watchers of the land...watchers of the land from: to: subject: re: figure 1.5 traditional gravesites...

1

Mary Coffey

From: Lionel Lepine [Sent: September-27-12 3:36 PMTo: Jenny Biem; [email protected]; Eamon MurphySubject: FW: Figure 1.5 Traditional Gravesites on Leased Area

Lionel LepineLionel LepineLionel LepineLionel Lepine

TEK/TLU Facilitator

Watchers of The Land

From:

To:

Subject: RE: Figure 1.5 Traditional Gravesites on Leased Area

Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:27:52 -0500

Hey Erin

Yes, that's exactly what I want to show. In fact, there are 4 graves in that area. Shell did not want the number

of graves, just an area where they are located.

Thanks Erin.


TEK/TLU Facilitator


smithjTypewritten Text






2

Subject: Figure 1.5 Traditional Gravesites on Leased Area

Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:25:52 -0600

From:

To:

CC:

Hi Lionel,

Thanks for faxing that map again. Here is the final version for your review. One thing to note, Figure 1.5 in your December draft (sent to Shell) had 3 graves marked, but your recent fax had just one area marked. Please confirm if this is what you want to show.

Thanks, Erin

Erin Dodd (B.Sc. ENSC) | Project Coordinator | Golder Associates Ltd. 1000, 940-6th Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 3T1

www.golder.com This e-mail transmission is confidential and may contain proprietary information for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. Any use, distribution or copying of this transmission, other than by the intended recipient, is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. Electronic media is susceptible to unauthorized modification, deterioration, and incompatibility. Accordingly, the electronic media version of any work product may

not be relied upon.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

Sign in to Windows Live Messenger, and enter for your chance to win $1000 a day—today until May 12th.

Visit SignInAndWIN.ca




1

Mary Coffey

From: Lionel LepineSent: September-27-12 3:35 PMTo: Jenny Biem; [email protected]; Eamon MurphySubject: FW: map


TEK/TLU Facilitator


Subject: RE: map

Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 13:24:03 -0600

From:

To:

I think that'll be fine Lionel, but please next time be sure to ask first. Like ACFN, we are careful with our information. If we paid for it and then someone gets it for free, that really isn't fair to us. That's why we need to look at each case individually.

Thanks,

Bill

-----Original Message----- From: Lionel Lepine [mailto:

Sent: May 9, 2008 11:34 AM

To: Kovach, William SCAN-DOD/14 Subject: map

Hey Bill

I sent a map of our traditional territory that was provided from Shell to EnCana. I was

wondering if that was ok. They need it for their own reasons. It was sent in adobe so they can't

alter it. Let me now if you have a concern and here is the contact person's e-mail








2

TEK/TLU Facilitator


Sign in now! Windows Live Messenger is giving you a chance to win $1000 a day until May 12th

Check out SignInAndWIN.ca today!


smithjTypewritten Text,phone number and email address removed>

1

Mary Coffey

From: Jenny BiemSent: May-24-11 9:41 AMTo: Jamie ZylaSubject: FW: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review PanelAttachments: Cover ltr_ACFN_Pre-JRP submission_TK-TLU.pdf; JRP Submission_TK-TLU Information_

19May2011_DRAFT_ .pdf

4728 consultation

From: Nicole Nicholls

Sent: May-20-11 8:11 AM To: Jenny Biem

Subject: FW: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review Panel

From:

Sent: May-19-11 3:10 PM

To:

Subject: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review Panel

Hi Lisa,

Per my May 6, 2011 note to Nicole Nicholls and CC’d to you, please find attached a cover letter and subsequent

enclosure regarding Shell’s draft TK/TLU submission to the JRP.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Kind Regards,

Jason L. Plamondon Advisor, Aboriginal and Community Relations Shell Canada Limited 400 – 4th Avenue SW., P.O. Box 100 Station M, Calgary, Alberta T2P 3H7

Internet: http://www.shell.ca

Honouring Our Heritage. Celebrating Our Future.









1

Shell Canada Energy 400 – 4

th Avenue S.W. T2P 0J4

P.O. Box 1480, Station M T2P 2L6

Calgary, Alberta

Tel (403) 691-3111

Fax (403) 264-7058

Internet www.shell.ca

May 19, 2011

Lisa King, Director, ACFN IRC

110B-9816 Hardin Street

Fort McMurray, AB

T9H 4K3

Dear Lisa,

Subject: Traditional Knowledge (TK) & Traditional Land Use (TLU)

Enclosed is a draft of Shell’s TK/TLU submission which will be part of a larger submission to

the Joint Review Panel (JRP) for Shell’s JPME and PRM applications. In keeping with the spirit

of our TK Sharing Agreement, Shell is sharing this information with you prior to submitting it to

federal and provincial regulators. Shell plans to make a larger submission, including this and

other project related information, to the Joint Review Panel (JRP) later this month.

If you have any comments or questions, please let me know.

Yours truly,

Jason Plamondon

Advisor, Aboriginal and Community Relations

Shell Canada Energy

Cc - Nicole Nicholls, ACFN

Linda Jefferson, Shell

Dan Kolenick, Shell

Encl.


3. JOINT REVIEW PANEL INFORMATION

3.1. Consideration of Additional TLU Information

Subsection 16.1 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act provides for

consideration of community and Aboriginal traditional knowledge as part of the application

review. Shell has been active in the oil sands region for many years and has worked with

Aboriginal stakeholders during this time to fund the acquisition and documentation of

traditional knowledge in its development areas. This knowledge was incorporated into the

December 2007 Jackpine Mine Expansion and Pierre River Mine Environmental Impact

Assessment (EIA).

Since this initial filing, Shell has continued to work with Aboriginal groups to fund further

traditional knowledge studies and assist stakeholders in understanding the potential

impacts of the Projects on traditional land use (TLU) by supporting technical reviews of the

applications. In addition, TLU information potentially relevant to Jackpine Mine Expansion

and Pierre River Mine was made publicly available as part of the Total E & P Ltd Joslyn

North Mine Project regulatory process. Shell has reviewed all of this TLU information to

assess if it had the potential to alter the findings and conclusions presented in the

Projects’ EIA TLU assessment. Shell has also provided a TLU significance determination

to support and augment the TLU assessment in the Project’s EIA.

3.1.1. Additional Traditional Land Use Information

Additional traditional knowledge studies reviewed in support of the Jackpine Mine

Expansion and Pierre River Mine EIA are listed below. These studies augment those

already reviewed by Shell, which are listed in Section 3.2 of the Traditional Land Use

Environmental Setting for the Jackpine Mine Expansion & Pierre River Mine Project

(Golder 2007) and Section 6.1 of the Application for Approval of the Pierre River Mine

Project: Supplemental Information; Volume 1: Project Update and ERCB SIRs (Shell

2009).

Project-Specific Studies

• Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Integrated Knowledge and Land Use Report

and Assessment for Shell Canada’s Proposed Jackpine Mine Expansion and

Pierre River Mine (Craig Candler and the Firelight Group Research Cooperative,

2011);

• Mikisew Cree Use of Lands and Resources in the Vicinity of the Proposed Shell –

Jack Pine and Shell – Pierre River Operations (Peter Douglas Elias, 2011); and

• Fort McKay Specific Assessment (Fort McKay Industrial Relations Corporation,

2010).

Candler (2011) and Elias (2011) are provided in Appendix 2. The Fort McKay Specific

Assessment was previously provided by Shell to Provincial regulators on June 16,

2010.

Publicly Available Studies

• As Long as the River Flows (Craig Candler, Rachel Olson, Steven DeRoy,

Firelight Group Research Cooperative, 2010);

• Ayapaskowinowak: Ta Kiskissotamak Kayas Pimatisowin Oti Nikan Kichi

(Acknowledging the Past, Securing the Future – Traditional Land Use of the

Mikisew Cree First Nation) (Jim Tanner, 2006);

• Mikisew Cree First Nation Traditional Land use Impact Assessment – Husky

Sunrise Thermal Project (Husky Oil Operations Limited, 2005);

• Data-Collection Methodology Report, Mikisew Cree First Nation 2009-2010

Use-and-Occupancy Map Survey (Terry Tobias, Tobias & Associates, 2010);

• Description, Analysis and Synthesis of Six Traditional Land Use Studies (Peter

Douglas Elias, 2011);

• Mikisew Cree First Nation Report on the Southern Territory Use and

Occupancy Mapping Project (PACTeam Canada Inc., 2007);

• Mikisew Cree First Nation 2009-2010 UOM Survey Index (Terry Tobias, Daniel

Tobias, Verena Hofmann, 2010);

• Traditional Land Use Study Mikisew Cree First Nation – Total Joslyn North

Mine Project (Calliou Group, 2010); and

• Tanner Southern Study maps (James Tanner of Fish Creek Consulting).

3.1.2. Traditional Land Use Assessment

The TLU assessment contained in the EIA (Volume 5, Section 8.3) assessed the potential

impacts of the Projects’ activities on specific linkages, based on the information outlined in

Section 8.3.2.3 in the EIA. These linkages included effects on:

• fishing

• hunting

• trapping

• traditional plant gathering

• trapper access

• cabins

• burial sites, and

• spiritual sites

Additional linkages to the effects listed above include:

• noise

• air quality and

• changes in access by traditional users

In general, the traditional land use reports listed above:

• reaffirmed that hunting, fishing and trapping are an important part of life for

traditional users, and that the Athabasca River is important for access and

transport;

• discussed the belief held by some traditional users that oil sands developments

have negatively affected water quantity and quality in regional rivers;

• provided more detail on where traditional land uses take place;

• discussed the belief by some traditional users that oil sands developments have

contaminated wildlife (e.g., moose) and traditional plants; and

• provided summaries of traditional land use concerns.

While the additional traditional land use documents contain valuable information, they

provide no new information on linkages or information that contradicts the TLU

assessment in the EIA. The concerns raised in these recent TLU documents were also

assessed in the EIA.

The impact on traditional land users was evaluated through an understanding of how they

have used and continue to use the land in the area. A review of the above documents

indicates that the TLU information presented in these reports is consistent with the

information used in the EIA. Shell has therefore concluded that the linkages considered in

the EIA and the conclusions of the TLU assessment remain unchanged.

3.1.3. Significance Determination

Approach

For determination of the significance of the Project effects on traditional land use,

consideration was given to what constitutes a significant effect on a traditional resource

user. As EIA practitioners, it is appropriate to discuss significance from a scientific

perspective and in an ecological context. It is inappropriate for EIA practitioners to discuss

significance in terms of non-scientific value judgments. These judgments are

appropriately left to the agencies responsible for making public interest decisions on

development applications.

From a scientific perspective and ecological context, a project could potentially affect the

resources used in traditional land use (e.g. wildlife, fish and traditional plants). However, if

a project does not have a likely significant adverse effect on the resource in the region and

resources users can still access the resource in the region, a project will not result in

significant effects to the traditional land users’ ability to practice traditional pursuits in the

region.

Therefore, this assessment of significance first considers the Projects’ effects on

traditionally used resources, as presented in the EIA, from a scientific perspective and

ecological context only. Consideration is not given to the potential loss of specific

traditional resources in specific locations historically visited by users (e.g. a noted berry

picking area), as these effects are subjective and thus judgments are appropriately left to

the agencies responsible for making public interest decisions on development

applications.

Table 1 presents the traditional land uses assessed in the EIA and the resources

assessed in the EIA associated with each land use.

Table 1: Traditional Land Uses and Associated Resources

Traditional Land Use Resources Assessed in EIA

Fishing Fish Abundance and Fish Habitat in Local Waterbodies, Local Small Streams, the Muskeg River and the Athabasca River (EIA, Volume 4A, Section 6.7)

Hunting and Trapping Wildlife Key Indicator Resources (EIA Volume 5, Section 7.5.3):

• Moose

• Black bear

• Beaver

• Lynx

• Fisher/Marten

• Yellow rail

• Black-throated green warbler

Traditional Plant Gathering Traditional Plant Potential (EIA Volume 5, Section 7.5.2)

For the EIA’s fish and fish habitat assessment, the range of species selected as Key

Indicator Resources (KIRs) included most of the species of value and importance to local

Aboriginal communities (EIA Volume 4A, Section 6.7.4). Traditional ecological knowledge

was a primary determinant in the selection of KIRs for the wildlife and wildlife assessment,

as discussed in EIA Volume 5, Section 7.3.1. The traditional plant potential assessment

incorporated a documented list of traditional plants identified by Fort McKay elders as

being culturally significant (Golder 2003) into the traditional plant potential ratings (EIA

Volume 5, Section 7.3.1). Therefore, the linkage between the traditional land use

identified and its associated resources is considered valid and the Project effects on these

resources are linked to the ability to exercise these traditional land uses.

This assessment then also considers whether the Projects would preclude access of

traditional land users to resources beyond the Project boundaries. Consideration was not

given to the effects of changes in access routes from those historically used to those now

available. Again these effects are subjective and, from an EIA perspective, judgments are

appropriately left to the agencies responsible for making public interest decisions on

development applications.

It should be noted that this significance determinations approach differs from the TLU

assessment in the EIA in that this determination’s spatial boundaries are based on the

local and regional study areas of each resource while the EIA Traditional Land Use

assessment focused on spatial boundaries for First Nations groups and trappers.

Findings

Following is a discussion of the Projects’ effects on the resources associated with

traditional land use. Given that the TLU information presented in the additional traditional

knowledge studies is consistent with the information used in the EIA, EIA findings are

summarized.

Fishing

The Fish and Fish Habitat assessment (EIA Volume 4A, Section 6.7) considered

the following waterbodies/watercourses:

• Muskeg River, Kearl Lake, Wapasu Creek, unnamed creeks and

waterbodies in the Jackpine Mine Expansion development area (EIA,

Volume 4A, Table 6.7-17);

• Pierre River, Eymundson Creek, Asphalt Creek, First Creek, Big Creek,

Redclay Creek, unnamed creeks and water bodies in the Pierre River Mine

development area (EIA Volume 4A, Table 6.7-20); and

• Athabasca River (EIA, Volume 4A, Table 6.7-22).

This assessment concluded that there is no overall environmental consequence

of the residual impacts to fish habitat and fish abundance due to the Projects

given the proposed mitigation and compensation. Since effects on Fish and Fish

Habitat are not considered a likely significant adverse effect, Shell has concluded

that the Projects’ effects on fishing as a traditional land use are not considered a

likely significant adverse effect.

Hunting and Trapping

The Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat assessment considered the Projects’ effects on

wildlife species that are key resources for hunting and trapping in the region. The

assessment concluded that the predicted environmental consequence for wildlife

abundance varies from negligible to low and is considered negligible for all

linkages at the regional scale. For wildlife habitat, the Projects’ effects were

concluded to have negligible environmental consequences in the Regional Study

Area for the wildlife KIRs. These environmental consequences lead to a

conclusion of no likely significant adverse effects from the Projects on wildlife.

Since the Projects’ effects on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat are not considered a

likely significant adverse effect, the Projects’ effects on hunting and trapping as a

traditional land use are also not considered a likely significant adverse effect.

For persons with registered fur management areas (RFMAs), the Projects will

disturb from 1 to 14% of the area of six RFMAs prior to site reclamation (Volume

5, Section 8.3.5.3; see Table 8.3-7 (Revised) in Section 7.2 of the Pierre River

Mine Project Supplemental Information, Volume 1 [2009]). Two cabins will also

require relocation. Shell will provide compensation to RFMA holders directly

affected by the Project (EIA, Volume 1, Section 17.10) in accordance with

industry standards.

Traditional Plant Gathering

The Traditional Plant Potential assessment (EIA Volume 5, Section 7.5.2, page 7-

90) considered the Projects’ effects on high, moderate and low traditional plant

potential areas in the Terrestrial regional and local study areas. The assessment

concluded the Projects will have negligible effects on traditional plant potential at

the regional and local levels and that the Projects do not have a likely significant

adverse effect on traditional plant potential. Shell has therefore concluded that

the Projects’ effects on traditional plant gathering are also not considered a likely

significant adverse effect.

Access

This review concluded that the Jackpine Mine Expansion and Pierre River Mine

Projects will not prevent traditional land users from accessing any areas in the

region, except within the Project development area itself prior to site reclamation.

Shell currently has an Access Management Plan in place that provides either

alternative or controlled access across existing operating mine sites for traditional

users and trappers.

Conclusions

The contents of the reviewed reports listed above have not changed Shell’s EIA findings

and the impact predictions have been shown to link to the involved First Nations’ claimed

exercise of rights over the considered resources.

The significance assessment of the Project’s effects on traditional land uses was prepared

from a scientific perspective and ecological context only and does not include any non-

scientific value judgments. The assessment concluded that the predicted residual effects

for the Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion & Pierre River Mine Projects are likely to not result

in a significant adverse effect on traditional land uses in the region.

3.1.4. References

Calliou Group. 2010. Traditional Land Use Study Mikisew Cree First Nation. Total Joslyn Mine Project. Calgary, Alberta. July 2010. 215 pp.

Candler, C., Firelight Group Research Cooperative, ACFN. 2011. Athabasca Chipewyan First

Nation Integrated Knowledge and Land Use Report and Assessment for Shell Canada’s

Proposed Jackpine Mine Expansion and Pierre River Mine. Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Industry Relations Corporation. April 2011. 163 pp.

Candler, C., R. Olson, S. DeRoy, Firelight Group Research Cooperative, ACFN and MCFN. 2010. As Long as the Rivers Flow: Athabasca River Knowledge, Use and Change. Parkland Institute, University of Alberta. November 2010. 84 pp.

Elias, P.D. 2010. Description, Analysis and Synthesis of Six Traditional Land Use Studies. Prepared for MCFN. Black Diamond, Alberta. August 2010. 47 pp.

Elias P.D. 2011. Mikisew Cree Use of Lands and Resources in the Vicinity of the Proposed Shell – Jack Pine and Shell – Pierre River Operations. Prepared for MCFN. Black Diamond, Alberta. January 2011. 47 pp. Fort McKay IRC (Fort McKay Industry Relations Corporation). 2010. Fort McKay Specific Assessment (Supplemental Information for the Shell Canada Limited Jackpine Expansion and Pierre River Mine Project). March 2010. p. 1,493.

Golder. 2003. Traditional Plants Found on the Shell Jackpine Mine Lease and Identified by the Elders of Fort McKay as Being Culturally Significant. Prepared for BG TEK Services. 48 pp.

Golder. 2007. Traditional Land Use Environmental Setting for the Jackpine Mine Expansion &

Pierre River Mine Project. Prepared for Shell Canada Limited. Calgary, AB. Husky Oil Operations Limited. 2005. Mikisew Cree First Nation Traditional Land Use Impact

Assessment – Husky Sunrise Thermal Project. Calgary, Alberta. 30 p. PACTeam Canada Inc. 2007. Mikisew Cree First Nation Report on the South Territory Use and

Occupancy Mapping Project. Edmonton, Alberta. 67 pp. Shell. 2009. Application for Approval of the Pierre River Mine Project: Supplemental

Information; Volume 1: Project Update and ERCB SIRs. Prepared for Shell Canada Limited. Calgary, AB. Submitted May 2009.

Tobias T., Tobias D., & Hofmann V. 2010. Mikisew Cree First Nation 2009-2010 UOM Survey

Index. Tobias & Associates. Vancouver, British Columbia. 160 pp. Tobias T., Tobias D., & Hofmann V. 2010. Data-Collection Methodology Report, Mikisew Cree

First Nation 2009-2010 Use-And-Occupancy Map Survey. Prepared for Government and Industry Relations, MCFN, Fort McMurray, Alberta. Tobias & Associates. Vancouver, British Columbia. 25 pp.

Tanner. 2006. Ayapaskowinowak: Ta Kiskissotamak Kayas Pimatisowin Oti Nikan Kichi

(Acknowledging the Past, Securing the Future – Traditional Land Use of the Mikisew Cree First Nation). Prepared for Mikisew Cree First Nation. 200 pp.

1

Mary Coffey

From: Nicole NichollsSent: June-01-11 8:47 PMTo: Jenny BiemSubject: FW: ACFN TLUAttachments: PRM_Redclay_datadiscrepancy.pdf

fyi

From: Nicole Nicholls

Sent: June-01-11 9:47 PM To:

Subject: RE: ACFN TLU

Hi Jason,

Thanks for the call yesterday and for reporting back on your investigations.

Now that I have a better understanding of what has happened, it is clear that the issue regarding the confusion over the

Redclay Compensation Lake goes beyond the labelling of shapefiles. What I mean is that we asked Shell for the most

current project footprint data for JPME and PRM and Redclay Lake (first in August 2010, then requested the latest plans

again in January 2011 due to discrepancies in the data received). Yet, in none of the information that Shell provided in

response to our requests for data and shapefiles for the projects (JPME/PRM, or the Redclay Lake) were we provided

with the portion of Redclay Lake specific to JPME/PRM, nor was it made clear to us that there are is an MRME part of

Redclay and one part for JPME/PRM.

On August 3, 2010 we made our first request for data for the JPME and PRM proposed footprints (including roads,

bridge, transmission lines, water holding structures, and any other project components) and the footprint for Redclay

compensation lake. Shell sent shapefiles August 6. Then, on January 15, 2011, we requested that Shell provide “the

latest plans (including shapefiles and PDF maps) for Red Clay compensation lake” as well as the plans for the bridge and

the muskeg river diversion so that we could finalize our supplemental TUS with confidence. Shell did provide plans for

MRME portion of the Red Clay Compensation Lake, but the labeling did not indicate that there were different portions

of the lake, nor that the maps provided only represented a portion of the lake. Firelight has advised that the plan sent

in January closely matches the plan that was sent in August as .shp files labeled “PRM-COMP LAKE_polygon”. Also, the

shapefiles provided for the PRM project in August showed a compensation lake labeled PRM, as well as the Raw Water

Storage facility. The problem is that no southern lake or southern portion of the lake is provided. Data provided by Shell

in January 2010 and labeled “Redclay” shows the same lake, though slightly larger. The attached map displays all of the

data received for regarding the Redclay compensation lake. Based on comparison to Figures 10-5 and 10-6 in Volume 2

of the application, the portion of Redclay Lake that is displayed on those figures is not included in the data sets provided

by Shell to Firelight.

Now that we see the basis for the confusion, I agree that we must discuss a plan for addressing any discrepancies in the

traditional use reports. In your previous email you suggested two options:

(1) Will ACFN be preparing an addendum to the TLU provided to include the missing JPME/PRM compensation lake

TLU information?

(2) Will ACFN send out a correction in respect of the incorrect references in the two reports?

- Redclay TLU - Section 1: Outline of the Report, page 9, paragraph 2

- JPME/PRM TLU - Section 2: The Projects and Existing Studies, page 15, paragraph 3


2

While a simple errata sheet for the Redclay Report can be produced to address incorrect reference in paragraph 2 of

page 9, it will be necessary to prepare an addendum to the JPME/PRM report in order to ensure that the full project

effects are assessed. This will require resources that we simply do not have. Shell’s financial support is crucial to

completing this. I have asked Craig to prepare a scope of work for addressing the newly identified project information,

which I will forward to you as soon as possible.

In regards to use of Figures 10-5 and 10-6 as the basis for our assessment, can you please send the shapefiles for the

South Waterbody (I’m assuming that’s the raw water storage facility) and the North Waterbody (I’m assuming that is

the actual compensation lake for PRM/JPME). If you are not able to provide shapefiles, we will have to take this into

account in the budget.

Thanks again,

Nicole.

Nicole Nicholls

Project Manager

Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation

Industry Relations Corporation

110B 9816 Hardin Street

Fort McMurray, AB T9H 4K3

Office: 780-791-3311

From:

Sent: May-31-11 11:56 AM To:

Cc:


Hi Nicole,

As a follow up to our teleconference this morning to clarify Shell’s comments surrounding the ACFN TLU received, I have

investigated the points discussed:

1) Determine if the Shape files Shell provided for Redclay were mislabeled “PRM Shape Files”. This may have

resulted in miscommunication, suggesting that Redclay shape files included JPME/PRM.

• Per the attached email, the compensation lake file names were labeled

i. 110118COMP_LAKE_PLAN50000.pdf

ii. 110118RedclayCompensationLake.dwg

• There were additional files provided for the PRM Bridge location

2) Determine if the JPME/PRM application provides adequate reference and information regarding the south

portion of the compensation lake. The information in the application may not be sufficient to assess the

JPME/PRM compensation lake.

• Volume 2, Section 10 of the application details the Project Description for Pierre River Mine. The

following figures provide spatial information specific to both the North and South portions of Redclay

lake:



3

i. Fig 10-5 & 10-6

After reviewing Section 10 of Volume 2 and the associated figures, please let me know if the spatial information

included is adequate for the Firelight Group to complete their TLU assessment.

We can then further discuss an agreed to go forward plan to resolve this issue.

Kind Regards,

Jason Plamondon

Advisor, Aboriginal and Community Relations

Shell Canada Energy

400 4th Ave SW, Calgary, Alberta, T2P 2H5

From: Nicole Nicholls [mailto:

Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 5:18 PM

To: Plamondon, Jason SCAN-UAH/S/Q Cc: [email protected]; Jefferson, Linda SCAN-UAH/S; Taylor, Heather SCAN-UAH/S/Q; Craig Candler


Hi Jason,

We are a bit confused by the comments on our TK/TLU reports. Is it possible to have a quick call on Monday or Tuesday

to clarify them?

Thanks,

Nicole.

From:

Sent: May-27-11 2:21 PM To:

Subject: ACFN TLU

Hi Nicole,

I wanted to clarify a couple things in regard to the 2 TLU reports Shell has received from ACFN on April 20 and May 9.

1) Received April 20, 2011 - The ACFN Integrated Knowledge and Land Use Report and Assessment for Shell

Canada’s Proposed Jackpine Mine Expansion and Pierre River Mine

• This report is in response to Shell’s request and Final Scope of TK Collection and Use dated September 2,

2010 in which Shell requested TLU for JPME/PRM projects

• TLU received does not seem to include the proposed compensation lake and temporary water storage

described in the application as part of the project.

• Reference was made to the compensation TLU being included in a subsequent Redclay Lake TLU report

(See Section 2: The Projects and Existing Studies, page 15, paragraph 3)





4

2) Received May 9, 2011 - The ACFN Knowledge and Land Use Report and Assessment for Shell Canada’s Proposed

Redclay Compensation Lake

• This report is in response to Shell’s request and Final Scope of TK Collection and Use dated September 2,

2010 in which Shell requested TLU for the MRME North Redclay Compensation lake

• TLU received references that it is inclusive of HADD compensation for JPME/PRM

• Actual TLU assesses only the MRME North Redclay footprint per the original request. However, this is

contrary to the reference in Section 1: Outline of the Report, page 9, paragraph 2 and the reference in

the JPME/PRM TLU report discussed above (i.e. Section 2: The Projects and Existing Studies, page 15,

paragraph 3)

Can you please advise:

Will ACFN be preparing an addendum to the TLU provided to include the missing JPME/PRM compensation lake TLU

information?

Will ACFN send out a correction in respect of the incorrect references in the two reports?

- Redclay TLU - Section 1: Outline of the Report, page 9, paragraph 2

- JPME/PRM TLU - Section 2: The Projects and Existing Studies, page 15, paragraph 3

Thanks, Jason L. Plamondon Advisor, Aboriginal and Community Relations Shell Canada Limited 400 – 4th Avenue SW., P.O. Box 100 Station M, Calgary, Alberta T2P 3H7


Honouring Our Heritage. Celebrating Our Future.


Redclay Compensation Lakedata provided by Shell to ACFNPRM-COMP LAKE (August 2010)Redclay_CompensationLake_new (January 2011)Other PRM linework (August 2010)

0 2 4 6 81 Kilometers

From: Nicole NichollsTo:

Subject: RE: Shell-ACFN Consultation Report Apr - May 2011 to AENV for JPME & PRM ApplicationDate: July-18-11 1:01:04 PM

Hi Jason, Thanks for sending the Apr-May 2011 consultation report. I am concerned that the report containsa number of items that are not related to the JPME and PRM projects and does not give anaccurate impression of what has occurred (and why) and whether or not issues are progressing orresolved. ACFN has raised concerns about the consultation records before. The systemic issue isthat they are misleading and that they don’t really provide Alberta Environment with an accurateindicator to assess consultation on the JPME and PRM projects. I will be preparing a more detailedresponse once I’ve had time to look over the other consultation records that precede the Apr-May2011 report, but just wanted to provide a heads-up about this issue. Thanks, Nicole NichollsProject ManagerAthabasca Chipewyan First NationIndustry Relations Corporation110B 9816 Hardin StreetFort McMurray, AB T9H 4K3Office: 780-791-3311

From: Sent: July-07-11 3:31 PMTo:

Subject: Shell-ACFN Consultation Report Apr - May 2011 to AENV for JPME & PRM Application Hi Nicole,

Please find attached the Apr - May 2011 bi-monthly consultation report submitted to AENV with respectto our JPME & PRM Application.

Also attached is a 1 page consultation overview for the same period..

Let me know if you have any questions.

mailto:[email protected] Text



Jason PlamondonAdvisor, Aboriginal and Community RelationsShell Canada Energy 400 4th Ave SW, Calgary, Alberta, T2P 2H5


From: Jenny BiemTo: Jamie ZylaSubject: FW: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review PanelDate: December-01-11 4:08:33 PMAttachments: image001.png

image002.png

mailto:/O=FIRST ORGANIZATION/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=JENNYmailto:[email protected]

From: Sent: August 2, 2011 1:39 PMTo:

Subject: RE: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review Panel

Hi Nicole,

Sorry for the delay in responding. I was on vacation July 22 – 29. Below, as requested is the natureand purpose of the cultural work with Nichols. Let me know if you’d like to meet to discuss further.

____________________________________________________________

RE: Significance Assessment for Traditional Cultural Effects

Background

· In ACFN’s letter of June 1, 2011 ACFN indicated that Shell has taken an oversimplifiedapproach to it’s TK/TLU Summary, suggesting that the Draft TK/TLU summary refersonly to an assessment of significance of the Projects effects on traditional land use anddoes not discuss the effects of the Project on culture.

· In Shell’s June 22, 2011 response letter and in discussion at the June 23rd , 2011meeting between Shell and ACFN , Shell advised that while Shell’s TLU assessmentconcluded, based on the potential biophysical impacts and the continued regionalavailability of traditional land use areas and activities, that traditional land users willhave the ability to continue their pursuit of primary traditional activities of fishing,hunting, trapping and traditional plant gathering within previously established traditionalland use areas, in respect of the additional cultural information received, and inconsideration of comments regarding that information, Shell has undertaken to explorefurther how additional cultural information informs the discussion of potential cultureimpacts resulting from development in the region.

· Shell agreed that this information will be reviewed with ACFN and shared with the JRPat a later date.

· ACFN asked Shell to share information regarding the nature of this additional reviewwork and Shell agreed to discuss it at a follow up meeting with Shell’s consultant whois conducting the additional review.

· Shell attempted to coordinate such a meeting and ACFN requested that Shell provideadditional information in respect of the review prior to meeting in order to determinethe necessity for the meeting.

Scope of Work

· We envision two phases to the work.




Determining Methodology

· Review Traditional Use Studies carried out in relation to the JPME/PRM projects.

· Identify traditional cultural activities/elements.

· Determine pathways by which the Project might disrupt traditional cultural activities,drawing upon the significance determination for traditional land use already developedby Golder. We will also identify socio-economic variables that may act as effectpathways on traditional culture, such as population growth and participation in the wageeconomy.

Assessing Significance

· Using identified effect pathways, assess Project effects on traditional culture activitiesrelying largely upon information gathered from and brought forward by First Nationsmembers in the region, as reflected in available traditional use studies and the filed EIA.

· Work with Shell representatives to identify existing and proposed Shell mitigations andwork those mitigations into the assessment.

· Our approach in determining significance will be carried out from a social sciencesperspective, incorporating the scientific perspective from an ecological context used byGolder in their TLU significance assessment. We will also take consideration of criteriaset out by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) for determiningeffects significance (e.g. direction, magnitude, duration, etc.).

· To provide context, we will further discuss the role ‘perspective’ plays inunderstanding the significance of cultural effects (e.g. scientific perspective, First Nationsperspective, Public Interest perspective, etc.). Recognizing that while ‘perspectives’are different, there are common elements that can overlap.

Deliverables

· A document which can shared with First Nations and filed with the Joint Review Panel orused by panel members as background information.

Timeline

· Nichols Applied Management will conduct this work through the months of June andJuly.



From: Nicole NichollsSent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 12:00 PMTo: Plamondon, Jason SCAN-UAH/S/QCc: ; Jefferson, Linda SCAN-UAH/SSubject: RE: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review Panel Hi Jason, Thanks for the additional information. Regarding discussion of Shell’s plan for the cultural assessment,our understanding is that Shell would first advise us as to the nature and purpose of the Nichols study.We would like to know the terms of reference and how Shell intends to incorporate the study. That willhelp us determine whether a meeting is, in fact, required. Nicole. From: Sent: July-20-11 8:49 AMTo:

Subject: RE: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review Panel Hi Nicole, The delay is a result of vacations. Those folks who wrote the draft summary and who are required torevise the summary were not able to make the changes prior to leaving on vacation. In our meeting, ACFN suggested they would like to discuss Shell’s plans for the Cultural assessment withNichols. It was my understanding that ACFN’s legal counsel (who would be required to take part in sucha meeting) was going to be away on vacation for the first 2 weeks of July. If it works for ACFN, perhapswe can coordinate that meeting for later in July? J Jason PlamondonAdvisor, Aboriginal and Community RelationsShell Canada Energy 400 4th Ave SW, Calgary, Alberta, T2P 2H5

From: Nicole Nicholls [ Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 8:33 AMTo: Plamondon, Jason SCAN-UAH/S/QCc: . Jefferson, Linda SCAN-UAH/SSubject: RE: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review Panel Hi Jason, Thank you for the update. We will look forward to receiving the revised TK/TLU summary. I am curiousas to what the delay is, as the last time we spoke Shell had indicated that they wanted to complete it as








soon as possible. Are you now planning to integrate the results of whatever you had asked NichollsApplied Management to do (the evaluation of cultural significant, I believe?). Nicole. From:Sent: July-19-11 4:37 PMTo: Cc:

Subject: RE: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review Panel Hi Nicole, I wanted to provide an update to you in regard to Shell’s progress on a revised TK/TLU Summary asdiscussed in our meeting of June 23, 2011. Shell is continuing to work on a revised TK/TLU summary in consideration of the comments received. Asdiscussed, once the revised TK/TLU summary is prepared, it will be provided to you for review. Yourwritten comments on the revised summary will then form part of a subsequent submission to the JRP. In the meantime however, Shell will provide to the regulator a copy of the TK/TLU that you provided toShell for the projects, per our May 6, 2011 notification. The TK/TLU is being provided without commentat this time to ensure that the JRP has the information while we continue to discuss issues aroundinterpretation and incorporation into the regulatory process. Shell will continue to work with you in respect of Shell’s revised TK/TLU summary which includes Shell’sassessment of the information and will provide this to the JRP at a later date. Kind Regards, Jason PlamondonAdvisor, Aboriginal and Community RelationsShell Canada Energy 400 4th Ave SW, Calgary, Alberta, T2P 2H5

From: Nicole Nicholls Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:40 AMTo: Plamondon, Jason SCAN-UAH/S/QCc: Jay Nelson; Subject: RE: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review Panel Alright – 1 to 3 p.m. mountain time. Talk to you then. From: Sent: June-21-11 3:53 PMTo:









Subject: RE: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review Panel I can’t be sure. Perhaps 2 hours. Jason PlamondonAdvisor, Aboriginal and Community RelationsShell Canada Energy 400 4th Ave SW, Calgary, Alberta, T2P 2H5

From: Nicole Nicholls Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 10:49 AMTo: Plamondon, Jason SCAN-UAH/S/QCc: Jay Nelson; Subject: RE: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review Panel Let’s start at 1 p.m. How long do you think we will require? From: Sent: June-20-11 11:46 AMTo:

Subject: RE: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review Panel You’re right. I’ve put a hold in my calendar for any time between 1 and 4 PM. Let me know what time you would prefer to call in between 1 and 4. Thanks, Jason Jason PlamondonAdvisor, Aboriginal and Community RelationsShell Canada Energy 400 4th Ave SW, Calgary, Alberta, T2P 2H5

From: Nicole Nicholls Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 11:46 AMTo: Plamondon, Jason SCAN-UAH/S/QSubject: RE: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review Panel Thanks, I don’t think we ever set a time, although I do recall it was to be in the afternoon? From:










Sent: June-20-11 10:27 AMTo:

Subject: RE: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review Panel Hi Nicole, The dial in number is below: 1 866 761 0750 The participant code is 14404920 # Jason Jason PlamondonAdvisor, Aboriginal and Community RelationsShell Canada Energy 400 4th Ave SW, Calgary, Alberta, T2P 2H5

From: Nicole Nicholls Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 10:17 AMTo: Plamondon, Jason SCAN-UAH/S/QCc: Jefferson, Linda SCAN-UAH/SSubject: RE: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review Panel Thanks Jason, can you please provide the conference line details? From: Sent: June-16-11 8:35 AMTo:

Subject: RE: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review Panel Hi Nicole, Based on availability, it appears a teleconference will be required. Shell will agree to the costs of JayNelson’s participation in the teleconference as noted. (not to exceed $1500). Shell is working to provide its written response to your comments as soon as possible as requested.

Speak to you on the 23rd. Jason Jason PlamondonAdvisor, Aboriginal and Community Relations






Shell Canada Energy 400 4th Ave SW, Calgary, Alberta, T2P 2H5

From: Nicole Nicholls Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 10:02 AMTo: Plamondon, Jason SCAN-UAH/S/QCc: Jefferson, Linda SCAN-UAH/SSubject: RE: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review Panel Hi Jason, We estimate that legal fees to prepare for and attend the meeting (assuming a 2 hour meeting byphone) will be about $1500. If we are meeting face-to-face, we would like Jay Nelson to be there inperson, in which case there would be travel costs consisting of travel disbursements (flights – the costsof which I have not investigated) and travel time ($1000) between Victoria and Ft. McMurray. Thanks,Nicole. From: Sent: June-13-11 5:03 PMTo:

Subject: RE: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review Panel Hi Nicole, Could you please provide an estimate in respect of Jay Nelson’s participation in this meeting. Thank you,Jason Jason PlamondonAdvisor, Aboriginal and Community RelationsShell Canada Energy 400 4th Ave SW, Calgary, Alberta, T2P 2H5

From: Nicole Nicholls Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 7:21 PMTo: Plamondon, Jason SCAN-UAH/S/QCc: Jefferson, Linda SCAN-UAH/SSubject: RE: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review Panel Hi Jason,







The afternoon of June 23rd works for us, but in order to accommodate Lisa’s schedule we won’t be ableto travel to Calgary. We are open to a teleconference if necessary. Besides Lisa and myself, we wouldlike to have Jay Nelson, our legal counsel on this file, participate in the meeting. We ask that Shellprovide the necessary capacity support to facilitate Jay’s involvement. This would be for Jay’s time, andif the meeting were in-person, for travelling expenses. Thanks, Nicole. From: Sent: June-09-11 10:13 AMTo: Cc: Subject: RE: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review Panel Hi Nicole, Have you been able to confirm the preferable meeting date/time/location/format for ACFN per myprevious response below? Jason PlamondonAdvisor, Aboriginal and Community RelationsShell Canada Energy 400 4th Ave SW, Calgary, Alberta, T2P 2H5

From: Plamondon, Jason SCAN-UAH/S/Q Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 12:16 PMTo: Nicole NichollsCc: Plamondon, Jason SCAN-UAH/S/Q; Jefferson, Linda SCAN-UAH/SSubject: RE: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review Panel Hi Nicole, Shell would certainly prefer a face to face meeting if possible. If we can’t find a date that works to meetface to face, considering the importance of this meeting, we would consider a teleconference if youprefer.

With respect to the 23rd of June, Shell has availability during the afternoon, however there is a conflictin the morning. Would ACFN be able to meet in Calgary (Shell would of course reimburse associated costs of travel). If

so we could meet 1-4 on the afternoon of the 23rd. If not, perhaps you could suggest an alternative date where ACFN would be available that week.





From: Nicole Nicholls Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 9:35 AMTo: Plamondon, Jason SCAN-UAH/S/QSubject: RE: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review Panel

Will June 23rd work for Shell? Do you want to meet face-to-face or by phone? From: Sent: June-02-11 11:39 AMTo:

Subject: RE: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review Panel Hi Nicole,

Shell will respond in writing as requested and while there may be an element of disagreement, Shellwould like the opportunity to meet with ACFN to discuss each other’s point of view.

Recognizing ACFN’s concern surrounding the utilization of limited resources to discuss opposingpositions, it is Shell’s view that this engagement is of great value.

Based on my discussions with key personnel who will be involved in reviewing and responding toACFN’s comments, existing commitments of Shell staff result in an inability to respond in writing and

prepare for a meeting prior to June 9th as requested.

Shell would like to suggest a meeting during the week of June 20, 2011. This will give Shell theopportunity to respond in writing and for both parties to prepare for our meeting in light of ACFN’scomments and Shell’s response.

Be assured that Shell will not submit a redraft of the TK/TLU summary to the JRP until we’ve had theopportunity to dialogue further on this matter in consideration of ACFN’s comments.

Is ACFN able to suggest a date and time during the week of June 20th to meet? Thanks, Jason Jason PlamondonAdvisor, Aboriginal and Community RelationsShell Canada Energy





400 4th Ave SW, Calgary, Alberta, T2P 2H5

From: Nicole Nicholls Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 9:21 PMTo: Plamondon, Jason SCAN-UAH/S/QCc: ;Jefferson, Linda SCAN-UAH/SSubject: RE: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review Panel Thanks Jason From: Sent: June-01-11 3:59 PMTo:

Subject: RE: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review Panel Hi Nicole, Shell has received ACFN’s comments with respect to the Draft TK/TLU Submission.

I am just checking internally to determine if the proposed date of June 9th will work. I’ll respond as soon as I can confirm. Jason Jason PlamondonAdvisor, Aboriginal and Community RelationsShell Canada Energy 400 4th Ave SW, Calgary, Alberta, T2P 2H5

From: Nicole Nicholls [Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 7:06 PMTo: Plamondon, Jason SCAN-UAH/S/QCc: 'Jay Nelson'; Craig Candler; ; Jefferson, Linda SCAN-UAH/SSubject: RE: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review Panel Hi Jason, As you say, things definitely are busy! We will be getting our comments to you tomorrow and will beasking that Shell addresses in writing (as per section 5.3 of the TK sharing agreement) the concerns thatwe are raising. We are more than willing to discuss these concerns with you, but I do hope that youunderstand that we simply do not have the resources to support a discussion simply on opposingpositions. As our time and resources are better spent on resolving concerns, you may wish to firstreview our submission and respond in writing before we take a decision on whether or not to discuss.










Of course, that said, we will still engage in discussion with Shell if requested. Either way, I agree thatwe should set the time aside whether we choose to use it or not. I will want our legal counsel JayNelson and our technical consultant Craig Candler to be on the call with Lisa and I. The morning of June

9th is workable for us from 8 a.m. – 9:45 a.m. Alberta time. Thanks, Nicole. From:Sent: To:

Subject: Re: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review Panel Hi Nicole,

Considering how busy eveyone is, perhaps scheduling something now would be a good idea.

Is there a time and date that works for you?

From: Nicole Nicholls To: Plamondon, Jason SCAN-UAH/S/Q Cc: Jefferson, Linda SCAN-UAH/S; Sent: Mon May 30 14:07:24 2011Subject: RE: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review Panel

Hi Jason, Thanks for reconsidering the timeframe for your submission. Would you prefer to hold off on schedulingany discussion until after you have a chance to review our comments?Nicole. From: Sent: May-30-11 11:42 AMTo:

Subject: Re: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review Panel Hi Nicole,

While we were targeting May 30th to submit, based on your comments with respect to a reasonabletimeframe to review the summary we have delayed the submission to after June 10.

This timing should provide adequate time to receive your comments on June 1st and discuss thosecomments prior to submission.

Jason

From: Nicole Nicholls To: Plamondon, Jason SCAN-UAH/S/Q Cc: Jefferson, Linda SCAN-UAH/S; Sent: Fri May 27 16:29:00 2011







Subject: RE: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review Panel

Hi Jason, I’ve been in a meeting all afternoon. I just got your voice mail message and saw your 3:50 p.m.email and realized that my reply to your email from yesterday had been sitting in my outbox all day(along with a number of other emails) due to technical issues with my server. I trust that you’vereceived it now. Your voice message indicated that Shell is going to print today, which is ratherdisappointing as that indicates to me that Shell has no intention of even considering our input or ourviews on a reasonable time to review the TK/TLU summary, which goes against our TK sharingagreement and is not reflective of working together in good faith. From: Sent: May-27-11 3:50 PMTo:

Subject: RE: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review PanelImportance: High Hi Nicole, Per my voice mail and the note below, Shell is still targeting a May 30, 2011 submission. Your prompt reply regarding a reasonable review period, in consideration of the content of thesummary is appreciated. Thanks, Jason PlamondonAdvisor, Aboriginal and Community RelationsShell Canada Energy 400 4th Ave SW, Calgary, Alberta, T2P 2H5

From: Plamondon, Jason SCAN-UAH/S/Q Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 4:40 PMTo: Nicole NichollsCc: Jefferson, Linda SCAN-UAH/S; Plamondon, Jason SCAN-UAH/S/QSubject: RE: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review Panel Hi Nicole, In respect of our TK Sharing agreement, specifically clause 5.2, to which you refer, Shell and ACFN are toagree on a reasonable timeframe to review the summary that is no longer than 30 days. Shell believes that 10 days (May 19 – May 30) is a reasonable amount of time to review the draftTK/TLU summary provided, considering the limited scope of the draft summary.

i.e. - the summary concludes that the TK provided is similar to what had already beenconsidered and it did not change Shell’s impact predictions.







It should also be noted that if ACFN has comments with respect to Shell’s conclusions regarding impactpredictions, of course those would be considered as part of your submissions and evidence for the JRPand the hearing. It appears that we are still on track for a May 30, 2011 submission so please get back to me as soon aspossible. Thanks,Jason


From: Nicole Nicholls Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 2:57 PMTo: Plamondon, Jason SCAN-UAH/S/Q; Cc: Jefferson, Linda SCAN-UAH/SSubject: RE: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review Panel Hi Jason, Thanks for your reply. While we are making efforts to provide our comments to you as soon as we can,I’d like to remind you that pursuant to section 5.2 of the TK Agreement Shell cannot submit thesummary until ACFN has had 30 days to review and verify its acceptance and appropriateness, includingthe interpretation and analysis of the TK. Nicole. From: Sent: May-24-11 9:42 AMTo:

Subject: RE: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review Panel Hi Nicole.








I’ve been advised that we are targeting Monday May 30 to provide our larger JRP submission,including the TK/TLU section to regulators. Jason Jason PlamondonAdvisor, Aboriginal and Community RelationsShell Canada Energy 400 4th Ave SW, Calgary, Alberta, T2P 2H5

From: Nicole Nicholls Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 1:09 PMTo: Plamondon, Jason SCAN-UAH/S/Q; Cc: Jefferson, Linda SCAN-UAH/SSubject: RE: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review Panel Hello Jason, Thanks for providing your draft submission to the JRP. Can you tell me when exactly you plan to submitit to the regulators as we would like to provide you our comments before then. Nicole. From: Sent: May-19-11 3:10 PMTo:

Subject: Draft TK/TLU submission to Joint review Panel Hi Lisa, Per my May 6, 2011 note to Nicole Nicholls and CC’d to you, please find attached a cover letter andsubsequent enclosure regarding Shell’s draft TK/TLU submission to the JRP. If you have any questions, please let me know. Kind Regards, Jason L. PlamondonAdvisor, Aboriginal and Community Relations Shell Canada Limited400 – 4th Avenue SW., P.O. Box 100 Station M, Calgary, Alberta T2P 3H7


http://www.shell.ca/smithjTypewritten Text





1

Jamie Zyla

From: Jay NelsonSent: August-24-11 1:36 PMTo: Jamie ZylaSubject: FW: Shell JPME and PRM Bimonthly Consultation ReportsAttachments: 11-08-24 Ltr to Shell and AENV RE Consultation Records.pdf

From: Nicole Nicholls Sent: August 24, 2011 1:34 PM To: Jay Nelson Subject: FW: Shell JPME and PRM Bimonthly Consultation Reports From: Nicole Nicholls Sent: August-18-11 6:01 PM To: '[email protected]'; Cc: Alvaro Loyola; Risbud,Sheila [CEAA]; Huynh,Mai-Linh [CEAA] ([email protected]); '[email protected]' Subject: Shell JPME and PRM Bimonthly Consultation Reports Good afternoon, Please see the attached letter expressing ACFN’s concerns regarding the bimonthly consultation reports submitted to AENV for the JPME and PRM projects. If you have any problems opening this document, please let me know. Regards, Nicole Nicholls Project Manager Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Industry Relations Corporation 110B 9816 Hardin Street Fort McMurray, AB T9H 4K3 Office: 780‐791‐3311







Appendix A

Appendix A – Shell Bi-monthly Consultation Reports: Apr1 – May31 2011, Feb1 – March31 2011 and Dec1 2010 to Jan31 2011

Shell Canada Consultation Report to Alberta Environment

Project Name: Jackpine Mine Expansion & Pierre River Mine

Bi-monthly Consultation Report for the Period: Feb 1, 2010 to Mar 31, 2011

In an ongoing attempt to address concerns and to optimize bi-monthly reporting, we welcome your feedback.

Communication/Activity Log

Date of Engagement Proponent Primary

Lead/contact

Individuals/Groups

Contacted

(For Elders, note number

in attendance)

Method of Contact

and/or activity

(Direct mail; Phone

Call; Email; Meeting*,

Other)

Contact Summary Related Issue(s) Outcomes Follow-Up/Outstanding Issues (these

should link back to previous reports)

February, 2011

February 2 - 10, 2011ACR Consultation

Intern

ACFN IRC Project

Manager

Email

(Outgoing/Incoming)

JPME/PRM NNLP

Shell sent a reminder to ACFN to provide a scope of work

(SOW) and Budget for the Feb 17 NNLP meeting

Aboriginal Consultation

Fish and Fish Habitat

Compensation Lakes

ACFN provided a SOW and Budget for the

Feb 17 NNLP meeting and Shell agreedNone

February 8, 2011ACR Consultation

Coordinator

OSDG, FMFN, ACFN,

MCFN, CPDFN, FM468,

ATC, DCFN, ML214,

ML125, ML 1935, ML2020,

ML 193, ML780, NSFMB,

WBES,

Letter(Outgoing)

Information Provision - Regulatory Submissions CD

Shell distributed CD copies (dated Dec 2010) of

consolidated Regulatory submissions for JPME/PRM to

Aboriginal community representatives.


Aboriginal community representatives

received the CD which was a consolidation

of all JPME/PRM regulatory submissions

from Dec 2007 to Aug 2010. The CD is

titled: “Application for the Approval of the

Jackpine Mine Expansion Project & Pierre

River Mine Project – Regulatory

Submissions from December 2007 to

August 2010”

None


CoordinatorACFN IRC Project Manager Email (Incoming)

ACFN Technical Review

ACFN provided Shell with its comments on the Dec 10

meeting notes drafted by Shell.

EIA MethodsShell received ACFN's edits to the draft

notes.

Shell to finalize and provide completed

notes to ACFN for their records.


Coordinator

ACFN IRC Director; Chief;

Project ManagerEmail (Incoming)


ACFN provided Shell with a letter with comments and

concerns surrounding the Technical Review and the

regulatory process.

EIA Methods

Regulatory ProcessShell received ACFN's letter.

Shell to respond to ACFN's Feb 10, 2011

concerns letter


Intern

Fort McKay IRC Project

Manager & Fisheries

Consultant; ACFN IRC

Director & Project

Manager; MCFN GIR

Regulatory Affairs

Coordinator and

Environmental

Coordinator

Email (Outgoing)

JPME/PRM NNLP

Shell sent presentation materials in advance of the

meeting to facilitate meeting preparation.



Compensation Lakes

FMFN, ACFN and MCFN received the

presentation materials.None


Intern

Fort McKay IRC Project

Manager & Fisheries

Consultant; MCFN GIR

Environmental

Coordinator & Fisheries

Consultant; ACFN

Fisheries Consultants;

DFO; CEAA

Meeting (Fort

McMurray)

JPME/PRM NNLP

Shell met with First Nations and Government to share

information and answer questions regarding its

JPME/PRM No Net Loss Plan.



Compensation Lakes

Objectives Met:

- Discussed Fish Salvage reports

- Provided update on Muskeg River

Diversion

- Provided update on MRME Comp Lake

- Discussed JPME/PRM compensation

habitat location

- Discussed NNLP Habitat Losses and

Gains

- Provided Surrogate Stream Analysis

- Provided preliminary results of habitat

modeling

- Discussed Muskeg River Dissolved

Oxygen Modeling

- Discussed Muskeg River

Geomorphology Analysis

Shell to provide:

- Verification of comparable No Net Loss

Plan to EIA #’s flow statistics for Muskeg

River;

- Fish Rescue Report with North Canterra

Road information to stakeholders;

- interim Water Mgt Framework for

Muskeg River status;

- How surrogate streams were chosen

March, 2011



Bi-monthly Consultation Report for the Period: Feb 1, 2010 to Mar 31, 2011




Lead/contact

Individuals/Groups

Contacted

(For Elders, note number

in attendance)

Method of Contact

and/or activity

(Direct mail; Phone

Call; Email; Meeting*,

Other)



March 3, 2011ACR Consultation

Coordinator

ACFN IRC Director;

Project Manager; ChiefEmail (Outgoing)


Shell responded to the Feb 10 concerns letter. Shell

provided finalized notes from Dec 10, 2011 Tech Review

meeting to ACFN for their records.

EIA Methods

ACFN received Shell's response to the

Feb 10, 2011 concerns letter and the

finalized Dec 10 meeting notes in redline

version.

None

March 10, 2011ACR Consultation

Coordinator

MCFN, FMFN, ACFN,

Métis 1935, Métis 125,

CPDFN, FM#468 and the

Non-status Fort McMurray

Band

Email (Outgoing)

Information Provision - Bi-Monthly Consultation Report

Shell distributed the Dec 2010 - Jan 2011 Bi-monthly

Summaries to individual communities


JPME/PRM bi-monthly consultation

summaries received by individual

communities for the period Dec 2010 - Jan

2011.

None

March 30, 2011 ACR ManagerACFN IRC Director;

Project Manager

Meeting (Fort

McMurray)

Regularly Scheduled ACFN IRC Meeting

ACFN and Shell discussed:

- the invitie from CEAA for public comment on the Joint

Review Agreement ToR.

- Shell's response to the ACFN Technical Review of the

JPME/PRM EIA.

- Muskeg River Diversion mitigation


JRP agreement - Shell encouraged ACFN

to input into the process where

appropriate.

Tech Review - Shell advised response

would be sent out in April.

MRDA - Shell advised that work ongoing

to assess mitigation. ACFN advised that

they prefer the watershed left intact to

pursure traditional activities. Shell advised

it would provide funds to ACFN to review

Technical information surrounding the

mitigation.

None

Acronyms:

ACR Aboriginal & Community Relations

DCFN De Cho First Nation

ML Métis Local

FMFN SG Fort McKay First Nation Sustainability Group

NSFMB Non-Status Fort McMurray/Fort McKay Band

CRPCB Clearwater River Paul Cree Band #175

CPDFN Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation

Env Can Environment Canada

DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans

CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

AENV Alberta Environment

ASRD Alberta Sustainable Resource Development

FTP File Transfer Protocol

NNLP No Net Loss Plan

JPME/PRM Jackpine Mine Expansion & Pierre River Mine

TK/TLU Traditional Environmental Knowledge and Traditional Land Use

MCFN GIR Mikisew Cree First Nation Government and Industry Relations

ACFN IRC Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Industry Relations Corporation

FM #468 Fort McMurray First Nation #468



Bi-monthly Consultation Report for the Period: Dec 1, 2010 to Jan 31, 2011

Note - ACR refers to Shell Aboriginal & Community Relations. In an ongoing attempt to address concerns and to optimize bi-monthly reporting, we welcome your feedback.

Communication/Activity LogDate of Engagement Proponent Primary

Lead/contact

Individuals/Groups Contacted

(For Elders, note number in

attendance)

Method of Contact and/or

activity

(Direct mail; Phone Call;

Email; Meeting*, Other)



December, 2010

December 2, 2010ACR Consultation

CoordinatorACFN IRC Project Manager Email (Incoming)

Information Provision - Technical Review Meeting

Attendees list

ACFN provided an updated attendees list for the

upcoming Dec 10, 2010 Technical Review meeting

EIA Methods Shell received the updated attendees list None


CoordinatorACFN IRC Project Manager Email (Incoming/Outgoing)

Technical Review Meeting - Pre-Read

ACFN requested that the pre-read for the Dec 10,

2010 Technical Review meeting be sent directly to the

lead ACFN consultant.

EIA MethodsShell sent the pre-read to the ACFN lead consultant

with a copy to ACFN IRC project managerNone

December 10, 2010

ACR Consultation

Coordinator; EIA

Coordinator

ACFN IRC Project Manager;

Lead Technical Review

consultant; Elders

Meeting (Teleconference)


Shell and ACFN met to review ACFN's JPME/PRM

EIA Technical Review submission of Oct 2010

EIA Methods

The discussion provided information and increased

clarity that would be used to inform Shell's response

to ACFN's Technical Review.

Shell to draft meeting notes and provide

to ACFN for review and verification.

December 10, 2010

ACR Consultation

Coordinator; EIA

Coordinator

ACFN IRC Project Manager Meeting (Teleconference)

Muskeg River Diversion Mitigation

Shell met with ACFN and shared mitigation plans for

the Muskeg River Diversion. Shell advised further

tech information would follow for review.

Environmental Management and Protection

Traditional Knowledge & Land Use


ACFN requested a copy of the presentation

materials referred to in the teleconference. Shell

agreed and further agreed to provide technical

information regarding the proposed mitigation when

it became available for ACFN review.

Shell to mail presentation materials to

ACFN. Shell also to provide technical

information regarding mitigation when it

becomes available.

December 13, 2010

ACR Consultation

Coordinator; EIA

Coordinator

ACFN IRC Project Manager Email (Outgoing)

Muskeg River Diversion Mitigation

Shell emailed presentation materials referred to in Dec

10 meeting to ACFN as agreed. Shell reiterated that

additonal technical information surrounding the

mitigatiion would be provided when available.

Environmental Management and Protection



ACFN received the presentation materials

Shell to provide additional technical data

surrounding proposed mitigation when

availlable for ACFN review.


CoordinatorACFN IRC Project Manager Email (Outgoing)

Proposed Elders Meeting

Shell responded to ACFN's proposed budget, agreeing

to pay for all costs excluding Elders honoraria and

offering to provide a gift in recognition of Elders

attendance.

Aboriginal ConsultationACFN received Shell's response to the proposed

budget.ACFN to provide revised budget

January, 2011

January 5 - 17 ,2011ACR Consultation

CoordinatorACFN IRC Project Manager Email (Outgoing/Incoming)


Shell provided ACFN with draft notes from the Dec 10

Technical Review meeting.

EIA Methods

ACFN received the draft notes, reviewed them and

provided them to their lead consultant for additional

review.

ACFN to provide comments on draft

notes. Shell to finalize and provide

completed notes to ACFN for their

records (see Feb-Mar 2011 Bi-Monthly

summary)

January 11 - 15, 2011ACR Consultation

Intern

ACFN IRC Director; IRC Project

ManagerEmail (Outgoing)

JPME/PRM NNLP

Shell forwarded an Invitation for a Feb. 17, 2011

meeting to discuss Shell's proposed JPME/PRM

Compensation Lake and No Net Loss Plan

Aboriginal Consultation; Fish and Fish Habitat;

Compensation Lakes

ACFN advised that its scope of work and budget

were forthcoming

ACFN to provide SOW and budget for

Feb 17 NNLP meeting

January 15 - 20, 2011ACR Consultation

Coordinator

ACFN IRC Project Manager; TLU

Lead ConsultantEmail (Incoming/Outgoing)

Information Request - Supplementary TK/TLU Study

ACFN provided an update regarding ongoing efforts to

complete supplementary TK/TLU. ACFN requested

confirmation of most recent plans and associated

shape files to assist with report preparation.

Traditional Environmental Knowledge and

Traditional Land Use

Shell confirmed that status of its most recent plans

and provided associated shape files/PDF's as

requested.

ACFN to provide completed Integrated

TLU/TK study for JPME/PRM and

TLU/TK Study for Redclay Compensation

lake.

January 17, 2011ACR Consultation



ACFN requested that Shell reconsider its decision in

respect of the proposed budget, suggesting that

Elders honoraria should be paid.


Shell responded to ACFN and provided greater

clarity surrounding its decision not to pay Elders

honoraria. Shell agreed with ACFN's request to

schedule the Elders meeting following Shell's reciept

of the suplementary TLU/TK study and ACFN's

receipt of Shell's response to the ACFN JPME/PRM

EIA Technical Review.

ACFN to provide a revised budget for the

proposed Elders meeting.


CoordinatorACFN IRC Email (Outgoing)

Information Provision - Bi-Monthly Consultation

ReportAboriginal Consultation

Shell sent its JPME/PRM bi-monthly consultation

summaries to individual communities for the period

Oct-Nov.

None



Bi-monthly Consultation Report for the Period: Dec 1, 2010 to Jan 31, 2011

Note - ACR refers to Shell Aboriginal & Community Relations. In an ongoing attempt to address concerns and to optimize bi-monthly reporting, we welcome your feedback.

Communication/Activity LogDate of Engagement Proponent Primary

Lead/contact



attendance)


activity






Intern

ACFN IRC Director; IRC Project


JPME/PRM NNLP

Shell sent a reminder to ACFN to provide a SOW and

Budget for the Feb 17 NNLP meeting

Aboriginal Consultation; Fish and Fish Habitat;

Compensation Lakes

ACFN received the reminder to provide a SOW and

Budget for the feb 17 NNLP meeting

ACFN to provide a SOW and Budget for

the Feb 17 NNLP meeting (see Feb-Mar

2011 Bi-Monthly summary)

January 24 - 28, 2011

ACR Manager; ACR

Consultation

Coordinator

ACFN IRC Director Email (Incoming/Outgoing)


ACFN disagreed with Shell's decision not to pay

honoraria for the proposed Elders meeting and

requested a conference call and available dates to

discuss the issue.


Shell provided additional clarity surrounding its

decision not to provide honoraria for the proposed

Elders meeting and agreed to a teleconference.

Shell suggested an available date as requested.

ACFN to respond with an agreeable date

for a teleconference



Bi-monthly Consultation Report for the Period: Apr 1, 2010 to May 31, 2011




Lead/contact



attendance)


activity



Contact Summary Related Issue(s) Outcomes Follow-Up/Outstanding Issues (these should link back

to previous reports)

April, 2011

April 5 - 21, 2011

ACR SP Manager;

Environmental

Specialist Regional

Consultation

ACFN IRC Director; Project


Information Provision - Muskeg River Watershed

Integrated Water Quality Monitoring Program

Annual Report. Sept 2009

Shell provided the public report for the period 2008-2009

Water Quality

Environmental Monitoring

ACFN received the report and asked for funding

to review it.

Shell agreed to fund the review of the report

None

April 6, 2011ACR Consultation

Intern

Fort McKay IRC Project Manager

& Fisheries Consultant; ACFN

IRC Director & Project Manager;

MCFN GIR Regulatory Affairs

Coordinator and Environmental

Coordinator

Email (Outgoing)

JPME/PRM NNLP

Shell sent draft meeting summary from the Feb 17, 2011

NNLP meeting for comment.



Compensation Lakes

FMFN, ACFN and MCFN received the draft

meeting summary.None

April 6, 2011 ACR Manager ACFN & MCFN Legal Counsel Letter (Incoming)

CEAA Registry Posting - Comments on JRP Agreement

ACFN and MCFN provided comments on the draft JRP

Agreement

Aboriginal Consultation CEAA received the comments of the ACFN and

MCFNNone


ManagerACFN IRC Director Email (Outgoing)

Consultation Work Plan

Shell provided a proposed 2011 consultation work plan

for review, comment & approval.

Aboriginal Consultation ACFN received the proposed 2011 consultation

work plan.ACFN to comment on proposed work plan

April 13, 2011 ACR Manager ACFN IRC Director; 1 Elder Letter (Outgoing)

Response to March 22 Commitments letter

Shell responded to ACFN's March 22nd Letter regarding

existing commitments and noted its prior invitation to enter

negotiations for a mitigation agreement for JPME/PRM.

Mitigation ACFN received Shell's letter. None

April 15, 2011ACR Manager;

Consultation Manager

ACFN IRC Director; Project


Information Request - Access management measures

Shell responded to a March 24 email regarding access

management and the protection of Bison herds.

Access Management

Wildlife ProtectionACFN received Shell's comments None


Intern

Fort McKay IRC Project Manager

& Fisheries Consultant; MCFN

GIR Environmental Coordinator

& Fisheries Consultant; ACFN

Fisheries Consultants; DFO;

CEAA

Email (Outgoing)

JPME/PRM NNLP - Information provided

Per the action items taken away from the Feb 17 meeting,

Shell provided:

- Verification of comparable No Net Loss Plan to EIA #’s

flow statistics for Muskeg River;

- Fish Rescue Report with North Canterra Road

information to stakeholders;

- interim Water Mgt Framework for Muskeg River status;

- How surrogate streams were chosen



Compensation Lakes

Actions from Feb 17, 2011 meeting completed None


InternACFN IRC Project Manager Email (incoming/Outgoing)

JPME/PRM NNLP - Re: Information Provided

ACFN advised that actions should not be deemed

complete until ACFN had the opportunity to verify the

accuracy of the meeting summary.



Compensation Lakes

Shell welcomed ACFN's comments on the draft

meeting summaryACFN to provide comments on draft meeting summary

April 20, 2011

ACR Manager;

Provincial and Federal

regulator

ACFN IRC Project Manager Email (Incoming/Outgoing)

Information Provision - TLU Study

ACFN provided notification that its integrated TLU study

for the projects was available for download from a secure

file transfer site.


Shell confirmed download of the TLU study

CEAA asked for a copy by CD

None

May, 2011

May 4, 2011ACR Consultation

CoordinatorACFN IRC Director Email (Outgoing)

Notification - Provision of TLU to Regulators

Shell notified ACFN of its intent to distribute copies of the

ACFN TLU to regulators

Aboriginal Consultation ACFN inquired regarding Shell's intent to

summarize the TLU distributed

Shell to respond to ACFN query regarding the TK/TLU

contained in the JRP submission

May 4 - 6, 2011ACR Consultation


JPME/PRM NNLP - Feasibility

ACFN asked Shell to discuss the feasibility of its proposed

JPME/PRM compensation lake in light of information

received from external parties.



Compensation Lakes

Shell responded, suggesting that both MRME

and JPME/PRM compensation lakes continued

to be pursued.

None

May 5, 2011

ACR Consultation

Coordinator; Senior

Land Representative;

Communications

Representative; Social

Performance Manager;

Consultation Intern

Fort Chipewyan Community

Members; AENV

Open House (Fort

Chipewyan)

LARP - Public Session

Shell attended a Draft Lower Athabasca Regional Plan

Public Session held at Fort Chipewyan.

Land Use and Access Management

Open house hosted by Alberta Government to

allow community an opportunity to voice

concerns and provide feedback about LARP

before it goes to Cabinet.

ACFN boycotted the event but sent a

representative to present a message to Alberta

regarding their displeasure in respect of the draft

LARP

watchers of the land...watchers of the land from: to: subject: re: figure 1.5 traditional gravesites...

Documents