encana shallow gas infill development in the suffield ... · formal hearing submission review...

EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development in the Suffield National Wildlife Area

Formal Hearing Submission Review Wildlife Review Report No.2

Prepared for

Joint Review Panel EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development in the Suffield National Wildlife Area

August 2008

Prepared by

EnCana Suffield Review – Wildlife Management Report # 2 August 2008

Executive Summary Whidden Environmental Ltd was contracted on 21 December 2007 to review aspects related to wildlife and wildlife habitat that were part of any formal intervener hearing submissions submitted in response to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that EnCana Corporation (EnCana) had filed with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) for the proposed shallow gas infill development in the Suffield National Wildlife Area (Suffield NWA). In addition, Supplemental Submissions and Information Requests were also reviewed to capture information and intervener positions related to wildlife and wildlife habitat. This review is meant as an advisory tool to the Joint Review Panel (JRP) overseeing the hearing process associated with EnCana’s regulatory application. Attempts were made to not repeat information presented by Whidden Environmental Ltd in Wildlife Report # 1 to the JRP, in which comments on EnCana’s EIS were provided. However, some of the recommendations made to the JRP are repeated here to emphasize their relative importance. Formal hearing submissions reviewed included:

• Submissions of the Government of Canada: o Department of National Defence o Environment Canada

• Submissions of the Environmental Coalition (Alberta Wildlife Association, Grassland Naturalists and Nature Canada)

• Submissions by the Suffield Industry Range Control (SIRC) and the Suffield Environmental Advisory Board (SEAC)

• A large number and wide-variety of Information Requests (IRs) consisting of requests, and questions in relation to EnCana’s EIS and responses to IRs and associated supporting material were also reviewed for information pertaining to wildlife and wildlife habitat.

• Supplemental Submissions that were submitted by the above interveners were also reviewed.

Dr. Troy Whidden liaised informally with Mr. Jay Woosaree (Alberta Research Council), the JRPs’ independent reclamation consultant, on several occasions to discuss habitat and reclamation issues.

i


Recommendations to the Joint Review Panel

1. Surface disturbance (past, present and future) in the Suffield NWA has not been quantified in association with temporal scenarios of use. The JRP needs to ensure all stakeholders that this is done, and done correctly.

2. When considering potential effects to SARA-listed wildlife species, other wildlife

species, and their habitat, there is a need to consider the ecological context or the fact that a National Wildlife Area is involved.

3. The lack of a defined process for PDA review and assessment, should the Project

proceed, is a negative issue of environmental concern that needs to be clearly defined, and it should not be thought of as a “substitute” for systematic wildlife surveys that are required to better understand the wildlife populations of the Suffield NWA.

4. When reviewing the formal hearing submissions in light of EnCanas’ EIS, the

outstanding issue of regulatory guidance (from federal or provincial representatives) was apparent. Unfortunately, it took EnCanas’ EIS and the JRP process to generate levels of commitment from federal and provincial agencies. This is evident in the conspicuous absence of Alberta Environment and Alberta Sustainable Resource Development from the hearing process and the generation of a management Strategy by DND in February 2008. On a positive note, the process of developing a formal management plan for the Suffield NWA has incrementally moved forward.

5. The JRP should determine, and make public, why the Government of Alberta (AENV,

ASRD) has not acknowledged there responsibility to the ecological resources of the Suffield NWA.

6. We suggest that SEAC be provisioned with the resources it requires in monitoring NWA

user activities in the NWA, should the Project proceeds.

7. We suggest that SIRC be either directly involved or work in close conjunction with SEAC in monitoring oil and gas activities in the NWA, especially if the Project proceeds.

8. The JRP should consider both the scientific certainty of impact predictions to wildlife

and, concurrently, the level of uncertainty associated with impact predictions based solely upon the merits of professional judgement.

ii


9. Facilitate the immediate design and implementation of an all-encompassing and formal environmental management plan for the Suffield NWA. It has been five years since the Suffield NWA was officially recognized and still no formal management plan for this unique area exits. The current ad hoc process-driven management system is not clear in terms of policies and procedures for environmental management. The compatibility of the proposed project with goals for wildlife conservation within the Suffield NWA cannot be fully gauged because no goals for wildlife conservation have been formalized in a management plan to date.

10. Although EnCana must clearly demonstrate how the Project will not interfere with

essential ecosystem components, integrity and function (as applied to wildlife and wildlife habitat) it is the obligation of the DND (the RA) to clearly define, for all NWA users, what is meant by sustainable ecosystems within the NWA. This should include limits and thresholds related to development disturbance and wildlife and/or wildlife habitat. Downloading this responsibility to one user of the NWA is unacceptable. The JRP should require this information to be generated by the RA for all NWA users.

11. Facilitate the clarification and streamlining of the regulatory spider web currently

covering the Suffield NWA for all grazing, fire suppression, and hydrocarbon activities.

12. Effects of roads and trails on grassland birds (and other wildlife such as pronghorn) should be investigated more thoroughly via a systematic study where the probability of occurrence of species relative to road and road traffic volumes is considered. Nesting success of SARA-listed species could also be incorporated into such a study and any future monitoring. This is an opportunity for the Federal Government (DND), EnCana, other oil and gas operators, and other users of the Suffield NWA to contribute to better understanding impacts to wildlife from roads and traffic volume levels.

13. All wetlands should be delineated and classified across the entire NWA to facilitate avoidance by oil and gas activities.

14. EnCana should gather, analyze and apply empirical data on its past activities to demonstrate the effectiveness of its mitigations. This is especially important in light of the many SARA-listed species and mandate of other NWAs for wildlife conservation.

15. Determine approximately how many PDAs would be required for the proposed 1,275 infill wells and whether or not studies or surveys for species listed in the EEMP (p.9-11) would be carried out for each PDA or multiple PDAs (EPP, Section 2.2). Given that a large number of PDAs will require screening by SEAC for drilling to take place between 2008 and 2011, the capacity of EnCana to carry out appropriate PDAs and SEAC to

iii


review them, requires clarification. Given that there will undoubtedly be some required adjustments, the turn-around time for the review of PDAs is not clear. Furthermore, it is not clear how such data would be fed into a system that monitors potential project-wildlife interactions on a broad, landscape scale that includes the NWA, LSA and RSA.

16. Given the very real potential for a large amount of work to appear at the feet of SEAC should the proposed Project proceed, we suggest that SEAC’s staff levels be increased substantially, and that the organizations’’ role and mandate be revisited and re-established in an informal MOU among all parties that are users of the NWA and immediate surroundings.

17. The consequences of linear disturbances on all wildlife VECs require further detailed discussion and analyses. (Section 3.1.6)

18. Request additional information pertaining the timing of industrial disturbance on the winter ranges of pronghorn antelope, elk, mule deer and white-tailed deer in the Suffield NWA. Winter drilling activities and potential impacts to the winter herds of pronghorn antelope, elk, mule deer and white-tailed deer in the Suffield NWA require additional attention and acceptable mitigation strategies.

19. The impacts from increased traffic associated with drilling and well and pipeline maintenance activities should be considered in sufficient detail for all VECs (i.e., pronghorn antelope disturbance, amphibian migrations, etc).

20. Do not permit dug-outs or water holes to be constructed within the boundaries of delineated wetlands or in proximity to wetlands where the hydrology/hydrogeology of wetlands could be compromised.

iv


TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 1

2.0 GENERAL COMMENTS............................................................................................................ 2

3.0 GOVERNMENT OF ALBERTA PARTICIPATION.............................................................. 3

4.0 SUBMISSIONS OF THE SUFFIELD ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE............................................................................................................................................. 3

5.0 SUBMISSIONS OF SUFFIELD INDUSTRIAL RANGE CONTROL ................................ 4

6.0 SUBMISSIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA .................................................. 4 6.1 Submissions of the Department of National Defence................................................. 5

6.1.1 DND Recommendations .................................................................................... 6 6.2 Submissions of Environment Canada......................................................................... 16

6.2.1 Overall Conclusions of Environment Canada .............................................. 16 6.2.2 NWA Management........................................................................................... 18 6.2.3 EIS Review ......................................................................................................... 18

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION SUBMISSIONS .......................................................... 23 7.1 National Wildlife Area Management Plans ............................................................... 23 7.2 Terrestrial Biophysical Assessment............................................................................. 24

7.2.1 Wetlands ............................................................................................................ 24 7.2.2 Wildlife ............................................................................................................... 25 7.2.3 Biodiversity/Environmental Significance..................................................... 27 7.2.4 Data Collection & Constraints Mapping ....................................................... 27

7.3 Grassland Birds .............................................................................................................. 28 7.4 Cumulative Effects Assessment................................................................................... 29

8.0 SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA .............. 31 8.1 Supplemental Submission of the Department of National Defence....................... 31

8.1.1 Suffield NWA Management Strategy ............................................................ 31 8.1.2 Supplemental Recommendations................................................................... 32 8.1.3 Cautionary Notes .............................................................................................. 37

8.2 Supplemental Submission of Environment Canada ................................................. 38

v


9.0 SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION ........ 38

10.0 SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE SUFFIELD ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ................................................................................................................... 39

11.0 CLOSURE AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 40 11.1 Closure............................................................................................................................. 40 11.2 Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 40

12.0 LITERATURE CITED................................................................................................................ 43

vi


1.0 Introduction Whidden Environmental Ltd was contracted on 21 December 2007 to review aspects related to wildlife and wildlife habitat that were part of any formal intervener hearing submissions submitted in response to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that EnCana Corporation (EnCana) had filed with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) for the proposed shallow gas infill development in the Suffield National Wildlife Area (Suffield NWA). In addition, Supplemental Submissions and Information Requests were also reviewed to capture information and intervener positions related to wildlife and wildlife habitat. This review is meant as an advisory tool to the Joint Review Panel (JRP) overseeing the hearing process associated with EnCana’s regulatory application. Attempts were made to not repeat information presented by Whidden Environmental Ltd in Wildlife Report # 1 to the JRP, in which comments on EnCana’s EIS were provided. However, some of the recommendations made to the JRP are repeated here to emphasize their relative importance. Formal hearing submissions reviewed included:

• Submissions of the Government of Canada: o Department of National Defence o Environment Canada

• Submissions of the Environmental Coalition (Alberta Wildlife Association, Grassland Naturalists and Nature Canada)

• Submissions by the Suffield Industry Range Control (SIRC) and the Suffield Environmental Advisory Board (SEAC)

• A large number and wide-variety of Information Requests (IRs) consisting of requests, and questions in relation to EnCana’s EIS and responses to IRs and associated supporting material were also reviewed for information pertaining to wildlife and wildlife habitat.

• Supplemental Submissions that were submitted by the above interveners were also reviewed.

Dr. Troy Whidden liaised informally with Mr. Jay Woosaree (Alberta Research Council), the JRP’s independent reclamation consultant, on several occasions to discuss habitat and reclamation issues.

1


2.0 General Comments When reviewing the formal hearing submissions from interveners which included comments on EnCana’s EIS, Supplemental Submissions, or Information Requests (IRs), several issues of concern related to wildlife and wildlife habitat were directly or indirectly repeated. These are listed below with our own comments:

1. Surface disturbance (past, preset and future) in the Suffield NWA has not been quantified in association with temporal scenarios of use. Why not?





4. When reviewing the formal hearing submissions in light of EnCana’s EIS, the

outstanding issue of regulatory guidance (from federal or provincial representatives) was apparent. Unfortunately, it took EnCana’s EIS and the JRP process to generate levels of commitment from federal and provincial agencies. This is evident in the conspicuous absence of Alberta Environment and Alberta Sustainable Resource Development from the hearing process and the generation of a management Strategy by DND in February 2008. On a positive note, the process of developing a formal management plan for the Suffield NWA has incrementally moved forward.

These four issues require resolution prior to formal Project approval to satisfy all interveners as best as possible.

2


3.0 Government of Alberta Participation Although the Government of Alberta is represented in the application review process by ERCB participation and JRP mandate, it is disappointing that representatives from Alberta Environment and Alberta Sustainable Resource Development chose to not participate in the current EIS review process. Local government knowledge, which surely AENV and ASRD representatives have, of wildlife distribution and abundance, demographics and past and current habitat conditions would prove invaluable to the JRP in the mandated decision-making process. The lack of participation by those with first-hand knowledge of the wildlife and the area in question (despite jurisdictional issues) is unfortunate. We have brought this to the attention of the JRP previously (see Wildlife Report #1). DND has also, independently, voiced concern over the apparent lack of commitment the Government of Alberta has exhibited through their non-participation and contribution to the JRP hearing process (see DND formal hearing submission). In the formal hearing submission of the Suffield Environmental Advisory Committee, ANEV took the position that they were not required at the hearing. Environment Canada acknowledges that the Government of Alberta has responsibility for management of many wildlife species that migrate into and through the CFB Suffield NWA and should be consulted accordingly when decisions within the CFB Suffield NWA impact upon species that migrate in and through the military training areas. The JRP should determine, and make public, why the Government of Alberta (AENV, ASRD) has not acknowledged this responsibility.

4.0 Submissions of the Suffield Environmental Advisory Committee

As noted above, in the formal hearing submission of the Suffield Environmental Advisory Committee (SEAC), AENV took the position that they were not required at the hearing. As such, it was asked that the submission be considered as two SEAC members’ informal presentation to the JRP and not the formal submission of SEAC. Given the important oversight and advisory role that SEAC plays, and the potential for a large amount of additional work to land at the feet of SEAC members should the proposed Project proceed, this is disappointing. The SEAC members outline that there is an extensive body of environmental and operational knowledge at CFB Suffield. However, this information has not been catalogued so access is an issue. Combined with new staff learning about their respective roles and responsibilities in conjunction with the JRP hearing process, tracking the status of NWA environmental integrity, and upholding the NWA mandate of wildlife conservation with the needs of multiple NWA

3


users, and one can see that the process needs clear guidance from federal and provincial agencies. Should the proposed Project proceed, SEAC member duties will likely increase substantially. There involvement in the approvals and PDA processes for oil and gas related activities in the NWA would be very important in gauging potential impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat should the Project proceed. We suggest that SEAC be provisioned with the resources it requires in monitoring NWA user activities in the NWA, should the Project proceeds.

5.0 Submissions of Suffield Industrial Range Control Suffield Industrial Range Control (SIRC) has had minimal involvement with the proposed EnCana Shallow Gas Infill development project to date. Given that no well sites have been chosen, SIRC’s involvement has not yet been required. SIRC’s role is essentially administrative in terms of participation in meetings as required, controlling and monitoring access and movements of oil and gas activities on CFB Suffield, conducting safety briefings, and executing and coordinating oil and gas and safety administrative requirements on CFB Suffield. Should the proposed Project proceed, SIRC duties will likely increase substantially. The coordination of access and movements of oil and gas related activities in the NWA would be very important in gauging potential impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat should the Project proceed. We suggest that SIRC be either directly involved or work in close conjunction with SEAC in monitoring oil and gas activities in the NWA, especially if the Project proceeds.

6.0 Submissions of the Government of Canada The Government of Canada (GOC) submitted 400+ pages of information and commentary on EnCana’s EIS. Attempts were made to filter through the information provided and to focus on wildlife and wildlife habitat-related issues of concern (overarching and specific in an ecological context) that were raised by GOC parties. Submissions of Natural Resources Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Agriculture Canada, and Parks Canada Agency were not reviewed in detail and, as such, no comments are provided on these submissions. The following Sections report and comment on our findings.

4


6.1 Submissions of the Department of National Defence

The Suffield NWA is unique in the administrative sense that the DND is the Responsible Authority (RA) and development proponents (such as EnCana) need to request approval for any proposed Project since the Minister of Environment delegated to the Minister of National Defence most of his powers, duties and functions conferred to him under the Canadian Wildlife Act. Upon review of the EIS, DND found that there were a number of issues that were not adequately addressed and required additional information and analysis for the EIS to satisfy the EIS Guidelines. DND’s concerns are summarized as follows:

• Incomplete or insufficient information on the description of the project and all related activities; • Incomplete information on the description and characterization of the baseline information; • Uncertainties regarding environmental effects, predictions and analysis, and cumulative effects; • Uncertainties regarding effectiveness of the measures to mitigate significant adverse environmental effects; • Uncertainties regarding the effects of the project on species at risk (SAR) and their critical habitat; • Incomplete information on alternative means analysis; and • Key environmental effects of the project on Base activities, including impacts to military training, military research activities, ecological research capacity, cattle grazing and additional impacts if military activities increase in the future.

DND maintains the position that the EIS and the information provided through the supplemental information request process lacks sufficient detail, proven mitigation, and follow-up. DND has concluded that the EIS does not provide sufficient information in order to assess whether the proposed project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects, citing the precautionary principle when managing activities in the NWA. Although we agree that the precautionary principle be applied in the case of wildlife and the Suffield NWA, it should be noted that there will always be some level of uncertainty with environmental assessment predictions; what is more important to consider is the level of scientific certainty associated with impact predictions to wildlife. Scientific certainty is usually expressed in terms of the results and power of statistical tests (i.e., habitat use by wildlife is estimated by measuring wildlife sign) and is taught in introductory statistical courses, but in many environmental

5


assessments scientific certainty is expressed through professional judgement which, besides being qualified in nature, in instances where rationale is weak or unproven, increases the level of uncertainty with impact predictions. As such, the JRP should consider both the scientific certainty of impact predictions to wildlife and, concurrently, the level of uncertainty associated with impact predictions based solely upon the merits of professional judgement.

6.1.1 DND Recommendations

The following Section outlines part of the 50+ recommendations as they apply, specifically or in an overarching sense, to wildlife and wildlife habitat. The recommendations provided by DND that were reviewed are presented in italics while our respective comments follow. We have focused our comments on the recommendations, but our comments take the full text of the report into account. Recommendation #1: DND recommends that the Proponent define sustainable ecosystems within the NWA, determine each of their stress capacity limits, and provide documentation on how the project will not interfere with essential ecosystem components, integrity, and function (required for ecosystems to remain healthy). Although we agree that EnCana must clearly demonstrate how the Project will not interfere with essential ecosystem components, integrity and function (as applied to wildlife and wildlife habitat) we believe that it is the obligation of the DND (the RA) to clearly define, for all NWA users, what is meant by sustainable ecosystems within the NWA. This should include limits and thresholds related to development disturbance and wildlife and/or wildlife habitat. Downloading this responsibility to one user of the NWA is unacceptable. Recommendation #2: DND recommends that the Proponent assess project-related environmental effects on all individual wildlife components and their ecosystems, including an assessment of the effectiveness of mitigation measures and follow-up programs, to ensure the protection of all ecosystem components. We concur that evidence supporting impact predictions was not provided in many instances (see Wildlife Report #1 for specific details). There is a heavy reliance on unproven or questionable mitigation strategies and several SAR were not assessed through systematic surveys. Recommendation #3: DND recommends that, where project activities are not fully quantified, where predicted effects are not based on scientific evidence, or mitigation has not been proven to be successful,

6


the Proponent re-assess them using the Precautionary Principle, or remove those proposed activities from the project until such time as all supporting information has been provided. Please refer to earlier comments on the use and understanding of the Precautionary Principle (see Section 6.1). Recommendation #4: DND recommends that complete and detailed constraints maps be developed to allow for a clear understanding of the specific locations that the Proponent will avoid, and that maps bear the disclaimer that no activity will be permitted within these areas unless approved by CFB Suffield. Although we agree that EnCana should demonstrate and develop a constraints map for a clear understanding of avoidance locations, we believe that it is the obligation of the DND (the RA) to clearly define, for all NWA users, avoidance areas within the NWA (including wildlife SAR habitats). These maps would then be made available to all NWA users. Should the proposed project (or any other for that matter) be approved, such maps could serve as the basis for the PDA process. Recommendation #5: DND recommends that the Proponent analyze the cumulative effects (and the significance of effects) of the Project on all VECs. Any cumulative effects assessment (CEA) for wildlife requires that all projects and project impacts in a region be incorporated. For wildlife, we agree that the CEA should be re-examined, with particular attention to regional study area details. Given the high-levels of disturbance in close proximity to the NWA, serious thought needs to be given to the potential impacts and consequences to regional wildlife movement, habitat connectivity, and mortality. Recommendation #6: DND recommends that the Proponent provides detailed proof of the ecological sustainability of infilling to 16 WPS within the NWA. The Proponent must also provide detailed and specific monitoring throughout the life of the Project, to ensure that any activity(s) can be halted in sufficient time to prevent any irreparable damage to the environment. We agree with the above recommendation. Although EnCana did provide information on grassland birds in relation to WPS, the study was limited in terms of the WPS examination and study results, as noted by DND, were subjectively interpreted and, at times, dismissive of results observed. Recommendation #7: DND recommends that the Proponent should explicitly address the requirements of obtaining and possessing all SARA permits associated with the proposed project.

7


Recommendation #8: DND recommends that the Proponent take into account all species listed in Table 1 in respect of its EPP, EEMP, mitigation, and other follow-up plans and policies pertaining to the Project. Recommendation #9: DND recommends that all proposed areas of critical habitat (Figure 2) be protected until such time as the lands are formally designated critical habitat or are formally removed from consideration by DND, EC and the appropriate Recovery Teams. Recommendation #10: DND recommends that the Proponent determine all effects of the proposed Project to all SAR; assess and prove the effectiveness of proposed mitigation to SAR; provide detailed follow-up methodologies, and assess the cumulative effects of the Project on all SAR. Recommendation #11: DND recommends that detailed surveys for SAR be completed at a seasonal timing that will optimally detect the presence of the species prior to the commencement of the Project. Further, DND recognizes that the department must and will produce a CFB Suffield SAR setback policy specifically for the NWA, that will ensure the protection of all SAR, their residence and their critical habitat, and take into account additional information presented at the Panel hearings. The policy must detail precisely what activities are permitted within the setback distance and determine the minimum amount of time since last confirmed sighting of a SAR to when activities can commence within the NWA. DND recommends that EnCana comply with the DND NWA specific setback distances as a condition to the Project. Recommendations 7 through 11 all apply to SAR or SAR critical habitats. We agree that the proponent must obtain all of the necessary SARA permits prior to construction and engineering should the project proceed and that all SARA species listed by DND be explicitly addressed in the planning and implementation of the EPP, EEMP, mitigation measures, follow-up plans and policies pertaining to the Project. Judging by Figure 2, almost all of the Suffield NWA should be avoided in terms of future development/use; how DND will deal with existing NWA users remains an enigma. Will all users be asked to leave? Government-led recovery teams have lagged behind the implementation of SARA legislation. In the interim, the precautionary principal should be applied evenly to all NWA users. No species recovery plans exist for many of the wildlife SAR found throughout the NWA (see Wildlife Report #1). Any DND SAR setback policy should be based on the rigors of science. In DND recommendation # 10 we find that the author is confusing the use of the term “cumulative effects”. Most people associated with the proposed Project and current review are concerned about the effects the Project (operations, construction, decommissioning) will have on the NWA. This is not, as the author seems to put it, “the cumulative effects of the project” but rather simply all of the potential Projects effects; there is no need to confound the issue of

8


potential project effects on the NWA with buzzwords. The projects contribution to the cumulative effects on wildlife habitat in the NWA or other regional study area, for example, where there are many other contributors, should be quantified. We do agree that systematic wildlife surveys for many SARA species are warranted given the paucity of data that exists and the special status and mandate of the Suffield NWA. It has been noted by many reviewers that Burrowing Owl call playback and nesting surveys should have been done along with winter ungulate (pronghorn) surveys. Recommendation #12: DND recommends that experimental and control areas for scientific study (as already designated by CFB Suffield) be excluded from development, with setbacks/buffers identified by DND. DND purports a potential loss of wildlife research capabilities if the project proceeds and that project approval could compromise the overall integrity of the NWA and population sources for wildlife species for wildlife resources. Although we agree that wildlife research-Project development conflicts could arise, the implementation of exclusion or avoidance zones should alleviate most potential conflicts. Details should be provided by DNA to all NWA users. Given that the “integrity” of the NWA has been compromised for decades DND, as the RA, should concentrate on developing and implementing a comprehensive management plan for the NWA that has the details required (i.e., thresholds for development, benchmarks or targets for future wildlife populations, etc.) to ensure that current degradation is held in check and mitigated effectively. DND has not demonstrated, quantitatively, nor cited supporting literature, that suggests the NWA is a source for wildlife populations through southeast Alberta. Recommendation #13: DND recommends that no Project-related activity be permitted within a minimum of 100 meter buffer area surrounding all wetlands within the NWA until such time as additional research, monitoring and evaluations be conducted. Given past operator performance in and around wetlands, wetland sensitivity to disturbance, and the relative scarcity and importance of wetlands to wildlife in the Suffield NWA, we concur with this recommendation. However, wetlands in the NWA need to be clearly delineated in terms of both physical location and likelihood of occurrence (in the case of ephemeral or temporary wetlands which can make up the majority of prairie pothole wetlands in some regions). Such a compendium of information would greatly benefit all users of the Suffield NWA and, as such, could be produced through a cooperative arrangement of all users.

9


Recommendation #15: DND recommends that the Proponent identify all mitigation for direct wildlife impacts/mortality on access trails and right-of-ways, and determine if the proposed mitigation would be successful and if management plans and policies will be updated in sufficient time to ensure the protection of wildlife. We agree with this recommendation but would take it further by suggesting that yearly monitoring reports be supplied to DND by EnCana and that mortality monitoring be conducted using DND-approved methods. Yearly reports should present current and past year’s data so that any trends are examined and mitigation measures be adjusted where necessary. Recommendation #16: DND recommends that the Proponent be required to examine and present impacts of the Project to the source areas and populations both inside and outside the NWA. DND recommends that the Proponent include in their constraints map a buffer area for the NWA. If this recommendation is to be applied to wildlife species, it would be useful if DND identified which species are being considered when discussing “…ecosystem source populations…” We are presuming that this recommendation and associated text pertain primarily to weedy and non-native plant species. Recommendation #17: DND recommends the Proponent continue research and conduct field studies to detail the current and potential impacts from fragmentation on VECs within the NWA. We agree with this recommendation. The proponent must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the RA that infill development will not be detrimental to wildlife conservation in the Suffield NWA. We propose a phased approach: Phase 1 – Desktop literature review outlining the potential impacts from fragmentation due to infill drilling (linear features < 4m wide in native prairie grassland) on the wildlife VECs selected that are regularly found within the NWA and other wildlife species of special management concern or research interest. Phase 2 – Field studies as recommended. Recommendation #18: DND recommends that the Proponent: a. complete an assessment of disturbance that shallow gas development will have on vegetation and wildlife to better understand the changes that it may cause to the ecosystem;

10


b. quantify the existing footprint, using more rigorous methods such as a software-based classification algorithm, multi-spectral or hyper-spectral imagery, as well as providing an accuracy assessment, using ground-based measurements; c. further quantify the predicted disturbance footprint, using metrics of fragmentation, potential for non-native species invasion, considering short, medium, and long-term effects of all Project-related activities; d. include in their analysis the native vegetation invaded and displaced by non-native species originally seeded on lease sites and pipelines; e. develop a DND approved monitoring and follow-up program for addressing impacts to wildlife and vegetation; f. fully assess the cumulative linear footprint of oil and gas development in the NWA, including metrics of fragmentation and the spatial extent of non-native vegetation. Such information will indicate the degree of current, and potential for, invasion into undisturbed prairie; g. fully assess the effect of modified and fragmented habitats on wildlife, including ground-nesting birds, small mammals, ungulates, and herpetiles. Studies must indicate whether modified landscapes serve as source or sink habitat for endemic prairie species; h. fully assess control and mitigation of habitat fragmentation, and invasion of non-native vegetation from pipelines and access trails, including rights-of-way which were deliberately seeded to agronomic species. Such controls must be demonstrated to be effective; and i. fully assess the effect of non-native invasion on rare and provincially/federally-listed plant species and communities currently found adjacent to pipelines. DND has provided valuable, first-hand information on spatial and temporal effects of disturbance based on vegetation data collected in the NWA. For wildlife, the next logical step would be take the vegetation community (habitat) information collected and extrapolate to potential impacts to wildlife VECs. It is not clear why DND has not done this for wildlife species of special management concern before the EnCana Infill Project application as part of RA due diligence and formal management planning. We agree with points a through h above, but we also acknowledge the tremendous amount of effort it will take to accomplish point (g). Recommendation #19: DND recommends that the Proponent: a. provide specific descriptions of all reference (undisturbed) plant communities within the NWA, assess species, productivity, and habitat suitability differences between disturbed (resulting from shallow gas development, including lease sites, access trails, and pipelines) and undisturbed sites; and b. provide statistical analysis of recovery trajectories, and confirm whether or not disturbed sites can return to pre-disturbance conditions. It is not clear if DND is requesting that habitat suitability indices be generated and compared between disturbed and undisturbed sites for select wildlife VECs. We would agree with this

11


approach in an attempt to depict differences, if any, in potential wildlife presence/absence. As outlined in point (b) above, we would expect the same scenario to be carried out for wildlife recolonization of disturbed sites over time, with explicit targets or benchmarks against which monitoring results could be compared. Recommendation #24: DND recommends that the Proponent provide sufficient funding on an annual basis to DND to pay for additional human resources required, as a result of the Project. Although we agree that the proposed project will create a strain on existing staff and likely require additional personnel requirements, DND as the RA should expect such responsibility as policing environmental issues of concern for an NWA. All users and government agencies should be contributing to the effective environmental management and wildlife conservation, relative to their respective roles as regulators or users of the Suffield NWA. Recommendation #28. DND recommends that the Proponent make a public commitment to follow the requirements of the permits issued by the B Comd, in accordance with the Wildlife Area Regulations. We agree with this recommendation and should the proposed Project proceed, this should be a condition of any approvals scheme. Recommendation #29. DND recommends that the Proponent make a public commitment to follow the requirements of DND wetland and SAR policies. Given the importance of wetlands in the Suffield NWA to myriad wildlife species of special management concern or that are listed under SARA we agree with this requirement. Recommendation #30. DND recommends that federal and provincial governments enact environmental legislation and/or regulations for CFB Suffield. We agree with this recommendation; without proper regulatory guidance, the ecological integrity of the Suffield NWA and the mandate for wildlife conservation will suffer more and be exposed to additional pressures. Recommendation #32: DND recommends that the Proponent incorporate information derived from PDAs into the EIS.

12


We disagree that information from PDAs be incorporated into the EIS. PDAs are meant to generate site-specific information in light of fine-scale site selection and engineering design. PDAs have been used elsewhere throughout Alberta as such, although the relative utility of some PDAs is questionable. The JRP has the opportunity, should the Project proceed, to establish stringent guidelines for PDA contents, their review, and associated approval process; nothing less should be expected for an NWA. However, PDAs are not meant as a substitute for systematic filed surveys that should be conducted for all wildlife SAR (i.e., Burrowing Owls) and critical habitats. Systematic surveys do not, necessarily, capture all of the available information on any particular wildlife species; the results of such surveys should act as the basis for PDA approach on a site-by-site case basis. Recommendation #33: DND recommends that the Proponent identify all monitoring and follow-up programs for any unproven mitigation measures related to road speed and traffic, including the thresholds for implementing additional mitigation, and the specific mitigation it will take if mortality has exceeded thresholds. Although we agree with this recommendation, we suggest that DND be proactive and supply EnCana and other NWA users with DND mitigation measures (as an NWA and RTA user) related to road speed and traffic, including thresholds for implementing additional mitigation and the specific mitigation it takes if mortality will exceed thresholds. If DND cannot supply this information, then we suggest that an explanation be provided to the JRP as to why this information cannot be provided by DND. Recommendation #34: DND recommends that the Proponent repeated experiments or insert disclaimers per observational study to highlight potential misleading statements or confounded results. Although we agree that in some instances experimental design and set-up were sub-optimal, we believe that the EIS contents can be peer-reviewed and there is no need to insert disclaimers of any kind. However, we do believe that the EIS would benefit from some additional field studies, be they presence/absence surveys or grassland bird surveys of Sections with varying well density (i.e., 0, 4, 8, 16 WPS). Recommendation #35: DND recommends that the Proponent re-considered and present their experimental results within the EIS and SIRs following statistical power analysis based on sample size, as well as for probability of making Type II error. DND recommends that the Proponent fully disclose its sample sizes for each study; indicate the required sample sizes to achieve the desired level of Type I and

13


Type II statistical errors and carry out supplemental field work where power analyses indicate that the desired level of Type I and II statistical errors have not been reached. We agree with this request (see Wildlife report #1 for additional detail). Recommendation #36: DND recommends that the Proponent re-present their experimental results, potential project effects and expected success of proposed mitigation with comments on biological significance. Experimental results must also include measures of variance such as 95 % confidence intervals. We agree with this recommendation. Ecological context of experimental results is very important to the NWA mandate of wildlife conservation. Recommendation #37: In order to adequately describe and quantify environmental effects based on field studies, DND recommends that the Proponent must apply the precautionary principle in its hypothesis-testing, where the null hypothesis states that there is a significant biological difference between treatment (infill drilling) and controls and the Proponent must provide evidence that the proposed project is unlikely to result in biologically significant environmental effects. We agree with is recommendation. All of the wildlife field studies and surveys conducted in support of the EIS should have been based upon testable questions. Recommendations #38: DND recommends that the Proponent must provide substantiation to support all its conclusions. Substantiation could be in the form of peer reviewed scientific journal articles or by completing their own controlled experiments. We agree with this recommendation. Several conclusions relating to wildlife in the EIS appear to be based more on subjective professional judgment than actual filed data or model results. Recommendation #39: DND recommends that the Proponent provide a detailed, comprehensive mitigation and monitoring program for all VECs, including SAR monitoring. We agree with this recommendation. EnCana should have developed specific monitoring programs with testable questions. Recommendation #47: DND recommends that the Proponent conduct winter ungulate surveys, including a statistical analysis of habitat use. Once collected, the Proponent must re-assess the impact

14


and significance of the proposed project on ungulate winter habitat. Furthermore, DND recommends that the Proponent identify any mitigation and measures of their effectiveness for ungulates in the winter. We agree with this recommendation as this can have direct implications for conclusions surrounding potential Project impacts to pronghorn antelope and mule deer overwintering in the NWA (please see Wildlife Report #1 for additional details). Recommendations #48: DND recommends that the Proponent provide the location of all proposed wells, pipelines, trails, other infrastructure, and activities, and assess their individual and combined impacts per habitat type and SAR, as outlined in the EIS. Further, DND recommends that the Proponent provide rationale and methodology for the selection of access routes, sumps and waste disposal sites. Although this information would enable a complete assessment of potential project impacts, infrastructure location details are generally not established until after Project approval. If a stringent, detailed PDA process is a condition of Project approval, locations can be avoided or infrastructure re-routed to avoid SAR and critical habitats. This would add to the work required of all parties involved but would ensure that the wildlife conservation mandate of the NWA is maintained. Recommendation #52: DND recommends that the Proponent assess the cumulative effects of current shallow gas development, combined with the proposed and future shallow gas development within the local and regional study areas, expanded military training and operations, expanded defence research programs, and cattle grazing on all VECs. We agree that the cumulative effects assessment for the wildlife VECs was inadequate. The Proponent did not undertake a cumulative effects assessment for all terrestrial wildlife species listed on Schedule 1 of SARA as all environmental effects on SAR VECs were predicted as being not significant or negligible. These predictions were generally not based on quantitative data or were based on insufficient data and subjective professional judgment. In conclusion, we would like to acknowledge our agreement with the following DND statement: Beyond the current environmental assessment process, the Base is charged with the responsibility to manage federal land in a manner that ensures the sustainability of the training resource and the natural environment. DND has a mandate to be involved in the decision-making processes associated with all phases of the project pertaining to use of its lands, including project approval.

15


As such, it is of paramount importance that DND have the capacity and receives the support of federal and provincial regulatory agencies in any project approval decision-making process.

6.2 Submissions of Environment Canada

The formal hearing submission by Environment Canada (EC): • introduces and discusses EC mandate, roles and responsibilities; • introduces and explains the historical context and regional significance of the CFB

Suffield NWA; • discusses National Wildlife Areas in Canada; • reviews the EIS that EnCana has provided, specifically commenting on:

o species at risk and critical habitat o conservation of wildlife (grassland migratory birds, snakes, pronghorn antelope,

and the reclamation of plant communities) o cumulative environmental effects; and o mitigation and follow-up monitoring.

As such, we have focused our wildlife and wildlife habitat review on the last two bulleted points above and associated Appendices of the EC submission. We found the EC submission difficult to follow as links across the various document Sections and Appendices were absent. We have focused on commenting on EC positions and recommendations found throughout their respective submission. Although our review focuses on specific positions and recommendations, our comments take the full text into account. Specific positions and recommendations are presented in italics below and are immediately followed by our comments.

6.2.1 Overall Conclusions of Environment Canada

EC’s conclusions were summarized as follows:

1. Given CFB Suffield NWA is one of the few extant large blocks of natural prairie remaining in southern Canada and was created to conserve and protect wildlife habitat; EC takes the position that the ecological integrity of the CFB Suffield NWA must be maintained.

Although we agree that the Suffield NWA is extremely important for wildlife conservation (and is the mandate for al NWAs), the current status of the natural ecological integrity requires immediate analysis. No government agency, industry proponent, or environmental steward has thoroughly investigated what is current, in terms of ecological integrity, and what has led to the

16


current conditions observed in the NWA. To better understand the NWA and to generate a much-needed formal management plan, we need to know where the NWA stands in terms of remaining ecological integrity so we know what it is we are trying to maintain. This should be a shared responsibility among all NWA users.

2. Due to uncertainties regarding impact analysis, mitigation measures and the prevention of significant adverse environmental and cumulative effects in the NWA, EC maintains its position that the information provided by the proponent through the EIS review remains inadequate.

EC states that “…in the face of uncertainty, it is appropriate to take a precautionary approach and provide the adaptive management of cumulative effects.” (EC Submission, p. 143). There will always be some level of uncertainty with environmental assessment predictions; what is more important to consider is the level of scientific certainty associated with impact predictions to wildlife. Scientific certainty is usually expressed in terms of the results and power of statistical tests (i.e., habitat use by wildlife is estimated by measuring wildlife sign) and is taught in introductory statistical courses, but in many environmental assessments scientific certainty is expressed through professional judgment which, besides being qualified in nature, in instances where rationale is weak or unproven, increases the level of uncertainty with impact predictions. As such, the JRP should consider both the scientific certainty of impact predictions to wildlife and, concurrently, the level of uncertainty associated with impact predictions based solely upon the merits of professional judgment. EC is not clear on what level of uncertainty if any, is acceptable in an NWA where the mandate is wildlife conservation. Acceptable levels of scientific certainty are not discussed.

3. Listed species at risk and their residences must be protected pursuant to Section 32 and 33 of the Species at Risk Act. EC has concluded that the constraints imposed by future critical habitat identification on the CFB Suffield NWA will be significant. EC has preliminarily assessed critical habitat for some species at risk within CFB Suffield NWA and these areas should be protected.

It is impressive and unfortunate that EnCana’s proposed project has jump-started the sluggish federal approach to producing official Recovery Strategies for wildlife SAR. The JRP should request associated timelines for Recovery Strategies for all wildlife SAR found in the Suffield NWA. Past experience shows that, should proposed industrial development projects proceed, efforts are made to follow existing wildlife legislation, policies, and guidelines. Without federal Recovery Strategies, approaches to SAR and critical habitat avoidance will not be consistent amongst Suffield NWA users.

4. Based on EC’s scientific analyses, the grasslands at CFB Suffield NWA are being negatively impacted by existing activities on the area. EC has concluded that the Project will have further negative impacts. The Project would also compromise the recovery and survival of several federally listed species at risk

17


Although EC’s message is clear in terms of the grasslands at CFB Suffield NWA being negatively impacted by existing and future potential activities on the area, it is not clear what recommendation is being made. Should all existing activities cease? Should no new activities be permitted?

6.2.2 NWA Management

EC’s position is that, as a protected area, the CFB Suffield NWA should be managed to the highest possible standards of environmental protection and management in order to ensure the protection of its unique intrinsic values and its ongoing ecological contributions regionally. Although we agree with this position, it is difficult to understand the relatively sluggish approach to generating a formal management plan for the Suffield NWA. The JRP should insist on additional EC resources being allocated to the task of generating a formal management plan and the continued assessment of its relative effectiveness to the NWA mandate of wildlife conservation.

6.2.3 EIS Review

EIS Information Content EC maintains the position that the information provided by the proponent in the EIS and Supplementary Information remains inadequate, due to uncertainties regarding impact analysis, mitigation measures, cumulative environmental effects, and the significance of adverse environmental effect in CFB Suffield NWA. Please see our earlier comments regarding impact analysis uncertainties. We do agree with EC that cumulative environmental effects in the region, and the project’s contribution to them, require additional investigation. EC maintains the position that the proponent has not fulfilled the requirements of CEAA and SARA in the project EA. Although this is a summary, we would request that this be expanded upon in a list or tabular format.

18


Species At Risk and Critical Habitat EC recommended that:

1. No additional industrial activity should be permitted in areas preliminarily assessed as critical habitat, year round unless it can be demonstrated that there would be no adverse impacts.

Although we agree that the best way to address potential effects from industrial development is not permit any development to proceed, it is not clear how current users of the Suffield NWA will be affected. EC should explain how this recommendation pertains to current users (including EnCana).

2. For any area not preliminarily assessed as critical habitat, any industrial activity should adhere to the setback distances proposed by EC when in the vicinity of species at risk and other wildlife

We agree with this recommendation but we would suggest that all setback distances be compiled and supplied to all users of the Suffield NWA. Conservation of Wildlife Grassland Migratory Birds EC completed a review of the EIS data, analytic methods, and conclusions with respect to grassland birds and listed the following concerns:

• The EIS made comparisons between bird data from 1994-1995 with data collected in 2006. The 2006 sample year did not match for 1994-1995 by several measures known to be important predictors of bird abundance at Suffield63 (e.g. precipitation in previous two years or conserved soil moisture). Climate-associated variability can mask any real effects. Controlling for climate in the EIS is needed for the project effects to be adequately evaluated (see Appendix C, Section 7.1).

• Studies and analyses completed for the EIS did not adequately control other important factors

that influence bird numbers or counts such as grazing, fire, soil, or observer (see Appendix C, Section C7.1).

• Analyses in the EIS lacked sufficient statistical power to detect anything but the largest effects, if

they were present (see Appendix C, Section C7.2).

• Based on information made available, EC was able to test the validity of proposed habitat supply maps in the EIS against field data for only two species (Sprague’s Pipit, Lark Bunting). Neither map predicted habitat use effectively. (see Appendix C, Section C).

19


• The EIS underestimated project footprint (see Appendix C, Section C4.1-4.2).

• The EIS ignored indirect effects which are estimated to result in effective habitat loss of 4% to 39% (Appendix C, Section 4.4).

• The success of mitigation is unknown. No studies from the dry-mixed grass prairie have assessed

the success of mitigation for similar projects, as acknowledged by the proponent (response to Terr -245-A). The EIS statement that there is a high degree of confidence in conclusions of negligible or insignificant effects is therefore unjustified.

• Problems with the EIS in relation to plant communities (Appendix C, Sections 1 and 2) Plant

section) are also relevant to the assessment of effects on grassland birds. EC’s scientific analyses suggest that impacts of the proposed development will result in adverse effects to the grassland bird communities at CFB Suffield NWA. The Project is therefore inconsistent with the overall objective to maintain National Wildlife Areas in Canada for necessary wildlife research, conservation or interpretation. Although we tentatively agree with all of EC’s concerns, Appendix C in the EC submission was incomplete and did not offer the information expected as cited in the above concerns (it was absent). Post-review, we noted that this was an acknowledged error on part of EC. Snakes EC is concerned about the additive mortality of snakes from activities associated with current and proposed development at CFB Suffield NWA and adjacent CFB Suffield, and the likely population effects of this additive mortality: Evidence available to EC indicates that the NWA contains important residences (hibernacula) and other habitat requirements for maintaining populations of snakes throughout their life-cycle. These species are particularly vulnerable to traffic and persecution by humans and therefore require special consideration. EC recommends that snake populations at CFB Suffield NWA should be protected and measures taken to allow their recovery. To protect hibernacula and their snake populations and reproductive sites, there should be no Project activities along the rim of the escarpment, within 100 m of the rim, and along the entire slopes of the escarpment, to the waterline of the South Saskatchewan River, including lower reaches of tributary drainages. We agree with the above concern and recommendation of 100m setbacks (minimum) along the rim of the escarpment. Mitigation measures (other than slowing down while driving) are required to ensure various snake species conservation in the Suffield NWA. We suggest that

20


mortality monitoring be an ongoing activity conducted annually during the appropriate time period. Should the Project proceed, such a monitoring program (with adaptive management considerations) should be a condition of project approval. Pronghorn Antelope EC’s scientific analyses suggest that impacts of the proposed development will result in adverse effects on Pronghorn at CFB Suffield NWA. The Project is therefore inconsistent with the overall objective to maintain National Wildlife Areas in Canada for necessary wildlife research, conservation or interpretation. EC recommends that barriers to movement of Pronghorn should be minimized. EC recommends that barriers to movement of Pronghorn should be minimized. We agree that the Suffield NWA plays a key role in overwintering pronghorn antelope and that additional studies are required to assess potential Project impacts (see Wildlife Report #1). Although EnCana examined pronghorn responses to vehicles in the summer (the merits of the study specifics were critiqued in Wildlife Report #1) and supplied a summer resource selection function (RSF) no winter RSF was supplied. We agree with EC’s conclusion that pronghorn antelope are negatively influenced by habitat fragmentation, exotic plants, linear disturbance density, and traffic. Barriers to pronghorn movements should be minimized throughout the NWA. Reclamation of Plant Communities EC has concluded that the Project will expand the spatial footprint of development, extend the duration of that development beyond the lifespan of the current industrial infrastructure, and increase the intensity of human activity in the area. We agree with this EC conclusion. This is a concern for wildlife because of the potential ramifications to populations suffering the consequences of habitat loss and fragmentation if reclamation is not timely or successful. Multiple-contingency plans should be required for the Suffield NWA because of the wildlife conservation mandate. Cumulative Environmental Effects EC concluded that the Project contributes to regional cumulative environmental effects in a variety of ways, and that the proponent has failed to adequately address cumulative effects. We believe that the project’s relative contribution to cumulative environmental effects, more specifically, conservation of wildlife SAR, warrants further investigation and re-assessment

21


using filed data (i.e., Burrowing Owl call-playback and nesting surveys; see Wildlife report #1 for details). EC recommended:

1. The proponent should re-evaluate the cumulative effects area (RSA) to complete its cumulative effects assessment to capture regional environmental effects outside the CFB Suffield NWA. This would provide a better understanding of the regional cumulative effects from oil and gas development.

We agree with this recommendation, as noted above.

2. The proponent should undertake a thorough analysis of traffic volume and flow to better predict the distribution (spatial and temporal) of traffic in and around the CFB Suffield NWA and to better understand the impact that the Project would have on wildlife within the CFB Suffield NWA and surrounding area.

We agree with his recommendation and suggest that seasonality (i.e., winter vs summer) be factored into any analysis. Winter over wintering of ungulates (pronghorn) requires consideration and analysis in association with traffic volumes. EnCana needs to demonstrate that there will be no adverse effects to all applicable wildlife SAR (or VECs) from Project traffic in the NWA.

3. The EC science assessment should be used to develop and implement a plan to reclaim and remediate the current industrial footprint in CFB Suffield NWA before new footprints are considered. This includes removing crested wheatgrass from roads, pipelines, and trails. Other invasive species should be removed and a monitoring program established to detect their arrival. These species include but are not limited to: crested wheatgrass, smooth brome, timothy, creeping red fescue, kentucky bluegrass, downy brome, white and yellow sweet clover, alfalfa and russian thistle.&

Although we agree, in principle, with the above recommendation we believe that the responsibility of removing invasive species falls on all users of the NWA.

22


7.0 Environmental Coalition Submissions The Environmental Coalition (Alberta Wilderness Association, Grasslands Naturalists and Nature Canada) are concerned that the proposed project of EnCana’s will contribute to further degradation of wildlife habitat, native prairie and the NWA system as a whole. They have requested that EnCana’a project be denied, indefinitely. Below, we present comments on various aspects of the Environmental Coalition submissions that pertain to wildlife and wildlife habitat.

7.1 National Wildlife Area Management Plans

Nature Canada provided a synopsis and discussion surrounding NWA management plans (Doc # 421, Tab 2). However, there is no formal management plan specifically for the Suffield NWA. This is unfortunate and, ultimately, this is the underlying source of discontent among industry (in this case EnCana), stewards of the environment (in this case the Environmental Coalition) and government (in this case the DND). Experience shows that once a management plan with conditions is in place for an area (mutually-agreed to or not), it is generally followed. Fundamentally, for wildlife, management goals are required in terms of conservation objectives, including benchmarks and thresholds to measure impact predictions of all proposed development that is deemed acceptable in an NWA. The Suffield NWA is a special case in the sense that it is immediately adjacent to an actively training military base. Ecological integrity of the immediate area will ultimately influence the ecological integrity of the Suffield NWA and needs serious consideration in any forthcoming management plan; cumulative effects to regional wildlife populations and their habitats will require examination in and outside of the anthropogenic borders of the Suffield NWA. As presented in the aforementioned submission, the JRP should act in this case to ensure the following: National Wildlife Areas are managed individually according to the specific needs of each locale. However, overall management objectives always are the same: to protect, to maintain, and when necessary, to improve habitats vital for wildlife. How each area is managed is determined by a specific management plan. [part of the introduction of the Mohawk Island Management Plan] It is not clear how any industrial development would contribute to protecting, maintaining and improving habitats vital for wildlife when no direction, in the form of a management plan with specific details, exists for the Suffield NWA. However, given that the principle purpose of any NWA lands is wildlife conservation, it is difficult to understand how continued industrial development, agriculture, and artificial fire suppression can be championed. The compatibility

23


of the proposed Project with goals for wildlife conservation within the Suffield NWA cannot be fully gauged because no specific goals for wildlife conservation have been formalized in a management plan to date (but see CFB Suffield National Wildlife Area Management Strategy from February 2008).

7.2 Terrestrial Biophysical Assessment

The Environmental Coalition submitted a report that examined EnCana’s terrestrial biophysical assessment of rare plants and rare ecological communities, wetlands, wildlife and biodiversity (Doc #421, Tab 5). The report was written by a Professional Biologist with many years (decades) of experience in and around the Suffield NWA and similar habitats. Although solutions or pathways to solutions in observed EIS deficiencies are provided in certain instances, more often than not potential solutions are not provided.

7.2.1 Wetlands

We agree with the author that all wetlands (ephemeral, temporary, permanent) in the Suffield NWA should be avoided in terms of disruption and minimum mandatory setbacks of 100m (from wetland edge or perimeter) be set because of wetland scarcity in the Suffield NWA. The importance of prairie-pothole wetlands to wildlife (waterfowl, water birds, blackbirds and other avifauna and amphibians) is a fundamental reason for their conservation and preservation (see Stewart and Kantrud 1971). Wetlands throughout the Suffield NWA should be catalogued and, at minimum, an historical 10-20 year study be conducted with respect to ephemeral and temporary wetland presence/absence. In turn, the results of such a study could contribute to any future formal environmental management plan for the Suffield NWA. Aerial photograph and satellite records exist which could have been used to document seasonal wetland history for a designated period of time across the Suffield NWA. Attempting to identify ephemeral and temporary wetlands through the PDA process is flawed as some of these types of wetlands, although very important for local plants and wildlife (biodiversity) are sporadic in terms of occurrence. As such, many could be missed or classified as non-existent, depending upon the time of year and amount of precipitation any PDA is conducted. It is not clear why EnCana apparently failed to inventory all wetlands potentially impacted by the proposed project. To date, EnCana has only committed to avoid wetlands “…whenever possible…” and “…where appropriate…”. The use of such terms and phrases does nothing to alleviate the uncertainty associated with the conservation of current wetland integrity in the Suffield NWA. Given the relative rarity and importance of wetlands to a wide-variety of wildlife species (some of which

24


are SARA-listed) throughout Alberta and especially within the Suffield NWA, their conservation should be given top priority. We also agree with the author that wetland function should not be compromised by the withdrawal or impoundment of wetland water. In addition, it remains unclear why EnCana has not proposed a No-Net-Loss-Plan if expecting to utilize wetlands in the Suffield NWA.

7.2.2 Wildlife

As we noted in Wildlife Report #1, it is also apparent to Environmental Coalition that EnCana has apparently failed to capture any information on potential project effects to wildlife species (i.e., pronghorn antelope) during the winter months. This apparent oversight needs to be addressed. The Environmental Coalition notes that three SARA-listed species particularly stand out as being at risk from the proposed development and for which EnCana failed to adequately consider the effects as required by EIS guidelines: Burrowing Owl, Sprague’s Pipit and Ord’s Kangaroo Rat.

• We agree that a comprehensive survey of Burrowing Owls and nesting sites should be completed for the entire Suffield NWA (see Wildlife Report #1) , funded in part by all levels of government and users of the NWA – not just EnCana. This would not preclude the need for site-specific PDAs to be done should the project proceed, but rather act as the basis from which all site-specific surveys are done for Burrowing Owls.

• Like the Burrowing Owl, data on Sprague’s Pipit appears to be lacking and conclusions that pipelines and trails will not contribute to Sprague’s Pipit habitat fragmentation are subjective and not based on solid, quantifiable information.

• Given the ever-increasing pressures on Ord’s Kangaroo Rat in the Suffield NWA, we agree that it is not clear how unproven mitigation will produce insignificant residual effects to the struggling population.

It would also be useful if EnCana could make public all information (systematic or anecdotal) they possess on these three species of special management concern. We agree with the Environmental Coalition that the selection of avian VECs is odd in the sense that all federally-listed species (under COSEWIC and SARA) were selected for assessment of potential project effects. On paper and in theory this may seem laudable but it is not practical. This over-inclusion of species might technically satisfy some regulatory requirement, but it is far from realistic as the ecological context and life history parameters are ignored in terms of plausibility. Many of the listed VECs (as indicated by the Environmental Coalition) have a very

25


low likelihood of being found in the Suffield NWA and, as such, should not be weighted the same as those likely found throughout the NWA (i.e., Pied-billed Grebe vs. Burrowing Owl). The JRP should focus their review and attention on those regularly found in the Suffield NWA rather than those species for which the NWA is a marginal habitat, at best. As indicated by the Environmental Coalition, these species include: Birds: Burrowing Owl Common Nighthawk Ferruginous Hawk Golden Eagle Long-billed Curlew Prairie Falcon Sharp-tailed Grouse Sprague’s Pipit Mammals: American Badger Northern Pocket Gopher Ord’s Kangaroo Rat Pronghorn Antelope (overwintering habitat) Mule Deer (overwintering habitat) Reptiles and Amphibians: Prairie Rattlesnake Bullsnake Western Hognose Snake Great Plains Toad Plains Spadefoot Toad The critique of field methods and analyses by the Environmental Coalition is warranted. Given the relative significance of the Suffield NWA nationally, and even globally, EnCana should have gone above and beyond the usual standard for wildlife in the EIS. They apparently did not, and the Environmental Coalition notes several issues with the methods used (see Wildlife Report #1 for additional commentary on certain surveys and methods, including pronghorn antelope):

• there was a lack of call playback surveys for Burrowing Owls; • there were no early spring/fall surveys for Sharp-tailed Grouse leks; • Breeding bird surveys should have been conducted twice (June and July) rather than just

early June to mirror earlier CWS surveys;

26


• Additional night-time call surveys should have been conducted. We also note that a pond/wetland edge survey could have added additional information on amphibian lifestage presence/absence;

• Ground Squirrel call playback surveys were done at less than optimal times; • Ungulate responses to vehicular traffic warrants further investigation [see Wildlife

Report #1 for additional commentary]; and • Small mammal live trapping revealed little about habitat effectiveness and productivity

for small mammals. We agree with all of the above comments. Although the small mapping live trapping is questionable in terms of what it reveals about habitat “effectiveness” and productivity for small mammals, it does provide a snapshot of habitat use by resident and transient species. Habitat suitability modelling might prove as a surrogate in the case of gauging potential impacts to small mammal communities. In turn, the data collected will assist in ground-truthing any model predictions

7.2.3 Biodiversity/Environmental Significance

We agree with the Environmental Coalition that EnCana did not take into account the environmental/ecological significance of the Suffield NWA in the EIS. As the Environmental Coalition indicates, the Suffield NWA represents, in part, key ungulate habitat, large numbers of Sharp-tailed Grouse leks, and localized waterfowl production and staging. It also represents important habitat for endemic grassland birds and is important habitat for many SARA-listed species. However, although CFB Suffield does represent a large block of native prairie in the Northern Glacial Plains of North America, it is far from “intact” in the strictest sense. Many decades of exploitation via oil and gas activities, agricultural practices, and military activities have arguably compromised the ecological integrity of CFB Suffield and the NWA. The question to the JRP should then be, “When is enough, enough?” when considering any user request, including EnCana’s infill project.

7.2.4 Data Collection & Constraints Mapping

We agree with the Environmental Coalition that additional data collection would have added to the wildlife assessment. As outlined in their report, these include:

• all wetlands and drainages with buffers/setbacks; • amphibian breeding ponds with buffers/setbacks; • sharp-tailed grouse leks, winter habitat with buffers/setbacks;

27


• bird of prey nests with buffers/setbacks; • ungulate winter range and movement corridors; and • ungulate buffers/setbacks along roads and trails.

Further, we would have expected individual zones of influence (ZOI) along all roads and trails for all wildlife VECs. EnCana needs to be transparent about the constraints mapping approach as it appears logistical and infrastructure placement constraints take precedent over many of the seasonal constraints associated with construction and operations and sensitive seasons for wildlife. This does not fit with the conservation mandates of NWAs. As the Environmental Coalition point out, once all of the considerations constraints are taken into account, it is difficult to understand how any additional industrial footprint would be permitted under the auspices of NWA mandates and priorities for wildlife conservation. Although we agree with the majority of comments throughout the report on wildlife, the question raised by the author, ‘What is EnCana doing to protect the area from fragmentation, industrial activity, invasive plants, loss of species at risk, etc.?’ should be put to the Federal and Provincial Resource Management Agencies. Our experience points to the fact that proponents of any development project will, generally, do what the regulators tell them. With the exception of the ERCB, Alberta has apparently failed to contribute to the current EnCana development proposal because no regional and historical changes in wildlife population and habitat parameters are provided in the EIS that would reflect the first-hand experience and guidelines that could be expected of Alberta Environment and Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. No regional standards or targets that could assist in generating an environmental management plan for the Suffield NWA, despite jurisdictional defences, are evident from these resource management agencies. Federally, the apparent absence of any formal management plan is noteworthy given that the Suffield NWA is under continued pressures, be they development, agricultural or recreational, all of which show effects in the NWA directly or at least through perimeter encroachment.

7.3 Grassland Birds

Impacts on grassland birds from the proposed project were discussed in a stand-alone submission (Doc # 421, Tab 6). The author indicated that EnCana’s planned development “…will alter the integrity of one of the last remaining dry grass prairies in Canada.” (p.1, Tab 6). The integrity of the Suffield NWA is questionable. The relative contribution of EnCana’s proposed project to diminishing the ecological integrity (presumably for grassland birds)

28


remains unclear. A stand-alone cumulative effects assessment, if done correctly, would shed light on EnCana’s contribution to ecological integrity degradation. The report purports the potential direct and indirect effects of the project on grassland bird populations. Given that EnCana has operated in the area for many years, and presumably collected baseline (pre-EnCana disturbance data) information and yearly monitoring information on grassland birds, insight into any cause-and-effect relationship between existing infrastructure and grassland bird populations should be readily available. If not, the rationale for why such information was not proactively collected needs to be made clear. Although increased traffic volumes along roads (new and old) are likely a major contributor to bird species, it is not clear if:

• traffic volumes from EnCana’s project are large enough to contribute to significant mortality of grassland species such as Burrowing Owls, Sprague’s Pipits or Piping Plovers; and

• current vehicle-caused mortality of grassland birds in the NWA is known or even monitored.

This is another demonstration of lax wildlife monitoring in the Suffield NWA. Without any data, conclusions are speculative. We agree that there will likely be a decrease in habitat quality along with an increased abandonment and destruction of nests with increased access and continued/increased road use. Given the difficulties associated with monitoring the effects of such disturbances, the relative contribution of EnCana to the degradation of the current ecological integrity of the Suffield NWA will prove difficult to quantify. Effects of roads and trails on grassland birds (and other wildlife such as pronghorn) should be investigated more thoroughly via a systematic study where the probability of occurrence of species relative to road and road traffic volumes is considered. Nesting success of SARA-listed species could also be incorporated into such a study and any future monitoring. This is an opportunity for the Federal Government (DND), EnCana, other oil and gas operators, and other users of the Suffield NWA to contribute to better understanding impacts to wildlife from roads and traffic volume levels.

7.4 Cumulative Effects Assessment

We have commented on the Key Recommendations by B. Stelfox to address existing inadequacies of the current CEA documents (Tab 3, p. 9) but our comments take the full text of

29


the report into account. We have reiterated the recommendations below in italics which are followed by our respective comments.

1. Quantify “Range of Natural Variability” for all key VECs using landscape/landscape simulation models.

Quantifying RNV is a good idea and should be done. However, as we have noted in earlier comments (see Wildlife report #1) , care is needed when using RNV as a benchmark to say that if a project effect falls within RNV, then all is well. The problem is that contrary to the Figures provided, the RNV is not static and changes itself with the addition of every Project, thereby changing the benchmark each time. A Project effect on the RNV itself (rather than an effect on the mean) may be important. Moreover, land use simulation methods are possible but not the only applicable method for estimating the RNV. For impact assessment applications, it would be sufficient to know what the range of variation was in the past by providing the maxima and minima that have been measured in the past, for any of the parameters of interest (i.e., wildlife population numbers).

2. Conduct back-cast simulations of the SNWA for the period 1955 to 2005 to quantify existing changes to VECs relative to RNV values.

To conduct back-cast simulations would be a useful exercise, but any user of the Suffield NWA in the area, including DND, should be charged with that responsibility. This is because to better understand regional changes and cumulative effects in the past, present and future, a regional initiative needs to be present which cannot be downloaded on one Proponent or land user. It seems that the regional resource management agency should be in charge of such analyses and should make its data and analyses available to any Proponent trying to understand its contribution to regional effects.

3. Conduct fore-cast simulations of the SNAW for the period 2005-2055 to quantify predicted changes to VECs, given the defined trajectories of the infilling process. These results need to be compared to both current and RNV values.

We believe that the forecasting of cumulative changes suggested simply relates to proper cumulative effects management. We agree with the recommendations, but we add the need for the assistance by regional resource agencies, as noted above.

4. Demonstrate quantitatively the extent to which adverse effects of EnCana’s activity on VECs can be mitigated through the adoption of best practices.

30


This recommendation mirrors that made by DND, namely that EnCana should gather, analyze and apply empirical data on its past activities to demonstrate the effectiveness of its mitigations. We agree with this recommendation, especially in light of the many SARA-listed species and mandate of other NWAs for wildlife conservation.

5. Quantify existing level of uncertainty for key landscape relationships and explore consequences of this uncertainty using “sensitivity” simulations within landscape/land use simulation models.

We agree that Looking into uncertainty (or the level of scientific certainty) is important. However, sensitivity simulations are a nice thing to have but not a must have. Simple statistics on variance and confidence limits of the data collected would suffice to provide a measure of uncertainty and to focus follow-up/monitoring programs of those factors for which impact predictions are both important and uncertain. As such, follow-up programs need to be designed to quantitatively ascertain that the proposed mitigation measures are effective. One minor typographical error was noticed in Figure 14 where the Habitat Suitability Index for moose was presented under the auspices of changes in availability of native grassland habitat for a hypothetical sensitive grassland species.

8.0 Supplemental Submissions of the Government of Canada

The following sections provide commentary on the Supplemental Submissions of the Department of National Defence (DND) and Environment Canada (EC). Given the geological/slope stability focus of the Supplemental Submission of National Resources Canada (NRCan), no comments are provided on this submission.

8.1 Supplemental Submission of the Department of National Defence

8.1.1 Suffield NWA Management Strategy

In February 2008, DND submitted a document entitled, Canadian Forces Base Suffield National Wildlife Area Management Strategy. The document briefly outlines and introduces the aim, management vision and guiding principles for management within the Suffield NWA. The document falls short on specific details that NWA users can refer to when determining whether

31


to attempt to move forward with any development project or agricultural practice. Although the general principals set out in the short document can be used by users and stakeholders alike, there is little in terms of novel information. The JRP should champion DND, with the assistance of federal and provincial regulatory agencies, to generate a detailed management plan for the Suffield NWA that deals with current and potential future industrial development and agricultural practices. Thresholds for development and agricultural use, and wildlife recolonization targets and benchmarks associated with reclamation and monitoring programs are required to ensure that wildlife conservation persists in the Suffield NWA.

8.1.2 Supplemental Recommendations

DND notes that the list of mitigation measures does not provide sufficient detail on which mitigation will be implemented and how they will be implemented. Although we agree that this is a concern, it may not be possible to provide this detail without the required engineering detail which is often finalized very shortly before construction. DND’s request for EnCana to demonstrate the effectiveness of mitigation from past project activities is a very reasonable request. Given that EnCana has many years of operating experience in the area, one could expect that a great deal of empirical information would be available to show which mitigation measures worked in the past and which did not. The need proposed by EnCana to approach detailed mitigation planning based on pre-disturbance assessments (PDAs) is reasonable. This is because engineering detail is often finalized very shortly before construction and it may not be possible or practical to do detailed surveys on wildlife species residences and habitats in a site-specific location and at a time of year that does not reflect the final location and time of disturbance. DND Recommendations The following section deals with the recommendations provided by DND in its supplemental submission. The recommendations are presented in italics followed by our respective comments. Recommendation #1: DND recommends that the Proponent’s reclamation plans be consistent with the objectives identified in the ecological restoration policy identified for protected areas. We agree with DND that the Proponent’s reclamation plans should be consistent with the objectives identified in the ecological restoration policy. In fact, any reclamation targets should be clearly defined using measureable parameters. Recommendation #2: DND recommends that the Proponent:

32


a. provide specific baseline information (considering species composition, bare ground,

litter/productivity and rare/uncommon species) for all vegetation communities, which will be affected by the Project (as required under Section 5.3.2 of the EIS guidelines). This information will be used to identify the desired end-state of location-specific activities within each vegetation community;

b. provide evidence that its propose reclamation plan will be effective, by using examples of past reclamation activities which have been used in the same plant communities. Where native seed has been used, the Proponent should also identify and indicate the degree of success, relative to pre-existing conditions considering vegetation communities, species composition, litter, bare ground, and range health;

c. provide definitive timelines for the return to pre-disturbance conditions considering vegetation communities, species composition, litter, bare ground, and range health. Finally, the Proponent must definitively determine whether or not reclamation activities will return areas disturbed as a result of the Project to pre-disturbance conditions; and

d. quantify the differences between the improvements that will be implemented and historical practices used. Specifically, the Proponent should document current reclamation practices to manage undesirable vegetation and restore equivalent land capability, and specifically how they have changed from previous practices.

DND’s requests are reasonable because without the specific details in the reclamation plans, it is unclear which specific options are available for post-construction reclamation and how the best options will be selected. Specifically,

a. We agree that specific baseline information should be provided. b. We agree that evidence should be provided that the proposed reclamation plan will be

effective (based on empirical evidence from past reclamation experience). c. We agree that definitive timelines for the return to pre-disturbance conditions should be

developed. This again requires that specific targets be provided. d. We agree that any differences between targeted and actual outcomes should be

measured and quantified. In addition, there should be a requirement for optional fall-back mitigation plans should initial reclamation efforts fail.

Recommendation #3: DND recommends that the Proponent:

a. develop mapping products of slope gradients at appropriate mapping scales and resolutions (i.e.: 1:30,000);

b. indicate the spatial extent of steep slopes (> 15%) within the project area; c. develop constraints mapping products which indicate the areas that be excluded from

development, by incorporating slope data; d. provide specific mitigation and reclamation plans for steep erosive slopes, so that all mitigation

can be evaluated;

33


e. provide historical evidence of the success and effectiveness of erosion mitigation from previous

developments within these areas, by quantifying the frequency of erosion on pipelines and well sites encountered during previous development within the NWA, quantifying the re-vegetation success in eroded areas, and identify outstanding mitigation issues;

f. specify how it will employ specific mitigation measures, and identify the decision-making process in determining the most appropriate mitigation; and

g. provide trail management plans, as requested by SEAC (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007), DND (2005,2006,2007), and as required by the EIS guidelines, in order to reduce the risk of erosion from duplicate access in sensitive terrain, and to manage erosion problems with existing access.

We agree on all points. The existence of slopes should be mapped and quantified for the betterment of mitigation planning. Erosion and impacts to vegetation communities will negatively impact wildlife habitat. Given the litany of DNA requests, it is unclear (a) what EnCana has been doing to incorporate slopes and erosion into earlier mitigation plans and (b) why DND has not denied earlier applications and access given the apparent paucity of information on mitigation planning surrounding slopes and erosion. Recommendation #4: DND recommends that the Proponent quantify the differences between the improvements and historical practices related to trail proliferation management. Specifically, DNA recommends that the Proponent:

a. document current traffic control methodologies to protect vegetation and soils, assess their effectiveness, and specify how they have changed from previous practices;

b. document current well site visitation, and specify how visitation has changed from previous practices, using empirical data.

c. submit a plan for the development of a monitoring and surveillance system to be implemented which would include GPS tracking of vehicles with data provided to SIRC and to DND.

We agree on all points. We strongly encourage the quantification and empirical data collection and analysis. Predicted visitation rates should be compared to actual visitation rates to gauge the potential impacts to wildlife. Recommendation #5: DND recommends that the Proponent quantify the differences between the improvements and historical practices, using empirical data. Specifically, DND recommends that the Proponent::

a. assess the extent and condition of trails which are currently eroding; b. assess the likelihood of erosion on steep and erosive trails which result from the Project c. document current erosion control methodologies, assess their effectiveness, and specify how they

have changed from previous parties;

34


We agree on all points as we commented on Recommendation #4 above, particularly given that past experience on mitigation success exists. Recommendation #6: DND recommends that the Proponent:

a. specify how it will control weedy and non-native agronomic species on pipelines and access trails where they were not originally seeded, and document its historical success; clearly mark all access routes from points of entry to well sites and remove all weeds and invasive species, from these access routes;

b. assess the effectiveness of non-native species control, by providing evidence of the successful control of agronomic and invasive species detected on well sites, pipelines, and in previously undisturbed native prairie, as a result of shallow gas development;

c. establish and confirm locations of “first entry of CFB Suffield”, and weed cleaning stations, and specify the criteria used to determine whether vehicles and equipment are clean and report on the effectiveness of vehicle cleaning;

d. specify how access will avoid known vegetation infestations, given that the majority of older pipelines/access within the NWA have been seeded to non-native agronomic species. It is recommended that weeds and other invasive species be removed from the NWA prior to the commencement of the project, should it proceed;

e. specify how it will determine whether weedy and non-native agronomic species presence/infestation has resulted from shallow gas development, or other land use; and

f. In cases where the Proponent proposes to use chemical treatments, identify legislative and policy requirements for mitigation involving the application of pesticides within the NWA, and confirm its adherence to those requirements.

We agree that, as with all previous comments by DND on the details for mitigation planning, more details are needed on mitigation measures to prevent the establishment of invasive species. However, given that there are multiple users of the Suffield NWA, the burden of determining weed origins (see DNA point ‘e’, above) should be shared by all users and government agencies. Recommendation # 7: DND recommends that the Proponent document the current methodology for conducting PDAs, including but not limited to survey timings, species surveyed, geographic surveys, wetland surveys; specify the differences between improvements and historical practices; and assess the effectiveness of how these focused PDAs will reduce the environmental footprint in the NWA. As we noted above, the approach proposed by EnCana that detailed assessments and mitigation planning would be conducted based on PDAs is reasonable. However, we strongly

35


agree that just because EnCana relies so heavily on PDAs, the PDAs be very clearly developed in all necessary detail as requested by DND. The use of PDAs should not be viewed as a substitute for systematic wildlife surveys that were not completed by EnCana (i.e., Burrowing Owl call playback surveys). Recommendation # 8: DND recommends that the Proponent:

a. Provide a preliminary list of the additional mitigation measures proposed for VECs for those situations identified as “exceptional” by the Proponent, and assess their effectiveness; and

b. Specify how those mitigation measures will adhere to applicable legislation and policy as outlined in Section 7.1 of the EIS Guidelines.

We agree that mitigation detail should be provided for VECs in exceptional conditions and that these mitigations should be related to existing legislation and policy. This is especially important for several SARA-listed wildlife VECs that are found throughout the Suffield NWA. Recommendation #9 : DND recommends that the Proponent:

a. Provide a complete list of provincial and federal legislation, regulation, and policy and DND policy and regulation including those specific to CFB Suffield (eg. Range Standing Orders), that apply to oil and gas development activities at the CFB Suffield NWA and how they were considered in developing mitigation measures within the EPP;

b. For AEUB/ERCB guidelines and information letters which do not have legislation or regulatory compliance requirements, explain how these will be adhered to, and tracked to ensure compliance; and

c. Develop the environmental commitment database prior to Project implementation, should the Project process.

We agree that a concordance table/database listing the legislation and how they are considered with would be useful; this is especially true for wildlife and wildlife habitat. Recommendation #10: DND recommends that the Proponent:

a. follow the thresholds and criteria determined by DND related to work shutdown; and b. assess the effectiveness of proposed mitigation, including an assessment of the effectiveness of

historical wet weather shutdown. We agree that effectiveness of proposed mitigation particularly for wet weather conditions needs to be demonstrated by reviewing past performance and that set criteria be followed for wet weather shutdown. Preventing further additional habitat degradation (or loss) throughout the NWA is a key factor in the conservation of wildlife species.

36


Recommendation # 11: Should the Project proceed, DND recommends that the Proponent:

a. establish an EEM Advisory Committee before project implementation, should the Project proceed; b. finalize the Terms of Reference for all studies to be undertaken during the construction phase in

order to monitor the effectiveness of mitigation and verify the accuracy of predictions prior to Project implementation, should it proceed. Further, these ToR must include methodologies for the establishment of environmental impact thresholds that will allow for timely intervention of activities during the construction phase; and

c. provide methodologies for monitoring, ecosystem recovery, and scientific verification of sites, and specify how they have changed from previous practices.

We unequivocally agree with the above requirements, especially when considering the wildlife and wildlife habitat of the Suffield NWA. Given that PDAs are so important for the environmental planning process, all detail possible needs to be provided on how and when the PDAs will be executed (see also our response to recommendation #7). Timelines on conducting PDAs must be realistic. An advisory committee and a ToR for PDAs is a good idea. However, given that EnCana apparently was at fault during recent small mammal trapping and trapped too close to known Ord’s Kangaroo Rat den sites (see DND supplemental Submission Part II, page 24 of 61), policing and repercussions for knowingly or unknowingly not meeting ToR conditions should be required in the Suffield NWA. Should the project proceed, policing responsibilities need to be clearly set. Recommendation #12: Fire response plan – no comment.

8.1.3 Cautionary Notes

The following are cautionary notes in relation to DND recommendations in the supplemental submission:

1. We agree that pronghorn will be impacted from the proposed Project, particularly in winter, given that the Suffield area is used as a wintering area.

2. Effective habitat: • We suggest some caution on interpreting zones of influence. While there may be

evidence that some individual animals may avoid the vicinity of human activity, and the overall use of the area may be lowered, it does not mean that the zone of influence is a death trap.

• Large avoidances by birds are usually measured in situations of high disturbances, such as highways or heavy industrial activity. The amount of disturbance may not

37


be high in the case of an access road that is not used often, and if it is used it may not be during the time of year when the birds are present.

Regardless, EnCana should have taken these points into account in their analysis. They should have used empirical data from past monitoring of their activities. They should have developed specific monitoring programs with testable questions.

8.2 Supplemental Submission of Environment Canada

EC maintains the position that significant uncertainties remain regarding impact analysis, mitigation, cumulative effects assessment and the significance of adverse environmental effects, in particular for species at risk as outlined in their original submission. EC maintains that these uncertainties are acerbated by the deferral of baseline surveys and the identification and assessment of project-related impacts to PDAs. EC maintains that they cannot provide further specific recommendations with respect to the necessary content of the EPP and EEMP, which they maintain have not adequately addressed the uncertainties noted above. We do not agree that the PDA approach is wrong, for the reasons developed under DND above (also see Wildlife Report #1), provided that the PDA work is clearly defined and planned, as requested by DND (DND Recommendations #7 and #11). However, we do not agree with the PDA process taking the place of several systematic wildlife surveys that would add to the current baseline conditions in the Suffield NWA (i.e., Burrowing Owl call playback survey)

9.0 Supplemental Submissions of the Environmental Coalition

The Environmental Coalition submitted a covering letter and two reports that were meant to bolster their position of denying the approval of EnCana’s application before the JRP. One report was entitled, “Effects of Oil and Gas Development on Grassland Birds” and was prepared for the Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada by C.G. Linnen, Northern EnviroSearh Ltd in 2008. Of note was the fact that several bird species exhibited avoidance and that it was suggested that “…industry planners and government regulators considering future developments must account for the impacts of ongoing operations and servicing activities on grassland birds to ensure the conservation of these species.”

38


The second report was entitled, “Status Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development Ecosystems: Chapter 5 – Protection of Species At Risk and originated from the Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Ottawa, in 2008. It is noted in the report that most of the required recovery plans, including the identification of critical habitat has not been completed since being recommend by the Commission in 2001. As of June 2007, critical habitat has been identified for only 16 of the 228 species at risk for which recovery strategies are required. These documents add weight to the position of the Environmental Coalition that in an area such as the Suffield NWA, where the mandate is wildlife conservation, there is the very real potential for grassland birds to be impacted by what is sometimes perceived as minimal disturbance (routine wellsite access in the prairies) and that Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada need to show initiative in terms of generating SAR recovery plans so that proper mitigation measures (including outright avoidance) can be applied in the Suffield NWA.

10.0 Supplemental Submissions of the Suffield Environmental Advisory Committee

SEAC provided digital copies of several years’ worth of meeting minutes (2003 through 2006 and 1985). A review of these documents shed some light on the trials and tribulations associated with the advisory role of SEAC and attempts made to steer the NWA towards the mandate of wildlife conservation while appeasing oil and gas operators and military training requirements. Given the very real potential for a large amount of work to appear at the feet of SEAC members should the proposed Project proceed, we suggest that SEAC’s staff levels be increased substantially, and that the organizations’’ role and mandate be revisited and re-established in an informal MOU among all parties that are users of the NWA and immediate surroundings.

39


11.0 Closure and Recommendations

11.1 Closure

The overarching question “Is there enough quality information to gauge the potential impacts to wildlife from EnCana’s proposed project in the EIS?” guided this review report. As indicated by the multiple reviewers, additional information is required in several instances. The majority of the formal hearing submissions call for EnCana’s proposed Infill Drilling program to be denied or at the very least stopped until EnCana provides what is determined to be adequate information to gauge the relative impacts to the ecological resources of the Suffield NWA. To reiterate form Wildlife Report #1, if the proposed Project does proceed in the Suffield NWA, then close scrutiny of all project activities should be required under any formal conditions of approval with severe and immediate consequences associated with violating these conditions. Heightened attention to, and effort in, designing mitigation measures and alleviating Project effects should be expected in light of the proposed project occurring in a globally-recognized NWA.

11.2 Recommendations

There are several general and specific issues of concern raised amongst the interveners that the JRP should pursue in order to fulfil its mandate. These have been discussed in the sections above. Given these issues of concern and the importance of the wildlife habitat and ecosystems that are apparently of high conservation value, with the delineation of the Suffield NWA, the following is a list of cross-scale recommendations that the JRP should consider and provide rationale for in the final recommendations that they make to the Government of Canada. These recommendations are not, necessarily, mutually exclusive or listed in order of importance, but all relate to the management of wildlife or wildlife habitat in the Suffield NWA. Several of these recommendations are repeated here from Wildlife Report #1, emphasizing their relative importance. Recommendations to the JRP:

40


21. Surface disturbance (past, present and future) in the Suffield NWA has not been quantified in association with temporal scenarios of use. The JRP needs to ensure all stakeholders that this is done, and done correctly.





24. When reviewing the formal hearing submissions in light of EnCanas’ EIS, the

outstanding issue of regulatory guidance (from federal or provincial representatives) was apparent. Unfortunately, it took EnCanas’ EIS and the JRP process to generate levels of commitment from federal and provincial agencies. This is evident in the conspicuous absence of Alberta Environment and Alberta Sustainable Resource Development from the hearing process and the generation of a management Strategy by DND in February 2008. On a positive note, the process of developing a formal management plan for the Suffield NWA has incrementally moved forward.

25. The JRP should determine, and make public, why the Government of Alberta (AENV,

ASRD) has not acknowledged there responsibility to the ecological resources of the Suffield NWA.

26. We suggest that SEAC be provisioned with the resources it requires in monitoring NWA

user activities in the NWA, should the Project proceeds.

27. We suggest that SIRC be either directly involved or work in close conjunction with SEAC in monitoring oil and gas activities in the NWA, especially if the Project proceeds.

28. The JRP should consider both the scientific certainty of impact predictions to wildlife

and, concurrently, the level of uncertainty associated with impact predictions based solely upon the merits of professional judgement.

41


29. Facilitate the immediate design and implementation of an all-encompassing and formal

environmental management plan for the Suffield NWA. It has been five years since the Suffield NWA was officially recognized and still no formal management plan for this unique area exits. The current ad hoc process-driven management system is not clear in terms of policies and procedures for environmental management. The compatibility of the proposed project with goals for wildlife conservation within the Suffield NWA cannot be fully gauged because no goals for wildlife conservation have been formalized in a management plan to date.

30. Although EnCana must clearly demonstrate how the Project will not interfere with

essential ecosystem components, integrity and function (as applied to wildlife and wildlife habitat) it is the obligation of the DND (the RA) to clearly define, for all NWA users, what is meant by sustainable ecosystems within the NWA. This should include limits and thresholds related to development disturbance and wildlife and/or wildlife habitat. Downloading this responsibility to one user of the NWA is unacceptable. The JRP should require this information to be generated by the RA for all NWA users.

31. Facilitate the clarification and streamlining of the regulatory spider web currently

covering the Suffield NWA for all grazing, fire suppression, and hydrocarbon activities.

32. Effects of roads and trails on grassland birds (and other wildlife such as pronghorn) should be investigated more thoroughly via a systematic study where the probability of occurrence of species relative to road and road traffic volumes is considered. Nesting success of SARA-listed species could also be incorporated into such a study and any future monitoring. This is an opportunity for the Federal Government (DND), EnCana, other oil and gas operators, and other users of the Suffield NWA to contribute to better understanding impacts to wildlife from roads and traffic volume levels.

33. All wetlands should be delineated and classified across the entire NWA to facilitate avoidance by oil and gas activities.

34. EnCana should gather, analyze and apply empirical data on its past activities to demonstrate the effectiveness of its mitigations. This is especially important in light of the many SARA-listed species and mandate of other NWAs for wildlife conservation.

35. Determine approximately how many PDAs would be required for the proposed 1,275 infill wells and whether or not studies or surveys for species listed in the EEMP (p.9-11) would be carried out for each PDA or multiple PDAs (EPP, Section 2.2). Given that a large number of PDAs will require screening by SEAC for drilling to take place between 2008 and 2011, the capacity of EnCana to carry out appropriate PDAs and SEAC to review them, requires clarification. Given that there will undoubtedly be some required

42


adjustments, the turn-around time for the review of PDAs is not clear. Furthermore, it is not clear how such data would be fed into a system that monitors potential project-wildlife interactions on a broad, landscape scale that includes the NWA, LSA and RSA.

36. Given the very real potential for a large amount of work to appear at the feet of SEAC should the proposed Project proceed, we suggest that SEAC’s staff levels be increased substantially, and that the organizations’’ role and mandate be revisited and re-established in an informal MOU among all parties that are users of the NWA and immediate surroundings.

37. The consequences of linear disturbances on all wildlife VECs require further detailed discussion and analyses. (Section 3.1.6)

38. Request additional information pertaining the timing of industrial disturbance on the winter ranges of pronghorn antelope, elk, mule deer and white-tailed deer in the Suffield NWA. Winter drilling activities and potential impacts to the winter herds of pronghorn antelope, elk, mule deer and white-tailed deer in the Suffield NWA require additional attention and acceptable mitigation strategies.

39. The impacts from increased traffic associated with drilling and well and pipeline maintenance activities should be considered in sufficient detail for all VECs (i.e., pronghorn antelope disturbance, amphibian migrations, etc).

40. Do not permit dug-outs or water holes to be constructed within the boundaries of delineated wetlands or in proximity to wetlands where the hydrology/hydrogeology of wetlands could be compromised.

12.0 Literature Cited Stewart, R. E. and H. A. Kantrud. 1971. Classification of ponds and lakes in the glaciated

prairie region. Resource Publication 92, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

43

encana shallow gas infill development in the suffield ... · formal hearing submission review...

Documents