3 RESOURCE USE ASSESSMENT

(1)

Cenovus FCCL Ltd. 3-1 Resource Use Assessment

CLTP – Phase H and Eastern Expansion March 2013

Volume 6, Section 3

3 RESOURCE USE ASSESSMENT

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The Resource Use Assessment is intended to address the Terms of Reference (TOR) established by Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD) for the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (ESRD 2012a) for the Project. A Resource Use Baseline Report (Volume 6, Appendix 6-II) was also completed to address the TOR.

The Resource Use assessment is an evaluation of the natural resources of an area and how people use them. It considers the capability for use of the resource (e.g., availability and access) and the number of non-traditional resource users. The assessment was conducted to analyze the effects of the Project on resource use, and the ways in which the Project will comply with local and regional resource use regulations and guidelines.

3.1.1 Terms of Reference

The assessment was completed to meet Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development’s (ESRD’s) Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Project (ESRD 2012) (Table 3.1-1).

(2)

Table 3.1-1 Terms of Reference Concordance Table

TOR Section Terms of Reference EIA Section

3.10 Land Use and Management

3.10.1 Baseline Information

[A] Describe and map the current land uses in the Lease Area, including all Crown land and Crown Reservations (Holding Reservation, Protective Notation, Consultative Notation).

[A] Volume 6, Appendix 6-II Resource Use Baseline Report, Sections 3.1 Land Use Plans and Zoning and Section 3.5 Land Use Dispositions

Volume 5, Appendix 5-II Terrestrial Vegetation, Wetlands and Forest Resources Baseline, Figure 14

[B] Indicate where Crown land dispositions may be needed for roads or other infrastructure for the Project.

[B] Volume 6, Appendix 6-II Resource Use Baseline Report, Sections 3.1 Land Use Plans and Zoning and Section 3.5 Land Use Dispositions

[C] Identify and map unique sites or special features in the Lease Area and Local Study Area such as Parks and Protected Areas, Heritage Rivers, Historic Sites, Environmentally Significant Areas, culturally significant sites and other designations (World Heritage Sites, Ramsar Sites, Internationally Important Bird Areas).

[C] Volume 6, Appendix 6-II Resource Use Baseline Report, Section 3.8 Environmentally Important Areas

[D] Describe and map land clearing activities, showing the timing of the activities.

[D] Volume 6, Appendix 6-II Resource Use Baseline Report, Section 3.1 Land Use Plans and Zoning

[E] Describe the status of timber harvesting

arrangements, including species and timing. [E] Volume 6, Appendix 6-II Resource Use Baseline Report, Section 3.10 Forestry [F] Describe existing access control measures. [F] Volume 6, Appendix 6-II Resource Use _{Baseline Report, Section 3.3 Access}

3.10.2 Impact Assessment

[A] Identify the potential impacts of the Project on land uses, including:

(a) unique sites or special features;

[A]

(a) Volume 6, Section 3.5.2.2 Mitigation, Section 3.5.2.3 Effects Analysis and Section 3.6.2 Effects Analysis (b) changes in public access arising from

linear development, including secondary effects related to increased hunter, angler and other recreational access, and facilitated predator movement;

(b) Volume 6, Section 3.5.3.2 Mitigation, Section 3.5.3.3 Effects Analysis, Section 3.6.3 Effects Analysis (c) aggregate reserves that may be located

on land under the Proponent’s control and reserves in the region;

(c) Volume 6, Section 3.5.3.1 Linkage Analysis and Section 3.5.3.2 Mitigation (d) development and reclamation on

commercial forest harvesting and fire management in the Lease Area;

(d) Volume 6, Section 3.5.3.2 Mitigation, Section 3.5.3.3 Effects Analysis, Section 3.6.3 Effects Analysis (e) the amount of commercial and

non-commercial forest land base that will be disturbed by the Project, including the Timber Productivity Ratings for the Lease Area. Compare the baseline and reclaimed percentages and distribution of all forested communities in the Lease Area;

(e) Volume 6, Section 3.5.3.2 Mitigation, Section 3.5.3.3 Effects Analysis, Section 3.6.3 Effects Analysis

(3)

Table 3.1-1 Terms of Reference Concordance Table (continued)

3.10.2 Impact Assessment (continued)

(f) how the Project impacts Annual Allowable Cuts and quotas within the Forest Management Agreement area;

(f) Volume 6, Section 3.5.3.2 Mitigation, Section 3.5.3.3 Effects Analysis, Section 3.6.3 Effects Analysis (g) how the Project impacts parks and protect

areas;

(g) Volume 6, Section 3.5.2.2 Mitigation, Section 3.5.2.3 Effects Analysis and Section 3.6.2 Effects Analysis (h) anticipated changes (type and extent) to

the topography, elevation and drainage patterns within the Lease Area; and

(h) Volume 5, Section 5 Linkage Analysis, Section 6.1.2 Terrain Effects Analysis; Volume 1, Section 4.4.2.2 Surface Deformation Monitoring

(i) access control for public and regional recreational activities, aboriginal land use and other land uses during and after development activities.

(i) Volume 6, Section 3.5.3.2 Mitigation, Section 3.5.3.3 Effects Analysis, Section 3.6.3 Effects Analysis [B] Provide a fire control plan highlighting:

(a) measures taken to ensure continued access for firefighters to adjacent wildland areas;

[B] Volume 1, Section 9.2.1 Emergency Management, Preparedness, and

Response Processes, Appendix 1-XI Waste Management Chart and Wildfire Risk Assessment

(b) forest fire prevention, detection, reporting, and suppression measures, including proposed fire equipment;

(c) measures for determining the clearing width of power line ROWs; and (d) required mitigative measures for areas

adjacent to the Lease Area based on the FireSmart Wildfire Assessment System.

8.0 Mitigation

[A] Discuss mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or eliminate the potential impacts for all stages of the Project.

[A] Volume 6, Section 3.5.3.2 Mitigation, and Section 3.5.2.2 Mitigation

[B] Identify mitigation objectives and those mitigation measures that will be implemented for each associated impact and provide rationale for their selection, including a discussion on the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation.

[B] Volume 6, Section 3.5.3.2 Mitigation, and Section 3.5.2.2 Mitigation

10.0 Monitoring

[A] Describe Cenovus’s current monitoring programs for Christina Lake Thermal Project – Phase H and Eastern Expansion.

[A] Volume 6, Section 3.5.2.5 Monitoring, Section 3.5.3.5 Monitoring,

[B] Describe any new monitoring that will be required as a result of this Project, including: (a) how the monitoring programs will assess

any Project impacts and measure the effectiveness of mitigation plans. Discuss how the Proponent will address any Project impacts identified through the monitoring program; and

(b) how the results of monitoring programs and publicly available monitoring information will be integrated with the Proponent’s environmental management system and how it will be used to manage environmental effects, confirm

performance of mitigation measures, and improve environmental protection strategies

[B] Volume 5, Sections 3.4, 3.5, 8.2, 8.3 Volume 1 Section 14.12

(4)

Table 3.1-1 Terms of Reference Concordance Table (continued)

10.0 Monitoring (continued)

[C] Discuss the Proponent’s current and proposed monitoring programs, including:

(a) how the monitoring programs will assess any Project impacts and measure the effectiveness of mitigation plans. Discuss how the Proponent will address any Project impacts identified through the monitoring program;

(b) how the Proponent will contribute to current and proposed regional monitoring programs;

(c) monitoring performed in conjunction with other stakeholders, including aboriginal communities and groups;

(d) new monitoring initiatives that may be required as a result of the Project; (e) regional monitoring that will be

undertaken to assist in managing environmental effects and improve environmental protection strategies; (f) how monitoring data will be disseminated

to the public, aboriginal communities or other interested parties; and

(g) how the results of monitoring programs and publicly available monitoring information will be integrated with the Proponent’s environmental management system and how it will be used to manage environmental effects, confirm

performance of mitigation measures, and improve environmental protection strategies.

[C] Volume 5, Sections 3.4, 3.5, 8.2 and 8.3 Wildlife

Volume 5, Section 8.4 Biodiversity Volume 1 Section 14.12

Volume 3, Section 4.6 Monitoring

Source: ESRD 2012a.

3.2 ASSESSMENT APPROACH

This Resource Use assessment will:

• determine the potential effects of construction, operation decommissioning and reclamation of the Project on resource use; • discuss possible mitigation measures; and

(5)

In the context of this assessment section, the focus is on non-traditional (non-Aboriginal) land and resource use. Traditional Land Use (TLU) is addressed in Volume 6, Section 2 and Appendix 6-I. The evaluation of the potential effects of the Project on resource use includes consideration of linkages between:

• site clearing and effects on environmentally important areas and natural resource use and users;

• facility and infrastructure development and effects on environmentally important areas and natural resource use and users; and

• changes in workforce and population and effects on environmentally important areas and natural resource use and users.

3.2.1 Temporal and Spatial Considerations

The main Project phases include construction, operations, decommissioning and reclamation. The assessment focuses on construction and operations as these are the phases that will have the highest effect on resource use. The Project timeline depends on regulatory approvals, market conditions and company approval. Assuming company approval to proceed, construction is expected to last for up to 48 months followed by an operational life of up to 25 years. The timing of construction start-up is dependent on market conditions and company approval but is expected to begin in 2015. The schedule for the Project is detailed in Volume 1, Section 1.7.

Two areas have been delineated to facilitate data collection and presentation: a Resource Use Regional Study Area (RSA) and a Resource Use Local Study Area (LSA). The RSA encompasses resources that are potentially affected by the Project both directly and indirectly. The LSA encompasses resources that are potentially directly affected by the Project (i.e., the area within and surrounding the Project footprint). For this assessment, the Resource Use LSA has been determined to be the same boundary as the Terrestrial Resources LSA as effects to wildlife and vegetation are key considerations when assessing potential effects on resource use. In total, the LSA encompasses 16,352.1 ha and the RSA is 563,702.4 ha. The boundaries of the Resource Use RSA and LSA are shown in Figure 3.2-1.

(6)

Ja ckfi_sh R ive_r _Sawbo nes C reek + Rg.1 May R iver Lan_de ls R ive_r Christina Riv_er Dillo n Ri ver Winef red Ri ver Newby River Cottonwood C_reek Surm ont C reek Ipia tik River Sunday Creek Kettle River Shaver R_iver Birch Cree k Wadde ll C ree_k Cowpe_{r Creek} Foster C reek Mon day Cree k Clyde River Meadow Creek Cald er R iver Pon_{y C} ree_k Winefred Lake Heart Lake Garson Lake Wiau Lake Bohn Lake Logan Lake Christina Lake Grist Lake Clyde Lake Behan Lake Cowper Lake Egg Lake Kirby Lake Kimowin Lake Scheltens Lake Goodwin Lake Piche Lake Ipiatik Lake North Watchusk Lake Canoe Lake Rat Lake South Watchusk Lake Caribou Lake Hook Lake Chain Lakes Big Chief Lake Wappau Lake Sand Rive r HEART LAKE INDIAN

RESERVE #167

JANVIER INDIAN RESERVE #194

COWPER LAKE INDIAN RESERVE #194A

WINEFRED LAKE INDIAN RESERVE #194B

HEART LAKE INDIAN RESERVE #167A

COLD LAKE AIR WEAPONS RANGE 881 63 CONKLIN HAMLET OF JANVIER* Tp.83 Rg.10 W4M Tp.71 Tp.79 Tp.75 Tp.80 Tp.72 Tp.76 Tp.81 Tp.73 Tp.77 Tp.82 Tp.78 Tp.74 Tp.70 Rg.7 Rg.5 Rg.4 Rg.3 Rg.2 Rg.8 Rg.9 Rg.6 500000 500000 550000 550000 61 20 00 0 61 20 00 0 62 00 00 0 62 00 00 0 I:\CLIENTS\CENOVUS\10-1346-0044\mapping\mxd\Resource_Use\EIA_Figures\FINAL\1013460044_EIA_RU_001_GIS.mxd

DATUM: NAD 83 PROJECTION: UTM ZONE 12 REFERENCE

LEGEND

CHRISTINA LAKE THERMAL PROJECT PHASE H AND EASTERN EXPANSION

PROJECT DESIGN GIS CHECK REVIEW JO SS 04 Jan. 2013 05 Mar. 2013

FIGURE: 3.2-1

FILE No. REV. 0 10-1346-0044 SCALE AS SHOWN TITLE PROJECT KILOMETRES SCALE

RESOURCE USE STUDY AREAS

JO 04 Mar. 2013 SNS 01 Mar. 2013 10 0 10 1:400,000 COMMUNITY RAILROAD ROAD WATERCOURSE INDIAN RESERVE

RESOURCE USE LOCAL STUDY AREA

RESOURCE USE REGIONAL STUDY AREA

WATERBODY

*LOCALLY KNOWN AS CHARD

+_{UNNAMED WATERCOURSE LOCALLY KNOWN AS SAWBONES CREEK} NOTES

(7)

3.2.2 Key Issues and Key Questions

Key issues raised by stakeholders and identified in existing studies regarding potential effects on non-traditional resource use include:

• Potential effects on environmentally important areas that contain unique or representative landforms, rare or endangered vegetation, or significant or important wildlife habitat. Environmentally important areas include both protected areas and Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs) listed by the government of Alberta (Fiera 2009).

• Potential changes to access as a result of development. Roads may be constructed, improved or have restricted access resulting in a change in the type and level of resource use.

• Potential effects on some surface and subsurface dispositions. Mineral and surface material (e.g., gravel) extraction may be affected by changes in the amount of area available for extraction.

• Potential effects on the supply of aggregate resources.

• Changes to opportunities for consumptive use, such as hunting, trapping, fishing and berry picking within the RSA and LSA for residents and visitors.

• Changes to forestry activities in the LSA. This issue focuses on whether gain, loss or alteration of vegetation or soils will lead to a change in forest productivity.

• Changes to non-consumptive recreational activities (e.g., canoeing, camping, hiking, snowmobiling) by residents and non-residents in the LSA and RSA.

The assessment of effects on Resource Use associated with the Project, as well as the cumulative effects of the Project in combination with other developments was conducted using the following key questions:

• _{Resource Use Application Case (RUAC)-1: What effects could}

existing and approved developments and the Project have on environmentally important areas?

• _{RUAC-2: What effects could existing and approved developments and} the Project have on natural resources and non-traditional resource users?

• _{Resource Use Planned Development Case (RUPDC)-1: What effects} could existing and approved developments, the Project, and planned developments have on environmentally important areas?

(8)

• _{RUPDC-2: What effects could existing and approved developments,} the Project, and planned developments have on natural resources and non-traditional resource users?

The key questions were developed based on past professional experience with similar projects in the resource use RSA, and the oil sands region. They guide the assessment of magnitude and consequence of the effects on resource use. Information about these key issues is presented in the Resource Use Baseline Report (Volume 6, Appendix 6-II).

3.2.3 Information Sources

Information used to complete this assessment were acquired from government statistics, physical and digital maps of key resources, resource management plans, and the results of studies within the Terrestrial Vegetation, Wetlands and Forest Resources (Volume 5, Section 6.2), Wildlife (Volume 5, Section 6.3), Traditional Land Use (Volume 6, Section 2), Noise (Volume 3, Section 2), Visual Resources (Volume 6, Section 4) and Socio-Economic (Volume 6, Section 6) sections of the EIA. This assessment also uses information from previous EIAs for oil sands developments in the area.

3.2.4 Analysis of Potential Effects

The assessment involved identifying and comparing possible interactions between resource use and the Project. Key issues were identified to develop key questions and a linkage diagram illustrates potential effects of the Project on resource use. Linkages between Project activities and environmental changes were assessed as to their validity. Following this, mitigation strategies were developed for each valid linkage. Project construction, operation, decommissioning and reclamation details were evaluated to determine potential effects. Conclusions were based on the literature, residual effects calculations and professional judgment.

Residual effects were classified using quantitative effects description criteria based on the direction, magnitude, geographic extent, duration, reversibility and frequency of the predicted effect (Volume 2, Table 4.8-1). Environmental consequence ratings for key questions were calculated taking into account the residual effects classification for all effects description criteria (Volume 2, Section 4.8). The effects description criteria for Resource Use and the numerical scores used to determine the environmental consequence rating are detailed in Table 3.2-1.

(9)

Table 3.2-1 Residual Effects Description Criteria for Resource Use

Category Direction(a) _Magnitude(b) _{Geographic Extent}(c) _Duration(d) _{Reversibility}(e) _Frequency(f)

Access

positive is an increase in road, trail, cutlines and railway areas; negative is a decrease in road, trail, cutlines and railway area

negligible (0): <1% change in access; low (+5): 1% to 5% change in access; moderate (+10): 5% to 15% change in access; high (+15): >15% change in access

local (0): effect restricted to LSA;

regional (+1): effect extends beyond the LSA into the RSA;

beyond region (+2): effect extends beyond the RSA

short-term (0): Project construction; medium-term (+1): Project Life;

long-term (+2): After reclamation of the Project is complete

reversible (-3) or irreversible (+3)

low (0): occurs once;

moderate (+1): occurs more than once; high (+2): occurs continuously

Aggregates and Minerals

positive is resource being more available for use; negative is resource being unavailable for use or reduced in quantity

Negligible (0): <1% change; low (+5): <10% change;

moderate (+10): 10% to 20% change; high (+15): >20% change

beyond regional (+2): effect extends beyond the RSA

moderate (+1): occurs more than once; high (+2): occurs continuously Vegetation (berry habitat,

forestry and agriculture), wildlife (hunting and trapping), aquatic resources (fishing) and population increase

positive, negative or neutral for the measurement endpoints (e.g., increase in area of potential berry habitat is positive, decrease in wildlife populations would be negative)

negligible (0): no measurable effect; low (+5): <10% change in measurement endpoint;

moderate (+10): 10% to 20% change in measurement endpoint;

high (+15): >20% change in measurement endpoint

moderate (+1): occurs more than once; high (+2): occurs continuously

Environmentally Important

Areas – change in area positive is an increase in area; negative is a decrease in area

negligible (0): <1% change in area; low (+5): <1% to 5% change in area; moderate (+10): 5% to 10% change in area; high (+15): >10% change in area

moderate (+1): occurs more than once; high (+2): occurs continuously Environmentally Important

Areas – change in use for environmentally important areas designated primarily for recreation

positive is an increase in use of areas designated for recreational use; negative is a decrease in use of areas designated for recreational use

negligible (0): <1% change in use; low (+5): <1% to 5% change in use; moderate (+10): 5% to 10% change in use; high (+15): >10% change in use

moderate (+1): occurs more than once; high (+2): occurs continuously Environmentally Important

Areas – change in use for environmentally important areas designated primarily for preservation of natural features

positive is a decrease in use; negative is an increase in use

negligible (0): <1% change in use; low (+5): <1% to 5% change in use; moderate (+10): 5% to 10% change in use; high (+15): >10% change in use

moderate (+1): occurs more than once; high (+2): occurs continuously (a)_{Direction: positive or negative effect for measurement endpoints, as defined for the specific component.}

(b)_{Magnitude: degree of change to analysis endpoint.} (c)_{Geographic Extent: area affected by the effect.}

(d)_{Duration: length of time over which the environmental effect occurs.}

(e)_{Reversibility: effect on the resource (or resource capability) can or cannot be reversed.} (f) _{Frequency: how often the environmental effect occurs.}

(10)

Access as a component of the Resource Use Assessment is viewed differently in this section compared with other sections of the EIA. An increase in access is generally viewed as positive when assessing effects on resource users. Access is often achieved through linear disturbance. The effects of increased access and linear disturbance are further assessed in other EIA sections such as Wildlife (Volume 5, Section 6.3), Biodiversity (Volume 5, Section 6.4), and Fish and Fish Habitat (Volume 4, Section 5.4).

3.2.5 Assessment Cases

The three development scenarios addressed in the Resource Use assessment are the Baseline Case, the Application Case and the Planned Development Case (PDC). The Baseline Case describes the environmental conditions that include the effects resulting from existing and approved projects or activities. The Application Case describes the Baseline Case with the effects of the Project added. The PDC describes the Application Case with the effects of planned developments added. Planned developments include any projects or activities publicly disclosed up to six months prior to the submission of this application. A complete list of all developments included in each assessment case is provided in Volume 2, Section 5.

3.3 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT SUMMARY

Land Use Planning within the LSA includes the Christina Lake Management Plan (CLMP), which aims to ensure that petroleum, natural gas and oil sands exploration and development are carried out in an environmentally sensitive manner and are integrated with other land and resource uses.

There are no protected areas in the RSA. Eight provincially significant ESAs are located in the RSA, one of which (ESA 585) overlaps the LSA. Both the East Side Athabasca River and Cold Lake caribou areas overlap the LSA and the RSA.

Linear access density within the LSA is higher than in the RSA at 5.8 km of access route per square kilometre of land. The RSA as a whole has just over 1.8 km of linear access route per square kilometre of land. Access to the RSA was upgraded with the paving of Secondary Highway 881 in 2006.

Numerous industries have existing land interests in the LSA, including energy and pipeline companies. Several aggregate interests exist in the LSA, of which all but

(11)

one are held by Cenovus1_{. Overall, aggregates are in moderately poor supply in the}

region.

Land in the LSA and RSA supports forestry. Timber rights are held by Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries Inc. (Al-Pac), who has granted coniferous rights to Northland Forest Products Ltd.

Berry picking habitat (areas with potential for blueberries, raspberries, cranberries and strawberries) exists in the LSA. These habitats are important to residents of Conklin and Janvier, but are not expected to be of high importance at a regional level due to the distance of the study areas from larger populations in and around Lac La Biche and Fort McMurray.

The LSA is within Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) 517. Moose, mule deer, white-tailed deer and black bear are hunted in this WMU. Registered Fur Management Areas (RFMAs) 1595, 2316, 2322 and 2443 overlap the LSA. Species most commonly trapped in these areas include red squirrel, marten, beaver and coyote.

Sport fishing is popular in the RSA, and is based mainly on Christina, Grist and Winefred lakes. Fishing lodges are located close to these lakes; however no commercial fishing takes place there. Christina Lake is in the LSA.

Recreation in the RSA also includes low levels of All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) and snowmobile riding, horseback riding, boating and bird watching.

Additional details on the resource use existing environment are provided in the Resource Use Baseline (Volume 6, Appendix 6-II).

3.4 BASELINE CASE

The following tables summarize the Baseline Case disturbances in the LSA and RSA. The linear disturbance length and density within the LSA and RSA is shown in Table 3.4-1.

A breakdown of the Baseline Case disturbed areas within the LSA is shown in Table 3.4-2. Baseline Case disturbances in the LSA total 2,333.6 ha or 14.3% of the LSA (16,352.1 ha).

(12)

Table 3.4-1 Baseline Case Linear Disturbance in the Local Study Area and

Regional Study Area

Linear Disturbance Type

LSA

[163.5 km2_] _{[5,637.0 km}RSA 2_]

Length

[km] [km per kmDensity 2_] Length _[km] _{[km per km}Density 2_]

cutline/trail 210.6 1.3 6,268.2 1.1 development 63.9 0.4 515.7 0.1 pipeline 76.6 0.5 1,743.6 0.3 railroad 0.0 0.0 94.4 0.0 road 81.0 0.5 753.2 0.1 seismic 495.4 3.0 608.0 0.1 transmission line 15.3 0.1 118.6 0.0 Total 942.7 5.8 10,101.9 1.8

Note: Some numbers are rounded for presentation purposes. Therefore, it may appear that the totals do not equal the sum of the individual values.

Table 3.4-2 Baseline Case Disturbance in the Local Study Area

Disturbance Type Disturbance Area _[ha] % of Total Baseline Case _{Disturbance Area} _{[16,352.1 ha]}% of LSA

borrow pit 0.1 <0.1 <0.1

clearing 6.6 0.3 <0.1

cutline/trail 184.9 7.9 1.1

development 1,191.9 51.1 7.3

oil and gas facility 29.9 1.3 0.2

other industrial 0.6 <0.1 <0.1 pipeline 358.2 15.3 2.2 road 64.9 2.8 0.4 ROW 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 seismic 145.6 6.2 0.9 transmission line 86.2 3.7 0.5 well site 264.2 11.3 1.6 Total 2,333.6 100.0 14.3

A breakdown of the Baseline Case disturbed areas within the RSA is provided in Table 3.4-3. Baseline Case disturbances in the RSA total 72,780.5 ha or 12.9% of the RSA (563,702.4 ha).

(13)

Table 3.4-3 Baseline Case Disturbance in the Regional Study Area

Disturbance Type Disturbance Area _[ha] % of Total Baseline Case _{Disturbance Area} _{[563,702.4 ha]}% of RSA

borrow pit 65.7 0.1 <0.1

clearing 37.6 0.1 <0.1

cutblock 37,442.4 51.4 6.6

cutline/trail 4,930.8 6.8 0.9

development 7,495.9 10.3 1.3

oil and gas facility 911.2 1.3 0.2

other industrial 6.1 0.0 <0.1 pipeline 9,974.0 13.7 1.8 railroad 470.9 0.6 0.1 road 2,334.9 3.2 0.4 runway 37.8 0.1 <0.1 seismic 124.0 0.2 <0.1 transmission line 508.1 0.7 0.1 urban/industrial sites 4,383.4 6.0 0.8 well site 4,057.7 5.6 0.7 Total 72,780.5 100.0 12.9

Developments accounted for 51.1% of Baseline Case disturbance in the LSA, with cutlines, pipelines, seismic lines and well sites accounting for an additional 40.8%. The remaining 7.7% of Baseline Case disturbance in the LSA was as a result of borrow pits, clearings, oil and gas facilities, other industrial facilities, roads, ROWs and transmission lines.

Conversely, cutblocks accounted for the majority (51.4%) of Baseline Case disturbance in the RSA. Cutlines, developments, pipelines, urban and industrial sites and well sites accounted for an additional 42.4% of Baseline Case disturbance in the RSA, while the remaining 6.2% of disturbance was as a result of borrow pits, clearings, oil and gas facilities, other industrial facilities, railroads, roads, runways, seismic lines and transmission lines.

3.5 APPLICATION CASE

3.5.1 Introduction

This Application Case assessment predicts the effects of existing and approved developments in the LSA and RSA and the Project using two of the four key questions:

• _{RUAC-1: What effects could existing and approved developments and} the Project have on environmentally important areas?

(14)

The key questions are addressed by using the following methods:

• establishing the validity of linkages between resources and Project activities;

• describing the mitigation measures that will be implemented to minimize the effects to resource use;

• describing the resource use effects analysis results; • classifying effects; and

• describing recommended monitoring programs.

The linear disturbance length and density within the LSA and RSA are shown in Tables 3.5-1 and 3.5-2.

The length of linear disturbances in the LSA decreased by 1% from 942.7 km to 932.0 km between the Baseline and Application cases. Linear disturbance in the RSA decreased minimally, from 10,101.9 km to 10,105.8 km. The decrease in linear disturbance in both cases is as a result of other, non-linear disturbances associated with the approved projects in the LSA overlapping existing linear disturbances. Where an overlap occurs, the linear disturbance is re-classified.

Table 3.5-1 Application Case Linear Disturbance in the Local Study Area

Linear Disturbance Type LSA [163.5 km2_] Baseline Case Length [km] Application Case Length [km] % Change From Baseline Case Baseline Case Density [km per km2_] Application Case Density [km per km2_] % Change From Baseline Case

application footprint 0.0 119.4 n/a 0.0 0.7 n/a

cutline/trail 210.6 182.8 -13.2 1.3 1.1 -15.4 development 63.9 46.1 -27.9 0.4 0.3 -25.0 pipeline 76.6 64.6 -15.6 0.5 0.4 -20.0 railroad <0.1 <0.1 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 0.0 road 81.0 66.4 -18.0 0.5 0.4 -20.0 seismic 495.4 437.8 -11.6 3.0 2.7 -10.0 transmission line 15.3 14.9 -2.9 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total 942.7 932.0 -1.1 5.8 5.7 -1.7

(15)

Table 3.5-2 Application Case Linear Disturbance in the Regional Study Area

Linear Disturbance Type RSA [5,637.0 km2_] Baseline Case Length [km] Application Case Length [km] % Change From Baseline Case Baseline Case Density [km per km2_] Application Case Density [km per km2_] % Change From Baseline Case

application footprint 0.0 119.4 n/a 0.0 <0.1 n/a

cutline/trail 6,268.2 6,233.0 -0.6 1.1 1.1 <-0.1 development 515.7 511.1 -0.9 0.1 0.1 <-0.1 pipeline 1,743.6 1,730.3 -0.8 0.3 0.3 <-0.1 railroad 94.4 94.4 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 <-0.1 road 753.2 753.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 <-0.1 seismic 608.0 545.7 -10.3 0.1 0.1 <-0.1 transmission line 118.6 118.5 -0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <-0.1 Total 10,101.9 10,105.8 <-0.1 1.8 1.8 <-0.1

While the amount of linear disturbances for the Application Case are slightly lower or equal to the Baseline Case, overall disturbances increase due to the addition of facilities in areas previously disturbed solely by linear developments.

A breakdown of the Application Case disturbance areas in the LSA is provided in Table 3.5-3. Application Case disturbances in the LSA total 4,056.4 ha (24.8% of the LSA). Of this, the Project footprint accounts for 1,893.3 ha (11.6% of the LSA), some of which was already disturbed under the Baseline Case. This represents an increase of 1,722.8 ha (or73.8%) from the Baseline Case (2,333.6 ha). The Project footprint disturbances overlap some existing baseline disturbances in the LSA. At the RSA level, an increase of 1,893.3 ha as a result of Project footprint disturbance represents a 2.6% increase from the Baseline Case disturbances (72,780.5 ha).

The results of the Application Case assessment are presented in the following sections.

(16)

Table 3.5-3 Application Case Disturbances in the Local Study Area

Disturbance Type Disturbance Area Baseline Case [ha]

Application Case Disturbance Area

[ha]

% Change Between Baseline Case and Application Case Disturbances

borrow pit 0.1 0.1 <0.1

clearing 6.6 6.6 <0.1

cutline/trail 184.9 161.5 -12.7

development 1,191.9 1,133.3 -4.9

oil and gas facility 29.9 29.9 <0.1

other industrial 0.6 0.6 <0.1 pipeline 358.2 326.0 -9.0 road 64.9 58.0 -10.6 ROW 0.5 0.5 <0.1 seismic 145.6 128.4 -11.8 transmission line 86.2 85.4 -0.9 well site 264.2 232.7 -11.9 subtotal 2,333.6 2,163.2 -7.3 Project footprint 0.0 1,893.3 100.0 Total 2,333.6 4,056.4 73.8

3.5.2 Effects on Environmentally Important Areas

Environmentally important areas include both officially protected areas, and ESAs, which have been recognized in the literature but are often not given formal protection (Figure 3.5-1). The following key question is addressed in this section:

• _{RUAC-1: What effects could existing and approved developments and} the Project have on environmentally important areas?

3.5.2.1 Linkage Analysis

The Project has the potential to affect environmentally important areas either directly, through clearing of vegetation, or indirectly, as the Project workforce and shadow populations may visit other environmentally important areas in the LSA or RSA. The following linkages were analyzed with reference to these areas (Figure 3.5-2):

• linkages between site clearing activities and environmentally important areas;

• linkages between changes in access due to facility infrastructure development and environmentally important areas; and

• linkages between change in workforce and use of environmentally important areas in the LSA or RSA.

(17)

Ja ckfi_sh R ive_r Sa wbo nes C reek + Rg.1 May R iver Lan_de ls R ive_r Christina River Dillo n Ri ver Winef red Ri ver Newby River Cottonwood C_reek Surm ont C reek Ipia tik River Sunday Creek Kettle River Shaver R_iver Birch Cree k Wadde ll C ree_k Cowpe_{r Creek} Foster C reek Chee_cha m C ree_k Mon day Cree k Clyde_River Meadow Creek Cald er R iver Pon_{y C} ree_k Winefred Lake Heart Lake Garson Lake Wiau Lake Bohn Lake Logan Lake Christina Lake Grist Lake Clyde Lake Behan Lake Cowper Lake Egg Lake Kirby Lake Kimowin Lake Scheltens Lake Goodwin Lake Piche Lake Ipiatik Lake North Watchusk Lake Canoe Lake Rat Lake South Watchusk Lake Caribou Lake Hook Lake Chain Lakes Big Chief Lake Wappau Lake Sand Rive r HEART LAKE INDIAN

RESERVE #167

JANVIER INDIAN RESERVE #194

COWPER LAKE INDIAN RESERVE #194A

WINEFRED LAKE INDIAN RESERVE #194B

HEART LAKE INDIAN RESERVE #167A

COLD LAKE AIR WEAPONS RANGE 881 63 CONKLIN HAMLET OF JANVIER* 595 559 548 579 734 548 548 548 548 571 548 548 585 548 565 548 548 548 548 553 548 590 548 548 548 548 548 548 548 548 548 554 583 551 576 578 561 568 Tp.83 Rg.10 W4M Tp.71 Tp.79 Tp.75 Tp.80 Tp.72 Tp.76 Tp.81 Tp.73 Tp.77 Tp.82 Tp.78 Tp.74 Tp.70 Rg.7 Rg.5 Rg.4 Rg.3 Rg.2 Rg.8 Rg.9 Rg.6 500000 500000 550000 550000 61 20 00 0 61 20 00 0 62 00 00 0 62 00 00 0 I:\CLIENTS\CENOVUS\10-1346-0044\mapping\mxd\Resource_Use\EIA_Figures\FINAL\1013460044_EIA_RU_005_GIS.mxd

ALBERTA DIGITAL BASE DATA OBTAINED FROM ALTALIS LTD. © GOVERNMENT OF ALBERTA 2004-2012 (ALL RIGHTS RESERVED), AND FROM IHS ENERGY INC. ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS OBTAINED FROM ALBERTA TOURISM PARKS AND RECREATION, PREPARED BY FIERA BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING LTD. 2009. CARIBOU AREAS OBTAINED FROM ENVIRONMENT CANADA © 2012 GOVERNMENT OF CANADA.

DATUM: NAD 83 PROJECTION: UTM ZONE 12 REFERENCE

LEGEND

CHRISTINA LAKE THERMAL PROJECT PHASE H AND EASTERN EXPANSION

PROJECT DESIGN GIS CHECK REVIEW JO SS 04 Jan. 2013 05 Mar. 2013 04 Mar. 2013

FIGURE: 3.5-1

FILE No. REV. 0 10-1346-0044 SCALE AS SHOWN TITLE PROJECT KILOMETRES SCALE

ENVIRONMENTALLY IMPORTANT AREAS

01 Mar. 2013 JO SNS 10 0 10 1:400,000 COMMUNITY RAILROAD ROAD WATERCOURSE INDIAN RESERVE RESOURCE USE LOCAL STUDY AREA

RESOURCE USE REGIONAL STUDY AREA

WATERBODY

ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREA

CARIBOU AREA

COLD LAKE

EAST SIDE ATHABASCA RIVER

*LOCALLY KNOWN AS CHARD

+_{UNNAMED WATERCOURSE LOCALLY KNOWN AS SAWBONES CREEK} NOTES

(18)

Change in workforce

Change of granular resources

Change in population Change in access Site clearing

ACTIVITY ISSUE KEY QUESTION LINKAGE TO OTHER

COMPONENT

Change in fish and wildlife populations and distribution: changes to fishing,

hunting, trapping and recreation. Alteration of soil, terrain and vegetation:

changes to agriculture, berry picking, recreation, forestry and environmentally

important areas.

Facility and infrastructure development Effects on environmentally important areas (RUAC-1 and RUPDC-1) Effects on natural resource use and

users (RUAC-2 and RUPDC-2) To Aquatic Resources To Terrestrial Resources To Socio-economics

CHRSITINA LAKE THERMAL PROJECT PHASE H AND EASTERN EXPANSION

RESOURCE USE LINKAGE DIAGRAM

FIGURE:

3.5-2

10.1346.0044.8500 10134600168500B001 AS SHOWN 0 JO 16/01/2013 BSW 17/01/ 2013 JO 26/02/2013 SS 26/02/2013

(19)

The validity of the linkages for key question RUAC-1 is summarized in Table 3.5-4 and explained below.

Table 3.5-4 Validity of Linkages for Environmentally Important Areas

Key

Question Linkage ESAs and Caribou Areas Valid Linkage

RUAC-1

site clearing and environmentally important areas 548 no 571 no 576 no 578 no 579 no 583 no 585 yes 595 no

East Side Athabasca River Caribou Area yes

Cold Lake Caribou Area yes

facility and infrastructure

development (including changes in access) and environmentally important areas 548 no 571 no 576 no 578 no 579 no 583 no 585 yes 595 no

East Side Athabasca River Caribou Area yes

Cold Lake Caribou Area yes

change in workforce and

environmentally important areas all ESAs and Caribou Areas in the RSA yes

Site Clearing and Facility and Infrastructure Development Linkages

Valid Linkages

Areas within ESA 585 and the East Side Athabasca River and Cold Lake caribou areas will be cleared for facility and infrastructure development. New access into this area may be created as a result of the Project. Therefore, the linkage is valid.

Invalid Linkages

No additional areas within the remaining environmentally important areas will be cleared for Project facility and infrastructure development. New access into these areas will not be created as a result of the Project. Therefore, the linkage is invalid.

(20)

Change in Workforce Linkage

A new workforce population for the construction and operation of the Project may lead to increases in the population within (e.g., Conklin) and outside the RSA (e.g., Fort McMurray) (see Volume 6, Section 6 for the results of a detailed population effects analysis). An increasing workforce is expected to increase the shadow population of the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo (RMWB). Use of the ESAs and Caribou Areas in the RSA may increase as a result of workforce population increases due to the Project. Therefore, the linkage is valid.

3.5.2.2 Mitigation

Mitigation for site clearing in the Christina Lake Caribou Area can be accomplished by minimizing the area cleared. Mitigation measures employed by Cenovus to minimize the area cleared include the following:

• When practical, existing ROWs will be used for access and installation of any new infrastructure to minimize direct habitat loss. Cenovus will use existing lines that are starting to regenerate only when other reasonable options do not exist.

• Areas for facilities, well sites, multi-well pads, ROW and exploration well pads will be sized as small as practical.

• Disturbances to undisturbed vegetation around the development area will be prevented, where practical; however, if vegetation clearing is necessary, it will be limited to what is required.

Effects due to facility and infrastructure development (most importantly, linear development that may provide access to the Christina Lake Caribou Area) can be mitigated in a variety of ways. Access management and reclamation may occur on some existing linear disturbances in an effort to establish vegetation communities that are likely to enhance habitat for wildlife including caribou. Where practical, access management decisions made by Cenovus for the purposes of wildlife enhancement will be made in consultation with ESRD.

Cenovus is also a member of the Caribou Protection Committee and has a Caribou Protection Plan that will be used as the primary planning tool for the integration of woodland caribou conservation and habitat development.

Mitigation and environmental design features for increased use of environmentally important areas in the RSA may include shift arrangements that deter workers from engaging in recreational activities (i.e., workers with long shift lengths [i.e., 12 hours] are less likely to engage in outdoor recreational activity while on-shift), or educating

(21)

workers about the responsible use of existing recreational facilities on Christina, Winefred and Grist lakes.

Where practical, Cenovus will use “roll back” on roads and other linear disturbances as a means to deter access at various times as a measure to protect wildlife. A “roll back” is an access control used on winter access roads, pipelines and seismic lines where cut timber is “rolled back” or placed on the opened access to deter motorized vehicle travel. Usually the timber is spread back at the start of the road for approximately 100 to150 m.

Additional mitigation measures for woodland caribou and woodland caribou habitat, as well as those relating to other wildlife, are included in the Wildlife Assessment (Volume 5, Section 3).

3.5.2.3 Effects Analysis

Site Clearing Effects

Project-related site clearing activities within environmentally important areas will occur in the East Side Athabasca River and Cold Lake caribou areas and ESA 585. The ESAs in the LSA are defined by their important or unique environmental values which are important to the long-term maintenance of biodiversity and ecological processes and services within a region, the province, or nationally (Fiera Biological Consulting 2009). The effects on these areas, and on caribou areas, as a result of facility and infrastructure development, are considered negative due to the removal of linear access, and increased disturbance. Disturbance effects to ESA 585 and the East Side Athabasca River and Cold Lake caribou areas as a result of Project site clearing are detailed in Table 3.5-5.

Site clearing may negatively affect wildlife and vegetation (e.g., forests, caribou and berry habitat). The change between Baseline Case and Application Case disturbance of the portion of ESA 585 within the LSA is low (i.e., 2.3%). Similarly, the change between Baseline Case and Application Case disturbance of the portion of the Cold Lake Caribou Area within the LSA is also low (i.e., 1.0%). While the change between Baseline Case and Application Case disturbance to the East Side Athabasca River Caribou Area is 9.6%, the actual area of disturbance is minimal (i.e., 72.2 ha or less than 0.1%) when compared to the overall size of the Caribou Area (1,345,034.9 ha). Overall, the Application Case will see disturbance to environmentally important areas increase from Baseline Case conditions by 1.1%.

(22)

Table 3.5-5 Site Clearing of Environmentally Important Areas in the Local Study Area

Environmentally Important Areas Total Area _[ha] within LSA Total Area [ha]

Baseline Case Area Disturbed in LSA

[ha]

% of Total Area in LSA Disturbed Under the

Baseline Case

Application Case Area Disturbed in LSA

[ha]

% of Total Area in LSA Disturbed Under the Application Case

Change Between Baseline Case and Application Case Disturbances [% of Total Disturbed Area in LSA]

Disturbance Due to the Project in LSA [ha] % of Net Project Footprint [1,893.3 ha] ESA 585 4,677.3 433.0 4.4 1.0 14.8 3.4 2.3 4.2 0.2

East Side Athabasca River Caribou Area 1,345,034.9 491.1 25.1 5.1 72.2 14.7 9.6 50.3 2.7

Cold Lake Caribou Area 671,901.2 155,567.1 2,294.4 1.5 3,949.9 2.5 1.0 1,822.9 96.3

Total 2,021,613.4 156,491.2 2,323.9 1.5 4,036.9 2.6 1.1 1,877.4 99.2

(23)

Given the minimal increase in disturbance to environmentally important areas in the LSA, the magnitude of the effect of the Project is assessed as low. The effect to both Caribou Areas and ESAs is expected to occur on a local scale until after Project operation and reclamation is complete. Site clearing activities will occur once, and so the frequency of the activity is low. The effects of site clearing are considered reversible as reclamation activities will re-establish equivalent or improved land capability.

Facility and Infrastructure Development Effects

In addition to the effects from site clearing, effects from increased access due to facility and infrastructure development could increase the resource use activities within ESA 585 and the East Side Athabasca River and Cold Lake caribou areas. Increased access to areas meant for recreational use (i.e., the CLMP Area) is considered positive (i.e., increased potential for recreational use). However, this may also increase competition for some resources and could negatively affect existing resource users who either are accustomed to present levels or prefer lower levels of activity. Those likely to be negatively affected are recreationists, anglers and hunters who prefer quiet, remote activities. Generally, these resource users may still be able to find desirable areas for recreation by travelling farther from developed areas and population centres. However, this may negatively affect outfitters currently operating in WMU 517 as well as local residents who would prefer to maintain lower levels of use on and around Christina Lake. Effects to outfitters and other resource users in the area will not, in all cases, be new, as Project-related clearing will occur partially in previously disturbed areas.

Although the above effects may occur, the level of certainty regarding the extent to which recreationists and outfitters may be positively or negatively affected is low. Given the area disturbed as a result of the Project, the magnitude of the effect of facility and infrastructure development effects on environmentally important areas is considered low. Effects will be local in extent, long-term in duration, low in frequency (i.e., they will occur once) and reversible with reclamation.

The Christina Lake Caribou Area is intended to protect caribou habitat. The effects on this area, as a result of facility and infrastructure development, are considered negative and these disturbances are expected to affect the ESA within the LSA until after reclamation is complete. More details on the potential effects of the Project on woodland caribou and woodland caribou habitat are included in the Wildlife Assessment (Volume 5, Section 6.3.2).

(24)

Increased Population Effects

Incremental population impacts as a result of the Project are low given that an influx of new workers for Project construction and operations is not expected. The majority of the Project workforce will come from existing phase operations of the Cenovus Christina Lake Thermal Project. The total incremental population increase in the socio-economic RSA by 2021 as a result of the Project is predicted to be 13 people (i.e., less than 0.1% of the forecasted baseline population of 102,6542_).

Additional details on Project-related population effects are presented in the Socio-Economic Assessment (Volume 6, Section 6).

Population increases can lead to increased use of environmentally important areas. This effect is generally negative as protection of important natural features is a principal function of environmentally important areas in both the LSA and RSA. Experience with past assessments conducted in the vicinity of the Project (i.e., Cenovus Narrows Lake 2010) suggests that residents of Conklin would prefer to limit recreational use on and near Christina Lake by the growing local shadow population.

The magnitude of the effect from increased population is considered negligible given the low (i.e., less than 0.1% of the baseline population) population growth as a result of the Project. What little population growth that will occur has the potential to affect ESAs in the RSA for the life of the Project. Resource use is assumed to be continuous during the construction and operation of the Project and effects are potentially reversible if resource use decreases following reclamation.

3.5.2.4 Residual Effect Classification

Resource use occurs as an interaction between people (resource users) and natural resources. Both people and resources must be considered to evaluate effects of the Project on resource use. The principal effects of the Project on environmentally important areas are expected to occur due to site clearing in the East Side Athabasca River and Cold Lake caribou areas and ESA 585 and due to potential increased use of this area as a result of better access. All of these effects are expected to be negligible. The residual effects on environmentally important areas are listed in Table 3.5-6.

2_{This baseline population does not include the shadow population in the RMWB and Lac La Biche County, and so is} considered conservative.

(25)

Table 3.5-6 Residual Effect Classification for Environmentally Important Areas

Category Direction Magnitude Geographic _Extent Duration Frequency Reversibility Environmental _Consequences Site Clearing Effects in the LSA

ESA 585 negative ₍₊₅₎low local ₍₀₎ long-term ₍₊₂₎ low ₍₀₎ reversible _(-3) negligible ₍₊₄₎ Christina Lake

Caribou Area negative (+5) low local (0) long-term (+2) low (0) reversible (-3) negligible (+4) Facility and Infrastructure Development Effects in the LSA

ESA 585 negative ₍₊₅₎low local ₍₀₎ long-term ₍₊₂₎ low ₍₀₎ reversible _(-3) negligible ₍₊₄₎ Christina Lake

Caribou Area negative (+5) low local (0) long-term (+2) low (0) reversible (-3) negligible (+4) Population Effects in the RSA

ESAs within

RSA negative negligible (0) regional (+1) medium-term (+1) high (+2) reversible (-3) negligible (+1)

3.5.2.5 Monitoring

Monitoring is not planned specifically for environmentally important areas because these areas are best managed on a regional scale through appropriate government land use policy and frameworks.

As part of the Application, Cenovus will be implementing monitoring programs related to the following disciplines:

• conservation and reclamation (Volume 1, Section 14); • air quality (Volume 3, Sections 1.9 and 4.7);

• vegetation, wetlands, wildlife (e.g., for the Caribou Protection Plan) and biodiversity (Volume 5, Section 8); and

• hydrology (Volume 4, Section 7).

The results of these plans and programs may be used to identify and monitor Project effects within environmentally important areas.

(26)

3.5.3 Effects on Resource Use and Users

For the purposes of this assessment, natural resource users include people who extract gravel, participate in forestry, pick berries, hunt, trap, fish or otherwise use the natural resources in the LSA and RSA. Natural resources must be available and accessible to users if they are to be used. The following Key Question is addressed in this section:

3.5.3.1 Linkage Analysis

A number of potential linkages were analyzed for the effect of the Project on natural resource use and users (Figure 3.5-2). These linkages are listed in Table 3.5-7. The validity of each linkage is summarized in the table and explained below.

Table 3.5-7 Validity of Linkages for Resource Uses

Key

Question Linkage Resource or Resource Use Activity Linkage Valid

RUAC-2

site clearing and resource use

agriculture no

Forestry yes

Hunting yes

Trapping yes

Fishing no

berry picking yes

non-consumptive recreation yes

CLMP Area yes

aggregate resources no

facility and infrastructure development (including change in access and resource use) agriculture no Forestry no Hunting yes Trapping yes Fishing no

berry picking yes

non-consumptive recreation yes

CLMP Area yes

aggregate resources yes

Access yes

changes in population leading

(27)

Site Clearing Linkages

Agriculture

Site clearing resulting in loss or alteration of terrain or soils may make an area unusable for agricultural use. However, since there is no agricultural activity in the LSA, the linkage is invalid.

Forestry

There are no planned cuts within the LSA for the years 2012 to 2015 (Al-Pac 2012). Site clearing due to the Project will disturb approximately 512 ha of productive forest (Volume 5, Section 6.2.3.2). As well, site clearing will affect timber harvesting since timber will be harvested and salvaged out of the scheduled forest management sequence. Within Al-Pac’s Forest Management Unit (FMU L11), future harvesting plans may be affected by the Project. Following reclamation, the forest will not be available for harvesting for between 50 and 80 years. Therefore, the linkage is valid.

Hunting and Trapping

Site clearing can cause wildlife mortality, displace wildlife and restrict movement. The linkage between site clearing and change in wildlife populations and distribution is valid. The effects of site clearing on wildlife are assessed in the Wildlife Assessment (Volume 5, Section 6.3). Hunting and trapping occur in and around the LSA, and the Project will affect those activities. Both linkages are valid.

Fishing

Christina Lake is located adjacent to the LSA. Sport fishing is popular on Christina Lake and sport fishing occurs on several lakes in the RSA. Site clearing activities are not expected to limit lake access for fishing on Christina Lake or other lakes within the RSA; therefore, the linkage is invalid.

Berry Picking

Site clearing could affect berry picking opportunities, since some areas of high berry potential are located in the LSA. Therefore, the linkage is valid.

Non-Consumptive Recreation

The linkage for effects on non-consumptive recreational activities due to site clearing is valid, as a variety of recreational activities (e.g., ATV use, snowmobiling and hiking) have the potential to occur in the LSA.

(28)

Christina Lake Management Plan Area

The CLMP Area is under a Protective Notation (PNT). The plan endeavours to allow for increased recreational use and limited industrial development of the area so that the major values of the lake and backshore remain unimpaired for wildland recreational opportunities into the future (AENV 1991). Site clearing will occur within the CLMP Area. Therefore, the linkage is valid.

Aggregate Resources

Other than those held by Cenovus, one aggregate interest is held in the LSA by Devon Canada Corp. for non-manufacturing clay. Aggregate resources will not be compromised due to site clearing; therefore, the linkage is invalid.

Facility and Infrastructure Development Linkages

Agriculture

The linkage is invalid as there is no agricultural activity in the LSA.

Forestry

Effects on forestry are limited to site clearing and associated activities. The linkage for effects on forestry due to facility and infrastructure development is invalid.

Hunting and Trapping

Hunting and trapping occur in the LSA, and the development of the Project will affect those activities; therefore, both linkages are valid.

Fishing

Fishing was assessed by analyzing fishery and access effects. Sport fishing is not expected to be affected as a result of the construction and operation of the Project (Volume 4, Section 5.4). Access to waterbodies and watercourses in the LSA, including Christina Lake, will not increase due to the Project; therefore, the linkage is invalid.

Berry Picking

Construction of new access in the LSA may increase the opportunities for berry picking; therefore, the linkage is valid.

(29)

Non-Consumptive Recreation

Non-consumptive recreational activities such as ATV use, camping, bird watching and boating have been documented within the LSA in the Conklin and Christina Lake areas. Increased access to the LSA due to the Project may lead to increased land use for non-consumptive recreational activities; therefore, the linkage is valid.

Christina Lake Management Plan Area

Facility and infrastructure development will occur within the CLMP Area. As with site clearing, the linkage is valid.

Aggregate Resources

Facility and infrastructure development will require aggregate resources for construction; therefore, the linkage is valid.

Access

For the purposes of this assessment, access means admissibility to a given area. For most resource users, increased access to resources is generally viewed as a positive effect, as it increases opportunity for resource use. Increased access also, however, increases competition for resources for some resource users such as outfitters and hunters. The linkage is valid due to the development of new unrestricted access to source wells, disposal wells and well pad locations.

Increased Population Linkages

Public Resource Use

The Project will provide employment opportunities that may lead to changes in the workforce population. Cenovus will provide accommodation for all construction and operations workers via camps within the LSA. Although Cenovus will use signage and training to deter irresponsible resource use activities, there is the potential for these workers to engage in activities including fishing, hunting, berry picking and non-consumptive recreation during the life of the Project. Therefore, the linkage is valid.

Industrial Resource Use

The change in the workforce population does not have a direct relationship to resource use by industry. Changes in agriculture, forestry and the use of aggregate resources are not expected to be affected by the workforce population; therefore, the linkage is invalid.