indigenous values and recommendations to mitigate effects on the values by the Indigenous groups that chose to

1 Teck invited Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN), Fort McKay First Nation (FMFN), Fort McKay Métis, Mikisew Cree First Nation (MCFN), Fort Chipewyan Métis (Métis Local 125), Fort McMurray Métis (Métis Local 1935) and Fort McMurray #468 First Nation to participate. ACFN elected not to participate in the collaborative engagement process and instead directed Teck to ACFN’s technical reviews and statements of concerns for their input into wildlife mitigation and monitoring planning.



participate. Recommendations will be considered and incorporated into the WMMP where possible within one year of receiving them.

• In the more distant future, once mitigation has been explored, consultation will switch to focus on monitoring the effectiveness of the mitigation and adapting mitigations, should monitoring results indicate that mitigations are not performing as predicted.

5.3 Indigenous Agreements

Where Teck and an Indigenous group have entered into an Agreement regarding the Project, Teck will uphold ongoing commitments for engagement that have been established in the Agreement. The Agreements include mechanisms for ongoing community input and consultation of environmental and impact management and monitoring throughout the Project lifecycle, including wildlife mitigation and monitoring planning.

6 MITIGATION PROGRAM

A mitigation program has been developed to reduce changes in wildlife habitat availability, landscape connectivity and mortality risk, as described in Section 4. Teck has already committed to these mitigation measures and expects that they would become part of the anticipated EPEA approval for the Project.

6.1 Summary of Planned Mitigation Measures

The mitigation program is summarized in Table 7.14-1 and discussed in Section 6.2.

Goal 1: Reduce changes in wildlife habitat availability, landscape connectivity and mortality risk by applying mitigation to reduce predicted effects.

• Objective 1a: Reduce direct habitat loss.

• Objective 1b: Reduce indirect habitat loss.

• Objective 1c: Reduce change to landscape connectivity.

• Objective 1d: Reduce change to wildlife mortality risk.



Table 7.14-1: Mitigation Program Overview Potential Project

Effects Mitigation Objectives Mitigation

Change in habitat availability (assessed in Volume 3, Section 11.4 of Project Update)

Reduce direct habitat loss

• Limit the size of the east side access road right-of-way (ROW) and temporary workspace to the extent practical. • Limit the Athabasca River bridge footprint in riparian areas. • Carry out progressive reclamation to reclaim disturbed wildlife habitat as portions of the mine footprint become available. • Develop a weed management plan.

Reduce indirect habitat loss

• Implement strategies to reduce noise and light effects, including design considerations (e.g., Frontier Project plant site engineering and aerodrome operation within regulatory and safety constraints).

• Limiting employee and contractor access to identified areas of high-quality habitat adjacent to Project footprint. Change in landscape connectivity (assessed in Volume 3, Section 11.5 of Project Update)

Reduce change to landscape connectivity

• Carry out progressive reclamation to restore habitat for movement as portions of the mine footprint become available. • To maintain connectivity between Birch Mountains and Athabasca River:

• coordinate development activities with Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL) who acquired the Pierre River Mine oil sands leases formerly held by Shell Canada Limited should CNRL reapply for and develop the Pierre River Mine project

• develop an integrated land management strategy for the Project in consultation with industry, the province, Indigenous communities, and stakeholders

• Provide wildlife passage under both sides of the Athabasca River bridge and river water intake bridge to Dalkin Island to allow north–south wildlife movement along river banks using crossing design considerations (e.g., bridge height and length) outlined in Clevenger and Huijser (2011) and GOA (2011).

• Set up educational signage to limit human use of wildlife underpasses. • Evaluate wing fencing along the approach to crossing passages (at least 2.4 m high for large mammals as per GOA 2011)

as part of the crossing structure design. • Provide appropriate walking substrate along the wildlife underpass. • Create vegetated buffers adjacent to wildlife underpasses to increase movement opportunities for a variety of species. • Provide coarse woody debris (e.g., stumps) along the wildlife underpass to provide cover and increase use by furbearers

and other small mammals. Change in mortality risk (assessed in Volume 3, Section 11.6 of Project Update)

Reduce vehicle–wildlife collisions

• Implement fly-in/fly-out policy for workers to reduce vehicular traffic volume. • Erect wildlife cautionary signage on access roads. • Foster environmental awareness with speed restrictions on access roads report Project-related wildlife fatalities. • Provide vegetation maintenance at roadsides (vegetation will be trimmed regularly to discourage roadside foraging and

prevent visual obstruction of wildlife). • Develop seed mixes for roadside reclamation from less palatable species to reduce wildlife attraction to road edges. • Design the road to maximize line of sight. • Remove road kill as soon as practical.



Table 7.14-1: Mitigation Program Overview (continued) Potential Project

Effects Mitigation Objectives Mitigation

Change in mortality risk (assessed in Volume 3, Section 11.6 of Project Update)

Reduce wildlife interactions with equipment

• Implement preconstruction surveys for active wildlife habitat features (e.g., nests, breeding wetlands) before starting early works.

• Avoid vegetation clearing during the recommended May 1 to August 10 migratory bird-breeding period for the boreal ecozone per Environment Canada guidelines; note that in species at risk habitat, a more conservative breeding window of April 1 to August 31 might apply (Gregoire 2014, pers. comm.); complete nest surveys if clearing activities occur during the breeding window.

• Conduct owl nest search if clearing is scheduled within the non-migratory breeding bird window, March 1 to April 15 (based on Enhanced Approval Process guidelines for barred owl, GOA 2013).

• Reduce on disturbance of amphibian breeding and overwintering habitat (where possible). Reduce effects on

wildlife from interactions with Infrastructure

• Create fuel and chemical spill contingency and response plans. • Confirm adequate spill protection for all fuel storage facilities. • Monitor and maintain waste disposal sites, wastewater storage areas and runoff control structures to prevent surface water

impacts. • During overburden dewatering, intermittently backslope the sides of drainage ditches to allow for wildlife crossings and to

reduce the potential for entrapment. • Use visible markers, such as aviation spheres and spiral vibration dampeners to make transmission lines near waterfowl

staging and potential stopover areas more visible to birds, and where possible, design transmission lines to match the height of surrounding trees to reduce wire strikes by birds.

Reduce wildlife–human conflicts

• Implement a food waste-management strategy to prevent attraction of nuisance wildlife. • Confirm wildlife is not harassed or fed (to prevent habituation). • Provide wildlife awareness training to Project staff and contractors to reduce disturbance and negative human/bear

interactions. • Provide all field staff with bear-aware training courses, personal protective equipment (e.g., bear spray, bear bangers, air

horns) and training on proper use of equipment. • Develop a nuisance wildlife mitigation and monitoring plan in cooperation with the Alberta regulators.

Reduce hunter access • Implement deactivation plans for roads no longer in use. • Prohibit construction and operations personnel and contractors from hunting and trapping while working. • Disallow personal recreational vehicle use onsite. • Prohibit firearms on Project lands or at Project facilities. • Consider requesting a Directors Order to limit public access to the west side of the Athabasca River along Project roads.



6.2 Discussion of Planned Mitigation Measures

The following subsections represent mitigation aimed at avoiding, reducing and reclaiming Project effects on wildlife.

6.2.1.1 Reduce Direct Habitat Loss

The Project will affect wildlife as a result of direct loss of habitat. Direct habitat loss results from the physical removal of habitat through site clearing. Mitigation measures to reduce the effects on wildlife habitat availability focus on re-establishing wildlife habitat (i.e., reclamation):

• To the extent feasible, the Project has been situated outside of areas identified as having relatively high habitat value, for example, northwest of the Project towards the Birch Mountains. The footprint has been reduced to the extent feasible through such measures as the backfilling of pits, placing reclamation material stockpiles over mined land, and making best use of existing facilities and infrastructure. For the current Project mine design, all reasonable steps have been taken to reduce the Project footprint. The PDA has been reduced by 118 ha from the initial design presented in the Integrated Application, and during the updated mine planning stage, the reclamation material stockpile adjacent to the external tailings area (ETA) was moved from the northeast corner to a location adjacent to the aerodrome, helping to reduce the length of the Project perimeter and disturbance to the north.

• The primary means of mitigating direct Project effects on wildlife habitat will be through progressive reclamation of the landscape with forest vegetation and establishment of wetland areas. Reclamation of the closure landscape will focus on generating a sustainable landscape that is designed to promote biological diversity through the generation of landforms with different edaphic conditions and soil substrates. Using the guidelines and habitat requirements for selected target species, along with new recommendations based on landscape ecology principles (e.g., Eaton et al. 2014), will be important for reestablishing a landscape that will provide suitable wildlife habitat and promote recolonization of the landscape for a variety of wildlife species. Overall, the closure landscape will include a variety of upland ecosites and wetland classes (where possible), as well as structural stages (i.e., seral stages) that are accessible to a wide range of wildlife species.

• Teck has also committed to the following mitigation measures to reduce direct habitat loss and degradation:

• limit the size of the east side access road right-of-way (ROW) and temporary workspace to the extent practical

• limit the Athabasca Rive bridge footprint in riparian areas

• develop a weed management plan

• Teck has acknowledged the potential need for biodiversity offsets, preferably located within the vegetation and wildlife RSA (e.g., linear feature closure and restoration, wetland restoration) as a mitigation measure for residual Project effects (see the response to JRP IR 7.15).



6.2.1.2 Reduce Changes in Indirect Habitat Loss

The Project might affect wildlife as a result of indirect habitat loss, which occurs when habitat is physically available, but wildlife do not use it because of sensory disturbance or habitat fragmentation. Indirect effects of sensory disturbance on habitat use will be mitigated by implementing strategies to reduce noise and light effects, including design considerations (e.g., Frontier Project plant site engineering) and limiting access to identified areas of high-quality habitat adjacent to the PDA.

6.2.1.3 Reduce Changes to Landscape Connectivity

The availability of undisturbed habitat for wildlife is important to maintain daily, seasonal and annual movement patterns, particularly since wildlife need to have access to important areas such as seasonal foraging habitat, mineral licks and breeding and calving grounds. Disconnecting habitat areas can result in the loss of otherwise suitable habitat. Mitigation measures for wildlife generally involve providing adequate habitat and habitat connectivity for species to persist adjacent to the PDA and in the region. This limits mitigation measures for maintaining landscape connectivity to outside of the mine footprint.

The primary means of mitigating direct Project effects on landscape connectivity will be through the reestablishment of wildlife habitat (i.e., reclamation of natural vegetation) and reducing sensory disturbance near the outer boundary of the PDA near high quality habitats.

Teck has committed to the following mitigation measures to maintain connectivity between Birch Mountains and Athabasca River:

• carry out progressive reclamation to restore habitat for movement as portions of the mine footprint become available

• coordinate development activities with Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL) who acquired the Pierre River Mine oil sands leases formerly held by Shell Canada Limited should CNRL reapply for and develop the Pierre River Mine project

• develop an integrated land management strategy for the Project in consultation with industry and the province

Teck has committed maintain connectivity along the Athabasca River Valley by:

• provide wildlife passage under both sides of the Athabasca River bridge and river water intake bridge to Dalkin Island to allow north–south wildlife movement along river banks using crossing design considerations (e.g., bridge height and length) outlined in Clevenger and Huijser (2011) and GOA (2011)

• set up educational signage to limit human use of wildlife underpasses

• evaluate wing fencing along the approach to crossing passages (at least 2.4 m high for large mammals as per GOA 2011) as part of the crossing structure design

• provide appropriate walking substrate along the wildlife underpass

• create vegetated buffers adjacent to wildlife underpasses to increase movement opportunities for bison

• provide coarse woody debris (e.g., stumps) along the wildlife underpass to provide cover and increase use by furbearers and other small mammals



6.2.1.4 Reduce Changes in Mortality Risk

Project development and associated activities can lead to increases in direct mortality (e.g., vehicle-wildlife collisions) or can alter factors that lead to increased risk of mortality (e.g., increase hunter access). A wide variety of mitigation by design approaches will be applied to reduce direct mortality risk associated with vehicle collisions, interactions with equipment, infrastructure and process water, wildlife human conflicts and hunter access.

6.2.1.4.1 Reduce Vehicle-Wildlife Collisions

Collisions with vehicles are a potential source of mortality for wildlife. Collision risk is highest for those species that are attracted to roads or are active during twilight or nocturnal. Vehicle mortality can have population level effects for species that have small population size.

Teck has committed to the following mitigation measures to reduce vehicle-wildlife collisions:

• implement fly-in/fly-out policy for workers to reduce vehicular traffic volume

• erect wildlife cautionary signage on access roads

• foster environmental awareness with speed restrictions on access roads report Project-related wildlife fatalities

• provide vegetation maintenance at roadsides (vegetation will be trimmed regularly to discourage roadside foraging and prevent visual obstruction of wildlife)

• develop seed mixes for roadside reclamation from less palatable species to reduce wildlife attraction to road edges

• design the road to maximize line of sight

• remove road kill as soon as practical

6.2.1.4.2 Reduce Wildlife Interactions with Equipment

Direct wildlife mortality associated with vegetation clearing, overburden grading and excavation is expected to be infrequent during the life of the mine. Because of the wetness of the terrain, most areas will be disturbed in winter during frozen ground conditions (i.e., clearing, overburden ditching and dewatering). Some wildlife key indicators, such as black bear, wolverine, muskrat, beaver, western toad and Canadian toad, den or hibernate during winter and might be encountered during winter clearing and ditching activities. These disturbances could lead to an increase in mortality rates for such species overwintering in the PDA.

Teck has committed to the following mitigation measures to reduce wildlife interactions with equipment:

• implement preconstruction surveys for active wildlife habitat features (e.g., nests, breeding wetlands) before starting early works

• avoid vegetation clearing during the recommended May 1 to August 10 migratory bird-breeding period for the boreal ecozone per Environment Canada guidelines; note that in species at risk habitat, a more conservative breeding window of April 1 to August 31 might apply (Gregoire 2014, pers. comm.); complete nest surveys if clearing activities occur during the breeding window



• conduct owl nest search if clearing is scheduled within the non-migratory breeding bird window, March 1 to April 15 (based on Enhanced Approval Process guidelines for barred owl, GOA 2013)

• reducing disturbance of amphibian breeding and overwintering habitat (where possible)

6.2.1.4.3 Reduce Effects on Wildlife from Interactions with Infrastructure

Teck strives to avoid all human-wildlife interactions, including interactions between wildlife and our facilities, equipment and the materials we use as part of our day to day operations and has committed to the following mitigation measures to reduce effects on wildlife from interactions with infrastructure:

• create fuel and chemical spill contingency and response plans

• confirm adequate spill protection for all fuel storage facilities

• monitor and maintain waste disposal sites, wastewater storage areas and runoff control structures to prevent contamination of surface waters

• during overburden dewatering, intermittently backslope the sides of drainage ditches to allow for wildlife crossings and to reduce the potential for entrapment

• use visible markers, such as aviation spheres and spiral vibration dampeners to make transmission lines near waterfowl staging and potential stopover areas more visible to birds, and where possible, design transmission lines to match the height of surrounding trees to reduce wire strikes by birds

6.2.1.4.4 Reduce Wildlife-Human Conflicts

Certain wildlife species can be dangerous in close proximity to humans depending on the situation (e.g., black bear). A human-wildlife interaction is defined as a wildlife species (e.g., coyote) interacting with humans (e.g., aggressive behaviour), camp (i.e., garbage) or infrastructure (i.e., damage or nesting). The nature and frequency of these interactions might require special management considerations and might result in the destruction of problem individuals. For instance, interactions might result in hazing or deterrent measures being implemented or potential re location, if necessary, following consultation with Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) and receipt of appropriate permits. Conflicts with these species will be recorded and tracked on site.

Teck has committed to the following mitigation measures to reduce wildlife-human conflicts:

• implement a food waste-management strategy to prevent attraction of nuisance wildlife

• confirm wildlife is not harassed or fed (to prevent habituation)

• provide wildlife awareness training to Project staff and contractors to reduce disturbance and negative human/bear interactions

• provide all field staff with bear-aware training courses, personal protective equipment (e.g., bear spray, bear bangers, air horns) and training on proper use of equipment

• develop a nuisance wildlife mitigation and monitoring plan in cooperation with the Alberta regulators



6.2.1.4.5 Reduce Hunter Access

Access management efforts will focus on reducing hunting activity in the Project area. Increased access provided by roadways and linear features combined with a higher human presence (i.e., because of the Project work force) can result in an increase in hunting pressure within the Project area. To avoid an increase in harvest pressure, Teck will maintain a hunting prohibition within their lease area for all Project staff and contractors while working or staying in Project lodges.

Teck has committed to the following mitigation measures to reduce hunter access within the Mineral Surface Lease for the Project:

• implement deactivation plans for roads no longer in use

• disallow personal recreational vehicle use onsite

• prohibit firearms on Project lands or at Project facilities

• consider requesting a Directors Order to limit public access to the west side of the Athabasca River along Project roads2

• prohibit construction and operations personnel and contractors from hunting while working

7 MONITORING PROGRAM

2 This mitigation was identified as an option to restrict hunter access to the Ronald Lake bison herd prior to the Alberta Wildlife Act being amended to define bison as a Subject Animal in a defined geographic area where hunting by non-indigenous people is now prohibited.

Goal 2: Monitor effectiveness of mitigation designed to reduce changes in wildlife habitat availability, landscape connectivity and mortality risk.

• Objective 2a: Monitor wildlife recolonization of reclaimed habitats to evaluate trends toward achieving suitable wildlife habitat in the reclaimed landscape.

• Objective 2b: Monitor wildlife occurrence, distribution and relative abundance in lands adjacent to the PDA to evaluate the effectiveness of reducing sensory disturbance.

• Objective 2c: Monitor use of wildlife underpasses at the Athabasca River bridge and bridge to Dalkin Island to evaluate the effectiveness in maintaining landscape connectivity.

• Objective 2d: Monitor the implementation and effectiveness of mitigation to reduce changes in mortality risk and track and determine cause of wildlife mortality associated with the Project.



7.1 Summary of Monitoring Program

A monitoring program has been developed to measure the effectiveness of mitigation in reducing changes in wildlife habitat availability, landscape connectivity and mortality risk as a result of the Project (see Table 7.14-2). The monitoring program is discussed in detail in Section 7.2.

In the oil sands region, industry is required by provincial and federal regulations to monitor environmental impacts of their operations to demonstrate that their facilities operate within predefined performance objectives. Industry is also responsible for assessing and evaluating the trends and levels of environmental change at the longer-term, regional scale, by participating in the Joint Canada-Alberta Implementation Plan for Oil Sands Monitoring (JOSM). Facility performance and regional monitoring activities are complementary, and exchange of information between the two types of monitoring can assist in the evaluation of potential cumulative impacts of the industry on the environment. COSIA’s3 Monitoring Working Group is working to more clearly define the linkages between facility performance and regional monitoring activities so that they are better aligned and complementary. Teck anticipates that these linkages will be more clearly defined by the time the draft WMMP is finalized. As a result, the monitoring program presented herein could be optimized to increase its efficiency and effectiveness.

3 Canada’s Oil Sands Innovation Alliance (COSIA) is an alliance of oil sands producers focused on accelerating the pace of improvement in environmental performance in Canada's oil sands through collaborative action and innovation.



Table 7.14-2: Monitoring Program Overview Potential Project

Effects Mitigation Objectives

Mitigation Monitoring Indicator Metric



• Track reclaimed ecosite and wetland class availability within PDA throughout life of mine.

• All ecosites and wetland classes included in the closure, conservation and reclamation plan.

• Area (ha). • See reclamation

monitoring plan (see the response to JRP IR 6.9[b]).

• Monitor wildlife use within reclaimed habitats, and compare with comparable control areas outside the PDA.

• Possible indicators could include those listed below: • bison (see JRP IR 7.5[f]) • caribou • moose • white-tailed deer • black bear • wolf • lynx • muskrat and/or beaver • selected small furbearer

species • selected waterbird species • selected bat species • selected migratory birds

(including Canada warbler, common nighthawk)

• selected small mammal species (e.g., Microtus, Peromyscus)

• western toad/Canada toad1

• Wildlife species composition and relative abundance in monitoring plots.


• Monitor wildlife use in habitat adjacent to the PDA prior to and during construction and operations.

• Possible indicators could include those listed below: • bison (see JRP IR 7.5[f]) • moose • black bear • selected furbearer species • selected bat species • selected migratory birds

(including Canada warbler)1




Table 7.14-2: Monitoring Program Overview (continued) Potential Project



Change in landscape connectivity (assessed in Volume 3, Section 11.5 of Project Update)

Reduce change to landscape connectivity

• Monitor wildlife use at bridge underpasses under both sides of the Athabasca River bridge and river water intake bridge to Dalkin Island, as well as wildlife use in area between Athabasca River and the PDA north and south of the bridge, prior to and during construction and operations.

• Possible indicators could include those listed below: • bison (see JRP IR 7.5[f]) • moose • white-tailed deer • black bear • wolf • lynx1

• Wildlife species composition and relative abundance in monitoring sites.

• Animal passage success at road or bridge underpasses.

• Monitor wildlife use within reclaimed habitats, and compare with comparable control areas outside the PDA.

• Possible indicators could include those listed below: • bison (see JRP IR 7.5[f]) • moose • white-tailed deer • black bear • wolf • lynx1




• Compliance audit. • Record and investigate interactions.

• All wildlife species. • Number of reported vehicle-wildlife collisions (i.e., mortalities).

• Number of wildlife observed along roads.

• Number of traffic speed violations.



• Birds. • Amphibians. • Other wildlife species.

• Number of equipment-wildlife interactions (i.e., mortalities).

Reduce effects on wildlife from interactions with infrastructure


• Birds. • Other wildlife species.

• Number and type of compliance violations.

• Number of bird mortalities because of collisions with transmission lines or buildings.

• Number of wildlife interactions with infrastructure (e.g., number of non-bird mortalities in tailings areas).



Table 7.14-2: Monitoring Program Overview (continued) Potential Project






• Possible indicators could include those listed below: • bison (see the response to JRP

IR 7.5[f]) • moose • black bear • wolf

• Number and type of compliance violations.

• Number of reported human-wildlife conflicts or interactions.

• Number of nuisance animals removed from the Project site.

Reduce hunter access

• Regional initiatives. • Compliance audit. • Record and investigate interactions.

• No wildlife indicators. • Number of hunting and trapping violations by Project staff.

• Number of hunters or trappers using bridge to west side of the Athabasca River.

NOTES:

1Only a subset of indicators used in the Project Update to assess effects on habitat availability would be selected to evaluate mitigation effectiveness. The monitoring and associated adaptive management focus will be on those species or species groups most likely to provide observable trend data throughout the life of the mine. The following criteria will be considered during the final selection of indicators for the program after further consultation and direction from regulators and Indigenous communities.

• Federal and provincial status (i.e., species at risk and species of management concern). • Species listed as Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA) priority indicators. • Species of ecological, economic and cultural importance. • Species or species group can be accurately detected or measured in the RSA. • The abundance, distribution and habitat selection of the species or species group demonstrates low natural variability in the RSA. • Benchmark data on the abundance, distribution and habitat selection of species and species groups are available for the RSA, or can be collected prior to construction,

as required.



7.2 Discussion of Monitoring Program

Proposed mitigation and monitoring actions are organized by potential Project effects (see Table 7.14-2). The following subsections represent mitigation objectives and the monitoring designed to determine whether or not the mitigation is effective.

7.2.1 Reduce Direct Habitat Loss

The primary means of mitigating direct Project effects on habitat availability will be through progressive reclamation of the PDA with forest vegetation and wetland areas. Teck will track reclaimed ecosites and wetland classes and monitor wildlife use of reclaimed habitats to determine the effectiveness of reclamation.

7.2.1.1 Track Reclaimed Site Type

Reclamation activities within PDA throughout life of mine will be monitored as part of the reclamation monitoring plan (see the response to JRP IR 6.9[b]).

7.2.1.2 Monitor Wildlife Use of Reclaimed Habitats

The composition and relative abundance of indicator species (see Table 7.14-2) will be monitored in reclaimed and comparable natural habitats. The study design will incorporate the following details:

• Reclaimed habitat plots will be established within the various targeted ecosites and wetland classes across the PDA, as per the closure, conservation and reclamation plan (see Volume 1, Section 13 of the Project Update).

• Control (or reference) plots outside of the PDA will be established in similar ecosites and wetland classes with moisture and nutrient regimes and vegetative composition that are comparable to those reclaimed site types within the PDA. The control sites will be established in undisturbed settings within the vegetation and wildlife RSA to the degree possible to reduce the number of factors influencing wildlife occurrence in these areas. The numbers, locations and sizes of monitoring plots will be finalized as mine planning becomes more defined and after further consultation Indigenous communities and regulatory agencies.

• For the first 15- to 20-years after the commencement of reclamation, habitat conditions within reclaimed sites will be in early structural /successional conditions, and any control sites established to provide reference levels of wildlife use will need to be in similar early successional conditions. It is difficult to predict the availability of such sites in the vegetation and wildlife RSA in 20+ years, as they are the result of logging or fire activity. The Richardson fire of 2011, which covered a portion of the vegetation and wildlife RSA, currently provides such early successional conditions and control sites could be established within the burn to provide reference data on wildlife use of such areas.

• Control plots for the region could conceivably be established by JOSM or a provincial monitoring program and optimized to complement reclaimed habitat plots undertaken by industry, and vice-versa (see Section 7.1).

• Currently, the closure, conservation and reclamation plan (see Volume 1, Section 13 of the Project Update) indicates that progressive reclamation will not meaningfully commence until 2034, with the lower slopes of an overburden disposal area being the reclamation focus at this



time. The commencement of wildlife monitoring within the PDA will be dependent on the rate of vegetation establishment on the reclaimed areas, and the proximity of the reclaimed site to mine activities which might prevent wildlife usage of the area. Therefore, Teck does not anticipate this component of the wildlife monitoring program to commence before 2038 to 2040.

• Field methods used to determine wildlife use of the reclaimed landscape are anticipated to be similar to the methods proposed by Hawkes et al. (2013) for early successional reclaimed habitats; potentially including small mammal trapping (i.e., live-trapping), winter track surveys (or remote camera surveys) and songbird surveys. Surveys conducted for the Project Update might also be used (e.g., nocturnal amphibian surveys and common nighthawk surveys). Survey methods might include the use of remote cameras and auditory recording units. Methods will be reviewed against ongoing monitoring programs occurring in the region.

7.2.2 Reduce Indirect Habitat Loss

The primary means of mitigating indirect Project effects on habitat availability is to implement strategies to reduce noise and light effects, including design considerations (e.g., Frontier Project plant site engineering) and limiting access to identified areas of high-quality habitat adjacent to Project footprint. Teck will monitor wildlife use adjacent to the PDA (within the Project Mineral Surface Lease) where effects because of sensory disturbance are predicted to be highest and where mitigation can be implemented, in order to determine mitigation effectiveness. As discussed in the introduction to Section 7.1, Teck will seek opportunities to optimize Project specific monitoring programs in consideration of programs undertaken by JOSM.

The composition and relative abundance of indicator species (see Table 7.14-2) will be monitored in undisturbed plots within the zone of influence (ZOI) and comparable natural habitats to evaluate the effects of sensory disturbance. The study design will incorporate the following details:

• “Impact” plots will be established within progressively wider ZOIs in natural habitat conditions immediately adjacent to a variety of different mine operational features where noise and light mitigation measures can be implemented where there is the greatest likelihood of seeing the effect and where changes can be made to reduce potential effects (e.g., close to the plant and aerodrome). Control plots outside of the PDA will be established in similar habitats. The numbers, locations and sizes of monitoring plots, and the frequency and duration of the monitoring program, will be finalized as mine planning becomes more defined and after further consultation Indigenous communities and regulatory agencies.

• Monitoring will commence once the proposed mine features are operational. • Survey methods might include wildlife cameras, auditory recording units, winter track counts

and/or breeding bird surveys.

7.2.3 Reduce Changes to Landscape Connectivity

The primary means of mitigating changes to landscape connectivity is to carry out progressive reclamation to restore habitat used for movement as portions of the mine footprint become available. A secondary mitigation to reduce changes to landscape connectivity is to provide wildlife passage under both sides of the Athabasca River bridge and river water intake bridge to Dalkin Island. Teck will monitor wildlife use of reclaimed areas and bridge underpasses to determine mitigation effectiveness. As part of



the monitoring of the bridge, Teck is also planning to monitor wildlife use between the PDA and the Athabasca River within Teck’s Mineral Surface Lease.

7.2.3.1 Monitor Wildlife Use of Bridge Underpasses and along Athabasca River within Teck’s Oil Sands Leases

A monitoring program will be designed to measure the effectiveness of the wildlife passage under both the Athabasca River bridge and river water intake bridge to Dalkin Island to allow north–south wildlife movement along river banks. The monitoring focus would be the access road corridor at and in the immediate vicinity of the proposed crossing structure.

The monitoring program for the Athabasca River bridges will focus on wildlife use at bridge underpass and surrounding area along the Athabasca River valley using remote cameras, as the target species will be medium-sized to large mammals. Evidence of wildlife use in the underpass will be determined using camera capture rates. Teck anticipates that the monitoring program would start following construction of the bridge.

The composition and relative abundance of indicator species (see Table 7.14-2) will also be monitored in undisturbed natural habitats north and south of bridge underpasses to measure mitigation effectiveness of the underpasses. Sampling locations focused on established game trails or low hindrance movement areas will be added to the study design. To maximize efficiency in field logistics and sampling effort, sampling plot locations might partially overlap with those established for monitoring direct and indirect habitat effects (e.g., control plots) discussed in Sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 above. Opportunities would also be sought to optimize Project specific monitoring programs in consideration of programs undertaken by COSIA and JOSM (see Section 7.1). Monitoring of wildlife use (and movement) would commence prior to construction to determine baseline wildlife movement and use.

7.2.3.2 Monitor Wildlife Movement Across Reclaimed Habitats

The composition and relative abundance of indicator species (see Table 7.14-2) will be monitored in reclaimed and comparable natural habitats, as described in Section 7.2.1.2, to determine the effectiveness of reclamation in facilitating wildlife movement through the vegetation and wildlife RSA. As reclaimed areas age and offer patches of increased security cover they will become available to wildlife for across mine movements. Teck anticipates that this will occur in the post-closure period, as the sequencing of progressive reclamation in the current conceptual CC&R plan (see Volume 1, Section 13, Figures 13.5-7a and 13.5-7b of the Project Update) has not been designed to develop a defined movement corridor across the PDA during the operational life of the mine. The ability and willingness of wildlife to move across the closure landscape will largely be interpreted from the wildlife metrics collected on the reclaimed treatment plots discussed in Section 7.2.1.2.

7.2.4 Reduce Changes in Mortality Risk

The primary means of mitigating mortality risk is a collection of measures to reduce human-wildlife interactions, including interactions with infrastructure. Teck will track incidental wildlife observations and mortalities and human-wildlife interactions on the Project site, and conduct compliance audits to confirm mitigation measures to reduce human-wildlife interactions and wildlife interactions with infrastructure are implemented. Additionally, Teck will investigate any Teck-related wildlife mortalities to adapt mitigation measures as required (see Section 8 for more information).



7.2.4.1 Compliance Audit

A wildlife mitigation audit will be conducted annually to confirm that the mitigation measures are conducted as planned.

7.2.4.2 Record and Investigate Interactions

Commencing with Project development activities and continuing throughout the life of the mine, monitoring efforts would be restricted to the active mine footprint and along the access road and transmission lines leading to the site from the Athabasca River. Where animal mortalities are recorded, an investigation will be conducted into the circumstances leading to the event, and whether adjustments to operational protocols or mitigation designs are required (see Section 8 for more information).

7.2.5 Traditional Use

Teck has offered to support the planning and implementation of an excursion within the terrestrial local study area prior to any Project-related disturbance (see Attachments V). An objective of the excursion is to describe Indigenous access values and to recommend mitigation to avoid or reduce effects on the Indigenous access values. Detailed documentation (e.g., written report, annotated photo-journal, documentary) of Indigenous values and recommendations to mitigate effects on the values will allow the incorporation of workable mitigation measures. Excursions may be repeated to monitor mitigation effectiveness.

8 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Adaptive management is a systematic process for continually improving management policies and practices by learning from the outcomes of operational programs. Its most effective form – "active" adaptive management – employs management programs that are designed to experimentally compare selected policies or practices, by evaluating alternative hypotheses about the system being managed (BCFR 2011). However, not all situations require active adaptive management.

• Active adaptive management is best applied when it is difficult to identify best practices, because of uncertainty, but prospects for reducing uncertainties appear good. Active adaptive

Goal 3: Adapt mitigation designed to reduce changes in wildlife habitat availability, landscape connectivity and mortality risk, as necessary, based on monitoring outcomes.

• Objective 3a: Adapt mitigation if wildlife recolonization of reclaimed habitats are not meeting targets.

• Objective 3b: Adapt mitigation to minimize sensory disturbance, as appropriate and possible, based on monitoring outcomes.

• Objective 3c: Adapt mitigation if wildlife are not using underpasses as predicted.

• Objective 3d: Adapt mitigation if wildlife mortality as a result of contact with Project infrastructure or vehicles is not meeting targets.



management involves comparing selected practices using scientific experiments, monitoring the outcomes and adjusting the direction of practices in light of what the experiments reveal.

• Passive adaptive management is best applied when best practices are known (e.g., through collective experience, science), but opportunities to better predict the environmental performance of the practices are available through monitoring and opportunities to refine or “adapt” the best practices are available. Passive adaptive management does not rely on deliberate experimental comparison of two or more selected practices.

• The simplest form of adaptive management emphasizes Teck’s aspiration to continually improve environmental performance. Teck’s continual improvement process is well described by the Shewhart Cycle: Plan-Do-Check-Act, or “Adapt”. This process is not as formal as active or passive adaptive management but is perhaps the most pervasive at Teck operations.

The level of adaptive management rigor is determined based on an assessment of:

• uncertainty and its effect on our ability to determine the best practices to employ

• the likelihood of reducing uncertainty, and determining the best practices to employ, through an adaptive management program

• the ability to change best practices based on the outcome of the adaptive management program; adaptive management cannot help when there is no way to change practices

Teck’s adaptive management program is organized into four main components (see Figure 7.14-1):



Figure 7.14-1: Teck Adaptive Management Process



1. Define the Problem – Includes an assessment of the uncertainty associated with the mitigation effectiveness, the likelihood that the uncertainty can by reduced and/or, the opportunities to refine or “adapt” the best practices.

2. Design the Adaptive Management Process – Based on the problem defined in point 1, the adaptive management program can be designed, starting with determining the best approach to adaptive management (active, passive or Plan-Do-Check-Act). Considerations for design of the program include: data analysis methods and frequency, predicted trajectories for indicators, triggers for action and potential adaptations.

3. Implement the Mitigation, Monitor its Effectiveness and Evaluate the Effectiveness – Once Project development begins and the mitigation is in place, effectiveness monitoring will commence and observed trends will be compared to predicted trajectories. A sequence of actions is triggered if monitoring data indicate that environmental performance is poorer than predicted.

4. Adjust the Mitigation as Required – If adjustments to mitigation are required, a work plan will be followed. Any required notifications and / or approvals will be obtained before acting to confirm that all interested/affected parties are well informed.

8.1 Define the Problem

To reduce Project effects on wildlife, Teck has identified effects pathways, applied mitigation to reduce the effects, assessed residual effects and identified that biodiversity offsets (see the response to JRP IR 7.15) are appropriate for residual effects. Teck is confident that best practices to reduce Project effects have been identified. Nonetheless, some opportunities to refine or “adapt” the best practices are apparent, as discussed below:

• The majority of mitigation measures proposed for the Project, particularly those related to reducing mortality risk to wildlife, are effective with little inherent uncertainty; they are accepted, standard industry practices. We are confident that best practices to reduce such Project effects have been identified in most cases and that mitigation effectiveness monitoring is likely to reveal only minor refinements to these best practices, if any. The mitigation measures are easily modified, if required.

• Mitigation to reduce changes to landscape connectivity are limited, particularly for a development the size of the Project; therefore, they cannot be meaningfully incorporated into an adaptive management framework, except for the wildlife crossing under the Athabasca River bridge and river water intake bridge to Dalkin Island.

• Mitigation to reduce indirect loss of habitat (i.e., sensory disturbance due to light and/or noise) are limited, particularly for a large mining operation such as the Frontier Project. For example, while specifications for limiting noise and light from some operating equipment are available, there is little ability to control cumulative levels from open pit operations or large processing plants. Therefore, they cannot be meaningfully incorporated into an adaptive management framework, except for mitigation to reduce sensory disturbance associated with the plant site or aerodrome (e.g., changes in lighting or planes used).

• Progressive reclamation can be effectively monitored and adapted based on monitoring outcomes; therefore, the likelihood of reducing the uncertainty in the effectiveness of reclamation is high.



8.2 Design the Adaptive Management Process

A Plan-Do-Check-Act adaptive management approach, as opposed to passive or active, is appropriate for the mitigation measures listed in Table 7.14-3 primarily because:

• The mitigation measures listed in Table 7.14-3 are accepted, standard industry practices with little inherent uncertainty, are effective and are easily modified if required.

• The qualitative measurements associated with effectiveness monitoring of the mitigation measures listed in Table 7.14-3 align with Teck’s most simple and most common form of adaptive management.

• Teck is confident that best practices to reduce such Project effects have been identified in most cases and that mitigation effectiveness monitoring is unlikely to indicate the need for major refinements to these best practices.

A passive adaptive management approach, as opposed to Plan-Do-Check-Act or active, is appropriate for the mitigation measures listed in Table 7.14-4 primarily because greater uncertainty exists in the effectiveness of the mitigation measures but the likelihood of reducing this uncertainty is high through monitoring and refinement of the mitigation based on monitoring outcomes. The adaptive management program for these mitigation measures is the focus throughout the remainder of Section 8. The process for adaptive management includes the following components, which are discussed in more detail in the following subsections:

• monitor the effectiveness of the mitigation measures and evaluate monitoring results to determine if adaptations are warranted

• if adaptations are warranted, develop a plan of action to identify the best adaptations and to implement them

• execute the plan of action and adapt mitigation measures



Table 7.14-3: Adaptive Management Program – Plan-Do-Check-Act Potential Project Effects

Mitigation Objectives Mitigation Options for Adaptations to Mitigation



• Limit the size of the east side access road ROW and temporary workspace to the extent practical.

• Limit the Athabasca River bridge footprint in riparian areas. • Develop a weed management plan.

• Access road and bridge footprint size to be finalized prior to commencement of construction. Options for modifying footprint size after construction are limited to progressive closure and reclamation of temporary workspace in areas of high quality habitat.


• Limit access to identified areas of high-quality habitat adjacent to Project footprint.

• Access requirements adjacent to the PDA to be finalized prior to commencement of construction. Should roads conflict with high occupancy habitats, road closures and re-routes are an adaptive option.



• Implement fly-in/fly-out policy for workers to reduce vehicular traffic volume.

• Erect wildlife cautionary signage on access roads. • Foster environmental awareness with speed restrictions on

access roads report Project-related wildlife fatalities. • Provide vegetation maintenance at roadsides (vegetation will

be trimmed regularly to discourage roadside foraging and prevent visual obstruction of wildlife).

• Develop seed mixes for roadside reclamation from less palatable species to reduce wildlife attraction to road edges.

• Design the road to maximize line of sight. • Remove roadkill as soon as practical.

• Mitigation measures proposed for reducing vehicle/wildlife collisions are accepted, standard industry practices with little inherent uncertainty. All mitigation measures can be evaluated based on the documentation of adverse interactions (i.e., deaths, injuries) or near misses between wildlife and vehicles, which would then inform ongoing operational policies on how to better manage and prevent such events. All mitigation measures are easily modified, if required.


• Implement preconstruction surveys for active wildlife habitat features (e.g., nests, breeding wetlands) before starting early works.

• Avoid vegetation clearing during the recommended May 1 to August 10 migratory bird-breeding period for the boreal ecozone per Environment Canada guidelines; note that in species at risk habitat, a more conservative breeding window of April 1 to August 31 might apply (Gregoire 2014, pers. comm.); complete nest surveys if clearing activities occur during the breeding window.

• Conduct owl nest search if clearing is scheduled within the non-migratory breeding bird window, March 1 to April 15 (based on Enhanced Approval Process guidelines for barred owl, GOA 2013).

• Reduce disturbance of amphibian breeding and overwintering habitat (where possible).

• Mitigation measures proposed for reducing equipment/wildlife interactions are accepted, standard industry practices with little inherent uncertainty. All mitigation measures can be evaluated based on the documentation of adverse interactions (i.e., deaths, injuries) or near misses between wildlife and equipment, which would then inform ongoing operational policies on how to better manage and prevent such events. All mitigation measures are easily modified, if required.



Table 7.14-3: Adaptive Management Program – Plan-Do-Check-Act (continued) Potential Project Effects

Mitigation Objectives Mitigation Options for Adaptations to Mitigation

Reduce effects on wildlife from interactions with infrastructure

• Create fuel and chemical spill contingency and response plans.

• Confirm adequate spill protection for all fuel storage facilities. • Monitor and maintain waste disposal sites, wastewater storage

areas and runoff control structures to prevent contamination of surface waters.

• During overburden dewatering, intermittently backslope the sides of drainage ditches to allow for wildlife crossings and to reduce the potential for entrapment.

• Use visible markers, such as aviation spheres and spiral vibration dampeners to make transmission lines near waterfowl staging and potential stopover areas more visible to birds, and where possible, design transmission lines to match the height of surrounding trees to reduce wire strikes by birds.

• Mitigation measures proposed for reducing infrastructure/wildlife interactions are accepted, standard industry practices with little inherent uncertainty. All mitigation measures can be evaluated based on the documentation of adverse interactions (i.e., deaths, injuries) or near misses between wildlife and infrastructure, which would then inform ongoing operational policies on how to better manage and prevent such events. All mitigation measures are easily modified, if required.


• Implement a food waste-management strategy to prevent attraction of nuisance wildlife.

• Confirm wildlife is not harassed or fed (to prevent habituation). • Provide wildlife awareness training to Project staff and

contractors to reduce disturbance and negative human/bear interactions.

• Provide all field staff with bear-aware training courses, personal protective equipment (e.g., bear spray, bear bangers, air horns) and training on proper use of equipment.

• Develop a nuisance wildlife mitigation and monitoring plan in cooperation with the Alberta regulators.

• Mitigation measures proposed for reducing human/wildlife interactions are accepted, standard industry practices with little inherent uncertainty. All mitigation measures can be evaluated based on the documentation of adverse interactions (i.e., deaths, injuries) or near misses between wildlife and personnel, which would then inform ongoing operational policies on how to better manage and prevent such events. All mitigation measures are easily modified, if required.



Table 7.14-4: Adaptive Management Program – Active / Passive Mitigation Measures Warranting Adaptive

Management

Uncertainty that Might Necessitate Adaptive

Management Metrics of Mitigation

Effectiveness Threshold or Target Triggering

Adaptive Management Options for Adaptations to

Mitigation

Carry out progressive reclamation to reclaim wildlife habitat as portions of the mine footprint become available.

While considerable advances have been made in the last two decades on landform, soil and revegetation prescriptions for mine closure landscapes, quantitative information on wildlife usage of closure landscapes is limited. Adaptive management practices are required to further evaluate reclamation success from a wildlife perspective and to inform future reclamation practices.

Wildlife use of reclaimed, closure landscape would be evaluated based on species composition and relative abundance, as measured by: • wildlife cameras • auditory recording units • winter track counts • breeding bird surveys • bat detection surveys • amphibian call surveys • small mammal trapping

Evaluating the success of reclamation and associated wildlife use of the PDA will require direct comparisons of wildlife metrics between reclaimed habitats and comparable natural habitat conditions (i.e., control sites) situated outside of the PDA and outside of ZOIs surrounding the PDA. Performance thresholds or milestones for identifying the need for adaptive management measures will be based on the metrics being recorded in the control sites.

Early reclamation (2034 to 2040) on the lower slopes of external disposal area (EDA) 2 will provide opportunities to evaluate the effectiveness of soil and habitat reconstruction, and the degree of wildlife use of these areas mid-way through the life of the mine. Learnings from these areas will be used to adapt soil and revegetation prescriptions, if necessary, for future reclamation areas to improve wildlife values.

Design plant site and aerodrome to reduce noise and light levels on wildlife use, within approved safety limits.

There are numerous studies examining the effects of both noise and light from industrial activities and facilities on wildlife; however, the response of wildlife to facilities and aerodromes is limited in the oil sands region.

Wildlife use of habitat affected by sensory disturbance from the plant site and aerodrome would be evaluated based on species composition and relative abundance, as measured by: • wildlife cameras • auditory recording units • breeding bird surveys • bat detection surveys • amphibian call surveys

Evaluating the need for adaptive management measures will require direct comparisons of wildlife metrics between sensory-affected habitats and comparable natural habitat conditions (i.e., control sites) situated outside of ZOIs surrounding the PDA. Performance thresholds or milestones for identifying the need for adaptive management measures will be based on the metrics being recorded in the control sites.

Mitigation measures that have been proposed to reduce sensory disturbance include: • evaluate additional design

considerations for the plant site or aerodrome

• evaluate different lighting options and orientations

• evaluate different plane options for transporting workers to site



Table 7.14-4: Adaptive Management Program – Active / Passive (continued) Mitigation Measures Warranting Adaptive

Management

Uncertainty that Might Necessitate Adaptive

Management Metrics of Mitigation

Effectiveness Threshold or Target Triggering

Adaptive Management Options for Adaptations to

Mitigation

Provide wildlife passage under both sides of the Athabasca River bridge and river water intake bridge to Dalkin Island to allow north–south wildlife movement along river banks using crossing design considerations (e.g., bridge height and length) outlined in Clevenger and Huijser (2011) and GOA (2011).

There is an extensive volume of literature on the types and effectiveness of crossing structures for wildlife associated with roads, bridges, and above-ground pipelines. However, the willingness of wildlife to utilize such structures is dependent on a number of factors, including: • the degree to which the

linear development in question is physically impeding wildlife movement across the ROW

• human activity levels along the linear development

• availability of vegetative cover adjacent to and leading up to the crossing structure

• the wildlife species involved This introduces a level of uncertainty around the effectiveness of crossing structures, and adaptive management practices are required to further evaluate crossing success, and identify design modifications during operations, if necessary.

The effectiveness of crossing structures would be evaluated based on wildlife responses to the bridge/roads in question. Responses would be categorized as: • direct crossing of

road/bridge ROW using crossing structure

• direct crossing road/bridge ROW not using crossing structure

• deflected movement along the road/bridge ROW before using crossing structure

• deflected movement along and then across the road/bridge ROW, without using crossing structure

• failed crossing of road/bridge

Wildlife responses to the road/bridge ROW would be captured and categorized from: • wildlife cameras • winter track counts

Performance thresholds for identifying the need for adaptive management measures will be based on the proportion of successful vs unsuccessful crossings of the road/bridge in the monitoring locations, as well as comparisons with control plots north and south of the bridge.

Mitigation measures that have been proposed to improve the effectiveness of the crossing structures include: • set up educational signage

to limit human use of wildlife underpasses

• evaluate wing fencing along the approach to crossing passages (at least 2.4 m high for large mammals as per GOA 2011) as part of the crossing structure design

• provide appropriate walking substrate along the wildlife underpass

• create vegetated buffers adjacent to wildlife underpasses

All mitigation measures are easily modified if required, to improve crossing success.



8.2.1 Identify Indicators, Trajectories and Triggers

Mitigation objectives, metrics of effectiveness, and targets have been identified in Table 7.14-4. To design the adaptive management process, we will develop a desired trajectory or performance objectives through time for each wildlife metric (e.g., species composition and abundance), as described below, so that trends observed through monitoring can be evaluated against desired objectives. The desired performance objectives can be used to define a trigger to indicate when observed wildlife metrics vary substantially from the objectives:

• To evaluate wildlife use of reclaimed habitats, wildlife use trajectories and associated management triggers would be developed from baseline reference data collected on control sites in undisturbed habitats outside of the PDA. If the composition or relative abundance of indicator species in reclaimed areas are not approaching the values in natural habitats with similar site type conditions and structural stages, then management actions will be required.

• To evaluate effects of sensory disturbance from the plant site and aerodrome, wildlife use trajectories and associated management triggers would be developed from baseline reference data collected on control sites in undisturbed habitats outside of the PDA. If the composition or relative abundance of indicator species in reclaimed areas are not approaching the values in natural habitats with similar site type conditions and structural stages, then management actions will be required.

• To evaluate wildlife use of underpasses, crossing structures performance would be based on observed wildlife responses to the bridge/roads in question. Responses would be categorized as described below. Management triggers would, in turn, be developed based on an acceptable level of crossing success by selected wildlife species.

• direct crossing of road/bridge ROW using crossing structure

• direct crossing road/bridge ROW not using crossing structure

• deflected movement along the road/bridge ROW before using crossing structure

• deflected movement along and then across the road/bridge ROW, without using crossing structure

• failed crossing of road/bridge

8.3 Implement the Mitigation, Monitor its Effectiveness and Evaluate the Effectiveness

The schedule for implementing the mitigation, and subsequent monitoring, was discussed in Section 7.2 and is summarized below for the reader’s convenience. Early monitoring data will be used at the end of each monitoring year to track environmental performance against the performance objectives to determine if any of the identified management actions are needed to bolster environmental performance.

• Wildlife habitat reclamation is scheduled to commence in 2034 and associated monitoring between 2038 and 2040. The frequency of monitoring is yet to be determined.



• Once wildlife crossing structures are schedule to be in service, associated monitoring would commence. The frequency of monitoring is yet to be determined.

Should indicators adhere to targets, business will be conducted as usual. Should indicators not meet targets, a sequence of Project-specific actions will be triggered. Early in the sequence of actions are steps to determine whether or not measurement error exists. In other words, rigorous investigation of observations is required before mitigation is adjusted. An example of a sequence of actions is provided below.

1. Verify the monitoring results and investigate.

• Discuss monitoring results with data collectors. Has a measurement error been identified? If yes then continue monitoring, if no then verify the observed trend and investigate, as required.

2. Verify the observed trend and investigate as required.

• Compare monitoring results with a trajectory to the reclamation endpoint as well as the trajectory predicted for the wildlife species in question, based on comparisons with comparable natural habitat control sites. If results are following a positive trajectory, then monitoring continues. If they are not, then solutions are identified and implemented as required.

• Discuss monitoring results with the Reclamation Working Group(s).

3. Identify and evaluate adaptations, as required.

• Based on monitoring results, identify the reasons for not meeting targets. An understanding of the reasons will determine which solutions to consider. For example, if wildlife species composition and relative abundance, as well as the diversity of vegetation species, within a reclamation area is not meeting ecosite or wetland class targets, measures such as supplemental planting may be required to enhance species diversity or abundance, or application of fertilizer could enhance growth of existing species.

• Make decisions about mitigation adaptations (see Table 3b) and/or review additional mitigation options in light of monitoring results. Develop a work plan to adapt mitigation measures or monitoring.

8.4 Adjust the Mitigation

In this component of the adaptive management plan, the work plan developed as per the process outlined in Section 8.3 will be implemented. Any required notifications and / or approvals will be obtained before acting to confirm that all interested / affected parties are well informed.



9 IMPLEMENTATION

9.1 Roles and Responsibilities

The Roles and Responsibilities section will outline specific roles and responsibilities for Teck employees and contractors related to executing the plan.

9.2 Information Management and Reporting

Effective monitoring and record keeping is required to review the implementation of the plan, to measure the effectiveness of management and to develop and implement improvements as required. The Information Management and Reporting Section will outline how the monitoring results and adaptive management actions will be recorded, stored, tracked and made available to interested parties.

9.3 Change Management

The Change Management section will outline the process for changing any part of this plan. Changes might be required as part of ongoing adaptive management, or for other reasons. Any significant proposed amendments to the plan will be presented to interested parties before the plan is formally updated.

9.4 Communication Management

The Communication Management section will outline how findings of the program will be communicated to interested parties.



10 REFERENCES

BCFR (BC Ministry of Forests and Range). 2011. Defining adaptive management. Available at: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/amhome/Admin/index.htm Accessed May 2017.

Clevenger, A.P. and M.P. Huijser. 2011. Wildlife Crossing Structure Handbook, Design and Evaluation in North America. Publication No. FHWA-CFL/TD-11-003. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C., USA.

Eaton, B.R., J.T. Fisher, G.T. McKenna and J. Pollard, 2014. An Ecological Framework for Wildlife Habitat Design for Oil Sands Mine Reclamation. Oil Sands Research and Information Network, University of Alberta, School of Energy and the Environment, Edmonton, Alberta. OSRIN Report No. TR-67. 83 pp.

GOA (Government of Alberta). 2011. Planning Considerations for Wildlife Passage in Urban Environments. Best Practice Guideline March 2011.

GOA. 2013. Integrated Standards and Guidelines. Enhanced Approval Process. December 1, 2013. 94 pp.

Hawkes, V.C., K.N. Tuttle, B.G. McKinnon, and N. Hentze. 2013. Early successional wildlife monitoring on reclaimed plots in the oil sands region. 2010–2012 comprehensive report. LGL Report EA3248. Unpublished report by LGL Limited environmental research associates, Sidney, BC, for CEMA – The Reclamation Working Group (RWG), Fort McMurray, AB. 59 pp + Appendices.

Personal Communications:

Gregoire, P. 2014. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada. Personal communication regarding nesting periods of migratory bird species at risk. Received August 20, 2014.



Attachment I Relevant Approvals



Attachment II Teck Frontier Wildlife Mitigation and Access Management Workshop Summary 2015 11 05

Teck Resources Limited Suite 1000, 205 – 9th Ave. S.E. Calgary, AB Canada T2G 0R3

+1 403 767 8500 Tel +1 403 265 8835 Fax www.teck.com

Workshop Summary

Frontier Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring and Access Management Workshop Summary Date: November 05, 2015

Place: Sawridge Hotel and Conference Centre, Fort McMurray

Attendees:

Bori Arrobo – Fort McKay First Nation

Jean L’Hommecourt – Fort McKay First Nation

Lorne Gould – Fort McKay First Nation (Representative)

Eddison Lee-Johnson – McKay Métis Community

Len Hansen – Fort McMurray Métis

Gillian Donald – Fort McMurray Métis & Fort Chipewyan Métis (Representative)

Kim Dertien – Fort Chipewyan Métis (Representative)

Margret Luker – Mikisew Cree First Nation

Harry Cheecham – Fort McMurray #468 First Nation

Tony Boschmann – Fort McMurray #468 First Nation

Dave Green – Fort McMurray #468 First Nation (Representative)

Charlene Richards – Aboriginal Consultation Office

Joann Skilnick – Alberta Environment & Parks

Michael Hunka – Alberta Energy Regulator

Matthew Boeckner – Environment Canada

Richard Wiacek – Environment Canada

Court Berryman – Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Stephanie Martens – Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Domitien Mugemana – Canadian Environment Assessment Agency

Carolyn Dunn – Canadian Environment Assessment Agency

Karen Halwas – Teck

Robin Cockell - Teck

Patricia Hughes – Teck

Carly Hoogeveen – Teck

Yvonne Walsh – Teck

Sheila Risbud – Teck

Scott McKenzie – Teck

Neil Sandstrom – Teck

Julia Stanislawski – Stantec

Ross Eccles – Stantec

Lisa Schaldemose – Schaldemose Associates

Page 2

Meeting Agenda: See Appendix A: Wildlife and Access Mitigation Workshop Agenda

Meeting Objectives

The purpose of the workshop was to inform the Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring and Access

Management Plans.

1. Build upon engagement with communities and regulators

2. Review what we have heard from previous engagement

3. Open dialogue on mitigation and monitoring

Wildlife

Access

4. Gain better understanding of multiple viewpoints

5. Identify principles

• Common

• Competing

• Unique

Welcome, Prayer, Introductions, Safety Message, Meeting Guidelines

Teck representative, Yvonne Walsh, welcomed workshop participants for the day and provided an

overview of the focus of the wildlife mitigation and monitoring and access management workshop,

including the following points:

Teck’s main goal for the workshop is to have open dialogue and explore wildlife mitigation and

access management principles. This will hopefully lead to a foundation to advance a framework

for wildlife mitigation and monitoring plan and access management plan.

Teck is in the very early stages of developing these plans and this is one of the first steps.

Further, Teck wouldn’t expect to be finalizing these plans until potentially 2 years from now, in

late 2017.

These workshops, including the Fisheries workshop tomorrow, will be considered consultation,

but Teck does not consider participation in the workshops as support for the Project.

The commitment from Teck will be to: develop plans that reflect communities’ input; take back

feedback that is shared; treat all feedback with respect and give them fulsome consideration;

adopt feedback where we can; and, discussing feedback that has not been adopted.

Harry Cheecham of Fort McMurray #468 First Nation gave the opening prayer for the session. Teck

representative, Neil Sandstrom, provided the safety share on safe use of the winter road between Fort

Chipewyan and Fort McMurray. Lisa Schaldemose was introduced as the facilitator for the session.

Workshop participants completed round table introductions.

Presentation by Teck

Teck representatives, Karen Halwas and Robin Cockell, provided a presentation on Wildlife Mitigation

and Monitoring and Access Management. Please refer to Appendix B: Wildlife Mitigation and Access

Management Presentation to review presentation slides. The presentation provided the workshop

participants with an overview, from Teck’s perspective, of:

Page 3

What Teck has heard:

o Teck reviewed the concerns that it has heard related to wildlife and access for the

Frontier Project Area. These concerns have been expressed by Communities through

Traditional Use Studies, Third Party Technical Reviews, Statements of Concern, and

through ongoing engagement and consultation for the Frontier Project from 2008

through to the present.

What Teck has done:

o In preparation for the Wildlife Mitigation and Management Plan and Access

Management Plan Teck reviewed work completed to date.

o Key activities have included: (1) Comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment,

including identification of key wildlife mitigation; (2) Additional western science work

for wildlife mitigation; (3) Funded Community-led Traditional Use Studies and Cultural

Impact Assessments.

What Teck is doing:

o Teck is working to develop a preliminary framework for a Wildlife Mitigation and

Monitoring Plan.

o Going forward, Teck will continue to engage and gather input from Aboriginal

communities and regulators, consider and incorporate input related to mitigation and

monitoring that has been received from Aboriginal communities and regulators, build

upon what has been done, and advance the wildlife mitigation and monitoring and

access management planning.

Comments and questions during the presentation included the following:

Interest in the Bridge access and Teck’s plan for a bridge:

o Question on whether Teck has considered the impact of the bridge to Commercial river

traffic. Teck stated that they have not thought about River traffic, such as barges; no

dredging/marking.

The River road that goes to Poplar Point – important that when the mine goes in, the access for

the River road is maintained.

Access to site by air or ground commute? Teck intends to have their employees Fly in/Fly out

and doesn’t want to impose long travel times or increased highway traffic (and safety) to a large

amount of employees by traveling the highway, it is important to reduce traffic between

Frontier site and Fort McMurray.

o Inquiry on the potential to use the CNRL air strip. Teck doesn’t believe this is an option

as it would add at least an hour commute via bus in addition to the flight time, which is

not acceptable for travel time as well as safety considerations.

Teck’s presentation concluded with two slides communicating Teck’s principles related to wildlife

mitigation and monitoring and access management. Teck’s principles were outlined as general, ‘wildlife’

specific and ‘access’ specific.

Page 4

General principles:

Meet regulatory requirements

Create Plans that are informed by Aboriginal input

Create Plans that are informed by western science

Create Plans that are informed by stakeholders

Wildlife-specific principles:

Mitigates predicted effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat during all phases of the Project

Monitors the effectiveness of mitigation and adapts as necessary based on monitoring results

Access-specific principles:

Ensures safety and security on Teck leases during project activities

Facilitates access for land users

Presentation by Communities

Community representatives presented their community principles related to wildlife mitigation and

monitoring and access management.

Fort McKay First Nation

See Appendix B: Wildlife Mitigation and Access Management Presentation for Fort McKay First Nation’s

presentation. Additional comments provided by Fort McKay First Nation:

In regards to the bridge, will it block wildlife for passing through? Wildlife movement is

important to Fort McKay.

Community based monitoring program is in progress – Request to apply it to the Project.

When land users access mine site, they want to do this safely.

It is discouraging when Fort McKay First Nation can’t access traditional areas and can’t harvest.

Safety is an issue – always anticipate something to arise no matter what travel method is used.

Fort Chipewyan Métis

See Appendix B: Wildlife Mitigation and Access Management Presentation for Fort Chipewyan Métis’

presentation. Additional comments provided by Fort Chipewyan Métis:

Workshop participation feedback: It is good that Teck is enabling these discussions to happen,

but Fort Chipewyan Métis would like to see a combined setting. Fort Chipewyan Métis invite

Teck to come to Fort Chipewyan to meet directly with community members, so they can get

involved (in mitigation planning).

In preparing for this presentation, Fort Chipewyan Métis Land Users posed an interesting

question - how Teck is going to manage what’s not there? For example: traditionally used areas,

resources, trails, etc. that will no longer be present. Include community based monitoring in

plan; Fort Chipewyan Métis have the resources (skills) available to participate/carry out such

monitoring.

Community members should have priority access (to access food) – this should not be a hassle

or be stressful when needing to get through the site. Community members may spend multiple

days on the land, so this should be considered in managing access.

Page 5

Mikisew Cree First Nation (MCFN)

See Appendix B: Wildlife Mitigation and Access Management Presentation for MCFN’s presentation.

Additional comments provided by MCFN:

Teck shouldn’t limit slides for presentations.

Not all issues can be addressed by Teck alone, there needs to be discussions with both Federal

and Provincial governments, as they are responsible as well.

This should be a shared decision making process. Industry and Government should not come in

to these workshops with answers already developed for communities but, instead, include

communities in the discussion.

Communities want to be involved. In order to get buy-in, you [Teck] need to get commitment

from the communities. Otherwise, they will make it much more challenging, especially if the

proponent is just meeting regulatory requirements.

For the workshop breakout sessions, MCFN does not see the prioritization of the principles as a

useful exercise (one is not more important than the other) and therefore they will not be

participating in this portion of the workshop.

Fort McMurray Métis, McKay Métis and Fort McMurray First Nation #468 representatives did not

provide a slide show but were generous enough to provide workshop participants with their initial

thoughts on important principles as well as additional commentary.

Fort McMurray Métis

Fort McMurray Métis noted that the application is keeping them busy; including their participation in

the Ronald Lake Bison Herd Technical Team, and meetings, such as the one they recently had with CEAA.

Fort McMurray Métis identified key areas that they will see their principles focusing on, in particular:

Youth participation is important. There are limitations to the amount of funding available to

educate young people on traditional land use, and have them participate in programs.

Road blocks to youth engagement need to be knocked down.

o Youth are quiet and generally don’t want to speak, so we need to speak for them. This

will benefit the company and benefit the kids.

Access management will be important – before, during, and after operations. What [will

happen] next?

Protection of the Ronald Lake Bison Herd is a key factor. The goal should be to keep the herd

from going North where it’s known that there are diseases. Uncertain how to maintain disease

free status.

Excited about the opportunity for this Project to change standards on [engaging communities in

mitigation and monitoring]. For example, a sustainable mining program – but this doesn’t

explain how to do things.

Define clear standards for all of the communities that they can all agree to.

Monitoring should also involve youth- Expand it so that youth can help to implement

plans. Formalize processes with Teck to ensure this occurs.

Page 6

Meet with communities locally and bring more people to the conversation. Discuss in more

detail and time to learn what is in the application and how can be used for problem solving.

Post meeting note: Fort McMurray Métis held a community engagement meeting with land users on

December 3rd, 2015 as part of their participation in the Wildlife Mitigation, Access Management and

Fisheries Offsetting workshops. See Appendix E: McMurray Métis WMMP AMP FHCL Feedback for a

summary of the engagement session.

McKay Métis Community

(Fort McKay Métis’ comments to be confirmed).

Fort McMurray #468 First Nation

Fort McMurray #468 First Nation spoke in regards to the following items:

Concerns related to the Project not being considered within their traditional territory by the

provincial government. In having an intimate connection to the river and interest in the projects

along the river, this is where they identified their key interest in the Frontier Project lies.

Fort McMurray #468 First Nation is surrounded by pipelines, and therefore there is a lot of

linear disturbance. This highlights concerns related to access management and reduced wildlife.

To have participation in all plans is far more inclusive and collaborative.

Consideration needs to be given to managing access year-round, as communities do access the

land throughout the year, and not just seasonally.

Fort McMurray #468 First Nation has been discouraged with conversations they’ve had with

government.

o They have Rights to live there – so they should be included in the process.

How can Teck engage government and engage communities to make the process more

collaborative?

Fort McMurray #468 First Nation suggested that Teck does not lose focus [on these plans] after

they get approval – this [mitigation] will be important for future generations.

Identification, Categorizing and Ranking Principles – Breakout Groups

The workshop was divided into three groups, each group was tasked with identifying principles from

Aboriginal communities, regulators and Teck, for both Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring and Access

Management. Each group categorized the principles as (1) common, (2) competing or (3) unique.

Once principles were categorized, a representative from each community (or organization) was provided

with two sets of red, blue and green stickers to rank the principles as ‘high’, ‘medium’ and ‘low’ priority.

Note that each set of stickers consisted of 3 of each color coding to allow for consideration of all group

work to reflect on.

Groups then presented to the larger group on the outcomes of their breakout group work.

Please refer to Appendix C- Wildlife Mitigation and Access Management Breakout Group Data for

detailed information on each breakout group’s outcomes.

Page 7

Next Steps

Teck commits to: develop plans that reflect communities’ input; take back feedback that is shared; treat

all feedback with respect and give that feedback full consideration; adopt feedback where we can; and,

discuss feedback that has not been adopted.

The next workshop will be in Spring 2016. While the agenda has not been set, we expect to report back

on the common, competing and unique principles and how they can factor into the preliminary

framework for a Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring and Access Management Plans.

Additional Information

Additional topics that were raised during the workshop but were outside of the workshop’s scope, were

captured in a “Parking Lot” to ensure they were not lost. Please refer to Appendix D: Wildlife Mitigation

and Access Management Parking Lot Notes to review these items.



Attachment III Wildlife and Access Mitigation Workshop Summary 2016 07 13

Teck Resources Limited Suite 1000, 205 – 9

th Ave. S.E.

Calgary, AB Canada T2G 0R3


Workshop Summary

Frontier Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and Access Management Plan Workshop Summary Date: July 13, 2016 Place: Sawridge Hotel and Conference Centre, Fort McMurray Meeting Agenda: See APPENDIX A Attendees: Bori Arrobo – Fort McKay First Nation Eber Araujo – Fort McKay First Nation Jean L’Hommecourt – Fort McKay First Nation Lorne Gould – Fort McKay First Nation (Representative) Jennifer Gerbrandt – Fort McMurray Métis David Waniandy – Fort McMurray Métis Len Hansen – Fort McMurray Métis Fred Fraser – Fort Chipewyan Métis (Opening Prayer only) Kim Dertien – Fort Chipewyan Métis (Representative) Gillian Donald – Fort McMurray Métis & Fort Chipewyan Métis (Representative) Russell Noseworthy – Mikisew Cree First Nation Margaret Luker – Mikisew Cree First Nation Tony Boschmann – Fort McMurray #468 First Nation Velma Whittington – Fort McMurray #468 First Nation Charlene Richards – Aboriginal Consultation Office Toni Hafso – Aboriginal Consultation Office Joann Skilnick – Alberta Environment & Parks Richard Waiceck – Environment Canada Karen Halwas – Teck Patricia Hughes – Teck Carly Hoogeveen – Teck Robin Cockell – Teck Yvonne Walsh – Teck Neil Sandstrom – Teck Lisa Schaldemose – Schaldemose & Associates Inc. (Facilitator)


th Ave. S.E.



Workshop Summary

Context This workshop was the second in a series of engagement forums with Aboriginal communities and

regulators seeking input into Teck’s Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (WMMP) and Access

Management Plan (AMP).

Workshop #1 – WMMP & AMP Planning Kick-off (November 2015) – Presented ‘what we have

heard’ from Aboriginal communities with respect to wildlife and access and ‘what we have

done’ to date to assess the effects and respond to concerns. Engaged Aboriginal communities

and regulators in the development of common guiding principles for both the WMMP and AMP,

which will provide direction for actions under the plans.

Workshop #2 – Measures to Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Wildlife and Access (July 2016) –

Presentation of common guiding principles and Teck’s mitigation and monitoring framework

(effects → mitigation → monitoring → reporting → adaptive management). Moving into the

post-effects step of mitigation and monitoring framework, engaged Aboriginal Communities and

regulators on suggestions for mitigation of potential effects. Teck also introduced its

Biodiversity Management Plan process as a related, though separate, future plan to address

effects and to achieve a net positive impact on biodiversity.

Meeting Objectives Review the feedback received during workshop #1 and the guiding principles that were

determined.

Brainstorm additional ideas for mitigation of potential effects.

Discuss ideas for continued engagement on the WMMP and AMP.

Introduce Teck’s approach to biodiversity management.

Welcome, Prayer, Introductions, Safety Message, Meeting Agenda Review Teck representative, Yvonne Walsh, welcomed workshop participants for the day and led roundtable

introductions for attendees. Fred Fraser (Fort Chipewyan Métis), delivered the opening prayer. Patricia

Hughes presented the safety share. Lisa Schaldemose was introduced as the facilitator for the day.

Wildlife and Access Mitigation Presentation by Teck See APPENDIX B to review presentation slides.

Teck representatives, Neil Sandstrom, Karen Halwas, and Robin Cockell presented an overview of:

Workshop #1 engagement and the effort that was undertaken by Teck to incorporate the results

of that workshop.

Presentation of the revised guiding principles for both WMMP and AMP


th Ave. S.E.



Workshop Summary

o Included a breakdown of where Teck, Aboriginal communities and regulators are

aligned, and where we are not aligned.

Introduction of Teck’s mitigation and monitoring framework.

Mitigation measures, proposed by both Teck and Aboriginal community

members/representatives, associated with the key wildlife and access management issues.

Questions and comments received during Teck’s presentation:

In reviewing the update of guiding principles for WMMP, MCFN suggested that Traditional

Ecological Knowledge (TEK) should be included beside “scientifically rigorous” to demonstrate

that they are equally important.

In reviewing the areas that Teck and Aboriginal communities are aligned on the guiding

principles, Fort Chipewyan Métis raised the concern that they feel that their main principle of

‘meaningful engagement’ is not adequately captured in the principles. Fort Chipewyan Métis

suggested that there is a disconnect between the land users, as the ones that are giving input,

and Teck, as the ones receiving the input. Fort Chipewyan Métis recommended that Teck make

a concerted effort, going forward, to engage directly with land users to bridge the gap between

them.

o Teck indicated that this has been a key message received from Aboriginal communities;

therefore, Break out session #2 will be focused on receiving more detailed feedback on

how Aboriginal communities would like to be engaged on the WMMP and AMP moving

forward.

MCFN noted for the provincial and federal governments in attendance at the workshop that the

current baseline data requirements are not satisfactory and that baseline work for the Project

should go beyond what the current regulations require.

Teck indicated that some guiding principles that were recommended during workshop #1

(consistent supply of traditional food, wildlife availability for current and future traditional use,

and wildlife fit to eat) are beyond Teck’s or any individual operator’s control.

Fort Chipewyan Métis / Fort McMurray Métis suggested that Teck be required to align with the

biodiversity management framework for Lower Athabasca Regional Plan (LARP).

o Teck clarified that the outcomes listed within LARP are beyond Teck to achieve, as a

single proponent, but Teck will contribute as will all operators. Teck is happy to discuss

potential contributions with Aboriginal communities in the future.

In reviewing the AMP principles, multiple changes were requested, which include:

o MCFN requested to change “Is informed by stakeholders” to “Is informed and supported

by stakeholders”.


th Ave. S.E.



Workshop Summary

o Action #1: Teck to consider update AMP principle to state “Is informed and supported

by stakeholders”.

o MCFN requested that “considers Rights holders” is reflected in principles.

o Action #2: Teck to consider incorporating “considers Rights holders” into principles.

o Fort McKay First Nation requested that “reasonable access” is reflected in principles.

o Action #3: Teck to consider the use of “timely” in principles.

MCFN asked how Teck has managed access elsewhere at their other mining operations.

o Action #4: Teck will follow up with other operations to confirm how access is generally

managed and report back to workshop participants.

Fort McKay First Nation inquired about what the plan will be for existing traditional trails.

o Teck stated that with community input, existing trails could be mapped early.

Alternative routes could be developed prior to the loss of existing trails (or portions of

trails) as a result of Project development.

Fort McKay First Nation stated that it will be important for Teck to provide the communities

with updates of what trails are changing or being removed well in advance of impact so

community members are aware of the changes to the land and don’t try to access land through

areas that they can no longer get through.

Fort Chipewyan Métis / Fort McMurray Métis suggested that it could be possible to include the

AMP as an Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) approval condition so that it

could be more regulated as opposed to an internal process for Teck.

Fort McKay First Nation suggested that Teck include aspects of the “how” access would be

managed in the AMP so that the concepts would not be lost in the event of staff changeover.

o Teck agreed that this would be a good idea.

While discussing Teck’s mitigation and monitoring framework, Fort Chipewyan Métis inquired

on how Cultural Impact Assessments would inform mitigations or be captured, as many of the

identified impacts are cumulative and therefore aren’t captured in the Project’s effects.

o Teck indicated that through working with Aboriginal communities to develop WMMP /

AMP, we hope to receive recommendations to mitigate cultural impacts.

Fort Chipewyan Métis expressed concerns regarding Teck’s ability to mitigate the intangible

effects of the Cultural Impacts Assessment, particularly in the absence of socio-cultural

mitigations.

o Teck would like to work with Aboriginal communities to understand recommended

measures to mitigate the intangible effects to socio-cultural values.

Fort McMurray #468 First Nation suggested the concept of “Change the hunt / Change the

gatherer” in which Teck provides the communities with another reason to be on the land, which

could be a monitoring function. This could include planning travel corridors so that community


th Ave. S.E.



Workshop Summary

members can do “the hunt” which would now become “the sampling/monitoring”. This is a

different kind of hunt to protect their land and transfer traditional knowledge to youth.

While discussing mitigation to avoid and minimize negative effects to access, MCFN expressed

concern that Teck needs to acknowledge that they are removing a significant area of the land

and that the land has significant resources on it. In addition, Teck will be opening up access to

this land inadvertently to employees. There are some things that Teck cannot mitigate and it

needs to be acknowledged as a loss. This is potentially a permanent loss and there is no way to

tell some community members that there is a benefit.

Fort McKay First Nation expressed concern regarding the need for compensation for loss of

land; mitigation is not enough. The [Athabasca] River is connected to hunting lands, and there

will be large water withdrawals. There are effects to hunting and Treaty Rights, what is Teck

going to do to compensate for that?

o Teck explained that while the workshops are focused on mitigation, there are

discussions that happen outside of the workshops between Teck and the communities

regarding additional community benefits and compensation.

Breakout Group Discussion & Plenary Session Having carefully considered your feedback after workshop #1 (November 6, 2015), we focussed on

discussions, not presentations, during workshop #2 (July 12, 2016). Two break-out group sessions were

undertaken.

Breakout Session #1: Wildlife and Access Mitigation Brainstorm

In breakout session #1, participants brainstormed potential mitigations for both wildlife and access.

Groups then presented their findings to the plenary.

Please see APPENDIX C to review the material from breakout session #1.

Breakout Session #2: Next Steps for Continued Engagement

In breakout session #2, participants were asked to complete the “Questionnaire on Continued

Engagement” and submit the completed questionnaire to Teck to help inform future engagements.

Teck will be reviewing feedback received from questionnaires that were completed in breakout session

#2 and providing feedback on potential next steps for engagement.


th Ave. S.E.



Workshop Summary

Teck’s Approach to Biodiversity Stewardship – Presentation Teck provided workshop participants with an outline of their commitment to “integrate biodiversity

conservation throughout all stages of business and production activities” (Code of Sustainable Conduct,

Teck Resources Ltd, July 2009), Teck’s vision for Biodiversity, Teck’s approach to achieving biodiversity

and Teck’s implementation of a Biodiversity Management Plan.

Questions and comments during Teck’s presentation:

Fort Chipewyan Métis / Fort McMurray Métis stated that it is great that Teck is developing a

BMP and it would be beneficial to review the existing work that has been done in the region for

Teck to draw upon. Fort Chipewyan Métis / Fort McMurray Métis expressed interest in

opportunities that may come out of this.

o Teck indicated that they would be interested to learn more about the existing efforts on

Biodiversity in the region.

Fort McKay First Nation expressed concern that biodiversity does not incorporate Aboriginal

people as a species under its umbrella and that First Nations consider themselves a part of the

biodiversity of the land. It is important for people to be able to practice their Treaty Rights.

Closing & Next Steps Yvonne Walsh spoke about Teck’s commitment to: develop plans that reflect communities’ input; take

back feedback that is shared; treat all feedback with respect and give that feedback full consideration;

adopt feedback where we can; and, discuss feedback that has not been adopted.

Teck is committed to reviewing all the material and information out of the workshop and to developing

clear next steps to: (1) incorporate mitigation suggestions where possible and (2) develop a process that

meets the needs of how the communities prefer to be engaged.

Additional Information A Parking Lot was provided to capture suggested mitigations that would more appropriately fall under

the Conservation, Closure and Reclamation Plan or Biodiversity Management Plan. A suggestion for

‘progressive reclamation’ was carried forward to the CCR Plan and a suggestion for the ‘clean up

(restoration) of legacy seismic lines’ was carried forward to the BMP’.



Attachment IV Wildlife and Access Mitigation Workshop Presentation 2016 07 13

Frontier Project Wildlife and Access Mitigation Workshop July 13, 2016

Welcome

2

Opening Prayer

3

Safety Message

4

Roundtable Introductions

5

Workshop Objectives

1. Review the feedback received during workshop #1 and the guiding principles that were determined.

2. Brainstorm additional ideas for mitigation of potential effects. 3. Discuss ideas for continued engagement on the WMMP and AMP. 4. Introduce Teck’s approach to biodiversity management.

6

Workshop Format

WMMP & AMP • Presentation - Review Workshop #1 and present the guiding principles • Breakout Session - Brainstorm additional ideas for mitigation / share

results Ideas for Continued Engagement • Teck’s perspective on the importance of WMMP and AMP engagement • What we’ve heard to date on engagement preferences • Breakout Session – Questionnaire for continued engagement

Biodiversity Management • Presentation - Teck’s

approach to biodiversity management followed by Q&A session 7

Opening Remarks

8

9

Review of Efforts to Date

Review of Efforts to Date

Workshop #1 • Teck presented “what we’ve heard” and

“what we’ve done” with respect to concerns regarding wildlife and access

• To kick off engagement on the Frontier WMMP and AMP, we explored principles for the plans

Effort After Workshop #1 • Teck has reviewed the feedback • Compiled principles for WMMP and AMP • Updated the planning framework

10

11

WMMP Principles

Teck’s WMMP Principles

Principles on November 5, 2015

Updated Principles based on workshop #1 results

Teck will develop and implement a WMMP that: • Meet regulatory requirements • Meets or exceeds regulatory

requirements • Is among the best in the region

• Create plans that are informed by Aboriginal input

• Is informed by Aboriginal input

• Create plans that are informed by western science

• Is scientifically rigorous

• Create plans that are informed by stakeholders

• Is informed by stakeholders

12 * Strikethrough text indicates a deletion; red text indicates an addition

Teck’s WMMP Principles (cont’d)


Update Principles based on workshop #1 results

Teck will develop and implement a WMMP that: • Mitigates predicted effects on

wildlife and wildlife habitat during all phases of the Project

• Mitigates predicted effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat during all phases of the Project

• Monitors the effectiveness of mitigation and adapts as necessary based on monitoring results

• Monitors the effectiveness of mitigation and adapts as necessary based on monitoring results

• Considers and aligns where appropriate and possible with regional monitoring

• Reports results transparently


Alignment

Some recommended principles are implicit: • Meaningful and lasting engagement • Maintain sufficient habitat to sustain wildlife • Ronald lake bison, species at risk, migratory birds,

species important to communities • Minimize impacts to migration routes • Avoid → Minimize → Restore • Measurable performance targets • Considers cumulative impacts Some recommended principles fit elsewhere: • Maintains biodiversity; offsets (biodiversity

management plan) • Intact ecosystems (reclamation and closure plan) • Strive for progressive reclamation (reclamation and

closure plan)

14

Alignment (cont’d)

Teck commits to exploring some recommended principles during the development and implementation of the WMMP: • Incorporate rigorous land user

and indigenous knowledge research

• Include culturally important community wildlife indicators in monitoring programs

• Incorporate community / youth involvement

15

Not Yet Aligned

Teck’s Principles do not include: • Agreement on baseline and project effects • Outcomes beyond our control, for example:

o Consistent supply of traditional food o Wildlife available for current and future traditional use o Wildlife fit to eat

But we can (as per the framework discussion coming up): • Conduct pre-construction monitoring to build the baseline, as

required • Include specific targets / performance objectives in the WMMP

16

17

AMP Principles

Teck’s AMP Principles


Updated Principles based on workshop #1 results

Teck will develop and implement an AMP that: • Meets regulatory requirements • Meets or exceeds regulatory

requirements • Is among the best in the region

• Is informed by Aboriginal input • Is informed by Aboriginal input • Create plans that are informed by

western science • Is scientifically rigorous

• Is informed by stakeholders • Is informed by stakeholders • Ensures safety and security on

Teck leases during project activities

• Ensures safety and security on Teck leases through all phases of the project from clearing to end of mine life


Teck’s AMP Principles (cont’d)


Update Principles based on workshop #1 results

Teck will develop and implement an AMP that: • Facilitates access for

land users • Facilitates access for all land users

• Is based in mutual respect and transparency

• Considers access regionally across adjacent leases

• Considers both land and water access • Considers seasonal land use activities

• Provides flexibility wherever possible


Alignment

Some recommended principles are implicit:

• Abides by all laws • Meaningful and lasting engagement through all phases of project from

planning to end of mine life • Plan to include consideration for, and implementation during, all phases

of project from clearing to reclamation

20

Alignment

Some recommended principles are implicit:

• Consider species at risk/sensitive species and other environmental impacts with regard to road placement

• Teck to be knowledgeable on who is gaining access through and around leases

• Avoidance of cultural and spiritual sites

• Preserve meaningful access where there are opportunities

21


Teck commits to exploring other recommendations during the development and implementation of the AMP:

• Meaningful inclusion of TEK/IK • Youth involvement • Consider place-based cultural

activities • Provide access to conservation

offset areas • Expedient Access/Nexus Model

22


Teck commits to incorporating the following recommendations in the AMP:

• Alternate access to be provided

prior to loss of original access • Consider impacts of linear

features and wildlife priority areas • Cultural and land use training for

staff & land users • Honour place-based names

23

Not Yet Aligned

Conflicting Principles

• Maintaining vs Restricting Access • Maintaining Access vs Ensuring Safety • Access for Aboriginal vs Non Aboriginal Land Users

24

25

Break

26

WMMP & AMP Planning Framework

Planning Framework - Overview

27

Effects

Mitigation

Monitoring Reporting

Adaptive Management

Planning Framework - Effects

28

Effects

Mitigation


Adaptive Management

SOCs

SIRs

EIA

CIAs

Planning Framework - Mitigation

29

Effects

Mitigation


Adaptive Management

Mitigation & Monitoring Framework

SOCs

SIRs

EIA

CIAs

Avoid

Reclaim

Minimize

Offset

Mitigation Hierarchy

30

+ Additional Conservation Actions

Offset Implementation & Monitoring

- Rehabilitation

Minimize

Avoidance

Wildlife and Access Mitigation Brainstorm

31

Effects

Mitigation


Adaptive Management

Mitigation & Monitoring Framework

SOCs

SIRs

EIA

CIAs

Avoid Minimize

Wildlife Mitigation

Key concepts to avoid and minimize effects to wildlife: • Consider timing of activities to avoid sensitive /

important life stages (e.g., mating, birthing, rearing) • Minimize sensory disturbance (e.g., light, noise) • Minimize footprint (e.g., common corridors, low

impact methods, best practices) • Minimize barriers to wildlife movement (e.g.,

wildlife passage under bridges, breaks in snowbanks alongside roads)

• Minimize human / wildlife interactions (e.g., minimize attractants, speed limits)

• Increase public awareness of the need to minimize effects (e.g., educate non-Aboriginal hunters about culturally important species)

32

Access Mitigation

Key concepts to avoid and minimize negative effects to access: • Enable access (e.g., escorted, alternatives) • Minimize avoidance of traditional land use • Minimize staff recreational use of traditional

lands

33

34

Break-out Session #1


TASK 1: Wildlife Mitigation Brainstorm (10:15am – 10:45am) • Based your workshop preparatory work, write your ideas to avoid

or minimize effects (habitat availability, landscape connectivity, mortality risk, abundance and distribution and biodiversity) to wildlife on sticky notes*.

• Ideas to reclaim or offset effects go to a parking lot for consideration in other plans.

35

* Before posting a mitigation, ask and answer the question, “Does it meet the guiding principles?”

Break-out Session #1 (cont’d)

TASK 2: Access Mitigation Brainstorm (10:45am – 11:15am) • Based your workshop preparatory work, write your ideas to avoid

or minimize effects (direct loss of access, indirect loss of access, increased competition amongst traditional land users, and increased non-Aboriginal use) to access on sticky notes.

• Are there changes in access that benefit traditional land users? • Ideas to reclaim or offset effects go to a parking lot for

consideration in other plans. * Before posting a mitigation, ask and answer the question, “Does it meet the guiding principles?”

36

Break-out Session #1 (cont’d)

TASK 3: Sharing Results (11:15am – 11:45am) • Each break-out group will report their outcomes to the larger

group

37

38

Lunch

39

Continued Engagement

The Importance of Engagement

40

Overview of Workshop #1

We heard a variety of engagement preferences: • Meaningful engagement

throughout the duration of the project (i.e., development, monitoring and reporting, reclamation); close collaboration; partnership; one-on-one meaningful collaborative process

• Information sharing • Direct community participation;

field-related technical advisors; land-users

• Hold workshops in communities

41

42



TASK 1: Questionnaire for Continued Engagement (12:55pm – 1:25pm) • Based on your workshop preparatory work, complete the

“Questionnaire on Continued Engagement”

TASK 2: Submit Completed Questionnaire (1:25pm – 1:30pm) • Seal the completed “Questionnaire on Continued Engagement”

in the envelope at your table and submit to Lisa

43

44

Biodiversity Management

Vision for Biodiversity

45

Read more at: http://www.teck.com/responsibility/our-commitment/policies/code-of-sustainable-conduct/code-of-sustainable-conduct

<Original signed by>


46

Our sustainability focus areas are: Air, Biodiversity, Community, Energy and Climate Change, Our People and Water


47

We will achieve a net positive impact on biodiversity by maintaining or re-establishing self-sustaining landscapes and

ecosystems that lead to viable long-term and diverse land uses in areas where we operate.

Approach to Achieve our Vision

48

We implement our biodiversity mitigation hierarchy at our sites, which moves us toward our vision of achieving a net positive impact on biodiversity

+ Additional Conservation Actions

Offset Implementation & Monitoring

- Rehabilitation

Minimize

Avoidance

Approach to Achieve our Vision

49

We are focused on developing and implementing comprehensive biodiversity management plans for each of our operations. These

plans are designed to implement the biodiversity mitigation hierarchy.

Biodiversity Management Plans

• A biodiversity management plan is a high-level document that describes a Teck operation’s approach to achieving a net positive impact on biodiversity.

• A biodiversity management plan: o Identifies and prioritizes biodiversity

elements at the site o Summarizes risks and impacts that the

site poses to these elements o Presents a plan to achieve net positive

impact for each priority biodiversity element

o Develops a list of activities required to implement the biodiversity management plan

50

Biodiversity Management Plans

51

Approach • We consider three key

questions: o What biodiversity

features exist? o Which biodiversity

features have special value?

o How can our activities affect biodiversity features

Procedure • Nine steps are followed to

develop a biodiversity management plan

Frontier Biodiversity Management Plan

A biodiversity management plan for Frontier is under development. Details of the biodiversity management plan are provided in our response to SIR 131, including: • How the Frontier biodiversity management plan will help

determine appropriate habitat offsets • A schedule for advancing the biodiversity management plan

52

Frontier Biodiversity Management Plan

Steps 1 - 9 Schedule Steps 1- 4 Steps 1 - 4 are covered by the information included in the

Project Update; we will be compiling this information in the format of the biodiversity management plan by Q3 2016

Step 5 Once the anticipated EPEA approval for the Project is received

Step 6 Work has been initiated Step 7 Depends on Steps 5 and 6. Further clarity regarding

conservation offsets as an emerging area of regulation will be required to quantitatively undertake this step

Steps 8 & 9 Once the Project has been sanctioned by Teck’s Board of Directors (planned to occur 2019) and moves toward first oil (planned for 2026)

Adaptive Management

Throughout life of Project 53

Example - Elk Valley, BC Operations

Our biodiversity activities in the Elk Valley can be grouped into three categories: 1. Biodiversity management plans – The same process as outlined

here for Frontier 2. Conservation lands assessment and management – Some

opportunities for off-site biodiversity offsets were outlined 3. Other biodiversity projects – fish habitat bank

54

Other Examples

• As of the end of 2015, all of Teck’s operating sites (11 mines and one smelter) had Biodiversity Management Plans in place.

• Fording River Swift biodiversity management plan: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/p374/d38579/1422310582473_wbGWJGvdvg20pssffHqRWSLkh5qkQPSLClYxTLJ0k4D2X7bv1T1p!1378338455!1422287613351.pdf

55

56

Biodiversity Management Plan Questions & Answers

Closing Remarks

57



Attachment V Request for Scope of Work Fort Chipewyan Métis Local 125 2017 01 20

1 January 2017 Frontier Project

Request for Scope of Work

1 Introduction This request for a scope of work invites Fort Chipewyan Métis to conduct work that will support Teck’s

development of the Detailed Fisheries Offsetting Plan (DFOP), Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring Plan

(WMMP) and Access Management Plan (AMP) for the proposed Frontier Oil Sands Mine and, ultimately,

influence the form and content of these plans.

DFOP - Teck will provide up to $5,000 to prepare a draft scope of work to create a ranked list of

fisheries research and/or data collection projects of interest to Fort Chipewyan Métis

community (see Section 2 for more detail).

WMMP / AMP - Teck will provide up to $10,000 to prepare a draft scope of work to undertake

an excursion (i.e., group hunting / camping trip) within the Frontier Local Study Area (LSA) (see

Section 3 for more detail). The purpose of the excursion would be to: (1) experience and

document traditional practices, (2) describe indigenous values and (3) identify mitigation that

may help Teck to avoid, minimize or restore effects to values.

Please submit your proposed scopes of work to support the DFOP and WMMP / AMP by March 31,

2017, along with your invoice (maximum $15,000).

2 Support for the DFOP

2.1 Background Under the Fisheries Offsetting Framework for Frontier, which was discussed in April 2014 with

Aboriginal communities (Workshop #1) and presented in the Project Update (Volume 1, Section 15.4.3),

Teck committed to consider fisheries offsetting options in addition to the fish habitat compensation

lake. Based on ideas that were raised during discussion in April 2015 (Workshop #2), one of these

additional fisheries offsetting ideas was a complementary measure [“…investments in data collection

and scientific research related to maintaining or enhancing the productivity of commercial, recreational

or Aboriginal fisheries”]. Through discussions over the course of Workshops #3 (November 2015) and #4

(July 2016), the complementary measure concept has evolved into the proposal that Teck put forward in

October 2016 (Appendix 1). Please review Appendix 1 as a reminder of the current complementary

measure concept.

Phase 1 of the current complementary measure concept is to prepare a draft scope of work to create a

ranked list of fisheries research and/or data collection projects of interest to Fort Chipewyan Métis.

Phase 2 is to implement the scope of work and deliver the ranked list of community identified fisheries

research and/or data collection projects to Teck. Phase 3, which will occur in the future, will be to

conduct a fisheries research and/or data collection project, selected from the ranked list generated in

Phase 2. Prior to Phase 3, Teck will define the process for selecting fisheries research and/or data


collection projects from community-ranked lists. The selection process will be transparent and fully

disclosed.

2.2 Overview of Deliverables, Timelines and Budgets In Phase 1, Fort Chipewyan Métis will prepare a draft scope of work to develop a ranked list of fisheries

research and/or data collection projects by March 31, 2017. In discussion with Teck, the draft scope of

work will be finalized and then approved by June 30, 2017. Once approved, Fort Chipewyan Métis will

execute the scope of work and deliver a list of ranked research and/or data collection projects to Teck

by December 31, 2017 (Table 1).

Table 1: Draft DFOP Support - Deliverables, Timelines and Budget

Deliverable Timeline Budget

Phase 1 – Prepare a Draft Scope of Work

Draft scope of work March 31, 2017 Up to $5,000

Final scope of work June 30, 2017

Phase 2 – Deliver a Ranked List of Fisheries Research and/or Data Collection Projects

Ranked list of fisheries research

and/or data collection projects December 31, 2017 Up to $15,000

Phase 3 – Conduct a Fisheries Research and/or Data Collection Project

In the future, once the Section 35(2) Authorization for Frontier is issued, should the Frontier Project receive

regulatory approval and be sanctioned by Teck’s Board of Directors.

2.3 Requested Format and Details to Include in Draft Scope of Work With multiple Aboriginal communities providing DFOP support, draft scopes of work in similar formats

would be very helpful. Suggested key headings to organize your draft scope of work document, as well

as the types of information that Teck would be interested in receiving, are provided in Table 2. We have

provided this request now to minimize effort required to finalize draft scopes of work later.

Table 2: DFOP Support - Suggested Key Headings for the Draft Scope of Work

Document

Heading Detail to Include

Introduction Provide context for the scope of work. For example, context may include Fort Chipewyan Métis’ perspective on:

o Aboriginal fishing and why research and or data collection projects are important and/or

o The benefits of on community processes for identifying research and or data collection projects.

Identify the goals and objectives for the community process to create a ranked list of fisheries research and/or data collection projects.

o We anticipate that the primary goal of the process will be to deliver recommendations for high-priority fisheries research and/or data collection projects to Teck. Objectives associated with this goal may



be (1) to use land-user knowledge to identify appropriate research projects and (2) to develop community-endorsed criteria to rank the research projects.

o Please identify any secondary, tertiary goals and objectives. For example, a secondary goal may be to encourage youth participation in the process and an associated objective may be to challenge participants to invite a young community member to shadow him/her throughout the process.

Examples provided are for illustrative purposes only. Fort Chipewyan Métis should identify context, goals and objectives that are of greatest importance to them.

Approach Describe the community process to create a ranked list of fisheries research and/or data collection projects, providing enough detail to illustrate how the goals and objectives of the process will be met. Consideration of the following bullet points may be helpful:

o How will you identify fisheries research and/or data collection projects?

Consider how the Métis Land Use and Ecological Knowledge Study for Fort Chipewyan Métis Local 125 (Woven Paths Aboriginal Relations, Research & Consultation Inc., 2015) report can assist in identifying research projects.

Given that the research or data collection must be related to maintaining or enhancing the productivity of commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fisheries (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/offsetting-guide-compensation/index-eng.html), consider how you will focus on this requirement.

o How will you prioritize the list of projects? We would like to understand how you rank your list, because then we will have a better understanding of the priorities of the community.

o What opportunities for youth involvement and intergenerational knowledge transfer have you identified?

Table of Tasks, Timeline and Budgets

Please briefly describe the key tasks, including the timeline and budget for each task, to show that the work can be undertaken within the time (sometime between July 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017) and budget allotted (maximum $15,000).

Please describe the deliverable (i.e., ranked list of fisheries research and/or data collection projects), including planned format, contents, and budget. Additionally, please indicate how you will deliver the information to Teck (e.g., presentation to culminate the process, submit in writing, etc.).

Team Who will be conducting the work? Please provide names and describe their roles.

Who will be consulted / providing expertise? Please provide names, describe their roles, and their area of expertise.

What role would you like Teck to play, if any, during this phase of work?


3 Support for the WMMP and AMP

3.1 Background Teck’s intention is to ensure that the WMMP and AMP reflect meaningful community input. To this end,

Teck held Workshop #1 (November 2015), the focus of which was to compile a set of guiding principles

to rely upon as we move through the stages of WMMP and AMP development. At Workshop #2 (July

2016), we brainstormed ideas for mitigation of potential effects, in addition to those already captured in

Teck’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and collected ideas for efficient and effective ways to

collect meaningful community input as we move through the stages of WMMP and AMP development.

The feedback received during Workshop #2 provided Teck with a new outlook on how to effectively

gather Fort Chipewyan Métis input that will directly influence the form and content of the WMMP and

AMP. Teck put forward a proposal to use Indigenous Knowledge (IK) of values related to wildlife and

access to identify measures to mitigate effects to these values and monitor changes over time.

In summary, Teck proposed to support the planning and implementation of an excursion (e.g., hunting,

berry picking, traditional plant gathering, camping, etc.) within the LSA for Frontier prior to any project-

related disturbance. The purpose of the excursion would be to: (1) experience traditional practices, (2)

describe indigenous values and (3) identify mitigation that Teck could consider to avoid or minimize

effects to values. This mitigation could potentially be incorporated into the WMMP or AMP.

Alternatively, mitigation to restore or offset values may be more appropriately considered in our

Closure, Conservation and Reclamation Plan or Biodiversity Management Plan, respectively. Please

review Appendix 2 as a reminder of the proposal.

3.2 Overview of Deliverables, Timelines and Budgets Fort Chipewyan Métis will prepare a draft scope of work to document (e.g., written report, annotated

photo-journal, documentary, etc.) selected indigenous values in the LSA for Frontier and recommend

measures to mitigate effects to these values by March 31, 2017. In discussion with Teck, the scope of

work will be finalized and then approved by June 30, 2017. Once approved, Aboriginal communities will

undertake an excursion and deliver the documentation to Teck by October 31, 2019 (Table 3). We are

providing a flexible timeline to implement an excursion to document selected indigenous values and

recommended measures to mitigate effects to these values in hopes that Fort Chipewyan Métis can find

a time convenient for excursion participants.

Table 3: WMMP / AMP Support - Deliverables, Timelines and Budget

Deliverables Deadline Budget

Scope of Work

Draft scope of work March 31, 2017

Up to $10,000 Final scope of work June 30, 2017

Description of Indigenous Values and Recommendations to Mitigate Effects to the Values

Detailed documentation (e.g., written report, annotated photo-

journal, documentary, etc.) of Indigenous values and

October 31, 2019 Up to $50,000


Deliverables Deadline Budget

recommendations to mitigate effects to the values

3.3 Requested Format and Details to Include in Draft Scope of Work With multiple Aboriginal communities providing WMMP / AMP support, draft scopes of work in similar

formats would be very helpful. Suggested key headings to organize your draft scope of work document,

as well as the types of information that Teck would be interested in receiving, are provided in Table 4.

We have provided this request now to minimize effort required to finalize draft scopes of work later.

Table 4: WMMP / AMP Support - Suggested Key Headings for the Draft Scope of

Work Document


Introduction Provide context for the scope of work. For example, context may include Fort Chipewyan Métis’ perspective on:

o The values in the LSA that are the focus. o The benefits of an excursion to experience the values. o The importance of mitigation to the values of focus.

Provide context for the scope of work.

Include excursion goals and objectives. We anticipate that a primary goal of the excursion will be to recommend mitigation to indigenous values. Objectives associated with this goal may focus on specific values and mitigation measures. For example, to identify measures to avoid, minimize, reclaim and offset effects to a valued hunting site.

Please identify any secondary, tertiary goals and objectives. For example, a secondary goal may be to develop traditional land use skills in youth and associated objectives may be (1) to provide Elder guidance and / or (2) to provide excursion planning opportunities to youth.

Examples provided are for illustrative purposes only. Fort Chipewyan Métis should identify context, goals and objectives that are of greatest importance to them.

Approach Describe the excursion, providing enough detail to illustrate how the goals and objectives of the excursion will be met. Consideration of the following bullet points may be helpful:

o On what indigenous values will you focus? Please recall that stationary values (e.g., transportation routes, cabins, known camping sites, known hunting sites, known plant harvest sites, known cultural/spiritual sites, etc.) are the focus of this proposed work, as opposed to mobile values (e.g., wildlife). Teck has supported a Métis Land Use and Ecological Knowledge Study for Fort Chipewyan Métis Local 125 (Woven Paths Aboriginal Relations, Research & Consultation Inc., 2015). This report documents 230 traditional use values in the LSA. Please use this report to your



advantage, as it provides an excellent starting point to identify an excursion focus.

o Where in the LSA for Frontier will the excursion take you and why? What traditional routes will you use?

o Given that excursions could eventually develop into a monitoring program, to document changes in experience as the mine evolves through time, do the indigenous values of focus and the selected routes all for repeatability in the future?

o What traditional practices will you be experiencing during your excursion? What opportunities for youth involvement and intergenerational knowledge transfer have you identified?

o It may be helpful to present an excursion itinerary to illustrate the approach.

Table of Tasks, Timeline and Budgets

In table format, please briefly describe the key tasks, including the timeline and budget for each task, to show that the work can be undertaken within the time (sometime between July 2017 to September 2019) and budget allotted (maximum $50,000).

o Include a task to develop a safe work plan prior to the excursion that identifies the potential hazards and measures to minimize the hazards.

Please describe the deliverable (i.e., detailed documentation of indigenous values and recommendations to mitigate effects to the values), including planned format, contents, and budget. Additionally, please indicate how you will deliver the information to Teck (e.g., presentation to culminate the excursion, submit after excursion, etc.).

Team Please name the people planning and attending the excursion and describe their roles.

What role would you like Teck to play, if any, during this phase of work? Teck would very much like the opportunity to participate in at least a portion of the excursion to further our understanding of community values, permitting it doesn’t interfere/influence the outcome.

Appendix 1: Detailed Fisheries Offsetting Plan (DFOP) Next Steps with Aboriginal Communities


Detailed Fisheries Offsetting Plan (DFOP) Next Steps with Aboriginal Communities

Complementary Measure

Background Teck proposed a fisheries offsetting complementary measure in November 2015 (DFOP

Workshop #3), based on an idea raised during discussions in April 2015 (DFOP Workshop #2).

The idea was to develop regional Aboriginal fisheries offsetting objectives and a list of potential

offsetting options in the oil sands region that are compatible with these objectives. This list of

potential offsetting options could be made available to any proponent conducting fisheries

offsetting in the region.

Although general interest was expressed in the idea presented at DFOP Workshop #3; Teck

wanted to confirm Aboriginal community support. Therefore, in July 2016 (DFOP Workshop #4),

Teck outlined a process for identifying opportunities to meet regional Aboriginal fisheries

offsetting objectives (see attachment), which was discussed during a breakout session at

Workshop #4. We asked, “Are you interested in continuing to move forward”?

What we Heard Aboriginal community representatives did not express interest in continuing to move forward

with the proposed complimentary measure.

Community representatives from Fort Chipewyan Metis / Fort McMurray Métis and Fort McKay

First Nation recommended that Teck consider undertaking an offsetting project identified by

Aboriginal communities.

Aboriginal communities would rather work independently, rather than collaboratively, as each

community has specific fish and fish habitat interests.

What we are Proposing Because Aboriginal community representatives did not support the complementary measure,

Teck will not include the proposed complementary measure in the draft DFOP.

Teck will include a complementary measure “placeholder” in the draft DFOP, as we continue to

search for a complementary measure that responds to the interests of Aboriginal communities.

We will consider undertaking offsetting projects identified by Aboriginal communities, as

recommended by community representatives at the workshop, provided that the offsetting

projects are complementary measures, and not physical works. DFO’s definition of a

complementary measure is “…investments in data collection and scientific research related to

maintaining or enhancing the productivity of commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fisheries”

(DFO, 2013).

Our updated, proposed process for identifying a complementary measure is:


o Phase 1 - Each community will define its own community-specific process for identifying

research and/or data collection projects of interest. Research and/or data collection

should address a fisheries data gap to help build knowledge in the region.

o Phase 2 – Each community will undertake the process for identifying fisheries projects of

interest to their community. A community-ranked list of projects will be provided to

Teck for consideration.

o Phase 3 – Teck will provide funding to Aboriginal communities for research and/or data

collection projects selected from the ranked lists of projects developed through Phase 2.

o Teck proposes that Phase 1 be undertaken in 2016, Phase 2 in 2017 and Phase 3 once

the Section 35(2) Authorization for Frontier is issued, should the Frontier Project be

approved.

Next Steps Date Action

November 30, 2016 By this date, communities confirm with Teck whether they are interested in participating in this initiative.

January 20, 2017 For those communities interested in participating, Teck will provide a detailed request for the Phase 1 scope of work.

Teck will provide a maximum of $5,000 for each Aboriginal community to prepare a scope of work.

March 31, 2017 Communities provide a detailed scope of work to develop a community-endorsed list of ranked research and/or data collection projects.

Please expect the budget to develop a community-endorsed list of ranked research and/or data collection projects to be capped at $15,000.

March 31, 2017 onwards Teck and the community will work to review and revise the proposed scope of work, and once approved, Aboriginal communities will be able to execute Phase 2.

Fish & Fish Habitat Monitoring Program Design Background

During DFOP Workshop #2, Teck detected an interest in fish and fish habitat monitoring from

some Aboriginal communities. Therefore, at Workshop #3, Teck asked Aboriginal communities

if they would be interested in participating in the development and implementation of a fish and

fish habitat monitoring program under the DFOP. In response to our question, communities

expressed a strong interest in this idea.


At Workshop #4, Teck requested thoughts on an effective and efficient process for collectively

designing a fish and fish habitat monitoring program for the Frontier Project DFOP.

What we Heard Input that leads to monitoring the: “right thing, right time, right place…”

Youth Engagement – is the most important contribution

Translators to help communication between western science and traditional knowledge holders

Opportunities to visit and evaluate existing compensation lakes

Getting information to communities – How?; Getting feedback from communities; More than 1

representative: 2-3 (Youth, Elder)

What we are Proposing Phase 1: Tours – Together with Teck, a small group of community representatives (e.g., Elder,

youth, land user) from each community could tour a natural lake (and possibly a constructed

lake) to explain the values in and around the lake and to discuss what variables should be

monitored. For example:

o Furbearers in the riparian areas are of value so incorporation of furbearer monitoring in

the Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring Plan may be appropriate.

o Fish odour is a concern so incorporate fish odour monitoring (i.e., fish samples could be

shipped to an Aboriginal community representative’s home for cooking and odour

testing).

Phase 2: Monitoring Program Brainstorm Sessions – Together with Teck, a technical

consultant(s) representing Aboriginal communities could summarize the information collected

during the tour to determine how it can contribute to the fish and fish habitat monitoring

program design.

Phase 3: Community Review - Teck could review a draft fish and fish habitat monitoring program

with the community representatives (e.g., Elder, youth, land user) that participated in the tours.

Next Steps Teck proposes that Phase 1 begin once the Section 35(2) Authorization for Frontier is issued,

should the Frontier Project be approved, and the Project is sanctioned. In the interim, please

provide your thoughts on the above proposed process for collectively designing a fish and fish

habitat monitoring program for the Frontier Project DFOP by November 30, 2016.

Appendix 2: WMMP / AMP –Fort Chipewyan Métis Local 125 (ML 125) Next Steps


WMMP / AMP – Fort Chipewyan Métis Local 125 (ML 125) Next Steps

Background Teck intends to develop a comprehensive Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (WMMP) and

Access Management Plan (AMP) that reflects community input. The plans also need to reflect

input from the Joint Review Panel and conditions of the Environmental Protection and

Enhancement Act (EPEA) approval, should the project be approved. Accordingly, the WMMP and

AMP cannot be completed until after the regulatory process.

To begin collecting community input, Teck has hosted two workshops (November 2015 and July

2016) dedicated to WMMP and AMP. Workshop #1 focused on guiding principles. Workshop #2

focused on mitigation to avoid or minimize effects to wildlife and access. A second focus of

Workshop #2 was to collect detailed input on future WMMP / AMP engagement preferences, as

Teck is searching for engagement opportunities that not only directly influence the form and

content of the WMMP and AMP but also consider the preferences of Aboriginal communities.

Teck intends to advance the development of the WMMP and AMP through a basic planning

framework (see Figure 1). Having discussed mitigation to avoid or minimize effects to wildlife

and access at the Workshop #2, Teck will focus on the monitoring, adaptive management and

reporting components in the future.

Figure 1: Mitigation, Monitoring and Management Framework


What we Heard at WMMP / AMP workshop #2 Regarding mitigation, we heard the following key messages from ML125:

o Study holistically: before – during – after

o Maintain river hunting/access, as moose movement corridors are located on the ridge

along the Athabasca River.

o “Change the hunt” and use monitoring to pass on traditional knowledge.

o Trails can be diverted the same way streams are diverted; make an alternate access that

doesn’t constantly change

o Dynamic access management plan linked to EPEA condition

Regarding engagement, we heard the following preferences from ML125:

o Eager to participate and contribute and move forward with results

o Interested in individual community engagement meetings for direct collaboration and

participation and planning

o Get to specifics regarding access

o Include youth; get on the land to show youth what the members / elders are talking

about

What we are Proposing We very much appreciate the feedback you offered during Workshop #2, as it provided Teck with a new

outlook on how to effectively gather input that will directly influence the form and content of the

WMMP and AMP. We have considered your feedback carefully and as a result propose to use Aboriginal

knowledge of values related to wildlife and access, collected using what we hope you feel is an

appropriate approach, to identify mitigation to avoid or minimize effects to these values. Where effects

to wildlife and access values cannot by avoided or minimized, ideas for reclaiming or offsetting can be

collected using the same approach. Reclaiming and offsetting of values may be more appropriately

considered in our Closure, Conservation and Reclamation Plan or Biodiversity Management Plan, rather

than the WMMP or AMP, depending upon the value / mitigation.

More specifically, Teck is proposing to support the planning and implementation of an excursion (i.e.,

ML125 trip) within the terrestrial local study area (LSA) (see Figure 2) prior to any project-related

disturbance. The purpose of the excursion would be to: (1) experience traditional practices, (2) describe

indigenous values and (3) recommend mitigation to Teck to avoid or minimize effects to values. This

mitigation could potentially be incorporated into the WMMP /AMP. Alternatively, mitigation to restore

or offset values may be more appropriately considered in our Closure, Conservation and Reclamation

Plan or Biodiversity Management Plan, respectively. An example of a potential excursion is provided

below (CC&R) to help illustrate the concept.

Teck has supported a Métis Land Use and Ecological Knowledge Study (Woven Paths Aboriginal

Relations, Research & Consulting Inc., 2015). This report documents 230 cultural / spiritual,

habitation, indigenous landscape, transportation, trapping/commercial, and subsistence values

in the LSA. A few examples of such values in the LSA include: regular hunting locations at the

southern portion of the Fort Chipewyan Winter Road; locations along the Athabasca River for


setting fishing nets in winter; known, fixed food and medicinal plant harvesting sites; trusted

drinking water sites; etc.

Teck could support an excursion (e.g., ML125 trip) within the terrestrial LSA, prior to any

additional development, to harvest food and/or medicinal plants (e.g., hazelnut, fiddlehead,

and/or poplar sap) from known, fixed harvest sites. During the excursion, the harvest sites

could be described in detail, as well as other “stationary” values experienced, for example,

transportation routes, cabins, hunting sites, cultural/spiritual sites, etc.

Stationary values, as opposed to mobile values, are the focus of this proposed work, as mobile

values, such as wildlife, will be monitored through science-based programs, which is expected to

be a condition of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) Approval, should

the proposed Project be approved.

By describing the known camping and hunting sites and other stationary values experienced

along the way in detail, and by explaining how the value is experienced, mitigation may be

identified and recommended to Teck for consideration under the WMMP / AMP, CC&R or

biodiversity management plan, depending upon the value / mitigation. The detailed

descriptions of values and recommendations to mitigate effects to the values will be

documented (e.g., written report, annotated photo-journal, documentary, etc.) for Teck’s use.

Through this approach, the form and content of mitigation plans will be directly influenced by

Aboriginal knowledge of values.

By providing resources to undertake excursions, we also would be responding to requests for

opportunities for internal community work, multi-generational participation and one-on-one

engagement with Teck.

In terms of future monitoring considerations, we think that the concept of excursions could

eventually develop into a monitoring program. The excursion could be repeated should the

project be approved and once it is under development. The information collected once the

project has been developed could serve to answer the question, “Has the mitigation been

implemented and is it effective? Does it need to be adapted?” This idea can be discussed in

future engagement events. Specifically, we would be interested to know if this type of

monitoring would satisfy your interest in community-based wildlife / access monitoring.

Next Steps Date Action

November 30, 2016 By this date, ML125 confirms with Teck whether they are interested in participating in this initiative.

January 20, 2017 If ML125 is interested, Teck will provide a detailed request for scope of work to plan and implement an excursion (i.e., group hunting / camping trip) within the LSA.

Teck will provide a maximum of $10,000 to prepare a scope of work.

March 31, 2017 ML125 to provide a detailed scope of work to plan and implement an excursion (i.e., group hunting / camping trip) within the LSA.

Please expect the budget to plan and implement an excursion to be capped at $50,000.

March 31, 2017 onwards

Teck and ML125 will work to review and revise the proposed scope of work, and once approved, Aboriginal communities will be able to execute the excursion.


Figure 2: Traditional Trails and Active Disturbance at Mine Year 41

Draft Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring Plan Frontier Oil Sands … · 2017-06-05 · Wildlife biodiversity mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management is covered in a draft biodiversity

Documents