Application for Approval of Peace River Oil Sands Carmon Creek Project (TPD1109010)

Question No. 22

Request                        SIR Response 95 (a), Section 10.1, Page 10-76

SIR Response 84 (b), Section 10.1, Page 10-68

Volume II-B, Section 5.4, Page 5-8 to 5-18.

Shell states that “Adequate sampling over four seasons….was conducted using standard survey methods.”

It is unclear which “standard survey methods” were utilized for sampling conducted via electrofishing, baited setlining and minnow trapping. In SIR response 84 some information was provided for the gill net sampling.

Shell states that Mesh sizes for gill nets were pattered after those discussed by Morgan (2002) in the Manual Instructions – Fall Walleye Index Netting (FWIN). It seems that Shell utilized a standard method for gill net equipment, but deviated from the actual sampling protocol of Morgan (2002). (i.e., sampling at certain temperatures, timing of sampling – fall).

22a       Describe or reference what “standard survey methods” were used for electrofishing, baited setlining and minnow trapping and discuss how they are relevant to this LSA.

Response         22a       The survey methods used for electrofishing, baited setlining, and minnow trapping are summarized in Bonar et al. (2009), McRae and Jackson (2006), and the B.C. Ministry of Environment (1997). These standard methods have been used extensively for EIAs in Alberta, including EIAs that have been deemed complete or approved, and are the accepted methods to complete baseline surveys for fish for EIAs, and other projects that might affect aquatic habitat. The survey methods used in the LSA are relevant because these methods can capture a wide range of body sizes, regardless of species or geographic location.

References

B.C. Ministry of Environment. 1997. Fish Collection Methods and Standards. Lands and Parks, Fish Inventory Unit for the Aquatic Ecosystems Task Force, Resources Inventory Committee. 58 pp.

Bonar, S.A., W.A Huberta and D.W. Willis. (eds.). 2009. Standard methods for sampling North American freshwater fishes. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

MacRae, P.S.D. and D.A. Jackson. (2006, February 3).Characterizing north temperate lake littoral fish assemblages: a comparison between distance sampling and minnow traps. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 63: 558–568.

Request            23c       Provide an updated Figure 6.8-6 showing Shell’s commitment to a 20m above ground pipelines and any additional changes as applicable.

Request                        SIR Response 105 (c), Section 11.1, Page 11-6

SIR Response 102 (b), Section 11.1, Page 11-3

Volume I, Sec 6.1.5, Page 6-2 and 6-3.

Shell identifies site selection criteria and the advantages of selected site for Central Processing Facilities (CPF), but does not clearly outline the integration of the existing processing facility within the new proposed development scheme.

Shell indicates in the response to SIR 102 (b) that the decommissioning and reclamation of the existing Peace River Complex is expected to begin approximately 1 year after start-up of CPF 1. This existing Complex is currently authorized under two public lands dispositions MLL850015, and MSL8734 which together are approximately 71 ha in size.

According to Shell’s conceptual development schedule, the Peace River Complex decommissioning and reclamation will occur approximately 2 years prior to construction of CPF 2 and associated facilities. In the conceptual development schedule (Volume 1, Figure 1-5) Shell indicates that construction for CPF 2 will begin approximately 3 years following construction of CPF 1.

25a       Provide alternatives to locating a portion of the planned facilities for CPF 1 and CPF 2 including associated facilities (landfill, camp, etc.) on the existing footprint, which is currently utilized for the Peace River Complex.

Response         25a       Some minor project components, such as the administration complex, maintenance shop, and warehouse located at the PRC site will continue to be used by the project (see the response to Supplemental Information Round 1, ERCB SIR 37a). As discussed in the response to SIR 25b, no other project components, such as the construction camp or landfills are being considered for location at the PRC site.

Through adaptive management and consultation with Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD) and other stakeholders, Shell will endeavour to reduce the overall project footprint. Footprint minimization opportunities could include:

• reducing the size and number of clearings on previously undisturbed land (i.e., new clearing)
• reusing land that has an existing disturbance, where possible
• co-locating project components to make disturbance as compact as possible

Request            25b       If there are no feasible alternatives provided in (a), discuss why no alternatives are possible.

Response         25b       Except for the minor project components identified in the response to SIR 25a, it is not feasible to locate the main CPF 1 and CPF 2 components at the PRC site for the following reasons:

• the timing of PRC decommissioning and reclamation, relative to the tinting of CPF 2 construction
• the geotechnical and environmental conditions at the PRC site

The preamble to this SIR states ‘construction for CPF 2 will begin approximately three years following construction of CPF 1’; however, tllis statement requires clarification. Figure 25-1 illustrates the construction of CPF 2 will begin about three years after the sta1t of construction of CPF 1, and not the end of construction of CPF 1, as implied in the preamble.

Because the PRC will still be operating during the first year of construction for CPF 2, it would not be possible to locate any of the major project components for CPF 2 at the PRC site.

Figure 25-1: Timing of CPF Construction and PRC Decommissioning

To clarify, the first four years of the conceptual project development schedule are as follows:

• strut construction of CPF 1
• about three years later:
  • sta1t commissioning and start-up of CPF 1
  • PRC begins suppo1ting CPF 1
  • strut construction of CPF 2
• about one year later:
  • start of normal operations for CPF 1
  • start decommissioning and reclamation of the PRC

The construction camp cannot be located at the PRC site because of the timing of the PRC decommissioning and reclamation relative to the timing of CPF 2 construction. The construction camp will be required many years before the decommissioning and reclamation of the PRC site.

Geotechnical and environmental site conditions are the main reason that the landfills cannot be located at the PRC site. The PRC site does not comply with the primary siting criteria for landfills in Alberta (Standards for Landfills in Alberta, Alberta Environment, February 2010). The surficial geology at the PRC site consists of a thin layer of sandy clay till overlying water bearing sands.

Landfills are not permitted on permeable materials, such as sands, or overlying shallow aquifers.

The design philosophy for the CPFs is to have all project components laid out in a single site. This approach will reduce the footprint by minimizing:

• the total area cleared for setback from facilities to the forest (i.e., less area cleared compared to two separate facilities)
• the number and size of soil stockpiles
• the number and size of industrial runoff ponds and associated ditches
• the number and size of additional roads required to transport equipment and personnel between the CPFs, and between the CPFs and the PRC, or to transport waste to other disposal locations

WILDLIFE SIRS 26 – 27

Based on this data, Shell is confident that moose are present in the LSA in the early winter.

Reference

Dunne, B. 2007. Effectiveness of above-ground pipeline crossing structures for the movement of moose and other large mammals. Master’s degree project submitted to the Faculty of Environmental Design in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Environmental Design Degree in Environmental Science. 136 pp plus appendices.

Question No. 27

Request                        SIR Response 157, Section 11.1, Pages 11-89 to 11-91.

Although ASRD field staff did indicate several years ago that owls or bats would not be included in the list of indicator species, there has been a significant shift within ASRD to understand industrial impacts on selected species. For example, considerable efforts within ARSD to develop models to understand impacts of industry on barred owls in Alberta.

The TOR requires Shell to describe and map existing wildlife resources (amphibians, reptiles, birds and terrestrial and aquatic mammals) and their use and potential use of habitats.

27a       Provide Shell’s plan to augment baseline data for owls and bats to describe and map presence of bat and owl species on the LSA and RSA.

Response         27a Owl Survey

In April 2012, Shell plans to conduct a survey to describe and map the presence of owl species in the LSA. The owl survey will only be conducted within the LSA for the following reasons:

• The LSA is delineated to determine direct and indirect project effects to wildlife resources of concern. The RSA was identified and used to assess impacts on wildlife indicators with large home ranges, such as moose (see EIA, Volume IIC, Section 4.3.1 and 4.3.2). Project effects are not expected to extend beyond the LSA for most small species of wildlife, including owls.

• It is expected that all owl species that could potentially occur within the RSA will also be found within the LSA, because of the wide diversity of habitat types available within the LSA. Therefore, a survey within the LSA would be representative of baseline owl conditions in the RSA.

The owl survey methods will follow the established survey methodology outlined in the Guidelines for Nocturnal Owl Monitoring in North America (Takats et al. 2001) and the Alberta Wildlife Animal Care Committee Class Protocol #006 (ASRD 2005). The owl survey will be stratified to establish points in forested habitat types with a structural stage 5 or greater, as opposed to shrubland and graminoid habitats – these habitat types provide minimal nesting habitat for owl species expected to respond to call playbacks. For example, short-eared owls, a species that uses shrubland or graminoid habitats, are not known to respond to call playback. Within forested habitat, survey stations will be spaced at least 1,600 m apart, as recommended by Takats et al. (2001), to minimize the chance of surveying the same owl twice.

Bat Survey

In late July or early August 2012, Shell plans to conduct a bat survey to describe and map the presence of bat species within the LSA. The bat survey will focus on the LSA for the same reasons previously stated for the owl survey.

The bat survey will use two methods to detect the presence of bats:

• physical capture using mist nets

• echolocation detection using the AnaBat II Bat Detector with compact flash zero-crossing analysis interface module (CF ZCAIM; Titley Electronics).

The exact locations of the survey sites has not yet been determined; however, sites along cutlines and overgrown trails between old growth forests (roosting habitat) and wet areas such as streams, bogs and marshes (foraging habitat) will be selected. Bat detectors will be placed at the mist netting locations, and other locations to increase the sample size.

References

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD). 2005. Alberta Wildlife Animal Care Committee Class Protocol #006: Call Playback for Owls. Available online at: http://www.srd.alberta.ca/fishwildlife/guidelinesresearch/pdf/protocol/O wl_playback_Class_Protocol_006.pdf

Takats, D.L., C.M. Francis, G.L. Holroyd, J.R. Duncan, L.M. Nazur, R.J. Cannings, W. Harris and D. Holt. 2001. Guidelines for Nocturnal Owl Monitoring In North America. Beaverhill Bird Observatory and Bird Studies Canada, Edmonton, Alberta, p 32.

Table 27-1: Owl and Bat Species Potentially Occurring in the Terrestrial LSA and RSA Considered At Risk

Information on the presence of, and habitat use by, owl and bat species within the LSA will be updated once the surveys for these species groups are completed in 2012 (see the response to SIR 27a).

The ecosite phases indicated in Table 27-2 as potential habitat for each owl species are based on coarse scale habitat associations, as described in the literature. The potential habitat is not modelled and does not provide fine scale habitat preferences. Similarly, potential nesting habitat illustrated in the figures is based on the ecosite phases and structural stages provided in the table or text.

Barred Owl

The barred owl is found throughout Canada except the prairie and arctic regions (Johnsgard 1988, ASRD 2005). In Alberta, the barred owl occurs in forested areas of the Rocky Mountains, Foothills, and Boreal Forest Natural Regions (ASRD 2005). Four barred owls were detected in the northern part of the LSA, at three locations (see Figure 27-1).

In Alberta, barred owl breeding habitat is associated with mature and old mixedwood forests (Mazur et al. 1998, Takats 1998, ASRD 2005). Breeding barred owls prefer old mixedwood and deciduous forests (i.e., forests more than 80 years old) because of the greater availability of potential nest sites and open areas for hunting (Mazur et al. 1998). Cavities in large balsam poplar trees are preferred for nesting (FAN 2007). Within the LSA, deciduous and mixedwood forests of a structural stage 6 and 7 were included as potential barred owl nesting habitat (see Figure 27-1 and Table 27-2).

Great Gray Owl

The breeding range of the great gray owl is the Holarctic biogeographic region, which occurs across North America from central Alaska and northern Yukon, across the western provinces to northern Manitoba and northern Ontario (Johnsgard 1988). In the United States, the range of the great gray owl includes portions of the Cascades, Sierra, and Rocky Mountains, as well as portions of Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, and New York (Duncan and Hayward 1994). The great gray owl is a year-round resident, if uncommon inhabitant, of the northern and western parts of Alberta (Semenchuk 1992, McGillivray and Semenchuk 1998). However, during the winter, great gray owls tend to wander irregularly southward (Duncan 1994). Great gray owls were detected at two locations in the northeast part of the LSA, and at four locations north of the LSA (see Figure 27-2).

Great gray owls nest in mature and old growth forested habitats, including coniferous, mixedwood, and deciduous stands (Semenchuk 1992). Drier pine stands and open areas without trees are generally avoided (Bull and Duncan 1993). The great gray owl hunts small mammals in natural openings in the forest, and within edge habitats (Godfrey 1986). Great gray owls nest in the abandoned stick nests of other avian species, such as crows, ravens or hawks. In Alberta, great gray owls may nest in deciduous or coniferous trees, but prefer to nest in large balsam poplar trees in proximity to muskeg habitat (Semenchuk 1992).

Potential nesting habitat in the LSA includes mature and old growth deciduous, mixedwood, and coniferous forests (see Figure 27-2 and Table 27-2).

Northern Hawk Owl

The northern hawk owl is unevenly distributed throughout its boreal forest range across Alaska and Canada (Duncan and Duncan 1998). In Alberta, the northern hawk owl occurs mainly in the Boreal Forest Natural Region and occasionally in the Foothills, Parkland and Rocky Mountain Natural Regions (Semenchuk 1992, FAN 2007). Northern hawk owls are not migratory; however, they may relocate within their breeding range in the winter to areas where winter prey is more abundant (Semenchuk 1992, Duncan and Duncan 1998). Although suitable nesting habitat is present in the LSA, no northern hawk owls were detected in the LSA during any surveys conducted for the project (see Figure 27-3).

The northern hawk owl breeds in relatively dense mature coniferous or mixedwood forest stands bordering open areas, such as marshes, muskeg, clearcuts, or burnt areas (Semenchuk 1992, Duncan and Duncan 1998, ASRD 2010). Northern hawk owls will nest in burnt forests where snags and stumps provide suitable nesting sites (Salt and Salt 1976). Preferred nest structures include natural tree cavities, woodpecker cavities, the top of hollow tree snags, or abandoned crow or hawk nests (Godfrey 1986). Since northern hawk owls prefer to nest in mature forests, coniferous or mixedwood ecosite phases within the LSA of a structural stage 6 and 7 were included as potential nesting habitat (see Figure 27-3). The ecosite phases included as potential nesting habitat in the LSA are shown in Table 27-2.

Northern Pygmy Owl

The North American range of the northern pygmy owl extends across the western portion of the continent from the southern coastal tip of Alaska to southern Mexico (Hannah 1999). Alberta includes the northeastern extent of the northern pygmy owl’s range (Hannah 1999). It is a resident of the Rocky Mountain and Foothills Natural Regions with occasional occurrences in the Boreal Forest Natural Region (FAN 2007). Northern pygmy owls are regularly recorded in the Parkland and Grassland Natural Regions in the winter (Semenchuk 1992). One northern pigmy owl was detected in the south-central portion of the LSA (see Figure 27-4).

The northern pygmy owl typically prefers to nest in dense mature coniferous forest stands interspersed with small clearings (Salt and Salt 1976, Hannah 1999). Mixedwood forests are also preferred, as long as there are high components of coniferous tree species present (i.e., spruce, pine or fir). Nests are usually located in abandoned hairy woodpecker or northern flicker tree cavities (Semenchuk 1992). Potential nesting habitat for the northern pygmy owl includes coniferous and mixedwood forests with a structural stage of 6 and 7 (see

Figure 27-4 and Table 27-2).

Short-Eared Owl

The short-eared owl occurs on every continent except Australia and Antarctica making it one of the most widely distributed owls in the world (Clayton 2000, COSEWIC 2008). Short-eared owls breed across the northern portion of North America and migrate south to Mexico and the West Indies during winter (Hoffman et al. 1999, Clayton 2000). In Alberta, the majority of the short-eared owl breeding range occurs in the Grassland Natural Region, and to a lesser extent in the Parkland, Boreal Forest, Foothills, and Rocky Mountain Natural Regions (FAN 2007). Although suitable nesting habitat is present in the LSA, no short- eared owls were detected in the LSA (see Figure 27-5).

The short-eared owl breeds in a wide variety of open habitats, such as grasslands, Arctic tundra, taiga, bogs, marshes, old pastures, croplands, grassy or brushy meadows and cutblocks (Semenchuk 1992, Clayton 2000, Wiggins et al. 2006, FAN 2007, COSWIC 2008). Preferred nesting sites are on the ground and usually in areas of dense grassland (COSEWIC 2008). Within the LSA, potential nesting habitat includes lowland habitat, with low tree cover, open fens, shrublands, regenerating cutblocks, cutblocks and marshes (see Figure 27-5 and Table 27-2).

Potential Impacts on Owl Species at Risk

The project will have various effects on wildlife, but owls are most likely to be affected by loss of habitat and reduced habitat effectiveness. Mortality from collisions with vehicles is expected to be negligible because of speed restrictions in place on access roads within the LSA. Based on the general habitat associations described in Table 27-2, the project will result in a loss of potential habitat ranging from 9.9% to 15.6% (see Table 27-3). This estimate is conservative as fine scale habitat associations were not modelled, and it is unlikely that all habitat described is suitable for each species. Habitat loss for the indicator species assessed in the EIA ranged from 1.1% for beaver to 16% for moose, with an average of 9.5% (Volume IIC; Section 4.6.1.3).

The project will result in loss of habitat and reduced habitat effectiveness. Populations of owls within the LSA may decline below Baseline Case levels through the life of the project, although this affect will vary among species. Populations are expected to recover in the LSA after reclamation. However, there is extensive habitat within the RSA, and regionally owl populations are not expected to change as a result of the project. Residual impacts on habitat availability for the indicator species assessed in the EIA were rated negligible to moderate. As with these indicator species, the habitat loss is unlikely to threaten the long-term sustainability of owl species in the RSA. The impacts are expected to be reversible in the long term because of project reclamation to an equivalent land capability.

Table 27-2: Potential Nesting Habitat in the LSA for Owl Species at Risk

Table 27-3: Potential Habitat Availability for Owl Species at Risk, Baseline and Application Cases

Hoary Bat

The hoary bat is one of the most widespread mammals ranging throughout North, South and Central America (Pattie and Fisher 1999, ASRD 2009a). It is widespread throughout Alberta (ASRD 2009a). Although suitable roosting habitat is available in the LSA (see Figure 27-6), no hoary bats were detected in the LSA.

Hoary bats prefer to roost in coniferous trees (ASRD 2009a) and will often choose mature white spruce trees (Picea glauca) as roost sites (Willis and Bringham 2005).

Northern Long-Eared Bat

The northern long-eared bat ranges throughout the forested regions of Canada, with the exception of western British Columbia and the northern portions of the boreal forest (Caceres and Pybus 1997). In the United States, the range extends across the eastern half of the United States south to the northern tip of Florida (Caceres and Pybus 1997). In Alberta, the northern long-eared bat is found in forested areas within the Boreal Forest, Peace Parkland, Central Parkland as well as the northern portions of the Foothills Natural Regions (Caceres and Pybus 1997, Pattie and Fisher 1999). Although suitable roosting habitat is available in the LSA (see Figure 27-6), no northern long-eared bats were not detected in the LSA.

Preferred roosting sites consist of mature tree stands with the presence of large diameter, partially decayed trees with exfoliating bark, small cavities or long vertical cracks in the trunk (Caceres and Pybus 1997, Psyllakis and Bringham 2006).

Silver-Haired Bat

The silver-haired bat ranges across the southern half of Canada and throughout the United States (Pattie and Fisher 1999). These bats are distributed throughout Alberta and are more frequently observed in the Rocky Mountains (Pattie and Fisher 1999, ASRD 2009b). Although suitable roosting habitat is available in the LSA (see Figure 27-6), no silver-haired bats were detected in the LSA.

Silver-haired bats might roost individually or in small groups in forested areas under peeling bark, in tree cavities, in abandoned bird nests, or hanging upside down among leaves (Harvey et al. 1999, ASRD 2009b).

Potential Impacts on Bat Species at Risk

Bats might be affected by loss of habitat and by reduced habitat effectiveness. Reduced habitat effectiveness might result from the effects of lighting project facilities. For information concerning mitigation to reduce impacts from lighting, see Supplemental Information Round 1, AENV SIR 144.

Bat roosting habitat consists predominantly of old growth forests, therefore, the assessment of effects of the project on old growth forests (see EIA, Volume IIC, Section 3.5.1.3.1) can be used to assess project effects on bats. The predicted loss of old growth forest habitat is 14.1% and the effect was determined to be moderate and long term in duration. Although the project might result in a decrease in the bat population within the LSA, the habitat loss is unlikely to threaten the long-term sustainability of bat species in the RSA.

References

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD). 2005. Status of the Barred Owl (Strix varia) in Alberta. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, and Alberta Conservation Association, Wildlife Status Report No. 56, Edmonton, AB. 15 pp.

ASRD. 2009a. Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus). http://www.srd.alberta.ca/FishWildlife/WildSpecies/Mammals/Bats/Hoar yBat.aspx. Accessed August 2011.

ASRD. 2009b. Silver-haired Bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans). http://www.srd.alberta.ca/FishWildlife/WildSpecies/Mammals/Bats/Silv erhairedBat.aspx. Accessed August 2011.

ASRD. 2010. Northern Hawk Owl (Surnia uvula). http://www.srd.alberta.ca/FishWildlife/WildSpecies/Birds/Owls/Norther nHawkOwl.aspx. Accessed August 2011.

ASRD. 2011. The General Status of Alberta Wild Species 2010. http://www.srd.alberta.ca/BiodiversityStewardship/SpeciesAtRisk/Gener alStatus/GeneralStatusofAlbertaWildSpecies2010/Default.aspx. Accessed May 11 2011.

Bull, E. L. and J. R. Duncan. 1993. Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/041 doi:10.2173/bna.41. Accessed August 2011.

Caceres, M.C. and M. J. Pybus. 1997. Status of the Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentionalis) in Alberta. Alberta Environmental Protection, Wildlife Management Division, Wildlife Status Report No. 3, Edmonton, Alberta.

Clayton, K.M. 2000. Status of the short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) in Alberta. Alberta Environment, Fisheries and Wildlife Management Division, and Alberta Conservation Association, Wildlife Status Report No. 28, Edmonton, AB.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2008. COSWEIC assessment and update status report on the short-eared owl Asio flammeus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. Vi + 24 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm).

COSEWIC. 2011. Canadian Species at Risk. http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct5/index_e.cfm. Accessed May 11 2011.

Duncan, J.R. 1994. Great Gray Owl habitat use literature review. Prepared for Manitoba Forestry/ Wildlife Management Project. 32 pp.

Duncan, J.R. and P.H. Hayward. 1994. Review of technical knowledge: Great Gray Owls. Chapter 14. Pp. 159-175. In Hayward, G.D. and J. Verner (eds.). Flammuated, boreal, and great gray owls in the United States: a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-253. 213 pp.

Duncan, J.R. and P. A. Duncan. 1998. Northern Hawk Owl (Surnia ulula), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/356 .doi:10.2173/bna.356.

Federation of Alberta Naturalists (FAN). 2007. The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Alberta: A Second Look. Federation of Alberta Naturalists, Edmonton, Alberta.

Godfrey, W.E. 1986. The Birds of Canada. The National Museum of Natural Sciences, National Museums of Canada. 595 pp. Short-eared owl.

Hannah, K.C. 1999. Status of the Northern Pygmy Owl (Glaucidium gnoma californucum) in Alberta. Alberta Environmental Protection, Fisheries and Wildlife Management Division, and Alberta Conservation Association, Wildlife Status Report No. 20, Edmonton, Alberta.

Harvey, M.J., J.S. Altenbach and T.L. Best. 1999. Bats of the United States. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Arkansas.

Hoffman, W., G.E. Woolfendon and P.W. Smith. 1999. Antillean short-eared owls invade southern Florida. Wilson Bulletin 111: 303-313.

Johnsgard, P.A. 1988. North American Owls, Biology and Natural History. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London. 295 pp.

McGillivray, W.B. and G.P. Semenchuk. 1998. Field Guide to Alberta Birds. The Federation of Alberta Naturalists, Edmonton, Alberta. 350 pp.

Mazur, K.M., S.D. Frith and P.C. James. 1998. Barred owl home range and habitat selection in the boreal forest of central Saskatchewan. The Auk 115 (3): 746-754.

Pattie, D., and C. Fisher. 1999. Mammals of Alberta. Lone Pine Publishing, Edmonton. 240 pp.

Psyllakis, J.M. and R.M. Bringham. 2006. Characteristics of diurnal roosts used by female Myotis bats in sub-boreal forests. Journal of Forest Ecology and Management 223: 93-102.

Salt, W.R. and J.R. Salt. 1976. The Birds of Alberta. Edmonton, AB: Hurtig Publishers.

Semenchuk, G.P.(ed.). 1992. The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Alberta. The Federation of Alberta Naturalists, Edmonton, Alberta. 391 pp.

Species at Risk Act (SARA). 2011. Species at Risk Registry. http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm. Accessed May 2011.

Takats, D.L. 1998. Barred owl habitat use and distribution in the Foothills Model Forest. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.

Wiggins, D. A., D. W. Holt and S. M. Leasure. 2006. Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/062.doi:10.2173/bna.62. Accessed August 2011.

Willis, K.R. and R.M. Bringham. 2005. Physiological and ecological aspects of roost selection by reproductive female hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus).Journal of Mammology 86(1): 85-94.

Figure 27-1: Barred Owl Potential Nesting Habitat and

Observations in the Terrestrial LSA

Figure 27-2: Great Gray Owl Potential Nesting Habitat

and Observations in the Terrestrial LSA

Figure 27-3: Northern Hawk Owl Potential Nesting

Habitat in the Terrestrial LSA

Figure 27-4: Northern Pygmy Owl Potential Nesting

Habitat and Observations in the Terrestrial LSA

Figure 27-5: Short-Eared Owl Potential Nesting Habitat

and Observations in the Terrestrial LSA

Figure 27-6: Potential Bat Roosting Habitat in the

Terrestrial LSA

SIRS 28– 32

• protective of sensitive individuals through the use of appropriate uncertainty factors

• supported by adequate and available documentation

In those cases where more than one exposure limit met the selection criteria, the most relevant and scientifically defensible limit was generally selected. For chronic naphthalene exposure via inhalation, the most relevant exposure limit for the HHRA was determined to be the reference concentration (RfC) of 3 µg/m³. This value was selected for the following reasons.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) still has not finalized its external review draft (USEPA 2004) of the reassessment of the inhalation carcinogenicity of naphthalene. Because the cancer unit risk value remains in draft form, it was not considered in the HHRA. In fact, the external reassessment clearly states that the draft is not to be cited or quoted. As such, the HHRA relied on the carcinogenicity information that is currently presented in the USEPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). In its carcinogenicity assessment on IRIS, the USEPA states that “available data are inadequate to establish a causal association between exposure to naphthalene and cancer in humans.” Further, “an inhalation unit risk estimate for naphthalene was not derived because of the weakness of the evidence (observations of predominantly benign respiratory tumours in mice at high doses only) that naphthalene may be carcinogenic in humans.” (USEPA 2004).

In a recent review of the potency equivalency factors (PEFs) for carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), the carcinogenic potential for naphthalene was noted as being nil due to it being non-genotoxic and exhibiting low tumour initiating potential (Equilibrium and URS 2006). The authors of the review state that “for PAHs assigned a PEF of 0, it is recommended that available non-cancer endpoint regulatory guidelines be used to assess their potential toxicity”.

However, if it were assumed that naphthalene is a non-threshold carcinogen, the USEPA’s draft inhalation unit risk of 0.0001 per µg/m³ (the equivalent to a risk-specific concentration (RsC) of 0.1 µg/m³) would be used to provide a conservative estimation of potential cancer risks. This comparison was completed for the project and future incremental cases only, and the highest predicted incremental annual average concentration for each of the receptor groups (aboriginal, cabin, and residential) was selected. The USEPA value is more conservative than the one presented by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA 2009). The draft USEPA unit risk equates to an RsC of 0.1 µg/m³, based on an acceptable incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR) of 1 in 100,000. The predicted air concentrations are presented in Table 28-1. As the inhalation unit risk is based on the summed risk for two different tumour types (respiratory epithelial adenomas and olfactory epithelial neuroblastomas) within the nasal cavity, the naphthalene cancer risks were added to the nasal carcinogen mixtures along with acetaldehyde and propylene oxide (see Table 28-2).

Table 28-1: Predicted Maximum Annual Average Incremental Concentrations for Receptor Groups and Comparison with Draft USEPA RsC Value [µg/m³]

Table 28-2: Revised Nasal Tumourigens Chronic Inhalation Mixture ILCRs

The inclusion of naphthalene in the carcinogenicity assessment does not change the original findings of the HHRA, in that all relevant ILCRs are less than 1 in 100,000. This suggests that the incremental cancer risks from the project and future industrial emission sources are essentially negligible.

With respect to why naphthalene was not and cannot be included in the benzo(a)pyrene toxic equivalency quotient (TEQ) group, all of the PAHs included in the benzo(a)pyrene group had available PEFs, where the toxicity of the individual PAHs were scaled to the potency of benzo(a)pyrene, and then summed to a TEQ. The PEFs used in the HHRA were adopted from Health Canada (2009). A PEF for naphthalene is not listed in the Health Canada (2009) document. The scientific review conducted by Equilibrium and URS (2006), which served as the basis of the Health Canada (2009) values, states that the overall weight of evidence suggests that naphthalene is non-genotoxic and has a low tumour-initiating potential. Equilibrium and URS (2006) subsequently recommend a PEF value of zero for naphthalene on this basis.

The carcinogenicity of several PAHs has been found to be related to the formation of potent metabolites, primarily involving bay, hindered bay, K- and fjord regions on PAH ring structures (Baird et al. 2005, Equilibrium and URS 2006). Figure 28-1 (reproduced from Baird et al) shows the structural features of PAHs that contribute to biological activity through the formation of potent metabolites. For example, the three PAHs in Figure 28-1 were assigned PEFs of 1 (benzo(a)pyrene), 10 (7,12-dibenz(a)anthracene), and 100 (dibenzo(a,l)pyrene) (Health Canada 2009; Equilibrium and URS 2006).

In contrast to the structures in Figure 28-1, the chemical structure of naphthalene (see Figure 28-2) lacks these active structural moieties, as it only consists of two rings, unlike the larger multi-ring structures of benzo(a)pyrene and other carcinogenic PAHs.

Figure 28-1: Structural Characteristics of PAHs that Contribute to Biological Activity (Baird et al. 2005)

Figure 28-2: Chemical Structure of Naphthalene (ATSDR 2005)

Based upon a lack of reliable evidence that naphthalene is similar to benzo(a)pyrene with respect to metabolism and carcinogenicity, and the lack of a defensible PEF value to calculate its equivalency with benzo(a)pyrene (as per the rest of the carcinogenic PAHs), naphthalene should not be included in the benzo(a)pyrene group in the HHRA. The conclusions would not change because naphthalene cannot be included as a carcinogen to the B[a]P group.

ii. No unacceptable cancer risks are predicted in regards to naphthalene; therefore, no revision of the HHRA is required.

References

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2005. Toxicological Profile for Naphthalene, 1-methylnaphthalene, 2- methylnaphthalene. US Department of Health and Human Services.

Baird W.M., L.A. Hooven and B. Mahadevan. 2005. Carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon-DNA adducts and mechanism of action. Environ Mol Mutagen 45:106-114.

Equilibrium Environmental Inc. and URS Canada Inc. 2006. Potency Equivalency Factors for Carcinogenic Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Prepared for: Health Canada, Health Environments and Consumer Safety Branch.

Health Canada. 2009. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada. Part I: Guidance on Human Health Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment (PQRA). Version 2. Contaminated Sites Division, Health Environments and Consumer Safety Branch.

California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2009. Technical Support Document for Cancer Potency Factors:  Methodologies for derivation, listing of available values, and adjustments to allow for early life stage exposures. California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Air Toxicology and Epidemiology Branch. May 2009. Available at: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2004. Toxicological Review of Naphthalene (CAS No. 91-20-3) – External Review Draft. NCEA-S-1707. June 2004.

USEPA. Integrated Risk Information System http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0436.htm.

of eighteen gas fields. St. Pierre et al. (1991) outlined some of the difficulties measuring trace element concentrations in gas processing streams in Alberta. Their measurements support the Shaw et al. (1972) conclusions regarding mercury, but note unexplainable high variability in some samples for other elemental concentrations and inconclusive sources of the contaminants. The conclusion of this analysis was that the concentrations measured were not likely to create a critical emissions problem for trace elements at the plants tested.

Therefore, Shell does not envision the EPEA approval conditions to include the requirement for the project air quality monitoring program to monitor trace elemental concentrations in produced gas.

Request            29b       Are there any monitoring data/studies to support the statement that H₂S should not be detectable with produced gas combustion?

i.       If yes, provide this information.
ii.      If no, discuss plans to monitor produced gas emissions?

Response         29b       Shell does not have monitoring data or studies to support the statement that “[hydrogen sulphide] H₂S should not be detectable with produced gas combustion”. It is generally considered that the thermal destruction of H₂S at the high temperature and residence time typical within a boiler will achieve high combustion efficiency (i.e., near complete oxidation) of H₂S. Trace H₂S, or partially oxidized sulphur emissions, are not part of the monitoring requirements for boilers. The environmental impacts of trace emissions are included in the air quality assessment by conservatively assuming total conversion to SO₂ (i.e., complete oxidization).

Therefore, Shell does not envision the EPEA approval conditions to include the requirement for the project air quality monitoring program to monitor trace sulphur products in boiler flue gases.

References

Shaw, D.R., R.B. Dunbar and J.C. Mackid. 1972. A Study of the Mercury Content of Alberta Petroleum Reservoir Fluids; Unpublished, available from Energy Resources Conservation Board Library, Calgary, Alberta.

St. Pierre, C.C., A.Q. Gnyp, D.S. Smith, S. Viswanathan and H.F. Thimm. 1991. The Measurement of Trace Element Concentrations in Sour Gas Plant Process Streams, Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol 30. No. 4. Available at: http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=PETSOC- 91-04-04&soc=PETSOC

Table 31-1: Chronic Oral Exposure Limits

References

Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). 1994. Priority Substances List Assessment for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Government of Canada. ISBN: 0-662-22209-1.

Thyssen J, J. Althoff, G. Kimmerle and U. Mohr. 1981. Inhalation studies with benzo(a)pyrene in Syrian Golden Hamsters. J Natl Cancer Inst. 66(3): 575-7.

Response         33a       Shell will submit a Water Act application to amend the existing three licenses to include:

• plans for the settling ponds at the river water intake station
• alignment of the river water supply pipeline to the CPFs that will be connected to the existing river water supply pipeline to the PRC

Shell will submit the amendment application once the final engineering design for the settling ponds and pipeline has been completed

• defined waterbodies that are not shown in any of the data sets
• places without waterbodies where the data sets show a waterbody

Based on the final design and the pre-construction scouting results, Shell might adjust the footprint by altering:

The desktop process for estimating the total volume of borrow material required, and the possible size and location of borrow pits, is included in the response to Supplemental Information Round 1, AENV SIR 101a.

Before the start of construction, pre-development site assessments and field scouting will determine exactly which well sites and roads will require pads. The field scouting results, and discussions with ASRD, will determine the exact location, size, and shape of the borrow pits.

As discussed in the response to Supplemental Information Round 1, AENV SIR 101b, the borrow pits will be developed on an as needed basis. When an area is found to need borrow material for pads, field scouting will determine the closest source (i.e., the potential borrow pit) that meets ASRD borrow pit siting requirements. Shell plans to create large borrow pits to reduce the total number of pits required, as per ASRD’s request, as discussed in the response to Supplemental Information Round 1, AENV SIR 101a. Once a borrow pit has been opened, Shell will attempt to use the borrow material from that pit until it has reached its target size.

If pad construction is completed before a borrow pit has reached its target size, Shell may negotiate with ASRD to not fully excavate the pit. If a pit reaches its target size before pad construction is complete, Shell may negotiate with ASRD to expand the borrow pit, rather than open an additional borrow pit.

Response         36a       Shell will continue to discuss landfill options with ASRD. However, Shell feels that there are drawbacks to the alternatives for managing water treatment solid waste.

The project has been designed to minimize fresh water withdrawal from the Peace River, and will rely on recycled produced water and saline groundwater to produce steam. Before this water can be safely used to produce steam, it must be treated to remove:

• solids
• silica
• calcium carbonate (i.e., hardness)

The water treatment process will produce large volumes of solid waste, which will need to be placed in a landfill.

The water treatment solid waste management alternatives considered by Shell included:

• transporting waste by truck to an existing off-site third-party landfill
• transporting waste by truck within the project area to a new landfill located in the White Area
• placing waste in a new landfill located adjacent to the CPFs

Third-Party Landfill

Transporting water treatment waste by truck to an off-site third-party landfill would not be the preferred alternative because of the:

• lack of available capacity at nearby third-party landfills
• requirement to haul waste long distances on public roads

Over the life of the project, the volume of water treatment solid waste produced will exceed the available capacity of the East Peace Regional Landfill. Once the landfill reaches capacity, Shell could look further afield for additional capacity. However, this approach would place a burden on the Northern Sunrise County and all other users of the East Peace Regional Landfill (e.g., opening a new landfill or causing users to access other existing landfills that might be less accessible (i.e., located a further distance) than the East Peace Regional Landfill). For these capacity-related reasons, placing water treatment solid wastes in an off- site third-party landfill would not be a preferred alternative.

Stakeholders have expressed concerns about the volume of project-related traffic (i.e., increase) on public roadways. Transporting water treatment solid waste about 20 km from the project to the East Peace Regional Landfill on public roads, and even further once the East Peace Regional Landfill has reached capacity, could affect highway safety and wildlife mortality. Collisions with equipment and vehicles are a factor that might result in direct project-related wildlife mortality (see EIA, Volume IIC, Section 4.2.1.3). To mitigate stakeholder concerns and potential project impacts on wildlife, transporting water treatment solid wastes by truck to an off-site third-party landfill would not be a preferred alternative.

Shell has taken steps to mitigate air quality effects and to reduce overall project emissions. Transporting solid waste to regional landfills by truck would result in increased project emissions and air quality effects. Therefore, this alternative would not be a preferred option.

White Area Landfill

Building a new landfill in the White Area within the project area would not be a preferred alternative because the land in the White Area would be unsuitable for a landfill. Table 36-1 outlines the AENV Standards for Landfills in Alberta and the issues relating to locating the landfill in the White Area.

Table 36-1: Issues Concerning Landfill in the White Area

Landfill Adjacent to CPFs

Shell conducted a landfill site assessment (see EIA, Volume IIB, Appendix 2D) to examine the possibility of constructing landfills adjacent to the CPFs to dispose of water treatment solid waste.

The assessment determined that building a landfill adjacent to the CPFs would be the best alternative because this option would have the least potential impacts, and would be located in an area that met ERCB and AENV requirements. The benefits of locating the landfill adjacent to the CPFs include:

• reducing traffic-related impacts of waste transportation
• having land available to develop a landfill of sufficient capacity to store the expected volume of project waste. Furthermore, there would be no affect on the users of regional landfills.
• meeting the regulatory requirements in:
  • ERCB Directive 058, Oilfield Waste Management Requirements for the Upstream Petroleum Industry
  • Standards for Landfills in Alberta (AENV)
  • Waste Control Regulation (AENV)
  • Conservation and Reclamation Regulation (AENV)

As requested, Figure AENV 108-1, shown here as Figure 37-1, has been revised to include the requested licence of occupation (LOC) information (LOC050473, LOC022827, LOC064186, LOC063945, LOC043647, LOC080848, LOC070190 and LOC080005). The revised figure also includes information on other Shell owned and non-Shell owned linear features in the resource development area, such as:

Table 37-1: Potential Reuse of LOCs

Figure 37-1: Linear Developments

The conceptual reclamation plan, as described in the EIA, was to leave pad material in place when reclaiming arterial roads constructed on organic soils, and to leave most of the borrow pits as water features. This approach followed standard industry practices and met the regulatory reclamation requirements in place at the time. Although the assessments and analyses in the conceptual reclamation plan were based on those plan assumptions (i.e., industry best practice and the prevailing regulatory requirements), Shell is committed to adaptive management and will adjust the conceptual reclamation plan to incorporate changes to:

• industry best practices
• regulatory requirements
• reclamation techniques

Shell acknowledges that ASRD’s reclamation requirements changed in 2010. To meet these new requirements, Shell is considering the following alternatives for the reclamation of arterial roads constructed on organic soils:

• removing as much pad material as possible
• removing pad material down to near the water table

Alternative One – Maximizing Removal of Pad Material

By recovering as much of the pad material as possible from the roadbed of arterial roads, Shell would have much more material to return to the borrow pits. Shell would, on a site-by-site basis, attempt to fill the borrow pits to a level where they could be returned to their original land use. For sites where insufficient material is available to return to a borrow pit to restore its original land use, Shell would recontour the edges of the borrow pit to create a shallow marsh along the edges of the resultant waterbody.

Although removing as much of the pad material as possible from the roadbed of arterial roads would not restore the sites as uplands, it also might not result in them being reclaimed to their original land use. Because of compaction of the organic soils under the pad material, the water depth after pad removal is often beyond that required for re-establishing wetland vegetation. Therefore, the resulting landform often ends up as a waterbody, which does not match the original land use.

Alternative Two – Removing Pad Material to Near Water Table

By recovering pad material down to near the water table, conditions might be favourable for regrowth of wetland vegetation and the return of the sites to their original land use. Research into peatland reclamation is starting to show promising results based on this approach. Shell continues to support reclamation research and will, wherever possible, incorporate research results into reclamation plans.

By recovering pad material down to the near water table, more material would be returned to the borrow pits than in the existing conservation and reclamation plan. Therefore, more of the borrow pits could be completely refilled and returned to their original land use. For sites where insufficient material is available to return to a borrow pit to restore original land use, Shell would recontour the edges of the borrow pit to create a shallow marsh along the edges of the resultant waterbody.

Selected Alternative

Alternative Two would return more sites to their original land use than the EIA conceptual conservation and reclamation plan or Alternative One (see Table 38-1). However, ongoing reclamation research might provide better alternatives in the future. Shell will continue to assess alternatives and adjust the conceptual reclamation plan.

Table 38-1: Summary of Resulting Land Forms and Land Uses for Various Reclamation Alternatives

Shell does not expect that changes to the reclamation plan will trigger any changes to the project design or construction requirements.

FISHERIES AND OCEANS CANADA SIRS 39 – 40

Response         40a       On August 2, 2011, Shell met with DFO to discuss the proposed watercourse crossings (i.e., road, pipeline, and power line) associated with the project, and provided the following information:

• a map showing all watercourse crossings and their type (road, pipeline, and power line)
• fisheries data collected in June 2011 for each watercourse crossing site
• a watercourse crossing table summarizing the fisheries data and Shell’s proposed crossing method (i.e., culvert versus clear span bridge, trenchless versus open cut with isolation)

During the meeting, Shell and DFO reached a consensus concerning the presence and quality of fish habitat at each watercourse crossing, and the appropriate crossing method for each location.

Shell expects discussions with DFO regarding watercourse crossings to continue as the project footprint and the watercourse crossing engineering designs are finalized.

Response        41b                  In August 2011, Shell completed a geomechanical modellingassessment of the potential heave that could be produced by the project. The model predicts that the maximum potential heave will be less than 10 cm (see Figure 41-1, heave potential at the surface of the top of the Bluesky Fonnation, and Figure 41-2, surface heave over time); as such the environmental effect of potenital heave will be negligible. Shell expects no potential environmental effects, such as those associated with elevated hydraulic heads, and no potential heave induced changes in groundwater flow

Figure 41-1: Maximum Potential Heave at Surface and Top of Bluesky Formation

The QuickBlocks model was set up as follows:

• model dimensionsequal 20 km by 20 km
• model was divided along depth axis into11layers, based on typelogand fonnations
• model was dividedinto grids of 200 m by 200 m
• locations of the injectors were mapped onto the 200 m by 200 m grid
• if an injector was mapped onto the grid the average pressure and temperanire for that injector was assumed in the 200 m by 200 m grid
• the injectorlocationswere approp1ai tely aligned spatially and in time, and followedthe rese1voir pressure and temperature cmves for the proposed steaming plan
• heave at the smface and the displacementat the topof the BlueskyFo1mation were calculated at 90-day inte1vals for 20 years of injection/production
• the model was calibratedusing heave measmements from PRC Pad 40 CSS cycles

In its natural state, it is not usually recoverable at a commercial rate through a well.

boiler feedwater                  Water that meets required purity specifications and which is fed to a steam generator to produce steam.

borehole                             The hole drilled by the bit. The wellbore may have casing in it, be partially cased or have no casing (open). Also known as wellbore or hole.

borrow pit                          An area that is excavated to provide material, such as gravel, sand or clay.

bottomhole                         The lowest or deepest part of the well. The bottom of the wellbore.

bottomhole pressure                             The pressure at the bottom of a wellhole.

brackish water                    Groundwater that has more than 4,000 mg/L of total dissolved solids. Also known as saline groundwater.

caprock                              A hard rock or stratum overlying a salt dome or a deposit of oil, gas or coal.

CCME                                 The abbreviation for the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

centipoise                           A measure of a fluid’s viscosity, or resistance to flow, equal to one- hundredth of a poise.

cm                                      The metric symbol for centimetre.

cogeneration                      The simultaneous on-site generation of electrical power and process steam or other hot fluids from the same plant.

commissioning                  The act of charging a system and conducting tests to ensure that the system functions safely before start-up.

condensate                         A light hydrocarbon liquid obtained by condensing hydrocarbon vapours from natural gas.

COPC                                 The abbreviation for chemicals of potential concern.

COSEWIC                           The abbreviation for the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.

cp                                       The abbreviation for centipoise.

CPF                                    The abbreviation for central processing facility.

crude oil                             Unrefined liquid petroleum.

DFN                                    The abbreviation for Duncan’s First Nation.

DFO                                    The abbreviation for Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

diluent                                A light liquid hydrocarbon added to bitumen to lower viscosity and density.

dissolved oxygen               A relative measure of the amount of oxygen that is dissolved or carried in a given medium.

DMI                                     The abbreviation for Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd.

DO                                      The abbreviation for dissolved oxygen.

ecosite                                An area with a unique recurring combination of vegetation, soil, landform and other environmental components.

ecosite phase                     A subdivision of the ecosite based on the dominant tree species in the canopy. On some sites where the tree canopy is lacking, the tallest structural vegetation layer determines the ecosite phase.

EIA                                     The abbreviation for environmental impact assessment.

EPEA                                  The abbreviation for Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act.

genotoxic                           Having a deleterious effect on cell DNA.

hole                                    The hole drilled by the bit. The wellbore may have casing in it, be partially cased or have no casing (open). Also known as wellbore or borehole.

HP                                      The abbreviation for high pressure.

hr                                       The abbreviation for hour.

huff ’n puff                          The injection of steam into the rock surrounding a production well to lower the viscosity of heavy oil and increase its flow into the wellbore. Steam injection might be followed by immediate production or by closing the well (called the soak phase) to allow even heat distribution before production begins. The cycle of injection, soak and production is repeated as long as the oil yield is profitable. Also known as cyclic steam stimulation.

HWDP                                 The abbreviation for Horizontal Well Demonstration Project.

hydrocarbon                       A compound that consists mainly of hydrogen and carbon. The simplest hydrocarbons are gases at ordinary temperatures and, with increasing complexity of molecular structure, they become liquids and solids. Natural gas and petroleum are mixes of hydrocarbons.

hydrogen sulphide             A flammable, colourless gaseous compound of hydrogen and sulphur, which is highly corrosive and poisonous.

hydrogeology                     The science that deals with the occurrence of water on the surface and underground, its use, and its functions in modifying the earth, primarily by erosion and deposition.

ILCR                                   The abbreviation for incremental lifetime cancer risk.

in situ                                 In place or in the original position.

infrastructure                      Basic facilities, such as transportation, communications, power supplies and buildings, that enable an organization, project or community to function.

IRIS                                    The abbreviation for the USEPA’s Integrated Risk Information System.

isopach map                      A geological map of subsurface strata showing the various thicknesses of a given formation underlying an area.

karst                                   A topography formed over limestone, dolomite, or gypsum and characterized by sinkholes, caves, and underground drainage.

kJ                                       The metric symbol for kilojoule.

kJ/Sm³                                The metric symbol for kilojoule per standard cubic metre.

km                                      The metric symbol for kilometre.

kPa                                     The metric symbol for kilopascal.

kPa(g)                                 The metric symbol for kilopascal gauge.

lidar                                    The abbreviation for light detection and ranging.

linear features                     Disturbances to the landscape, caused by human activity, that are long, narrow and of uniform breadth, such as roads, seismic lines and pipelines.

lithofacies                           A subdivision of a specified stratigraphic unit distinguished on the basis of lithologic features.

LOC                                    The abbreviation for licence of occupation.

LSA                                    The abbreviation for local study area.

MPa(g) or MPag                  The metric symbol for megapascal gauge.

muskeg                              A thick deposit of partially decayed vegetable matter of wet boreal regions.

NA                                      The abbreviation for not applicable.

OD                                      The abbreviation for outside diameter.

OEHHA                               The abbreviation for the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

OU                                      The abbreviation for odour unit.

PAH                                    The abbreviation for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon.

PASZA                                The abbreviation for Peace Airshed Zone Association.

peatland                             An area of unconsolidated soil material consisting largely of undercomposed, or only slightly decomposed, organic matter.

PEF                                    The abbreviation for potency equivalency factor.

PRC                                    The abbreviation for Peace River Complex.

PREP                                  The abbreviation for the Peace River Expansion Project.

PRISP                                 The abbreviation for the Peace River In Situ Pilot.

produced gas                     Gas that is produced from the wellbore with bitumen and water.

produced water                  Water that is produced from the wellbore with bitumen and gas.

reclamation                        The process of returning disturbed land to its former or other productive uses.

reservoir                             A subsurface body of rock having sufficient porosity and permeability to store and transmit fluids.

Rge                                     The abbreviation for range.

right-of-way                        The right of passage or of crossing over someone else’s land. An easement in lands belonging to others that is obtained by agreement or lawful appropriation for public or private use.

RIVM                                  The abbreviation for The National Institute for Public Health and the Environment.

ROW                                   The abbreviation for right-of-way.

RSA                                    The abbreviation for regional study area.

RsC                                    The abbreviation for risk-specific concentration.

runoff                                 The portion of precipitation (rain and snow) that ultimately reaches streams via surface systems.

SAGD                                 The abbreviation for steam-assisted gravity drainage.

saline groundwater             Groundwater that has more than 4,000 mg/L of total dissolved solids. Also known as brackish water.

SARA                                  The abbreviation for the Species at Risk Act.

Shell                                   The abbreviation for Shell Canada Limited.

SO2                                                 The chemical symbol for sulphur dioxide.

SOC                                    The abbreviation for statement of concern.

sour crude oil                     Oil containing hydrogen sulphide or another acid gas.

sour-service                        Used in a sour crude oil or sour gas application.

stakeholder                         People or organizations with an interest or share in an undertaking, such as a commercial venture.

start-up                               The act of starting work or energizing machinery or equipment after commissioning, or restarting it after a temporary shutdown or decommissioning.

VSD                                    The abbreviation for vertical steam drive.

W5M                                   The abbreviation for west of the fifth meridian.

waste                                  All solids, liquids and sludge produced in the course of constructing, operating and abandoning facilities.

waterbody                           A body of water up to the high-water mark, including canals, reservoirs, oceans and wetlands, but not including sewage or waste treatment lagoons.

watercourse                        A natural or artificial channel with perennial or intermittent flow and definable bed and banks.

WCFN                                 The abbreviation for Woodland Cree First Nation.

wellbore                             The hole drilled by the bit. The wellbore may have casing in it, be partially cased or have no casing (open). Also known as borehole or hole.

wetlands                             Land having the water table at, near or above the land surface, or which is saturated for long enough periods to promote wetland or aquatic processes. Wetlands include peatlands and areas that are influenced by excess water.

White Area                          One of two administrative areas in Alberta, consisting mainly of agricultural lands. This area is administered by the North West and North East regions of Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development.

yield strength                     The amount of pressure inside or outside a joint of riser pipe that is required to permanently distort it.

μg/kg bw/d                                    The metric symbol for micrograms per kilogram body weight per day.