Traditional Land Use Assessment Update May 2017

Appendix 4.2 – Traditional Land Use Assessment Update May 2017

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

137T 37T Introduction37T 37T ...... 1

1.137T 37T Information37T Requested37T ...... 1

1.237T 37T Approach37T 37T ...... 2

237T 37T Reference37T Conditions 37T ...... 8

337T 37T Data37T Sources 37T ...... 11

3.137T 37T Availability37T of Resources37T ...... 11

3.1.137T 37T Wildlife37T 37T ...... 11

3.1.237T 37T Fish37T 37T ...... 12

3.1.337T 37T Traditional37T Plant Potential37T...... 13

3.237T 37T Access37T 37T ...... 13

3.2.137T 37T Land37T 37T ...... 13

3.2.237T 37T Water37T 37T ...... 13

3.337T 37T Sensory37T Disturbances Affecting Indigenous Land Users 37T ...... 13

3.3.137T 37T Noise37T 37T ...... 13

3.3.237T 37T Odour37T 37T ...... 14

3.3.337T 37T Visual37T Aesthetics37T ...... 14

437T 37T Results37T 37T 15

4.137T 37T Athabasca37T Chipewyan First Nation37T ...... 15

4.1.137T 37T Effects37T Analysis 37T ...... 15

4.1.237T 37T Effects37T Assessment 37T ...... 21

4.1.337T 37T Effects37T Classification37T ...... 39

4.237T 37T Fort37T Chipewyan Métis Local 12537T ...... 42

4.2.137T 37T Effects37T Analysis 37T ...... 42

4.2.237T 37T Effects37T Assessment 37T ...... 45

4.2.37T 337T Effects37T Classification37T ...... 59

4.337T 37T Fort37T McKay First Nation37T ...... 63

4.3.137T 37T Effects37T Analysis 37T ...... 63

4.3.237T 37T Effects37T Assessment 37T ...... 71

4.3.337T 37T Effects37T Classification37T ...... 85

4.437T 37T Fort37T McKay Métis 37T ...... 87

4.4.137T 37T Ef37T fects Analysis 37T ...... 87

4.4.237T 37T Effects37T Assessment 37T ...... 89

4.4.337T 37T Effects37T Classification37T ...... 102

4.537T 37T Fort37T McMurray Métis Local 193537T...... 104

4.5.137T 37T Effects37T Analysis 37T ...... 104

4.5.237T 37T Effects37T Assessment 37T ...... 107

4.37T 5.337T Effects37T Classification37T ...... 119

4.637T 37T Lac37T La Biche Métis Local 190937T ...... 121

4.6.137T 37T Effects37T Analysis 37T ...... 121

4.6.37T 237T Effects37T Assessment 37T ...... 123

4.6.337T 37T Effects37T Classification37T ...... 133

537T 37T Conclusions37T 37T ...... 136

637T 37T References37T 37T ...... 138

May 2017 Page i

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

LIST OF TABLES

Table37T 4.2-1: 37T Indigenous37T Studies Received Prior to the Project Update37T ...... 8

Table37T 4.2-2:37T Indigenous37T Community Studies Received After the Completion of the Project

Update37T ...... 9

Table37T 4.2-3: 37T Disturbance37T to ACFN Preferred Use Areas Overlapping the Traditional Land Use

RSA37T ...... 17

Table37T 4.2-4: 37T Disturbance37T to ACFN Preferred Use Areas Overlapping the Terrestrial LSA37T ...... 18 Table 4.2-5: Disturbance to ACFN Preferred Use Areas Overlapping the Ronald Lake BSA ...... 19 Table 4.2-6: Disturbance to Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation RFMAs that Overlap the Traditional Land Use RSA ...... 19 Table 4.2-7: Cumulative Effects Classification and Determination of Consequence ACFN Traditional Land Use Key Indicators ...... 41 Table 4.2-8: Effects Classification of the Incremental Effects of the Project for ACFN Traditional Land Use Key Indicators ...... 41 Table 4.2-9: Disturbance to the Traditional Land Use RSA, Terrestrial LSA and Ronald Lake BSA ...... 44 Table 4.2-10: Disturbance to Métis Local 125 RFMAs that Overlap the Traditional Land Use RSA ...... 44 Table 4.2-11: Cumulative Effects Classification and Determination of Consequence for Métis Local 125 Traditional Land Use Key Indicators ...... 61 Table 4.2-12: Effects Classification of the Incremental Effects of the Project for Métis Local 125 Traditional Land Use Key Indicators ...... 62 Table 4.2-13: Disturbance to Fort McKay CSEs Overlapping the Traditional Land Use RSA ...... 65 Table 4.2-14: Disturbance to Fort McKay CSEs Overlapping the Terrestrial LSA ...... 67 Table 4.2-15: Disturbance to Fort McKay CSEs Overlapping the Ronald Lake BSA ...... 69 Table 4.2-16: Disturbance to Fort McKay First Nation RFMAs that Overlap the Traditional Land Use RSA ...... 70 Table 4.2-17: Cumulative Effects Classification and Determination of Consequence for FMFN Traditional Land Use Key Indicators ...... 86 Table 4.2-18: Effects Classification of the Incremental Effects of the Project for Fort McKay First Nation Traditional Land Use Key Indicators ...... 86 Table 4.2-19: Disturbance to Fort McKay Métis RFMAs that Overlap the Traditional Land Use RSA ...... 88 Table 4.2-20: Cumulative Effects Classification and Determination of Consequence for Fort McKay Métis Traditional Land Use Key Indicators...... 103 Table 4.2-21: Effects Classification of the Incremental Effects of the Project for Fort McKay Métis Traditional Land Use Key Indicators ...... 103 Table 4.2-22: Disturbance to Fort McMurray Métis Local 1935 RFMAs that Overlap the Traditional Land Use RSA ...... 106 Table 4.2-23: Cumulative Effects Classification and Determination of Consequence for Métis Local 1935 Traditional Land Use Key Indicators...... 120 Table 4.2-24: Effects Classification of the Incremental Effects of the Project for Métis Local 1935 Traditional Land Use Key Indicators ...... 120 Table 4.2-25: Disturbance to Unassigned RFMAs that Overlap the Traditional Land Use RSA ...... 122 Table 4.2-26: Cumulative Effects Classification and Determination of Consequence for Lac La Biche Métis Local 1909 Traditional Land Use Key Indicators ...... 134 Table 4.2-27: Effects Classification of the Incremental Effects of the Project for Lac La Biche Métis Local 1909 Traditional Land Use Key Indicators ...... 135

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.2-1 Traditional Land Use Assessment Regional Study Areas ...... 5

May 2017 Page ii

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

1 Introduction

This Appendix provides an updated assessment of effects on the current use of lands and resources for traditional resources (traditional land use [TLU]) for the Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project (the Project). An updated TLU assessment was requested as part of both Joint Review Panel (JRP) information requests (IRs) 4.1 and 4.2. This appendix provides the updated assessment addressing the requests included in both IRs.

1.1 Information Requested

JRP IR 4.1 requested:

an assessment of the environmental effects of the Project (that is, remove the development currently under construction and activities approved but not yet constructed from the Application Case) on valued components related to the environmental effects referred to in subsection 5(1) and 5(2) of CEAA [Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency] 2012.

To address this request, the response below provides an assessment of the environmental effects of the Project on TLU with an updated Application Case (referred to as the Alternate Application Case). The Alternate Application Case is the Application Case from the Project Update, with developments under construction and those approved but not yet constructed removed as of the date of this Package was received (February 3, 2017).

JRP IR 4.2(a) requested an updated assessment of the Project on TLU, with consideration of:

• Information by each Indigenous community about land use activities undertaken outside the regional study area (RSA) boundary and any potential Project related effects on those activities. Where groups have indicated specific uses, practices or activities that occur outside the boundaries of the RSA, provide an assessment of the potential effects of the Project on those practices. • Project effects on each group independently rather than applying on group’s information to assess effects on current use of lands and resources by all groups. • The TLU patterns of each Métis community based on their traditional use study (TUS) rather than the 160 km buffer around Métis communities that the Alberta government considers to reflect Métis harvesting areas.

May 2017 Page 1

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

• Potential effects on Lac La Biche Métis (Métis Local 1909) using information provided in their Project-specific TUS. • Potential effects on location, means and timing of TLU based on information provided by Indigenous communities, including where Project activities (e.g., stream diversions) may affect the traditional use of waterbodies identified by Indigenous groups (e.g., Unnamed Lake 1 and 2). JRP IR 4.2(b) requested an updated assessment for cumulative effects.

Each of these requirements in JRP IR 4.1 and IR 4.2 above are incorporated into the following updated assessment. Effects on TLU for each Indigenous community were assessed independently in the Project Update and this method has been continued in this assessment.

JRP IR 4.2(a) also requested a description of how Teck Resources Limited (Teck) considered each Indigenous community’s TUSs in the assessment. This information is presented in Section 2. Section 2 also identifies additional information made available by Indigenous communities since the submission of the Project Update. All new information has been reviewed for relevant TLU information that could affect the results of this updated assessment, and included in the assessment where applicable.

JRP IR 4.2(b) requested an updated assessment of the cumulative effects that are likely to result from the Project in combination with other projects or activities on TLU. The removal of developments currently under construction and activities approved but not yet constructed from the Application Case, does not change the Planned Development Case (PDC) that was included in the Project Update. However, updates to the PDC have been included to address updated information received since the submission of the Project Update, as well as to reflect the revised land use areas for Métis communities as requested in JRP IR 4.2(a).

1.2 Approach

The methods applied in this response, including study areas, temporal considerations, mitigation measures and effects classification and consequence criteria are generally consistent with the Project Update (see Volume 3, Section 17.3 of the Project Update). As described in Section 17.3.3.2 (see Volume 3 of the Project Update), effects on TLU are considered at maximum-build out and prior to reclamation. An assessment of effects on Métis Local 1909 was not included in the Project Update, but has been included in this response. Fort McKay Métis and Fort McKay First Nation (FMFN) were assessed as the Community of Fort McKay in the Project Update because they had submitted a joint TLU study. However, they are

May 2017 Page 2

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

assessed separately in this response as a result of separate submissions revised since the completion of the Project Update.

The updated assessment relies on consideration of effects on the same six key indicators as included in the Project Update. These indicators are:

• opportunities to harvest bison • opportunities to hunt traditionally important wildlife species • opportunities to trap fur-bearers • opportunities to fish for traditionally important species • opportunities to harvest traditionally important vegetation • opportunities to use culturally important sites and areas For each key indicator various multiple measurable parameters were defined to describe and assess the potential for effects in either qualitative or quantitative methods, or a combination of the both (see Volume 3, Section 17.3.5 of the Project Update). To classify the effects on a key indicator, the effects on its relevant measurable parameters are analyzed and subsequently considered in aggregate. Further information regarding the key indicators and measurable parameters is available in Volume 3, Section 17.4 of the Project Update. The criteria for assessing potential effects on TLU are provided in Volume 3, Section 17.3.5.3 of the Project Update.

Requests included as part of JRP IR 4.2(a), specifically reference a regional study area (RSA). However, it should be noted that the TLU assessment in the Project Update considered effects within multiple study areas to better capture the potential for Project effects. The RSAs used within the assessment include:

• TLU RSA • aquatics RSA • Ronald Lake bison study area (BSA) The use of multiple study areas allows for a discussion at multiple scales to better capture potential effects. For example, the use of the TLU RSA to discuss effects on land-based access routes for terrestrial based activities allows for a focused discussion on those areas most likely affected by Project and cumulative development. Consideration of navigability within the aquatics RSA captures any potential changes in the water-based access resulting from changes in water flow or water levels in the Athabasca River in areas downstream of the TLU RSA. Figure 4.2-1 presents the overlapping areas captured within the RSAs used in this assessment. In recognition that areas outside the TLU RSA, aquatics RSA and

May 2017 Page 3

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Ronald Lake BSA are of high traditional use and great importance to some potentially-affected Indigenous communities, a qualitative discussion of the potential for Project-related effects on those areas identified in Project-specific TUSs but located outside the study areas is included.

May 2017 Page 4 Tp.109 Rg.15 Rg.14 Rg.13 Rg.12 Rg.11 Rg.10 Rg.9 Rg.8 Rg.7 Rg.6 Rg.5 Rg.4 Rg.3 Rg.2 Rg.1 Rg.16

Tp.108

Tp.107 ³

Tp.106

Tp.105

Tp.104

Tp.103

Tp.102

Tp.101

Tp.100

Tp.99

Tp.98

Tp.97

Tp.96

Tp.95 ALBER TA Fo rt MackayFort

! AN SASKATCHEW Tp.94

Tp.93

Tp.92 ActiveDisturbance Area (MineYear41) Tp.91 ! Settlem e nt PrimaryHighway Tp.90 Sec ondaryHighway LocRoad al Fort McFort Murray R ailway

Tp.89 !

Intermittent WatercourseIntermittent

Ã Ä PermanentWatercourse Tp.88 69 Park/Protec tedArea

Waterbod y

Tp.87 AquaticsRe gionalStudy Area

Ã Ä R onaldLake Bison Study Area TraditionalLand Use Tp.86 63 Anzac ! R e gionalStudy Area UV881 0 10 20 30 40

Tp.85 KILOMETRES 1:1,000,000 UTMZone NAD12 83 :CINSTC_NRG\681\apn\X\rdads\681_is_-_L_Assm tRSAs.mxd nt_R Assessme GY\1648112\Mapping\MXD\TradLandUse\1648112_Figs4_2-1_TLU_ I:\CLIENTS\TECK_ENER Acknowledgements: Roads: Obtained from Geogratis, © Department of Natural Resources Canada. All Rights Reserved. Date: 6/13/2017 Author: LS Checked: XX Water: Obtained from IHS Energy Inc. Tp.84 File ID: 1648112 (Original page size: 8.5X11) Figure 4.2-1: Traditional Land Use Assessment Regional Study Areas FrontierProjec –JointRe t viewPanelInformation Re q uests

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Teck recognizes that not all areas within each preferred use area are likely utilized with the same level of intensity or hold the same value as traditional use areas. Therefore, the effects assessment considers the disturbance calculations in combination with a qualitative comparison of disturbance to the TLU patterns as described in the Project-specific studies submitted by Indigenous communities.

The updated TLU assessment also considers the following management and monitoring plans, which are expected to aid in the mitigation of effects on TLU for Indigenous communities:

• draft AMP (see the response to JRP IR 4.5) • draft air quality mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management plan (see the response to JRP IR 3.18) • draft biodiversity management plan (see the response to JRP IR 7.15) • draft Ronald Lake bison mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management plan (see the response to JRP IR 7.5) • draft reclamation monitoring plan (see the response to JRP IR 6.9) • draft detailed fisheries offsetting plan (see the response to JRP IR 2.1) • draft odour management and response plan (see the response to JRP IR 3.13) • draft socio-economic monitoring plan (see the response to JRP IR 5.15) • draft hydrology and water quality mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management plan (see the response to JRP IR 8.33) • traditional land use mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management plan (see the response to JRP IR 4.6) • draft waterfowl protection plan (see the response to JRP IR 7.10) • draft wildlife mitigation and monitoring plan (see the response to JRP IR 7.14)

In consultation with Mikisew Cree First Nation (MCFN) regarding the proposed TLU assessment methodology for the Project Update, Teck agreed to not undertake a proponent-led TLU assessment with respect to MCFN and no discussion of the effects on MCFN TLU is included in the Project Update or in this response. Instead, Teck will rely on Wîyôw’tan’kitaskino (Our Land is Rich): A Mikisew Cree Culture and Rights Assessment for the Proposed Teck Frontier Project Update, which was provided to Teck in September 2015 as has been provided to regulators on September 24, 2015, Mikisew Cree First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Use Report and Assessment for Teck Resources Limited Proposed Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project provided November 2013, and the Addendum to the Mikisew Cree

May 2017 Page 6

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Use Report and Assessment for Teck Resources Limited Proposed Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project provided June 10, 2015.

May 2017 Page 7

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

2 Reference Conditions

Traditional land use reference conditions were described in Volume 3, Section 17.4 of the Project Update. The Project Update TLU assessment and the updated assessment relied on community-specific land and resource use information provided in Project-specific studies. Community-specific land use information available for consideration in the Project Update was summarized in the Project Update TLU baseline (see Volume 2, Section 11 of the Project Update). Project- specific community-led studies received prior to the submission of the Project Update are listed in Table 4.2-1. Baseline information informed the discussion of the Project’s effects through the identification of preferred use areas (see Volume 3, Section 17.4.2.1 of the Project Update) and the discussion of access routes (see Volume 3, Section 17.4.2.3 of the Project Update), and potential site-specific interactions discussed in the assessment of Project effects on TLU key indicators (see Volume 3, Section 17.6.1 of the Project Update).

Table 4.2-1: Indigenous Studies Received Prior to the Project Update

Community Study Title Candler, C. and the Firelight Group Research Cooperative. 2013a. Athabasca Athabasca Chipewyan First Chipewyan First Nation Knowledge and Use Report for Teck Resources Limited Nation (ACFN) Proposed Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project. November 20, 2013. Prepared on behalf of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation. Woven Paths (Woven Paths Aboriginal Relations, Research & Consulting Inc.). Fort Chipewyan Métis (Métis 2015. Fort Chipewyan Métis Local 125: Métis Land Use & Ecological Knowledge Local 125) Study. Executive Summary: Teck Resources Ltd. Frontier Mine. Prepared by K. Dertien-Loubert on behalf of Fort Chipewyan Métis Local 125. Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group (Fort McKay Sustainability Department Fort McKay First Nation (FMFN) and Integral Ecology Group). 2011. Traditional Land Use Study for the Teck and and Fort McKay Métis Silverbirch Frontier Project. August 9, 2011. Submitted to Teck and Silverbirch. Willow Springs (Willow Springs Strategic Solutions Inc.). 2014. Métis Traditional Fort McMurray Métis (Métis Local Land Use and Occupancy Study: Teck Resources Limited- Frontier Oil Sands 1935) Project. October 2014. Prepared for Fort McMurray Métis Local 1935. Candler, C., Leech, S., Whittaker, C., and the Firelight Group with Mikisew Cree First Nation. 2015a. Sakâw Mostos (Wood Bison): Mikisew Cree First Nation Indigenous Knowledge Study. April 10, 2015. Submitted to Mikisew Cree First Nation GIR. Candler, C. Olsen, R. and the Firelight Group Research Cooperative. 2013b. Mikisew Cree First Nation Mikisew Cree First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Use Report and (MCFN) Assessment For Teck Resources Limited’s Proposed Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project. November 15, 2014. Prepared on behalf of Mikisew Cree First Nation. Elias, P.D. 2011. Mikisew Cree Use of Lands and Resources in the Vicinity of the Proposed Teck Resources and SilverBirch Energy Frontier Oil Sands Project. January 31, 2011. Prepared for Mikisew Cree First Nation.

May 2017 Page 8

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Indigenous communities have provided additional information since the completion of the Project Update (see Table 4.2-2).

Table 4.2-2: Indigenous Community Studies Received After the Completion of the Project Update

Community Study Title Fort Chipewyan Métis Integral Ecology Group Ltd. 2015. Fort Chipewyan Métis Local 125 Cultural Impact (Métis Local 125) Assessment. October 20, 2015. Prepared in association with Woven Paths Consulting. Integral Ecology Group Ltd. 2016. Fort McKay First Nation Cultural Impact Assessment: Fort McKay First Nation Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project. October 6, 2016. Prepared in association with (FMFN) ALCES Landscape & Land-Use Ltd. for Fort McKay Sustainability Department. Human Environment Group. 2016. Teck Frontier Mine Project Fort McKay Métis Fort McKay Métis Integrated Cultural Assessment. March 2016. Submitted by Fort McKay Métis Sustainability Centre. Willow Springs (Willow Springs Strategic Solutions Inc.). 2015. McMurray Métis Cultural Fort McMurray Métis (Métis Impact Assessment of the Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project. July 2015. Prepared by Local 1935) Dr. Timothy David Clarke. Candler, C. Malone, M. and the Firelight Group Research Cooperative with the Mikisew Cree First Nation. 2015b. Addendum to the Mikisew Cree First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Use Report and Assessment for Teck Resources Limited’s Proposed Mikisew Cree First Nation Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project. May 28, 2015. (MCFN) Candler, C., Gibson, G., Malone, M., and the Firelight Group Research Cooperative, with Mikisew Cree First Nation. 2015c. Wîyôw’tan’kitaskino (Our Land is Rich): A Mikisew Cree Culture and Rights Assessment for the Proposed Teck Frontier Project Update. September 15, 2015. Willow Springs and Métis Local 1909 (Willow Springs Strategic Solutions Inc., with Métis Lac La Biche Métis (Métis Nation of Alberta Association Local 1909). 2015. Métis Nation of Alberta Association Local Local 1909) 1909 Phase 1 Traditional Knowledge and Use Baseline Study – Frontier Mine Project. October 2015.

Teck has reviewed the studies received since the submission of the Project Update for TLU information that could inform the results of the Alternate Application Case TLU assessment. Applicable information was considered in the following updated assessment. Teck has provided funding to Athabasca Cree First Nation (ACFN) to support the completion of a Project-specific cultural impact assessment (CIA), but at the time of the drafting of this updated assessment the ACFN CIA was not available. On October 12, 2016, ACFN informed Teck by letter that ACFN would not be providing Teck with a copy of the ACFN-led CIA unless ACFN chooses to submit the CIA to the JRP as part of ACFN’s evidence for the hearing. On April 24, 2017, Teck was informed by letter that ACFN:

does not expect to produce a single "Cultural Impact Assessment", written by a consultant or academic, which filters the complexity of Project impacts on our nation and members through a colonial lens for ease of consumption on a project- specific basis. In our experience, Cultural Impact Assessments leave "lost in translation" the voices of our Elders, our values, and the obligations that Dene law imposes upon us in our interactions with the environment (amongst other things).

May 2017 Page 9

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Teck respects the views of ACFN and appreciates the information ACFN has provided to date as part of consultation activities and the regulatory review process. Teck agrees that potential Project effects on ACFN culture are best assessed by ACFN, as is the case for other Indigenous groups.

Please see the response to JRP IR 4.3(b) for additional information on the ACFN CIA.

The TLU assessment is focused on the spatial availability of areas where the opportunity to undertake TLU by potentially affected Indigenous communities has the potential to be affected. The studies listed in Table 4.2-2 include CIAs that discuss the Project’s effects on Indigenous cultures that might result from these spatial aspects of TLU and other stressors (e.g., changes in the spiritual relationship with the land, loss of opportunities to transmit knowledge across generations). Teck considers the proponent-led TLU assessment and the community-led CIAs to be complementary documents and recommends that reviewers read these documents in tandem.

May 2017 Page 10

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

3 Data Sources

Data required for the TLU assessment includes potential disturbance data for lands used for traditional activities and information collected from Teck’s consultations with Indigenous communities. Data are also required from the results of other Project effect assessments, including:

• acoustics (see Appendix 4.1, Attachment I, Section 2.0) • air quality (see Appendix 4.1, Attachment I, Section 3.0) • hydrology (see Appendix 4.1, Attachment I, Section 4.0) • fish and fish habitat (see Appendix 4.1, Section 4.0) • vegetation (see Appendix 4.1, Attachment I, Section 6.0) • wildlife (see Appendix 4.1, Attachment I, Section 7.0) • visual aesthetics (see Appendix 4.1, Attachment I, Section 8.0)

Assessments results for the PDC assessment were taken from the Project Update (see Volume 3, Sections 17.5.2, 17.5.3 and 17.5.4).

The following summarizes the information incorporated from other disciplines used in the TLU assessment for the Alternate Application Case assessment. These results are provided in a single section here to reduce repetition of results through the effects assessment. PDC effects have been previously presented in Sections 17.5.2, 17.5.3 and 17.5.4 of the Project Update and are not reproduced below.

3.1 Availability of Resources

3.1.1 Wildlife

Updated wildlife assessment results at the Alternate Application Case are presented in Appendix 4.1, Attachment I, Section 7.0. Removal of developments currently under construction and activities approved but not yet constructed at Base Case and Application Case leads to a slight increase in the availability of high and moderate suitability habitat for migratory bird and traditional use key indicators relative to the Project Update.

The bison assessment has been updated primarily based on bison radio telemetry data from 33 female and five male bison between April 2013 and March 2017 as well as a new land cover classification using the Ducks Unlimited Enhanced Wetland Classification (Ducks Unlimited Canada 2016). These data provided the

May 2017 Page 11

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

basis for an updated winter nutritional carrying capacity assessment, a more detailed mapping of the herd’s core range and an examination of the potential for the transmission of tuberculosis and brucellosis from the diseased Wood Buffalo National Park (WBNP) bison and the disease-free Ronald lake herd. The updated carrying capacity estimate continues to demonstrate that the Ronald Lake bison herd is not food limited at its current size within its current range. The analysis of the radio telemetry data shows that the core range of the Ronald Lake herd is primarily located north of the Project footprint but south of WBNP. The Project is predicted to displace bison in the Ronald Lake herd that are currently using areas that overlap with the Project footprint. However, based on the current carrying capacity estimates, those bison are predicted to be displaced within the existing range of the herd. The predicted impacts discussed above are based on the proposed Project at full build out without taking into account progressive reclamation.

3.1.2 Fish

The Government of Alberta’s (GOA) Surface Water Quantity Management Framework for the Lower Athabasca River (SWQMF) (GOA 2015) manages cumulative water withdrawals and instream flow needs of the Athabasca River. Because the framework is expected to prevent effects on fish habitat productivity, no effects on fish abundance are expected for the lower Athabasca River because of cumulative water withdrawals at the Alternate Base Case. In addition, regulatory guidelines specify screening requirements for water intakes to reduce the potential for fish losses because of entrainment or impingement of fish (DFO 1995). The screening guidelines have been applied to existing and approved Athabasca River intakes that do not pre-date the guidelines.

The updated Alternate Application Case fish and fish habitat assessment (see Appendix 4.1, Section 4.0) determined that the residual effects in flows, water temperatures and benthic invertebrates that have potential to affect the habitat productivity of lower Big Creek, or the use of Big Creek by migratory Athabasca River fish, were identified as low-magnitude. Residual effects on water temperatures and benthic invertebrates that have potential to affect the habitat productivity of lower Redclay Creek were also identified as low-magnitude. The overall effect of the Project on fish abundance is expected to be negligible. Potential changes in productive fish habitats will be offset by the draft detailed fisheries offsetting plan (DFOP), which is intended to result in no reduction of fish habitat productivity and no overall reduction in fish abundance. After closure, additional fish habitat will develop naturally within reclaimed diversion channels, watercourses, waterbodies and pit lakes that form the closure drainage system. The overall effect of the Project on fish and fish habitat diversity is also expected to be negligible.

May 2017 Page 12

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

3.1.3 Traditional Plant Potential

Updated results of the traditional use plant potential assessment are included in Section 6.0 of Appendix 4-1, Attachment I. At the Alternate Application Case, 54% (639,713 ha) of the TLU RSA is expected to contain high and moderate traditional use plant potential. This is a decrease of 168,292 ha from predevelopment conditions. The Project contribution to this decrease is 25,024 ha.

3.2 Access

3.2.1 Land

Effects on land access are determined on a community-by-community basis through a comparison of access routes identified by each potentially affected Indigenous community and industrial disturbance at the Alternate Application Case. Results are provided for each community in the community-specific effects assessment description in the following sections as applicable for each land use key indicator.

3.2.2 Water

Updated Alternate Application Case results for hydrology flows in the Athabasca River are included in Section 4.0 of Appendix 4.1, Attachment I. The removal of activities that are under construction or approved but not yet constructed does not change the assessment outcomes of the navigability assessment completed for the Project Update. The cumulative effects of development at the Alternate Application Case are not expected to have an appreciable influence on the hydrologic regime of the Athabasca River past Reach 4 and are not expected to affect navigation on the Athabasca River.

3.3 Sensory Disturbances Affecting Indigenous Land Users

3.3.1 Noise

The Alternate Application Case results for acoustics are presented in Section 2.0 of Appendix 4.1, Attachment I. The removal of activities approved by not yet constructed results in the removal of the Suncor Fort Hills Oil Sands Project (the Fort Hills project) from the Alternate Base Case, which was the only other development that had the potential to interact cumulatively with the Project. Therefore, updated noise results present the existing environment plus consideration of Project effects. The extent of Project Only noise effects were presented in the Project Update (see Volume 3, Section 17, Figures 17-11, 17-12 and 17-13).

May 2017 Page 13

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

3.3.2 Odour

The removal of approved but not yet constructed activities from the Application Case results in the Alternate Application Case being reflected by the existing case (as described in Volume 3, Section 4 of the Project Update) plus the Project. The Alternate Application Case results for air quality and odour are presented in Section 3.0 of Appendix 4.1, Attachment I.

3.3.3 Visual Aesthetics

The visibility of the Project is a quantitative criterion referring to the geographic area from which the Project will be visible. In the Project Update (see Volume 3, Section 16), changes in visual aesthetics and the visibility of Project components were assessed for the Project at maximum build-out (Year 41; 2066) for the Project Only Case.

The Alternate Application Case results for visual aesthetics are presented in Section 8.0, Appendix 4.1, Attachment I. The modification of the Base Case for this assessment scenario will have no effect on the outcome of the visual aesthetics assessment in the Project Update since visibility was assessed for the Project Only and is therefore independent of any other development on the landscape.

May 2017 Page 14

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

4 Results

The removal of developments currently under construction and approved but not yet constructed from the Base Case and Application Case (i.e., into the Alternate Base Case and Alternate Application Case) and consideration of other changes requested in JRP IR 4.2(a) does not change the assessment outcomes from what was reported in the Project Update with exceptions for Fort Chipewyan Métis (Métis Local 125) and Fort McMurray Métis (Métis Local 1935). For both groups, the effects on harvesting traditionally important plants and the use of culturally important sites and areas changed because of the adjustments in assessment approach (see discussions in Sections 4.2.3 and 4.5.3, respectively).

Frequency was also reported as ‘not applicable’ in the Project Update, because most cultural effects are experienced continuously by people. Frequency has been included in the following updated assessment to align with the guidance included in Determining Whether a Designated Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects Under CEAA 2012 (CEAA 2015). All effects were identified as continuous.

Timing is also a criteria that CEAA (2015) recommends considering in the assessment of effects on each key indicator. While a discussion of the expected effects of Project progression on specific TLU sites is provided in the following sections, timing has not been included in the effects classification. The nature of the Project (i.e., an open pit mine) is that effects on each key indicator will occur throughout Project development, beginning at construction and extending through closure.

The following sections present the updated TLU assessment for each Indigenous group.

4.1 Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation

4.1.1 Effects Analysis

The ACFN has not provided any additional studies since the submission of the Project Update. Therefore no change to the preferred use areas identified in the Project Update is required. Disturbances affecting those portions of ACFN preferred use areas that overlap the TLU RSA, terrestrial local study area (LSA) and Ronald Lake BSA for the Alternate Application Case are presented in Tables 4.2-3, 4.2-4 and 4.2-5, respectively. Disturbances to preferred use areas are quantified for land- based areas only. Quantitative disturbance to preferred aquatic areas are considered

May 2017 Page 15

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

to be captured through the effects on fish habitat as discussed in the section on the availability of fish (see Section 3.1.2).

Registered Fur Management Areas (RFMAs), also called traplines, are the government established boundaries that regulate trapping areas for all trappers (Indigenous and non-Indigenous) within Alberta. For the purposes of this assessment, preferred trapping areas for each potentially affected Indigenous community are considered to be those traplines held by or reported to be currently trapped by members of that community that overlap the TLU RSA. Two traplines (RFMAs 1714 and 2863) were identified as being held by ACFN members and located in the TLU RSA. Neither of these traplines overlaps with the Project disturbance area (PDA) or terrestrial LSA. One additional trapline, RFMA 2016 is currently unassigned, and is therefore, considered to be potentially available to all Indigenous communities for trapping. This trapline overlaps a small portion of the terrestrial LSA and is in the TLU RSA. Table 4.2-6 presents disturbance to these RFMAs.

May 2017 Page 16

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Table 4.2-3: Disturbance to ACFN Preferred Use Areas Overlapping the Traditional Land Use RSA

Reference Condition Area Overlapping Alternate Base Case Alternate Application Case Project Study Area Disturbance Disturbance PDC Disturbance Contribution Preferred Use Area (ha) (ha) (%)1 (ha) (%)1 (ha) (%)1 (ha) (%)1 9,952 3 38,451 10 42,446 11 28,498 7 Homeland Zones 385,968 [11,452] [3] [43,856] [11] [49,917] [13] [32,403] [8]

Fort McKay Proximate 122,500 32 122,500 32 151,416 40 - - 377,247 Zone [140,892] [37] [140,892] [37] [173,514] [46]

Fort McMurray Proximate 3,361 5 3,361 5 3,686 6 - - 61,898 Zone [4,329] [7] [4,329] [7] [5,591] [9] 48,348 17 55,050 18 64,313 23 1,703 1 Critical Waterway Zones 280,140 [55,999] [20] [59,162] [21] [74,783] [27] [3,164] [1] NOTES: - = 0. Numbers are rounded for presentation purposes. Numbers in square brackets provide calculations with the addition of a 183 m buffer to disturbances where a discharge of weapon is prohibited by Alberta hunting regulations. This buffer was applied to primary industrial, secondary industrial, tertiary industrial, rural residential, urban area and recreation sites. 1 Percentage is representative of the area disturbed against the area of overlap between the preferred use are and the study area.

May 2017 Page 17

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Table 4.2-4: Disturbance to ACFN Preferred Use Areas Overlapping the Terrestrial LSA

Reference Condition Area Overlapping Study Alternate Base Case Alternate Application Case Project Area Disturbance Disturbance PDC Disturbance Contribution Preferred Use Area (ha) (ha) (%)1 (ha) (%)1 (ha) (%)1 (ha) (%)1 927 2 29,425 68 30,623 71 28,498 66 Homeland Zones 43,349 [963] [2] [33,348] [77] [35,056] [81] [32,385] [75] Fort McKay Proximate ------Zone Fort McMurray Proximate ------Zone 146 1 1,848 19 28,832 29 1,773 18 Critical Waterway Zones 9,723 [181] [2] [3,327] [34] 4,844 [50] [3,190] [33] NOTES: - = 0. Numbers are rounded for presentation purposes. Numbers in square brackets provide calculations with the addition of a 183 m buffer to disturbances where a discharge of weapon is prohibited by Alberta hunting regulations. This buffer was applied to primary industrial, secondary industrial, tertiary industrial, rural residential, urban area and recreation sites. 1 Percentage is representative of the area disturbed against reference condition.

May 2017 Page 18

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Table 4.2-5: Disturbance to ACFN Preferred Use Areas Overlapping the Ronald Lake BSA

Reference Condition Area Overlapping Study Alternate Base Case Alternate Application Case Area Disturbance Disturbance PDC Disturbance Project Contribution Preferred Use Area (ha) (ha) (%)1 (ha) (%)1 (ha) (%)1 (ha) (%)1 Homeland Zones 156,065 1,776 1 31,680 20 33,423 21 29,904 19 Fort McKay Proximate ------Zone Fort McMurray Proximate ------Zone Critical Waterway Zones 10,583 252 2 1,498 14 2,534 24 1,246 12 NOTES: - = 0. Numbers are rounded for presentation purposes. Disturbances include the addition of a 183 m buffer to disturbances where a discharge of weapon is prohibited by Alberta hunting regulations. This buffer was applied to primary industrial, secondary industrial, tertiary industrial, rural residential, urban area and recreation sites. 1 Percentage is representative of the area disturbed against the reference condition.

Table 4.2-6: Disturbance to Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation RFMAs that Overlap the Traditional Land Use RSA

Reference Condition Area Overlapping the Alternate Base Case Alternate Application PDC Project Traditional RSA Disturbance Case Disturbance Disturbance Contribution Registered Fur Affiliated Indigenous Management Area Community (ha) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) 1714 ACFN 38,573 16,138 42 16,138 42 23,444 61 - - 2016 Unassigned 15,713 3,078 20 3,080 20 6,678 43 2 <1 2863 ACFN 40,625 229 1 229 1 229 1 - -

May 2017 Page 19

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

NOTES: - = 0; < = less than. Numbers are rounded for presentation purposes.

May 2017 Page 20

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

JRP IR 4.2(a) requested that the updated TLU assessment include information provided by Indigenous communities about their use of areas outside the boundaries of the study areas. In Candler et al. (2013a), ACFN provided site-specific use values throughout their own RSA (hereafter referred to the ACFN RSA). The ACFN RSA covers a large area surrounding the PDA, extending northward to include areas outside of the TLU assessment study areas into portions of the Peace-Athabasca Delta (PAD) and WBNP (see Volume 2, Section 11, Figure 11-5 of the Project Update). Locations that have high concentrations of use values as mapped in Figure 5 of Candler et al. (2013a) that are discussed in the following sections and are located outside of the TLU RSA include the areas of Poplar Point (Indian Reserve [IR] Chipewyan 201G), Point Brule (IR Chipewyan 201F), Ronald Lake, Gardiner Lake, Lake Claire, Mamawi Lake and the region including ACFN reserves and traplines south of Fort Chipewyan and Lake Athabasca. It should be noted that the areas around Ronald Lake and Poplar Point on the west side of the Athabasca River are captured within the Ronald Lake BSA, and therefore are within the study area used to discuss potential effects on bison hunting.

A qualitative discussion of potential Project-related effects on these areas is included under each relevant key indicator section in the ACFN effects assessment (see Section 4.1.2).

4.1.2 Effects Assessment

4.1.2.1 Opportunities to Harvest Bison

Cumulative effects on the opportunity for ACFN members to harvest bison in the Ronald Lake BSA was assessed as high in magnitude, long-term in duration, continuous in frequency, irreversible at the Alternate Base Case, Alternate Application Case and PDC. This is consistent with the assessment results of the Project Update (see Volume 3, Section 17, Table 17-28 of the Project Update). The Project contribution to this effect was assessed as moderate to high in magnitude for those ACFN land users that rely on the Ronald Lake BSA for bison harvesting.

Effects on the opportunity for ACFN members to harvest bison in the Ronald Lake BSA at all assessment cases were considered to be a combination of disturbance1 and changes in access to ACFN preferred bison harvesting areas, effects on the availability of preferred bison habitat and sensory disturbances that might affect Indigenous land users.

ACFN have indicated that bison are an important subsistence, material and cultural resource. ACFN have also described the complex cultural and spiritual relationship

1 Disturbance includes both direct disturbance and the inclusion of a 183 m buffer around locations where the discharge of a weapon is prohibited by Alberta hunting regulations.

May 2017 Page 21

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

that its members have with the lands and waters and the cultural resources within them, including bison. Given this, ACFN consider disturbance affecting the Ronald Lake bison herd to be of particular concern as it is the only reliably harvestable bison herd available to ACFN members. The use of bison is central to ACFN, particularly for families associated with the Poplar Point and Point Brule area, and Elders from these locations recall “being raised on bison” (Candler et al. 2013a, p. 65). Effects on preferred bison harvesting areas are considered to be represented by disturbance to the portions of ACFN cultural protection areas that overlap the Ronald Lake BSA, as well as through disturbance to those specific areas described in Candler et al. (2013a) as used for bison harvesting or unspecified subsistence gathering. Candler et al. (2013a) identified subsistence values as within the Project footprint (defined as the PDA plus 250 m), the ACFN LSA (defined as a 5 km buffer around the PDA), or the ACFN RSA.

The Project and the entirety of the Ronald Lake BSA fall within the k’es hochela nene (Poplar Point Homeland Zone) cultural protection area, of which the Ronald Lake bison herd is a defining component. The Ronald Lake BSA also overlaps the ACFN critical waterway zone cultural protection area. At the Alternate Application Case 31,680 ha (20%) of the portion of the k’es hochela nene that overlaps the Ronald Lake BSA is directly removed because of direct disturbance and areas where the discharge of a weapon is prohibited by Alberta hunting regulations. Of this, 29,904 ha (19%) is directly a result of Project disturbance. At PDC, cumulative disturbance to the same area increases to 33,423 ha (21%). Disturbance to the portion of the ACFN critical waterway zones that overlap the Ronald Lake BSA is 252 ha (2%), 1,498 ha (14%) and 2,534 ha (24%) at the Alternate Base Case, Alternate Application Case and PDC, respectively. The Project contributes 1,246 ha (12%) to this disturbance.

Bison hunting locations are included within the subsistence site-specific values mapped in Candler et al. (2013a), but also include harvest sites for other animals, plant food and medicine collection and trapping areas. Two subsistence values were recorded within 250 m of the Project footprint, 20 subsistence values were recorded within the ACFN LSA (defined as 5 km buffer around the Project footprint) and 1,687 subsistence values were recorded in the ACFN RSA. The two values within 250 m of the Project footprint were described as “cranberry harvesting and fishing area along the Athabasca River” (Candler et al. 2013a, p. 55). No bison harvesting locations were identified in the PDA, however, preferred bison hunting areas are included in the subsistence values within 5 km of the Project footprint. While no bison hunting values were noted in the PDA, it is assumed that these points are representations of hunting patterns that might overlap with portions of the PDA that could be affected by direct Project development. A review of values mapped in Figure 5 of Candler et al. (2013a) shows high concentrations of subsistence values along the Athabasca River, around ACFN reserves, including Poplar Point and Point Brule, as well more northerly reserves south of Lake Athabasca and in areas south of

May 2017 Page 22

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

the PDA. Because of the distribution of the Ronald Lake bison herd, it is assumed that those subsistence values concentrated to the west of Poplar Point and around Ronald Lake likely represent bison harvesting locations and are captured within the Ronald Lake BSA. The cluster of subsistence values north of the PDA stretching from Poplar Point to Ronald Lake are expected to continue to be available at all assessment cases.

Prior to the 1960s, bison hunting was primarily a winter activity because of the amount of meat resulting from a successful hunt. Access into the Ronald Lake area is still easiest in winter, and ACFN members now regularly hunt bison by ski-doo using a series of trails and access routes that cross the proposed Project footprint.

[Candler et al. 2013a, p. 65]

Prior to Project development it is expected that because of the limited amount of direct disturbance in the Ronald Lake BSA, access to and within the area has likely experienced limited effects, although ACFN members reported that Project exploration drilling, road building and large truck traffic adversely affected bison hunting trails and hunting success in 2013. A review of access routes identified in Figure 4 of Candler et al. (2013a) show a single transportation polygon overlapping directly with Project disturbance, this transportation route is assumed to be the existing north-south ‘Keyano River Road’, which is expected to be interrupted by Project development. This interruption is expected to affect land access for harvesters accessing the Ronald Lake BSA from the south. Teck intends to allow access to or through Teck’s mineral surface lease (MSL) as described in the draft AMP (see the response to JRP IR 4.5); however, Teck also recognizes that the use of alternative access strategies, or the implementation of access controls on existing access routes still have the potential to result in additional travel time or costs of Indigenous land users. At PDC, additional effects on trails that connect the Ronald Lake BSA with areas to the south might also occur.

Additional transportation routes were noted along the Athabasca River as well as on the west side of the PDA. The route to the west of the PDA is expected to be available within and north of the Ronald Lake BSA, however, more southern portions of this route are and will be interrupted because of existing and PDC developments. Transportation routes north of the PDA that connect Poplar Point with the Ronald Lake area are expected to be available at all assessment cases. Although bison harvesting was noted to be primarily occurring in winter, should harvesting occur during open water periods by boat, the navigability of the Athabasca River is not expected to be affected as a result of the Project or the Project in combination with other developments. However, Indigenous communities, including ACFN have indicated that they are currently experiencing loss of access

May 2017 Page 23

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

because of low water levels in the Athabasca River, and this concern was considered in each cumulative assessment case.

An ACFN member also reported that it now takes him longer to hunt bison and attributed this change to the effects of industrial disturbance on bison habitat (see Candler et al. 2013a). No changes in bison habitat result because of the removal of projects currently under or not yet constructed from the Base Case. However, disturbance affecting preferred habitat availability for bison has changed relative to what was presented in the Project Update, where high magnitude effects were predicted at Base Case and Application Case prior to reclamation. Based on the updated assessment, there is predicted to be a moderate magnitude effect on the availability of preferred winter habitat. The Project is predicted to displace bison in the Ronald Lake herd that are currently using areas that overlap with the Project footprint. However, based on the current carrying capacity estimates, those bison are predicted to be displaced within the existing range of the Ronald Lake herd. However, the reassessment also predicted a high magnitude effect on mortality risk at Base Case as a result of the high potential for disease transmission from the diseased WBNP bison to the disease-free Ronald Lake herd. The Project is not predicted to add to that effect. See the responses to JRP IRs 7.5(b), 7.5(c) and 7.5(e) for a discussion of the Project’s effects on the Ronald Lake bison herd with consideration of updated data collected since the Project Update.

Sensory disturbances are considered to be represented by changes in noise, odour and visual aesthetics. The furthest extent where the continuous sounds of the Project might be perceptible to land users is 2.3 km southwest of the PDA and continuous noise from the Project will not be perceptible at Poplar Point or Ronald Lake, or the areas that are believed to represent ACFN bison hunting values in Candler et al. (2013a). Odour is expected to be perceptible in the Ronald Lake BSA in regions surrounding the Project. Beyond the PDA, odour is expected to be perceptible to the north and south of the west side of the Project, and might overlap with subsistence values in this area. At PDC, odour will increase in the southern most area of the Ronald Lake BSA. Odour is not expected to be perceptible in the area around Ronald Lake at any assessment case. Visibility of the Project is expected for multiple areas throughout the Ronald Lake BSA, including areas west of Poplar Point that are expected to be highly preferred ACFN bison harvesting locations. Visibility of the Project will also occur in areas outside the Ronald Lake BSA.

4.1.2.2 Opportunities to Hunt Traditionally Important Wildlife Species

Cumulative effects on the opportunity for ACFN members to harvest traditionally important wildlife species in the TLU RSA were assessed as high in magnitude, long-term in duration, continuous in frequency, irreversible at the Alternate Base Case, Alternate Application Case and PDC. This is consistent with the assessment

May 2017 Page 24

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

results of the Project Update (see Volume 3, Section 17, Table 17-28 of the Project Update). The Project contribution to this effect was assessed as low to moderate in magnitude for those ACFN land users that rely on the TLU RSA for wildlife harvesting.

Effects on the continued opportunity to hunt traditionally important wildlife species were considered to be a combination of disturbance2 to and changes in access to ACFN preferred wildlife harvesting areas, effects on the availability of preferred wildlife habitat and sensory disturbances that might affect Indigenous land users.

ACFN have indicated that key wildlife resources that are hunted include moose, bison, woodland caribou, barren-ground caribou and small game such as grouse and ptarmigan. Moose were noted as being highly important and as the most commonly harvested animal by ACFN hunters:

ACFN moose hunting occurs year-round depending on availability, but most commonly takes place in summer through late fall when moose are fat, cows have had their calves, and open water allows for hunting and transporting meat by boat.

[Candler et al. 2013a, p. 69]

Effects on preferred wildlife hunting areas were considered to be represented by disturbance to the portions of ACFN cultural protection areas as defined in Candler et al. (2013a; i.e., the k’es hochela nene, Fort McKay Proximate Zone, Fort McMurray Proximate Zone and critical waterway zones) that overlap the TLU RSA, and to specific areas described in Candler et al. (2013a) as used for hunting or unspecified subsistence gathering. Disturbance to the those portions of the k’es hochela nene, Fort McKay Proximate Zone, Fort McMurray Proximate Zone and critical waterway zones that overlap the TLU RSA will be 43,856 ha (11%), 140,892 ha (37%), 4,329 ha (7%) and 59,162 ha (21%), respectively, between predevelopment conditions and the Alternate Application Case, prior to reclamation. Of this, the Project contributes 32,403 ha (8%) and 3,164 ha (1%) of the disturbance to the k’es hochela nene and critical waterway zones. The Project does not contribute to disturbance in the Fort McKay or Fort McMurray Proximate zones. At PDC, disturbance increases to all ACFN cultural protection areas. Disturbance at PDC is 49,917 ha (13%), 173,514 ha (46%), 5,591 ha (9%) and 74,783 ha (27%) to those portions of the k’es hochela nene, Fort McKay Proximate Zone, Fort McMurray Proximate Zone and critical waterway zones that overlap the TLU RSA, respectively.

2 Disturbance includes both direct disturbance and the inclusion of a 183 m buffer around locations where the discharge of a weapon is prohibited by Alberta hunting regulations.

May 2017 Page 25

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Wildlife hunting locations are included within the subsistence site-specific values mapped in Candler et al. (2013a), but also include bison harvesting sites, plant food and medicine collection and trapping areas. Candler et al. (2013a) identified subsistence values as within the Project footprint (defined as the PDA plus 250 m), the ACFN LSA (defined as a 5 km buffer around the PDA), or the ACFN RSA. Two subsistence values were recorded within 250 m of the Project footprint, 20 subsistence values were recorded within 5 km of the Project footprint) and 1,687 subsistence values were recorded in the ACFN RSA. The two values within 250 m of the Project footprint were described as “cranberry harvesting and fishing area along the Athabasca River” (Candler et al. 2013a, p. 55). No wildlife harvesting locations were identified in the Project footprint.

Multiple moose kill sites are reported to be included in the 20 subsistence values located within 5 km of the Project footprint (Candler et al. 2013a). While no wildlife harvesting values were noted in the PDA, it is assumed that these points are representations of hunting patterns that might overlap with portions of the PDA that could be affected by direct Project development. Areas of concentration within 5 km of the Project footprint were mapped along the Athabasca River, particularly at the confluence with the Firebag River (see Figure 4 in Candler et al. 2013a). Subsistence harvesting values mapped by ACFN in Figure 5 of Candler et al. (2013a) extend throughout the ACFN RSA, including areas outside the TLU RSA. Concentrations of subsistence values in the TLU RSA are noted along the Athabasca River, on ACFN-held RFMAs 1714 and 2863, along the Firebag River and surrounding the hamlet of Fort McKay.

Concentrations of subsistence values outside the TLU RSA are noted in and around Lake Claire and Mamawi Lake, along portions of the Athabasca River north of the TLU RSA and in the region around Gardiner Lake. Particularly heavy concentrations were noted in the areas surrounding ACFN reserves and traplines south of Lake Athabasca, the Ronald Lake area and on ACFN-held RFMA 445. Alternate Base Case developments are expected to be affecting subsistence values surrounding Fort McKay, including those clustered on ACFN-held trapline RFMA 1714, and PDC developments will result in the loss of additional areas identified as being valued for subsistence harvesting. Those areas of concentration that are located north and west of the TLU RSA, including those around Gardiner Lake, Poplar Point, Point Brule and Ronald Lake are not expected to experience direct disturbance because of the Project.

Harvesting of wildlife species occurs at different times throughout the year, depending on the availability of animals. For example:

Hunting birds during the spring and fall migration along the Athabasca River and into or out of the Athabasca Delta provides and essential component of the ACFN

May 2017 Page 26

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

past and present seasonal round. Annual ‘bird camps’ provide an opportunity for hunting, visiting with family, and learning from elders. Many ACFN members living away from the Athabasca Delta return each spring or fall to take part in the hunt, and the social importance of the migration is comparable to the annual return of salmon on the west coast.

[Candler et al. 2013a, p. 63]

ACFN have noted that moose harvesting most commonly occurs by boat, and because of the location of reported bird harvesting locations (along the Athabasca River and into or out of the Athabasca Delta), it is assumed that bird harvesting also commonly relies on water access. A transportation route along the Athabasca River was mapped in Candler et al. (2013a):

The absence of permanent roads in large portions of ACFN territory means that many preferred moose hunting areas, including areas nearest the Project, are only accessible from Fort Chipewyan and the Athabasca Delta by boat, especially in the spring, summer and fall.

[Candler et al. 2013a, p. 69]

Changes in the Athabasca River water levels because of cumulative water withdrawals are predicted to be negligible in Reach 4 (i.e., less than 5 cm) and the Project, in conjunction with other oil sands developments, is not expected to affect navigation on the Athabasca River. However, Indigenous communities, including ACFN, have indicated that they are currently experiencing loss of access because of low water levels in the Athabasca River and this is considered in all cumulative assessment cases.

Downstream portions of Big Creek and Redclay Creek were also reported to be navigated during high water levels by ACFN members for moose hunting. The lands in the Big Creek and Redclay Creek watersheds located within the PDA will be unavailable at the start of Project construction in 2021, including Unnamed Lakes 1 and 2, the Unnamed Creek 2 drainage watershed, upper Big Creek and the portion of Redclay Creek at and upstream of the fish habitat compensation facility (FHCF). The portions of the Big Creek and Redclay Creek watersheds downstream of the PDA will remain permanently available. However, the portion of the Big Creek channel located between the PDA boundary and the Unnamed Creek 2 confluence, although largely undisturbed physically, will experience complete loss of flow in 2081 because of diversion. The diverted flows will be returned to Big Creek at the Unnamed Creek confluence, preserving lower Big Creek.

May 2017 Page 27

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Caribou hunting is reported to occur in late winter and early spring and therefore, access likely occurs by land access routes. Caribou is a wildlife species of importance to ACFN members. However, woodland caribou hunting is often opportunistic as populations in the general region of the Project are small and difficult to locate (Candler et al. 2013a). Barren-ground caribou hunting has historically occurred in the general region, but because of changes in migration patterns, ACFN members have recently had to travel to the Northwest Territories (NWT) to locate animals for harvest (Candler et al. 2013a).

Land transportation corridors were mapped in Candler et al. (2013a) between Fort Chipewyan and Fort McKay. A long access corridor was mapped between Lake Claire and Fort McKay that runs along the west side of the PDA but does not overlap with the Project. The southern-most portions of this route are expected to be affected because of the Horizon Oil Sands Project and additional PDC development. A north-south route that transects the PDA, assumed to be the ‘Keyano River Road’ is expected to be disturbed as a result of Project activities and PDC development. Teck intends to allow access to or through its MSL as described in the draft access management plan (AMP; see the response to JRP IR 4.5). Teck also recognizes that the use of alternative access strategies, or the implementation of access controls have the potential to result in additional travel time or costs of Indigenous land users. A route that connects the ‘Keyano River Road’ with the long access corridor west of the PDA will also be interrupted by PDC development. A transportation route mapped in Candler et al. (2013a) that extends east from Fort McKay is expected to have experienced disturbance because of existing developments. Another transportation route also mapped in Candler et al. (2013a) that connects the Athabasca River to McClelland Lake is expected to be available at the Alternate Base Case and Alternate Application Case but is expected to be interrupted at PDC. Additional transportation routes north of McClelland Lake on the east side of the Athabasca River are expected to be available at all assessment cases.

Changes in the migratory patterns of birds have also been observed by ACFN members, which have resulted in a reduction in the harvesting of these species. Similarly, ACFN members have indicated that “several indicators suggest that moose populations in ACFN territory are declining in areas affected by oil sands development” (Candler et al. 2013, p. 70). The Alternate Application Case wildlife assessment determined that high magnitude effects are predicted for moose compared with the predevelopment case, and prior to reclamation. High magnitude effects are also predicted for other key traditional use wildlife species considered in the wildlife assessment including woodland caribou, black bear and waterfowl, prior to reclamation. The Project contribution to this effect is presented in Table 7.2-2 of Appendix 4.1, Attachment I. At PDC, high magnitude effects prior to reclamation are expected to continue on moose, woodland caribou, black bear and waterfowl compared to predevelopment conditions.

May 2017 Page 28

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Sensory disturbances are considered to be represented by changes in noise, odour and visual aesthetics. The furthest extent that the continuous sounds of the Project might be perceptible to land users is 2.3 km southwest of the PDA and might affect subsistence value locations located within this distance to PDA. Continuous noise from the Project will not be perceptible outside the TLU RSA. Odour effects because of the Project are expected to be perceptible beyond the borders of the terrestrial LSA, particularly to the north and south of the west side of the Project and have the potential to affect subsistence value locations that might be located in these areas. A site-specific subsistence gathering location is located within the northern extent of detectable odours and near the area of potentially perceptible noise. Odours because of existing conditions are predicted to be perceptible for ACFN land users in areas that have concentrations of subsistence use values south of McClelland Lake, including on portions of the ACFN-held trapline 1714, along upstream portions of the Athabasca River and surrounding the community of Fort McKay. Perceptible odour at PDC is predicted to increase within the TLU RSA, and perceptible odours might be experienced continuously along the west side of the Athabasca River from south of Fort McKay through the PDA. Visibility of the Project is expected from multiple areas throughout the TLU RSA, and in areas outside the TLU RSA.

4.1.2.3 Opportunities to Trap Fur-bearers

Cumulative effects on the opportunity for ACFN members to trap fur-bearers in the TLU RSA continue to be assessed as high in magnitude, long-term in duration, continuous in frequency, irreversible at the Alternate Application Case. These effects are limited to those traplines available to ACFN members in the TLU RSA. This is consistent with the assessment results of the Project Update (see Volume 3, Section 17, Table 17-28 of the Project Update). The Project contribution to this effect was assessed as low in magnitude for those ACFN trappers that rely on available ACFN traplines in the TLU RSA.

Effects on the continued opportunity for ACFN trappers to trap traditionally important fur-bearing species are considered to be a result of the combination of disturbance and changes in access to ACFN preferred use areas, effects on the preferred habitat availability of key wildlife species and sensory disturbances that might affect Indigenous land users.

Preferred ACFN trapping areas are considered to be represented by ACFN-held traplines located in the TLU RSA. Candler et al. (2013a) identified multiple ACFN traplines, of which two (RFMA 1714 and 2863) are located in the TLU RSA. Additional traplines held by ACFN are located outside the TLU RSA, north of Poplar Point and include RFMA 445. An additional trapline (RFMA 2016) is currently unassigned and therefore available to trap by ACFN trappers. High

May 2017 Page 29

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

concentrations of site-specific subsistence values are located on each of the ACFN held RFMAs. Candler et al. (2013a) identified subsistence values as within the Project footprint (defined as the PDA plus 250 m), the ACFN LSA (defined as a 5 km buffer around the PDA), or the ACFN RSA. Subsistence site-specific values in Candler et al. (2013a) include trapping areas in addition to other forms of subsistence harvesting but no trapping locations were reported within 250 m or 5 km of the Project footprint in Candler et al. (2013a). Removal of developments currently under construction or approved but not yet constructed results in a decrease of disturbance to RFMA 1714 and no change to RFMA 2863 from what was presented in the Project Update. Disturbance affecting these two traplines at the Alternate Application Case is 16,138 ha (42%) and 229 ha (1%), respectively. Neither of these two traplines will experience direct Project disturbance. RFMA 2863 will not experience any additional disturbance at PDC, but disturbance to RFMA 1714 will increase to 23,444 ha (61%) at PDC. An additional trapline RFMA 2016 is unassigned and therefore, assumed to be available to Indigenous trappers. The removal of developments currently under construction or approved but not yet constructed also does not change the expected disturbance to this RFMA, which at Application Case is predicted to experience 3,080 ha (20%) disturbance, of which 2 ha (<1%) is because of the Project. At PDC, disturbance to RFMA 2016 increases to 6,678 ha (43%). No Project disturbance will affect RFMA 445 or other ACFN traplines located north of the TLU RSA.

Trapping is assumed to generally occur in winter, and therefore utilize land-access routes. A transportation route running east of Fort McKay is assumed to be one by which RFMA 1714 is accessed. This route is assumed to be affected by existing development, and this effect will continue through all assessment cases. Transportation routes that might be used in accessing RFMA 2863 or 445 on the east side of the Athabasca River are not expected to be affected at the Alternate Application Case, and the Fort Chipewyan winter road is expected to provide access to this trapline during winter at all assessment cases. Project disturbance is expected to result in the interruption of the north-south transportation route mapped in Candler et al. (2013a), assumed to be the ‘Keyano River Road’. This has the potential to affect trappers that might travel along this route; however in winter, alternative access is expected to be available on the Fort Chipewyan winter road. For land users travelling across the PDA in times when the winter roads might not be available, Teck intends to allow access to or through its MSL as described in the draft AMP (see the response to JRP IR 4.5). Teck recognizes that the use of alternative access strategies, or the implementation of access controls on existing access routes still have the potential to result in additional travel time or costs for Indigenous land users.

For any trapping that might be accessed by boat during open water periods, cumulative changes in the Athabasca River water levels because of water withdrawals are predicted to be negligible in Reach 4 (i.e., less than 5 cm). The

May 2017 Page 30

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Project, in conjunction with other oil sands developments, is not expected to affect navigation on the Athabasca River in areas downstream of the TLU RSA including RFMA 445 or those located further north (see the response to JRP IR 8.8). Indigenous communities, including ACFN, have indicated that they are currently experiencing loss of access because of low water levels in the Athabasca River and this is considered in all cumulative assessment cases.

Fur-bearing species assessed in the wildlife assessment include, fisher, Canada lynx, muskrat and beaver. The magnitude of changes on the preferred habitat availability on fisher, Canada lynx and muskrat was assessed as high from predevelopment conditions prior to reclamation in the TLU RSA. The magnitude of changes to the preferred habitat availability of beaver was assessed as moderate prior to reclamation, also from predevelopment conditions. The Project contribution to this effect is presented in Table 7.2-2 of Appendix 4.1, Attachment I. At PDC, high magnitude effects on fisher, Canada lynx and muskrat and moderate magnitude effects on beaver are expected to continue, prior to reclamation in the TLU RSA.

Sensory disturbances are considered to be represented by changes in noise, odour and visual aesthetics. Project noise effects are not expected to be perceptible on either RFMA 1714 or 2863 or at any locations outside the TLU RSA. Noise from the Fort Hills project at PDC, will be expected in areas southeast of the Project, including on RFMA 1714. Trappers on RFMA 1714 are also expected to be experiencing detectible odour at the existing case (see Volume 3, Section 4, Figure 4-41 of the Project Update), and the range of detectible odour will increase at PDC. Trappers travelling on the upstream portions of the Athabasca River might detect Project odours and odours from existing developments as will trappers utilizing RFMA 2016. The extent or detectible odours will increase in the southern portion of the TLU RSA at PDC, including on the Athabasca River and RFMA 2016. Project odour is not expected to be detectible on RFMA 2863 or in any areas outside the boundaries of the TLU RSA. Visibility of the Project is expected for multiple areas throughout the TLU RSA, including in locations on RFMA 1714, 2016 and 2863. Visibility of the Project will also extend outside the boundaries of the TLU RSA and the Project will be visible at locations on RFMA 445.

4.1.2.4 Opportunities to Fish for Traditionally Important Species

Cumulative effects on the opportunity for ACFN members to fish for traditional important species in the aquatics RSA were assessed as regional, long-term, continuous, irreversible and low to moderate magnitude at the Alternate Base Case, Alternate Application Case and PDC. This is consistent with the assessment results of the Project Update (see Volume 3, Section 17, Table 17-28 of the Project Update). The Project contribution to this effect was assessed as low in magnitude for those ACFN land users that rely on the aquatics RSA for fishing.

May 2017 Page 31

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Candler et al. (2013a) identified subsistence values as within the Project footprint (defined as the PDA plus 250 m), the ACFN LSA (defined as a 5 km buffer around the PDA), or the ACFN RSA. Two subsistence values were reported in Candler et al. (2013a, p. 55) within 250 m of the Project footprint, including “fishing areas along the Athabasca River”. An important habitation area associated with fishing called tabił k’e (meaning ‘net setting place’) is located on the west side of the Athabasca River, near its confluence with Redclay Creek. The lands in the Redclay Creek watershed located within the PDA will be unavailable at the start of Project construction in 2021. Redclay Creek will be diverted within the PDA, but flows will be returned to the watercourse, preserving the creek downstream of the FHCF outlet channel. This includes the filling period for the fish habitat compensation lake (FHCL) when a temporary by-pass will be used to maintain downstream flows, as described in the draft DFOP (see the response to JRP IR 2.1). The portion of the Redclay Creek watershed within the FHCF will become available again; although in an altered state, once monitoring has determined that fish populations in the FHCL have reached levels that would support fish harvest, which is anticipated to be 2036 or later (see the response to JRP IR 2.1).

Additional fishing areas within 5 km of the Project footprint include “preferred fishing areas for pickerel, walleye and whitefish along the Athabasca River and near its confluence with the Firebag River” (Candler et al. 2013a, p. 55). Although subsistence fishing values were noted in the Athabasca River, Candler et al. (2013a, p. 26) also notes that:

many ACFN members now restrict their intake of fish to fish caught in inland lakes or tributaries away from the Athabasca as a result of widespread concerns regarding contaminants in the Athabasca.

[Candler et al. 2013a, p. 26]

May 2017 Page 32

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Subsistence values located outside the aquatics RSA that could represent fishing locations are those areas of the Athabasca River downstream of Embarras Portage and areas within the PAD. No effects on fish or fish habitat from the Project will occur at these locations, and as described in Appendix 4.1, Attachment I, Section 4.2 the Project in combination with other developments including the operating mines is not expected to have an appreciable influence on the water levels in the Athabasca River downstream of Fort McMurray. The Project is similarly predicted to have negligible effects on the surface water quality of the Athabasca River at Embarras and on the surface water quality downstream of this point including Lake Athabasca and the PAD.

The main seasons for fishing are spring, summer and fall, where:

boat access is the only option for moving between Fort Chipewyan and seasonal camps and villages, Indian reserves, and core ACFN territories along the Athabasca delta, the river itself and its tributaries.

[Candler et al. 2013a, p. 110]

Therefore, access to potential fishing locations within and outside the aquatics RSA is assumed to occur by boat. Changes in the Athabasca River water levels because of cumulative water withdrawals are predicted to be negligible in Reach 4 (i.e., less than 5 cm). The Project, in conjunction with other oil sands developments, is not expected to affect navigation on the Athabasca River (see Volume 3, Section 6 of the Project Update). However, Indigenous communities, including ACFN, have indicated that they are currently experiencing loss of access because of low water levels in the Athabasca River and these effects are expected to continue at all cumulative assessment cases.

Sensory disturbances (i.e., noise, odour and visual aesthetics) will be experienced on portions of the Athabasca River. While all receptor locations identified in the

May 2017 Page 33

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

acoustics assessment were within requirements for the Alternate Application Case, the RWI might result in detectible sound for some land users while travelling the Athabasca River. Noise from the Fort Hills project at PDC, will be expected in areas southeast of the Project including along portions of the Athabasca River. Project odour is not predicted to be detectible along the Athabasca River, but areas upstream are experiencing detectible odours because of existing developments. The range of detectible odours along the Athabasca River is expected to increase at PDC. Project infrastructure (Athabasca River Bridge, RWI and associated bridge to Dalkin Island) will be visible along the Athabasca River in spite of a vegetation screen that will be planted at the RWI.

4.1.2.5 Opportunities to Harvest Traditionally Important Vegetation

Cumulative effects on the opportunity for ACFN members to harvest traditionally important vegetation in the TLU RSA were assessed as high in magnitude, long- term, continuous and irreversible at the Alternate Base Case, Alternate Application Case and PDC. This is consistent with the assessment results of the Project Update (see Volume 3, Section 17, Table 17-28 of the Project Update). The Project contribution to this effect was assessed as low in magnitude for those ACFN land users that rely on the TLU RSA to harvest vegetation.

Effects on the continued opportunity to harvest traditionally important vegetation are considered to be a combination of disturbance and changes in access to ACFN preferred use areas, as well as changes in traditional use plant potential and sensory disturbances.

Effects on preferred ACFN plant harvesting use areas were considered to be represented by the portions of ACFN cultural protection areas (i.e., the k’es hochela nene, Fort McKay Proximate Zone, Fort McMurray Proximate Zone and critical waterway zones) that overlap the TLU RSA, and through a comparison of disturbance with those specific descriptions of plant harvesting areas described in Candler et al. (2013a). Candler et al. (2013a) identified subsistence values as within the Project footprint (defined as the PDA plus 250 m), the ACFN LSA (defined as a 5 km buffer around the PDA), or the ACFN RSA. A cranberry harvesting location was identified in Candler et al. (2013a) as being within 250 m of the Project footprint. A review of Figure 4 in Candler et al. (2013a) indicates that this value is likely located on or near an access road. This assessment assumes that Project development will result in the removal this cranberry harvesting location but the exact location of this site has not been provided by ACFN.

Plant food collection areas for cranberries and blueberries were also reported within 5 km of the Project footprint and site-specific subsistence values, which include plant harvesting values, are located throughout the extent of the ACFN RSA.

May 2017 Page 34

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Concentrations of subsistence values in the TLU RSA are noted along the Athabasca River, on ACFN-held RFMAs 1714 and 2863, along the Firebag River and surrounding the hamlet of Fort McKay. Alternate Base Case developments are expected to be affecting subsistence values surrounding Fort McKay, including those clustered on ACFN-held trapline RFMA 1714 and PDC developments will result in the loss of additional areas identified as being valued for subsistence harvesting.

Concentrations of subsistence values outside the TLU RSA are noted in and around Lake Claire and Mamawi Lake, along portions of the Athabasca River north of the TLU RSA, in the region around Gardiner Lake. Particularly heavy concentrations were noted in the areas surrounding ACFN reserves and traplines south of Lake Athabasca, the Ronald Lake area and on ACFN-held RFMA 445. Alternate Base Case developments are expected to affect subsistence values surrounding Fort McKay, including those clustered on ACFN-held trapline RFMA 1714. PDC developments will result in the loss of additional areas identified as being valued for subsistence harvesting. Those areas of concentration that are located north and west of the TLU RSA, including those around Namur Lake, Poplar Point, Point Brule and Ronald Lake are not expected to experience direct disturbance because of the Project.

At the Alternate Application Case, values located in the Fort McKay Proximate Zone, which includes the region around Fort McKay and RFMA 1714 are expected to be disturbed as a result of existing developments. 122,500 ha (32%) of the portion of the Fort McKay Proximate Zone that overlaps the TLU RSA is expected to be disturbed and unavailable for plant harvesting. In addition, 38,451 ha (10%), 3,361 (5%) and 55,050 ha (18%) of those portions of the k’es hochela nene, Fort McMurray Proximate Zone, and critical waterway zones that overlap the TLU RSA will be disturbed at the Alternate Application Case, respectively. The Project will contribute 28,498 ha (7%) of the disturbance to the k’es hochela nene and 1,703 ha (1%) to the disturbance affecting the ACFN critical waterway zones. At PDC, disturbance to those portions of the Fort McKay Proximate Zone, k’es hochela nene, Fort McMurray Proximate Zone, and critical waterway zones that overlap the TLU RSA increases to 151,416 ha (40%), 42,446 ha (11%), 3,686 ha (6%) and 64,313 ha (23%), respectively.

At the Alternate Application Case, 639,713 ha of the TLU RSA are expected to contain combined high and moderate TLU plant potential. This is a 21% decrease from predevelopment conditions, prior to reclamation. Of this decrease, 25,024 ha are attributable to the Project, a percentage decrease of 4% in the TLU RSA. A decrease of 206,718 ha of the combined high and moderate traditional use plant potential is expected at PDC in the TLU RSA; a decrease of 26% from predevelopment conditions.

May 2017 Page 35

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Plants are collected both for subsistence and medicinal purposes. Means and timing of plants harvesting were not identified in the literature reviewed, but it is expected that plants are harvested either for subsistence or medicine during spring, summer and fall months when plants are easier to identify. Preferred plant species are assumed to include both terrestrial and aquatic species, and access is considered to occur both by land and water routes. As previously described, the Project in conjunction with other oil sands developments is not expected to affect navigation on the Athabasca River (see the response to JRP IR 8.8). However, Indigenous communities, including ACFN, have indicated that they are currently experiencing loss of access because of low water levels in the Athabasca River and this effect is considered in all cumulative assessment cases.

Potential effects on land transportation corridors, mapped in Candler et al. (2013a) between Fort Chipewyan and Fort McKay, include disturbance to the southern portions of a long access corridor mapped between Lake Claire and Fort McKay that runs along the west-side of the PDA because of the Horizon Oil Sands Project and additional PDC development. The transportation route also mapped in Candler et al. (2013a) that connects the Athabasca River to McClelland Lake is expected to be available at the Alternate Base Case and Alternate Application Case but is expected to be interrupted at PDC. Additional transportation routes north of McClelland Lake on the east side of the Athabasca River are expected to be available at all assessment cases. A north-south route that transects the PDA, assumed to be the ‘Keyano River Road’ is expected to be disturbed as a result of Project activities and PDC development. Teck intends to allow access to or through Teck’s MSL as described in the draft AMP (see the response to JRP IR 4.5). Teck further recognizes that the use of alternative access strategies, or the implementation of access controls might result in additional travel time and costs for Indigenous land users. A transportation route mapped in Candler et al. (2013a) that extends east from Fort McKay is expected to have experienced disturbance because of existing developments.

Sensory disturbances are considered to be represented by changes in noise, odour and visual aesthetics. The furthest extent where the continuous sounds of the Project might be perceptible to land users is 2.3 km southwest of the PDA and might affect subsistence value locations located within this distance to PDA. Odour effects because of the Project are expected to be perceptible beyond the borders of the terrestrial LSA, particularly to the north and south of the west side of the Project. A site-specific subsistence gathering location is located in proximity to the PDA and within the northern extent of detectable odours and near the area of potentially perceptible noise. No odour or continuous noise from the Project will be perceptible outside the boundaries of the TLU RSA. Noise from the Fort Hills project at PDC, will be expected in areas southeast of the Project on the east side of the Athabasca River. Odours because of existing conditions are predicted to be detectable for ACFN land users in areas that have concentrations of subsistence use values south of McClelland Lake, including on portions of the ACFN-held trapline 1714, along

May 2017 Page 36

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

upstream portions of the Athabasca River and surrounding the community of Fort McKay. Perceptible odour at PDC is predicted to increase within the TLU RSA, and perceptible odours might be experienced continuously along the west side of the Athabasca River from south of Fort McKay through the PDA. Visibility of the Project is expected for multiple areas throughout and beyond the TLU RSA.

4.1.2.6 Opportunities to Use Culturally Important Sites and Areas

Cumulative effects on the opportunity for ACFN members to use culturally important sites and areas in the TLU RSA were assessed as regional, long-term, continuous, irreversible and high magnitude at the Alternate Base Case, Alternate Application Case and PDC. This is consistent with the assessment results of the Project Update (see Volume 3, Section 17, Table 17-28 of the Project Update). The Project contribution to this effect was assessed as moderate to high in magnitude for those ACFN land users that use the TLU RSA for cultural activities.

Effects on the continued opportunity to use culturally important sites and areas are considered to be a combination of disturbance to preferred use areas, changes in access to these areas and sensory disturbances that might affect Indigenous land users. Effects on ACFN preferred culturally important sites and areas were considered to be represented by the disturbance to the overlapping portions of the ACFN cultural protection areas (i.e., the k’es hochela nene, Fort McKay Proximate Zone, Fort McMurray Proximate Zone and critical waterway zones) and the TLU RSA, and through disturbance to specific sites and areas described in Candler et al. (2013a) as having cultural, spiritual or habitation value. Candler et al. (2013a) identified cultural, spiritual or habitation values as within the Project footprint (defined as the PDA plus 250 m), the ACFN LSA (defined as a 5 km buffer around the PDA), or the ACFN RSA.

Candler et al. (2013a) recorded cultural/spiritual values, which include burials, village sites, ceremonial areas and medicinal plant sites. Two cultural/spiritual values were recorded within 250 m of the Project footprint, three within 5 km of the Project footprint, and 245 within the RSA depicted in Candler et al. (2013a). A review of mapped cultural/spiritual values in Figure 4 of Candler et al. (2013a) shows a large cultural/spiritual polygon extending west from the confluence of Redclay Creek and the Athabasca River, Project development will result in disturbance to the portions of the polygon west of Redclay Creek. A second cultural/spiritual value is located in or immediately east of the Project access road. While the exact location of this value was not provided by ACFN, for the purposes of this assessment it is assumed that it will be directly disturbed by Project development. Within 5 km of the Project footprint, an important habitation area called tabił k’e (meaning ‘net setting place) is located on the west side of the

May 2017 Page 37

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Athabasca River, near its confluence with Redclay Creek. This site is not expected to experience any direct disturbance.

Habitation values were also recorded in Candler et al. (2013a), which include temporary or occasional, and permanent or seasonal camps and cabins. Six habitation values were recorded within 250 m of the Project footprint, 17 within 5 km of then Project footprint and 309 within the ACFN RSA. Those habitation values within 250 m of the Project footprint are described as “permanent cabins and camps used by ACFN members as a base for hunting and other rights-based practices” (Candler et al. 2013a, p. 55). A review of mapped habitation values visible in Figure 4 of Candler et al. (2013a) indicates a cluster of habitation values in close proximity to the RWI. Additional habitation values that are located within 5 km of the Project footprint include camps and cabins located along the Athabasca River and in the Birch Mountains. “These include the locations of cabins and houses built and resided in by multiple generations of the Tripe de Roche family since at least the early 1900s” (Candler et al. 2013a, p. 55). Locations outside the PDA are expected to continue to be available for use by ACFN members.

Multiple areas of concentration of cultural / spiritual values are mapped in areas that overlap with the TLU RSA, such as surrounding Fort McKay, along the Firebag River and in the south of Poplar Point. Habitation values are also located at multiple locations throughout the TLU RSA as well as in areas outside the TLU RSA, such as on ACFN reserves. Prior to reclamation, disturbance to the those portions k’es hochela nene, Fort McKay Proximate Zone, Fort McMurray Proximate Zone and critical waterway zones that overlap the TLU RSA at the Alternate Application Case will be 38,451 ha (10%), 122,500 (32%), 3,361 (5%) and 55,050 ha (18%), respectively, between the Alternate Application Case and predevelopment conditions. Of this, the Project will contribute 28,498 ha (7%) of the disturbance to the k’es hochela nene and 1,703 ha (1%) to the disturbance affecting the ACFN critical waterway zones. At PDC, disturbance to those portions of the Fort McKay Proximate Zone, k’es hochela nene, Fort McMurray Proximate Zone, and critical waterway zones that overlap the TLU RSA increases to 151,416 ha (40%), 42,446 ha (11%), 3,686 ha (6%) and 64,313 ha (23%), respectively.

Candler et al. (2013a) reported that cultural and spiritual values located in the ACFN RSA, which include areas outside the TLU RSA, such as portions of the PAD and ACFN reserves and traplines south of Lake Athabasca. Candler et al. (2013a, p. 82) noted that cultural and spiritual values:

include ceremonial places, medicine collection places, and major burial sites sensitive to a variety of effects, including water levels and water quality changes. ACFN member’s observations that oil sands-related water withdrawals are adversely affecting the flow of the Athabasca River suggest that some or all of these

May 2017 Page 38

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

cultural/spiritual values are likely to be impacted by the Project as a result of anticipated effects on Athabasca River levels, especially during low flow, and increased perceived contamination of traditional resources and foods, including plants and animals, leading to impaired or reduced use.

As described in Appendix 4.2, Attachment I, Section 4.2, the Project in combination with other developments including the operating mines is not expected to have an appreciable influence on the water levels in the Athabasca River downstream of Fort McMurray. The Project is similarly predicted to have negligible effects on the surface water quality of the Athabasca River at Embarras and on the surface water quality downstream of this point including Lake Athabasca and the PAD. Cultural sites mapped in Figure 5 of Candler et al. (2013b) are generally located along the Athabasca River and clustered south of Lake Athabasca so access to these areas is expected to occur by boat. For access that occurs by land, the effects on transportation routes identified in Candler et al. (2013a) have been previously described under the opportunities to harvest traditionally important vegetation key indicator, above.

Sensory disturbances are expected to be experienced at the Alternate Application Case in areas immediately surrounding the Project and existing developments. The furthest extent where the continuous sounds of the Project might be perceptible to land users is 2.3 km southwest of the PDA. Based on a comparison of expected noise contours and cultural/spiritual and habitation values mapped in Candler et al. (2013a), land users using the habitation values near the RWI might detect noise, as might land users relying on the cultural/spiritual polygon that extends west of the confluence of the Athabasca River and Redclay Creek. Continuous noise from the Project will not be perceptible outside the TLU RSA. Noise from the Fort Hills project at PDC, will be expected in areas southeast of the Project on the east side of the Athabasca River. Odour effects because of the Project are expected to be perceptible beyond the borders of the terrestrial LSA, particularly to the north and south of the west side of the Project. No cultural / spiritual or habitation values were noted in areas expected to experience odours because of the Project but odours because of existing conditions or at PDC are predicted to be detectable for ACFN land users in areas that have concentrations of subsistence use values south of McClelland Lake, including on portions of the ACFN-held trapline 1714, along upstream portions of the Athabasca River and surrounding the community of Fort McKay. Visibility of the Project is expected from multiple areas throughout and beyond the TLU RSA.

4.1.3 Effects Classification

Table 4.2-7 provides the effects classification and consequence determination for the cumulative effects at the Alternate Base Case, Alternate Application Case and PDC

May 2017 Page 39

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

on TLU key indicators for ACFN. Table 4.2-8 provides the effects classification for the incremental effects of the Project between the Alternate Base Case and the Alternate Application Case.

May 2017 Page 40

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Table 4.2-7: Cumulative Effects Classification and Determination of Consequence ACFN Traditional Land Use Key Indicators

Magnitude Consequence Alternate Alternate Alternate Alternate Geographic Base Application Base Application Key Indicators Extent Duration Frequency Reversibility Case Case PDC Case Case PDC Long- Opportunities to harvest bison Regional Continuous Irreversible High High High term Opportunities to hunt traditionally Long- Regional Continuous Irreversible High High High important wildlife species term Long- Opportunities to trap fur-bearers Regional1 Continuous Irreversible High High High term High High High Opportunities to fish for traditionally Long- Low to Low to Low to Regional Continuous Irreversible important species term moderate moderate moderate Opportunities to harvest traditionally Long- Regional Continuous Irreversible High High High important vegetation term Opportunities to use culturally important Long- Regional Continuous Irreversible High High High sites and areas term NOTES: 1 These effects are limited to RFMAs 1714, 2863 and to any extent that ACFN members trap on RFMA 2016.

Table 4.2-81: Effects Classification of the Incremental Effects of the Project for ACFN Traditional Land Use Key Indicators

Key Indicators Geographic Extent Duration Frequency Reversibility Magnitude Opportunities to harvest bison Regional Long-term Continuous Irreversible Moderate to high Opportunities to hunt traditionally important wildlife species Regional Long-term Continuous Irreversible Low to moderate Opportunities to trap fur-bearers Regional1 Long-term Continuous Irreversible Low Opportunities to fish for traditionally important species Regional Long-term Continuous Irreversible Low Opportunities to harvest traditionally important vegetation Regional Long-term Continuous Irreversible Low Opportunities to use culturally important sites and areas Regional Long-term Continuous Irreversible Moderate to high NOTES: 1 These effects are limited to RFMAs 1714, 2863 and to any extent that ACFN members trap on RFMA 2016.

May 2017 Page 41

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

4.2 Fort Chipewyan Métis Local 125

4.2.1 Effects Analysis

Since the submission of the Project Update, Teck has received Métis Local 125’s Integrated Cultural Assessment (Integral Ecology Group 2015). Integral Ecology Group (2015) and the Métis Local 125 Land Use & Ecological Knowledge Study relied on the same spatial study areas to discuss potential Project effects. These documents were reviewed to determine an updated Métis Local 125 preferred use area that did not rely on the 160 km buffer around Fort Chipewyan that the Alberta government considers to be a Métis harvesting areas (as requested in JRP IR 4.2[a]).

The Métis Local 125 LSA used in their Project-specific studies was comprised of the Project footprint plus a 10 km buffer. “This was chosen as a moderate buffer of the PDA based on setback distances required to experience no or limited noise, odours and visual disturbance” (Woven Paths 2015, p. 7). The Métis Local 125 RSA “encompasses what the downstream and potential cumulative impacts are of the Project on homelands of the Fort Chipewyan Métis” and focuses:

on the Peace-Athabasca Delta (PAD), modified to include adjacent Métis traplines on Lake Athabasca and the Athabasca River, and adjacent waters flowing north from the Project along Buckton Creek and McIvor River into Lake Claire.

[Woven Paths 2015, p. 7]

Mapped spatial land and resource use data in Woven Paths (2015) were only provided for the Métis Local 125 LSA, which fully encompasses the Project Update terrestrial LSA and extends into the TLU RSA. The Métis Local 125 LSA and RSA also overlap portions of the aquatics LSA, RSA and Ronald Lake BSA. As the southern boundary of the Métis Local 125 RSA extends no more than 10 km south of the Project footprint, the southern portion of the TLU RSA, including the majority of existing oil sands developments were not captured in this boundary. However, “all [Métis Local 125] study participants discussed hunting along the Athabasca River at some time while travelling downstream from Fort McMurray or Fort McKay to Fort Chipewyan” (Woven Paths 2015, p. 14).

May 2017 Page 42

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Based on the above information, for the purposes of this assessment it is assumed that the preferred land use area of those Métis Local 125 members that use the region for traditional use activities overlaps the full extent of the terrestrial LSA, TLU RSA, Ronald Lake BSA and aquatics LSA and RSA. Updated disturbance calculations to the terrestrial LSA, TLU RSA and Ronald Lake BSA are provided in Table 4.2-9. Disturbances to preferred use areas are quantified for land-based areas only. Quantitative disturbance to preferred aquatic areas are considered to be captured through the effects on fish habitat as discussed in the section on the availability of fish (see Section 3.1.2). For the purposes of this assessment, preferred trapping areas are considered to be those traplines held by or reported to be currently trapped by members of that community that overlap the TLU RSA. One trapline (RFMA 1275) was identified as being trapped by Métis Local 125 members. This trapline overlaps the PDA. An additional trapline, RFMA 2016, is currently unassigned, and is therefore, considered to be potentially available to all Indigenous communities for trapping. This trapline overlaps a small portion of the terrestrial LSA and is in the TLU RSA. Table 4.2-10 presents disturbance to these RFMAs.

JRP IR 4.2(a) requested that the updated TLU assessment include information provided by Indigenous communities about their use of areas outside the boundaries of the study areas considered within Teck’s assessment. Mapped areas of use in Woven Paths (2015) were only provided from the Métis Local 125 LSA, which encompassed the PDA plus a 10 km buffer (see Volume 2, Figure 11-7 of the Project Update). The majority of this area overlaps the TLU RSA with the exception of a small portion located north of Township 102. The portion that falls outside the TLU RSA is captured within the Ronald Lake BSA. While mapped locations of use were not provided outside of the Métis Local 125 LSA in Woven Paths (2015), a Métis Local 125 RSA was defined, which included portions of the “PAD, modified to include adjacent Métis traplines on Lake Athabasca, and adjacent waters flowing north from the Project along Buckton Creek and McIvor River into Lake Claire” (Woven Paths 2015, p. 7). Specific mapped locations of use outside the TLU RSA, aquatics RSA and Ronald Lake BSA were not provided in Woven Paths (2015).

May 2017 Page 43

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Table 4.2-9: Disturbance to the Traditional Land Use RSA, Terrestrial LSA and Ronald Lake BSA

Reference Alternate Base Case Alternate Application Case Condition PDC Disturbance Project Contribution Study Area Disturbance Disturbance Total Area (ha) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%)

Traditional land use 189,140 16 217,638 18 268,793 22 28,498 2 1,195,556 RSA [217,229] [18] [249,702] [21] [313,633] [26] [32,403] [3] 927 2 29,425 66 30,623 71 28,498 66 Terrestrial LSA 43,349 [963] [2] [33,348] [78] [35,056] [81] [32,385] [75] Ronald Lake BSA 156,065 [1,776] [1] [31,680] [20] [33,423] [21] [29,904] [20] NOTES: - = 0. Numbers are rounded for presentation purposes. Numbers in square brackets provide calculations with the addition of a 183 m buffer to disturbances where a discharge of weapon is prohibited by Alberta hunting regulations. This buffer was applied to primary industrial, secondary industrial, tertiary industrial, rural residential, urban area and recreation sites.

Table 4.2-10: Disturbance to Métis Local 125 RFMAs that Overlap the Traditional Land Use RSA

Reference Condition Alternate Base Case Alternate Application PDC Project Registered Fur Affiliated Indigenous Area Overlapping the Disturbance Case Disturbance Disturbance Contribution Management Area Community Traditional RSA (ha) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) 1275 Métis Local 125 55,403 2,442 4 26,565 48 30,759 56 24,126 44 2016 Unassigned 15,713 3,078 20 3,080 20 6,678 43 2 <1 NOTES: - = 0; < = less than. Numbers are rounded for presentation purposes.

May 2017 Page 44

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

4.2.2 Effects Assessment

4.2.2.1 Opportunities to Harvest Bison

Cumulative effects on the opportunity for Métis Local 125 members to harvest bison in the Ronald Lake BSA were assessed as high in magnitude, long-term in duration, continuous in frequency, irreversible at the Alternate Base Case, Alternate Application Case and PDC. This is consistent with the assessment results of the Project Update (see Volume 3, Section 17, Table 17-28 of the Project Update). The Project contribution to this effect was assessed as moderate to high in magnitude for those Métis Local 125 members that rely on the Ronald Lake BSA for bison harvesting.

Effects on the continued opportunity to harvest bison are considered to be a combination of disturbance3 and changes in access to Métis Local 125 preferred bison harvesting areas, effects on the availability of preferred bison habitat and sensory disturbances that might affect Indigenous land users. The entirety of the Ronald Lake BSA is considered to represent the Métis Local 125 preferred bison harvesting area.

78 subsistence sites and areas were reported within 10 km of the Project footprint, and 13 within the Project footprint. While the specific type of subsistence activity these represent are not provided in the report (e.g., hunting of moose, bison, bear, fishing, or plant harvesting), Métis Local 125 members are reported to hunt bison during the late summer and early fall both in the Project footprint and within the surrounding area (Woven Paths 2015). The mapped areas of subsistence use in Woven Paths (2015) cover almost the entirety of the Project footprint and throughout most of the Métis Local 125 LSA, which extends 10 km out for the PDA. Mapped data for beyond this area was not provided in the report, but the extent provided shows overlap with the Ronald Lake BSA. While those bison harvesting areas located in the PDA will no longer be available to Métis Local 125 harvesters because of Project development at maximum build out, more northerly areas mapped as subsistence values will not be directly disturbed because of the Project. At the Alternate Application Case, 31,680 ha (20%) of the Ronald Lake BSA is predicted to be disturbed. The Project contribution to the total disturbance is 29,904 ha (20% of the total area of the Ronald Lake BSA). At PDC, disturbance to the Ronald Lake BSA increases to 33,423 ha (21%).

Woven Paths (2015) indicates that bison hunting occurs in late summer and early fall. Regarding access, Métis Local 125 provided the following general statement, not specifically related to bison harvesting:

3 Disturbance includes both direct disturbance and the inclusion of a 183 m buffer around locations where the discharge of a weapon is prohibited by Alberta hunting regulations.

May 2017 Page 45

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Historically, access was with canoe, scow or dog-sled. Current access method along the river are by motorboats, canoes (downstream), and commercial barges. Over the last couple of decades, these can only be used up till the early fall as the water level drops significantly. In winter, land users would use skidoo on the river to access certain areas.

[Woven Paths 2015, p. 17]

A dense network of transportation values were mapped in Woven Paths (2015) within 10 km of the Project footprint. This included a value that aligns with the Athabasca River, likely reflecting water access, as well as multiple overland trails in the Project footprint that are expected to be disturbed because of the Project development. An existing road was also mapped north-south that is intersected by the PDA. This road is assumed to be the ‘Keyano River Road’, which will be disturbed because of Project development and PDC development. The interruption of this route is expected to affect land users who rely on this road to connect areas south of the PDA to bison harvesting areas north of the Project. Teck intends to allow access to or through Teck’s MSL as described in the draft AMP (see the response to JRP IR 4.5) to assist in the mitigation of this effect on land users although Teck recognizes that the use of alternative access strategies, or the implementation of access controls on existing access routes will have the potential to result in additional travel time or costs of Indigenous land users.

To the extent that Métis Local 125 harvesters hunt bison by boat, the Project in conjunction with other oil sands developments is not expected to affect navigation on the Athabasca River (see Volume 3, Section 6 of the Project Update). However, Indigenous communities, including Métis Local 125, have indicated that they are currently experiencing loss of access because of low water levels in the Athabasca River and this concern was considered in each cumulative assessment case.

There are no changes in bison habitat because of the removal of projects currently under or not yet constructed from the Base Case. However, disturbance affecting preferred habitat availability for bison has changed relative to what was presented in the Project Update, where high magnitude effects were predicted at Base Case and Application Case prior to reclamation. Based on the updated assessment, there is predicted to be a moderate magnitude effect on the availability of preferred winter habitat. The Project is predicted to displace bison in the Ronald Lake herd that are currently using areas that overlap with the Project footprint. However, based on the current carrying capacity estimates, those bison are predicted to be displaced within the existing range of the herd. However, the reassessment also predicted a high magnitude effect on mortality risk at Base Case as a result of the high potential for disease transmission from the diseased WBNP bison to the disease-free Ronald Lake herd. The Project is not predicted to add to that effect. See the responses to JRP IR

May 2017 Page 46

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

7.5(b), 7.5(c) and 7.5(e) for a discussion of the Project’s effects on the Ronald Lake bison herd with consideration of updated data collected since the Project Update.

Sensory disturbances are considered to be represented by changes in noise, odour and visual aesthetics. The furthest extent where the continuous sounds of the Project might be perceptible to land users is 2.3 km, which might affect Métis Local 125 bison harvesters if the subsistence values in this area represent bison harvesting. Odour is expected to be perceptible in the Ronald Lake BSA in regions surrounding the Project. Beyond the PDA, odour is expected to be perceptible to the north and south of the west side of the Project, and might overlap with subsistence values in this area. At PDC, odour will increase in the southern most area of the Ronald Lake BSA. Odour is not expected to be perceptible in more northerly areas also mapped as having subsistence values in Woven Paths (2015), such as the Ronald Lake area at any assessment case. Visibility of the Project is expected for multiple areas throughout the Ronald Lake BSA. Visibility of the Project will also occur in areas outside the Ronald Lake BSA.

4.2.2.2 Opportunities to Hunt Traditionally Important Wildlife Species

Cumulative effects on the opportunity for Métis Local 125 members to harvest traditionally important wildlife species in the TLU RSA were assessed as high in magnitude, long-term in duration, continuous in frequency, irreversible at the Alternate Base Case, Alternate Application Case and PDC. This is consistent with the assessment results of the Project Update (see Volume 3, Section 17, Table 17-28 of the Project Update). The Project contribution to this effect was assessed as low to moderate for those Métis Local 125 land users that rely on the TLU RSA for wildlife harvesting.

Effects on the continued opportunity to hunt traditionally important wildlife species were considered to be a combination of disturbance4 to and changes in access to Métis Local 125 preferred wildlife harvesting areas, effects on the availability of preferred wildlife habitat and sensory disturbances that might affect Indigenous land users. Effects on preferred wildlife hunting areas are considered to be represented by disturbance to the TLU RSA, and to specific areas described in Woven Paths (2015) as used for hunting or unspecified subsistence gathering. In response to the request made in JRP IR 4.2, the identification of Métis Local 125 preferred wildlife harvesting areas no longer relies on the 160 km buffer around Fort Chipewyan and instead looks to the distribution of subsistence harvesting locations provided in Woven Paths (2015).

4 Disturbance includes both direct disturbance and the inclusion of a 183 m buffer around locations where the discharge of a weapon is prohibited by Alberta hunting regulations.

May 2017 Page 47

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

78 subsistence sites and areas were reported within 10 km of the Project footprint, and 13 km within the Project footprint. While the specific type of subsistence activity these represent are not provided in the report (e.g., hunting of moose, bison, bear, fishing, plant harvesting). The mapped areas of subsistence use in Woven Paths (2015) cover almost the entirety of the Project footprint and the majority of a 10 km buffer around the Project footprint with the exception of the western-most portion of this area.

Métis Local 125 indicated that they regularly hunt moose, deer and bear during the late summer and early fall in the PDA and within 10 km of the Project footprint. Similarly, hunting of duck, geese and swan occur in spring and fall, around the lakes in the footprint, near a cabin on the shore of the Athabasca River adjacent to the PDA, and on the islands in the Athabasca River. Any waterfowl hunting that occurs on lakes in the PDA is expected to be lost because of Project development. Specifically, any waterfowl hunting occurring at Unnamed Lake 1 and Unnamed Lake 2 will be unavailable at the start of Project construction in 2021 when these waterbodies will be dewatered. The PDA and surrounding area are also known to be plentiful with grouse and spruce hen (Woven Paths 2015). While mapped data for areas beyond the 10 km buffer around the Project was not provided in Woven Paths (2015), it is assumed that similar patterns of use occur throughout the TLU RSA and areas north included in the Woven Paths (2015) RSA which include waters flowing north of the Project, portions of the PAD and Métis Local 125 traplines. Within the TLU RSA, 249,702 ha (21%) disturbance is expected at the Alternate Application Case, with 32,403 ha (3%) of this disturbance being directly attributable to the Project. At PDC, disturbance to the TLU RSA increases to 313,633 ha (26%).

As reported previously under ‘opportunities to harvest bison’, access methods for hunting include boats, canoes and barges where possible, as well as the use of overland trails. A dense network of transportation values were mapped in Woven Paths (2015) within 10 km of the Project footprint. This included a value along the Athabasca River, likely reflecting water access. The navigability assessment determined that the Project, in conjunction with other oil sands developments, is not expected to affect navigation on the Athabasca River (see Volume 3, Section 6 of the Project Update). However, Indigenous communities, including Métis Local 125, have indicated that they are currently experiencing loss of access because of low water levels in the Athabasca River and this has been considered in each cumulative assessment case.

Multiple overland trails located in the Project footprint are expected to be disturbed because of the Project development. These areas are expected to be used by land users and trappers on RFMA 1275 in accessing current areas within and immediately adjacent to the PDA. Two main trails used for hunting and camping in the north and east portion of the Project footprint were also reported by a Métis

May 2017 Page 48

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Local 125 member. Portions of these trails are expected to be lost to use as Project development progresses. An existing north-south road is reported in Woven Paths (2015) is also intersected by the PDA. This road is assumed to be the ‘Keyano River Road’, which will be disturbed because of Project and PDC development and will result in the interruption of north-south travel along the Project footprint by affect Métis Local 125 land users. Teck intends to allow access to or through Teck’s MSL as described in the draft AMP (see the response to JRP IR 4.5) to assist in the mitigation of this effect on land users. Teck recognizes that the use of alternative access strategies or the implementation of access controls on existing access routes will have the potential to result in additional travel time or costs of Indigenous land users. Additional transportation routes that run east-west on the east side of the Athabasca River, mapped in Woven Paths (2015), are expected to be available at all assessment cases. While additional access routes outside a 10 km buffer around the Project footprint were not provided in Woven Paths (2015) based on the distribution of existing developments at the Alternate Base Case, it is expected that any Métis Local 125 land users relying on overland transport in areas surrounding Fort McKay are likely experiencing changes or interruption of traditional access routes and that additional effects will occur at PDC.

The Alternate Application Case wildlife assessment determined that high magnitude effects are predicted for moose compared with the predevelopment case, and prior to reclamation. High magnitude effects are also predicted prior to reclamation for other key traditional use wildlife species considered in the wildlife assessment including woodland caribou, black bear and waterfowl. The Project contribution to this effect is presented in Table 7.2-2 of Appendix 4.1, Attachment I. At PDC, high magnitude effects prior to reclamation are expected to continue on moose, woodland caribou, black bear and waterfowl compared to predevelopment conditions.

Sensory disturbances are considered to be represented by changes in noise, odour and visual aesthetics. The furthest extent that the continuous sounds of the Project might be perceptible to land users is 2.3 km southwest of the PDA, which includes areas mapped as containing subsistence value in Woven Paths (2015). Continuous noise from the Project will not be perceptible outside the TLU RSA. Noise from the Fort Hills project at PDC, will be expected in areas southeast of the Project on the east side of the Athabasca River. Odour effects because of the Project are expected to be perceptible beyond the borders of the terrestrial LSA, particularly to the north and south of the west side of the Project and have the potential to affect subsistence value locations reported in these areas. Odours because of existing conditions are predicted to be perceptible in areas south of the region mapped for subsistence values in Woven Paths (2015), but Métis Local 125 members have reported travelling the Athabasca River to Fort McKay and Fort McMurray, and odours will be detectible along upstream portions of the river. Perceptible odour at PDC is predicted to increase within the TLU RSA, and perceptible odours might be experienced continuously along the west side of the Athabasca River from south of

May 2017 Page 49

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Fort McKay through the PDA. Visibility of the Project is expected for multiple areas throughout the TLU RSA including subsistence areas mapped in Woven Paths (2015). The Project will also be visible at locations outside the TLU RSA.

4.2.2.3 Opportunities to Trap Fur-bearers

Cumulative effects on the opportunity for Métis Local 125 members to trap fur- bearers in the TLU RSA were assessed as high in magnitude, long-term in duration, continuous in frequency, irreversible at the Alternate Base Case, Alternate Application Case and PDC. These effects are limited to traplines on RFMAs available to Métis Local 125 trappers. This is consistent with the assessment results of the Project Update (see Volume 3, Section 17, Table 17-28 of the Project Update). The Project contribution to this effect was assessed as high in magnitude for those Métis Local 125 trappers that rely on available Métis Local 125 traplines in the TLU RSA.

Effects on the continued opportunity for Métis Local 125 trappers to trap traditionally important fur-bearing species are considered to be a result of the combination of disturbance and changes in access to Métis Local 125 preferred use areas, effects on the preferred habitat availability of key wildlife species and sensory disturbances that might affect Indigenous land users. Preferred Métis Local 125 trapping areas are defined as RFMA 1275, which is trapped by community members. An additional trapline (RFMA 2016) is currently unassigned and therefore available to be trapped by Métis Local 125 trappers. Trapping and commercial values mapped in Woven Paths (2015) show values overlapping the entirety of the PDA and extending across the Athabasca River to eastern areas as well as areas south and north of the PDA. A description of these values is provided in Woven Paths (2015, p. 18):

Trapping activities in RFMA 1275 revealed 9 major trapping and snaring areas within an intensively used area on the trapline, indicating direct and potential impacts; 4 of these are in the footprint. These encompass the areas around the main cabin and Kelly Lake; the main cabin to Big (Oakley) and Small Sandy Lakes; around these lakes; between these lakes and Crooked Lake; Crooked Lake to the main cabin; Crooked Lake down to Asphalt Creek to the Keyano River Rd to the cabin (Labour and Hermansen, 2011). Rabbit snaring occurs near Crooked Lake, near the main cabin, and adjacent islands in the river.

The lands in the Big Creek and Redclay Creek watersheds located within the PDA will be unavailable at the start of Project construction in 2021, including Unnamed Lakes 1 (locally referred to as Big or Oakley Lake) and 2 (locally referred to as Small Sandy Lakes), the Unnamed Creek 2 drainage watershed, upper Big Creek and the portion of Redclay Creek at and upstream of the FHCF. The trapping areas

May 2017 Page 50

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

described as occurring around Crooked Lake and from Crooked Lake down to Asphalt Creek to the Keyano River Road are not expected to be directly affected by Project disturbance. Removal of developments currently under construction or approved but not yet constructed results in a small decrease in disturbance affecting RFMA 1275 from what was presented in the Project Update. Disturbance affecting RFMA 1275 at the Alternate Application Case is 26,565 ha (48%), of which 24,123 ha (44%) is attributable to the Project. An additional trapline RFMA 2016 is unassigned and therefore, assumed to be available to Indigenous trappers. The removal of developments currently under construction or those approved but not yet constructed also does not change the expected disturbance to this RFMA, which at Application Case is predicted to experience 3,080 ha (20%) disturbance, of which 2 ha (<1%) is because of the Project. At PDC, disturbance to RFMA 1275 and 2016 are predicted to increase to 30,759 ha (56%) and 6,678 ha (43%), respectively.

On the west bank of the LSA are 100 kilometers of main harvesting trails continuously used by the RFMA 1275 holder and his Métis family, since obtaining the trapline. This complex network of a dozen major trails falls within and adjacent to the Project footprint in the LSA. Two other main trails are on the east bank of the [Woven Paths] LSA. Trails in the [Woven Paths] LSA provide access to some of the more intensely utilized areas on the trapline for subsistence and commercial trapping purposes. Some trails are used year round, others only during winter freeze up.

[Woven Paths 2015, p. 18]

Trails located in the PDA relied on by users of RFMA 1275 are expected to be directly lost for use as Project development progresses and this might result in the additional loss of use for unaffected portions of these trails. An existing north-south road is reported in Woven Paths (2015) is also intersected by the PDA. This road is assumed to be the ‘Keyano River Road’, which will be disturbed because of Project and PDC development and might result in the interruption of north-south travel for Métis Local 125 land users relying on RFMA 1275 or 2016. However, Teck intends to allow access to or through Teck’s MSL as described in the draft access management plan (see the response to JRP IR 4.5) to mitigate this effect on land users. Teck recognizes that the use of alternative access strategies or the implementation of access controls on existing access routes will have the potential to result in additional travel time or costs of Indigenous land users. Métis Local 125 report that trapping occurs year round, except in summer, therefore in addition to overland trails, it is expected that trappers might use the Athabasca River as a travel route during open water seasons. As reported previously, the Project in conjunction with other oil sands developments is not expected to affect navigation on the Athabasca River however, Indigenous communities, including Métis Local 125, have indicated that they are currently experiencing loss of access because of low

May 2017 Page 51

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

water levels in the Athabasca River and this is considered for all cumulative assessment cases.

Trapping and snaring of fur-bearing species including beaver, muskrat, lynx, fisher, squirrel, mink, fox, coyote, wolf and rabbit were reported to occur in the PDA and surrounding area, year round, except in summer. Fur-bearing species assessed in the wildlife assessment include, fisher, Canada lynx, muskrat and beaver. The magnitude of changes on the preferred habitat availability on fisher, Canada lynx and muskrat was assessed as high between predevelopment conditions and Alternate Application Case prior to reclamation. The magnitude of changes to the preferred habitat availability of beaver was assessed as moderate prior to reclamation, also from predevelopment conditions. The Project contribution to this affect is presented in Tables 7.2-2 of Appendix 4.1, Attachment I. At PDC, high magnitude effects on fisher, Canada lynx and muskrat and moderate magnitude effects on beaver are expected to continue, prior to reclamation.

Sensory disturbances are considered to be represented by changes in noise, odour and visual aesthetics. The furthest extent that the continuous sounds of the Project might be perceptible to land users is 2.3 km southwest of the PDA, which includes areas mapped as containing commercial and trapping value in Woven Paths (2015) and portions of RFMA 1275. Continuous noise from the Project will not be perceptible outside the TLU RSA. Odour effects because of the Project are expected to be perceptible beyond the borders of the terrestrial LSA, particularly to the north and south of the west side of the Project and has the potential to affect subsistence value locations reported in these areas, such as around Crooked Lake. Odours because of existing developments might be experienced by Métis Local 125 trappers while traveling the Athabasca River in upstream areas or on any trapping that might occur on RFMA 2016. The range of detectible odours will increase at PDC. Because of the proximity of the Project to RFMA 1275 visibility of the Project on the undisturbed portions of this trapline is expected.

4.2.2.4 Opportunities to Fish for Traditionally Important Species

Cumulative effects on the opportunity for Métis Local 125 members to fish for traditionally important species in the aquatics RSA were assessed as regional, long- term, continuous, irreversible and low to moderate magnitude at the Alternate Base Case, Alternate Application Case and PDC. This is consistent with the assessment results of the Project Update (see Volume 3, Section 17, Table 17-28 of the Project Update). The Project contribution to this effect was assessed as low in magnitude for those Métis Local 125 land users that rely on the aquatics RSA for fishing.

Effects on the continued opportunity to fish for traditionally important species are discussed in relation the aquatics RSA, which includes the aquatics LSA (see

May 2017 Page 52

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Volume 3, Section 6, Figure 6-1 of the Project Update) and a reach of the Athabasca River from Fort McMurray to Embarras Portage. The extended reach of the Athabasca River in the Aquatics RSA is included to assess potential cumulative upstream and downstream changes because of cumulative development (see Volume 3, Section 6.3.1.2 of the Project Update). Fishing areas used by Métis Local 125 members in the aquatics LSA and RSA, include the Athabasca River and no use of the inland lakes in the PDA for fishing were reported in Woven Paths (2015). Potential effects on the opportunities to fish for traditionally important fish species include loss of preferred fishing areas. Effects on preferred fishing areas are represented both by effects on fish and fish habitat, and on a qualitative comparison between identified fishing locations from Woven Paths (2015) and disturbance at the at each assessment case.

Woven Paths (2015) reports that some Métis Local 125 members continue to harvest fish in the fall in the Athabasca River. Freshwater clams are also harvested in the Athabasca River during open water seasons. Fishing locations were included in the subsistence values mapped in Woven Paths (2015), and therefore cannot be differentiated from other forms of subsistence gathering, but one fishing area just below the confluence of the Firebag River and Athabasca River was noted in the text. Fishing at this location also occurs in winter.

The updated effects on fish and fish habitat at the Alternate Application Case indicate that residual effects range from negligible to low in magnitude. The draft DFOP is intended to result in no reduction of fish habitat productivity and no overall reduction in fish abundance, but might change the locational availability of fish on the Project footprint landscape. For example, fish habitat might be lost in the Athabasca River because of the RWI, but will be compensated for in the FHCF. At PDC, regulations governing cumulative water withdrawals and guidelines for intake screening are expected to mitigate potential effects of cumulative water withdrawals in fish abundance because of changes in habitat productive or direct loss of fish. Regarding the potential for Project effects downstream of the aquatics RSA, as described in Appendix 4.1, Attachment I, Section 4.2, the Project in combination with other developments including the operating mines is not expected to have an appreciable influence on the water levels in the Athabasca River downstream of Fort McMurray. The Project is similarly predicted to have negligible effects on the surface water quality of the Athabasca River at Embarras and on the surface water quality downstream of this point including Lake Athabasca and the PAD.

Access to potential fishing locations within and outside the aquatics RSA is assumed to occur by boat during open water seasons. Changes in the Athabasca River water levels because of water withdrawals are predicted to be negligible in Reach 4 (i.e., less than 5 cm) and the Project, in conjunction with other oil sands developments, is not expected to affect navigation on the Athabasca River (see the

May 2017 Page 53

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

response to JRP IR 8.8). However, Indigenous communities have indicated that they are currently experiencing loss of access because of low water levels in the Athabasca River. This concern has been considered at all cumulative assessment cases. Access to the winter fishing location near the Firebag River is expected to occur by snowmobile and routes on the east side of that Athabasca River are expected to be available to facilitate this access at the Alternate Application Case.

Sensory disturbances (i.e., noise, odour and visual aesthetics) will be experienced on portions of the Athabasca River. While all receptor locations identified in the acoustics assessment were within requirements for the Alternate Application Case, the RWI might result in detectible sound for some land users while travelling the Athabasca River. Noise from the Fort Hills project at PDC is expected to increase the range of perceptible noise on the Athabasca River. Project odour is not predicted to be detectible along the Athabasca River, but areas upstream are experiencing detectible odours because of existing developments. The range of detectible odours along the Athabasca River is expected to increase at PDC. Project infrastructure will be visible along the Athabasca River.

4.2.2.5 Opportunities to Harvest Traditionally Important Vegetation

Cumulative effects on the continued opportunity to harvest traditionally important vegetation are considered to be a combination of disturbance to, and changes in, access to Métis Local 125 preferred use areas, changes in traditional use plant potential and sensory disturbances that might affect Indigenous land users. In response to the request made in JRP IR 4.2(a), the identification of Métis Local 125 preferred plant harvesting areas no longer relies on the 160 km buffer around Fort Chipewyan and instead looks to the distribution of plant harvesting locations provided in Woven Paths (2015). The review of subsistence values, which include plant harvesting values, demonstrates use within the terrestrial LSA and into the TLU RSA. It is expected that this is representative of use that occurs in other areas throughout the TLU RSA and areas north and outside the TLU RSA, such as in the PAD. As a result of this change, the effects on the opportunity for Métis Local 125 members to harvest traditionally important vegetation in the TLU RSA were assessed as moderate to high at the Alternate Base Case and high in magnitude at the Alternate Application Case and PDC. All effects were assessed as long-term, continuous and irreversible. The Project contribution to this effect was assessed as low in magnitude for those Métis Local 125 land users that rely on the TLU RSA for vegetation harvesting.

Plant harvesting locations were included in subsistence values provided in Woven Paths (2015). 78 subsistence sites and areas were reported within 10 km of the Project footprint, and 13 km within the Project footprint. While the specific type of subsistence activity these represent are not provided in the report (e.g., hunting of

May 2017 Page 54

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

moose, bison, bear, fishing, plant harvesting). The mapped areas of subsistence use in Woven Paths (2015) cover almost the entirety of the Project footprint and extend outwards covering the extent of a 10 km buffer around the Project footprint with the exception of the western-most portion of this area.

One medicinal plant harvesting location was reported in the PDA, and another in close proximity to the PDA. Three additional medicinal plant harvesting locations were reported within 10 km of the Project footprint. Two berry harvesting locations were also reported in the PDA:

Berries are collected in summer and early fall in five areas, two large areas are in the footprint. Varieties include raspberries, blueberries, strawberries, cranberries, low and high bush cranberry, and fewer saskatoons, pin and chokecherries. Cranberries can be harvested in early spring.

[Woven Paths 2015, p. 15]

It is expected that all plant and berry harvesting sites located in the PDA will be no longer be available for use by Métis Local 125 members as a result of Project development. At the Alternate Application Case, 639,713 ha of the TLU RSA are expected to contain combined high and moderate TLU plant potential. This is a 21% decreased from predevelopment conditions, prior to reclamation. Of this decrease, 25,024 ha are attributable to the Project, a percentage decrease of 4% in the TLU RSA. A decrease of 206,718 ha of the combined high and moderate traditional use plant potential is expected at PDC in the TLU RSA; a decrease of 26% from predevelopment conditions.

As harvesting occurs during open water seasons, it is assumed that access to plant harvesting locations might occur by water or land access. A dense network of transportation values was mapped in Woven Paths (2015) within 10 km of the Project footprint. This included a value along the Athabasca River, likely reflecting water access. The navigability assessment determined that the Project, in conjunction with other oil sands developments, is not expected to affect navigation on the Athabasca River (see Volume 3, Section 6 of the Project Update). However, Indigenous communities, including Métis Local 125 have indicated that they are currently experiencing loss of access because of low water levels in the Athabasca River and this has been considered at all cumulative assessment cases.

May 2017 Page 55

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Multiple overland trails located in the Project footprint are expected to be disturbed because of the Project development. These areas are expected to be used by land users on RFMA 1275 to access current areas within and immediately adjacent to the PDA, such as RFMA 1275. An existing north-south road is reported in Woven Paths (2015) is also intersected by the PDA. This road is assumed to be the ‘Keyano River Road’, which will be disturbed because of Project and PDC development and will result in the interruption of north-south travel along the Project footprint by affected Métis Local 125 land users. However, Teck intends to allow access to or through Teck’s MSL as described in the draft AMP (see the response to JRP IR 4.5) to mitigate this effect on land users. Teck recognizes that the use of alternative access strategies or the implementation of access controls on existing access routes will have the potential to result in additional travel time or costs of Indigenous land users. Additional transportation routes that run east-west on the east side of the Athabasca River, mapped in Woven Paths (2015), are expected to be available at all assessment cases. While additional access routes outside a 10 km buffer around the Project footprint were not provided in Woven Paths (2015) based on the distribution of existing developments at the Alternate Base Case, it is expected that any Métis Local 125 land users relying on overland transport in areas surrounding Fort McKay are likely experiencing changes or interruptions of traditional access routes and that additional effects will occur at PDC.

Sensory disturbances are considered to be represented by changes in noise, odour and visual aesthetics. The furthest extent that the continuous sounds of the Project might be perceptible to land users is 2.3 km southwest of the PDA, which includes areas mapped as containing subsistence value in Woven Paths (2015). Continuous noise from the Project will not be perceptible outside the TLU RSA. Noise from the Fort Hills project at PDC, will be expected in areas southeast of the Project on the east side of the Athabasca River. Odour effects because of the Project are expected to be perceptible beyond the borders of the terrestrial LSA, particularly to the north and south of the west side of the Project and have the potential to affect subsistence value locations reported in these areas. Odours because of existing conditions are predicted to be perceptible in areas south of the region mapped for subsistence values in Woven Paths (2015), but Métis Local 125 members have reported travelling the Athabasca River to Fort McKay and Fort McMurray and odours will be detectible along upstream portions of the river. Perceptible odour at PDC is predicted to increase within the TLU RSA, and perceptible odours might be experienced continuously along the west side of the Athabasca River from south of Fort McKay through the PDA. Visibility of the Project is expected for multiple areas throughout the TLU RSA including subsistence areas mapped in Woven Paths (2015). Visibility of the Project will also occur in areas outside the TLU RSA.

May 2017 Page 56

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

4.2.2.6 Opportunities to Use Culturally Important Sites and Areas

Cumulative effects on the opportunity for Métis Local 125 members to use culturally important sites and areas in the TLU RSA were assessed as moderate to high in magnitude at the Alternate Base Case, and high at the Alternate Application Case and PDC. All effects were assessed as regional, long-term, continuous and irreversible. The Project contribution to this effect was assessed as moderate to high for those Métis Local 125 land users that use the TLU RSA for cultural activities.

Effects on the continued opportunity to use culturally important sites and areas are considered to be a combination of disturbance to preferred use areas, changes in access to these areas and sensory disturbances that might affect Indigenous land users. Effects on Métis Local 125 preferred culturally important sites and areas were considered to be represented by the disturbance to the TLU RSA and disturbance to site-specific areas described in Woven Paths (2015) as having cultural importance. In response to the request made in JRP IR 4.2, the identification of Métis Local 125 use areas no longer relies on the 160 km buffer around Fort Chipewyan and instead looks to the distribution of plant harvesting locations provided in Woven Paths (2015).

Disturbance to the TLU RSA at the Alternate Application Case is 217,638 ha (18%), 28,498 ha (2%) of which is attributable to the Project. At PDC, disturbance to the TLU RSA increases to 268,793 ha (22%). Métis Local 125 reported 26 place names used by members within 10 km of the Project footprint that they believe to be potentially affected because of the Project. Of these, seven were reported in the Project footprint (Woven Paths 2015). 10 cultural/historical and spiritual values were also reported within 10 km of the Project footprint in Woven Paths (2015), three of which are near the Project footprint:

The 10 sites include a cemetery with three burials on the west banks; graves on the east bank; a Hermansen land user’s envisioned burial site; an old fur trade store; a place where tar was collected to paint boats; a groundwater spring location; four common places on the river several participants stop at, or visit tied to historical and cultural use.

[Woven Paths 2015, p. 12]

Métis Local 125 expressed concern and the potential for effects on the three cultural/historical and spiritual values closest to the Project footprint as a result from increased access to the area because of the development of roads, and the RWI. A review of cultural / historical and spiritual values mapped in Woven Paths (2015) indicated values overlapping the north-west portions of the PDA, and additional cultural / historical values that overlap portions of the eastern most edge of the PDA.

May 2017 Page 57

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

28 historic or contemporary habitation sites were recorded within 10 km of the Project footprint, of these 20 are cabins sites and eight are campsites. Woven Paths (2015) indicates that eight habitation values will be directly affected because of Project disturbance. The following cabin locations were identified within 10 km of the Project footprint in Woven Paths (2015):

• Crooked Lake cabin – near the Birch Mountains and on the lake off Eymundson Creek. • Moose cabin – located north of the Crooked Lake cabin and beside Big Creek. • Squirrel cabin site – located west of Oakley (Big) Lake (Unnamed Lake 1). • Three cabins located between Oakley and Small Sandy Lake (Unnamed Lake 1 and Unnamed Lake 2). • Two cabins on the west bank of the Athabasca river, “near the tip of Bird Island” (Woven Paths 2015, p. 13). • Cabins near Mile 87 on the west bank of the Athabasca River. • Cabin on Redclay Creek. • Cabin at Lobstick Point. • Historic cabin at Klausen’s Landing. • Multiple cabins on the east bank of the Athabasca River.

Based on a review of the described locations of these cabins, it is expected that the three cabins between Oakley (Big) Lake (Unnamed Lake 1) and Small Sandy Lake (Unnamed Lake 2), moose cabin, squirrel cabin and the cabin on Redclay Creek will be directly disturbed because of the Project. Other cabin locations will be located in close proximity to the PDA. Direct disturbance from existing developments at the Alternate Base Case is not expected to affect any of these locations. Disturbance at the PDC is also not expected to disturb reported cabins outside the PDA.

Multiple transportation values located in the PDA that connect cabin locations are expected to become unavailable for use at Project development and this might result in the additional loss of use for unaffected portions of these trails. An existing north- south road reported in Woven Paths (2015) is also intersected by the PDA. This road is assumed to be the ‘Keyano River Road’, which will be disturbed because of Project and PDC development and will result in the interruption of north-south travel for Métis Local 125 land users. As described previously, Teck intends to allow access to or through Teck’s MSL as described in the draft AMP (see the response to JRP IR 4.5) to mitigate this effect on land users. Teck recognizes that the use of alternative access strategies or the implementation of access controls on

May 2017 Page 58

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

existing access routes will have the potential to result in additional travel time or costs of Indigenous land users. East-west trails reported on the east bank of the Athabasca River in Woven Paths (2015) are not expected to experience direct disturbance at any assessment case. Because of the location of multiple cabins along the Athabasca River it is expected that these locations are reached by boat access on the river. As reported previously, the Project in conjunction with other oil sands developments is not expected to affect navigation on the Athabasca River. However, Indigenous communities, including Métis Local 125, have indicated that they are currently experiencing loss of access because of low water levels in the Athabasca River and this has been considered at all assessment cases.

Sensory disturbances are expected to be experienced at the Alternate Application Case in areas immediately surrounding the Project. Existing developments and all receptor locations identified in the acoustics assessment were within requirements for the Alternate Application Case. The furthest extent where the continuous sounds of the Project might be perceptible to land users is 2.3 km southwest of the PDA which might include the area where the Crooked Lake cabin in situated. Noise from the Fort Hills project at PDC, will be expected in areas southeast of the Project on the east side of the Athabasca River. Noise from the RWI is not expected to be perceptible at the reported cabin locations on the west bank of the Athabasca River but might be perceptible at unspecific cultural and or historical and spiritual or camp locations. Continuous noise from the Project will not be perceptible outside the TLU RSA. Odour effects because of the Project are expected to be perceptible beyond the borders of the terrestrial LSA, particularly to the north and south of the west side of the Project, which might include the Crooked Lake cabin and other habitation or cultural and or historical and spiritual values. Perceptible odour at PDC is predicted to increase within the TLU RSA, and perceptible odours might be experienced continuously along the west side of the Athabasca River from south of Fort McKay through the PDA. Visibility of the Project is expected for multiple areas throughout and beyond the TLU RSA.

4.2.3 Effects Classification

Table 4.2-11 provides the effects classification and consequence determination for the cumulative effects at the Alternate Base Case, Alternate Application Case and PDC on TLU key indicators for Métis Local 125. Table 4.2-12 provides the effects classification for the incremental effects of the Project between the Alternate Base Case and the Alternate Application Case.

Effects on the opportunity for Métis Local 125 members to harvest traditionally important vegetation and use culturally important sites and areas were assessed as moderate in magnitude in the Project Update. Direct disturbance to Métis Local 125’s use area as identified in the Project Update was 5% at Base Case. In response

May 2017 Page 59

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

to the request made in JRP IR 4.2(a), the use areas of Métis Local 125 have been updated to no longer rely on the 160 km buffer around Fort Chipewyan that the Alberta government considers to represent Métis harvesting areas (see Section 4.2.1). This resulted in an increase in disturbance to the use area of Métis Local 125 at the Alternate Base Case of 16%. As a result of this, the effects on the opportunity for Métis Local 125 members to harvest traditionally important vegetation and use culturally important sites and areas at the Alternate Base Case increased from moderate to moderate to high in magnitude.

May 2017 Page 60

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Table 4.2-11: Cumulative Effects Classification and Determination of Consequence for Métis Local 125 Traditional Land Use Key Indicators

Magnitude Consequence Alternate Alternate Alternate Alternate Geographic Base Application Base Application Key Indicators Extent Duration Frequency Reversibility Case Case PDC Case Case PDC Long- Opportunities to harvest bison Regional Continuous Irreversible High High High term Opportunities to hunt traditionally Long- Regional Continuous Irreversible High High High important wildlife species term Long- Opportunities to trap fur-bearers Regional1 Continuous Irreversible High High High term High High High Opportunities to fish for traditionally Long- Low to Low to Low to Regional Continuous Irreversible important species term moderate moderate moderate Opportunities to harvest traditionally Long- Moderate Regional Continuous Irreversible High High important vegetation term to high Opportunities to use culturally important Long- Moderate Regional Continuous Irreversible High High sites and areas term to high NOTES: 1 These effects are limited to RFMAs 1275 and to any extent that Métis Local 125 members trap on RFMA 2016.

May 2017 Page 61

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Table 4.2-12: Effects Classification of the Incremental Effects of the Project for Métis Local 125 Traditional Land Use Key Indicators

Key Indicators Geographic Extent Duration Frequency Reversibility Magnitude

Opportunities to harvest bison Regional Long-term Continuous Irreversible Moderate to High

Opportunities to hunt traditionally important wildlife species Regional Long-term Continuous Irreversible Low to Moderate

Opportunities to trap fur-bearers Regional1 Long-term Continuous Irreversible High

Opportunities to fish for traditionally important species Regional Long-term Continuous Irreversible Low

Opportunities to harvest traditionally important vegetation Regional Long-term Continuous Irreversible Low

Opportunities to use culturally important sites and areas Regional Long-term Continuous Irreversible Moderate to High

NOTES: 1 These effects are limited to RFMAs 1275 and to any extent that Métis Local 125 members trap on RFMA 2016.

May 2017 Page 62

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

4.3 Fort McKay First Nation

4.3.1 Effects Analysis

Since the submission of the Project Update, FMFN submitted The Fort McKay First Nation Cultural Impact Assessment (Integral Ecology Group 2016). The RSA used in this document, and the Fort McKay Project-specific TLU study (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011), was the Fort McKay traditional territory. The Fort McKay traditional territory generally aligns with the extent of Fort McKay culturally significant ecosystems (CSEs), which can be defined as areas within the FMFN traditional lands that exhibit high value for renewable resource harvesting, cultural activities and infrastructure (McKillop 2002). The intense and moderate portions of the CSEs were used in the Project Update to reflect the preferred use areas for the Community of Fort McKay, which included FMFN.

The use of the CSEs rather than FMFN’s entire traditional territory allows the assessment to focus on those portions of their traditional territory most heavily relied on for land use activities. Therefore, no change to the FMFN preferred use areas identified in the Project Update is required. The updated disturbances to those portions of the Fort McKay CSEs that overlap the TLU RSA, terrestrial LSA and Ronald Lake BSA are presented in Tables 4.2-13, 4.2-14 and 4.2-15, respectively. Disturbances to preferred use areas are quantified for land-based areas only. Quantitative disturbance to preferred aquatic areas are considered to be captured through the effects on fish habitat as discussed in the section on the availability of fish (see Section 3.1.2).

For the purposes of this assessment, preferred trapping areas are considered to be those traplines held by or reported to be currently trapped by members of that community that overlap the TLU RSA. Multiple traplines were identified as being trapped or held by FMFN members. These traplines are discussed as a single area for the ease of quantifying disturbances. No FMFN-held or used trapline overlaps the PDA. An additional trapline, RFMA 2016, is currently unassigned, and is therefore, considered to be potentially available to all Indigenous communities for trapping. This trapline overlaps a small portion of the terrestrial LSA and is in the TLU RSA. Table 4.2-16 presents disturbance to these RFMAs.

JRP IR 4.2(a) requested that the updated TLU assessment include information provided by Indigenous communities about their use of areas outside the boundaries of the study areas. The FMFN traditional territory overlaps the entirety of the TLU RSA and extends east, west, north and south beyond its borders. As FMFN has developed CSEs to reflect areas of preferred use within their traditional territory specific to various land use activities, the areas of intense or moderate use that fall outside the study area differ by key indicator. Therefore, a qualitative discussion of

May 2017 Page 63

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

the potential Project-related effects on these areas is included in each of the following sections as applicable. Locations consistently referred to in the following sections that fall outside the boundaries of the TLU RSA include Namur and Gardiner lakes, the Birch Mountains, and areas around Ronald Lake, Poplar Point and Point Brule. It should be noted that the area between Poplar Point and Ronald Lake west of the Athabasca River is captured within the boundaries of the Ronald Lake BSA.

May 2017 Page 64

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Table 4.2-13: Disturbance to Fort McKay CSEs Overlapping the Traditional Land Use RSA

Reference Condition Alternate Base Case Alternate Application Case PDC Disturbance Project Contribution Culturally Significant Area Overlapping Study Disturbance Disturbance Ecosystem Area (ha) (ha) (%)2 (ha) (%)2 (ha) (%)2 (ha) (%)2 All Traditional Uses No use1 60 ------Low use 371,254 15,318 4 26,136 7 26,920 7 10,818 3 Moderate use 584,373 94,909 16 111,734 19 151,504 26 16,824 3 Intense use 239,869 78,913 33 79,768 33 90,369 38 856 <1 Moderate and intense use 824,242 173,822 21 191,502 23 241,873 29 17,680 2 combined Total 1,195,556 189,140 16 217,638 18 268,793 22 28,498 2 Large Game Harvesting3 No use1 ------Low use 34,917 1,149 3 1,149 3 2,261 6 - - Moderate use 444,161 20,356 5 33,421 8 35,265 8 13,065 3 Intense use 716,477 195,810 27 215,148 30 276,106 39 19,338 3 Moderate and intense use 1,160,639 216,166 19 248,570 21 311,372 27 32,403 3 combined Total 1,195,556 217,315 18 249,719 21 313,633 26 32,403 3 Bird3 No use1 60,372 687 1 687 1 1,435 2 - - Low use 482,372 45,093 9 63,726 13 76,058 16 18,633 4 Moderate use 469,651 109,863 23 123,634 26 159,490 34 13,771 3 Intense use 183,161 61,672 34 61,672 34 76,649 42 - - Moderate and intense use 652,811 171,535 26 185,305 28 236,140 36 13,771 2 combined Total 1,195,556 217,315 18 249,719 21 313,633 26 32,403 3 Fur-bearers No use1 ------Low use 29,355 1,402 5 1,402 5 1,859 6 - - Moderate use 234,008 14,857 6 14,857 6 15,444 7 - - Intense use 932,129 172,881 19 201,380 22 251,490 27 28,498 3 Moderate and intense use 1,166,201 187,739 16 216,237 19 266,934 23 28,498 2 combined Total 1,195,556 189,140 16 217,638 18 268,793 22 28,498 2

May 2017 Page 65

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Table 4.2-13: Disturbance to Fort McKay CSEs Overlapping the Traditional Land Use RSA

Reference Condition Alternate Base Case Alternate Application Case PDC Disturbance Project Contribution Culturally Significant Area Overlapping Study Disturbance Disturbance Ecosystem Area (ha) (ha) (%)2 (ha) (%)2 (ha) (%)2 (ha) (%)2 Traditional Plant Harvesting (Berries) No use1 80,112 1,948 2 1,948 2 1,948 2 - - Low use 332,473 16,362 5 17,028 5 18,615 6 666 <1 Moderate use 403,899 53,332 13 74,656 18 90,872 22 21,323 5 Intense use 379,071 117,498 31 124,007 33 157,359 42 6,509 2 Moderate and intense use 782,970 170,830 22 198,662 25 248,260 32 27,832 4 combined Total 1,195,556 189,140 16 217,638 18 268,793 22 28,498 2 NOTES: - = 0. Numbers are rounded for presentation purposes. 1 Refers to the portions of the study area that are not overlapped by the CSE. 2 Percentage is calculated against the total area of the CSE portion (e.g., low, moderate) overlapping the study area, not the total CSE area overlapping the study area. 3 Disturbances to CSEs associated with hunted species (i.e., large game and bird) have been calculated with the addition of a 183 m buffer to distances where discharge of a weapon is prohibited by Alberta provincial hunting regulations. The buffer was applied to primary industrial, secondary industrial, tertiary industrial, rural residential, urban area and recreation sites.

May 2017 Page 66

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Table 4.2-14: Disturbance to Fort McKay CSEs Overlapping the Terrestrial LSA

Reference Condition Alternate Base Case Alternate Application Case Project Contribution Area Overlapping Study Disturbance Disturbance Culturally Significant Area PDC Disturbance Ecosystem (ha) (ha) (%)2 (ha) (%)2 (ha) (%)2 (ha) (%)2 All Traditional Uses No use1 ------Low use 14,986 321 2 11,140 74 11,196 75 10,818 72 Moderate use 22,958 555 2 17,379 76 17,907 78 16,824 73 Intense use 5,405 51 1 907 17 1,521 28 856 16 Moderate and intense use 28,363 606 2 18,286 64 19,428 68 17,680 63 combined Total 43,349 927 2 29,425 68 30,623 71 28,498 66 Large Game Harvesting3 No use1 ------Low use ------Moderate use 14,869 470 3 13,535 91 13,574 91 13,104 88 Intense use 28,481 493 2 19,813 70 21,482 75 19,391 68 Moderate and intense use 43,349 963 2 33,348 77 35,056 81 32,494 75 combined Total 43,349 963 2 33,348 77 35,056 81 32,494 75 Bird3 No use1 ------Low use 20,559 576 3 19,209 93 19,247 84 18,671 91 Moderate use 22,790 387 2 14,139 62 15,808 69 13,823 60 Intense use ------Moderate and intense use 22,790 387 2 14,139 62 15,808 69 13,752 60 combined Total 43,349 963 2 33,348 77 35,056 81 32,385 75 Fur-bearers No use1 ------Low use ------Moderate use ------Intense use 43,349 927 2 29,425 68 30,623 71 28,498 66 Moderate and intense use 43,349 927 2 29,425 68 30,623 71 28,498 66 combined Total 43,349 927 2 29,425 68 30,623 71 28,498 66

May 2017 Page 67

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Table 4.2-14: Disturbance to Fort McKay CSEs Overlapping the Terrestrial LSA

Reference Condition Alternate Base Case Alternate Application Case Project Contribution Area Overlapping Study Disturbance Disturbance Culturally Significant Area PDC Disturbance Ecosystem (ha) (ha) (%)2 (ha) (%)2 (ha) (%)2 (ha) (%)2 Traditional Plant Harvesting (Berries) No use1 ------Low use 1,395 14 1 680 49 690 49 666 48 Moderate use 26,221 669 3 21,992 84 22,129 84 21,323 81 Intense use 15,733 244 2 6,753 43 7,805 50 6,509 41 Moderate and intense use 41,954 913 2 28,745 69 29,934 71 27,832 66 combined Total 43,349 927 2 29,425 68 30,623 71 28,498 66 NOTES: - = 0. Numbers are rounded for presentation purposes. 1 Refers to the portions of the study area that are not overlapped by the CSE. 2 Percentage is calculated against the total area of the CSE portion (e.g., low, moderate) overlapping the study area, not the total CSE area overlapping the study area. 3 Disturbances to CSEs associated with hunted species (i.e., large game and bird) have been calculated with the addition of a 183 m buffer to distances where discharge of a weapon is prohibited by Alberta provincial hunting regulations. The buffer was applied to primary industrial, secondary industrial, tertiary industrial, rural residential, urban area and recreation sites.

May 2017 Page 68

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Table 4.2-15: Disturbance to Fort McKay CSEs Overlapping the Ronald Lake BSA

Reference Condition Area Overlapping Study Alternate Base Case Alternate Application Case Culturally Significant Area Disturbance Disturbance PDC Disturbance Project Contribution Ecosystem (ha) (ha) (%)2 (ha) (%)2 (ha) (%)2 (ha) (%)2 Large Game Harvesting3 No use1 ------Low use 1,633 - - - - 7 <1 - - Moderate use 85,214 1,083 1 13,566 16 13,696 16 12,483 15 Intense use 69,217 693 1 18,114 26 19,719 28 17,421 25 Moderate and intense use 154,432 1,776 1 31,680 21 33,416 22 29,904 19 combined Total 156,065 1,776 1 31,680 20 33,423 21 29,904 19 NOTES: - = 0. Numbers are rounded for presentation purposes. 1 Refers to the portions of the study area that are not overlapped by the CSE. 2 Percentage is calculated against the total area of the CSE portion (e.g., low, moderate) overlapping the study area, not the total CSE area overlapping the study area. 3 Disturbances to CSEs associated with hunted species (i.e., large game and bird) have been calculated with the addition of a 183 m buffer to distances where discharge of a weapon is prohibited by Alberta provincial hunting regulations. The buffer was applied to primary industrial, secondary industrial, tertiary industrial, rural residential, urban area and recreation sites.

May 2017 Page 69

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Table 4.2-16: Disturbance to Fort McKay First Nation RFMAs that Overlap the Traditional Land Use RSA

Reference Condition Alternate Base Case Alternate Application PDC Project Registered Fur Affiliated Indigenous Area Overlapping the Disturbance Case Disturbance Disturbance Contribution Management Area Community Traditional RSA (ha) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) Combined traplines FMFN 515,885 132,957 26 132,957 26 161,137 31 - - 2016 Unassigned 15,713 3,078 20 3,080 20 6,678 43 2 <1 NOTES: - = 0. Numbers are rounded for presentation purposes.

May 2017 Page 70

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

4.3.2 Effects Assessment

4.3.2.1 Opportunities to Harvest Bison

Cumulative effects on the opportunity for FMFN members to harvest bison in the Ronald Lake BSA were assessed as high in magnitude, long-term in duration, continuous in frequency, irreversible at the Alternate Base Case, Alternate Application Case and PDC. This is consistent with the assessment results of the Project Update (see Volume 3, Section 17, Table 17-28 of the Project Update). The Project contribution to this effect was assessed as moderate to high in magnitude for those FMFN members that rely on the Ronald Lake BSA for bison harvesting.

Effects on the continued opportunity to harvest bison are considered to be a combination of disturbance5 and changes in access to FMFN preferred bison harvesting areas, effects on the availability of preferred bison habitat and sensory disturbances that might affect Indigenous land users. Effects on FMFN preferred bison harvesting areas are considered to be represented by disturbance affecting the those portions of the combined intense and moderate use areas of the large game harvesting CSE that overlap the Ronald Lake BSA, as well as those areas identified in the Fort McKay TLU study (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011) as being potentially relied upon for bison harvesting.

FMFN has indicated that bison was part of the Fort McKay seasonal round (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011). Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group (2011) also noted that:

The extended Boucher family currently hunts, and historically hunted, an areas that stretches from approximately the current location of the Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL) Horizon lease in the south to Teck and . . . [Teck’s] Frontier lease in the north. For generations this area has provided the majority of moose (and recently buffalo) meat for this large extended family. The family had a network of trails and cabins that extended from the hamlet of Fort McKay up into the [Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group] LSA. The effect of the CNRL oil sands development has meant that there is now a greater reliance on the northern portion of this hunting area and especially on the portion within the [Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group] LSA.

[Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011, p. 40]

5 Disturbance includes both direct disturbance and the inclusion of a 183 m buffer around locations where the discharge of a weapon is prohibited by Alberta hunting regulations.

May 2017 Page 71

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

The northern boundaries of this hunting area mapped in Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group (2011) overlap with the southern half of the Project footprint and Ronald Lake BSA, extending just north of Unnamed Lakes 1 and 2. Within a 10 km buffer of the Project footprint, 84 subsistence values were recorded, which include hunting locations and other forms of subsistence harvesting (e.g., fishing, harvesting wood, or picking berries) (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011). This same area was identified as being particularly valued for bison harvesting (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011). Based on a comparison of these subsistence values and the Project footprint, all but the most northern portions of the PDA are relied upon for subsistence harvesting, and localized areas of subsistence harvesting range into the northern portions of the Ronald Lake BSA. In addition, a review of the extent of the intense and moderate use portions of the Fort McKay Large Game Harvesting CSE indicates that the entire PDA and the majority of the Ronald Lake BSA are overlapped by intense or moderate use areas. Disturbance affecting those portions of the combined moderate and intense use areas that overlap the Ronald Lake BSA is 31,680 ha (20%). Of this, the Project contributes 29,904 ha (19%) of the disturbance. At PDC, disturbance to this area increases to 33,146 ha (22%).

Bison hunting is reported to occur in fall, when Fort McKay people would set up hunting camps. Often bison hunting could occur at the same time hunting for moose and other large game, as well as on dedicated trips. It was also noted that wildlife hunting might also occur in winter and summer (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011). Access throughout Fort McKay’s traditional territory relies on an extensive network of trails. These trails allow community members to travel along frozen muskeg, generally by snowmobile in winter. In the summer, water access routes and trails on upland areas provide additional access (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011). A dense network of transportation values were mapped in Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group (2011) in the Project footprint and in the surrounding region. Fort McKay has also established a predevelopment trail map (Fort McKay IRC 2010), that presents a network of trails throughout their traditional territory. Effects on access in the Ronald Lake BSA are expected to result from direct Project disturbance, as those trails that overlap with the PDA will be become unavailable for use as Project development progresses. However, Teck intends to allow access to or through Teck’s MSL as described in the draft AMP (see the response to JRP IR 4.5) to mitigate this effect on land users. Teck recognizes that the use of alternative access strategies, or the implementation of access controls on existing access routes will have the potential to result in additional travel time or costs for Indigenous land users. The navigability assessment determined that the Project, in conjunction with other oil sands developments, is not expected to affect navigation on the Athabasca River (see Volume 3, Section 6 of the Project Update). However, Indigenous communities have indicated that they are currently experiencing loss of access because of low water levels in the Athabasca River. This effect has been considered in all cumulative assessment cases.

May 2017 Page 72

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

No changes in bison habitat result because of the removal of projects currently under or not yet constructed from the Base Case. However, disturbance affecting preferred habitat availability for bison has changed relative to what was presented in the Project Update, where high magnitude effects were predicted at Base Case and Application Case prior to reclamation. Based on the updated assessment, there is predicted to be a moderate magnitude effect on the availability of preferred winter habitat. The Project is predicted to displace bison in the Ronald Lake herd that are currently using areas that overlap with the Project footprint. However, based on the current carrying capacity estimates, those bison are predicted to be displaced within the existing range of the herd. However, the reassessment also predicted a high magnitude effect on mortality risk at Base Case as a result of the high potential for disease transmission from the diseased WBNP bison to the disease-free Ronald Lake herd. The Project is not predicted to add to that effect. See the responses to JRP IRs 7.5(b), 7.5(c) and 7.5(e) for a discussion of the Project’s effects on the Ronald Lake bison herd with consideration of updated data collected since the Project Update.

Sensory disturbances are considered to be represented by changes in noise, odour and visual aesthetics. The furthest extent where the continuous sounds of the Project might be perceptible to land users is 2.3 km southwest of the PDA and has the potential to affect any bison harvesting that might occur in this area or in areas adjacent to the PDA. At PDC, odour will increase in the southern most area of the Ronald Lake BSA. Odour is expected to be perceptible to the north of the PDA and might affect bison harvesters that rely on these areas; however more northerly areas of the Ronald Lake BSA will not experience noise or odour effects at any assessment case. Visibility of the Project is expected for multiple areas throughout and beyond the Ronald Lake BSA.

4.3.2.2 Opportunities to Hunt Traditionally Important Wildlife Species

Cumulative effects on the opportunity for FMFN members to harvest traditionally important wildlife species in the TLU RSA were assessed as high in magnitude, long-term in duration, continuous in frequency, irreversible at the Alternate Base Case, Alternate Application Case and PDC. This is consistent with the assessment results of the Project Update (see Volume 3, Section 17, Table 17-28 of the Project Update). The Project contribution to this effect was assessed as low to moderate for those FMFN land users that rely on the TLU RSA for wildlife harvesting.

Effects on the continued opportunity to hunt traditionally important wildlife species are considered to be a combination of disturbance6 to and changes in access to FMFN preferred wildlife harvesting areas, effects on the availability of preferred wildlife habitat and sensory disturbances that might affect Indigenous land users.

6 Disturbance includes both direct disturbance and the inclusion of a 183 m buffer around locations where the discharge of a weapon is prohibited by Alberta hunting regulations.

May 2017 Page 73

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Effects on FMFN preferred wildlife harvesting areas are considered to be represented by disturbance affecting the those portions of the combined intense and moderate use areas of the Large Game Harvesting and Bird CSEs that overlap the traditional and use RSA, as well as those areas identified in the Fort McKay TLU study (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011) as potentially relied on for wildlife hunting.

Hunting is an integral part of the Fort McKay seasonal round, with large game hunting often occurring in fall (September to October) and bird and small game hunted year round:

In addition to hunting moose in the fall, Fort McKay people also hunt caribou, buffalo and deer, often on the same hunting trips as moose or on specific trips to areas that are known for their greater abundance of these species. Additionally, it is common to hunt ‘chicken’ (grouse and ptarmigan) and snare rabbits throughout the year – particularly when people desire fresh meat or when large game is scarce.

[Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011, p. 15]

As described in the previous bison section, a hunting area used by an extended Fort McKay family ranges from the Canadian Natural Horizon lease project into the Project footprint, to just north of Unnamed Lake 1 and Unnamed Lake 2. Within a 10 km buffer of the Project footprint, 84 subsistence values were recorded, which include hunting locations in addition to other forms of subsistence harvesting (e.g., fishing, harvesting wood, picking berries) (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011). Based on a comparison of these subsistence values and the Project footprint, all but the most northern portions of the PDA are relied on for subsistence harvesting, and extend throughout into the TLU RSA. In addition, a review of the extent of the intense and moderate use portions of the Fort McKay Large Game Harvesting CSE indicates that the entire PDA and the majority of the TLU RSA are overlapped by intense or moderate use areas. Disturbance affecting those portions of the combined moderate and intense use areas that overlap the TLU RSA is 248,570 ha (21%). Of this, the Project contributes 32,403 ha (3%) of the disturbance. At PDC, disturbance to these same areas increases to 311,372 ha (27%).

Areas of intense use concentrations located outside the TLU RSA include the region around Namur and Gardiner lakes, northwest of the Birch Mountains Wildland Provincial Park and near Ronald Lake, Point Brule and Poplar Point. The Fort McKay Bird Utilization CSE indicates that the intense and moderate areas are concentrated around waterbodies, with intense use areas found along the Athabasca River from Fort McKay to Fort McMurray, around McClelland Lake, in the region surrounding Namur and Gardiner lakes and on the Athabasca River between Poplar Point and Point Brule. Disturbance affecting those portions of the combined

May 2017 Page 74

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

moderate and intense use areas of the Bird CSE that overlap the TLU RSA is 216,237 ha (19%), of which, 28,498 ha (2%) of the disturbance is attributable to the Project. At PDC, disturbance to these areas increases to 236,140 ha (36%).

Access throughout Fort McKay’s traditional territory relies on an extensive network of trails. These trails allow community members to travel along frozen muskeg by snowmobile in winter or by upland trails in summer. In summer water access routes are also relied on (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011). A dense network of transportation values were mapped in Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group (2011) in the Project footprint and in the surrounding region. Fort McKay has also established a predevelopment trail map (Fort McKay IRC 2010), that presents a network of trails throughout their traditional territory. Those trails that overlap with the PDA are expected to become unavailable for use as Project development progresses (see the response to JRP IR 4.5). Teck intends to allow access to or through Teck’s MSL as described in the draft AMP (see the response to JRP IR 4.5) to mitigate this effect on land users. In the TLU RSA, multiple trails mapped in Fort McKay IRC (2010) are affected because of existing developments, including to the north and south of Fort McKay on both the east and west side of the Athabasca River. Additional interruptions to trails will also occur in areas north; south and east of Fort McKay on both sides of the Athabasca River at PDC (see the response to Alberta Energy Regulator [AER] Round 5 supplemental information request [SIR] 44). Navigation along the Athabasca River is not expected to be affected by the Project, or the Project in combination with existing developments (see Volume 3, Section 6 of the Project Update), however, Indigenous communities have indicated that they are currently experiencing loss of access because of low water levels in the Athabasca River.

The Alternate Application Case wildlife assessment determined that high magnitude effects are predicted for moose compared with the predevelopment case, and prior to reclamation. High magnitude effects are also predicted for other key traditional use wildlife species considered in the wildlife assessment including woodland caribou, black bear and waterfowl. The Project contribution to this effect is presented in Table 7.2-2 of Appendix 4.1, Attachment I. At PDC, high magnitude effects prior to reclamation are expected to continue on moose, woodland caribou, black bear and waterfowl compared to predevelopment conditions.

The furthest extent that the continuous sounds of the Project might be perceptible to land users is 2.3 km southwest of the PDA, which includes areas indicated as important for hunting by FMFN, including portions of the Boucher family hunting area. Continuous noise due solely to the Project will not be perceptible outside the TLU RSA. Noise from the Fort Hills project at PDC, will be expected in areas southeast of the Project on the east side of the Athabasca River. Odour effects because of the Project are expected to be perceptible beyond the borders of the

May 2017 Page 75

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

terrestrial LSA, particularly to the north and south of the west side of the Project and have the potential to affect subsistence value locations reported in these areas. Odours because of existing conditions are predicted to be perceptible in areas the southern portion of the TLU RSA, including in the region surrounding Fort McKay. Perceptible odour at PDC is predicted to increase within the TLU RSA, and perceptible odours might be experienced continuously along the west side of the Athabasca River from south of Fort McKay through the PDA. Visibility of the Project is expected for multiple areas throughout the TLU RSA including subsistence areas mapped in Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group (2011). Visibility of the Project will also occur in areas outside the TLU RSA.

4.3.2.3 Opportunities to Trap Fur-bearers

Cumulative effects on the opportunity for FMFN members to trap fur-bearers in the TLU RSA were assessed as high in magnitude, long-term in duration, continuous in frequency, irreversible at the Alternate Base Case, Alternate Application Case and PDC. These effects are limited to the traplines available to FMFN trappers. This is consistent with the assessment results of the Project Update (see Volume 3, Section 17, Table 17-28 of the Project Update). The Project contribution to this effect was assessed as low in magnitude for those FMFN trappers that rely on available FMFN traplines in the TLU RSA.

Effects on the continued opportunity for FMFN trappers to trap traditionally important fur-bearing species are considered to be a result of the combination of disturbance and changes in access to FMFN preferred use areas, effects on the preferred habitat availability of key wildlife species and sensory disturbances that might affect Indigenous land users. Preferred FMFN trapping areas are defined as the overlapping portions of those traplines identified as held by FMFN members in Fort McKay IRC (2010) and the TLU RSA. An additional trapline (RFMA 2016) is currently unassigned and therefore available to be trapped by FMFN trappers. A comparison of these traplines and the 38 trapping and commercial values reported within 10 km of the Project footprint in Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group (2011) indicate a large trapping and commercial value that overlaps the majority of the Project footprint, however no FMFN-held RFMAs are located on the Project footprint. It is assumed that this mainly reflects commercial guiding activities, or trapping occurring on traplines located in proximity to the Project, such as RFMA 850. Disturbance affecting the combined Fort McKay held traplines at the Alternate Application Case is 132,957 ha (26%), with no disturbance attributable to the Project. The removal of developments currently under construction or those approved but not yet constructed also does not change the expected disturbance to RFMA 2016, which at Alternate Application Case is predicted to experience 3,080 ha (20%) disturbance, of which 2 ha (<1%) is because of the Project. At PDC,

May 2017 Page 76

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

disturbance affecting the combined Fort McKay traplines and RFMA 2016 increases to 161,137 ha (31%) and 6,678 ha (43%), respectively.

Trapping is mainly a winter activity, extending to mid-March for long haired fur- bearers and to late May for beaver and muskrat (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011). Preparation for the trapping season however, occurs in fall:

The fall is also a time to repair trapline cabins, cut firewood for winter, and make general preparations for the winter months on the trapline. This includes taking supplies out to cabins, preparing food, storing supplies, building meat caches, and in the recent past, catching and preserving fish for dog food and drying cranberries and medicinal plants for winter use (Tanner et al. 2001).

[Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011, p. 14-15]

Considering the above, access is assessed both for potential effects on land and water routes. FMFN traplines, as mapped in Fort McKay IRC (2010), are concentrated in the area around the hamlet of Fort McKay extending east and west beyond the borders of the TLU RSA. Based on a comparison of FMFN access routes also mapped in Fort McKay IRC (2010) it is expected that multiple traplines have experienced access changes as a result of existing development. No FMFN traplines are located on or north of the Project footprint but one trapline (RFMA 850) is located to the west of the Project, and there is the potential for Project disturbance to interrupt trails that might be used to access this trapline. As described in the draft AMP (see the response to JRP IR 4.5) Teck will facilitate access through their MSL for Indigenous land users. To the extent that FMFN trappers rely on the Athabasca River for access, the Project and the Project in combination with existing developments is not expected to effect the navigation of the Athabasca River. Although Indigenous communities have indicated that they are currently experiencing loss of access on the Athabasca River because of low water levels. This effect has been considered at all cumulative assessment cases.

Fur-bearing species assessed in the wildlife assessment include, fisher, Canada lynx, muskrat and beaver. The magnitude of changes on the preferred habitat availability on fisher, Canada lynx and muskrat was assessed as high between predevelopment conditions and Alternate Application Case prior to reclamation. The magnitude of changes to the preferred habitat availability of beaver was assessed as moderate prior to reclamation, also from predevelopment conditions. The Project contribution to this affect is presented in Tables 7.2-2 of Appendix 4.1, Attachment I. At PDC, high magnitude effects on fisher, Canada lynx and muskrat and moderate magnitude effects on beaver are expected to continue, prior to reclamation.

May 2017 Page 77

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Similarly to what was described for hunting, sensory disturbances from existing developments might affect FMFN traplines. The furthest extent that the continuous sounds of the Project might be perceptible to land users is 2.3 km southwest of the PDA, which might overlap with the edge of RFMA 850. Noise from the Fort Hills project at PDC, will be expected in areas southeast of the Project, likely affecting some FMFN traplines. Noise effects from the Project are expected to be perceptible beyond the borders of the terrestrial LSA, but should not affect any RFMAs held by FMFN members. Odours because of existing conditions are predicted to be perceptible in areas within the southern portion of the TLU RSA, including in the region surrounding Fort McKay where multiple FMFN traplines are located. The extent or detectible odours will increase at PDC. Visibility of the Project is expected for multiple areas throughout and beyond the TLU RSA including on FMFN traplines.

4.3.2.4 Opportunities to Fish for Traditionally Important Species

Cumulative effects on the opportunity for FMFN members to fish for traditionally important species in the aquatics RSA were assessed as regional, long-term, continuous, irreversible and low to moderate magnitude at the Alternate Base Case, Alternate Application Case and PDC. This is consistent with the assessment results of the Project Update (see Volume 3, Section 17, Table 17-28 of the Project Update). The Project contribution to this effect was assessed as low in magnitude for those FMFN land users that rely on the aquatics RSA for fishing.

Effects on the continued opportunity to fish for traditionally important species are discussed in relation to the aquatics RSA, which includes the aquatics LSA (see Volume 3, Section 6, Figure 6-1 of the Project Update) and a reach of the Athabasca River from Fort McMurray to Embarras Portage. The extended reach of the Athabasca River in the Aquatics RSA is included to assess potential cumulative upstream and downstream changes because of cumulative development (see Volume 3, Section 6.3.1.2 of the Project Update). Potential effects on the opportunities to fish for traditionally important fish species include loss of preferred fishing areas. Effects on preferred fishing areas are represented both by effects on fish and fish habitat, and on a qualitative comparison between identified fishing locations from Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group (2011) and disturbance at each assessment case.

Specific fishing areas reported by FMFN members in the aquatics LSA and RSA, include the Athabasca River. While no use of the inland lakes in the PDA for fishing were reported in by FMFN, subsistence values that include fishing overlap the majority of the PDA. 84 subsistence values were recorded within 10 km of the Project footprint which include multiple types of subsistence harvesting. Some Fort McKay members have also indicated that they no longer consume fish from the

May 2017 Page 78

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Athabasca River because of health concerns (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011). Currently, much of Fort McKay’s fishing activities are concentrated in the region of Namur and Gardiner lakes (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011), which fall outside the aquatics RSA and will not be affected by Project activities. Intense and moderate use portions of the Fort McKay Fish Utilization CSE are located along Athabasca River between Fort McMurray and WBNP. Intense use areas are located immediately downstream of the Project to just north of Point Brule. This same area also includes inland areas to the west and east of the River. A second intense use area is located at Fort McMurray. Moderate use areas are concentrated along the Athabasca River and in the Namur and Gardiner lakes areas. Only the eastern half of the PDA is overlapped by moderate use fish intensity. Those areas that might be currently available to be fished in the PDA, will become unavailable as Project development progresses. The lands in the Big Creek and Redclay Creek watersheds located within the PDA will be unavailable at the start of Project construction in 2021, including Unnamed Lakes 1 and 2, the Unnamed Creek 2 drainage watershed, upper Big Creek and the portion of Redclay Creek at and upstream of the FHCF. The portions of the Big Creek and Redclay Creek watersheds downstream of the PDA will remain permanently available. However, the portion of the Big Creek channel located between the PDA boundary and the Unnamed Creek 2 confluence, although largely undisturbed physically, will experience complete loss of flow in 2081 because of diversion. The diverted flows will be returned to Big Creek at the Unnamed Creek confluence, preserving lower Big Creek.

The portion of the Redclay Creek watershed within the FHCF will become available again; although in an altered state, once monitoring has determined that fish populations in the FHCL have reached levels that would support fish harvest, which is anticipated to be 2036 or later (see the response to JRP IR 2.1). The lands in the Unnamed Creek 17 and Unnamed Creek 18 watersheds (upper Ronald Lake drainage watershed) located within the PDA will be unavailable starting in 2040 and 2056, respectively, as the watercourses are diverted and the lands are disturbed by Project construction. Diverted flows will be returned to the watercourses to preserve both of the creeks downstream of the PDA. The remainder of the Ronald Lake drainage watershed will remain unaltered by the Project.

May 2017 Page 79

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Fishing might occur in multiple seasons, including ice fishing in winter, and in summer through fall (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011). Access to potential fishing locations within and outside the aquatics RSA is assumed to occur by boat during open water seasons. Changes in the Athabasca River water levels because of cumulative water withdrawals are predicted to be negligible in Reach 4 (i.e., less than 5 cm) and the Project, in conjunction with other oil sands developments, is not expected to affect navigation on the Athabasca River (see Volume 3, Section 6 of the Project Update). However, Indigenous communities have indicated that they are currently experiencing loss of access because of low water levels in the Athabasca River, which has been considered in each cumulative effects assessment.

4.3.2.5 Opportunities to Harvest Traditionally Important Vegetation

Cumulative effects on the opportunity for FMFN members to harvest traditionally important vegetation in the TLU RSA were assessed as high in magnitude, long- term in duration, continuous in frequency, irreversible at the Alternate Base Case, Alternate Application Case and PDC. This is consistent with the assessment results of the Project Update (see Volume 3 Section 17, Table 17-28 of the Project Update). The Project contribution to this effect was assessed as low in magnitude for those FMFN land users that rely on the TLU RSA for vegetation harvesting.

Effects on the continued opportunity to harvest traditionally important vegetation are considered to be a combination of disturbance to and changes in access to FMFN preferred vegetation harvesting areas, effects on traditional use plant potential and sensory disturbances that might affect Indigenous land users. Effects on FMFN preferred plant harvesting are considered to be represented by disturbance affecting those portions of the combined intense and moderate use areas of the Traditional Plant Harvesting CSE that overlaps the TLU RSA, as well as those areas identified in the Fort McKay TLU study (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011) as potentially relied upon for vegetation harvesting.

May 2017 Page 80

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Berry and plant harvesting occurs in summer and fall and has importance for both subsistence gathering and cultural purposes. Berries might be dried and boiled, canned, frozen and eaten fresh (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011). Areas identified as moderate and intense use for Fort McKay plant harvesting include the majority of the RSA, with intense use concentrations along the Athabasca River. The PDA is almost entirely overlapped by intense and moderate use areas. Disturbance affecting those portions of the combined moderate and intense use areas that overlap the TLU RSA is 198,662 ha (25%). Of this, the Project contributes 27,832 ha (4%) of the disturbance. At PDC, this disturbance increases to 248,260 ha (32%). Outside the TLU RSA, areas of intense and moderate use are located immediately north of the RSA, along the Athabasca River from Poplar Point to the boundary of WBNP, and in the region surrounding Namur and Gardiner lakes. In addition, 84 subsistence values were recorded within a 10 km buffer of the Project footprint, which include multiple forms of subsistence harvesting (e.g., fishing, harvesting wood, picking berries) (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011). The area within 10 km of the Project was also noted as being valued because plants are harvested there. Based on a comparison of these subsistence values and the Project footprint, all but the most northern portions of the PDA are relied on for subsistence harvesting. Locations of plant harvesting that might occur in the PDA are expected to be lost because of direct Project disturbance.

At the Alternate Application Case, 639,713 ha of the TLU RSA are expected to contain combined high and moderate TLU plant potential. This is a 21% decreased from predevelopment conditions, prior to reclamation. Of this decrease, 25,024 ha are attributable to the Project, a percentage decrease of 4% in the TLU RSA. A decrease of 206,718 ha of the combined high and moderate traditional use plant potential is expected at PDC in the TLU RSA; a decrease of 26% from predevelopment conditions.

Changes in access to preferred plant harvesting locations might occur because of the Project. A dense network of transportation values were mapped in Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group (2011) in the Project footprint and in the surrounding region. Fort McKay has also established a predevelopment trail map (Fort McKay IRC 2010), that presents a network of trails throughout their traditional territory. Those trails that overlap with the PDA are expected to become unavailable for use as Project development progresses (see the response to JRP IR 4.5). Teck intends to allow access to or through Teck’s MSL as described in the draft AMP (see the response to JRP IR 4.5) to mitigate this effect on land users. In the TLU RSA, multiple trails mapped in Fort McKay IRC (2010) are affected because of existing developments, including to the north and south of Fort McKay on both the east and west side of the Athabasca River. Additional interruptions to trails will also occur in areas north, south and east of Fort McKay on both sides of the Athabasca River at PDC (see the response to AER Round 5 SIR 44). Access to the Namur lakes region is expected to be maintained at the Alternate Application Case. Access to plant

May 2017 Page 81

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

harvesting areas north PDA, including areas north of the TLU RSA is assumed to rely on the Athabasca River. Although navigation along the Athabasca River is not expected to be effected by the Project, or the Project in combination with existing developments (see Volume 3, Section 6 of the Project Update), Indigenous communities have indicated that they are currently experiencing loss of access because of low water levels in the Athabasca River.

The furthest extent that the continuous sounds of the Project might be perceptible to land users is 2.3 km southwest of the PDA, which includes areas subsistence values reported by FMFN that might include plant harvesting locations. Continuous noise due solely to the Project will not be perceptible outside the TLU RSA. Noise from the Fort Hills project at PDC, will be expected in areas southeast of the Project on the east side of the Athabasca River. Odour effects because of the Project are expected to be perceptible beyond the borders of the terrestrial LSA, particularly to the north and south of the west side of the Project and have the potential to affect subsistence value locations reported in these areas. Odours because of existing conditions are predicted to be perceptible in areas the southern portion of the TLU RSA, including in the region surrounding Fort McKay. Perceptible odour at PDC is predicted to increase within the TLU RSA, and perceptible odours might be experienced continuously along the west side of the Athabasca River from south of Fort McKay through the PDA. Visibility of the Project is expected for multiple areas throughout the TLU RSA including subsistence areas mapped in Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group (2011) and areas of intense and moderate plant harvesting use. No sensory effects because of the Project are predicted in the Namur and Gardiner Lakes area.

4.3.2.6 Opportunities to Use Culturally Important Sites and Areas

Cumulative effects on the opportunity for FMFN members to use culturally important sites and areas in the TLU RSA were assessed as high in magnitude, long- term in duration, continuous in frequency, irreversible at the Alternate Base Case, Alternate Application Case and PDC. This is consistent with the assessment results of the Project Update (see Volume 3 Section 17, Table 17-28 of the Project Update). The Project contribution to this effect was assessed as moderate to high in magnitude for those FMFN land users that rely on the TLU RSA for vegetation harvesting.

May 2017 Page 82

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

TLU RSA, as well as disturbance to site-specific areas described in Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group (2011) and Integral Ecology Group (2016) as having cultural importance.

Disturbance to those intense and moderate use portions of the All Traditional Uses CSE that overlap the TLU RSA at the Alternate Application Case is 191,502 ha (23%), of which 17,680 ha (2%) is attributable to the Project. At PDC, this disturbance increases to 241,873 ha (29%). Areas of intense and moderate use are found throughout the TLU RSA radiating off the Athabasca River, with intense use areas between Fort McKay and Fort McMurray, north of McClelland Lake, including a portion that overlaps the PDA and at the northern boundary of the TLU RSA. The area at the northern boundary extends outside the TLU RSA to the boundary of WBNP and another intense use area is located around the Namur and Gardiner lakes region. Within 10 km of the Project footprint, Fort McKay reported six cultural/spiritual values, which include “burial sites, an historic site and an area that is of key importance to a traditional story” (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011, p. 38). Based on a comparison of the mapped cultural/spiritual values in Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group (2011), one of these sites might be directly affected by the road to the RWI. Members of FMFN also:

expressed that the proposed Project will disturb ‘sacred’ burial grounds, a result that they view as ‘disrespectful’ . . . . The participants explained that sacred burial grounds can be found in many places, including along trails and rivers.

[Integral Ecology Group 2016, p. 48]

To date, no confirmed burial locations have been recorded in the PDA and Teck will continue to consult with FMFN regarding the potential for the Project to affect burial sites. One Indigenous landscape value is also reported within 10 km of the Project footprint. This value is located approximately 2 km west of the PDA.

Nineteen habitation values were reported within 10 km of the Project footprint and all but one of these was ground-truthed by Fort McKay members during field surveys. These habitation values included “historic cabin locations, old cabins, currently used cabins, gathering places, campsites, and camping areas” (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011, p. 38-39). A review of the location of habitation values mapped in Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group (2011) indicates multiple habitation values that overlap the PDA. Two values are located at Unnamed Lake 1 and Unnamed Lake 2, and are assumed to be cabins associated with RFMA 1275 and previously discussed under Métis Local 125. These cabins will be directly disturbed by Project development. Another cabin at the south-west end is assumed to correlate with the ‘moose cabin’ also previously reported under Métis Local 125 and is also expected to be disturbed. An additional cluster of habitation values is located

May 2017 Page 83

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

around Crooked Lake, near the Project access road and a large habitation polygon overlaps the PDA along the Athabasca River extending east from the Project.

Based on the distribution of habitation values, it is expected that access to cabins is along the Athabasca River and along overland trails. Access throughout Fort McKay’s traditional territory relies on an extensive network of trails. These trails allow community members to travel along frozen muskeg by snowmobile in winter or by upland trails in summer. Habitation values within the PDA are no longer expected to be available and therefore, access routes to these locations are not expected to be needed or available. Trails within the PDA are expected to become unavailable for use as Project development progresses (see the response to JRP IR 4.5), which might affect access to values located near the PDA, such as habitation and landscape values west of the PDA. Teck intends to allow access to or through Teck’s MSL as described in the draft AMP (see the response to JRP IR 4.5) to mitigate this effect on land users. In the TLU RSA, multiple trails mapped in Fort McKay IRC (2010) are affected because of existing developments, including to the north and south of Fort McKay on both the east and west side of the Athabasca River. Additional interruptions to trails will also occur in areas north, south and east of Fort McKay on both sides of the Athabasca River at PDC (see the response to AER Round 5 SIR 44). Areas of intense use outside the TLU RSA such as Namur and Gardiner lakes are still expected to be accessible at the Alternate Application Case. Navigation along the Athabasca River is not expected to be affected by the Project, or the Project in combination with existing developments (see Volume 3, Section 6 of the Project Update) and therefore, access to areas north of the PDA and the TLU RSA are not expected to be affected by the Project. Existing low water levels in the Athabasca River have been reported by Indigenous communities as affecting their navigation along parts of the river and this has been considered in the cumulative effects assessments.

All receptor locations identified in the acoustics assessment were within requirements for the Alternate Application Case. The furthest extent that the continuous sounds of the Project might be perceptible to land users is 2.3 km southwest of the PDA, which overlaps with habitation values clustered around Crooked Lake. Noise from the Fort Hills project at PDC, will be expected in areas southeast of the Project on the east side of the Athabasca River. Continuous noise due solely to the Project will not be perceptible outside the TLU RSA. Odour effects because of the Project are expected to be perceptible beyond the borders of the terrestrial LSA, particularly to the north and south of the west side of the Project and have the potential to affect subsistence value locations in the Crooked Lake area. Odours because of existing conditions are predicted to be perceptible in the southern portion of the TLU RSA, including in the region surrounding Fort McKay. Perceptible odour at PDC is predicted to increase within the TLU RSA, and perceptible odours might be experienced continuously along the west side of the Athabasca River from south of Fort McKay through the PDA. Visibility of the

May 2017 Page 84

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Project is expected for multiple areas throughout and beyond the TLU RSA. No sensory effects because of the Project are at the Namur and Gardiner lakes area are predicted.

4.3.3 Effects Classification

Table 4.2-17 provides the effects classification and consequence determination for the cumulative effects at the Alternate Base Case, Alternate Application Case and PDC on TLU key indicators for FMFN. 4.2-18 provides the effects classification for the incremental effects of the Project between the Alternate Base Case and the Alternate Application Case.

May 2017 Page 85

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Table 4.2-17: Cumulative Effects Classification and Determination of Consequence for FMFN Traditional Land Use Key Indicators

Magnitude Consequence Alternate Alternate Alternate Alternate Geographic Base Application Base Application Key Indicators Extent Duration Frequency Reversibility Case Case PDC Case Case PDC Opportunities to harvest bison Long- Regional Continuous Irreversible High High High term Opportunities to hunt traditionally Long- Regional Continuous Irreversible High High High important wildlife species term Opportunities to trap fur-bearers Long- Regional1 Continuous Irreversible High High High term High High High Opportunities to fish for traditionally Long- Low to Low to Low to Regional Continuous Irreversible important species term moderate moderate moderate Opportunities to harvest traditionally Long- Regional Continuous Irreversible High High High important vegetation term Opportunities to use culturally Long- Regional Continuous Irreversible High High High important sites and areas term NOTES: 1 These effects are limited to FMFN traplines in the TLU RSA and to any extent that FMFN members trap on RFMA 2016.

Table 4.2-18: Effects Classification of the Incremental Effects of the Project for Fort McKay First Nation Traditional Land Use Key Indicators

Key Indicators Geographic Extent Duration Frequency Reversibility Magnitude Opportunities to harvest bison Regional Long-term Continuous Irreversible Moderate to High Opportunities to hunt traditionally important wildlife species Regional Long-term Continuous Irreversible Low to Moderate Opportunities to trap fur-bearers Regional1 Long-term Continuous Irreversible Low Opportunities to fish for traditionally important species Regional Long-term Continuous Irreversible Low Opportunities to harvest traditionally important vegetation Regional Long-term Continuous Irreversible Low Opportunities to use culturally important sites and areas Regional Long-term Continuous Irreversible Moderate to High NOTES: 1 These effects are limited to FMFN traplines in the TLU RSA and to any extent that FMFN members trap on RFMA 2016 .

May 2017 Page 86

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

4.4 Fort McKay Métis

4.4.1 Effects Analysis

Fort McKay Métis submitted a joint Project-specific TLU study with FMFN and identified that they have the same traditional territory as FMFN in the Fort McKay Métis Project-specific Integrated Cultural Assessment (Human Environment Group 2016). As a result, for the purposes of this assessment the Fort McKay CSEs are assumed to also represent the TLU patterns of the Fort McKay Métis. The updated Alternate Application Case disturbances to those portions of the Fort McKay CSEs that overlap the TLU RSA, terrestrial LSA and Ronald Lake BSA are presented in Tables 4.2-13, 4.2-14 and 4.2-15, respectively. Disturbances to preferred use areas are quantified for land-based areas only. Quantitative disturbance to preferred aquatic areas are considered to be captured through the effects on fish habitat as discussed in the section on the availability of fish (see Section 3.1.2).

For the purposes of this assessment, preferred trapping areas are considered to be those traplines held by or reported to be currently trapped by members of that community that overlap the TLU RSA. Multiple traplines were identified as being trapped or held by Fort McKay Métis members in Human Environment Group (2016). These traplines have been combined into a single area for the ease of quantifying disturbances. No Fort McKay Métis-held or used trapline overlaps the PDA. An additional trapline, RFMA 2016, is currently unassigned, and is therefore, considered to be potentially available to all Indigenous communities for trapping. This trapline overlaps a small portion of the terrestrial LSA and is in the TLU RSA. Table 4.2-19 presents disturbance to these RFMAs.

JRP IR 4.2(a) requested that the updated TLU assessment include information provided by Indigenous communities about their use of areas outside the boundaries of the study areas. The Fort McKay Métis traditional territory is consistent with the FMFN traditional territory and overlaps the entirety of the TLU RSA and extends east, west, north and south beyond its borders. As this assessment considers the Fort McKay CSEs to reflect areas of preferred use by fort McKay Métis within their traditional territory specific to various land use activities, the areas of intense or moderate use that fall outside the study area differ by key indicator. Therefore, a qualitative discussion of the potential Project-related effects on these areas is included in each of the following sections as applicable. Locations consistently referred to in the following sections that fall outside the boundaries of the TLU RSA include Namur and Gardiner lakes, the Birch Mountains, and areas around Ronald Lake, Poplar Point and Point Brule. It should be noted that the area between Poplar Point and Ronald Lake west of the Athabasca River is captured within the boundaries of the Ronald Lake BSA.

May 2017 Page 87

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Table 4.2-19: Disturbance to Fort McKay Métis RFMAs that Overlap the Traditional Land Use RSA

Reference Condition Area Overlapping the Alternate Base Case Alternate Application PDC Project Registered Fur Affiliated Indigenous Traditional RSA Disturbance Case Disturbance Disturbance Contribution Management Area Community (ha) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) Combined traplines Fort McKay Métis 246,177 69,857 28 69,857 28 82,783 34 - - 2016 Unassigned 15,713 3,078 20 3,080 20 6,678 43 2 <1 NOTES: - = 0. Numbers are rounded for presentation purposes.

May 2017 Page 88

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

4.4.2 Effects Assessment

4.4.2.1 Opportunities to Harvest Bison

Cumulative effects on the opportunity for Fort McKay Métis members to harvest bison in the Ronald Lake BSA were assessed as high in magnitude, long-term in duration, continuous in frequency, irreversible at the Alternate Baes Case, Alternate Application Case and PDC. This is consistent with the assessment results of the Project Update (see Volume 3, Section 17, Table 17-28 of the Project Update). The Project contribution to this effect was assessed as moderate to high in magnitude for those Fort McKay Métis members that rely on the Ronald Lake BSA for bison harvesting.

Effects on the continued opportunity to harvest bison are considered to be a combination of disturbance7 and changes in access to Fort McKay Métis preferred bison harvesting areas, effects on the availability of preferred bison habitat and sensory disturbances that might affect Indigenous land users. Effects on Fort McKay Métis preferred bison harvesting areas are considered to be represented by disturbance affecting those portions of the combined intense and moderate use areas of the Large Game Harvesting CSE that overlaps the Ronald Lake BSA, as well as those areas identified in the Fort McKay TLU study (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011) as being potentially relied on for bison harvesting.

Fort McKay Métis has indicated that bison was part of the Fort McKay seasonal round (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011). Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group (2011) noted that:

The extended Boucher family currently hunts, and historically hunted, an areas that stretches from approximately the current location of the Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL) Horizon lease in the south to Teck and . . . [Teck’s] Frontier lease in the north. For generations this area has provided the majority of moose (and recently buffalo) meat for this large extended family. . . The family had a network of trails and cabins that extended from the hamlet of Fort McKay up into the [Integral Ecology Group] LSA. The effect of the CNRL oil sands development has meant that there is now a greater reliance on the northern portion of this hunting area and especially on the portion within the [Integral Ecology Group] LSA.

The northern boundaries of this hunting area as mapped in Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group (2011) overlap with the southern half of the Project footprint and Ronald Lake BSA, to just north of Unnamed Lakes 1 and 2. Within a 10 km buffer

7 Disturbance includes both direct disturbance and the inclusion of a 183 m buffer around locations where the discharge of a weapon is prohibited by Alberta hunting regulations.

May 2017 Page 89

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

of the Project footprint, 84 subsistence values were recorded, which include hunting locations in addition to other forms of subsistence harvesting (e.g., fishing, harvesting wood, picking berries) (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011). This same area was indicated as being particularly valued for bison harvesting (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011). Based on a comparison of these subsistence values and the Project footprint, all but the most northern portions of the PDA are relied on for subsistence harvesting, and localized areas of subsistence harvesting range into the northern portions of the Ronald Lake BSA. In addition, a review of the extent of the intense and moderate use portions of the Fort McKay Large Game Harvesting CSE indicates that the entire PDA and the majority of the Ronald Lake BSA are overlapped by intense or moderate use areas. Disturbance affecting those portions of the combined moderate and intense use areas that overlap the Ronald Lake BSA is 31,680 ha (20%). Of this, the Project contributes 29,904 ha (19%) of the disturbance. At PDC, disturbance to this area increases to 33,146 ha (22%).

Bison hunting is reported to occur in fall, when Fort McKay people would set up hunting camps. Bison hunting would often occur at the same time as hunting for moose and other large game, or on dedicated trips. It was also noted that wildlife hunting might also occur in winter and summer (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011). Access throughout Fort McKay’s traditional territory relies on an extensive network of trails. Fort McKay Métis indicate that trails connect the Athabasca River to the Birch Mountains, and additional trails that run north-south along the Athabasca River (Human Environment Group 2016). These trails allow community members to travel along frozen muskeg, generally by snowmobile in winter. In the summer, water access routes and trails on upland areas provide additional access (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011). A dense network of transportation values were mapped in Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group (2011) in the Project footprint and in the surrounding region. Fort McKay has also made a predevelopment trail map (Fort McKay IRC 2010), which presents a network of trails throughout their traditional territory. Effects on access in the Ronald Lake BSA are expected to be result from direct Project disturbance, as those trails that overlap with the PDA will be become unavailable for use as Project development progresses (see the response to JRP IR 4.5) However, Teck intends to allow access to or through Teck’s MSL as described in the draft AMP (see the response to JRP IR 4.5) to mitigate this effect on land users. Information provided by Fort McKay Métis indicates that even where access management is provided, this can result in an increase to the length of travel time needs to access harvesting locations (Human Environment Group 2016).

May 2017 Page 90

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Application Case prior to reclamation. Based on the updated assessment, there is predicted to be a moderate magnitude effect on the availability of preferred winter habitat. The Project is predicted to displace bison in the Ronald Lake herd that are currently using areas that overlap with the Project footprint. However, based on the current carrying capacity estimates, those bison are predicted to be displaced within the existing range of the herd. However, the reassessment also predicted a high magnitude effect on mortality risk at Base Case as a result of the high potential for disease transmission from the diseased WBNP bison to the disease-free Ronald Lake herd. The Project is not predicted add to that effect. See the responses to JRP IRs 7.5(b), 7.5(c) and 7.5(e) for a discussion of the Project’s effects on the Ronald Lake bison herd with consideration of updated data collected since the Project Update.

Sensory disturbances are considered to be represented by changes in noise, odour and visual aesthetics. The furthest extent where the continuous sounds of the Project might be perceptible to land users is 2.3 km southwest of the PDA and has the potential to affect any bison harvesting that might occur in this area or in areas adjacent to the PDA. At PDC, odour will increase in the southern most area of the Ronald Lake BSA. Odour is expected to be perceptible to the north of the PDA and might affect bison harvesters that rely on these areas. However more northerly areas of the Ronald Lake BSA will not experience noise or odour effects. Visibility of the Project is expected for multiple areas throughout and beyond the Ronald Lake BSA.

4.4.2.2 Opportunities to Hunt Traditionally Important Wildlife Species

Cumulative effects on the opportunity for Fort McKay Métis members to harvest traditionally important wildlife species in the TLU RSA continue to be assessed as high in magnitude, long-term in duration, continuous in frequency, irreversible at the Alternate Base Case, Alternate Application Case and PDC. This is consistent with the assessment results of the Project Update (see Volume 3, Section 17, Table 17-28 of the Project Update). The Project contribution to this effect was assessed as low to moderate for those Fort McKay Métis land users that rely on the TLU RSA for wildlife harvesting.

Effects on the continued opportunity to hunt traditionally important wildlife species are considered to be a combination of disturbance8 to and changes in access to Fort McKay Métis preferred wildlife harvesting areas, effects on the availability of preferred wildlife habitat and sensory disturbances that might affect Indigenous land users. Effects on Fort McKay Métis preferred bison harvesting areas are considered to be represented by disturbances affecting those portions of the combined intense and moderate use areas of the Large Game Harvesting and Bird Utilization CSEs that overlap the TLU RSA, and areas identified in the Fort McKay TLU study (Fort

8 Disturbance includes both direct disturbance and the inclusion of a 183 m buffer around locations where the discharge of a weapon is prohibited by Alberta hunting regulations.

May 2017 Page 91

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011) as potentially relied on for wildlife hunting.

Hunting is an integral part of the Fort McKay seasonal round, with large game hunting often occurring in fall (September to October) and bird and small game hunted year round:

[Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011, p. 15]

As described in the previous bison section, a hunting area used by an extended Fort McKay family ranges from the Canadian Natural Horizon lease into the Project footprint, to just north of Unnamed Lake 1 and Unnamed Lake 2. Within a 10 km buffer of the Project footprint, 84 subsistence values were recorded, which include hunting locations in addition to other forms of subsistence harvesting (e.g., fishing, harvesting wood, picking berries) (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011). Based on a comparison of these subsistence values and the Project footprint, all but the most northern portions of the PDA are relied on for subsistence harvesting, and extend throughout into the TLU RSA. In addition, a review of the extent of the intense and moderate use portions of the Fort McKay Large Game Harvesting CSE indicates that the entire PDA and the majority of the TLU RSA are overlapped by intense or moderate use areas. Disturbance affecting those portions of the combined moderate and intense use areas that overlap the TLU RSA is 248,570 ha (21%). Of this, the Project contributes 32,403 ha (3%) of the disturbance. At PDC, disturbance to these same areas increases to 311,372 ha (27%).

Areas of intense use concentrations located outside the TLU RSA include the region around Namur and Gardiner lakes, northwest of the Birch Mountains Wildland Provincial Park and near Ronald Lake, Point Brule and Poplar Point. The Fort McKay Bird Utilization CSE indicates that the intense and moderate areas are concentrated around waterbodies, with intense use areas found along the Athabasca River from Fort McKay to Fort McMurray, around McClelland Lake, in the region surrounding Namur and Gardiner lakes, and on the Athabasca River between Poplar Point and Point Brule. Disturbance affecting those portions of the combined moderate and intense use areas of the Bird CSE that overlap the TLU RSA is 216,237 ha (19%). Of this disturbance, 28,498 ha (2%) are attributable to the Project. At PDC, disturbance to these areas increases to 236,140 ha (36%).

May 2017 Page 92

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Access throughout Fort McKay’s traditional territory relies on an extensive network of trails. These trails allow community members to travel along frozen muskeg by snowmobile in winter or by upland trails in summer. In summer water access routes are also relied on (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011). A dense network of transportation values were mapped in Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group (2011) in the Project footprint and in the surrounding region. Fort McKay has also established a predevelopment trail map (Fort McKay IRC 2010), that presents a network of trails throughout their traditional territory. Those trails that overlap with the PDA are expected to become unavailable for use as Project development progresses (see the response to JRP IR 4.5). Teck intends to allow access to or through Teck’s MSL as described in the draft AMP (see the response to JRP IR 4.5) to mitigate this effect on land users. In the TLU RSA, multiple trails mapped in Fort McKay IRC (2010) are affected because of existing developments, including to the north and south of Fort McKay on both the east and west side of the Athabasca River. Additional interruptions to trails will also occur in areas north, south and east of Fort McKay on both sides of the Athabasca River at PDC (see the response to AER Round 5 SIR 44). Navigation along the Athabasca River is not expected to be affected by the Project, or the Project in combination with existing developments (see Volume 3, Section 6 of the Project Update), however, Indigenous communities have indicated that they are currently experiencing loss of access because of low water levels in the Athabasca River. This has been considered in each of the cumulative effects assessments.

The Alternate Application Case wildlife assessment determined that high magnitude effects are predicted for moose compared with the predevelopment case, and prior to reclamation. High magnitude effects are also predicted prior to reclamation for other key traditional use wildlife species considered in the wildlife assessment including woodland caribou, black bear and waterfowl. The Project contribution to this effect is presented in Tables 7.2-2 of Appendix 4.1, Attachment I. At PDC, high magnitude effects prior to reclamation are expected to continue on moose, woodland caribou, black bear and waterfowl compared to predevelopment conditions.

The updated Alternate Application Case for acoustics resulted in the removal of the Fort Hills project from the Base Case and all receptor locations identified in the acoustics assessment were within requirements for the Alternate Application Case. The furthest extent that the continuous sounds of the Project might be perceptible to land users is 2.3 km southwest of the PDA, which includes areas indicated as important for hunting by Fort McKay Métis, including portions of the Boucher family hunting area. Noise from the Fort Hills project at PDC, will be expected in areas southeast of the Project on the east side of the Athabasca River. Continuous noise due solely to the Project will not be perceptible outside the TLU RSA. Odour effects because of the Project are expected to be perceptible beyond the borders of the terrestrial LSA, particularly to the north and south of the west side of the Project and have the potential to affect subsistence value locations reported in these areas.

May 2017 Page 93

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Odours because of existing conditions are predicted to be perceptible in the southern portion of the TLU RSA, including in the region surrounding Fort McKay. Perceptible odour at PDC is predicted to increase within the TLU RSA, and perceptible odours might be experienced continuously along the west side of the Athabasca River from south of Fort McKay through the PDA. Visibility of the Project is expected for multiple areas throughout and beyond the TLU RSA including subsistence areas mapped in Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group (2011).

4.4.2.3 Opportunities to Trap Fur-bearers

Cumulative effects on the continued opportunity for Fort McKay Métis trappers to trap traditionally important fur-bearing species are considered to be a result of the combination of disturbance and changes in access to Fort McKay Métis preferred use areas, effects on the preferred habitat availability of key wildlife species and sensory disturbances that might affect Indigenous land users. Preferred Fort McKay Métis trapping areas have been updated from the Project Update to reflect the trapping areas defined in the Fort McKay Métis Integrated Cultural Assessment (Human Environment Group 2016). The preferred Fort McKay Métis trapping areas are now considered to be the overlapping portions of those traplines identified in Human Environment Group (2016) and the TLU RSA. An additional trapline (RFMA 2016) is currently unassigned and therefore is considered to also be available to trap by Fort McKay Métis trappers.

Effects on the opportunity for Fort McKay Métis members to trap fur-bearers in the TLU RSA continue to be assessed as high in magnitude, long-term in duration, continuous in frequency, irreversible at the Alternate Base Case Alternate Application Case and PDC. This is consistent with the assessment results of the Project Update (see Volume 3, Section 17, Table 17-28 of the Project Update). The Project contribution to this effect was assessed as low in magnitude for those FMFN trappers that rely on available FMFN traplines in the TLU RSA.

A comparison of the Fort McKay Métis traplines and the 38 trapping and commercial values reported within 10 km of the Project footprint in Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group (2011) indicate a large trapping and commercial value that overlaps the majority of the PDA. No FMFN-held RFMAs are located on the PDA. It is assumed that this mainly reflects commercial guiding activities, or trapping occurring on traplines located in proximity to the Project, such as RFMA 850. Disturbance affecting the combined Fort McKay held traplines at the Alternate Application Case is 69,857 ha (28%), with no disturbance attributable to the Project. At PDC, disturbance to the combined Fort McKay held traplines increases to 82,783 ha (34%). An additional trapline (RFMA 2016) is currently unassigned and therefore available to be trapped by Fort McKay Métis trappers. The removal of developments

May 2017 Page 94

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

currently under construction or those approved but not yet constructed also does not change the expected disturbance to this RFMA, which at Application Case is predicted to experience 3,080 ha (20%) disturbance, of which 2 ha (<1%) is because of the Project. At PDC, disturbance to RFMA 2016 increases to 6,678 ha (43%).

Trapping is mainly a winter activity, extending to mid-March for long-haired fur- bearers and to late May for beaver and muskrat (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011). Preparation for the trapping season however, occurs in fall (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011). Fort McKay Métis has indicated that they access their traplines by truck, off-road vehicles or snowmobiles (Human Environment Group 2016). Therefore, access is assumed to be primarily land-based. Fort McKay Métis traplines on the east side of the Athabasca River have all likely experienced access changes because of existing development and will continue to experience additional effects because of PDC development. Fort McKay Métis traplines on the west side of the Athabasca (RFMAs 2457 and 2894) have also similarly had access affected because of existing developments. Access routes used to reach RFMA 850, located just west of the Project, might also be affected by the Project and PDC development. As described in the draft AMP (see the response to JRP IR 4.5) Teck will facilitate access through its MSL for Indigenous land users. To the extent that Fort McKay Métis trappers rely on the Athabasca River for access, the Project and the Project in combination with existing developments is not expected to effect the navigation of the Athabasca River, although Indigenous communities have indicated that they are currently experiencing loss of access on the Athabasca River because of low water levels.

Fur-bearing species assessed in the wildlife assessment include, fisher, Canada lynx, muskrat and beaver. The magnitude of changes on the preferred habitat availability on fisher, Canada lynx and muskrat was assessed as high between predevelopment conditions and Alternate Application Case prior to reclamation. The magnitude of changes to the preferred habitat availability of beaver was assessed as moderate prior to reclamation, also from predevelopment conditions. The Project contribution to this affect is presented in Tables 7.2-2 of Appendix 4.1, Attachment I. At PDC, high magnitude effects on fisher, Canada lynx and muskrat and moderate magnitude effects on beaver are expected to continue, prior to reclamation.

Sensory disturbances from existing developments are expected to be affecting Fort McKay Métis traplines. The furthest extent that the continuous sounds of the Project might be perceptible to land users is 2.3 km southwest of the PDA, which might overlap with the edge of RFMA 850. Noise from the Fort Hills project at PDC, will be expected in areas southeast of the Project, likely affecting some Fort McKay Métis traplines. Odour effects because of the Project are expected to be perceptible beyond the borders of the terrestrial LSA, but should not affect any RFMAs held by Fort McKay Métis members. Odours because of existing conditions are predicted to

May 2017 Page 95

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

be perceptible in the southern portion of the TLU RSA, including in the region where RFMAs 1650, 1716, 2137 and 2172 are situated. The extent of detectible odours in these areas is predicted to increase at PDC. Visibility of the Project is expected for multiple areas throughout and beyond the TLU RSA including at areas on Fort McKay Métis traplines.

4.4.2.4 Opportunities to Fish for Traditionally Important Species

Cumulative effects on the opportunity for Fort McKay Métis members to fish for traditionally important species in the aquatics RSA were assessed as regional, long- term, continuous, irreversible and low to moderate magnitude at the Alternate Base Case, Alternate Application Case and PDC. This is consistent with the assessment results of the Project Update (see Volume 3, Section 17, Table 17-28 of the Project Update). The Project contribution to this effect was assessed as low in magnitude for those Fort McKay Métis land users that rely on the aquatics RSA for fishing.

While Fort McKay Métis members have indicated that they “will not eat fish that come from the Athabasca River or any of its major tributaries other than the Firebag River” (Human Environment Group, p. 148) because of concerns over fish and aquatic health, the Athabasca River, along with the Firebag River and Namur Lake area, were identified as key fishing areas. This is consistent with information presented in Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group (2011) that highlighted the importance of the Namur Lakes area for fishing. The Namur Lakes area is outside the aquatics RSA and will not experience any effects because of the Project. While subsistence values that include fishing values and other forms of subsistence gathering overlap the PDA, Fort McKay Métis clarified that “the Frontier Mine Project will not be directly impacting Fort McKay Métis fishing sites” (Human Environment Group 2016, p. 168).

May 2017 Page 96

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Fishing might occur in multiple seasons, including ice fishing in winter, and in summer through fall (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011). Summer fishing was often done in groups and provided an opportunity to pass on traditional knowledge (Human Environment Group 2016). Access to potential fishing locations within and outside the aquatics RSA is assumed to occur by boat during open water seasons. Changes in the Athabasca River water levels because of water withdrawals are predicted to be negligible in Reach 4 (i.e., less than 5 cm) and the Project, in conjunction with other oil sands developments, is not expected to affect navigation on the Athabasca River (see Volume 3, Section 6 of the Project Update). However, Indigenous communities have indicated that they are currently experiencing loss of access because of low water levels in the Athabasca River. This has been considered in each cumulative assessment case.

4.4.2.5 Opportunities to Harvest Traditionally Important Vegetation

Cumulative effects on the opportunity for Fort McKay Métis members to harvest traditionally important vegetation in the TLU RSA continue to be assessed as high in magnitude, long-term in duration, continuous in frequency, irreversible at the Alternate Base Case, Alternate Application Case and PDC. This is consistent with the assessment results of the Project Update (see Volume 3, Section 17, Table 17-28 of the Project Update). The Project contribution to this effect was assessed as low in

May 2017 Page 97

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

magnitude for those Fort McKay Métis land users that rely on the TLU RSA for vegetation harvesting.

Effects on the continued opportunity to traditionally harvest important vegetation are considered to be a combination of disturbance to and changes in access to Fort McKay Métis preferred vegetation harvesting areas, effects on traditional use plant potential and sensory disturbances that might affect Indigenous land users. Effects on Fort McKay Métis preferred plant harvesting are considered to be represented by disturbance affecting those portions of the combined intense and moderate use areas of the Traditional Plant Harvesting CSEs that overlap the TLU RSA, as well as those areas identified in the Fort McKay TLU study (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011) as potentially relied on for vegetation harvesting.

Fort McKay Métis have indicated that they harvest traditional plants, including medicines, roots and berries and various times throughout the year, depending on the season (Human Environment Group 2016). Areas identified as moderate and intense use for Fort McKay plant harvesting include the majority of the RSA, with intense use concentrations along the Athabasca River. The PDA is almost entirely overlapped by intense and moderate use areas. Disturbance affecting those portions of the combined moderate and intense use areas that overlap the TLU RSA is 198,662 ha (25%). Of this, the Project contributes 27,832 ha (4%) to the disturbance. At PDC, this disturbance increases to 248,260 ha (32%).

Outside the TLU RSA, areas of intense and moderate use are located immediately north of the RSA, along the Athabasca River from Poplar Point to the boundary of WBNP, and in the region surrounding Namur and Gardiner lakes. In addition, 84 subsistence values were recorded within a 10 km buffer of the Project footprint, which include multiple forms of subsistence harvesting (e.g., fishing, harvesting wood, picking berries) (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011). The area within 10 km of the Project was also noted as being valued because plants are harvested there. Based on a comparison of these subsistence values and the Project footprint, all but the most northern portions of the PDA are relied upon for subsistence harvesting. Locations of plant harvesting that occur in the PDA are expected to be lost because of direct Project disturbance.

May 2017 Page 98

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

The furthest extent that the continuous sounds of the Project might be perceptible to land users is 2.3 km southwest of the PDA, which includes areas subsistence values reported by Fort McKay Métis that might include plant harvesting locations. Continuous noise due solely to the Project will not be perceptible outside the TLU RSA. Noise from the Fort Hills project at PDC, will be expected in areas southeast of the Project on the east side of the Athabasca River. Odour effects because of the Project are expected to be perceptible beyond the borders of the terrestrial LSA, particularly to the north and south of the west side of the Project and have the potential to affect subsistence value locations reported in these areas. Odours because of existing conditions are predicted to be perceptible in areas the southern portion of the TLU RSA, including in the region surrounding Fort McKay. Perceptible odour at PDC is predicted to increase within the TLU RSA, and perceptible odours might be experienced continuously along the west side of the Athabasca River from south of Fort McKay through the PDA. Visibility of the Project is expected for multiple areas throughout and outside the TLU RSA including subsistence areas mapped in Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group (2011) and areas of intense and moderate plant harvesting use. No sensory effects because of the Project are predicted at the Namur and Gardiner lakes area.

May 2017 Page 99

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

4.4.2.6 Opportunities to Use Culturally Important Sites and Areas

Cumulative effects on the opportunity for Fort McKay Métis members to use culturally important sites and areas in the TLU RSA were assessed as high in magnitude, long-term in duration, continuous in frequency, irreversible at the Alternate Base Case, Alternate Application Case and PDC. This is consistent with the assessment results of the Project Update (see Volume 3 Section 17, Table 17-28 of the Project Update). The Project contribution to this effect was assessed as moderate in magnitude for those Fort McKay Métis land users that rely on the TLU RSA for vegetation harvesting.

Disturbance to those combined intense and moderate use portions of the All Traditional Uses CSE that are located in the TLU RSA at the Alternate Application Case is 191,502 ha (23%), of which 17,680 ha (2%) are attributable to the Project. At PDC, this disturbance increases to 241,873 ha (29%). Areas of intense and moderate use are found throughout the TLU RSA radiating off the Athabasca River, with intense use areas between Fort McKay and Fort McMurray, north of McClelland Lake, including a portion that overlaps the PDA and at the northern boundary of the TLU RSA. The area at the northern boundary extends outside the TLU RSA to the boundary of WBNP and another intense use area is located around the Namur and Gardiner lakes region. Within 10 km of the Project footprint, Fort McKay reported six cultural and or spiritual values, which include “burial sites, an historic site and an area that is of key importance to a traditional story” (Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group 2011, p. 38). Based on a comparison of the mapped cultural/spiritual values in Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group (2011), one of these sites might be directly affected by the road to the RWI.

May 2017 Page 100

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

and Unnamed Lake 2, and are assumed to be cabins associated with RFMA 1275 and previously discussed under Métis Local 125. These cabins will be directly disturbed by Project development. Another cabin at the south-west end is assumed to correlate with the ‘moose cabin’ also previously reported under Métis Local 125 and is also expected to be disturbed. An additional cluster of habitation values is located around Crooked Lake, near the Project access road and a large habitation polygon overlaps the PDA along the Athabasca River extending east from the Project.

Because of the distribution of habitation values, it is expected that access to cabins occurs along the Athabasca River and along overland trails. Throughout Fort McKay’s traditional territory is an extensive network of trails that allow community members to travel along frozen muskeg by snowmobile in winter or by upland trails in summer. Habitation values within the PDA are no longer expected to be available and therefore, access routes to these locations are not expected to be needed or available. Trails within the PDA are expected to become unavailable for use as Project development progresses (see the response to JRP IR 4.5), which might affect access to values located near the PDA, such as habitation and landscape values west of the PDA. Teck intends to allow access to or through Teck’s MSL as described in the draft AMP (see the response to JRP IR 4.5) to mitigate this effect on land users. In the TLU RSA, multiple trails mapped in Fort McKay IRC (2010) are affected because of existing developments, including to the north and south of Fort McKay on both the east and west side of the Athabasca River. Additional interruptions to trails will also occur in areas north, south and east of Fort McKay on both sides of the Athabasca River at PDC (see the response to AER Round 5 SIR 44). Areas of intense use outside the TLU RSA, such as Namur and Gardiner lakes are still expected to be accessible at the Alternate Application Case. Navigation along the Athabasca River is not expected to be effected by the Project, or the Project in combination with existing developments (see Volume 3, Section 6 of the Project Update) and therefore, access to areas north of the PDA and the TLU RSA are not expected to be affected by the Project. Existing low water levels in the Athabasca River have been reported by Indigenous communities as affecting their navigation along parts of the river and this has been considered in the cumulative effects assessments.

May 2017 Page 101

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Odours because of existing conditions are predicted to be perceptible in the southern portion of the TLU RSA, including in the region surrounding Fort McKay. Perceptible odour at PDC is predicted to increase within the TLU RSA, and perceptible odours might be experienced continuously along the west side of the Athabasca River from south of Fort McKay through the PDA. Visibility of the Project is expected for multiple areas throughout and beyond the TLU RSA. No sensory effects from the Project are predicted at Namur and Gardiner lakes.

4.4.3 Effects Classification

Table 4.2-20 provides the effects classification and consequence determination for the cumulative effects at the Alternate Base Case, Alternate Application Case and PDC on TLU key indicators for Fort McKay Métis. Table 4.2-21 provides the effects classification for the incremental effects of the Project between the Alternate Base Case and the Alternate Application Case.

May 2017 Page 102

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Table 4.2-20: Cumulative Effects Classification and Determination of Consequence for Fort McKay Métis Traditional Land Use Key Indicators

Magnitude Consequence Geographic Key Indicators Duration Frequency Reversibility Alternate Alternate Alternate Alternate Extent Base Application Base Application Case Case PDC Case Case PDC Opportunities to harvest bison Long- Regional Continuous Irreversible High High High term Opportunities to hunt traditionally Long- Regional Continuous Irreversible High High High important wildlife species term Opportunities to trap fur-bearers Long- Regional1 Continuous Irreversible High High High term High High High Opportunities to fish for traditionally Long- Low to Low to Low to Regional Continuous Irreversible important species term moderate moderate moderate Opportunities to harvest traditionally Long- Regional Continuous Irreversible High High High important vegetation term Opportunities to use culturally Long- Regional Continuous Irreversible High High High important sites and areas term NOTES: 1 These effects are limited to Fort McKay Métis traplines in the TLU RSA and to any extent that Fort McKay Métis members trap on RFMA 2016.

Table 4.2-21: Effects Classification of the Incremental Effects of the Project for Fort McKay Métis Traditional Land Use Key Indicators

Key Indicators Geographic Extent Duration Frequency Reversibility Magnitude Opportunities to harvest bison Regional Long-term Continuous Irreversible Moderate to High Opportunities to hunt traditionally important wildlife species Regional Long-term Continuous Irreversible Low to Moderate Opportunities to trap fur-bearers Regional1 Long-term Continuous Irreversible Low Opportunities to fish for traditionally important species Regional Long-term Continuous Irreversible Low Opportunities to harvest traditionally important vegetation Regional Long-term Continuous Irreversible Low Opportunities to use culturally important sites and areas Regional Long-term Continuous Irreversible Moderate NOTES: 1 These effects are limited to Fort McKay Métis traplines in the TLU RSA and to any extent that Fort McKay Métis members trap on RFMA 2016.

May 2017 Page 103

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

4.5 Fort McMurray Métis Local 1935

4.5.1 Effects Analysis

Since the submission of the Project Update, Teck has received Métis Local 1935 Cultural Impact Assessment (Willow Springs 2015). This document and the Métis Local 1935 Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Study (Willow Springs 2014) were reviewed to determine an updated Métis Local 1935 preferred use area that did not rely on the 160 km buffer the Alberta government considers to be a Métis Harvesting Area (as requested in JRP IR 4.2[a]).

Willow Springs (2014) cross-referenced Métis Local 1935 land and resource use data with the TLU LSA and TLU RSA as defined in the Integrated Application. Mapped land and resource use data were provided for the Integrated Application TLU LSA and for areas that include and extended north, west and east of the TLU RSA. Métis Local 1935 also indicated multiple current and historic use traplines that overlap the terrestrial LSA, TLU RSA and Ronald Lake BSA, which are important for TLU activities beyond commercial trapping.

The Métis Local 1935 Cultural Impact Assessment (Willow Springs 2015) similarly refers to the TLU LSA and RSA from the Integrated Application for those components it assesses that require formal study areas. Mapped locations of importance in Willow Springs (2015) include locations over a large area, ranging from Fort Chipewyan to areas south of Fort McMurray. Therefore, for the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that the preferred land use area of those Métis Local 1935 members that use the region for traditional use activities overlaps the full extent of the terrestrial LSA, TLU RSA, Ronald Lake BSA and aquatics LSA and RSA. This is consistent with the preferred use areas as defined in the Project Update for Métis Local 1935 as the entirety of each study area was overlapped by the 160 km buffer. Updated disturbance calculations to the terrestrial LSA, TLU RSA and Ronald Lake BSA are provided in Table 4.2-9. Disturbances to preferred use areas are quantified for land-based areas only. Quantitative disturbance to preferred aquatic areas are considered to be captured through the effects on fish habitat as discussed in the section on the availability of fish (see Section 3.1.2).

For the purposes of this assessment, preferred trapping areas are considered to be those traplines held by or reported to be currently trapped by members of that community that overlap the TLU RSA. One trapline (RFMA 1743) was identified as being trapped by Métis Local 1935 members. This trapline does not overlap the PDA. An additional trapline, RFMA 2016, is currently unassigned, and is therefore, considered to be potentially available to all Indigenous communities for trapping. This trapline overlaps a small portion of the terrestrial LSA and is in the TLU RSA. Table 4.2-22 presents disturbance to these RFMAs.

May 2017 Page 104

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

JRP IR 4.2(a) requested that the updated TLU assessment include information provided by Indigenous communities about their use of areas outside the boundaries of the study areas. As Willow Springs (2014) relied on Teck’s study areas to discuss land use and potential Project effects, only limited information on use of areas outside these study areas was identified. Specific areas outside of the TLU RSA noted in Willow Springs (2014) include areas around the Richardson River Dunes wildland areas (north of the TLU RSA). Ronald and Diana lakes (north of the TLU RSA), Namur Lake and Legend Lake (west of the TLU RSA) and Eaglenest Lake (west of the TLU RSA), It should be noted that while the area around and including Ronald and Diana lakes are north of the TLU RSA they are captured within the boundaries of the Ronald Lake BSA. Additional locations outside the TLU RSA identified by Métis local 1935 include RFMAs 2901, 2908 and 2809, which are discussed under effects on trapping.

A qualitative discussion of potential Project-related effects on these areas is included under each relevant key indicator section in the Métis Local 1935 effects assessment (see Section 4.5.2).

May 2017 Page 105

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Table 4.2-22: Disturbance to Fort McMurray Métis Local 1935 RFMAs that Overlap the Traditional Land Use RSA

Reference Condition Area Overlapping the Alternate Base Case Alternate Application PDC Project Registered Fur Affiliated Indigenous Traditional RSA Disturbance Case Disturbance Disturbance Contribution Management Area Community (ha) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) 1743 Métis Local 1935 37,750 188 <1 188 <1 188 <1 - - 2016 Unassigned 15,713 3,078 20 3,080 20 6,678 43 2 <1 NOTES: - = 0. Numbers are rounded for presentation purposes.

May 2017 Page 106

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

4.5.2 Effects Assessment

4.5.2.1 Opportunities to Harvest Bison

Cumulative effects on the opportunity for Métis Local 1935 members to harvest bison in the Ronald Lake BSA were assessed as high in magnitude, long-term in duration, continuous in frequency, irreversible at the Alternate Base Case, Alternate Application Case and PDC. This is consistent with the assessment results of the Project Update (see Volume 3, Section 17, Table 17-28 of the Project Update). The Project contribution to this effect was assessed as moderate to high in magnitude for those Métis Local 1935 members that rely on the Ronald Lake BSA for bison harvesting.

Effects on the continued opportunity to harvest bison are considered to be a combination of disturbance9 and changes in access to Métis Local 1935 preferred bison harvesting areas, effects on the availability of preferred bison habitat and sensory disturbances that might affect Indigenous land users. The entirety of the Ronald Lake BSA is considered to represent the Métis Local 1935 preferred bison harvesting area. At the Alternate Application Case, 31,680 ha (20%) of the Ronald Lake BSA are predicted to be disturbed. The Project contribution to the total disturbance is 29,904 ha (20% of the total area of the Ronald Lake BSA). At PDC, disturbance to the Ronald Lake BSA increases to 33,423 ha (21%).

Information provided in Willow Springs (2014) relied on the Project footprint as presented in the Integrated Application, which included the south development area that is now removed from the Project plan. Métis Local 1935 reported that the Teck leases are in an area known to contain bison habitat, and Métis Local 1935 members rely on bison for subsistence, mainly hunting in fall and winter (Willow Springs 2014). 23 hunting and trapping values were recorded in the Integrated Application TLU LSA in Willow Springs (2014). In Willow Springs (2014) subsistence harvesting and snaring values include big game hunting for moose, deer and bison and trapping of beaver. A large area of subsistence harvesting and snaring value was mapped over the southern half of the PDA extending west to Gardiner Lake. Another value also overlapped the southern portion of the PDA extending south towards Fort McKay along the Athabasca River. A third large subsistence harvesting and snaring value overlaps the northeast boundary of the PDA and extends north almost to the Richardson River Dunes Wildland area and east beyond the boundary of the TLU RSA. Smaller values are also located immediately north of the PDA. Métis Local 1935 members indicated that they harvest bison, along with moose and deer around Ronald, Diana, Legend, Lynn and Namur lakes (Willow Springs 2014). Based on a comparison of reporting harvesting locations and the range of the Ronald

9 Disturbance includes both direct disturbance and the inclusion of a 183 m buffer around locations where the discharge of a weapon is prohibited by Alberta hunting regulations.

May 2017 Page 107

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Lake bison herd, the Project is predicted to result in the direct loss of available land for bison harvesting for Métis Local 1935 members in the northeast potions of the PDA:

Several [Métis Local] 1935 community members state they continue to use the existing skidoo trail and cutlines from Bitumount and Klassen’s Landing to the bison habitat area near Ronald and Diana Lakes. . . . Some of these trails pass through the Frontier PDA.

[Willow Springs 2014, p. 26]

The snowmobile trail reported by Métis Local 1935 members is assumed to be the ‘Keyano River Road’, which will be directly disturbed by the Project and PDC development and will affect harvesters travelling north of the Project to harvest bison. Teck intends to allow access to or through Teck’s MSL as described in the draft AMP (see the response to JRP IR 4.5) to mitigate this effect on land users although Teck recognizes that the use of alternative access strategies, or the implementation of access controls on existing access routes will have the potential to result in additional travel time or costs of Indigenous land users. Another trail mapped in Willow Springs (2014) that runs east-west immediately adjacent to the northern edge of the PDA is also assumed to be used by Métis Local 1935 bison harvesters and might be affected by Project disturbance. Métis Local 1935 also noted that the river was “the traditional transport route and access point for trappers and harvesters” (Willow Springs 2015, p. 62). To the extent that Métis Local 1935 harvesters hunt bison by boat, the Project, in conjunction with other oil sands developments, is not expected to affect navigation on the Athabasca River (see Volume 3, Section 6 of the Project Update). However, Indigenous communities have indicated that they are currently experiencing loss of access because of low water levels in the Athabasca River and this was considered in each cumulative assessment case.

May 2017 Page 108

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

herd. The Project is not predicted add to that effect. See the responses to JRP IRs 7.5(b), 7.5(c) and 7.5(e) for a discussion of the Project’s effects on the Ronald Lake bison herd with consideration of updated data collected since the Project Update.

Sensory disturbances are considered to be represented by changes in noise, odour and visual aesthetics. The furthest extent where the continuous sounds of the Project might be perceptible to land users is 2.3 km, which might affect Métis Local 1935 bison harvesters hunting in close proximity to the PDA. Odour is expected to be perceptible in the Ronald Lake BSA in regions surrounding the Project. Beyond the PDA, odour is expected to be perceptible to the north and south of the west side of the Project, and might overlap with subsistence values mapped near Unnamed Creek 18. At PDC, odour will increase in the southern most area of the Ronald Lake BSA. Odour is not expected to be perceptible in more northerly areas of the Ronald Lake BSA indicated as used for subsistence harvesting and snaring, the area around Ronald and Diana lakes will also not experience any perceptible noise or odour because of the Project. Visibility of the Project is expected for multiple areas throughout the Ronald Lake BSA. Visibility of the Project will also occur in areas outside the Ronald Lake BSA.

4.5.2.2 Opportunities to Hunt Traditionally Important Wildlife Species

Cumulative effects on the opportunity for Métis Local 1935 members to harvest traditionally important wildlife species in the TLU RSA were assessed as high in magnitude, long-term in duration, continuous in frequency, irreversible at the Alternate Base Case, Alternate Application Case and PDC. This is consistent with the assessment results of the Project Update (see Volume 3, Section 17, Table 17-28 of the Project Update). The Project contribution to this effect was assessed as low to moderate for those Métis Local 1935 land users that rely on the TLU RSA for wildlife harvesting.

Effects on the continued opportunity to hunt traditionally important wildlife species were considered to be a combination of disturbance10 to and changes in access to Métis Local 1935 preferred wildlife harvesting areas, effects on the availability of preferred wildlife habitat and sensory disturbances that might affect Indigenous land users. Effects on preferred wildlife hunting areas are considered to be represented by disturbance to the TLU RSA, and to specific areas described in Willow Springs (2014) as used for subsistence harvesting and snaring. In response to the request made in JRP IR 4.2(a), the identification of Métis Local 1935 preferred wildlife harvesting areas no longer relies on the 160 km buffer around Fort Chipewyan and instead looks to the distribution of land use values.

10 Disturbance includes both direct disturbance and the inclusion of a 183 m buffer around locations where the discharge of a weapon is prohibited by Alberta hunting regulations.

May 2017 Page 109

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

As described for bison, subsistence harvesting and snaring values mapped in Willow Springs (2014) include big game hunting for moose, deer and bison and trapping of beaver. Subsistence harvesting and snaring values overlap the PDA, TLU RSA and extend outside the TLU RSA as described in the previous section. The majority of the PDA is overlapped by harvesting and snaring values and the Project is predicted to result in a loss of available hunting lands for Métis Local 1935 members. 23 hunting and trapping values were recorded in the Integrated Application TLU LSA in Willow Springs (2014), which included the south development area that is no longer part of the Project plan. Within the TLU RSA, 249,702 ha (21%) disturbance is expected at the Alternate Application Case, with 32,403 ha (3%) of this disturbance being directly attributable to the Project. At PDC, disturbance to the TLU RSA increases to 313,633 ha (26%). Specific locations noted by Métis Local 1935 members for hunting large game include areas around Ronald, Diana, Legend, Lynn and Namur lakes (Willow Springs 2014).

The potential for the Project to result in access changes was a key concern of Métis Local 1935 (Willow Springs 2014). Multiple north-south trails and transit routes were mapped along or paralleling the Athabasca River immediately east of the PDA and one trail, assumed to be the ‘Keyano River Road’ overlaps the PDA and will be directly disturbed because of Project activities and PDC development. Teck intends to allow access to or through Teck’s MSL as described in the draft AMP (see the response to JRP IR 4.5) to mitigate this effect on land users although Teck recognizes that the use of alternative access strategies, or the implementation of access controls on existing access routes will have the potential to result in additional travel time or costs of Indigenous land users. Additional trails and transit routes mapped in Willow Springs (2014) connect areas south of the Project with Eaglenest Lake, which is located west of the TLU RSA. One of these trails might be interrupted by Project development as might be the east-west trail located at the north boundary of the PDA. Hunting was described as generally occurring during the fall and winter, but also in summer (Willow Springs 2014). Métis Local 1935 members indicated that they boat along the Athabasca River to travel “from Fort McMurray to Firebag River, Big Point or Fort Chipewyan to pursue activities such as fishing and camping” (Willow Springs 2014, p. 26). It is assumed for the purposes of this assessment that Métis Local 1935 members also rely on the Athabasca River to access hunting areas within the TLU RSA. While navigation along the Athabasca River is not expected to be affected by the Project, or the Project in combination with existing developments (see Volume 3, Section 6 of the Project Update), Indigenous communities have indicated that they are currently experiencing loss of access because of low water levels in the Athabasca River. Additional trails that parallel the Athabasca River south of the PDA are affected by Alternate Base Case development, with further disturbance predicted at the PDC.

Regarding changes in wildlife availability, the Alternate Application Case wildlife assessment determined that high magnitude effects are predicted for moose

May 2017 Page 110

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

compared with the predevelopment case, and prior to reclamation. High magnitude effects are also predicted prior to reclamation for other key traditional use wildlife species considered in the wildlife assessment including woodland caribou, black bear and waterfowl. The Project contribution to this effect is presented in Table 7.2-2 of Appendix 4.1, Attachment I. At PDC, high magnitude effects prior to reclamation are expected to continue on moose, woodland caribou, black bear and waterfowl compared to predevelopment conditions.

Sensory disturbances are also expected to affect Métis Local 1935 members at locations within the TLU RSA. The furthest extent that the continuous sounds of the Project might be perceptible to land users is 2.3 km southwest of the PDA, which includes areas mapped as containing harvesting and snaring value in Willow Springs (2014). Continuous noise from the Project will not be perceptible outside the TLU RSA. Odour effects because of the Project are expected to be perceptible beyond the borders of the terrestrial LSA, particularly to the north and south of the west side of the Project. Métis Local 1935 harvesting and snaring area overlap the west and south areas where odour will extend beyond the boundaries of the PDA. Odours because of existing conditions are predicted to be perceptible in areas the southern portions of the TLU RSA, including areas mapped for subsistence and harvesting values. Odour because of existing developments will also be detectible while traveling on the Athabasca River. Perceptible odour at PDC is predicted to increase within the TLU RSA, and perceptible odours might be experienced continuously along the west side of the Athabasca River from south of Fort McKay through the PDA. Visibility of the Project is expected for multiple areas throughout the TLU RSA including subsistence areas mapped in Willow Springs (2014), such as on the east side of the Athabasca River across from the Project. The Project will also be visible at locations outside the TLU RSA.

4.5.2.3 Opportunities to Trap Fur-bearers

Cumulative effects on the opportunity for Métis Local 1935 members to trap fur- bearers in the TLU RSA continue were assessed as high in magnitude, long-term in duration, continuous in frequency, irreversible at the Alternate Base Case, Alternate Application Case and PDC. These effects are limited to the traplines available for Métis Local 1935 trappers. This is consistent with the assessment results of the Project Update (see Volume 3, Section 17, Table 17-28 of the Project Update). The Project contribution to this effect was assessed as low in magnitude for those Métis Local 1935 trappers that rely on available Métis Local 1935 traplines in the TLU RSA.

Effects on the continued opportunity for Métis Local 1935 trappers to trap traditionally important fur-bearing species were considered to be a result of the combination of disturbance and changes in access to Métis Local 1935 preferred use

May 2017 Page 111

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

areas, effects on the preferred habitat availability of key wildlife species and sensory disturbances that might affect Indigenous land users. Preferred Métis Local 1935 trapping areas are defined as those RFMAs currently held or trapped by Métis Local 1935 members, which include RFMA 1743, 2901, 2908 and 289011. Of these only RFMA 1743 overlaps with the TLU RSA. Potential effects on the other traplines are assessed qualitatively. An additional trapline (RFMA 2016) is currently unassigned and therefore available to be trapped by Métis Local 1935 trappers. The revised development inclusion list at the Alternate Application Case also does not change the expected disturbance to this RFMA, which at Application Case is predicted to experience 3,080 ha (20%) disturbance, of which 2 ha (<1%) are because of the Project. At PDC, disturbance to RFMA 2016 increases to 6,678 ha (43%).

Additional traplines were identified in Willow Springs (2014) as important to Métis Local 1935 use historically, however, as no current use of these RFMAs for trapping was indicated and they are held by non-Métis Local 1935 members they are discussed under the opportunities to use culturally important sites and areas key indicator.

RFMA 1743 is located immediately across the Athabasca River from the Project. At the Alternate Application Case, 188 ha (<1%) of this trapline is disturbed and none of this disturbance is because of the Project. No increase to the disturbance affecting RFMA 1743 will occur from PDC developments. RFMAs 2890, 2901 and 2908 are all located to the west of the Project and will not experience any direct disturbance from the Project. A review of subsistence harvesting and snaring values mapped in Willow Springs (2014), which include trapping sites for beaver, show a large polygon stretching from the PDA west, overlapping areas encompassed by RFMAs 2890, 2901 and 2908. A second harvesting and snaring polygon stretching east from the PDA across the Athabasca River correlates with the location of RFMA 1743.

Historically, “in late fall, winter and early spring, trappers would catch and sell pelts such as muskrat, beaver, mink, fox, and wolf” (Willow Springs 2015, p. 41). Currently, “trapping happens primarily in winter when fur coats are thick, animals are hungry and lakes and ponds are frozen and easier for the trapper to navigate; in summer Trap Lines are used for fishing, berry picking, camping, gathering and hunting” (Willow Springs 2014, p. 36). Based on the above, access to Métis Local 1935 RFMAs is assumed to primarily be conducted by overland access in winter. Multiple overland trails mapped in Willow Springs (2014) are overlapped by the PDA. As described in Willow Springs 2014 (p. 26) “community members and the senior trapper on RFMA 2901 use trails from the Athabasca River through the Teck [Integrated Application] TLU LSA to gain access to their harvesting area and

11 RFMA 2890 was not identified in Willow Springs (2014) as a Métis Local 1935 held trapline, however RFMA 2809 was. RFMA 2809 is located northwest of Manning, Alberta, several hundred kilometres west of the Project and therefore, it was assumed that this was a typo and was intended to by RFMA 2890.

May 2017 Page 112

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

cabins” and it assumed that the trail mapped in Willow Springs (2014) that connects Klausen’s Landing to this trapline area will be disturbed by the Project. Teck intends to mitigate disturbance to these trails through the AMP, which will facilitate access to and through Teck’s MSL as the Project develops (see the response to JRP IR 4.5). Access to RFMA 1743 in winter is expected to be facilitated by the Fort Chipewyan winter road and therefore access to this trapline is expected to be available at all assessment cases. To the extent that Métis Local 1935 trappers access traplines along the Athabasca River during open water seasons, the Project in conjunction with other oil sands developments is not expected to affect navigation on the Athabasca River. However, Indigenous communities have indicated that they are currently experiencing loss of access because of low water levels in the Athabasca River. This effect has been considered in the cumulative effects assessments.

Trapping and snaring of fur-bearing species including beaver, muskrat, lynx, fisher, squirrel, mink, fox, coyote, wolf and rabbit were reported to occur in the PDA and surrounding area, year round, except in summer. Fur-bearing species assessed in the wildlife assessment include, fisher, Canada lynx, muskrat and beaver. The magnitude of changes on the preferred habitat availability on fisher, Canada lynx and muskrat were assessed as high in the TLU RSA between predevelopment conditions and the Alternate Application Case, prior to reclamation. The magnitude of changes to the preferred habitat availability of beaver was assessed as moderate in the TLU RSA prior to reclamation, also from predevelopment conditions. The Project contribution to this affect is presented in Table 7.2-2 of Appendix 4.1, Attachment I. At PDC, high magnitude effects on fisher, Canada lynx and muskrat and moderate magnitude effects on beaver are expected to continue, prior to reclamation.

Sensory disturbances are considered to be represented by changes in noise, odour and visual aesthetics. The furthest extent that the continuous sounds of the Project might be perceptible to land users is 2.3 km southwest of the PDA, which will not affected any Métis Local 1935-held or unassigned traplines. Odour effects because of the Project are expected to be perceptible beyond the borders of the terrestrial LSA, particularly to the north and south of the west side of the Project but also are not expected to affect any Métis Local 1935-held or unassigned traplines. Odours from of existing developments might be experienced by Métis Local 1935 trappers while travelling the Athabasca River in upstream areas or on any trapping that might occur on RFMA 2016 and these are predicted to increase at PDC. The Project will be visible at locations on RFMAs 1743, 2016 and potentially at limited locations on 2908.

May 2017 Page 113

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

4.5.2.4 Opportunities to Fish for Traditionally Important Species

Cumulative effects on the opportunity for Métis Local 1935 members to fish for traditionally important species in the aquatics RSA were assessed as regional, long-term, continuous, irreversible and low to moderate magnitude at the Alternate Base Case, Alternate Application Case and PDC. This is consistent with the assessment results of the Project Update (see Volume 3, Section 17, Table 17-28 of the Project Update). The Project contribution to this effect was assessed as low in magnitude for those Métis Local 1935 land users that rely on the aquatics RSA for fishing.

Effects on the continued opportunity to fish for traditionally important species are discussed in relation the aquatics RSA, which includes the aquatics LSA (see Volume 3, Section 6, Figure 6-1 of the Project Update) and a reach of the Athabasca River from Fort McMurray to Embarras Portage. The extended reach of the Athabasca River in the Aquatics RSA is included to assess potential cumulative upstream and downstream changes because of cumulative development (see Volume 3, Section 6.3.1.2 of the Project Update). Effects on preferred fishing areas are represented both by effects on fish and fish habitat, and on a qualitative comparison between identified fishing locations reported by Métis Local 1935 and disturbance at the Alternate Application Case. Fishing areas used by Métis Local 1935 were not mapped in Willow Springs (2014 or 2015), but it was noted that the Athabasca River “is an important site for subsistence fishing activities” (Willow Springs 2014, p. 41). Two fishing sites were recorded within the Integrated Application TLU LSA in Willow Springs (2014), which included the south development area which is no longer a part of the Project plan. Traplines with historic and current connection to Métis Local 1935 were also used for fishing during summer, along with other traditional uses (Willow Springs 2014). Willow Springs (2014) also indicates that key sites for Métis fishing, such as the Athabasca River and adjacent creeks, have the potential to be affected by the Project.

Métis Local 1935 members indicated that they boat along the Athabasca River to travel “from Fort McMurray to Firebag River, Big Point or Fort Chipewyan to

May 2017 Page 114

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

pursue activities such as fishing and camping” (Willow Springs 2014, p. 26). Changes in the Athabasca River water levels because of water withdrawals are predicted to be negligible in Reach 4 (i.e., less than 5 cm) and the Project, in conjunction with other oil sands developments, is not expected to affect navigation on the Athabasca River (see Volume 3, Section 6 of the Project Update). However, Indigenous communities have indicated that they are currently experiencing loss of access because of low water levels in the Athabasca River.

4.5.2.5 Opportunities to Harvest Traditionally Important Vegetation

The effects on the continued opportunity to harvest traditionally important vegetation are considered to be a combination of disturbance to, and changes in, access to Métis Local 1935 preferred use areas, changes in traditional use plant potential, and sensory disturbances that might affect Indigenous land users. In response to the request made in JRP IR 4.2, the identification of Métis Local 1935 preferred plant harvesting areas no longer relies on the 160 km buffer around Fort McMurray and instead looks to the distribution of plant harvesting locations provided in Willow Springs (2014). No mapped spatial data regarding plant gathering was provided in Willow Springs (2014) but multiple sites within the TLU RSA were identified in the text and three berry harvesting sites were recorded in the Integrated Application TLU LSA (which included the south development area no longer included in the Project plan). The Integrated Application TLU LSA was noted “as a good place to harvest blueberries, raspberries, Saskatoon berries, hazelnuts, strawberries and rosehips” (Willow Springs 2014, p. 41). Recorded berry harvesting areas in the TLU RSA included along the winter road from Bitumount to the Firebag River and along the Athabasca River.

The update of Métis Local 1935 preferred use areas and consideration of the Alternate Base Case resulted in a change in the effects assessment on Métis Local 1935 opportunities to harvest traditionally important vegetation in the TLU RSA from what was reported in the Project Update at Base Case. Moderate to high magnitude effects were assessed at the Alternate Base Case, and high magnitude

May 2017 Page 115

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

effects were assessed at the Alternate Application Case and PDC. The Project contribution to this effect was assessed as low in magnitude for those Métis Local 1935 land users that rely on the TLU RSA for vegetation harvesting.

At the Alternate Application Case, 639,713 ha of the TLU RSA is expected to contain combined high and moderate TLU plant potential. This is a 21% decreased from predevelopment conditions, prior to reclamation. Of this decrease, 25,024 ha is attributable to the Project, a percentage decrease of 4% in the TLU RSA. A decrease of 206,718 ha of the combined high and moderate traditional use plant potential is expected at PDC in the TLU RSA; a decrease of 26% from predevelopment conditions. Disturbance to the TLU RSA at the Alternate Application Case is 217,638 ha (18%), 28,498 ha (2%) of which is attributable to the Project. At PDC, disturbance to the TLU RSA increases to 268,793 ha (22%). Those plant and berry harvesting locations situated in the PDA are expected to be lost for Métis Local 1935 use because of Project development. A specific location for harvesting berries was recorded behind the main cabin associated with RFMA 1275, and might be affected by Project development.

Historically, “families would harvest berries in summer and fall, to be canned or stored in cellars with produce from the family garden to feed the family through winter” (Willow Springs 2015, p. 41). Berry harvesting is assumed to still occur in summer and fall when plants are easier to identify and producing fruit. Traplines were reported to be important areas for harvesting berries. Access to RFMA 1743 and other historically important traplines identified by Métis Local 1935 on the Athabasca River are assumed to be accessed by the river during open water seasons. Navigation along the Athabasca River is not expected to be effected by the Project, or the Project in combination with existing developments (see Volume 3, Section 6 of the Project Update), but Indigenous communities have indicated that they are currently experiencing loss of access because of low water levels in the Athabasca River and this has been considered at all cumulative assessment cases.

Those traplines located to the west of the PDA, might experience access effects because of potential disturbance to a trail that runs east-west along the southern PDA boundary. Any berry harvesting occurring north of the PDA might also experience access effects because of the interruption of the ‘Keyano River Road’. Teck intends to allow access to or through Teck’s MSL as described in the draft AMP (see the response to JRP IR 4.5) to mitigate this effect on land users. Within the southern portions of the TLU RSA, existing developments are expected to have resulted in access effects on Métis Local 1935 harvesters.

May 2017 Page 116

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

that the continuous sounds of the Project might be perceptible to land users is 2.3 km southwest of the PDA, which might affect any plant harvesting occurring in this area. Continuous noise from the Project will not be perceptible outside the TLU RSA. Noise from the Fort Hills project at PDC, will be expected in areas southeast of the Project on the east side of the Athabasca River. Odour effects because of the Project are expected to be perceptible beyond the borders of the terrestrial LSA, particularly to the north and south of the west side of the Project and have the potential to affect plant harvesting locations in these areas. Odours because of existing conditions are predicted to be perceptible in southern areas of the TLU RSA, including along portions of the Athabasca River. Visibility of the Project is expected for multiple areas throughout and beyond the TLU RSA, including historically and currently important Métis Local 1935 trapline areas that might be used for plant harvesting.

4.5.2.6 Opportunities to Use Culturally Important Sites and Areas

Cumulative effects on the opportunity for Métis Local 1935 members to use culturally important sites and areas in the TLU RSA were assessed as moderate to high in magnitude at the Alternate Base Case, and high at the Alternate Application Case and PDC. All effects were assessed as regional, long-term, continuous and irreversible. The Project contribution to this effect was assessed as moderate to high for those Métis Local 1935 land users that use the TLU RSA for cultural activities.

Forty traditional trails, cabins and cultural and or spiritual sites were recorded in the Integrated Application TLU LSA in Willow Springs (2014), which included the south development area that is no longer part of the Project plan. In addition, Willow Springs (2014) indicated that trapping areas “are geographic spaces of economic activity, cultural practices and socialization of youth . . . in the summer Trap Lines are used for fishing, berry picking, camping, gathering and hunting” (Willow Springs 2014, p. 36). Multiple traplines historically or currently connected with Métis Local 1935 use were reported in Willow Springs (2014), including RFMAs 1275, 1661, 1743, 2331, 2890, 2901, 2908 and 2939. These traplines demonstrate use of the TLU RSA and areas outside the TLU RSA for cultural activities. Disturbance to the TLU RSA at the Alternate Application Case is 217,638 ha (18%),

May 2017 Page 117

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

28,498 ha (2%), of which is attributable to the Project. At PDC, disturbance to the TLU RSA increases to 268,793 ha (22%).

Two burial sites were reported in Willow Springs (2014) as within the PDA. One burial site was noted as being located half a mile north of Mile 72. This burial site will not be directly disturbed by Project activities. The second burial site was reported at the PDA edge southeast of Unnamed Lake 2. Willow Springs (2014) indicated that “at the time of writing, the exact location of the latter burial site had not been verified but it is believed to be within the Teck [Integrated Application] TLU LSA”. Teck has conducted archaeological investigations in this area but no burial location has been located. Further archaeological investigations will be conducted and Teck will work collaboratively with Métis Local 1935 and other Indigenous communities on mitigation studies in an effort to address local concerns and interests in relation to historical resources in the area. A third burial site was reported north of the PDA along the Athabasca River, and is not expected to experience any effects as a result of the Project.

Multiple cabin locations were reported in close proximity to the PDA. Cabin locations were noted at the Firebag River, Lobstick Point, Mile 72 and Mile 64. Cabins located along the Athabasca River are not expected to be directly disturbed by the Project, but one cabin location is reported to be located in the PDA. Cultural sites were also reported in proximity to the PDA. Two cultural sites correspond to the burial locations previously stated, and two other cultural sites are located south of the PDA along the Athabasca River, but are expected to be located in close proximity to the access road and bridge:

The Athabasca River has profound historical and contemporary significance to the McMurray Métis . . . The river was, from the second half of the nineteenth century until the middle of the twentieth century, the primary residence and source of economic and cultural sustenance (both traditional harvesting and wage labour) for most community members.

[Willow Springs 2015, p. 79]

Access along the Athabasca River and to those traplines and cabins situated along the Athabasca River are not expected to be affected by the Project, although Indigenous communities have said that they are currently experiencing access limitations because of low water levels. Land access within the TLU RSA is expected to be affected because of existing and PDC developments around Fort McMurray and Fort McKay and from Project development. Those traplines located to the west of the PDA might experience access effects because of potential disturbance to a trail that runs east-west along the southern PDA boundary. The Project and PDC will also affect the ‘Keyano River Road’, which might be used to

May 2017 Page 118

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

access cabins and cultural sites north of the PDA when water access is not available. Teck intends to allow access to or through Teck’s MSL as described in the draft AMP (see the response to JRP IR 4.5) to mitigate this effect on land users.

Sensory disturbances are considered to be represented by changes in noise, odour and visual aesthetics. All receptor locations identified in the acoustics assessment were within requirements for the Alternate Application Case. The furthest extent that the continuous sounds of the Project might be perceptible to land users is 2.3 km southwest of the PDA, and might be detectable on trails located south of the PDA. Continuous noise from the Project will not be perceptible outside the TLU RSA and will not affect those RFMAs located west of the PDA. Noise from the Fort Hills project at PDC, will be expected in areas southeast of the Project on the east side of the Athabasca River. Odour effects because of the Project are expected to be perceptible beyond the borders of the terrestrial LSA, particularly to the north and south of the west side of the Project. Odours because of existing conditions are predicted to be perceptible in southern areas of the TLU RSA, including along portions of the Athabasca River. Perceptible odour at PDC is predicted to increase within the TLU RSA, and perceptible odours might be experienced continuously along the west side of the Athabasca River from south of Fort McKay through the PDA. Visibility of the Project is expected for multiple areas throughout and beyond the TLU RSA, including historically and currently important Métis Local 1935 trapline areas that might be used for cultural activities.

4.5.3 Effects Classification

Table 4.2-23 provides the effects classification and consequence determination for the cumulative effects at the Alternate Base Case, Alternate Application Case and PDC on TLU key indicators for Métis Local 1935. Table 4.2-24 provides the effects classification for the incremental effects of the Project between the Alternate Base Case and the Alternate Application Case.

In the Project Update, high magnitude effects were identified at Base Case for Métis Local 1935’s opportunity to harvest traditionally important vegetation and use culturally important sites and areas. This is reduced to moderate to high in the Alternate Base Case as a result of the reduction in disturbance to the TLU RSA from 22% (Base Case) to 16% (Alternate Base Case) and an increase in moderate and high TLU potential at Alternate Base Case of 17,234 ha. No update to the preferred use areas of Métis Local 1935 was required to account for the removal of the 160 km buffer as the entirety of the each study area was identified as a preferred Métis Local 1935 use are in the Project Update (see Section 4.5.1).

May 2017 Page 119

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Table 4.2-23: Cumulative Effects Classification and Determination of Consequence for Métis Local 1935 Traditional Land Use Key Indicators

Magnitude Consequence Alternate Alternate Alternate Alternate Geographic Base Application Base Application Key Indicators Extent Duration Frequency Reversibility Case Case PDC Case Case PDC Opportunities to harvest bison Long- Regional Continuous Irreversible High High High term Opportunities to hunt traditionally Long- Regional Continuous Irreversible High High High important wildlife species term Opportunities to trap fur-bearers Long- Regional1 Continuous Irreversible High High High term High High High Opportunities to fish for traditionally Long- Low to Low to Low to Regional Continuous Irreversible important species term moderate moderate moderate Opportunities to harvest traditionally Long- Moderate Regional Continuous Irreversible High High important vegetation term to high Opportunities to use culturally Long- Moderate Regional Continuous Irreversible High High important sites and areas term to high NOTES: 1 These effects are limited to RFMA 1743 and to any extent that Métis Local 1935 members are trapping on RFMA 2016

Table 4.2-24: Effects Classification of the Incremental Effects of the Project for Métis Local 1935 Traditional Land Use Key Indicators

Geographic Key Indicators Extent Duration Frequency Reversibility Magnitude Opportunities to harvest bison Regional Long-term Continuous Irreversible Moderate to High Opportunities to hunt traditionally important wildlife species Regional Long-term Continuous Irreversible Low to Moderate Opportunities to trap fur-bearers Regional1 Long-term Continuous Irreversible Low Opportunities to fish for traditionally important species Regional Long-term Continuous Irreversible Low Opportunities to harvest traditionally important vegetation Regional Long-term Continuous Irreversible Low Opportunities to use culturally important sites and areas Regional Long-term Continuous Irreversible Moderate to High NOTES: 1 These effects are limited to RFMA 1743 and to any extent that Métis Local 1935 members are trapping on RFMA 2016.

May 2017 Page 120

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

4.6 Lac La Biche Métis Local 1909

4.6.1 Effects Analysis

The Métis Local 1909 Traditional Knowledge and Use Baseline Study (Willow Springs and Métis Local 1909 2015) utilized the terrestrial LSA to provide plant harvesting data, the aquatics LSA to provide fishing data and the Ronald Lake BSA to provide hunting, trapping/other commercial use and habitation (lodges and cabins) data. Figures 4 to 7 in the Métis Local 1909 study show use of the entirety of the terrestrial LSA, extending into the TLU RSA, use of the entirety of the Ronald Lake BSA and use of portions of the aquatics LSA and RSA. The Métis Local 1909 study also indicated that Métis Local 1909 represents “some Métis harvesters from the Athabasca River who maintain traditional harvesting activities on ancestral traplines between Fort McKay and Fort Chipewyan” (Willow Springs and Métis Local 1909 2015, p. iv) and that Métis Local 1909 members “often found themselves in Fort McMurray and Fort Chipewyan for work or social gatherings and have harvesting in the Project areas, both historically and currently” (Willow Springs and Métis Local 1909 2015, p. 21).

Therefore, for the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that the preferred land use area of those Métis Local 1909 members that use the region for traditional use activities overlaps the full extent of the terrestrial LSA, TLU RSA, Ronald Lake BSA and aquatics LSA and RSA. Disturbance calculations to the terrestrial LSA, TLU RSA and Ronald Lake BSA are provided in Table 4.2-9. Disturbances to preferred use areas are quantified for land-based areas only. Quantitative disturbance to preferred aquatic areas are considered to be captured through the effects on fish habitat as discussed in the section on the availability of fish (see Section 3.1.2).

For the purposes of this assessment, preferred trapping areas are considered to be those traplines held by or reported to be currently trapped by members of that community that overlap the TLU RSA. No Métis Local 1909 traplines are located in the TLU RSA. However, RFMA 2016, is currently unassigned, and is therefore, considered to be potentially available to all Indigenous communities for trapping. This trapline overlaps a small portion of the terrestrial LSA and is in the TLU RSA. Table 4.2-25 presents disturbance to RFMA 2016.

May 2017 Page 121

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Table 4.2-25: Disturbance to Unassigned RFMAs that Overlap the Traditional Land Use RSA

Reference Condition Area Overlapping the Alternate Base Case Alternate Application PDC Project Registered Fur Affiliated Indigenous Traditional RSA Disturbance Case Disturbance Disturbance Contribution Management Area Community (ha) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) 2016 Unassigned 15,713 3,078 20 3,080 20 6,678 43 2 <1 NOTES: - = 0. Numbers are rounded for presentation purposes.

May 2017 Page 122

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

JRP IR 4.2(a) requested that the updated TLU assessment include information provided by Indigenous communities about their use of areas outside the boundaries of the study areas. Information provided in Willow Springs and Métis local 1909 (2015) was provided primarily within the TLU RSA and Ronald Lake BSA. However, concentrations of use were also mapped in areas north and west of the TLU RSA and Ronald Lake BSA, such as portions of RFMAs 1570 and 2400, but discrete locations of use were not provided. A qualitative discussion of potential Project-related effects on these areas is included under each relevant key indicator section in the Métis Local 1909 effects assessment (see Section 4.6.2).

4.6.2 Effects Assessment

4.6.2.1 Opportunities to Harvest Bison

Cumulative effects on the opportunity for Métis Local 1909 to harvest bison were assessed as adverse and high in magnitude, long-term in duration, continuous in frequency, irreversible at the Alternate Base Case, Alternate Application Case and PDC. The Project contribution to this effect as assessed as moderate to high for those Métis Local 1909 members that rely on the Ronald Lake BSA for bison harvesting.

Effects on the continued opportunity to harvest bison are considered to be a combination of disturbance and changes in access to Métis Local 1909 preferred bison harvesting areas, effects on the bison preferred habitat availability and sensory disturbances that might affect Indigenous hunters. As described in Section 4.6.1, the Ronald Lake BSA is considered to represent the preferred bison harvesting area for Métis Local 1909. All disturbances to the Ronald Lake BSA are calculated with the inclusion of the 183 m buffer to account for areas where the discharge of a weapon is prohibited. At the Alternate Application Case, 31,680 ha (20%) of the Ronald Lake BSA is predicted to be disturbed. The Project contribution to the total disturbance is 29,904 ha (20% of the total area of the Ronald Lake BSA). At PDC, disturbance to the Ronald Lake BSA increases to 33,423 ha (21%). Effects on site- specific locations of bison harvesting by Métis Local 1909 members as provided in Willow Springs and Métis Local 1909 (2015) are also discussed and considered in the assessment.

Willow Springs and Métis Local 1909 (2015, p. v) indicated that:

bison and moose hunting areas within the Frontier Terrestrial . . . LSA are frequented 5 to 6 times per year, in multiple seasons, currently and historically for subsistence and commercial purposes and are therefore of high level of concern.

May 2017 Page 123

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

It was also noted that high concentrations of bison winter kill sites are located within the terrestrial LSA. Mapped areas of low and high concentration for hunting and trapping were presented in Willow Springs and Métis Local 1909 (2015):

The geographic scope of concentration of [Métis Local] 1909 big game harvesting . . . shows concentration of current and historic big game and bird hunting activities along the Athabasca River and in areas accessible by trails parallel to the river taking hunters into the Terrestrial LSA . . .There are approximately 20 distinct points, lines, polygon features on the map. Activities are less concentrated throughout the western portions of the terrestrial LSA and into the Bison Study Area (10-50%) but are concentrated again more heavily on traplines at the north end of the BSA.

[Willow Springs and Métis Local 1909 2015, p. 48]

The two traplines referred to are RFMA 1570 and 2400. Both of these traplines are overlapped by the Ronald Lake BSA but neither will experience direct disturbance because of the Project.

Access routes to and within the Ronald Lake BSA use a cutline along the west-side of the Athabasca River, assumed to be the ‘Keyano River Road’. This cutline connects the PDA with traplines to the north used by Métis Local 1909 members as well to areas south. The ‘Keyano River Road’ will be directly disturbed by the Project and PDC development and will affect Métis Local 1909 harvesters travelling to harvest bison. Teck intends to allow access to or through Teck’s MSL as described in the draft AMP (see the response to JRP IR 4.5) to mitigate this effect. Teck recognizes that the use of alternative access strategies, or the implementation of access controls on existing access routes still have the potential to result in additional travel time or costs of Indigenous land users.

Hunting for bison was described as primarily a winter activity, because muskeg is too difficult to travel through in summer. In seasons of open water, Métis Local 1909 members described how they travel the Athabasca River north from Fort McMurray to Klausen’s Landing or a landing by the main cabin associated with RFMA 1275 and then go inland to access hunting areas (Willow Springs and Métis Local 1909 2015). To the extent that Métis Local 1909 harvesters hunt bison by boat, the Project, in conjunction with other oil sands developments, is not expected to affect navigation on the Athabasca River (see Volume 3, Section 6 of the Project Update). However, Indigenous communities have indicated that they are currently experiencing loss of access because of low water levels in the Athabasca River. This has been considered in each cumulative assessment case.

May 2017 Page 124

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

No changes in bison habitat result because of the removal of projects currently under or not yet constructed from the Base Case. However, disturbance affecting preferred habitat availability for bison has changed relative to what was presented in the Project Update, where high magnitude effects were predicted at Base Case and Application Case prior to reclamation. Based on the updated assessment, there is predicted to be a moderate magnitude effect on the availability of preferred winter habitat. The Project is predicted to displace bison in the Ronald Lake herd that are currently using areas that overlap with the Project footprint. However, based on the current carrying capacity estimates, those bison are predicted to be displaced within the existing range of the herd. However, the reassessment also predicted a high magnitude effect on mortality risk at Base Case as a result of the high potential for disease transmission from the diseased WBNP bison to the disease-free Ronald Lake herd. The Project is not predicted add to that effect. See the responses to JRP IRs 7.5(b), 7.5(c) and 7.5(e) for a discussion of the Project’s effects on the Ronald Lake bison herd with consideration of updated data collected since the Project Update.

4.6.2.2 Opportunities to Hunt Traditionally Important Wildlife Species

Cumulative effects on the opportunity for Métis Local 1909 to harvest traditionally important wildlife species were assessed as adverse and high in magnitude, long- term in duration, continuous in frequency, irreversible at the Alternate Base Case, Alternate Application Case and PDC. The Project contribution to this effect as assessed as low to moderate for those Métis Local 1909 members that rely on the TLU RSA for wildlife harvesting.

Effects on the continued opportunity to hunt traditionally important wildlife are considered to be a combination of disturbance and changes in access to the Métis Local 1909 use area, effects on the preferred habitat availability of key species and

May 2017 Page 125

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

sensory disturbances that might affect Indigenous land users. All disturbances to the hunting areas are calculated with the inclusion of the 183 m buffer to account for areas where the discharge of a weapon is prohibited by provincial hunting regulations. The entirety of the terrestrial LSA and TLU RSA were deemed to represent the Métis Local 1909 use area and effects are also assessed to those areas specifically described as being relied on for hunting activities in Willow Springs and Métis Local 1909 (2015).

Bird and large game hunting occurs in fall and in spring. Moose hunting in the terrestrial LSA occurs most commonly in fall but will also be relied on in winter to support those trappers or their families when in need of meat (Willow Springs and Métis Local 1909 2015). Within the TLU RSA, 249,702 ha (21%) disturbance is expected at the Alternate Application Case, with 32,403 ha (3%) of this disturbance being directly attributable to the Project. At PDC, disturbance to the TLU RSA increases to 313,633 ha (26%). As described in the previous section, big game and bird hunting activities are concentrated near the Athabasca River and on paralleling trails. The western portions of the terrestrial LSA are not as heavily relied on but high levels of use are found on RFMAs 1570 and 2400 (Willow Springs and Métis Local 1909 2015). “The Terrestrial LSA and the creeks and small lakes which are found at its centre are known to be prime moose hunting spots” (Willow Springs and Métis Local 1909 2015, p. 46). Those hunting locations in the PDA will become unavailable as a result of Project development. The cluster of lakes close to the centre of the PDA, including Unnamed Lake 1 and Unnamed Lake 2 will be unavailable at the start of Project construction in 2021, as will upper Big Creek and the portion of Redclay Creek at and upstream of the FHCF.

Access routes used for hunting include a cutline along the west-side of the Athabasca River, assumed to be the ‘Keyano River Road’. This cutline connects the PDA with traplines to the north used by Métis Local 1909 members as well to areas south. The ‘Keyano River Road’ will be directly disturbed by the Project and PDC development and will affect Métis Local 1909 harvesters travelling to harvest bison. Teck intends to allow facilitate to or through Teck’s MSL as described in the draft AMP (see the response to JRP IR 4.5) to mitigate this effect. Teck recognizes that the use of alternative access strategies, or the implementation of access controls on existing access routes still have the potential to result in additional travel time or costs of Indigenous land users.

Métis Local 1909 members described how they travel the Athabasca River north from Fort McMurray to Klausen’s Landing or a landing by the main cabin associated with RFMA 1275 and then go inland to access hunting areas (Willow Springs and Métis Local 1909 2015). The Project, in conjunction with other oil sands developments, is not expected to affect navigation on the Athabasca River (see Volume 3, Section 6 of the Project Update). However, Indigenous communities have

May 2017 Page 126

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

indicated that they are currently experiencing loss of access because of low water levels in the Athabasca River. This has been considered in each cumulative assessment case.

Regarding changes in wildlife availability, the Alternate Application Case wildlife assessment determined that high magnitude effects are predicted for moose compared with the predevelopment case, and prior to reclamation. High magnitude effects are also predicted prior to reclamation for other key traditional use wildlife species considered in the wildlife assessment including woodland caribou, black bear and waterfowl. The Project contribution to this effect is presented in Table 7.2-2 of Appendix 4.1, Attachment I. At PDC, high magnitude effects prior to reclamation are expected to continue on moose, woodland caribou, black bear and waterfowl compared to predevelopment conditions.

Sensory disturbances are also expected to affect Métis Local 1909 members at locations within the TLU RSA. The furthest extent that the continuous sounds of the Project might be perceptible to land users is 2.3 km southwest of the PDA, which includes overlaps higher concentration hunting and trapping areas mapped in Willow Springs and Métis Local 1909 (2015). Continuous noise from the Project will not be perceptible outside the TLU RSA. Noise from the Fort Hills project at PDC, will be expected in areas southeast of the Project on the east side of the Athabasca River. Odour effects because of the Project are expected to be perceptible beyond the borders of the terrestrial LSA, particularly to the north and south of the west side of the Project, including areas mapped as higher concentration hunting and trapping areas. Odours because of existing conditions are predicted to be perceptible in areas the southern portions of the TLU RSA and odour because of existing developments will also be detectible while travelling on the Athabasca River. Perceptible odour at PDC is predicted to increase within the TLU RSA, and perceptible odours might be experienced continuously along the west side of the Athabasca River from south of Fort McKay through the PDA. Odour and noise are not expected to be perceptible on either RFMA 1570 or 2400. Visibility of the Project is expected from multiple areas throughout the TLU RSA including high concentration hunting and trapping areas mapped in Willow Springs and Métis Local 1909 (2015) The Project will also be visible at locations outside the TLU RSA, including at areas on RFMA 1570 and 2400.

4.6.2.3 Opportunities to Trap Fur-bearers

Cumulative effects on the opportunity for Métis Local 1909 members to trap fur- bearers was assessed as high in magnitude, long-term in duration, continuous in frequency, irreversible at the Alternate Base Case, Alternate Application Case and PDC. This assessment is limited to any extent that trapping might be occurring on the unassigned RFMA 2016. The Project contribution to this effect as assessed as

May 2017 Page 127

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

negligible to low for those Métis Local 1909 members that rely on RFMA 2016 for trapping.

No RFMAs overlapping the terrestrial LSA and TLU RSA are held by Métis Local 1909 members but RFMA 2016 is currently unassigned and therefore, has the potential to be trapped by all Indigenous communities. Effects on the continued opportunity to trap traditionally important fur-bearing species are considered to be a combination of disturbance and changes in access to Métis Local 1909 preferred use areas, effects on the preferred habitat availability of key wildlife species and sensory disturbances that might affect Indigenous land users.

Two people interviewed in Willow Springs and Métis Local 1909 (2015) hold RFMA licences (1570 and 2400) that overlap the Ronald Lake BSA. Trapping occurs in between fall and spring but trappers continue to maintain trapline infrastructure, such as cabins and trails, year round (Willow Springs and Métis Local 1909 2015). These two traplines will not experience any direct disturbance because of the Project and no changes to water access because of the Project are expected. Odour and noise from the Project will also not be experienced on these traplines. As a result, effects on RFMAs 1570 and 2400 are expected to be limited to changes in access and visual aesthetics. Teck intends to mitigate effects on access to these traplines through the development and implementation of an AMP, which intends to provide access through the PDA during operations (see the response to JRP IR 4.5).

Fur-bearing species assessed in the wildlife assessment include, fisher, Canada lynx, muskrat and beaver. The magnitude of changes on the preferred habitat availability on fisher, Canada lynx and muskrat was assessed as high from predevelopment conditions prior to reclamation. The magnitude of changes to the preferred habitat availability of beaver was assessed as moderate prior to reclamation, also from predevelopment conditions. The Project contribution to this affect is presented in Table 7.2-2 of Appendix 4.1. Attachment I. At PDC, high magnitude effects on fisher, Canada lynx and muskrat and moderate magnitude effects on beaver are expected to continue, prior to reclamation.

The removal of developments not yet constructed also does not change the expected disturbance to this RFMA, which at Application Case is predicted to experience 3,080 ha (20%) disturbance, of which 2 ha (<1%) are because of the Project. Disturbance to RFMA 2016 will increase at PDC to 6,678 ha (43%). As RFMA 2016 is located south of the PDA the Project is not expected to change access to this trapline from areas south, although access management for the Project might result in delays accessing this area from locations north of the PDA. Access to RFMA 2016 will be affected by PDC development, specifically the Shell Pierre River Mine Project that has been delayed indefinitely. Access to RFMA 2016 might be experiencing limitations because of low water levels as described by Indigenous

May 2017 Page 128

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

communities. Odours because of existing developments might be experienced by Métis Local 1909 trappers while travelling the Athabasca River in upstream areas or on any trapping occurring on RFMA 2016 and these are predicted to increase at PDC. The Project will be visible at locations on RFMAs 1570, 2400 and 2016. No odour or noise effects from the Project will be detectable on RFMA 2016.

4.6.2.4 Opportunities to Fish for Traditionally Important Species

Cumulative effects on the continued opportunity to fish for traditionally important species are discussed in relation to the aquatics LSA and RSA. The effects on opportunities for Métis Local 1909 members to fish for traditionally important species were determined to be regional, long-term, continuous, irreversible and low to moderate in magnitude in the aquatics RSA at the Alternate Base Case, increasing to moderate in magnitude at the Alternate Application Case and PDC. The Project contribution to this effect as assessed as low to moderate for those Métis Local 1909 members that rely on the aquatics RSA for fishing.

The Athabasca River area, Ronald and Dianne lakes, String Bog Lake, Unnamed Lake 1 and Unnamed Lake 212 were identified as important fishing areas by Métis Local 1909 members in Willow Springs and Métis Local 1909 (2015). To assess effects on fishing these areas are considered in combination with effects on fish and fish habitat, changes in access to preferred fishing areas and sensory disturbances that might affect Indigenous land users.

Unnamed Lake 1 and Unnamed Lake 2 will become unavailable at the start of Project construction in 2021. Fishing areas at Ronald, Diana and Sting Bog lakes will not be disturbed because of Project development. The updated effects on fish and fish habitat at the Alternate Application Case indicate that residual effects range from negligible to low in magnitude. The draft DFOP is intended to result in no reduction of fish habitat productivity and no overall reduction in fish abundance, but might change the locational availability of fish on the Project footprint landscape (fish habitat might be lost in the Athabasca River because of the RWI, but will be compensated for in the FHCF). At PDC, regulations governing cumulative water withdrawals and guidelines for intake screening are expected to mitigate potential effects of cumulative water withdrawals on fish abundance because of changes in habitat productive or direct loss of fish.

12 Conflicting information regarding fishing in Unnamed Lake 1 and Unnamed Lake 2 was identified in the review of Métis Local 1909 information related to fishing in the PDA (see Appendix A, Section A3.2.1). This information indicated that fishing occurs in Unnamed Lake 1 and Unnamed Lake 2. However, Unnamed Lake 2 was surveyed for fish and fish habitat by Shell (Pierre River Mine project baseline) in 2006 and 2007, and by Teck in September 2008 and again in June and August 2013. These surveys determined that Unnamed Lake 2 was not used as rearing, overwintering, spawning or migration habitat by sport, non-sport or forage fish because of lack of connectivity to fish-bearing habitats and lack of fish presence (see Volume 3, Section 6.3.5.2 of the Project Update).

May 2017 Page 129

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

It is assumed that most access to fishing locations on the Athabasca River will occur by water along the Athabasca River. The hydrology assessment predicted no appreciable change in the navigability of the Athabasca River because of the Project or in combination with other developments but Indigenous river users have identified that they are currently experiencing loss of use because of low water levels. This effect has been considered at all cumulative assessment cases. Fishing for subsistence was reported to occur in summer, fall and winter. Access to Ronald, Diana and String Bog lakes and any winter fishing on the Athabasca River is expected to rely on land access. Trails mapped in Willow Springs and Métis Local 1909 (2015) show trails connecting fishing areas north of the PDA branching off of the north-south cutline assumed to be the ‘Keyano River Road’. The Project will directly disturb this trail, however, Teck intends to facilitate access to or through Teck’s MSL as described in the draft AMP (see the response to JRP IR 4.5) to mitigate this effect. Teck recognizes that the use of alternative access strategies or the implementation of access controls on existing access routes will have the potential to result in additional travel time or costs of Indigenous land users.

No noise or odour disturbances are expected to affect those fishing areas identified north of the PDA. Sensory disturbances (i.e., noise, odour and visual aesthetics) will be experienced on portions of the Athabasca River. Noise from the Fort Hills project now captured at PDC is expected to increase the range of perceptible noise on the Athabasca River. While all receptor locations identified in the acoustics assessment were within requirements for the Alternate Application Case, the RWI might result in detectible sound for some land users while travelling the Athabasca River. Project odour is not predicted to be detectible along the Athabasca River, but areas upstream are experiencing detectible odours because of existing developments and these are expected to increase at PDC. Project infrastructure will be visible at points along the Athabasca River.

4.6.2.5 Opportunities to Harvest Traditionally Important Vegetation

Cumulative effects on the opportunity for Métis Local 1909 members to harvest traditionally important vegetation in the TLU RSA is assessed as moderate to high in magnitude, long-term in duration, continuous in frequency, irreversible at the Alternate Base Case, increasing to high at the Alternate Application Case and PDC. The Project contribution to this effect as assessed as low for those Métis Local 1909 members that rely on the TLU RSA for vegetation harvesting.

Effects on the continued opportunity to harvest traditionally important vegetation are considered to be a combination of disturbance to and changes in access to Métis Local 1909 use areas, changes in traditional use plant potential and sensory disturbances that might affect land users. In the absence of a Métis Local 1909

May 2017 Page 130

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

defined preferred traditional plant harvesting area, the entire TLU RSA was used. Regarding use of the terrestrial LSA and PDA:

Study participants did not map any specific areas within the Frontier Terrestrial LSA in which they harvest berries or medicinal plants as these sites tend to be located closer to cabins and on traplines which are operated and frequented by trappers and family.

[Willow Springs and Métis Local 1909 2015, p. 55]

Willow Springs and Métis Local 1909 (2015) noted that berry picking is done in summer. Potential effects on access are considered for both land and water routes. As previously described, navigation along the Athabasca River is not expected to be effected by the Project, or the Project in combination with existing developments (see Volume 3, Section 6 of the Project Update) but Indigenous communities have indicated that they are currently experiencing loss of access because of low water levels in the Athabasca River, which has been considered in the cumulative effects assessments. The Project will interrupt the ‘Keyano River Road’ but access through the MSL will be facilitated through the draft AMP (see the response to JRP IR 4.5). It is assumed that the southern areas of the TLU RSA have experienced changes to traditional land-based travel patterns because of existing developments in this area and that these changes will increase at PDC.

Odour and noise from the Project will not affect Métis Local 1909 traplines that might be relied on for plant harvesting. All receptor locations identified in the acoustics assessment were within requirements for the Alternate Application Case. The furthest extent that the continuous sounds of the Project might be perceptible to land users is 2.3 km southwest of the PDA. Noise from the Fort Hills project at PDC, will be expected in areas southeast of the Project on the east side of the Athabasca River. Continuous noise from the Project will not be perceptible outside the TLU RSA. Odour effects because of the Project are expected to be perceptible beyond the borders of the terrestrial LSA. Odours because of existing conditions are predicted to be perceptible in southern areas of the TLU RSA, including along

May 2017 Page 131

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

portions of the Athabasca River. The range of detectible odours along the Athabasca River is expected to increase at PDC. Visibility of the Project is expected for multiple areas throughout and beyond the TLU RSA.

4.6.2.6 Opportunities to Use Culturally Important Sites and Areas

Cumulative effects on the opportunity for Métis Local 1909 members to use culturally important sites and areas in the TLU RSA is assessed as moderate to high in magnitude, long-term in duration, continuous in frequency, irreversible at the Alternate Base Case, increasing to high at the Alternate Application Case and PDC. The Project contribution to this effect as assessed as low for those Métis Local 1909 members that rely on the TLU RSA for cultural activities.

Cumulative effects on the continued opportunity to use culturally important sites and areas are considered to be a combination of disturbance to preferred use areas, changes in access to these areas and sensory disturbances that might affect Indigenous land users. In the absence of a Métis Local 1909 defined preferred use area, the TLU RSA were used in combination with cabin and campsites identified Willow Springs and Métis Local 1909 (2015).

Disturbance to the TLU RSA at the Alternate Application Case is 217,638 ha (18%), 28,498 ha (2%) of which is attributable to the Project. At PDC, disturbance to the TLU RSA increases to 268,793 ha (22%). One cabin or camp site was mapped within the PDA at Unnamed Lake 2. This cabin, assumed to be one of the cabins previously recorded by Métis Local 125 and associated with RFMA 1275, will be directly disturbed at the start of Project construction in 2021. Additional cabin or camps were mapped in Willow Springs and Métis Local 1909 (2015) along the Athabasca River, adjacent to the Project and in areas downstream of the Project, including at the mouth of the Firebag River, Poplar Point and Point Brule. None of these sites will be directly affected by Project disturbance. Four additional cabin or camp sites were mapped, one to the west of the PDA, two at Ronald Lake and one at Diana Lake. None of these cabins will be directly affected by Project disturbance.

Overland access to cabins might be affected by the Project. The Project will interrupt the ‘Keyano River Road’, which is expected to be relied upon to access cabins at Ronald and Diana lakes. Access through the PDA will be facilitated through Teck’s draft AMP (see the response to JRP IR 4.5). The trail connecting the cabin or camp located west of the PDA, runs south of the Project and should continue to be available at the Alternate Application Case but might be disturbed at PDC. It is assumed that the southern areas of the TLU RSA have experienced changes to traditional land-based travel patterns because of existing developments in this area and that this will expand at PDC. Cabins located along the Athabasca River are assumed to be accessed by the river. Navigation on the Athabasca River is not

May 2017 Page 132

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

expected to be affected by the Project, or by the Project in combination with other developments, although Indigenous communities have described that they are currently experiencing access limitations because of low water levels. This effect was considered at all cumulative effects cases.

Sensory disturbances are considered to be represented by changes in noise, odour and visual aesthetics. All receptor locations identified in the acoustics assessment were within requirements for the Alternate Application Case. The furthest extent that the continuous sounds of the Project might be perceptible to land users is 2.3 km southwest of the PDA, and might be detectable on trails located south of the PDA. This might affect the trail used to access the cabin located west of the PDA. Continuous noise from the Project will not be perceptible outside the TLU RSA and will not affect cabin locations on the Athabasca River or the reported cabin locations north of the PDA, including Poplar Point, the confluence of the Athabasca and Firebag rivers and Ronald and Diana lakes. Noise from the Fort Hills project at PDC, will be expected in areas southeast of the Project on the east side of the Athabasca River. Odour effects because of the Project are expected to be perceptible beyond the borders of the terrestrial LSA, particularly to the north and south of the west side of the Project. This might also affect the traditional trails used in access the cabin west of the PDA, but odours are not expected to be detectable at any other cabin or camp locations outside the PDA. Odours because of existing conditions are predicted to be perceptible in southern areas of the TLU RSA, including along portions of the Athabasca River. The range of detectible odours along the Athabasca River is expected to increase at PDC. Visibility of the Project is expected for multiple areas throughout and beyond the TLU RSA and might be experienced at camp and cabin locations.

4.6.3 Effects Classification

Table 4.2-26 provides the effects classification and consequence determination for the cumulative effects at the Alternate Base Case, Alternate Application Case and PDC on TLU key indicators for Métis Local 1909. Table 4.2-27 provides the effects classification for the incremental effects of the Project between the Alternate Base Case and the Alternate Application Case.

May 2017 Page 133

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Table 4.2-26: Cumulative Effects Classification and Determination of Consequence for Lac La Biche Métis Local 1909 Traditional Land Use Key Indicators

Magnitude Consequence Geographic Key Indicators Duration Frequency Reversibility Alternate Alternate Alternate Alternate Extent Base Application Base Application Case Case PDC Case Case PDC Long- Opportunities to harvest bison Regional Continuous Irreversible High High High term Opportunities to hunt traditionally Long- Regional Continuous Irreversible High High High important wildlife species term Long- Opportunities to trap fur-bearers Regional1 Continuous Irreversible High High High term High High High Opportunities to fish for traditionally Long- Low to Regional Continuous Irreversible Moderate Moderate important species term moderate Opportunities to harvest traditionally Long- Moderate Regional Continuous Irreversible High High important vegetation term to high Opportunities to use culturally important Long- Moderate Regional Continuous Irreversible High High sites and areas term to high NOTES: 1 These effects are limited to any extent that Métis Local 1909 members are trapping on RFMA 2016.

May 2017 Page 134

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Table 4.2-27: Effects Classification of the Incremental Effects of the Project for Lac La Biche Métis Local 1909 Traditional Land Use Key Indicators

Key Indicators Geographic Extent Duration Frequency Reversibility Magnitude

Opportunities to harvest bison Regional Long-term Continuous Irreversible Moderate to High

Opportunities to hunt traditionally important wildlife species Regional Long-term Continuous Irreversible Low to Moderate

Opportunities to trap fur-bearers Regional Long-term Continuous Irreversible Negligible to Low

Opportunities to fish for traditionally important species Regional Long-term Continuous Irreversible Low to Moderate

Opportunities to harvest traditionally important vegetation Regional Long-term Continuous Irreversible Low

Opportunities to use culturally important sites and areas Regional Long-term Continuous Irreversible Low

NOTES: 1 These effects are limited to any extent that Métis Local 1909 members are trapping on RFMA 2016.

May 2017 Page 135

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

5 Conclusions

Updates to the TLU assessment were requested as part of both JRP IRs 4.1 and 4.2. This appendix provides the updated assessment and addresses the requests of both IRs. In this updated traditional and use assessment, effects were assessed independently for each potentially-affected Indigenous community and the only land use information used to determine effects on multiple communities was information provided in the joint FMFN and Fort McKay Métis Project-specific TUS, which was used to determine potential effects on these two communities.

The results of the updated TLU assessment were generally consistent with those presented in the Project Update. However, changes in the magnitude of effects at Alternate Base Case were identified from the Project Update Base Case. Alternate Base Case effects on the opportunity for Métis Local 125 members to harvest traditionally important vegetation and use culturally important sites and areas increased from moderate at the Project Update Base Case to moderate to high at the Alternate Base Case. Alternate Base Case effects on the opportunity for Métis Local 1935 members to harvest traditionally important vegetation and use culturally important sites and areas decreased from high at the Project Update Base Case to moderate to high at the Alternate Base Case. All effects were assessed prior to reclamation.

The updated Traditional Land Use assessment determined that high consequence effects are predicted to occur at the Alternate Application Case for each potentially- affected Indigenous community. This is consistent with the conclusions presented in the Project Update regarding Application Case effects.

The updated assessment also completed an effects classification of the incremental effects of the Project. The incremental effects of the Project, prior to reclamation, is predicted to range from low to moderate to high for key indicators assessed for ACFN, FMFN, Fort McKay Métis, and Métis Local 1935 and low to high for Métis Local 125. The Project contribution to effects assessed for Métis Local 1909 prior to reclamation is predicted to range from negligible to moderate to high.

The updated assessment considered the mitigation measures outlined by Teck in material filed to date for the Project that will be applied during construction and operations. In recognition of concerns that Indigenous communities have with the ability of reclamation to restore landscapes in a manner compatible with the cultural values of Indigenous communities, all effects are considered prior to reclamation. Teck recognizes that Indigenous land users’ relationship with the land might be altered because of the Project one goal of the closure, conservation and reclamation plan will be to develop end land use targets consistent with TLU values.

May 2017 Page 136

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Teck has concluded Participation Agreements with the Fort Chipewyan Métis, Fort McKay Métis and Fort McKay First Nation and is in negotiations with other Indigenous communities. These Agreements are considered to be substantial and critical mitigation for the effects described in this updated assessment and they also provide mechanisms for continued engagement throughout the life of the Project, which might result in the development of additional community-specific mitigation measures to manage specific effects.

May 2017 Page 137

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

6 References

Candler, C. and the Firelight Group Research Cooperative. 2013a. Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Knowledge and Use Report for Teck Resources Limited Proposed Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project. November 20, 2013. Prepared on behalf of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation.

Candler, C. Olsen, R. and the Firelight Group Research Cooperative. 2013b. Mikisew Cree First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Use Report and Assessment For Teck Resources Limited’s Proposed Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project. November 15, 2014. Prepared on behalf of Mikisew Cree First Nation.

Candler, C., Leech, S., Whittaker, C., and the Firelight Group with Mikisew Cree First Nation. 2015a. Sakâw Mostos (Wood Bison): Mikisew Cree First Nation Indigenous Knowledge Study. April 10, 2015. Submitted to Miksiew Cree First Nation GIR.

Candler, C. Malone, M. and the Firelight Group Research Cooperative with the Mikisew Cree First Nation. 2015b. Addendum to the Mikisew Cree First Nation Indigenous Knowledge and Use Report and Assessment for Teck Resources Limited’s Proposed Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project. May 28, 2015.

Candler, C., Gibson, G., Malone, M., and the Firelight Group Research Cooperative, with Mikisew Cree First Nation. 2015c. Wîyôw’tan’kitaskino (Our Land is Rich): A Mikisew Cree Culture and Rights Assessment for the Proposed Teck Frontier Project Update. September 15, 2015.

CEAA (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency). 2015. Determining Whether a Designated Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects Under CEAA 2012. July 6, 2016.

DFO 1995 (Fishers and Oceans Canada). 1995. Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen Guideline. Minister of Supply and Services Canada, Catalogue No. Fs 23-370/1995E.

Ducks Unlimited Canada. 2016. "Ronald Lake Bison Herd Enhanced Wetland Classification User's Guide." 69 pp. Ducks Unlimited Canada, Edmonton, Alberta. March 2016. Prepared for: Government of Alberta (Alberta Environment and Parks).

Elias, P.D. 2011. Mikisew Cree Use of Lands and Resources in the Vicinity of the Proposed Teck Resources and SilverBirch Energy Frontier Oil Sands Project. January 31, 2011. Prepared for Mikisew Cree First Nation.

Fort McKay IRC (Fort McKay Industry Relations Corporation). 2010. Fort McKay Specific Assessment: Disturbance and Access. Implications for Specific Land Use. January 2010.

May 2017 Page 138

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Appendix 4.2

Fort McKay and Integral Ecology Group (Fort McKay Sustainability Department and Integral Ecology Group). 2011. Traditional Land Use Study for the Teck and Silverbirch Frontier Project. August 9, 2011. Submitted to Teck and Silverbirch

Human Environment Group. 2016. Teck Frontier Mine Project Fort McKay Métis Integrated Cultural Assessment. March 2016. Submitted by Fort McKay Métis Sustainability Centre.

Integral Ecology Group Ltd. 2015. Fort Chipewyan Métis Local 125 Cultural Impact Assessment. October 20, 2015. Prepared in association with Woven Paths Consulting.

Integral Ecology Group Ltd. 2016. Fort McKay First Nation Cultural Impact Assessment: Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project. October 6, 2016. Prepared in association with ALCES Landscape & Land-Use Ltd. for Fort McKay Sustainability Department.

McKillop, J.A. 2002. Toward Culturally Appropriate Consultation: An Approach for Fort McKay First Nation. Master’s Degree Project. Faculty of Environmental Design. The University of Calgary. Calgary, AB.

Willow Springs (Willow Springs Strategic Solutions Inc.). 2014. Métis Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Study: Teck Resources Limited- Frontier Oil Sands Project. October 2014. Prepared for Fort McMurray Métis Local 1935.

Willow Springs. 2015. McMurray Métis Cultural Impact Assessment of the Teck Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project. July 2015. Prepared by Dr. Timothy David Clarke.

Willow Springs and Métis Local 1909 (Willow Springs Strategic Solutions Inc., with Métis Nation of Alberta Association Local 1909). 2015. Métis Nation of Alberta Association Local 1909 Phase 1 Traditional Knowledge and Use Baseline Study – Frontier Mine Project. October 2015.

Woven Paths (Woven Paths Aboriginal Relations, Research & Consulting Inc.). 2015. Fort Chipewyan Métis Local 125: Métis Land Use & Ecological Knowledge Study. Executive Summary: Teck Resources Ltd. Frontier Mine. Prepared by K. Dertien-Loubert on behalf of Fort Chipewyan Métis Local 125.

May 2017 Page 139