application for approval of the hoole … information request... · round 3 supplemental...

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF THE HOOLE GRAND RAPIDS PROJECT

ROUND 3 SUPPLEMENTAL

INFORMATION REQUEST RESPONSES

SUBMITTED TO:

ALBERTA ENERGY REGULATOR

SUBMITTED BY:

Cavalier Energy Inc.

March 2014

CAVALIER ENERGY INC.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 ALBERTA ENERGY REGULATOR SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION REQUESTS ........... 1

FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Baseline Ecosite Phases, Wetland Classes and Rare Plant Locations ........... 2 Figure 1-2 Old Growth Forest in the Local Study Area ..................................................... 7 Figure 3-1 Revised Wildlife Study Areas and Protection Zones ..................................... 13 Figure 4-1 Available Caribou Habitat within the LSA and RSA ....................................... 17 Figure 5-1 Area Well Status ............................................................................................ 22

TABLES

Table 1-1 Ecosite Phases and Wetland Classes in the Revised Local Study Area ................................................................................................................. 5

Table 1-2 Old Growth Forests in the Revised Local Study Area by Footprint Component .................................................................................................... 10

Table 5-1 Wells with Buttress Casing Connections within a 400 m Buffer of the Project Development Area ............................................................................. 21

1 SIR 3 Responses Cavalier Energy Inc. March 2014 Hoole Grand Rapids Project


1 ALBERTA ENERGY REGULATOR SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION REQUESTS

1. SIR(2)7 Response, Pages 32-58. SIR(2)7 indicated that applicants are expected to address project-related effects within the project area at a minimum and beyond the project area where effects can reasonably be expected to extend. Cavalier illustrated a terrestrial local study area (TLSA) limited to a 100 metre (m) buffer of the initial proposed footprint. A 100 m buffer is of limited utility in assessing constraints and tradeoffs when assessing impacts to sensitive or unique soil map units, ecosite phases, wetland classes, or wildlife habitat. In similarly sized projects, a buffer on proposed project footprints of 500 m has been used to assess effects related to the project area.

a) SIR(2)8 Response, Figures 8-7a and 8-7b, Baseline Ecosite Phases, Wetland Classes and Rare Plant Locations, Pages 54-55, and SIR(2)11 Response, Table 11-1, Ecosite Phases and Wetland Classes in the Local Study Area, Page 104. Figures 8-7a and 8-7b illustrate ecosite phase and wetland class polygons beyond the previous TLSA boundary, so it appears that data is available to support an expanded TLSA.

i. Provide a revised ecosite phase, wetland class and rare plant location figure that illustrates the proposed project and development area boundaries and the project footprint (use hollow shapes). Ensure the revised figure includes a rationalized TLSA that meets the expectations described in SIR(2)7 and above.

Response:

Effects to soils and vegetation from the Project are expected to be limited to direct disturbance from site clearing for the Project footprint. The soils and vegetation local study area (LSA) was delineated with a 100 m buffer around the Project footprint to give local context to soils and vegetation resources immediately outside of the footprint This approach is consistent with Guidelines for Submission of a Pre-disturbance Assessment and Conservation & Reclamation Plan (PDA/C&R Plan), under an Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act Approval, for an Enhanced Recovery In-situ Oil Sands and Heavy Oil Processing Plant and Oil Production Site (AENV 2009). Although Cavalier considers the 100 m buffer to be appropriate for the soils and vegetation assessments, the terrestrial LSA has been revised to include a 500 m buffer of the Project footprint, as per the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER)’s request. An updated figure showing baseline ecosite phase mapping within the revised LSA is provided as Figure 1-1.

Reference:

Alberta Environment (AENV). 2009. Guidelines for Submission of a Pre-disturbance Assessment and Conservation & Reclamation Plan (PDA/C&R Plan), under an Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act Approval, for an Enhanced Recovery In-situ Oil Sands and Heavy Oil Processing Plant and Oil Production Site. December 2009. 23 pp. + Appendices.

I:\Cav

alier\

1057

2\Figu

resAn

dTab

les\P

LT_S

IR3\2

014\R

eport

\SIR

3_AE

R_Up

date\

Vege

tation

\Figu

re-1-1

a-b-B

aseli

ne_E

cosit

e_Ph

ases

_Wetl

and_

Clas

ses_

And_

Rare_

Plant_

Loca

tion.m

xd

Date: Project: Drawn:Reviewer:Technical:

Figure03 Mar 2014 10572-514

Disclaimer: Prepared solely for the use of Cavalier Energy Inc. as specified in the accompanying report. Norepresentation of any kind is made to other parties with which Cavalier Energy Inc. has not entered into contract.

C. BeaumontB. FuchsT. Hodgson

FootprintTerrestrial Local Study AreaVegetation Baseline DisturbanceSoil & Vegetation Baseline DisturbanceWater BodyWatercourseRoadIndustry RoadCut TrailPipelineTelus Trench

Survey Season and Plot TypeEarly Meander StartLate Meander StartFullPartialRare Species

Borrow(6.13ha)

DisposalWell Pad(0.48ha)


ProductionROW (0.69ha)

Water SourceROW (1.5ha)

DisposalROW (1.57ha)

Water Disposal/ Source ROW

(3.98ha)



ProductionROW

(14.13ha)




ProductionROW

(43.54ha)

WaterSource WellPad (0.48ha)



ProductionWell Pad(5.89ha)




ProductionWell Pad(5.89ha) Production

Well Pad(5.89ha)




ProductionROW

(14.13ha)

ProductionROW

(43.54ha)

Rg. 24 Rg. 23

Twp.

81

336000 337000 338000 339000

6211

000

6212

000

6213

000

6214

000

6215

000

W4M

Hoole Grand Rapids

Reference: Data obtained from AltaLIS and IHS used under license.

a

b

1-1a

Baseline Ecosite Phase/AWIUpland

Shrublandb1b2b3c1d1d2

d3e1e2e3f1f2g1h1

Wetlandh1/STNNi1/BTNNi2/BONSj1/FTNNj2/FONS

k1/FTNIk1/FTNNk2/FONSk2/SONSl1/MONGDS/SONS Baseline Ecosite Phases, Wetland Classes

and Rare Plant LocationsDS: Deciduous Swamp

NAD 1983 UTM Zone 12N

1:15,000

150 0 150Metres

I:\Cav

alier\

1057

2\Figu

resAn

dTab

les\P

LT_S

IR3\2

014\R

eport

\SIR

3_AE

R_Up

date\

Vege

tation

\Figu

re-1-1

a-b-B

aseli

ne_E

cosit

e_Ph

ases

_Wetl

and_

Clas

ses_

And_

Rare_

Plant_

Loca

tion.m

xd


Figure03 Mar 2014 10572-514




Survey Season and Plot TypeEarly Meander StartLate Meander StartFullPartialRare Species

Borrow(3.98ha)

Camp(9.03ha)

Camp(1.01ha)

Access ROW(8.29ha)




ProductionROW

(14.13ha)







Well Pad(5.89ha)

CPF(17.21ha)

Fire PreventionArea (1.07ha)

ProductionROW

(14.13ha)

ProductionROW

(43.54ha)

Hoole

Creek

Rg. 24 Rg. 23

Twp.

80Tw

p. 81

336000 337000 338000 339000

6207

000

6208

000

6209

000

6210

000

6211

000

6212000

6212

000

W4M

Hoole Grand Rapids


a

b

1-1b

Baseline Ecosite Phase/AWIUpland

Shrublandb1b2b3c1d1d2

d3e1e2e3f1f2g1h1

Wetlandh1/STNNi1/BTNIi1/BTNNi2/BONSj1/FTNNj2/FONS

k1/FTNIk1/FTNNk2/FONSk2/SONSDS/SONSFlooded Baseline Ecosite Phases, Wetland Classes

and Rare Plant LocationsDS: Deciduous Swamp


1:15,000

150 0 150Metres



1. ii. Update Table 11-1’s columns relating to the TLSA for an expanded assessment area.

Response:

Ecosite phase and wetland class information for the revised LSA is provided in Table 1-2.



Table 1-1 Ecosite Phases and Wetland Classes in the Revised Local Study Area

Vegetation or Disturbance Type

Footprint Area (ha) Total Areas (ha)* Percentage

Disturbed by Project (%)

Percentage of Local

Study Area (%)

CPFa Construction Camp

Operations Camp

Borrow Area 1

Borrow Area 2

Well Pad 101

Well Pad 102

Well Pad 103

Well Pad 104

Well Pad 105

Well Pad 106

Well Pad 107

Well Pad 108

Well Pad 109

Main Access ROW

Production ROW a

Water Disposal/

Source ROW

Water Source

Well Pad

Water Disposal Well Pad

Fire Prevention

Area b

Total Project

Footprint

500 m Buffer

Total Local Study Area

Upland Ecosite Phase shrubland - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.1 - - - - 0.1 0.3 0.4 <0.1 0.0 b1 – blueberry Pj-Aw - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.1 - - - - - - - <0.1 6.7 6.8 <0.1 0.4 b2 – blueberry Aw(Bw) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7.1 7.1 0 0.4 b3 – blueberry Aw-Sw - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.6 1.6 0 0.1 c1 - Labrador tea-mesic Pj-Sb - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.1 - - - - 0.1 0.9 1.0 <0.1 0.1 d1 – low-bush cranberry Aw - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.1 0.5 1.5 1.6 <0.1 - - 3.8 96.1 99.9 0.2 6.0 d2 – low-bush cranberry Aw-Sw 2.6 6.5 - 0.7 - - - 3.8 3.2 0.2 <0.1 - - - 3.1 3.2 0.5 - - 0.3 24.2 180.3 204.5 1.4 12.2 d3 – low-bush cranberry Sw - - - - - 0.6 - - - - - - - - 1.0 - - - - 1.6 32.5 34.1 0.1 2.0 e1 – dogwood Pb-Aw - - - 1.8 - 2.7 1.9 0.7 - - 0.2 0.3 5.3 - 12.8 1.4 - - - 27.2 165.8 193.0 1.6 11.5 e2 – dogwood Pb-Sw 10.1 2.4 1.0 3.2 1.4 - - - - - 3.6 5.7 4.2 8.1 1.8 - - 0.5 42.1 243.1 285.1 2.5 17.0 e3 – dogwood Sw - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.0 - - - - 1.0 5.9 6.9 0.1 0.4 f1 – horsetail Pb-Aw 0.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.4 11.1 11.5 <0.1 0.7 f2 – horsetail Pb-Sw - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4.5 4.5 0 0.3 g1 – Labrador tea-subhygric Sb-Pj - - - - - - - - - 3.3 - - - - - 1.3 - - - - 4.5 18.0 22.6 0.3 1.4

h1 – Labrador tea/horsetail Sw-Sb (upland & lowland) 0.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.4 0.4 <0.1 - 0.1 1.5 18.4 19.8 0.1 1.2

Uplands subtotal 13.7 8.8 1.0 3.9 3.2 0.0 3.4 5.7 4.0 3.5 3.6 5.9 0.3 5.4 7.9 29.3 5.4 <0.1 0.0 0.9 106.4 792.3 898.7 6.4 53.7 Wetland/AWI Ecosite Phase

h1/STNN - horsetail Sw-Sb /treed coniferous swamp - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.5 - - 2.0 - - - - 3.5 38.6 42.0 0.2 2.5

i1/BTNI – treed bog w/internal lawns

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.4 1.4 0 0.1

i1/BTNN – treed bog - - - - 0.5 0.2 0.7 1.2 2.1 0.8 4.0 0.4 - 23.2 0.3 <0.1 - - 33.4 321.7 355.2 2.0 21.2 i2/BONS – shrubby bog - - - - - 2.2 1.8 - - - - - - - - 3.4 0.8 - - - 8.3 72.9 81.2 0.5 4.9 j1/FTNN - treed poor fen - - - - - 2.6 - - - 0.3 <0.1 - - - - 0.9 - - - - 5.2 35.4 40.6 0.3 2.4 j2/FONS – shrubby poor fen - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.8 1.8 0 0.1 k1/FTNN – treed rich fen - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.7 - - - - 0.7 9.0 9.7 <0.1 0.6 k1/FTNI – treed rich fen w/ internal lawns - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6.7 6.7 0 0.4

k2/FONS – shrubby rich fen - - - - - 0.9 - - - - - - - - - 0.7 - - - - 1.5 19.0 20.5 0.1 1.2 k2/SONS – shrubby rich swamp - - - 1.5 - - - - - <0.1 - - - - 0.1 - - - - 1.6 19.8 21.4 0.1 1.3 SONS - Deciduous swamp 3.5 0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.3 0.6 - - - 0.1 4.6 9.7 14.3 0.3 0.9 Lake - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 75.7 75.7 0 4.5

Wetlands subtotal 3.5 0.1 1.0 0.0 1.9 5.8 2.5 0.0 1.2 2.4 2.2 0.0 5.5 0.4 0.3 31.4 1.2 <0.1 0.0 0.1 58.8 611.7 670.5 3.5 40.1 Disturbance Category -

Clearing - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.2 0.2 0 0.0 Cutline - 0.1 - <0.1 - <0.1 - - <0.1 - - - - - <0.1 0.3 <0.1 - - - 0.6 5.5 6.1 <0.1 0.4 Industrial - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.7 0.7 0 0.0 Right-of-way - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.1 0.1 0 0.0 Transportation - - - - 0.8 - - 0.2 0.7 - <0.1 - - - 0.1 3.2 2.3 0.2 0.1 - 7.5 52.2 59.8 0.5 3.6 Well Pad - - - - 0.3 <0.1 - - - - - - - <0.1 - 2.3 0.6 1.2 0.9 - 5.3 32.5 37.7 0.3 2.3

Disturbance subtotal 0.0 0.1 0.0 <0.1 1.0 <0.1 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.2 5.7 3.0 1.4 1.0 0.0 13.4 91.2 104.5 0.8 6.2 Total* 17.2 9.0 1.0 4.0 6.1 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 8.3 66.5 9.6 1.4 1.0 1.1 178.6 1,495.2 1,673.7 10.7 100.0

* Totals may not add up as values were calculated prior to rounding. a CPF = central processing facility. Although the majority of the production ROW will be 55 m wide, a width of 68 m has been applied to account for intermittent expansion loops in the ROW when calculating vegetation disturbance. b The fire prevention area is a 10 m wide buffer around the CPF that will be cleared of vegetation.



1. b) SIR(2)8 Response, Figures 8-8a and 8-8b, Old Growth Forest in the Local Study Area, Pages 56-57, and SIR(2)11 Response, Table 11-2, Old Growth Forests in the Local Study Area by Footprint Component, Page 105. Interpretation of the extent of old growth forest patches beyond the previous TLSA boundary is unclear as the polygons appear clipped. The assessment area should be expanded, as discussed above.

i. Provide a revised old growth forest figure (or figures) that illustrates the proposed project and development boundaries and the project footprint as hollow shapes. Ensure the revised figure includes a rationalized TLSA that meets the expectations described in SIR(2)7 and above.

Response:

Rationale for the originally selected LSA is provided in supplemental information request (SIR) response 1a. The LSA has been revised to include a 500 m buffer of the Project footprint, as per the AER’s request. An updated figure showing old growth forests within the revised LSA is provided as Figure 1-2.

I:\Cav

alier\

1057

2\Figu

resAn

dTab

les\P

LT_S

IR3\2

014\R

eport

\SIR

3_AE

R_Up

date\

Vege

tation

\Figu

re-1-2

a-b-O

ld_Gr

owth_

Fores

t_in_

The_

Loca

l_Stud

y_Ar

ea.m

xd


Figure28 Feb 2014 10572-514




Old Growth Forest by Ecosite Phased2d3e1e2g1h1i1j1k1

Borrow(6.13ha)





DisposalROW (1.57ha)

Water Disposal/ Source ROW

(3.98ha)



ProductionROW

(14.13ha)




ProductionROW

(43.54ha)









Well Pad(5.89ha)




ProductionROW

(14.13ha)

ProductionROW

(43.54ha)

Rg. 24 Rg. 23

Twp.

81

336000 337000 338000 339000

6211

000

6212

000

6213

000

6214

000

6215

000

W4M

Hoole Grand Rapids


a

b

1-2a

Old Growth Forest in the Local Study Area

W


1:15,000

150 0 150Metres

I:\Cav

alier\

1057

2\Figu

resAn

dTab

les\P

LT_S

IR3\2

014\R

eport

\SIR

3_AE

R_Up

date\

Vege

tation

\Figu

re-1-2

a-b-O

ld_Gr

owth_

Fores

t_in_

The_

Loca

l_Stud

y_Ar

ea.m

xd


Figure28 Feb 2014 10572-514




Old Growth Forest by Ecosite Phased2e2g1h1j1

Borrow(3.98ha)

Camp(9.03ha)

Camp(1.01ha)

Access ROW(8.29ha)




ProductionROW

(14.13ha)







Well Pad(5.89ha)

CPF(17.21ha)

Fire PreventionArea (1.07ha)

ProductionROW

(14.13ha)

ProductionROW

(43.54ha)

Hoole

Creek

Rg. 24 Rg. 23

Twp.

80Tw

p. 81

336000 337000 338000 339000

6207

000

6208

000

6209

000

6210

000

6211

000

6212000

6212

000

W4M

Hoole Grand Rapids


a

b

1-2b

Old Growth Forest in the Local Study Area

W


1:15,000

150 0 150Metres



1. ii. Update Table 11-2’s columns relating to the TLSA for an expanded assessment area.

Response:

Old growth information for the revised LSA is provided in Table 1-2.



Table 1-2 Old Growth Forests in the Revised Local Study Area by Footprint Component

Vegetation Type

Footprint Area (ha) Total Areas (ha)* Percentage

Disturbed by Project (%)

Percentage of Local

Study Area (%)

CPFa Construction Camp

Operations Camp

Borrow Area 1

Borrow Area 2

Well Pad 101

Well Pad 102

Well Pad 103

Well Pad 104

Well Pad 105

Well Pad 106

Well Pad 107

Well Pad 108

Well Pad 109

Main Access ROW

Production ROW a

Water Disposal/

Source ROW

Water Source

Well Pad

Water Disposal Well Pad

Fire Prevention

Area b

Total Project

Footprint

500 m Buffer

Total Local Study Area

Upland Ecosite Phase d2 – low-bush cranberry Aw-Sw 1.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.1 0.4 - - - - 1.7 9.3 11.0 1.9 0.7 d3 – low-bush cranberry Sw - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.1 - - - - 0.1 4.8 4.9 0.1 0.3 e1 – dogwood Pb-Aw - - - 0.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.7 4.8 5.5 0.9 0.3 e2 – dogwood Pb-Sw 2.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.0 - 0.3 - - 0.1 3.8 41.7 45.5 4.3 2.7 g1 – Labrador tea-subhygric Sb-Pj - - - - - - - - - 3.3 - - - - - - - - - - 3.3 0.8 4.0 3.7 0.2

Uplands subtotal 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 9.6 61.4 71.0 10.8 4.2 Wetland/AWI Ecosite Phase

h1/STNN- horsetail Sw /treed coniferous swamp - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.4 - - - - 0.4 14.0 14.4 0.4 0.9

i1/BTNN – treed bog - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.1 - - - - - - - 0.1 1.0 1.1 0.1 0.1 j1/FTNN - treed poor fen - - - - - - - - - 0.3 - - - - - - - - - - 0.3 0.8 1.2 0.3 0.1 k1/FTNN – treed rich fen - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.5 1.5 0.1

Wetlands subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 17.4 18.2 0.9 1.1

Total* 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.1 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 10.4 78.8 89.1 11.8 5.3

* Totals may not add up as values were calculated prior to rounding.



2. SIR(2)13 Response, Wildlife Assessment, Page 113. Cavalier stated “loss of the preferred old growth forest will have an effect on upland mature forest birds; however the effect is expected to be low due to the limited extent of old growth in the LSA.” Reduction of limited habitat availability for species at risk that depend on old growth forest could be considered to be a high impact effect, rather than a low effect. Update Cavalier’s constraint evaluation discussion to include tradeoffs considered in old growth forest impacts.

Response:

As described in Round 2 SIR response 7a, Cavalier considered a number of factors when deciding on placement of facilities and infrastructure, including:

• reservoir and geology • construction and engineering • environment • potential for future development (expansion) • feedback from stakeholders

A total of 10.4 ha of old growth forest are predicted to be disturbed by the Project, of which 7.4 ha are a result of the CPF and well pads. Site selection of these facilities was determined with construction suitability (CPF) and maximization of resource recovery (well pads) as the primary factors. The remaining disturbance of old growth forest is created by Project rights-of-way (ROWs). These ROW corridors were selected to follow existing disturbances where possible, and the disturbance to old growth forest is attributed to the widening of existing cutlines to accommodate Project ROWs (Figure 1-2). Cavalier considers the constraint evaluation regarding Project disturbance to old growth forest to be adequate, as only 5.8% of the footprint disturbs this habitat.

Old growth forests are generally dominated by large, old canopy trees and have an accumulation of snags and downed woody material, as well as high species diversity (Juutinen 2007; Lee et al. 2000; Liira et al. 2007; Timoney 2001; Zenner 2005 and 2004). Old growth forests provide habitat for a variety of species including several bird species at risk in Alberta (e.g., pileated woodpecker, Cape May warbler, black-throated green warbler, bay-breasted warbler and western tanager; ASRD 2013; BAM 2012; Appendix I in the Application).

In the revised wildlife LSA, 89 ha (or 5%) is identified as old growth forest. Due to this small proportion, bird species with habitat preference for old growth forest are not expected to be abundant within the LSA. Therefore the amount of Project-related habitat loss is unlikely to have a high impact effect on bird populations that use old growth forest.

References:

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD). 2013. Wildlife Sensitivity Maps – Data Sets. Last Updated on March 28, 2013. Accessed February 2014. http://esrd.alberta.ca/forms-maps-services/maps/wildlife-sensitivity-maps/default.aspx

Boreal Avian Modelling Project (BAM).2012. Boreal Birds: Yellow-rumped Warbler. Accessed February 2014. http://www.borealbirds.ca/avian_db/accounts.php/Setophaga+coronata/habitat

Juutinen A. 2007. “Old-growth boreal forests: Worth protecting for biodiversity?” Journal of Forest Economics: 1-26.

http://esrd.alberta.ca/forms-maps-services/maps/wildlife-sensitivity-maps/default.aspx

http://www.borealbirds.ca/avian_db/accounts.php/Setophaga+coronata/habitat



Lee P., Hanus S. and B. Grover. 2000. “Criteria for estimating old growth in boreal mixedwoods from standard timber inventory data.” Forest Ecology and Management 129: 25-30.

Liira J., Sepp T. and O. Parrest. 2007. “The forest structure and ecosystem quality in conditions of anthropogenic disturbance along productivity gradient.” Forest Ecology and Management 250: 34-46.

Timoney K.P. 2001. “Types and attributes of old-growth forests in Alberta, Canada.” Natural Areas Journal 21: 282-300.

Zenner E.K. 2004. “Does old-growth condition imply high live-tree structural complexity?” Forest

Ecology and Management 195: 243-258.

Zenner E.K. 2005. “Investigating scale-dependent stand heterogeneity with structure-area-curves.” Forest Ecology and Management 209: 87-100.

3. SIR(2)13 Response, Wildlife Assessment, Page 112. Cavalier stated “the LSA was established to assess potential effects of the Project development on wildlife at the local scale. .…The RSA was established to assess wide-ranging wildlife species that could either be directly or indirectly affected by the Project.” Cavalier’s proposed project is within the West Side of the Athabasca River caribou range. The 2012 federal Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Environment Canada) identifies that the “application of a 500 m buffer to mapped anthropogenic features best represents the combined effects of increased predation and avoidance on caribou population trends at the national scale.” Therefore, the 100 m footprint buffer for the wildlife LSA illustrated in Figure 8-9 is insufficient for the assessment of potential project effects on caribou or other mobile wildlife species.

Cavalier’s proposed project is within the West Side of the Athabasca River caribou range. The 2012 federal Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Environment Canada) identifies that the “application of a 500 m buffer to mapped anthropogenic features best represents the combined effects of increased predation and avoidance on caribou population trends at the national scale.” Therefore, the 100 m footprint buffer for the wildlife LSA illustrated in Figure 8-9 is insufficient for the assessment of potential project effects on caribou or other mobile wildlife species.

a) Revise Figure 8-9’s wildlife local study area and include rationale for a LSA that meets the expectations described in SIR(2)7 and above.

Response:

An updated figure with the revised wildlife LSA is provided as Figure 3-1. Figure 3-1 includes a 500 m buffer around the Project footprint to assist in assessing anthropogenic features that may affect woodland caribou, as directed in the 2012 federal Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Environment Canada 2012). The 500 m buffer is considered to be large enough to encompass wildlife zones of influence, potential edge effects, or other potential local indirect effects on wildlife resources adjacent to the Project footprint.

Reference:

Environment Canada. 2012. Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus

caribou), Boreal Population in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. 138 pp.

3-1I:\Cav

alier\

1057

2\Figu

resAn

dTab

les\P

LT_S

IR3\2

014\R

eport

\SIR

3_AE

R_Up

date\

Wild

life\Fi

gure-

3-1-W

ildlife

_Stud

y_Ar

eas_

and_

Prote

ction

_Zon

es.m

xd


FigureNAD 1983 UTM Zone 12N

28 Feb 2014 10572-514Disclaimer: Prepared solely for the use of Cavalier Energy Inc. as specified in the accompanying report. Norepresentation of any kind is made to other parties with which Cavalier Energy Inc. has not entered into contract.


FootprintWildlife Local Study AreaWildlife Regional Study AreaCaribou RangeCavalier Oil Sands RightsCommunityIndian ReserveWater BodyWatercourseHighwayRoad

FWMIS Species At Risk (Count)! Cape May Warbler! Great Gray Owl! Least Flycatcher! Woodland Caribou

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

Wabasca-Desmarais

(1)

(1)(1)

(1)

(1)(1)

(5)(5)

(6)(5)(2)

(1)

Wabasca 166

Wabasca 166c

Wabasca 166a

Wabasca 166d

IslandLake

SouthWabasca

Lake

KamistikowikLake

HorsetailLake

SandyLake

Wabasca River

HooleCreek

UV813

Rg. 24 Rg. 23Rg. 25 Rg. 22

Twp.

79Tw

p. 80

Twp.

81Tw

p. 82

Twp.

83

325000 330000 335000 340000 345000 350000

6195

000

6200

000

6205

000

6210

000

6215

000

6220

000

6225

000

W4M

Hoole Grand Rapids

Reference: Data obtained from AltaLIS © Government of Alberta and GeoBase®. GDM transportation infrastructure data provided by IHS © 2013.

1:100,000

1.5 0 1.5Kilometres

Wildlife Study Areasand Protection Zones

W



3. b) Cavalier identified a wildlife regional study area (RSA), but consideration of the RSA boundary in the wildlife assessment is not clear. Discuss the purpose of the RSA in the desktop wildlife assessment, the criteria for establishing the 5 km footprint buffer, whether it was consistently used for the assessment of all wildlife groups, and how it would be used in monitoring the impacts and mitigation successes of the proposed project.

Response:

The wildlife regional study area (RSA) provided a spatial framework for the desktop assessment for the Application. Used as a general guideline, the RSA largely defined the historical record search area for the following:

• species at risk • species of socio-economic or cultural importance • wide-ranging wildlife species (e.g., woodland caribou, moose, deer) • sensitive wildlife areas

The RSA is a 5 km buffer surrounding the Project footprint. The buffer is considered large enough to provide historical reference for species in the region, and was used to identify potential species of concern for which Project-specific mitigation would be required. Potential effects to identified species were considered to be changes in habitat availability, connectivity and quality, and direct mortality. The mitigation measures to reduce these effects are proposed at a local scale to focus on direct effects of the Project.

Cavalier will monitor Project effects and mitigation successes within the LSA. Mitigation measures for Project effects to wildlife at a local scale are provided in Round 2 SIR response #13d, and monitoring is described in Round 2 SIR response #13f.

4. The 2012 federal Recovery Strategy for Woodland Caribou (Environment Canada) identifies an increase to 65% undisturbed caribou habitat as the management target for caribou ranges in Alberta. Aside from committing to develop a woodland caribou mitigation and monitoring plan, Cavalier has not committed to restoring caribou habitat, and constraints mapping has not explicitly shown efforts to avoid disturbance to caribou habitat.

a) Provide an evaluation (including a map) of available caribou habitat within the RSA and revised LSA, and indicate the proposed portion to be disturbed by the project. Evaluate footprint adjustments or other mitigations (e.g., temporal management of development) for any proposed surface disturbance that results in the removal of caribou habitat.

Response:

Figure 4-1 shows available caribou habitat within the RSA and revised LSA as defined by the federal Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Environment Canada 2012). This strategy identifies caribou habitat as more than 500 m from development (e.g., seismic, pipelines, ROWs, well pads, CPFs, OSE wells) within a defined caribou range (Environment Canada 2012). Based on the location of Cavalier’s proposed Project Development Area within the West Side Athabasca River caribou range, avoiding any disturbance to caribou habitat is not practical.

However, caribou habitat within the revised LSA and RSA is largely previously disturbed, and the Project will increase this disturbance by 10 ha, or less than 1% of undisturbed caribou habitat in the revised LSA (Figure 4-1). The majority of the Project-related caribou habitat disturbance is associated with the CPF access road. As described in Round 2 SIR response 7b, the alignment for the CPF access road was selected because it is on upland soil that would be suitable for



construction. Relocating the access road east to avoid undisturbed caribou habitat would place it in a wetland area with poor drainage, and would not be feasible for construction. The remaining Project-related caribou habitat disturbance is associated with a well pad; however, shifting this pad to the west to avoid undisturbed caribou habitat would place it within the 100 m setback from a water body.

Cavalier’s proposed mitigation to increase and maintain caribou habitat in the Woodland Caribou Land Use Referral Boundary and Woodland Caribou Population Range Area, includes:

• Using previously disturbed areas to reduce the amount of new clearing wherever existing disturbance is present and oriented in such a way that is consistent with Project development.

• Optimizing linear corridor widths and accommodating multiple-use areas such as roads, pipelines, and power lines within the same right-of-way to limit surface disturbance.

• Removing all snow fills, log fills, and culverts on completion of operations.

• Constructing above ground pipeline crossings or allowing underpasses for wildlife to accommodate movement across pipeline. Cavalier’s design of above ground pipelines will be consistent with the Above Ground Pipeline Wildlife Crossing Directive (ESRD 2014).

• Providing wildlife crossing points through the use of natural terrain features.

• Considering pipeline height, wildlife use (e.g., game trails), high quality habitat, riparian areas and topography when planning crossing locations and designs.

• During construction of underground pipeline, leaving gaps in linear construction areas to allow wildlife movements across the work area.

• Limiting off-road access on new disturbances, where practical, by rolling back debris near the intersection of linear disturbances.

• Conducting progressive reclamation where applicable. Return sites to equivalent land capability and use ESRD certified native vegetation species where appropriate.

• Providing appropriate supervision during construction in environmentally sensitive areas to implement effective environmental mitigation.

• Implementing measures to reduce erosion and provide runoff control during construction.

• Providing facilities, including well pads, roads, and pipelines (except for watercourse crossings), with a 100 m setback distance from watercourses and water bodies, in consultation with ESRD.

Cavalier understands that caribou conservation is a shared responsibility between industry and government. Cavalier is committed to addressing caribou management as part of a long term management of landscape during the lifetime of the Project. Cavalier will develop a Woodland Caribou Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (CMMP) for review and approval by ESRD, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Project’s EPEA Approval. A comprehensive list of Cavalier’s commitments to reduce impacts to caribou will be provided in the CMMP. Cavalier will develop targets and schedules for maintaining and restoring caribou habitat as part of the CMMP and will monitor progress on a regular basis.



References:

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD). 2014. Above Ground Pipeline Wildlife Crossing Directive. Updated Feburary 3, 2014. 6 pp. http://esrd.alberta.ca/forms-maps-services/directives/documents/PipelineWildlifeCrossing-2014-07-Feb03-2014.pdf

Environment Canada. 2012. Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. 138 pp.

http://esrd.alberta.ca/forms-maps-services/directives/documents/PipelineWildlifeCrossing-2014-07-Feb03-2014.pdf

http://esrd.alberta.ca/forms-maps-services/directives/documents/PipelineWildlifeCrossing-2014-07-Feb03-2014.pdf

4.1I:\Cav

alier\

1057

2\Figu

resAn

dTab

les\P

LT_S

IR3\2

014\R

eport

\SIR

3_AE

R_Re

spon

se\Fi

gure-

4-1-A

vaila

ble_C

aribo

u_Ha

bitat_

withi

n_the

_LSA

_and

_RSA

.mxd


FigureNAD 1983 UTM Zone 12N

03 Mar 2014 10572-514Disclaimer: Prepared solely for the use of Cavalier Energy Inc. as specified in the accompanying report. Norepresentation of any kind is made to other parties with which Cavalier Energy Inc. has not entered into contract.

M. WilkinsonM. CollardD. Player

FootprintWildlife Local Study AreaWildlife Regional Study AreaCaribou RangeCaribou Baseline Habitat (within LSA)Caribou Baseline Disturbance (within Caribou Range)Caribou Baseline Disturbance (within LSA)Cavalier Oil Sands RightsDisturbance

Water BodyWatercourseHighwayRoad

HooleCreek

UV813

Rg. 24 Rg. 23

Twp.

80Tw

p. 81

Twp.

82

332000 334000 336000 338000 340000 342000

6204

000

6206

000

6208

000

6210

000

6212

000

6214

000

6216

000

6218

000

W4M

Hoole Grand Rapids

Reference: Data obtained from AltaLIS © Government of Alberta and GeoBase®. GDM transportation infrastructure data provided by IHS © 2013.

1:50,000

500 0 500Metres

Available Caribou Habitatwithin the LSA and RSA

W



4. b) Identify all applicable management plans related to caribou and discuss Cavalier’s compliance with these plans.

Response:

The Government of Alberta has established A Woodland Caribou Policy for Alberta that aims to achieve naturally sustaining woodland caribou populations (GoA 2011). The woodland caribou policy suggests that caribou populations will be stabilized using a combination of land use planning, habitat conservation, habitat restoration and predator-prey management, as required by individual populations. Cavalier is committed to caribou recovery efforts in Alberta, and Cavalier will submit a CMMP that meets the requirements of the Project’s anticipated EPEA Approval and follows the intent of A Woodland Caribou Policy for Alberta (GoA 2011). More information is provided in Response 4c. Cavalier will work with the Government of Alberta and other operators to develop appropriate solutions for caribou recovery and stabilization.

Reference:

Government of Alberta (GoA). 2011. A Woodland Caribou Policy for Alberta. Pub. No. I/524. 2 pp. http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/wildlife-management/caribou-management/documents/WoodlandCaribouPolicy-Alberta-Jun2011.pdf

4. c) Discuss Cavalier’s plans for caribou habitat mitigation and compensation, including management of existing disturbances within the area of the proposed project.

Response:

Cavalier is supportive of efforts to stabilize caribou populations within the RSA and will work with the Government of Alberta and other operators to develop appropriate solutions. Key issues are habitat preservation and restoration, habitat connectivity, and predator control (Dyer et al. 2001; Hebblewhite et al. 2007; Sorenson et al. 2008; ASRD and ACA 2010; DeCesare et al. 2013). Mitigation for Project effects to caribou habitat is provided in SIR response 4a.

Cavalier’s strategies regarding caribou habitat restoration, habitat connectivity and predator control will be developed as part of the CMMP. The CMMP will be developed for review and approval by regulators, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Project’s anticipated EPEA approval and Caribou Mitigation and Monitoring Plan Guidance Document when they are issued. The CMMP will consider recommendations from regulators, as well as industry best practices. It is expected to include restoration of existing disturbances within the Hoole lease to offset Project disturbances, as per the federal Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Environment Canada 2012). Objectives in the CMMP will be developed in consideration of A Woodland Caribou Policy for Alberta which aims to achieve naturally sustaining woodland caribou populations (GoA 2011).

Cavalier currently completes vegetation assessments annually on OSE programs until they meet ESRD eligibility requirements for reclamation certification. Deficient vegetation growth is identified, in accordance with the requirements outlined by ESRD OSE reclamation guidance (ASRD 2010). Cavalier coordinates site preparation and tree planting to rectify any deficiencies.

http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/wildlife-management/caribou-management/documents/WoodlandCaribouPolicy-Alberta-Jun2011.pdf




References:

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD). 2010. Coal and Oil Sands Exploration Reclamation Requirements. External Directive. Directive Number: SD 2010-01. January 25, 2010.

http://www.srd.alberta.ca/MapsFormsPublications/Directives/documents/SD2010-01-CoalOilSandsExReclamationReq-Directive-Jan10.pdf

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD) and Alberta Conservation Association (ACA). 2010. Status of the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Alberta: Update 2010. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Wildlife Status Report No. 30 (Update 2010). Edmonton, Alberta. 88 pp.

DeCesare N.J. et al. 2013. “Linking habitat selection and predation risk to spatial variation in survival.” Journal of Animal Ecology 83(2): 343-352.

Dyer S.J. et al. 2001. “Avoidance of industrial developments by woodland caribou.” Journal of Wildlife Management 65: 531-542.

Environment Canada. 2012. Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. 138 pp.

Government of Alberta (GoA). 2011. A Woodland Caribou Policy for Alberta. Pub. No. I/524. 2 pp. http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/wildlife-management/caribou-management/documents/WoodlandCaribouPolicy-Alberta-Jun2011.pdf

Hebblewhite M. et al. 2007. “Conditions for caribou persistence in the wolf-elk-caribou systems of the Canadian Rockies.” Rangifer 17: 79-91.

Sorenson T.C. et al. 2008. “Determining sustainable levels of cumulative effects for boreal caribou: a management model.” Journal of Wildlife Management. 72(4): 900-905.

5. SIR(2)14 Response. Cavalier stated “the buttress connections are considered to be compatible with thermal operations as per Industry Recommended Practice 3 (ENFORM 2012). As per Appendix G: Connection Types and Definitions of Industry Recommended Practice 3, buttress connections are considered to have low sealability. Furthermore, as per Section 3.2.1.3.4(a) of Industry Recommended Practice 3, the casing connection selected for thermal well service shall provide adequate sealing under the anticipated operating conditions through the life cycle of the well. Justify why the intermediate casing connection types identified in Table 17-1 are considered to be compatible with the proposed thermal operations.

Response:

There are three wells (100/04-25-081-24W4, 100/13-24-081-24W4, and 100/13-19-081-24W4) within the Project Development Area or within 400 m of the Project Development Area boundary which have casing with buttress connections (Figure 5-1). These wells were all drilled in 2011 and







the casing was cemented in place using thermal cement. Table 5-1 provides pertinent drilling and completions data for these wells.

The wells are classified as standing wells. None of them will be utilized for steam injection or bitumen production operations but may be utilized for water disposal or utility wells.

The 4-25 and 13-19 wells are being considered for use as water disposal wells into the underlying Winterburn/Nisku/ Grosmont carbonates. If the wells are completed for water disposal operations, they will be equipped with an 88.9 mm tubing string with a packer set in the intermediate casing below the base of the Grand Rapids Formation. The annular space will be filled with water and have an annual packer isolation test completed as per AER Directive 51 (ERCB 2012). Under these operating conditions, Cavalier believes buttress connections are adequate.

The 13-24 well is being considered as a potential source water supply well for future development in the area. If a downhole pump is installed in this well for that purpose, the casing will be continuously monitored for anomalous pressure and temperature variations. Remedial actions to repair the well will be undertaken if the monitoring indicates and issue with the casing integrity.

Reference:

Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB). 2012. Draft Directive 051: Wellbore Injection Requirements. Revised edition August 14, 2012. Replaces previous edition issued March 1994. Calgary, Alberta. http://www.aer.ca/documents/directives/Draft_Directive051.pdf

http://www.aer.ca/documents/directives/Draft_Directive051.pdf



Table 5-1 Wells with Buttress Casing Connections within a 400 m Buffer of the Project Development Area

Well Name UWI Date Well Spudded

Well Licence

Well Status

Current Operator

Total Depth

(mTVD)

Surface Casing

Depth (m)

Completion Details Intermediate Completion Details Abandonment SCVF (Y/N)

Thermal Compatibility

(Y/N)

D20 Compliance

(Y/N) Notes Intermediate

Casing Depth (m)

Intermediate Casing Size

(mm)

Weight (kg/m) Grade Connection

Type Cement

Type Cement

Top Cement Returns

Cut & Cap

Plug #1 Type

Plug #1 Interval

(m)

Plug #2

Type

Plug #2 Interval

(m)

Plug #3

Type

Plug #3 Interval

(m)

CAVALIER HOOLE 4-25-81-24

100/04-25-081-24W4/00

2/2/ 2011 428534

Drilled & Cased


710.0 116.0 328.0 177.8 34.2 C95 Buttress Thermal 40 Surface Yes No Bridge

plug 240 N Y n/a

Suspended well, will be utilized as Grosmont

water disposal well. 177.8 mm intermediate casing to 342 mKB cemented

with thermal 40 cement. 114.3 mm liner from

277-710 mKB cemented in. WRP set to suspend

well. Thermally compatible well.

CAVALIER HOOLE 13-24-81-24

100/13-24-081-24W4/00

2/11/ 2011 428529

Drilled & Cased


406.0 77.5 301.0 177.8 34.2 L80 Buttress Thermal 40 Surface Yes No Bridge

plug 180 N Y n/a

Suspended well tested for use as Lower Grand

Rapids source water supply well. Well is

thermally compatible.

CAVALIER BRINT 13-19-81-23

100/13-19-081-23W4/00

1/25 /2011 428533

Drilled & Cased


692.0 116.0 483.4 177.8 34.2 C95 Buttress Thermal 40 Surface Yes No Bridge

plug 481 N Y n/a

Standing well will be utilized as

Winterburn/Nisku/Grosmont disposal well. 177.8 mm casing to 483 mKB

cemented with Thermal 40 to surface. OH from 483-692 mKB. Well is thermally compatible.

n/a = not applicable

102 103

Area Well Status

Hoole Grand Rapids Project

10572-CGSP-13February 2014Date: Technical: Drawn:Project: Reviewer:

Disclaimer: Prepared solely for the use of Cavalier Energy Inc. as specified in the accompanying report. Norepresentation of any kind is made to the other parties with which Cavalier Energy Inc. has notentered into contract.F:

\105

72\D

rafti

ng\2

013\

1057

2-C

GS

P-1

3.dw

g -

Are

aWel

lSta

t-R3

- Fr

iday

, Dec

embe

r 06,

201

3 8:

40:3

9 A

M -

Edw

ard

Rug

ayan

Plo

t 1:1

= L

ette

r (P

)

Reference:

Drainage Boxes for the Initial Two Well Pads

Project Development Area

400 m Buffer

Well Location within 400 m of PDA

Requires Remedial Work

Figure

5-1

B. FuchsT. Hodgson E. Rugayan

R 23 W4MR 24

T 81

4002000

1:20000

200

application for approval of the hoole … information request... · round 3 supplemental...

Documents