MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017 16.0 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE AND TRADITIONAL LAND USE
This section of the Meadow Creek West Project (the Project) environmental impact assessment (EIA) assesses potential changes in traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and traditional land use (TLU) as a result of Project activities.
Traditional ecological knowledge and traditional land use was selected as a valued component (VC) for the EIA because of the potential for the Project to affect traditional activities, sites and resources identified by Aboriginal groups. The exercise of Aboriginal and Treaty rights depends on the health and abundance of traditionally harvested species and the continued availability of and access to traditional use sites and areas.
The objective of the TEK/TLU assessment is to:
• understand and document current use of land and resources for traditional purposes by Aboriginal peoples
• characterize potential Project effects
• identify applicable mitigation strategies and recommendations
Information gathered from Suncor’s Aboriginal Consultation Plan, a review of literature containing relevant TEK and TLU information, and the analysis of biophysical and human environmental assessments were used to identify potential Project effects on traditional activities, sites and resources.
16.1 SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT
16.1.1 Regulatory and Policy Setting
The assessment of TLU is guided by:
• The Government of Alberta’s Guidelines on Consultation with First Nations on Land and Resource Management (GOA 2014), which commits to consultation with First Nations where land management and resource development have the potential to adversely impact Treaty rights and traditional uses.
• The Aboriginal Consultation Plan approved by the Aboriginal Consultation Office (Suncor 2016).
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.1
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.1.1.1 Terms of Reference
This section addresses the requirements listed in the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the TLU assessment.
[A] Provide: a) a map and description of Traditional Land Use areas including fishing, hunting, trapping and nutritional, medicinal or cultural plant harvesting by affected Indigenous peoples (if the Indigenous community or group is willing to have these locations disclosed); b) a map of cabin sites, spiritual sites, cultural sites, gravesites and other traditional use sites considered historic resources under the Historical Resources Act (if the Indigenous community or group is willing to have these locations disclosed), as well as traditional trails and resource activity patterns; and c) a discussion of: i. the availability of vegetation, fish and wildlife species for food, traditional, medicinal and cultural purposes in the identified traditional land use areas considering all project related impacts, and ii. access to traditional lands in the Project Area during all stages of the Project. [B] Describe how Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use information was incorporated into the Project design, EIA development, the conservation and reclamation plan (including Indigenous views on land reclamation), monitoring and mitigation. [C] Determine the impacts of the Project on traditional, medicinal and cultural purposes and identify possible mitigation strategies.
16.1.1.2 Traditional Land Use Program
Two types of information are being requested from Aboriginal groups for the purposes of this application: TLU information and TEK information. For this application, TLU and TEK are defined as follows:
• TLU is an Aboriginal group’s collective traditions, customs and practice regarding use of land, water and resources in a traditional territory. TLU includes information such as hunting, trapping, fishing, and plant gathering locales; lists of harvested species; information regarding harvesting practices (such as seasonality); sites such as trails, cabins or campsites; and sacred areas such as burials or ceremonial sites. Additional contextual information related to TLU may be provided by Aboriginal groups, including temporal information (e.g. when certain sites are used or harvesting occurs, whether use occurred in the past or present) or information regarding the uses of harvested plants or animals (e.g. subsistence, medicinal, ceremonial).
• TEK is an Aboriginal group's body of ecological knowledge regarding a particular natural and cultural environment, accumulated through generations of living in a traditional territory or occupancy area. TEK is most frequently provided regarding animal and plant species, and can include information such migration patterns, habitat, population health and diversity, vegetation growth, spawning areas or changes to any of these.
16.2 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
TEK and TLU information are closely related, but are used differently in the Application. The TOR suggests that TEK information be used throughout the Application and in Project planning, design, EIA development, the conservation and reclamation plan (including Indigenous views on land reclamation), monitoring and mitigation (Suncor 2016). However, TLU information is needed to complete an assessment of effects on TLU areas and the availability of vegetation, fish and wildlife species for food, traditional, medicinal and cultural purposes, as is required by the TOR. Consequently, this section of the EIA will primarily address TLU and will be referred to as TLU.
16.1.2 The Influence of Consultation and Engagement on the Assessment
Through a combination of desktop research, Suncor’s own operating experience, including other past projects in the region, and an established network of contacts with Aboriginal groups in the Project area, Suncor’s Aboriginal Consultation Plan (Suncor 2016) has identified Aboriginal groups with a potential interest in the Project.
Suncor identified three First Nation groups with traditional territory overlapping the Project area:
• Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation
• Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation
In addition, Suncor identified the following Métis groups with a potential interest in the Project area:
• Willow Lake Métis Local 780
• Fort McMurray Métis
• Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Dene Inc.
• Conklin Resource Development Advisory Committee
Information about consultation and engagement activities between Suncor and these Aboriginal groups is provided in Volume 1, Section 5.2, Suncor’s Aboriginal Consultation Plan, approved by the Alberta Consultation Office on November 3, 2016 (Suncor 2016) and the long-term stakeholder engagement plan for the Project (Volume 1, Section 5.4).
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.3
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.1.3 Potential Effects, Pathways and Measurable Parameters
A Project component or activity can affect TLU through:
• changes in availability of traditional resources for current use, affecting the availability of species relied upon to exercise TLU activities (e.g. hunting, trapping, fishing, and plant gathering).
• changes to current use sites or areas through the disruption or alteration of a traditional use site or location (e.g. habitation areas, trails and travelways, and cultural or spiritual practices sites and areas).
• changes in access for current use, affecting access to traditional resources, sites or locations.
Suncor evaluated potential Project effects on TLU in consideration of information obtained through TLU studies completed for the Petro-Canada Meadow Creek application in 2002 (with Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation and Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation), publicly-available TEK and TLU information, project-specific TEK and TLU information, existing Treaty 8 rights, and Aboriginal peoples’ asserted rights.
Characterizing the potential effects of the Project on TLU requires the selection of parameters that can be used to evaluate each predicted effect. Ideally, these parameters are measurable and quantifiable (e.g., availability of habitat for harvested species). However, some effects on TLU lack defined parameters to measure effects and are therefore evaluated qualitatively based on comments received from Aboriginal groups, past project experience and professional judgment. Potential effects, effects pathways and measurable parameters used to characterize and assess effects on TLU are provided in Table 16-1.
16.4 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
Table 16-1 Potential Effects, Pathways and Measurable Parameters for Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use
Potential Environmental Effecta Effect Pathway Measurable Parameter(s) Change in availability of • Vegetation clearing associated with • change in availability of habitat traditional resources for Project construction could result in a loss (ha) for traditionally used plant or current use of habitat for species of traditional animal species importance, including plants and animals • change in availability of habitat relied on for traditional hunting, trapping, for fish species or plant harvesting. • qualitative evaluation of change • Sensory disturbance from Project in hunting and fishing pressure operation has the potential to affect the as a result of the Project and availability of habitat for species other planned developments traditional importance • identification of change in • Loss or alteration of habitat resulting resource from participating from disturbance to watercourses Aboriginal group • An increase in hunting or fishing pressure by non-Aboriginal people has the potential to affect the availability of traditionally used species • Potential effects on wildlife health which could affect the availability of traditional resources (Appendix 13A). • Indirect effects on the experience of Aboriginal peoples which adversely alter the perceived value of availability of traditional resources for current useb Change in access to • Project construction and operation could • number of trails and travelways traditional resources for result in the loss, alteration, or restriction no longer accessible current use or current use of access (including trails and • area (ha) with access restrictions sites and area travelways) to current lands and resources used for traditional purposes. • identification of change in access from participating Aboriginal • Indirect effects on the experience of groups Aboriginal peoples which adversely alter the perceived value of access to traditional resources for current use or current use sites and areasb
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.5
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
Table 16-1 Potential Effects, Pathways and Measurable Parameters for Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use
Potential Environmental Effecta Effect Pathway Measurable Parameter(s) Change to current use sites • Project construction and operation could • number or area (ha) of identified or areas result in a loss or alteration of identified sites and areas affected current use harvesting sites, habitation • identification of change in sites or areas, cultural and sacred sites areas from participating • Indirect effects on the experience of Aboriginal groups Aboriginal peoples which adversely alter • identification of change in use of the perceived values of current use sites b sites or areas from participating or areas Aboriginal groups NOTES: a The potential project effects, effect pathways and measurable parameters identified in this table have been compared against the five primary project pathways outlined in the Framework for Identifying Project Effects for a Traditional Land and Resource Use Study for Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation (CDPFN 2014). Primary project effects are identified as i) direct physical disturbance; ii) sensory disturbances; iii) access effects; iv) competition and conflict; and v) reduction and loss of traditional resource quantity and or quality. The potential project effects, effect pathways, and measurable parameters described in this table, taken together, and in consideration of the definitions of tangible and intangible effects provided below, are to a considerable extent in alignment with the CDPFN framework. b The experience of Aboriginal peoples on the land, cultural identity, opportunities for cultural transmission, and spiritual connections represent intangible values, which are largely subjective, experiential and conditional. Given that intangible values encompass beliefs, perceptions, values, and qualitative experience, it is impractical to establish meaningful and applicable measurable parameters or subject intangible values to a standard environmental effects assessment. Effects to intangible values are discussed narratively and considered in assessment conclusions.
The TEK/TLU VC identifies three potential environmental effects: change in availability of traditional resources for current use; change in access to traditional resources for current use or current use sites and areas; and change to current use sites or areas. For the purposes of this assessment current use is defined as use of lands and resources for traditional purposes and includes the following traditional activities:
• hunting
• trapping
• fishing
• plant gathering
• use of trails and travelways, including navigation
• use of habitation areas
• use of cultural and spiritual sites and areas
16.6 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
Current use also takes into account the conditions for use, seasonal cycles, intergenerational knowledge transmission, landforms and named places, and other factors that provide context, setting or understanding for the practice of the current use activities identified above.
Framing traditional activities and practices in this way serves to acknowledge that TLU, while having continuity with historic practices, traditions, and customs, is not static and unchanging. Understood this way, current use situates long-standing cultural practices in a contemporary context. The term ‘traditional’ encompasses past, present and future use. Historical TLU information and information based on community members’ living memory lends context to contemporary activities and long-term observations of baseline conditions. Future use pertains to the opportunities for generations of descendants of the Aboriginal communities to continue to practice cultural traditions in a modern form.
The use of lands and resources by Aboriginal peoples may have both tangible values (e.g., fish, wildlife, and plant species, trails, spiritual sites, cultural sites) and intangible values (e.g., spiritual, artistic, aesthetic, and educational elements).
16.1.3.1.1 Tangible Values
Tangible values include specific resources, physical sites, and observable activities that can be more readily considered in an effects assessment. Tangible values often have a demonstrable link to a biophysical VC (e.g. traditional hunting linked to wildlife and biodiversity). In considering effects on tangible values, this assessment adopts conservative assumptions that TLU activities may occur near the Project even if these activities were not specifically identified by Aboriginal groups. Potential Project effects on tangible values have been subjected to a conventional environmental assessment methodology that characterizes residual effects.
16.1.3.1.2 Intangible Values
Intangible values relate to beliefs, perceptions, values, and qualitative experience. Given the subjective and conditional nature of intangible values, these potential effects are discussed only when an Aboriginal group has identified a related concern. Potential effects on experiential values often include changes to cultural transmission, language retention, governance systems, patterns of cultural behavior, and the sensorial experience of traditional land users. These types of effects can be meaningfully evaluated by individuals and communities experiencing these values in their cultural context and cannot realistically be mitigated or quantitatively assessed in any meaningful way. Therefore, potential effects on intangible values will not be subject to an effects assessment or residual effects characterization. Rather, when an Aboriginal group has identified a related concern the subjective and experiential components of TLU that cannot be measured will be considered narratively. However, these concerns are reflected in conclusions for each Aboriginal group in the larger context of the Project. Both tangible and identified intangible values will contribute to the conclusion for the TLU assessment.
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.7
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.1.4 Boundaries
16.1.4.1 Spatial Boundaries
Potential Project effects on TLU were examined at local and regional scales as appropriate. Spatial boundaries were determined through a review of Project-specific TLU studies, review of publicly-available TLU information, results of related biophysical VCs, and professional judgement. The three spatial boundaries (Figure 16-1) defined for the TLU assessment include the:
• The footprint is the immediate area of the Project associated with construction and operation at full buildout. The footprint is a layout of Project facilities, infrastructure and borrow areas based on the current resource development plan, technology and environmental constraints. The footprint is 1,109 hectares (ha) as described in Section 1.5.
• The Project area covers 14,482 ha and bounds the extent where the development of facilities to extract bitumen, both surface and subsurface, can occur.
• The terrestrial local study area (TLSA) encompasses the area where direct effects from the development and operation of the Project are expected to occur. The TLSA is centered on the Project Area boundary plus a 500 m buffer and totals 17,710 ha. The TLSA is consistent with those used by the other terrestrial disciplines (i.e., land-use, terrain and soils, vegetation and wetlands, and wildlife and biodiversity), as there are links between them and TLU harvesting activities and terrestrial VCs (e.g. hunting and wildlife and diversity). Aboriginal groups may identify spatial or temporal boundaries in relation to each of their own traditional lands or traditional territories; however, boundaries identified by various Aboriginal groups often vary considerably. Aligning the TLU TLSA with the terrestrial TLSA serves to rationalize the information provided by Aboriginal groups and identify a consistent spatial boundary to achieve uniformity in the environmental assessment.
• The terrestrial regional study area (TRSA): encompasses an area in which direct and indirect residual effects from the development and operation of the Project have the potential to interact cumulatively with other developments in the region. The TRSA is consistent with those used by the other terrestrial disciplines, as there are links between and TLU harvesting activities and these terrestrial VCs. Aboriginal groups may identify spatial boundaries in relation to each of their own traditional lands or traditional territories; however, boundaries identified by various Aboriginal groups often vary considerably. Aligning the TLU TLSA with the terrestrial TLSA serves to rationalize the information provided by Aboriginal groups and identify a consistent spatial boundary to achieve uniformity in the environmental.
16.8 Suncor Energy Inc.
FORT TWP89 McMURRAY RGE14 RGE16 RGE15 RGE13 RGE12 RGE11 RGE10 RGE8 RGE7 RGE6 W4M RGE9 -
Cl er Grand Saprae Creek ! earwater Riv TWP88 Rapids Wildland UV69 Clearwater 175
River Grand ca bas TWP87 Rapids Atha Wildland
Gregoire C Gregoire h r Lake i TWP86 s Lake 176B t ! in Gregoire Lake Estates a Gregoire Lake Anzac R Gregoire (Willow Lake) ! iv e Lake 176A Gregoire r Lake Gregoire r e Lake 176 v Ri TWP85 e on st g in g n Ha
TWP84Footprint Project Area Terrestrial Local Study Area UV63 881 GrandTerrestrial Regional Study UV RapidsArea Wildland ! Community Stony Access (Primary) Mountain Access (Secondary) Wildland Watercourse Provincial Park/Wildland Reserve Reserve Township VU881 Urban Area Project Location Waterbody 0 7.5 15 AB Kilometres BC 1:500,000 (At original document size of 8.5x11) SK NAD 1983 UTM Zone 12N
USA Last Modified: 9/19/2017 By: dcspry W:\Clients\Suncor_Energy_Inc\Meadow_Creek_West\Figures\TK\EIA\123511565-0231_TLU_Overview.mxd Sources: Sources: Base Data - GeoGratis (2013), GeoLogic (2015), Natural Resources Canada, Disclaimer: This map is for illustrative purposes to support this Suncor project; questions can be directed to the issuing agency. Canada Centre for Mapping and Earth Sciences. Thematic - Stantec (2017)
Spatial Boundaries for Traditional Land Use
SUNCOR ENERGY - MEADOW CREEK WEST Figure 16-1 MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.1.4.2 Temporal Boundaries
The temporal boundaries for the assessment identify the timeframes in which environmental effects associated with the Project might occur. Temporal boundaries and Project timelines are described in Section 2, and align with the Project phases:
• construction
• operation
• reclamation
According to the nature of the development, periods of concurrent construction, operation and reclamation activities will occur through the lifespan of the Project. Initial construction will begin in 2022 with the development of the main access road and central processing facility (CPF). Activities will continue over approximately 30 years with the development of wellpads and corridors when full buildout is achieved. The operation phase will commence with first steam (expected in 2026) and continue for 40 years until the last wellpad is taken offline and Project components are decommissioned and reclaimed.
16.1.5 Assessment Cases
TLU has been evaluated in the context of the following development scenarios:
• Base Case, which includes developments that are currently operating or under construction, and activities that have been approved but are not yet constructed. The Base Case assumes a point in time when the maximum disturbances of all existing and approved projects occur simultaneously. Projects included in the Base Case were developed or approved for development up to July 2016. Information for each of these projects was obtained from publicly-available documents (e.g., applications for regulatory approval, monitoring reports submitted to Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP)). Resource disturbances completed or planned under exploration permits and other regulatory approvals (e.g., seismic lines and exploration operations) were also included.
• Application Case, which includes projects, developments and activities in the Base Case with the Project added. Each measurable parameter is assessed to determine the maximum effect from Project development activities in the Application Case relative to the Base Case. For the assessment of TLU, environmental effects are estimated in the absence of reclamation.
• Planned Development Case (PDC), which includes those developments that have been disclosed or applied for, but not yet approved. Effects for the PDC are estimated on the assumption that all existing, approved and proposed projects would be developed to their maximum extent and be fully operational at the same point in time, concurrent with the full development of the Project.
16.10 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
The Base Case development scenario for the TLU assessment includes 12 projects in the TRSA that are currently operating or under construction or have been approved but are not yet constructed. Two projects, Grizzly Oil Sands ULC - Algar Lake SAGD Project (Phase 1 and 2) and Japan Canada Oil Sands Limited (JACOS) - Hangingstone Demonstration Facility, contribute a small amount of existing access disturbance in the TLSA.
The PDC includes three projects that have been disclosed or applied for, but not yet approved. These include Athabasca Oil Corporation (AOC) - Hangingstone Expansion (HS2 and HS3), PTT Exploration and Production (PTTEP) - Kai Kos Dehseh – Hangingstone and Surmont Energy Limited - Wildwood Project.
See Section 2 for the project inclusion list.
16.1.6 Residual Effects Characterization
TLU is dependent on many factors, including healthy and accessible lands and resources (including animal and plant species), and sites such as trails, sacred areas, campsites, and harvesting areas. The assessment of residual effects considers change in the distribution, diversity and abundance of traditionally-used resources, and access to harvesting and cultural use sites and areas. Table 16-2 provides a description of the terms used to characterizes residual effects. Project effects on TLU include the conclusions of related VCs, the specific environmental effects related to each TLU activity and potential effects identified by Aboriginal groups. The fact that Aboriginal groups may choose not to practice traditional activities or use traditional sites and areas near the Project was also taken into account. Appropriate conditions for current use entail more than availability of and access to traditional resources, sites and areas. Personal, practical, aesthetic, and spiritual considerations may also determine when, how and where current use activities and practices take place.
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.11
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
Table 16-2 Characterization of Residual Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use
Quantitative Measure or Definition of Qualitative Characterization Description Categories Direction The long-term trend of the Positive – a residual effect that moves measurable residual effect parameters in a direction beneficial to TLU relative to baseline. Adverse – a residual effect that moves measurable parameters in a direction detrimental to TLU relative to baseline. Neutral – no net change in measurable parameters for TLU relative to baseline. Magnitude The amount of change in Negligible – no measurable change. measurable parameters or Low – effect will increase the effort necessary to conduct TLU the VC relative to existing activity but will not reduce the ability to conduct TLU activity. conditions Moderate – effect will reduce the ability to conduct TLU activity. High – effect will eliminate the ability to conduct TLU activity. Geographic Extent The geographic area in which F– residual effects are restricted to the footprint. a residual effect occurs TLSA – residual effects extend into the TLSA. TRSA – residual effects interact with those of other projects in the TRSA. Frequency Identifies how often the Single event residual effect occurs and Multiple irregular event – occurs at no set schedule. how often during the Project occurs at regular intervals. or in a specific phase Multiple regular event – Continuous – occurs continuously. Durationa The period of time required Short-term – residual effect restricted to the construction until the measurable phase prior to beginning of Project operations (4 years). parameter or the VC returns Medium-term – residual effect extends into the operations to its existing condition, or the phase, but is less that the equivalent of one generation (4 – 25 residual effect can no longer years). be measured or otherwise residual effect extends beyond the equivalent of perceived Long-term – one generation (>25 years). Reversibility Pertains to whether a Reversible – the residual effect is likely to be reversed after measurable parameter or the activity completion and reclamation. VC can return to its existing Irreversible – the residual effect is unlikely to be reversed. condition after the project activity ceases NOTES: a For this assessment, current has been defined as extending to in the last 25 years (or one generation), beginning 2017. Twenty-five years is chosen as the temporal boundary because knowledge about traditional practices or locales can be lost or may not be passed to younger members of an Aboriginal group if it goes unused for a generation. Conclusions regarding Project effects are considered at full build-out and do not include proposed reclamation activities, given that most reclamation activities will occur after Project closure and beyond the 25-year period. Considering the project at full build-out, in the absence of reclamation is therefore considered a conservative approach.
16.12 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.1.7 Environmental Consequence
The lack of laws, policies, management plans and standard industry practice regarding thresholds for TLU makes choosing and applying thresholds for environmental consequence methodologically challenging. Additionally, the subjective nature of describing and understanding the importance of effects on TLU means that any selected threshold might not adequately apply across all Aboriginal groups and circumstances. Further to this, a TLU assessment assesses effects on people who use the environment, but there is currently no clearly established means to judge and gauge how affected individuals and groups may respond to project effects. Consequently, no determination of environmental consequence is undertaken for TLU.
16.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR TRADITIONAL LAND USE
Information obtained through a review of relevant secondary sources, the Aboriginal engagement activities conducted by Suncor for this Project (Volume 1, Section 5.2) and past project experience indicates that current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes is likely to occur throughout the TRSA. Traditional activities that comprise current use include an overview of species and locations related to hunting, trapping, fishing, plant gathering, and the use of habitation areas, trails and travelways and cultural and spiritual sites or areas. The habitat in the TRSA supports a variety of plants and animals commonly understood to be harvested by Aboriginal peoples for traditional purposes (Section 16.2.3).
16.2.1 Methods
A desktop review, along with Project-specific TLU data collection and mapping were completed to determine existing conditions for traditional ecological knowledge and traditional land use. Current use has been defined for this assessment as extending back from the present time to in the last 25 years, considered as one generation, and therefore the literature review was limited to data that falls in the temporal boundary of 25 years before present. Twenty-five years was chosen as the boundary because knowledge regarding traditional practices or locales has the potential to be lost if unused or not passed down for the duration of one generation.
The findings in this report are derived from a review of the results of primary and secondary source documents. Primary sources include:
• Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Traditional Land and Resource Use Table for the Suncor Meadow Creek West Project (FM468FN 2017). This table is included as Appendix 16A; however, the figures associated with this table was not released by Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation in order to protect confidential information.
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.13
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
• Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation Traditional Land and Resource Use Study for the Suncor Meadow Creek East Project (CPDFN 2016). Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation directed Suncor to consider TLRU information contained in this report in relation to the Meadow Creek West Project.
• TLU assessment completed for the 2001 Petro-Canada Meadow Creek Project application and project-specific traditional land use reports prepared for Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation (Golder 2002a) and Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation (Golder 2002b), developed through project-specific consultation on the Meadow Creek Project undertaken by Petro-Canada in 2001 (Petro-Canada 2001), which profiled each Aboriginal group’s traditional lands, activities, and way of life, as well as concerns and proposed mitigation, with specific emphasis placed on the Project.
• Secondary-source TLU information collected from publicly-available documents include:
− TLU reports forming part of environmental impact assessments for projects in the vicinity of the Project
− Statement of Concerns related to the Meadow Creek East project
− government reports related to traditional use
− regional studies
− academic reports related to or containing relevant TLU information
− Aboriginal group websites
• Results of the Aboriginal engagement activities conducted by Suncor for this Project (Volume 1, Section 5.2)
• Terrestrial field programs (i.e., vegetation and wetlands [Section 12], wildlife [Section 13])
The review considered the baseline information, issues and concerns, potential effects, residual effects and mitigation recommendations as made by Aboriginal groups that were relevant to the potentially affected Aboriginal groups’ resource use and traditional activity. Sites and areas associated with Aboriginal interests that were identified through the literature review are discussed generally in the existing conditions section for each Aboriginal activity (e.g., hunting, trapping, fishing, plant gathering).
16.14 Suncor Energy Inc. MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
The literature review provides an overview of TLU in the region as general background and context for the assessment. The results of the literature review should not be considered comprehensive representations of TLU by participating Aboriginal groups. A lack of information about TLU does not indicate the absence of TLU resources, activities, and sites in the region. Suncor continues to engage with potentially affected Aboriginal groups, and issues or concerns, and traditional use sites or features identified through ongoing engagement will be considered for incorporation into Project planning, as appropriate.
16.2.2 Participating Aboriginal Groups
This overview of existing conditions provides brief profiles of each Aboriginal group, including reserve locations, population, governance structure, Treaty membership and tribal council associations, if applicable. The location of Aboriginal groups and reserves in relation to the Project is presented in Figure 16-2.
As identified in Section 16.1.2, Suncor’s Aboriginal Consultation process identified three First Nations and five Métis Locals as Aboriginal groups potentially affected by the Project (Suncor 2016). A brief description of each is provided below.
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.15
Fireb 955 E a g R
l iv l e s r e River Liég R i v
e r
D
u r
n e v k i i r W k r R a ve k b R i n a iv R FORT a s e ay Steepb c r K a ac McMURRAY R M
i
v
e River r ater Fort McMurray Métis Clearw Saprae Creek Clearwater 175 69 Gregoire Lake 176B r ve Gregoire se R i C Clearwater River Ho r Lake h
r Estates i s La Loche Anzac t in a Willow LakeR Métis Local 780 iv er 155 R Gregoire arson iv er Lake 176A G 956 Gregoire Kimowin River Lake 176
Chard Métis Society and Chard 754 Métis Déne Inc. Cowper Janvier South Lake 194A ver Sandy Lake R i Pe r n li ve 63 Janvier 194 lo ca i il n R D k ee Cr l e l r l ive a R k r a H e a e
c r s ou Conklin P Winefred
a se C F
b R a r Lake 194B
a i to
w h v e t t e v l c r i Conklin a r e ay R e
t A M C v t Métis Local 193 i R R n iv i e L p r o i g N
a 881
813 n Ri ve i r er ngR r e
d ALBERTA n i v Ca i ld a ver Calling Lake e
R W r
e SASKATCHEWAN R iv d e
y Wandering River l
r C Breynat iver Sand R Participating Aboriginal Groups Heart Lake 167A Métis Organization r 858 ive M
lR e
d w Heart
Reserve l
O e Primrose r Lake 167 y e Lake Riv Footprint R ew i s v ta e sa r e Terrestrial Local Study K r Area ive M r R ive ine au u Terrestrial Regional Study Wo lf R art skeg River M Area 663 Community
ek e Access (Primary) r Cold 919 C h Lake Urban Area is Amisk Riv f
er k 950 55 c aver R Watercourse a Be iv J er 954 Provincial Park/Wildland 855 36 Reserve 866 867 28 Reserve 660 Project Location Waterbody 882
0 20 40 Blue Quills AB Kilometres First Nation 897 BC SK 1:1,750,000 (At original document size of 8.5x11) Indian Reserve NAD 1983 UTM Zone 12N 41 21
29 USA Last Modified: 06/06/2017 By:cspyker W:\Clients\Suncor_Energy_Inc\Meadow_Creek_West\Figures\TK\EIA\123511565-0230_aboriginal_groups.mxd
Sources: Base Data - GeoGratis (2013), GeoLogic (2015), Natural Resources Canada, Disclaimer: This map is for illustrative purposes to support this Suncor project; questions can be directed to the issuing agency. Canada Centre for Mapping and Earth Sciences. Thematic - Stantec (2017)
Locations of Participating Aboriginal Groups
SUNCOR ENERGY - MEADOW CREEK WEST Figure 16-2 MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.2.2.1 Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation (Band No. 468) is a signatory to Treaty 8, which was signed in 1899 (INAC 2010, INAC 2016g). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation and Fort McKay First Nation were originally part of the same Band, but divided in 1942 (ATC 2014). The Nation is a member of the Athabasca Tribal Council and the Treaty 8 First Nations Grand Council (ATC 2014, TEFNA n.d.).
The traditional territory of Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation ranges from south of the North Saskatchewan River to the Birch Mountains in the north, and from Peter Pond Lake in the east to Lesser Slave Lake in the west (FM468FN 2006). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation is made up of four reserves: Gregoire Lake Reserves 176 (2,232 ha), 176A (67 ha), and 176B (17 ha) and Clearwater 175 Reserve (915 ha) (INAC 2016h). The most populated reserve, Gregoire Lake Reserve 176, is on the south shore of Gregoire Lake (Willow Lake), nearly 35 km southeast of the city of Fort McMurray (INAC 2016i). Gregoire Lake Reserves 176A and 176B are located on the west and east shores of the Gregoire Lake (Willow Lake). Clearwater Reserve 175 is located at the convergence of the Clearwater and Christina Rivers, east of the city of Fort McMurray in Township (Twp) 88, Range (Rge) 7 W4M (INAC 2016h).
As of January 2017, the registered population of Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation was 765 members, with 274 members residing on-reserve, 10 on other reserves, and 481 off-reserve (INAC 2016j). Under a custom electoral system, Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation is governed by a Chief and two Councillors, each appointed for a three-year term (INAC 2016k).
As of January 2017, Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation had three land and treaty claims, two of which are still in negotiation. The 1927 Surrender claim, which alleged that under Treaty 8, Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Treaty Land Entitlement had not been fulfilled, was concluded in 1993, on account that there was no lawful obligation found. The two claims still under negotiation are the Treaty 8 Agricultural and Other Benefits claim alleging Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation did not receive various articles promised in Treaty 8, including farming implements, stock, flags and medals, triennial clothing, ammunition and twine; and the Treaty and Land Entitlement claim, alleging that under Treaty 8, Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation’s Treaty Land Entitlement had not been fulfilled. The claimant agreed to negotiate in July 2013 on the Treaty and Land Entitlement claim (INAC 2016f).
Suncor started consultation on the Project with Fort McMurray No.468 First Nation in late 2016 which included funding offered to complete a TLU study. Fort McMurray No.468 First Nation has completed targeted mapping and interview sessions to gather TLU information relative to the Project (Section 16.2.1). Suncor will continue to engage with Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation throughout the life of the Project (Volume 1, Section 5.4).
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.17 MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.2.2.2 Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation
The Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation (Band No. 470) is a signatory to Treaty 8, which was signed in 1899 (INAC 2010; INAC 2016a). Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation is associated with the Treaty 8 First Nations Grand Council and is a member of the Athabasca Tribal Council (TEFNA n.d.). The traditional territory of Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation extends south to the Richardson Backcountry to the North Saskatchewan River and east from Wabasca to Peter Pond Lake (CDPFN 2007). Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation is made up of three reserves: Janvier Reserve 194, Cowper Lake Reserve 194A, and Winefred Lake Reserve 194B. The largest reserve, Janvier 194 (2487 ha), is located 97 km southeast of the city of Fort McMurray (INAC 2016c). Cowper Lake Reserve No. 194A (143 ha) is located by the north shore of Cowper Lake in Twp 80, Rge 3. Winefred Lake Reserve No. 194B (450 ha) is located near the north end of Winefred Lake in Twp 74, Rge 4. The three reserves encompass a total of 3,080 hectares (INAC 2016b).
As of January 2017, the total registered population of Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation was 935, with 384 members residing on-reserve, 12 on other reserves and 539 off-reserve (INAC 2016d). Under a custom electoral system, Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation is governed by a Chief and three Councillors, each appointed for a three-year term (INAC 2016e).
As of January 2017, Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation had two land and treaty claims, one of which is still in negotiation. Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation had settled the Treaty Land Entitlement claim, which alleged that under Treaty 8, Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation’s treaty land entitlement had not been fulfilled; the claim for lawful obligation was settled through negotiations in 1993. The Treaty 8 Agricultural Benefits claim, which alleged a failure to provide agricultural benefits pursuant to Treaty 8 was still under negotiations (INAC 2016f).
Suncor is supporting Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation in a review of the applicability of the Meadow Creek East TLU study to Meadow Creek West. Suncor will provide a reasonable level of support to Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation if updates to the Meadow Creek East TLU study, to incorporate Meadow Creek West are required. Results of the review and/or study update will be considered in Project planning as development progress. Should new project effects to TLU sites or activities be identified by Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation in a TLU study, Suncor will work with CDPFN to identify reasonable and effective mitigation strategies. Completion of the TLU study review and/or update is expected by the end of 2017 (Volume 1, Section 5.2).
16.2.2.3 Heart Lake First Nation
Heart Lake First Nation (Band No. 469) is a signatory to Treaty 6, signed in 1876 (INAC 2010, INAC 2016l). Heart Lake First Nation is a member of the Tribal Chiefs Association, which was established in 1972 by Chiefs from six First Nations, and a member of the Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations (CTSFN n.d., INAC 2016l).
16.18 Suncor Energy Inc. MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
The traditional territory of Heart Lake First Nation extends through much of east-central Alberta from McMillan Lake eastward to west-central Saskatchewan near Arsenault Lake; and from Truman in the south to Janvier and Garson Lake in the north (KNOC 2009).
Heart Lake First Nation is comprised of three reserves: Blue Quills First Nation Indian Reserve (96 ha; shared with five other Nations), Heart Lake 167 (4,496 ha), and Heart Lake 167A (8 ha) (INAC 2016m). The most populated reserve, Heart Lake 167, is located 45 km northeast of Lac La Biche (INAC 2016n). Blue Quills First Nation Indian Reserve is located 3 km west of St. Paul Alberta. Heart Lake 176A is located in Twp 69 and Rge 12, W4M (INAC 2016m).
As of January 2017, Heart Lake First Nation had a registered population of 348, with 193 on-reserve, 20 on other reserves, and 135 off-reserve (INAC 2016o). Under the custom electoral system, HLFN is governed by a Chief and two Councillors, each appointed for a three-year term (INAC 2016p).
As of January 2017, Heart Lake First Nation had concluded two claims related to land and treaty land entitlement. The Primrose Lake Air Weapons Range claim requested an agreement that would allow Heart Lake First Nation to maintain access to its traditional territory and receive payment for damages. The claim was closed in 2008. The Treaty Land Entitlement claim alleged that under Treaty 6, HLFN’s treaty land entitlement had not been fulfilled. The claim for lawful obligation was not accepted and was closed in 1993 (INAC 2016f).
Suncor initiated consultation with Heart Lake First Nation on the Project in late 2016. TLU study results for the Meadow Creek East Project were provided to Suncor and the report is currently under review by Heart Lake First Nation to confirm if the TLU study can be applied to the Meadow Creek West Project; however, Heart Lake First Nation stated these results were not to be used for regulatory reports. Heart Lake First Nation provided written confirmation to Suncor that they do not have any Project-specific issues or concerns. Suncor is working with Heart Lake First Nation on the next steps for the Meadow Creek West Project consultation (Volume 1, Section 5.2).
16.2.2.4 Willow Lake Métis Local 780
Willow Lake Métis Local 780 is located in the hamlet of Anzac, approximately 35 km southeast of the city of Fort McMurray. The Local is represented by a board of directors and is a member of the Wood Buffalo Métis Corporation (JACOS 2010, FMT 2015).
Suncor has shared information on the Meadow Creek West Project with Willow Lake Métis 780 and will continue to engage with them to identify concerns and issues related to the Project (Volume 1, Section 5.2.3).
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.19 MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.2.2.5 Fort McMurray Métis
Fort McMurray Métis is a rights-asserting Métis group with over 300 members, representing the Métis people of Fort McMurray Métis located in Fort McMurray and northeastern Alberta (MNA 1935 2013, MNA 1935 2015). Founded in 1987 and governed under the bylaws of the Métis Nation of Alberta (MNA), Fort McMurray Métis is represented by an elected Local Council that includes a president, vice president and board of directors, and is a member of the Wood Buffalo Métis Corporation, an umbrella organization—also consisting of Fort Chipewyan Métis Local #125, Fort McKay Métis Local 63, and Willow Lake Métis Local 780— that works to jointly negotiate with industry and government (MNA 1935, 2013, FMT 2015).
Fort McMurray Métis assert traditional territory in the Wood Buffalo Municipal District region, where members continue to carry out traditional and subsistence harvesting practices, including hunting, trapping, harvesting, fishing, and plant gathering.
Suncor has shared information on the Meadow Creek West Project with Fort McMurray Métis. Suncor and Fort McMurray Métis are in the process of developing an engagement process for the Meadow Creek West Project (Volume 1, Section 5.2).
16.2.2.6 Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc.
The Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. represent Aboriginal and Métis people residing in the immediate and surrounding areas of Chard, Alberta (Chard 2015a).
The Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. is located in the hamlet of Chard/Janvier, situated adjacent to the Chipewyan Prairie Reserve 194, approximately 100 km south of Fort McMurray (JACOS 2010).
Suncor is in the process of sharing information on the Meadow Creek West Project with the Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. and will continue to engage with them to identify concerns and issues related to the Project (Volume 1, Section 5.2.3).
16.2.2.7 Conklin Resource Development Advisory Committee
Conklin Métis is a rights-asserting Métis group, located in Conklin where the majority of the population is Métis. The Conklin Resource Development Advisory Committee is a representative organization of the residents of Conklin and Conklin Métis Local #193. The Conklin Resource Development Advisory Committee speaks on behalf of the Conklin Métis on matters related to industrial Projects in the region (CRDAC 2015).
Suncor is in the process of sharing information on the Meadow Creek West Project with Conklin Métis and will continue to engage with them to identify concerns and issues related to the Project (Volume 1, Section 5.2.3).
16.20 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.2.3 Traditional Activities and Practices
Summaries of each TLU existing activity are provided below, including information from several potentially affected Aboriginal groups. For each TLU activity, available TLU information was incorporated based on the three Project interactions and issues and concerns identified from the literature review for each Aboriginal group.
16.2.3.1 Hunting
16.2.3.1.1 Overview of Species Hunted and Hunting Areas in the TRSA
Traditional hunting practices continue to be an important means of livelihood for Aboriginal groups in the region. For example, animals are harvested by Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation members for sustenance, as well as for their hides and bones, which are used to make clothing, household items, tools, and other cultural items (CPDFN 2007). Fort McMurray No.468 First Nation members also harvest animals for hides and bones, as well as using the lard from wild meat to make bannock (FM468FN 2017). McMurray 468 First Nation explain that only what is needed is harvested, with all parts of the animal being used for food, medicine or fertilizer (FM468FN 2017).
Based on the review of primary (CPDFN 2016, FM468FN 2017, Golder 2002a, Golder 2002b) and secondary source information (FM468FN 2006, CPDFN 2007, FMML 2012, Golder 2013), Table 16-3 summarizes traditionally and currently hunted species for each Aboriginal group. Table 16-3 should not be considered comprehensive or exhaustive; a lack of information about TLU does not indicate the absence of TLU resources, activities, and sites in the region.
Woodland caribou were included in the subsistence base in the past, presently Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation and Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation members voluntarily decline from harvesting woodland caribou given they are a species at risk (CPDFN 2016, FM468FN 2017, CPDFN 2007). Woodland caribou are sacred to Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation and are considered to be an essential part of the landscape (CPDFN 2016, FM468FN 2017).
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.21
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
Table 16-3 Species Hunted in the TRSA Fort McMurray Fort Advisory Committee No. Chipewyan Willow Conklin Resource Dene First Nation First Dene Heart Fort Development
Chard 468 FirstNation Local 780 Nation
McMurray McMurray
Lake Fi Lake Métis
Métis
Prairie Prairie
Métis Métis rst rst
Bear − − − Beaver − − − Bison (Buffalo) − − − − − − Caribou (woodland) − − − − − Cougar − − − − − − Deer (mule, white-tail) − − − Elk − − − − − − Fox − − − − − Lynx − − − − − − Moose − − − Muskrat − − − − Rabbit (snowshoe hare) − − − − Squirrel − − − − Wolf − − − − Canvasback − − − − − − Crane − − − − − Coot − − − − − − Duck − − − − − Goose − − − − Grebe − − − − − − Grouse (ruffed, sharp tail, spruce) − − − − − Loon − − − − − − Partridge − − − − − − Pelican − − − − − − Ptarmigan − − − − − Snipe − − − − − −
16.22 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
Table 16-3 Species Hunted in the TRSA Fort McMurray Fort Advisory Committee No. Chipewyan Willow Conklin Resource Dene First Nation First Dene Heart Fort Development
Chard 468 FirstNation Local 780 Nation
McMurray McMurray
Lake Fi Lake Métis
Métis
Prairie Prairie
Métis Métis rst rst
Spruce hen − − − − − − Swan − − − − − NOTES: = Species identified as being hunted by associated Aboriginal group − = Based on available information, the associated Aboriginal group did not report trapping the identified species. Suncor will continue to engage potentially affected Aboriginal groups regarding species hunted in the TRSA.
Fort McMurray Métis and Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation reported that hunting occurred throughout the year according to the seasonal availability of resources; for instance, increased hunting of large game such as caribou, moose and deer in the fall to prepare families for the winter months (FMML 2012, FM468FN 2017). Harvested meat was canned or smoked and dried in teepees in preparation for winter (FMML 2012, FM468FN 2017). Hunting and eating wild game remains an important traditional activity (FM468FN 2017).
For Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation, hunting occurs on an as needed basis, comprising as much as 95% of diets in some households and contributing upwards of 60%-70% of the Janvier community subsistence base. The consumption of traditional food is important to individual and community wellbeing and is considered both nutritional and medicinal (CPDFN 2016).
Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation noted that the type of animal hunted is based on a seasonal schedule. Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation reported fall as the optimal time for hunting large game, primarily moose; however, if it was necessary to harvest a moose in the spring or summer, only bulls under the age of two would be targeted. Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation members would primarily harvest small animals and fish in the spring and summer to supplement their traditional diet in the absence of large game (CPDFN 2007).
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.23
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation and Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation reported moose as the most commonly hunted species, partially because of their size (FM468FN 2017, Golder 2002a, Golder 2002b). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation, Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation, and Fort McMurray Métis collectively reported that watercourses and the vegetation found next to them are important habitat for ungulates, especially moose. Wetlands are considered primary moose habitat because they provide an abundance of water and food, such as willow and alder, and a place for the animal to cool and avoid insects in the summer (TERA 2015). For these reasons, moose hunting areas often consist of regions with small lakes and high grass (Golder 2013). Moose are also often harvested near mineral licks, and Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation and Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation noted the cultural significance of mineral licks in regards to their affiliation to ungulates including moose, deer, and caribou (Golder 2002a, Golder 2002b, CPDFN 2016). Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation identified a mineral lick on the east side of Surmont Lake and Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation identified a mineral lick at an important cultural site known as Mustasinee, also known as the “Big Rock” (Golder 2013, Golder 2002b).
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation identified the muskeg in the Project area as prime moose habitat and a traditional hunting location (FM468FN 2017). In the past there were also abundant moose populations along Highway 63 and Highway 881, the Hangingstone area and at a gravel pit south of the Project area.
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation harvesters are cognizant of the size of the moose population and consider it in their approach to hunting, with conservation of the herd a top priority. When processing the animal, virtually the whole animal is utilized (Golder 2002b). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation uses conservative hunting practices when hunting other species as well, noting that female game are generally not hunted in the spring because they are rearing young, and ducks or grouse are not hunted in the spring when they are laying eggs (Golder 2011). Furthermore, caribou are only hunted by Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation on occasion, with many members no longer hunting caribou due to conservation concerns related to the species’ population status (AXYS 2000b).
Treed fens, consisting of black spruce, and jack pine ridges covered with lichen, are considered by Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation (Golder 2002b) and Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation (CPDFN 2016) to be primary caribou habitat. Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation (Golder 2002b) and Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation (CPDFN 2016) reported that such habitat exists in the southern portion of the Petro-Canada Meadow Creek Project area (Golder 2002b).
16.24 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation members hunt birds at a number of small lakes that provide primary habitat for waterfowl including loons, mallard duck, mudhens and snipes (Golder 2013). Ducks and geese are the most popular waterfowl harvested by Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation (Golder 2002b). Egg harvesting was documented by Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation to occur along the Athabasca River and the Clearwater River (Golder 2013). Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation reported that ducks and geese in the Janvier area only fly at night, whereas in the past they would fly during the day (Golder 2002a). Fort McMurray Métis reported hunting in areas adjacent to Highway 63 and Highway 881 (FMML 2012). Fort McMurray No.468 First Nation indicated a caribou prepping area in the Surmont Creek area, where in the past members would dry meat and process hides. Fort McMurray No. 468 FN report that meat is smoked and dried in teepees during the summer months (FM468FN 2017).
Based on the review of primary (FM468FN 2006, Golder 2002b) and secondary source information (Golder 2013, FMML 2012), Table 16-4 summarizes traditionally and currently used hunting locations for each Aboriginal Group. Table 16-4 should not be considered comprehensive or exhaustive; a lack of information about TLU does not indicate the absence of TLU resources, activities, and sites in the region.
Table 16-4 Hunting Sites and Areas in the TRSA Fort Chipewyan Willow Conkli Dene First Nation First Dene Heart 468 First Nation Fort McMurray Fort Development Chard Committee
Local 780 McMurray No. McMurray Advisory Nation Métis
n Resource
Lake First Lake Métis
Mé
Prairie Prairie
tis
Athabasca River − − − − − − Clearwater River − − − − − − Clearwater Reserve area − − − − − Gregoire Lake reserve area − − − − − − Hangingstone Region − − − − − − Stony Mountain Area − − − − − − Surmont Lake − − − − − − Gregoire Lake (Willow Lake) − − − − − − NOTES: = Hunting site identified by the associated Aboriginal group − = Based on available information, the associated Aboriginal group did not report using the identified site for hunting. Suncor will continue to engage potentially affected Aboriginal groups regarding species hunted in the TRSA.
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.25
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
The following sections describe existing effects on the traditional land use of hunting for each Aboriginal group.
16.2.3.1.1.1 Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation expressed concern with the long-term disturbance from the construction and operation of pipelines, wellpads, compressor stations, roads and cutlines, associated with industrial development, including a reduced land base to carry out harvesting activities and a reduction in the local wildlife population (AXYS 2000b).
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation noted the effect clearing the vegetation cover had on animal’s ability to move freely throughout the land, and stated that, due to their low height, above-ground pipelines result in restriction of animal migration, as animals are unable to cross under the pipelines (Golder 2002b). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation reported that changes in caribou and bison migration patterns have been observed (AXYS 2000a).
A decline in moose populations has been observed by Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation since the 1960s (Golder 2002b, FM468FN 2017). Furthermore, Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation has observed changes in mean annual winter temperatures, and relates this to a noticeable increase in ticks found on moose (AXYS 2000b, FM468FN 2017). Temperature changes have also been associated with lower water levels in the muskeg, which affect the entire ecosystem including the quality and quantity of wildlife, vegetation and fish (FM468FN 2017). Specifically, Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation cited changes in habitat, resources, and weather, along with vehicle accidents, predation, and overhunting as contributing factors to the declining bear, bluebird, caribou, chicken (grouse), deer, marten, moose, porcupine, rabbit (snowshoe hare), skunk and whiskey jack populations (AXYS 2000a, FM468FN 2017).
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation reported that the Project area has been used for hunting, FM468FN noted an overcrowding of hunters in and to the south of the Project area, attributing this to the area being abundant moose habitat. Some Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation members no longer hunt in the Project area because there are too many other hunters in that area. The moose population was reported to be insufficient for the number of hunters in the area, specifically those hunters who are required to purchase a license – non-Aboriginal recreational and trophy hunters (FM468FN 2017). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation noted that it is difficult to find areas without human activity, due to the combination of recreational hunters, ATVs, and campers (FM468FN 2017).
16.26 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
Due to the lichen growing in the muskeg, the Project area also used to be woodland caribou habitat, including calving grounds (FM468FN 2017). However due to a combination of overhunting and land clearing the caribou population has drastically declined (FM468FN 2017). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation noted that in the past, caribou were commonly in herds of 40 or more, and now are rarely seen (Golder 2002b). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation cited increased industrial activity, human traffic, loss of habitat, predation by wolves and air pollution to be the main contributing factors related to a reduction in caribou abundance (FM468FN 2017, Golder 2002b)).
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation has reported that similar to moose and caribou, the deer population has diminished in the area around Fort McMurray. Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation indicated that increased vehicle traffic brought on by development represents a greater threat to caribou than pipelines, reporting high caribou mortality due to collisions with motor vehicles (Golder 2013). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation expressed concern regarding the potential for change in distribution, abundance and quality of wildlife habitat and a subsequent decrease in wildlife populations due to industrial development and recreational hunting (AXYS 2000a). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation also voiced concern that sensory disturbances may cause displacement of wildlife in the Project area. Furthermore, environmental changes coupled with increasing human activity in the region not only displace local animal populations, but also allows for invasive species to move in (FM468FN 2017).
Declining wildlife populations, as well as fears of eating contaminated animal meat have reduced the wild meat consumption of Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation community members and altered the community’s diet over all. Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation noted that in the past, there was an abundance of animals to harvest and provide sustenance to people; however, presently there are not enough animals for someone to sustain themselves entirely on a wild food diet. The amount of wild food consumed varies among Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation community members with some community members eating wild food almost daily while others include wild game as part of the weekly diet. It was identified that some community members cannot afford to buy food from the local grocery store and therefore rely on the land to provide food (FM468FN 2017). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation reported that an increase in access to once remote areas has resulted in instances of:
• overuse of access routes, resulting in damage to infrastructure such as bridges and deep rutting of trails and creeks
• increased disturbance to once remote areas, including a loss of solitude for harvesters, safety concerns due to increased traffic and a reduction in wildlife habitat
• increased hunting pressure on wildlife including moose and woodland (boreal) caribou (AXYS 2002b)
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.27
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.2.3.1.1.2 Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation
Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation have historically harvested resources from the TRSA in general, with specific references to harvesting ducks, rabbits and moose from Maqua Lake and similar resources from Stony Mountain (CPDFN 2016). Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation reported decreases in abundance of species and changes in wildlife health observed for species including caribou, moose, and waterfowl (Golder 2002a, AXYS 1999, CPDFN 2016). Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation note that animal habitat is being destroyed, citing fragmentation of muskeg and forest environments caused by excessive seismic activity, increased roadways, and oil and gas development as the main contributors (Golder 2002a). Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation explained that because woodland (boreal) caribou scare easily, noise is continuously pushing them from one project to another as they relocate to one area only to be scared out by a new development project (Golder 2002a). In regards to the Petro-Canada Meadow Creek Project, Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation expressed concern regarding increased human population in the area due to development, attributing an increase in industrial developments to increased access to traditional areas by recreational hunters and consequently decreased animal populations and potential access for non-Aboriginal hunters, who frequently only kill for the head or antlers and leave the carcass behind to rot (Golder 2002a). Furthermore, Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation state that increased harvesting by non-Aboriginals has lead to the decline in quality and quantity of resources in the TRSA (CPDFN 2016).
16.2.3.1.1.3 Heart Lake First Nation
No issues and concerns related to hunting in the TRSA by Heart Lake First Nation have been identified through a review of publicly available TLU information or the Aboriginal engagement program for the Project. Suncor will continue to engage Heart Lake First Nation to identify any issues or concerns regarding Heart Lake First Nation hunting in the TRSA.
16.2.3.1.1.4 Willow Lake Métis Local 780
No issues and concerns related to hunting in the TRSA by Willow Lake Métis Local 780 have been identified through a review of publicly available TLU information or the Aboriginal engagement program for the Project. Suncor will continue to engage Willow Lake Métis Local 780 to identify any issues or concerns regarding Willow Lake Métis Local 780 hunting in the TRSA.
16.2.3.1.1.5 Fort McMurray Métis
Regional hunting practices have had to adapt to reductions in animal populations (FMML 2012). Fort McMurray Métis explained that cutlines increase visibility and therefore increase the vulnerability of wildlife to hunting and predation (FMML 2012).
Fort McMurray Métis stated that depletion of caribou habitat vital to protection of the species is accelerating the decline of the caribou population (MNA 1935 2015).
16.28 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
Fort McMurray Métis reported changes to the regional water quality that have affected member’s perception of the safety of the water, and the surrounding pollution from anthropogenic activity has affected the health and abundance of plants and animals; with some Fort McMurray Métis members no longer harvesting moose due to concerns related to pollution (FMML 2012).
Fort McMurray Métis stated that Métis hunting practices in the region have been affected by restrictions in access to traditional hunting areas (FMML 2012). According to Fort McMurray Métis, oil and gas development, including the accompanying development of roads and cutlines has reduced Métis access to hunting areas, and sometimes completely removed hunting areas from the landscape. However, Fort McMurray Métis also indicated that roads and cutlines can provide better points of access to some hunting areas (FMML 2012).
16.2.3.1.1.6 Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc.
The Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. expressed concern regarding the loss of pristine wilderness and the resulting effect on the hunting traditions of the Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. members (Chard 2015d).
The Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. reported a reduction in the population of several traditionally harvested species in recent years, including caribou, deer, moose, rabbit, bear, frog, squirrel, mink, wolf, beaver and bird populations (Golder 2013) and expressed concern about the health of wildlife, including concerns that moose are becoming diseased, resulting in a population decline (Ladouceur 2002).
The Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. are dependent upon the ability to access traditional lands for hunting and gathering for livelihood and connection to the land. The Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. noted adverse effects on access to hunting areas for wildlife and hunters, resulting in reduced wildlife populations in the area (Chard 2015d).
The Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. reported the Meadow Creek East Project area to be prime wildlife habitat, and concern for the wildlife populations in the Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. hunting and the resulting effect on the Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. harvester’s ability to hunt was noted (Chard 2015d).
The Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. noted the potential for adverse effects from above-ground pipelines on wildlife and hunters’ ability to move throughout the land, and explained that the loss of many ancestral hunting areas due to the fast rate of development in the area has resulted in the Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. members having to travel further away from home to find adequate hunting grounds (Chard 2013). The Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. expressed concern regarding the potential for increased traffic around the community of Chard as a result of development, and the associated reduction in air quality and safety to wildlife, noting that travelling on land concentrated with development creates a greater risk to human health and (Chard 2015d).
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.29
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.2.3.1.1.7 Conklin Métis
The Conklin Resource Development Advisory Committee expressed concern regarding the potential adverse effects of local boreal forest fragmentation, and the potential for construction and operation activities to adversely affect Conklin member’s ability to exercise their Aboriginal rights, including hunting (CRDAC 2015).
16.2.3.2 Trapping
16.2.3.2.1 Overview of Species Trapped and Trapping Areas in the TRSA
Trapping was and continues to be an important traditional activity for Aboriginal groups in the area. Based on the review of primary (CPDFN 2016, FM468FN 2017, Golder 2002a, Golder 2002b) and secondary source information (FM468FN 2006, CPDFN 2007, FMML 2012, Golder 2013), Table 16-5 summarizes traditionally and currently trapped species for each Aboriginal Group. Table 16-5 should not be considered comprehensive or exhaustive; a lack of information about TLU does not indicate the absence of TLU resources, activities, and sites in the region.
Table 16-5 Species Trapped in the TRSA Fort McMurray Fort Advisory Committee No. Chipewyan Willow Conklin Resource Dene First Nation First Dene Heart Fort Development
Chard 468 FirstNation Local 780 Nation
McMurray McMurray
Lake First Lake Métis
Métis
Prairie Prairie
Métis
Beaver − − − Cougar − − − − − − Coyote − − − − Ermine − − − − − Fisher − − − − Fox − − − Frog − − − − − − Grouse − − − − − − Lynx − − − Marten − − − Mink − − − Muskrat − − − −
16.30 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
Table 16-5 Species Trapped in the TRSA Fort McMurray Fort Advisory Committee No. Chipewyan Willow Conklin Resource Dene First Nation First Dene Heart Fort Development
Chard 468 FirstNation Local 780 Nation
McMurray McMurray
Lake First Lake Métis
Métis
Prairie Prairie
Métis
Otter − − − − Porcupine − − − − − Ptarmigan − − − − − − Rabbit (snowshoe hare) − − − − Skunk − − − − − − Squirrel (red) − − − − − Weasel − − − − Wolf − − − Wolverine − − − − NOTES: = Species identified as being trapped by associated Aboriginal group − = Based on available information, the associated Aboriginal group did not report trapping the identified species. Suncor will continue to engage potentially affected Aboriginal groups regarding species trapped in the TRSA.
Red squirrel, beaver, and weasel are the most commonly trapped species by Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation (AXYS 2000b). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation reported that fisher has not been seen since the 1980s (Golder 2002b). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation noted that the influence of timber harvesting has resulted in a decrease of marten and red squirrels, due to their dependence on mature forests (AXYS 2000b). A reduction in the porcupine population was also noted by Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation (FM468FN 2017).
In the past, Métis families lived on traplines during the winter months; many women worked as trappers and each family member made important contributions during the trapping season. Fort McMurray Métis families continue to gather on their family traplines and pass on trapping techniques and skills to their children (FMML 2012). For the Meadow Creek East Project, Fort McMurray Métis indicated that historical traplines are located in the area surrounding the Project area, and that this area remains an important space for the exercise of Aboriginal harvesting rights and cultural reproduction (MNA Local 1935 2015).
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.31
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation members reported harvesting fine furs between November and March and aquatic furbearers were primarily harvested between March and June. Squirrel and rabbit were trapped year-around, both for pelts and food (FM468FN 2006, Golder 2002b). In the past, traplines held by Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation were approximately 20 to 25 miles long, and held between 100 and 200 snares which were checked daily (FM468FN 2006). Trapping continues to provide a source of revenue for some Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation members; however, the number of animals trapped per year and the economic viability of the pelts is declining (Golder 2002b, FM468FN 2017).
Fort McMurray Métis reported that the Meadow Creek East Project area is habitat for numerous large and small furbearing animals and birds, including deer, moose, caribou, rabbit, duck, and geese (MNA 1935 2015). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation also noted the presence of a number of furbearing species in the Meadow Creek Project area, including wolves and, (although uncommon), grizzly bear and cougar, and reported that lynx, fisher and mink are present in the Hangingstone area (AXYS 2000b, Golder 2002b). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation reported that marten populations are abundant further north of the Hangingstone area; however, members have observed an increase in marten locally, which are thought to be relocating from further north, where the mature forests upon which they rely are being cleared (AXYS 2000b). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation noted a decrease in squirrel and muskrat populations (Golder 2002b). In relation to another project, Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation, Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation, and Fort McMurray Métis collectively expressed concern regarding effects on squirrel habitat (TERA 2015).
The traditional trapping territory of the Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. includes the area extending from the Clearwater River and Fort McMurray to the north, to Conklin and Heart Lake in the south (Golder 2013). Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation’s trapping range includes the Clearwater River (CPDFN 2007). The highest concentration of trapping in Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation’s traditional trapping territory occurs in the regions around the Athabasca River, Clearwater River, and Gregoire Lake (Willow Lake) (FM468FN 2006).
In the past, Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nations members would spend weeks at a time attending to traplines, harvesting animals for meat and fur to sell, providing family income to purchase goods not available on the land (FM468FN 2017). Knowledge of trapping has been and continues to be culturally transferred through parents to children at a young age or by members observing and assisting in trapping activities. Currently, Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nations report trapping in the vicinity of the Project area, specifically rabbit snaring was noted (FM468FN 2017). Fort McMurray Métis reported trapping in areas adjacent to Highway 881 (FMML 2012).
16.32 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
Based on the review of primary (FM468FN 2006, CPDFN 2016) and secondary source information (Golder 2013), Table 16-6 summarizes traditionally and currently used trapping locations for each Aboriginal group. Table 16-6 should not be considered comprehensive or exhaustive; a lack of information about TLU does not indicate the absence of TLU resources, activities, and sites in the region.
Table 16-6 Trapping Areas in the TRSA Chipewyan Heart Development A Fort Fort McMurray Fort Willow Conklin Resource
McMurray No. 468
Chard First Nation First First Nation First Lake First Nation Committee Local
Lake Métis
Prairie Dene Dene Prairie
Métis
780 dvisory
Métis Métis
Clearwater River − − − − − Clearwater Reserve area − − − − − Gregoire Lake reserve area − − − − − − Hangingstone River − − − − Long Lake − − − − − − Prairie Creek − − − − − − Surmont Lake − − − − − Gregoire Lake (Willow Lake) − − − − Immediately south of Gregoire Lake (Willow Lake) − − − − − NOTES: = Trapping site identified by the associated Aboriginal group − = Based on available information, the associated Aboriginal group did not report using the identified site for trapping. Suncor will continue to engage potentially affected Aboriginal groups regarding species trapped in the TRSA.
The following sections describe existing effects on the traditional land use of trapping for each Aboriginal group.
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.33
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.2.3.2.1.1 Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation expressed concern with the long-term disturbance from the construction and operation of pipelines, wellpads, compressor stations, roads and cutlines, associated with industrial development, including a reduced land base to carry out harvesting activities and a reduction in the local wildlife population (AXYS 2000b).
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation expressed concern about the potential to disturb active beaver and bear dens due to construction activities associated with development (Golder 2013).
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation noted effects that have occurred for trappers and their traplines, including loss of access to traplines and destruction of traps, and indicated that poor communication exists between developers, trappers and communities. Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation expressed concern that the ability to trap species in the winter can be impeded by winter construction activities (AXYS 2000b).
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation reported that an increase in access to once remote areas has resulted in instances of:
• vandalism to traplines and cabins, including removing snares and theft of equipment
• unintentional damage to traplines, such as snowmobiles accidentally running over traps and snares
• overuse of access routes, resulting in damage to infrastructure such as bridges and deep rutting of trails and creeks
• increased disturbance to once remote areas, including a loss of solitude for harvesters, safety concerns due to increased traffic and a reduction in wildlife habitat
• increased trapping pressure on snowshoe hare (AXYS 2000b)
16.34 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.2.3.2.1.2 Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation
Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation reported decreases in abundance of species and changes in wildlife health observed for species including marten, beaver, muskrats, rabbits, and squirrels (Golder 2002a, AXYS 1999). Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation reported that animal habitat is being destroyed, citing fragmentation of muskeg and forest environments caused by excessive seismic activity, increased roadways, and oil and gas development as the main contributors (Golder 2002a). Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation indicate that direct physical disturbance in the TRSA has resulted in a decline in the quality and quantity of biodiversity of wildlife (CPDFN 2016).
Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation noted once remote traplines are now easier to access due to an increase in development, which has resulted in instances of damage and theft on traplines (Golder 2002a). In addition, Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation stated that the merging of trapline RFMA #2452 (previously held by CPDFN) with trapline RFMA #2820 has resulted in a loss of trapline access for Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation due to provincial policies (CPDFN 2016).
16.2.3.2.1.3 Heart Lake First Nation
No issues and concerns related to trapping in the TRSA by Heart Lake First Nation have been identified through a review of publicly available TLU information or the Aboriginal engagement program for the Project. Suncor will continue to engage Heart Lake First Nation to identify any issues or concerns regarding Heart Lake First Nation trapping in the TRSA.
16.2.3.2.1.4 Willow Lake Métis Local 780
No issues and concerns related to trapping in the TRSA by Willow Lake Métis Local 780 have been identified through a review of publicly available TLU information or the Aboriginal engagement program for the Project. Suncor will continue to engage Willow Lake Métis Local 780 to identify any issues or concerns regarding Willow Lake Métis Local 780 trapping in the TRSA.
16.2.3.2.1.5 Fort McMurray Métis
Fort McMurray Métis reported changes to the regional water quality that have affected member’s perception of the safety of the water, and the surrounding pollution from anthropogenic activity has affected the health and abundance of plants and animals (FMML 2012).
Fort McMurray Métis reported that changes to the environment and declining animal populations, as well as decreasing fur prices, have affected the ability of Métis people to continue to secure a livelihood through trapping activities (e.g. the effect changing water levels have had on beaver populations, due to drowning during flood events) (FMML 2012).
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.35
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.2.3.2.1.6 Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc.
The Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. reported a reduction in the population of several traditionally harvested species in recent years, including caribou, deer, moose, rabbit, bear, frog, squirrel, mink, wolf, beaver and bird populations (Golder 2013).
16.2.3.2.1.7 Conklin Métis
No issues and concerns related to trapping in the TRSA by Conklin Métis have been identified through a review of publicly available TLU information or the Aboriginal engagement program for the Project. Suncor will continue to engage Conklin Métis to identify any issues or concerns regarding Conklin Métis trapping in the TRSA.
16.2.3.3 Fishing
16.2.3.3.1 Overview of Species Fished and Fishing Areas in the TRSA
Fishing was and continues to be an integral traditional activity for Aboriginal groups in the region and fish remains an important part of many Aboriginal peoples’ traditional diet. For McMurray Métis families, fishing is an important means of securing year-round sustenance, especially when other foods are scarce (FMML 2012). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation and Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation highlighted the critical importance of resources supplied by lakes and rivers through their variety of micro-environments of plants and animals, including the fish harvested from them (Golder 2002a, Golder 2002b, FM468FN 2017). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation state that currently spring and fall are the best times for harvesting fish which are firm in texture (FM468FN 2017).
Based on review of primary (CPDFN 2016, FM468FN 2017, Golder 2002a, Golder 2002b) and secondary source information (FM468FN 2006, CPDFN 2007, FMML 2012), Table 16-7 summarizes traditionally and currently fished species for each Aboriginal Group. Table 16-7 should not be considered comprehensive or exhaustive; a lack of information about TLU does not indicate the absence of TLU resources, activities, and sites in the region.
16.36 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
Table 16-7 Species Fished in the TRSA Fort McMurray Fort Advisory Committee No. Chipewyan Willow Conklin Resource Dene First Nation First Dene Heart Fort Development
Chard 468 FirstNation Local 78 0 Nation
McMurray McMurray
Lake First Lake Métis
Métis
Prairie Prairie
Métis
Arctic Grayling − − − − Burbot (mariah) − − − − − Chub − − − − − − Goldeye − − − − − Jackfish (pike) − − − − Ling − − − − − − Minnow − − − − − − Perch − − − − − − Pickerel − − − − − − Sucker − − − − − − Trout (brown, lake, − − − − rainbow) Walleye (pickerel) − − − − Whitefish − − − − NOTES: = Species identified as being fished by associated Aboriginal group. − = Based on available information, the associated Aboriginal group did not report fishing the identified species. Suncor will continue to engage potentially affected Aboriginal groups regarding species fished in the TRSA.
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.37
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation members reported fishing in summer and early fall, with the majority of fishing sites located to the north of Bohn Lake and extend north past Gregoire Lake (Willow Lake) (Golder 2013). The most commonly consumed fish species are whitefish and pike (FM468FN 2006, Golder 2002b). The most common traditional fish harvesting method was the use of nets, which were generally checked on a weekly basis. Other fishing methods include using hooks, forks, snares, and traps (Golder 2002b, FM468FN 2017). In the past, the most common method Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation members used to prepare whitefish was smoking, often being hung in teepees over a three day drying period (FM468FN 2017). However, due to observed irregularities with whitefish and sucker populations, including inflammation of gills, injuries from boat propellers, and worms, smoking fish has become less common compared to cooking the fish thoroughly (Golder 2002b). Some Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation members report that smoking fish is still practiced (FM468FN 2017). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation indicated that, in addition to human consumption, harvested fish was used as dog food, bait for traps, and for decoration (Golder 2002b). Fort McMurray Métis stated that fishing activities increased in the spring when people returned from their traplines, but many people also fished during the winter months to feed the sled dogs, sell to trappers for profit, or build a surplus of food (FMML 2012). Fish were preserved by Fort McMurray Métis members by freezing or smoking during the winter, or drying or canning during the summer (FMML 2012).
The most common fish species harvested by Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation were northern pike, Arctic grayling, and white sucker (Petro-Canada 2001). More recently, Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation report consuming whitefish as a mainstay of their diet. Smoked, frozen or eaten fresh, whitefish is often harvested by a ‘super hunter’ and shared throughout the community. Within the TRSA Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation members recall fishing at Maqua Lake (CPDFN 2016).
Fort McMurray Métis reported that the Meadow Creek East Project area is habitat for fish species that are harvested by members for food (MNA 1935 2015). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation and Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation indicated that very few lakes in the Petro-Canada Meadow Creek Project area contain fish, with the exception of Surmont Lake and Chain Lakes (Golder 2002a, Golder 2002b).
Based on the review of primary (CPDFN 2016, FM468FN 2017, Golder 2002a, Golder 2002b, Petro-Canada 2001) and secondary source information (FMML 2012AXYS 2000b, CPDFN 2007, Teck 2012), Table 16-8 summarizes traditionally and currently used fishing locations for each Aboriginal group. Table 16-8 should not be considered comprehensive or exhaustive; a lack of information about TLU does not indicate the absence of TLU resources, activities, and sites in the region.
16.38 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
Table 16-8 Fishing Sites and Areas in the TRSA Fort McMurray Fort Advisory Committee No. Chipewyan Willow Conklin Resource Dene First Nation First Dene Heart Fort Development
Chard 468 FirstNation Local 780 Nation
McMurray McMurray
Lake First Lake Métis
Métis
Prairie Prairie
Métis
Athabasca River − − − − − Chain Lakes − − − − − Clearwater River − − − − − Fishing Areas 7 − − − − − − Hangingstone Region − − − − − − Long Lake − − − − − − Milton’s Lake − − − − − − Surmont Lake − − − − − Gregoire Lake (Willow Lake) − − − − NOTES: = Fishing site identified by the associated Aboriginal group − = Based on available information, the associated Aboriginal group did not report using the identified site for fishing. Suncor will continue to engage potentially affected Aboriginal groups regarding species fished in the TRSA.
The following sections describe existing effects on the traditional land use of fishing for each Aboriginal group.
16.2.3.3.1.1 Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation expressed concern regarding the water level and the water quality of Gregoire Lake (Willow Lake), with residents of Gregoire Lake Reserve area concerned about the effects other development projects and associated project camps will have on Gregoire Lake (Willow Lake) (AXYS 2000a, FM468FN 2017). Similar concerns were noted for the Hangingstone and Athabasca rivers (FM468FN 2017). Some Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation members no longer consume fish from these waterbodies, indicating concerns regarding possible contamination. Concerns that waterbodies, and the organisms dependent on those waterbodies will be contaminated through the SAGD process associated with the Project were also noted. Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation reported a decline in local fish populations, which has been attributed to lower water levels and overfishing (FM468FN 2017).
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.39
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.2.3.3.1.2 Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation
Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation expressed concern about the potential for loss of access to ancestral fishing areas and Aboriginal fisheries due to construction activities, noting the potential for a decline in wildlife population in the Project area, declining water levels, and a reduction in water quality (CPDFN 2015). Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation noted the potential for overfishing and the consequent decline of traditionally used fish species, including arctic grayling, walleye and northern pike, from an increased human population in the area due to development (CPDFN 2015).
16.2.3.3.1.3 Heart Lake First Nation
No issues and concerns related to fishing in the TRSA by Heart Lake First Nation have been identified through a review of publicly available TLU information or the Aboriginal engagement program for the Project. Suncor will continue to engage Heart Lake First Nation to identify any issues or concerns regarding Heart Lake First Nation fishing in the TRSA.
16.2.3.3.1.4 Willow Lake Métis Local 780
No issues and concerns related to fishing in the TRSA by Willow Lake Métis Local 780 have been identified through a review of publicly available TLU information or the Aboriginal engagement program for the Project. Suncor will continue to engage Willow Lake Métis Local 780 to identify any issues or concerns regarding Willow Lake Métis Local 780 fishing in the TRSA.
16.2.3.3.1.5 Fort McMurray Métis
Fort McMurray Métis reported changes to the regional water quality that have affected member’s perception of the safety of the water, and the surrounding pollution from anthropogenic activity has affected the health and abundance of plants and animals (FMML 2012).
16.2.3.3.1.6 Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc.
No issues and concerns related to fishing in the TRSA by the Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. have been identified through a review of publicly available TLU information or the Aboriginal engagement program for the Project. Suncor will continue to engage with the Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. to identify any issues or concerns regarding the Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. fishing in the TRSA.
16.40 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.2.3.3.1.7 Conklin Métis
No issues and concerns related to fishing in the TRSA by Conklin Métis have been identified through a review of publicly available TLU information or the Aboriginal engagement program for the Project. Suncor will continue to engage Conklin Métis to identify any issues or concerns regarding Conklin Métis fishing in the TRSA.
16.2.3.4 Plant Gathering
16.2.3.4.1 Overview of Species Gathered and Gathering Areas in the TRSA
Traditionally used plants are harvested by Aboriginal groups for food, medicine, utility and spiritual purposes (TERA 2015). Fort McMurray 468 First Nation stated that harvesting plants for food, medicinal, ceremonial and utility purposes is a traditional activity that continues to be practiced (FM#468FN 2017). Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation has described harvesting as fundamental to their culture and its continuity, with traditional resources harvested for nutrition, medicine, ceremonial practices, construction material, clothing and fuel (CPDFN 2016).
Based on the review of primary reviewed literature (CPDFN 2016, FM468FN 2017, Golder 2002b) and secondary source information (AXYS 2000b, FM468FN 2006), Table 16-9 summarizes traditionally and currently gathered plant species for each Aboriginal group. Table 16-9 should not be considered comprehensive or exhaustive; a lack of information about TLU does not indicate the absence of TLU resources, activities, and sites in the region.
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.41
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
Table 16-9 Plant Species Harvested in the TRSA Chipewyan Heart Development Advisory Fort Fort McMurray Fort Willow Conklin Resource
McMurray No. 468
Chard First Nation First Nat First Lake First Nation Committee Local
Lake Métis
Prairie Dene Dene Prairie
Métis
780 ion
Métis
Acorn − − − − − − Aster big arrow − − − − − − Bastard toadflax − − − − − − Balsam − − − − − Balsam fir − − − − − − Balsam poplar − − − − − − Beaver root − − − − − − Birch and birch bark − − − − − − Bluebells − − − − − − Cedar − − − − − − Dandelion and dandelion − − − − − − root Diamond willow and − − − − − − diamond willow fungus Fireweed − − − − − −
Medicinal Honeysuckle − − − − − − Horsetail − − − − − − Kinnikinik (juniper) − − − − − − Labrador tea (medicine tea, − − − − − muskeg tea) Lady’s slipper − − − − − − Liquorice root − − − − − − Mint (wild and peppermint) − − − − Jackpine − − − − − − Raspberry and strawberry − − − − − − root Rat root (sweet flag, − − − − calamus) Red willow (red osier − − − − − − dogwood)
16.42 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
Table 16-9 Plant Species Harvested in the TRSA Chipewyan Heart Development Advisory Fort Fort McMurray Fort Willow Conklin Resource
McMurray No. 468
Chard First Nation First Nat First Lake First Nation Committee Local
Lake Métis
Prairie Dene Dene Prairie
Métis
780 ion
Métis
root (raspberry, tigerlily) − − − − − Rosehip − − − − − − Round fungus − − − − − − Pine and pine cones − − − − − − Pitcher plant − − − − − Poplar − − − − − Puffball − − − − − − Pussywillow − − − − − −
Sage − − − − − − Sap (spruce, birch) − − − − − Seneca snakeroot − − − − − − Medicinal Spruce (spruce gum, − − − − needles) Sweetgrass − − − − − − Twist plant − − − − − − Valerian root − − − − − − Whitestern flower − − − − − − Willow (red) willow bark − − − − − Willow fungus − − − − − Yarrow (white flower) − − − − − Birch (inner bark) − − − − − − Cattail roots − − − − − −
Cow parsnip − − − − − − Dandelion − − − − − − Fern − − − − − − Nutritional Fiddlehead − − − − − Hazelnut − − − − − − Wild Onion − − − − −
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.43
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
Table 16-9 Plant Species Harvested in the TRSA Chipewyan Heart Development Advisory Fort Fort McMurray Fort Willow Conklin Resource
McMurray No. 468
Chard First Nation First Nat First Lake First Nation Committee Local
Lake Métis
Prairie Dene Dene Prairie
Métis
780 ion
Métis
Rhubarb − − − − − − Rosehip − − − − − − Tiger lily − − − − − − Nutritional Yarrow − − − − − − Blackberry − − − − − − Black current − − − − − − Blueberry − − − − Bunchberry − − − − − Canadian buffaloberry (red − − − − − − berry) Chokecherry (black, red) − − − −
Cranberry (high-bush) (bog − − − − cranberry, moose berry) Berry Cranberry (low-bush) − − − − − Gooseberry − − − − − Mooseberry − − − − − − Pin cherry − − − − − Raspberry − − − − Saskatoon berry − − − − Strawberry − − − − NOTES: = Species identified as being gathered by associated Aboriginal group. − = Based on available information, the associated Aboriginal group did not report gathering the identified species. Suncor will continue to engage potentially affected Aboriginal groups regarding plant species harvested in the TRSA.
16.44 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
The ability to access harvesting areas and the availability of healthy plants and berries is vital to the Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. for food, livelihood and maintaining a connection to the land (Chard 2013, Chard 2015d). In the past, berries were an important food source for Métis families (FMML 2012). Some Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation members harvested and sold berries as a source of revenue (Golder 2002b). Fort McMurray Métis members continue to pick berries in the summer and early fall months, and knowledge regarding abundant berry-gathering locales is passed down to Métis youth (FMML 2012). Harvested berries are eaten fresh or preserved by drying, canning, freezing, or making into jam and jellies (Golder 2002b, JACOS 2010, TERA 2015). Within Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation traditional territory, the most commonly harvested berries are blueberries and bog cranberries (otherwise known as lingonberries or low bush cranberries); ridges with jack pine, ground lichen, and well-drained soil provide optimal habitat for berry harvesting (Golder 2002b, AXYS 2000b).
The harvesting and sharing of berries is noted by Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation as important to individual and community wellbeing. Harvested berries are dried, frozen or eaten fresh, and are used for spiritual and ceremonial purposes. The act of harvesting is integral to Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation spirituality, and provides the basis of passing experiential knowledge on to future generations (CPDFN 2016). Specific berry picking locations noted by Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation include Maqua Lake and Stony Mountain (CPDFN 2016).
Prior to 1960, many of the medicines used by Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation were collected from various plants on the landscape, often from the roots being boiled down or made into tea. Medicinal plant uses include treatment of sore throat or chest, cough remedy, cold and flu symptoms, stomach aches, coagulants, cancer treatment, blood cleanser (like penicillin), arthritis relief, digestive aids, treatment of infection, sedatives, hormone regulators, diabetic regulators, antioxidants, ointment for burns, bites and stings, as well as eczema, sores, scabs, cough syrup, and general healing (Golder 2002b, FM468FN 2006, FM468FN 2017).
Regionally, medicinal plants were also harvested by Fort McMurray Métis members and consumed to maintain overall health, heal wounds, fight colds and infections, provide pain relief, and to assist with childbirth (FMML 2012). Fort McMurray Métis stated that knowledge regarding medicinal plants often came from their Cree neighbours and relatives, and the knowledge was passed on inter-generationally (FMML 2012).
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation members note that they have learned about plants (medicinal, consumption, ceremonial) through cultural transmission from their parents, or by observing and assisting in harvesting activities. While some members are not familiar with specific plant names or properties, some members continue to learn how to identify and use harvested plants (FM468FN 2017).
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.45
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation identified traditional use plants used for utility purposes including wood; used for constructing log cabins, with ash, chopped hay, and mud used between the logs; firewood; birch bark for building canoes; willow frames for stretching hides; hunting instruments, and cradleboards (Golder 2002b). Spruce and jackpine gum is used to whiten teeth, and the wood from the diamond willow tree is used to make a variety of materials and tools, with the fungus from this wood being highly valued as a ceremonial material used in smudging. Water from birch and aspen trees is consumed as a snack, while the bark from these trees can also be scraped and consumed as a dessert (FM468FN 2017).
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation and Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation stated that moss found in muskeg areas is used for a variety of purposes including infant bedding, diapers, women’s products, fire starter, hair brush, dish scrubber, cabin insulation, and cold food storage (Golder 2002a, Golder 2002b, FM468FN 2017). The Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. also used muskeg vegetation extensively for utility purposes (Golder 2013). Crushed plants are used by Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation members for dye (Golder 2002b). The muskeg itself was used as a bathing area and watering system for Aboriginal peoples (FM468FN 2017).
In addition to traditionally harvested plants, Fort McMurray Métis indicated that Métis families often maintained subsistence gardens, and the vegetables were preserved in root cellars over the winter months (FMML 2012).
Fort McMurray Métis indicated that the Meadow Creek East Project area provides habitat for berries and other traditional use plant species that are harvested by members for food (MNA 1935 2015). Optimal harvesting time for blueberries and raspberries is late July, while cranberries are ripe at the end of August (FM468FN 2017). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation and Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation also noted that medicinal plant harvesting occurs in the Project area; lakes and muskeg areas are particularly abundant in medicinal and culturally important plant species (Golder 2002a, Golder 2002b). Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation reported that lakes in the Stony Mountain area contain medicinal plants (Golder 2002a). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation noted that harvesting of plant species in a single area must be limited so that plants can regenerate (FM468FN 2017).
Fort McMurray Métis reported plant harvesting areas adjacent to Highway 63, Highway 69, and Highway 881 (FMML 2012). The Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. reported gathering plants along the railroad from Lac La Biche and Heart Lake to Mile 224 near Quigley (Chard 2015b).
Based on the review of primary (CPDFN 2016, FM468FN 2017) and secondary source information (Golder 2011, FMML 2012), Table 16-10 summarizes traditionally and currently used plant harvesting locations for each Aboriginal Group. Table 16-10 should not be considered comprehensive or exhaustive; a lack of information about TLU does not indicate the absence of TLU resources, activities, and sites in the region.
16.46 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
Table 16-10 Plant Harvesting Sites and Areas in the TRSA Fort McMurray Fort Advisory Committ Fort Chipewyan Willow Conklin Resource Dene First Nation First Dene Heart 468 First Nation Development Chard
Local 780 McMurray No. McMurray Nation Local
Lake First Lake Métis
Métis
Prairie Prairie
a
Métis
ee
Athabasca River − − − − − − Hangingstone River − − − − − − Maqua Lake − − − − − Plant Gathering Areas 13 − − − − − − Snye River − − − − − − Stony Mountain Area − − − − − Surmont Lake − − − − − − Gregoire Lake (Willow Lake) − − − − NOTES: = Plant harvesting site identified by the associated Aboriginal group − = Based on available information, the associated Aboriginal group did not report using the identified site for plant harvesting. Suncor will continue to engage potentially affected Aboriginal groups regarding traditionally and currently used plant harvesting locations in the TRSA.
The following sections describe existing effects on the traditional land use of plant gathering for each Aboriginal group.
16.2.3.4.1.1 Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation emphasize the importance of water and air for the existence of all species, including vegetation. Muskeg, home to a wide variety of traditional use plants, as well as providing food to numerous animal species is particularly affected by changes in water quality and quantity. Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation notes that reclaiming muskeg ecosystems to their original state is not possible (FM468FN 2017). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation reported that changes in water flows and levels may alter habitat for certain medicinal plants, including rat root (AXYS 2000a).
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.47
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation has noted a decline in the quality and quantity of local harvestable plant populations and in particular berry patches. Specific locations of reduced populations include patches along the Hangingstone River and near Cheecham. The reduction in harvestable berry patches has negatively effected Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation member’s wellbeing (FM468FN 2017). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation expressed concern regarding the potential for elimination of berry-picking and medicinal plant harvesting sites due to clearing and construction activities, and result in the loss of primary berry patches (AXYS 2000a, AXYS 2000b). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation also noted the potential for loss of medicinal plants and berry species from clearing due to changes in the vegetation and soil moisture (AXYS 2000b). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation noted that previous disturbance has resulted in a reduction in lady slippers, which do not regenerate after being removed from the ground, and also allowed for the introduction of invasive species.
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation members consume fewer plants collected from the surrounding landscape due to concerns about pesticides and sprays, noting areas of concern to include waterways, Hangingstone Creek1, and along the roads of berms (AXYS 2000a, FM468FN 2017).
16.2.3.4.1.2 Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation
Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation noted the potential for clearing and construction to eliminate medicinal plant harvesting sites (AXYS 1999).
Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation expressed concern regarding the potential for loss of medicinal plants and berry species from clearing due to changes in the vegetation and soil moisture, and effects on ecosites supporting berry species (CPDFN 2015, CPDFN 2016). Provincial fire suppression was also noted to have negative effects on the density and diversity of harvested plants (CPDFN 2016). 16.2.3.4.1.3 Heart Lake First Nation
No issues and concerns related to plant gathering in the TRSA by Heart Lake First Nation have been identified through a review of publicly available TLU information or the Aboriginal engagement program for the Project. Suncor will continue to engage Heart Lake First Nation to identify any issues or concerns regarding Heart Lake First Nation plant gathering in the TRSA.
1 Hangingstone Creek is assumed to be the Hangingstone River.
16.48 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.2.3.4.1.4 Willow Lake Métis Local 780
No issues and concerns related to plant gathering in the TRSA by Willow Lake Métis Local 780 have been identified through a review of publicly available TLU information or the Aboriginal engagement program for the Project. Suncor will continue to engage Willow Lake Métis Local 780 to identify any issues or concerns regarding Willow Lake Métis Local 780 plant gathering in the TRSA.
16.2.3.4.1.5 Fort McMurray Métis
Fort McMurray Métis reported changes to the regional water quality that have affected member’s perception of the safety of the water, and the surrounding pollution from anthropogenic activity has affected the health and abundance of plants and animals (FMML 2012).
Berry-gathering areas have been lost as a result of industrial development, and Fort McMurray Métis noted that the quality and quantity of berries has decreased due to contamination from spraying (FMML 2012).
16.2.3.4.1.6 Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc.
The Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. expressed concern regarding the loss of pristine wilderness and the resulting effect on the gathering traditions of the Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. due to the depletion of plants (Chard 2015d).
The Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. are dependent upon the ability to access traditional lands in order to harvest plants, including for livelihood and connection to the land, and expressed concern regarding the loss of pristine wilderness and the resulting effect on the gathering traditions of the Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. due to the depletion of plants, (Chard 2015d). The Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. added that the loss of wild food available for harvest results in an added expense and time required obtaining food from a grocery store (Chard 2015b).
16.2.3.4.1.7 Conklin Métis
No issues and concerns related to plant gathering in the TRSA by Conklin Métis have been identified through a review of publicly available TLU information or the Aboriginal engagement program for the Project. Suncor will continue to engage Conklin Métis to identify any issues or concerns regarding Conklin Métis plant gathering in the TRSA.
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.49
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.2.3.5 Habitation Areas, Trails and Travelways
16.2.3.5.1 Overview of Habitation Areas and Trails and Travelways in the TRSA
Habitation areas and trails and travelways are an essential component for conducting traditional land use practices including harvesting, occupancy, and spiritual practices. Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation reported following an annual cycle based on the seasonal availability of different resources. Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation and Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation stated that camping sites were typically located along ridged terrain and high grounds with well-drained soil and open vegetation (Petro-Canada 2001, CPDFN 2016). Families lived in tents or cabins during the late fall, winter, and early spring. The cabins were built close to muskrat and fine fur trapping areas (FM468FN 2006, FM468FN 2017). Families would move to the edge of a lake or river in the summer to be in an optimal location for fishing (FM468FN 2006). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation explained that cabins often act as a base by which Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation members and their families congregate while carrying out a multitude of harvesting and traditional activities (AXYS 2000b). Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation explained that many times habitation, cultural, and spiritual sites were located along travel routes, and reported traditional cabins and camping areas located along the shores of numerous waterbodies (Golder 2013, CPDFN 2016).
Based on the review of primary (CPDFN 2016, FM468FN 2017) and secondary source information (Golder 2002b, FMML 2012), Table 16-11 summarizes traditionally and currently used habitation sites and areas for each Aboriginal group. Table 16-11 should not be considered comprehensive or exhaustive; a lack of information about TLU does not indicate the absence of TLU resources, activities, and sites in the region.
Table 16-11 Habitation Sites and Areas in the TRSA Fort McMurray Fort Advisory Committee No. Chipewyan Willow Conklin Resource Dene First Nation First Dene Heart Fort Development
Chard 468 Local 780 Nation
McMurray McMurray
Lake First First Nation First Lake Métis
Métis
Prairie Prairie
Métis
Anzac − − − − − − Athabasca River − − − − − Near Cheecham − − − − − − Habitation Areas 10 − − − − − − Hangingstone River − − − − − − Habitation Areas 10 − − − − − − Horse Creek − − − − − −
16.50 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
Table 16-11 Habitation Sites and Areas in the TRSA Fort McMurray Fort Advisory Committee No. Chipewyan Willow Conklin Resource Dene First Nation First Dene Heart Fort Development
Chard 468 Local 780 Nation
McMurray McMurray
Lake First First Nation First Lake Métis
Métis
Prairie Prairie
Métis
Horse River − − − − − − Maqua Camp − − − − − − Occupancy Areas − 3 − − − − − Site adjacent to railway − − − − − − paralleling Highway 881 Stony Mountain Area − − − − − Surmont Creek − − − − − − Surmont Lake − − − − − − Gregoire Lake (Willow Lake) − − − − − − NOTES: = Habitation site identified by the associated Aboriginal group − = Based on available information, the associated Aboriginal group did not report using the identified site for fishing. Suncor will continue to engage potentially affected Aboriginal groups regarding traditionally and currently used fishing locations in the TRSA.
Although no specific cabin locations were noted, Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation describe building small wooden log houses on Stony Mountain, filling them with dry meat and boiled berries in birch bark containers to be used as caches during hard winter months (CPDFN 2016). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation also reported that primary habitation areas are located at Surmont Lake (Golder 2002b).
In addition, a high concentration of trails and cultural, spiritual and habitation sites, including cabins, were documented by Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation around the confluence of the Athabasca River and Clearwater River near Fort McMurray (Golder 2013). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation explained that many times habitation, cultural, and spiritual sites were concentrated together in the same area (Golder 2013).
Traditional trails were often established on high ground, including from Conklin to Hangingstone, and La Loche to Fort McMurray (AXYS 2000b). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation state that in the past travel was often by foot, however, alternate modes of travel noted also include the use of horse or horse and wagon, railway, and dog sled. Traplines are used as routes of access by way of snowshoes, dog sled, horses and snowmobile (FM468FN 2017).
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.51
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
Fort McMurray Métis stated that travel through the region is an important component of Métis identity: “Métis would use the modes of travel available to them, and would live off the land while in transit, hunting, fishing and gathering as they made their way to their end destination”.
Travel routes also included river systems. A number of river systems were used as travel corridors, including a travel channel along the Clearwater River valley, considered to be of great significance (FM468FN 2006, FM468FN 2017) and the Athabasca River (AXYS 2000b). The Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. reported the surrounding muskeg is also important as a means of travel and a source of water and food (Chard 2015b).
According to Fort McMurray Métis, Métis people used canoes constructed with birch bark to navigate the many waterways in the Fort McMurray region. Towards the mid-to-late 20th century, motorized boats were used to travel quickly throughout the region and undertake traditional activities such as fishing and camping. In the early 20th century, railroad and winter roads were other primary methods in which Métis people travelled to distant communities throughout the Fort McMurray region (FMML 2012).
Based on the reviewed literature (Golder 2002b, CPDFN 2016, FM468FN 2017) trails and travelways are present in the TRSA. Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation mapped eight Travel Routes in the TRSA (FM468FN 2017). Five of the travel routes are located along navigable waterways, four along the Hangingstone River and one along the Clearwater River (FM468FN 2017). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation members travel along Highway 63 in order to access current use areas (FM468FN 2017). Additionally, a trail paralleling Highway 63 between Lac La Biche and Anzac, and numerous trails between Gregoire Lake (Willow Lake) and Surmont Lake were also noted (Golder 2002b, FM468FN 2017). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation also indicate that in the past they accessed both Maqua Lake and areas beyond the Hangingstone River, but that those access routes are now blocked off due to access restrictions such as locked gates. The restriction to access has blocked an area where Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation members congregated in the past (FM468FN 2017). Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation reported numerous trailways in the TRSA, see Figure 16-3 (CPDFN 2016). The following sections describe existing effects on the traditional use of habitation areas, trails and travel ways for each Aboriginal group.
16.52 Suncor Energy Inc.
FORT Snye Inset TWP89 Gregoire McMURRAY River RGE17 RGE16 Lake RGE15 RGE14 RGE13 RGE12 RGE11 RGE10 RGE8 RGE7 RGE6 W4M Gregoire Lake Estates RGE9 ! - Gregoire Lake 176B H Indian r a ! Gregoire Lake Grand Saprae Creek Clea at Riv e
l rw er
f Beach ! w (Willow Lake) Rapids Saprae Creek a Clearwater 175 y Milton's Lake Wildland C 881 UV69 TWP88 Gregoire Lake 176A UV r C e h e r k is Amaco Road er P t S r A iv a in u i th R ri a r a a e R CPDFN m c C i ba s r ve Harvesting o ee r
n k t
Area C
r e
k e
e k
TWP87 Gregoire Lake 176 r e C orse H UV881 Gregoire Lake k Hangingstone See Inset ree Gregoire Lake Estates Gregoire Lake 176B C Provincial ! Gregoire Lake
TWP86 e s Recreation Area Indian Beach! Gregoire Lake or Gregoire (Willow Lake) ! eH tl Anzac it CPDFN Hunting Site Lake 176A L CPDFN Harvesting Area 1 Gregoire Long Halfway Creek Lake 176 Lake
k er Maqua ee TWP85 v r CPDFN i Lake C R t Occupancy Chipewyan Prairie Dene First e n ton o Area 3
s m Nation (CPDFN) Access Trail g r in g u System n Kinosis Lake a S CPDFN Occupancy H CPDFN Traditional Land Use Horse River Surmont Area 1 Area Lake
TWP84 Footprint CPDFN Project Area Occupancy Grand Area 2 TerrestrialRapids Local Study Area UV63 TerrestrialWildland Regional Study 881 Area Stony UV
TWP83 CPDFN Harvesting Area 2 Mountain ! Community Wildland Access (Primary) Access (Secondary) Watercourse Provincial Park/Wildland TWP82 Reserve House River Reserve Project Location Urban Area Waterbody 881 0 7.5 15 UV63 AB UV BC SK TWP81 Kilometres 1:500,000 (At original document size of 8.5x11) NAD 1983 UTM Zone 12N
TWP80 USA Last Modified: 9/19/2017 By: dcspry W:\Clients\Suncor_Energy_Inc\Meadow_Creek_West\Figures\TK\EIA\123511565-0232_MCW_TLU_Overview.mxd Sources: Sources: Base Data - GeoGratis (2013), GeoLogic (2015), Natural Resources Canada, Disclaimer: This map is for illustrative purposes to support this Suncor project; questions can be directed to the issuing agency. Canada Centre for Mapping and Earth Sciences. Thematic - Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation
Traditional Land Use Sites and Areas
SUNCOR ENERGY - MEADOW CREEK WEST Figure 16-3 MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.2.3.5.1.1 Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation reported that an increase in access to once remote areas has resulted in instances of:
• vandalism to traplines and cabins, including removing snares and theft of equipment
• unintentional damage to traplines, such as snowmobiles accidentally running over traps and snares
• overuse of access routes, resulting in damage to infrastructure such as bridges and deep rutting of trails and creeks
• increased disturbance to once remote areas, including a loss of solitude for harvesters, safety concerns due to increased traffic and a reduction in wildlife habitat
• increased hunting pressure on wildlife including moose and woodland (boreal) caribou, and increased trapping pressure on snowshoe hare
• increased recreational harvesting by non-members
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation members are concerned about the potential effects from an increase in development on the privacy and safety of cabins (AXYS 2000b).
16.2.3.5.1.2 Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation
Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation are concerned that camps in the TLSA will be negatively impacted by sensory effects such as noise, odours, and visual disturbances (lights, facilities) (CPDFN 2016).
Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation state that trails, which remain in current use by quad, snowmobile or truck, have been obscured, fragmented and disconnected by previous activity, or have become part of high grade all season roads, which are regulated by project developers. The previous disturbance has resulted in the removal of navigational landmarks, and restricted access to preferred areas. Safety concerns including risk of death or injury from the use of firearms or from traffic accidents, as well as feelings of discomfort and nuisance while travelling through industry regulated access have resulted in displacement (CPDFN 2016).
16.2.3.5.1.3 Heart Lake First Nation
Heart Lake First Nation noted that road construction and fencing has resulted in an inability to access many traditional trails (Golder 2013).
16.54 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.2.3.5.1.4 Willow Lake Métis Local 780
No issues or concerns related to habitation areas, trails and travelways in the TRSA by Willow Lake Métis Local 780 have been identified through a review of publicly available TLU information or the Aboriginal engagement program for the Project. Suncor will continue to engage Willow Lake Métis Local 780 to identify any issues or concerns regarding Willow Lake Métis Local 780 trails and travelways in the TRSA.
16.2.3.5.1.5 Fort McMurray Métis
No issues or concerns related to habitation areas, trails and travelways in the TRSA by Fort McMurray Métis have been identified through a review of publicly available TLU information or the Aboriginal engagement program for the Project. Suncor will continue to engage Fort McMurray Métis to identify any issues or concerns regarding Fort McMurray Métis trails and travelways in the TRSA.
16.2.3.5.1.6 Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc.
The Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. noted disturbance to trails and travelways due to increased access as a result of construction right-of-way (ROW) clearing, and explained that the alteration of a trail or travelway can impede access to traditional use sites such as harvesting areas, habitation sites, gathering places and sacred sites (Chard 2015b).
16.2.3.5.1.7 Conklin Métis
No issues or concerns related to habitation areas, trails and travelways in the TRSA by Conklin Métis have been identified through a review of publicly available TLU information or the Aboriginal engagement program for the Project. Suncor will continue to engage Conklin Métis to identify any issues or concerns regarding Conklin Métis trails and travelways in the TRSA.
16.2.3.6 Cultural or Spiritual Practices, Sites or Areas
16.2.3.6.1 Overview of Cultural or Spiritual Practices and Areas
Cultural or spiritual practices can include, but are not limited to sites and locations where offerings are made, spiritual gatherings, sweat lodges, the hanging of prayer flags, vision quest sites, pilgrimage locations, and traditional resource harvesting for the manufacture of ceremonial goods. Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation identified an important cultural site known as Mustasinee, or the “Big Rock”, comprised of a large overhanging rock where members would place offerings, pilgrimage to prior to the hunting season and was used as a passageway to hunting, fishing and berry picking areas (Golder 2002b, FM468FN 2017).
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.55
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
Based on reviewed literature (AXYS 2000b, CPDFN 2016, FM468FN 2017, Golder 2002b, Golder 2013), Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation cultural and spiritual sites or areas include, but are not limited to the following:
• gathering areas where Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation members congregate including Hangingstone River, Horse Creek and Mustasinee
• cultural sites around the confluence of the Athabasca and Clearwater Rivers near Fort McMurray
• culturally significant areas at Surmont Lake
• burial site along a trail between Gregoire Lake (Willow Lake) and Surmont Lake
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation reports that the Hangingstone area is important to the community, and is frequently visited for spiritual practices including spiritual gatherings, sweat lodges (near Indian Beach; on Amoco road), the hanging of prayer flags (in particular Cottonwood Creek camp), and to make offerings. Stony Mountain was also identified by Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation as a spiritual place that Elders frequented in the past and continue to visit presently. Prayer flags are hung and offerings are made along the top of the Stony Mountain ridge. Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation also report sweat lodges in the Stony Mountain are (FM468FN 2017).
Other spiritual areas include Surmont Creek and a sacred tree located along Highway 881. Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation report burials along trails, which are marked by writing in Cree on trees or nailing up a marker on the tree. Amoco Road was used as a travel corridor, and burials are likely associated with this trail. Other burials may exist in Cheecham, Janvier, Gregoire Lake (Willow Lake) and Indian Beach; however, Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation note that it is unlikely that any markers still exist (FM468FN 2017).
Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation and Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation explained that gravesites could be located anywhere due to past epidemics (Petro-Canada 2001). Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation further note that burials are present on Stony Mountain, but as many of these locations have yet to be documented, members of the community are concerned about potential physical and sensory impacts to these sensitive areas (CPDFN 2016).
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation noted concerns that surveying and construction activities, as well as road traffic, may cause physical damage to and disturb solitude of cultural sites (AXYS 2000b). Furthermore, Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation members are concerned about the potential effects from an increase in development on the disruption or destruction of traditional gathering places (AXYS 2000b). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation noted that the reduction in porcupine populations has resulted in changes to ceremonial clothing, as headdresses manufactured from quills can no longer be made (FM468FN 2017).
16.56 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.3 PROJECT INTERACTIONS WITH TRADITIONAL LAND USE
The Project has the potential to affect the availability of traditional resources; access to traditional resources, sites and areas; and to affect current use sites and areas during both construction and operation.
16.3.1 Change in Availability of Traditional Resources for Current Use
Potential pathways that could affect the availability of traditional resources include:
• change in habitat for traditionally used plant or animal species which support hunting, trapping, or gathering activities. Changes are anticipated from the direct habitat loss or alteration during construction (e.g. vegetation clearing and ground disturbance) and indirect loss or reduced habitat effectiveness for wildlife from sensory disturbance during project construction and operation. Changes in high and moderate suitability habitat and regional vegetation cover classes with the potential to support traditionally used wildlife and plants were compared for each assessment case. Information on habitat and traditional plant potential is referenced from the wildlife and vegetation assessments (Sections 12 and 13).
• change in movement, anticipated from Project construction and operation which alters the movement patterns of wildlife which support hunting and trapping. Movement can be affected by Project infrastructure hindering wildlife’s ability to move throughout the landscape, and sensory disturbance during project operations. Information on wildlife movement is referenced from relevant TLU information (Section 16.2.3) and the wildlife assessment (Section 13).
• change in mortality risk, anticipated based on wildlife mortality as a direct result of the Project, including vegetation clearing, and collisions with Project vehicles. Mortality can affect the availability of wildlife which support hunting or trapping activities. Information on wildlife mortality risk is referenced from relevant TLU information (Section 16.2.3) and the wildlife assessment (Section 13).
• wildlife mortality as an indirect result of the Project resulting in increased in access and therefore an increase in hunting and trapping. Mortality can affect the availability of wildlife which support hunting or trapping activities. Information on wildlife mortality risk is referenced from relevant TLU information (Section 16.2.3) and the wildlife assessment (Section 13).
• potential effects on wildlife health which could affect the availability of resources for traditional use are discussed in the Human Health Assessment (Section 18) and the Screening-level Wildlife Risk Assessment (Appendix 13D).
• fish mortality as an indirect result of the Project due to increased access and therefore an increase in fishing pressure. Information on fishing pressure is referenced from relevant TLU information (Section 16.2.3) and the fisheries assessment (Section 10).
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.57
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
Some watercourse crossings will be required for the construction and operation; however, crossings will be developed in accordance with the Code of Practice (COP) for Watercourse Crossings and industry best management practices, and effects on fish habitat are not predicted. As a result, effects on traditional use related to fish habitat are not assessed further.
16.3.2 Change in Access to Traditional Resources for Current Use or Current Use Sites and Areas
Access to traditional resources or sites and areas for current use can be affected through the direct loss or alteration of trails and travelways, restrictions on the ability to navigate to and through current use areas or limitations on the ability to undertake current use activities in proximity to the Project. Loss and alteration can result from direct physical disturbance or destruction (e.g., construction of well pad on a traditional trail), physical deterrents or obstructions (e.g., fencing) that prevent access or increase effort required either spatially or temporally, changes in the landscape (e.g., vegetation clearing, removal of navigational landmarks) that make an aspect of a trail or travelway unrecognizable either partially or completely, or changes in the conditions (e.g., construction traffic) required for current use of trails and travelways. The opposite effect may also take place whereby direct physical disturbance can increases access and use of an area. Construction of wellpads or Project related road maintenance may reduce the level of effort required to access an area, resulting in increased use in the area by Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal persons.
Changes in surface water flows and the potential decrease in surface water levels as a result of the Project are expected to be negligible (Section 8). As a result, effects on water levels and access to traditional resources or current use sites and areas including the use of the Hangingstone and Clearwater rivers as navigable waterways, as identified by Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation (FM468FN 2017) are not assessed further.
16.3.3 Change in Current Use of Sites or Areas
Current-use sites and areas, including, but not limited to harvesting sites and areas, sites and areas for cultural or spiritual practices, or archaeological or palaeontological sites and areas, have the potential to be affected by direct physical disturbance associated with Project construction.
16.3.4 Intangible Values
As described in Section 16.1.3.1.2 intangible values relate to beliefs, perceptions and qualitative experience, which are subjective, experiential, and conditional, and are not readily amenable to assessment and residual effects characterization. Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation noted project effects on wellbeing. Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation identify community wellbeing as made up of an individual’s or community’s physical, social, cultural, economic, spiritual and emotional state and consider wellbeing to be an important part of quality of life. Changes to one or more of these states can have negative effects on wellbeing (CDPFN 2016).
16.58 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
The harvesting, consumption and sharing of traditional foods was identified as primary contributor to Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation wellbeing. Project effects resulting in a reduction in the ability to harvest food effects the spiritual experience felt during harvesting, and reduces Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation’s wellbeing. Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation explained that effects such as physical disturbance, changes in access, competition and conflict with land users, decline in quality and quantity of traditional resources, and sensory disturbances, including noxious odours, industrial noise, and visual reminders of industrial activity negatively effect spiritual experiences both during access to harvesting sites and areas and while conducting traditional activities in those sites and areas. Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation reported incidents of feeling unsafe due to encounters with recreational land users utilizing the local area. These incidents also impact the quality of Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation’s spiritual experience. Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation noted that continued negative experiences may result in temporary or permanent disuse of those sites and areas and their access (CPDFN 2016).
Fort McMurray No.468 First Nation also reported that the quality of spiritual experience felt during harvesting is affected by developments (FM468FN 2017).
Fort McMurray No.468 First Nation reported that transmission of knowledge has been effected by development (FM468FN 2017). While Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Elders and knowledge holders continuously attempt to pass on traditional knowledge, keeping traditions such as harvesting, language, clothing making, and dance alive, cultural transmission is affected by physical and sensory disturbances created by industry. At the time of the interviews, some members did not know how the Project would affect the community’s language and culture, but added that to date, the economic benefits from development have not enhanced the culture and language of the members (FM468FN 2017). Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation echoed these sentiments, indicating that physical and sensory impacts to the land have decreased the amount of knowledge and culture that has been transmitted to younger generations (CPDFN 2016).
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation identified the following recommendations which are applicable to adverse effects on intangible values:
• Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation recommends that industry contributions to the community have an emphasis on culture; such as building a Cultural Centre or hiring teachers to teach Cree to Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation youth (FM468FN 2017).
• Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation recommends industry investment in community wellness, including Cultural Camps, in order to help mitigate the effects an influx of development has had on Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation members (FM468FN 2017).
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.59
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
The importance of cultural transmission, wellbeing, continued access to spiritual sites and feelings of safety as components of TLU, as explained by Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation and Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation, are recognized in this assessment. These intangible components are presented as shared by Aboriginal groups for consideration by AER in the larger context of the Project.
16.4 BASE CASE
The Base Case is the result of development and activities that have taken place in the assessment areas over time to the present day. It includes the effects of projects that have been approved but not yet constructed. Base Case conditions for the Traditional Land Use in the TRSA are largely reflected by the description of existing conditions presented in section 16.2.3. This information is supported by the Base Case descriptions for a number of supporting VCs that relate to traditional resources, such as wildlife (Section 13), vegetation and wetlands (Section 12) and fisheries (Section 10). Results presented in supporting biophysical assessments account for changes to existing conditions from the addition of projects that have been approved but not yet constructed. Specific traditional use sites and areas currently disclosed by Aboriginal groups are presented in Figure 16-3.
16.4.1 Change in Availability of Traditional Resources for Current Use
The wildlife assessment (Section 13) evaluated habitat suitability in the TLSA for several species of traditional importance. At Base Case there are 2,746 ha of moderate suitability habitat for moose, 1,023 ha of high and moderate suitability for woodland (boreal) caribou, 1,129 ha of high and moderate suitability for fisher, 1,583 ha of high and moderate suitability habitat for Canada lynx, and 920 ha of high and moderate suitability habitat for beaver.
The wildlife assessment also evaluated regional vegetation cover classes in the TRSA relative to the potential to support habitat for wildlife species of traditional importance. At Base Case, the TRSA supports approximately 249,891 ha (50% of the TRSA) of suitable moose habitat (coniferous and mixed forest, shrubland, swamp, and burned upland and wetland areas), 146,991 ha (30%) suitable woodland (boreal) caribou habitat (bogs and fens), 85,352 ha (18%) of suitable fisher habitat, (broadleaf, coniferous and mixed forest), 149,907 ha (30%) suitable Canada lynx habitat (broadleaf, coniferous and mixed forest, shrubland, and swamps), and 70,711 ha (15%) of suitable beaver habitat (swamp, marsh, and shallow open water) (Table 13-8).
At Base Case, 71,786 ha of vegetation communities with high potential for traditional plant species and 124,668 ha of vegetation communities with moderate potential for traditional plant species were identified in the TRSA (Section 12.4.1.3, Table 12-13).
Overall, habitat in the TRSA is not considered to be limiting for TLU wildlife or plant species.
16.60 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.4.2 Change in Access to Traditional Resources for Current Use or Current Use Sites and Areas
At Base Case there are 38,195 ha of disturbance from existing and approved industrial developments in the TRSA. As indicated in Section 16.2.3, these disturbances have contributed to restrictions on the ability to access traditional resources in the TRSA.
Reported changes in access to TLU sites have resulted in increased access to once remote areas and obstructions to TLU sites. Increased access and disturbance or alteration of trails and travelways due to clearing have resulted in obstructed access to TLU sites including harvesting areas, habitation sites, gathering places and sacred sites, while linear disturbance and fencing have resulted in an inability to access and utilize many traditional trails. Industrial development has resulted in a loss of ancestral hunting areas, due to the disturbance of facilities impeding movement through the land for harvesters and wildlife, causing wildlife to migrate away from development.
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation report that increased wildlife migration due to disruption from construction and operation activities has resulted in longer travel times to harvesting areas, with some participants travelling as far south as Wandering River. In the past, it was possible to hunt one moose per day in a day’s travel from home. Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation members are concerned that disturbance caused by the Project could greatly decrease prime hunting areas, and that access to harvestable areas may be restricted during Project construction and operation. Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation members travel along Highway 63 in order to access current use areas. Two travel routes were also identified in the TRSA; a road from the Cheecham area to hunting areas and a route along the Horse River (FM468FN 2017).
Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation state that encroachment from industry and forestry footprints, Alberta Provincial parks/recreation areas/conservation areas, Cold Lake Air Weapons Range, local lodges, and the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan limit Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation land and resource use. Other encroachments such as provincial regulations on hunting, trapping and fishing, and recreational land use also limit Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation land and resource use. Additionally, Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation observe that sensory disturbances, restrictions to access, competition and conflict have resulted in longer travel times to harvest resources (CPDFN 2016). A system of access trails used by Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation is located in the TRSA, see Figure 16-3 (CPDFN 2016). The access trail system includes the portion of Highway 63 that is intersected by the Project footprint.
The Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. reported that harvesters are required to travel farther away from home to find sufficient hunting areas (Chard 2013, Chard 2015b, Golder 2013). The Fort McMurray Métis also reported using highway 63 to access hunting, plant gathering and habitation areas (FMML 2012).
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.61
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.4.3 Change in Current Use Sites or Areas
Traditional use sites and areas have been identified in the TRSA by potentially affected Aboriginal groups (Table 16-12). Table 16-12 should not be considered comprehensive or exhaustive; a lack of information about TLU does not indicate the absence of TLU resources, activities, and sites in the region. In keeping with a conservative approach and in recognition of the large area of Crown land where TLU activities may be practiced, other important traditional use sites or resources may occur near the Project, even if these sites were not specifically identified by Aboriginal groups. Figure 16-3 presents specific traditional use sites and areas that are currently disclosed by Aboriginal participants. Although Fort McMurray No. 68 First Nation traditional use sites have been mapped relative to the Project, Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation has directed that these locations are to remain confidential and are not to be disclosed in this assessment.
Table 16-12 Traditional Use Sites in the TRSA Willow Chipewyan Fort McMurray No. 468 McMurray Fort Heart Development Advisory Fort McMurray Fort Conklin Resource
Chard First Nation First Nation First Lake First Nation Committee
L akeMétis Local 780
Prairie Dene Dene Prairie
Métis
Métis
Project
Boundary Location Footprint Hunting Areas 10 − − − − − − Trapping Area 1 − − − − − − Fishing Area 1 − − − − − − Plant Gathering Areas 6 − − − − − − Habitation Areas 2 − − − − − − Cultural or Spiritual Areas 2 − − − − − − Seasonal Round − − − − − − Harvesting Area − − − − − − Site adjacent to − − − − Highway 63b TLSA2 Hunting Areas 14 − − − − − − Trapping Area 2 − − − − − − Fishing Area 2 − − − − − − Plant Gathering Areas 4 − − − − − − Habitation Areas 2 − − − − − −
2 Locations identified in as TLSA do not include sites located in the footprint.
16.62 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
Table 16-12 Traditional Use Sites in the TRSA Willow Chipewyan Fort McMurray No. 468 McMurray Fort Heart Development Advisory Fort McMurray Fort Conklin Resource
Chard First Nation First Nation First Lake First Nation Committee
L akeMétis Local 780
Prairie Dene Dene Prairie
Métis
Métis
Project
Boundary Location TLSA (con’t) Cultural or Spiritual Areas 2 − − − − − − Seasonal Round − − − − − − Harvesting Area − − − − − − Site adjacent to − − − − − Highway 63b Hangingstone River − − − − − TRSA3 Hunting Areas 21 − − − − − − Trapping Area 8 − − − − − − Fishing Area 8 − − − − − − Plant Gathering Areas 10 − − − − − − Habitation Areas 10 3 − − − − − Cultural or Spiritual Areas 6 Harvesting Area − 2 − − − − − Gathering Areas 2 − − − − − − Amoco Road − − − − − − Anzac − − − − − − Athabasca River − − − − Clearwater River − − − − Clearwater Reserve area − − − − − − Fort McMurray − − − − − − Gregoire Lake Reserve − − − − − − Gregoire Lake (Willow − − − − − − Lake) Gold Lake − − − − − − Halfway Creek − − − − − −
3 Locations identified in as TRSA do not include sites located in the TLSA.
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.63
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
Table 16-12 Traditional Use Sites in the TRSA Willow Chipewyan Fort McMurray No. 468 McMurray Fort Heart Development Advisory Fort McMurray Fort Conklin Resource
Chard First Nation First Nation First Lake First Nation Committee
L akeMétis Local 780
Prairie Dene Dene Prairie
Métis
Métis
Project
Boundary Location TRSA (con’t) Hangingstone Provincial − − − − − − Recreation Area Hangingstone River − − − − − Maqua Camp − − − − − − Maqua Lake − − − − − − Indian Beach − − − − − − Kinosis Lake − − − − − − Little Horse Creek − − − − − − Long Lake − − − − − Loon Creek − − − − − − Maqua Lake − − − − − − Prairie Creek − − − − − − Site adjacent to railway − − − − − paralleling Highway 881a Site adjacent to − − − − − − Highway 69b Site adjacent to − − − − − Highway 881a Snye River − − − − − − Surmont Lake − − − − Stony Mountain Area − − − − − Gregoire Lake (Willow − − − − Lake) NOTES: # - Indicated the number of TLU sites or areas identified by an Aboriginal group a Historic and/or current TLU sites were identified adjacent to the associated highway/railway; however, no specific locations were identified (Section 16.2.3.5). = Traditional use area identified by the associated Aboriginal group − = Based on available information, no record of the associated Aboriginal group using the identified site for plant harvesting. Suncor will continue to engage potentially affected Aboriginal groups regarding traditionally and currently used traditional use sites and areas in the TRSA.
16.64 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.5 APPLICATION CASE
16.5.1 Change in Availability of Traditional Resources for Current Use
16.5.1.1 Methods
Methods used to assess change in the availability of traditional resources focus on changes in habitat that support traditional use wildlife and plant species; supplemented by TLU information, where appropriate. As part of the wildlife assessment, habitat suitability in the TLSA was ranked for several key indicators identified as traditional use species by potentially affected Aboriginal groups. The assessment examined a subset of key indicator wildlife species which are considered representative indicators of effects on the broader suite of traditional uses species in the region.
The wildlife assessment incorporated zones of influence (ZOI) into their habitat suitability models to account for indirect loss of habitat due to sensory disturbances, including noise. The availability of high and moderate suitability habitat in the TLSA for these species was compared relative to Base Case.
The vegetation and wetlands assessment identified vegetation cover types in the TRSA with low, moderate and high potential to support traditional use plant species. Using these categories, the availability of vegetation cover types with high and moderate potential to support traditional use plant species was compared to Base Case.
To examine potential effects on the availability of traditionally harvested fish species, a qualitative review of the potential increases in fishing pressure resulting from the project was done in the context of fish management policies, increased access, and fishing locations identified in available traditional land use information.
16.5.1.2 Mitigation for Effects to Availability of Traditional Resources for Current Use
This section identifies proposed mitigation measures to avoid or reduce potential Project effects on the availability of traditional resources for current use, including recommendations by Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation, proposed by Suncor, and identified by related VCs.
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.65
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
Suncor has proposed mitigation measures to avoid or reduce potential adverse effects on the availability of traditional resources for current use. In addition to these mitigation measures, Suncor will develop site-specific mitigation plans including a wildlife mitigation and monitoring plan that will include measures to reduce habitat loss through mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management. Mitigation measures for construction and operations include:
• notify Aboriginal groups regarding Project activities and schedules, including provision of Project maps and maintain ongoing engagement with, and seek input from, Aboriginal groups on Project activities and mitigation through the long-term stakeholder engagement plan for the Project (Volume 1, Section 5.4)
• provide Aboriginal Cultural Awareness training that outlines TLU requirements and sensitivities to employees and contractors
• time construction and other Project activities to avoid key harvesting periods, where possible
• limit industrial activities during restricted activity periods (e.g., raptor nesting period, the migratory bird nesting period, and caribou calving period)
• provide opportunities for the harvesting of traditional plants or other resources prior to disturbance
• limit the amount of surface disturbance where practicable by:
− applying integrated land management practices to minimize surface land disturbance, including use of previously disturbed land, common access corridors and existing access wherever practicable
− preferentially constructing Project components under frozen conditions, or dry ground conditions, to minimize effects on soil properties and sensitive areas such as fens and bogs
• establish appropriate buffers (avoid vegetation clearing) around watercourses and waterbodies where a COP does not describe requirements for an activity
• implement a weed management program with a focus on the control of noxious weeds (as designated in the Alberta Weed Control Regulation (Province of Alberta 2010)
• where practical, maintain disturbances to mimic natural variability in size and shape (such as coordination with the forest industry to integrate cutting plans with Project design). Areas of relatively undisturbed vegetation that are not cleared for the Project will be left intact to provide communities with varying structural stages to promote biodiversity.
16.66 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
• where linear disturbance is maintained for Project operations, allow natural woody vegetation to grow back along the edge of cleared pipeline and powerline ROWs to reduce lines of sight, while accommodating safety and pipeline monitoring concerns
• implement dust control measures to limit dust deposition on vegetation
• establish plant communities that consider colonization by wildlife species of primary interest to traditional and local land users in upland and wetland ecosystems
• incorporate mitigation measures to reduce the effects of industrial noise
• install wildlife crossing structures to facilitate wildlife movement across above ground pipelines; design and installation of crossing structures will follow the guidelines set out in the AEP Aboveground Pipeline Wildlife Crossing Directive (ESRD 2014) (Section 13.5.2.1)
• above ground pipeline planning and design will take advantage of existing terrain elevations for locations of under-pipe wildlife crossings - where elevating pipelines or use of terrain depressions is not practical, effective crossing structures will be designed in consultation with AEP
• during construction activities, wildlife crossing of linear developments will be facilitated by the provision of breaks and crossing points in pipe strings, spoil piles and open ditches, particularly at any identified intersections with wildlife movement corridors
• use fencing and/or habitat buffers to encourage wildlife to avoid Project areas and to reconnect habitats and facilitate wildlife movement.
• culvert installation to allow for movement by amphibians and small mammals across linear disturbance; culverts will be kept clear of debris
• several proposed mitigation measures to reduce wildlife mortality related to human interactions are outlined in Section 13.6.3 of the wildlife assessment
Although conclusions regarding Project effects are considered at full build-out and do not include proposed reclamation activities, Suncor plans to reclaim lands no longer required for operation, which will mitigate some effects resulting from loss of vegetation communities with the potential to support traditional plants and from habitat loss for wildlife species of traditional use.
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.67
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation identified recommendations which are applicable to adverse effects on the availability of traditional resources for current use. Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation recommended:
• waterbodies in the vicinity of the Project are preserved, as not to drive away the plants and animals that live in and use them (FM468FN 2017)
• Suncor designates an area exclusively for Aboriginal use, where Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation can practice TLU activities including camping, hunting fishing and berry collecting (FM468FN 2017)
• Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation’s involvement in the pre-development field surveys for the Project to determine baseline conditions, and to gain a better understanding of effects to the land and the community’s ability to carry out traditional practices in traditional locations (FM468FN 2017)
• FM468FN recommends Elders are included in further Project-related consultation, as Elders can provide the most comprehensive knowledge and evaluation of potential Project effects on FM468FN. This includes conducting interviews at hospitals and care facilities where some FM468FN Elders are currently residing
• pre-development surveys are completed seasonally throughout the year to ensure an accurate account of all seasonal activity (FM468FN 2017)
• aerial and ground surveys be completed to tally the remaining caribou population, including caribou tracking (FM468FN 2017)
• Suncor invest in strategies to protect and restore caribou populations, e.g., designating an area (100 km2) exclusively for regeneration of the caribou population, fenced off from predators including wolf and bear (FM468FN 2017)
• Project is built so that animals can move around freely (FM468FN 2017)
• monitoring the effects of the project on long-term water quality, and requests FM468FN member involvement in the monitoring (FM468FN 2017)
• Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation involvement in Project monitoring, in order to provide input on the actions required to minimize any destructive activity of the Project (FM468FN 2017)
• following the life of the Project, Suncor reclaim the Project area and replant trees cleared for the purposes of the Project, including poplar and diamond willow (FM468FN 2017)
• Project area be reclaimed to its natural state and no area is left bare (FM468FN 2017)
16.68 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
• development projects employ techniques that minimize effects on the natural habitat, including minimal clearing and stripping (Golder 2002b)
• reduce linear disturbance by using an existing ROW and making the ROW as narrow as possible (Golder 2002b) important traditional use locations be taken into consideration during the Project planning stage (JACOS 2010).
Recommendations provided by Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation relate to maintaining availability of traditional resources for current use.
16.5.1.3 Project Residual Effects on Availability of Traditional Resources for Current Use
At Application Case (full build-out), the Project will decrease available habitat for a number of key indicator TLU wildlife species, directly through vegetation clearing and indirectly through reduced habitat effectiveness from sensory disturbance. The largest decrease in the TLSA is a reduction of 528 ha of moderate suitability habitat for moose relative to Base Case. In addition, the Project will result in a decrease of 202 ha of high and moderate suitability for woodland (boreal) caribou, 144 ha of high and moderate suitability for fisher, 236 ha of high and moderate suitability habitat for Canada lynx, and 27 ha of high and moderate suitability habitat for beaver.
Construction and operation of the Project is expected to hinder movement of wildlife species through the footprint which could affect the availability of wildlife species of traditional importance; however, the implementation of mitigation measures such as aboveground pipeline wildlife crossing structures will reduce these effects. Additionally, following operation, Project-related sensory disturbance will not be present and once land is reclaimed and barriers to wildlife removed, connectivity will be re-established for key indicator species.
Because much of the region is wetland, non-frozen access for hunters is often limited to linear features (i.e., pipelines, seismic lines and roads). Widening and other improvements to roads during Project construction will improve existing points of access to the TLSA; however, access will be actively controlled during construction and operation. No new access will be created outside the TLSA. Additionally, reclamation of disturbances associated with the Project will further reduce the density of linear disturbance relative to Base Case. Hunting quotas are managed by the province with the goal of conserving wildlife populations; therefore, adverse population level effects due to improved access for non-Aboriginal hunters are not anticipated.
While some direct mortality of wildlife is expected as a result of Project activities; for example, vehicle collisions, the proposed mitigation measures and best management practices identified in Section 13.6.3 is not expected to adversely affect wildlife populations relied on for traditional use.
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.69
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
Project development will result in a small decrease in vegetation cover types in the TRSA with the potential to support traditional use plants. At Application Case (full build-out), there will be an incremental loss in the TRSA of 30 ha (<0.1%) of vegetation cover classes ranked as high potential for traditional use plants and 338 ha (0.3%) ranked as moderate potential (Section 12, Table 12-13).
Fishing is known to occur extensively in the Hangingstone River. While Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation and Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation indicated that very few lakes in the Petro-Canada Meadow Creek Project area contain fish, with the exception of Surmont Lake and Chain Lakes (Golder 2002a, Golder 2002b), Fort McMurray Métis reported that the Meadow Creek East Project area is habitat for fish species that are harvested by members for food (MNA 1935 2015).
The Project will not increase fishing access to the Hangingstone River relative to the Base Case (i.e., linear corridors will not cross the Hangingstone River). Where corridors cross unnamed tributaries to the Hangingstone River (north and west of Highway 63) and upper reaches of Horse Creek and Little Horse Creek, habitat potential for sport fish and likelihood of sport fish presence is generally low (Section 10). Fishing pressure is predicted to increase regionally because of a population effect in the region, not including camp-based workforce, which will follow a no-fishing policy.
Recreational fishing in Alberta is managed by AEP based on fish management zones and watershed units. For recreational anglers throughout Alberta, there is a zero catch limit for Arctic grayling (GOA 2016), which is an important traditional use species. The implementation of angling restrictions by Suncor for staff and contractors, combined with recreational fishing regulations will reduce residual effects on fisheries and a measurable change in fisheries is not predicted.
It is acknowledged that appropriate conditions for current use entail more than availability of traditional resources and that Aboriginal groups may choose not to pursue TLU activities in the vicinity of the Project for a variety of personal, practical, aesthetic and spiritual reasons. Overall, the residual effects of the Project on the availability of traditional resources are low to moderate in magnitude, with the greatest effect being the decrease in habitat for certain traditional use wildlife species, such as moose, in the TLSA. Project effects are limited to the TLSA, and although reclamation of Project disturbances is planned, the effect is considered to be long-term because reclamation will not occur for more than 25 years after the vegetation is cleared and as a result is considered to be irreversible.
16.70 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.5.2 Change in Access to Traditional Resources for Current Use or to Current Use Sites and Areas
16.5.2.1 Methods
Change in access to traditional resources for current use or to current use sites and areas occurs primarily as a result of the loss or change in traditional trails and travel routes, and the inability to use certain areas. Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation and Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation expressed concerns about how the increased access associated with development results in members having to travel further to find undisturbed harvesting areas (FM468FN 2017, CPDFN 2016). Concerns raised by Aboriginal groups regarding the change in access to traditional resources for current use or current use sites and areas, also include increased access to once remote areas resulting in vandalism and damage to traplines, pressure on regional infrastructure, safety concerns and a loss of solitude for harvesters (AXYS 2000b). Potential effects on access are assessed qualitatively by comparing identified trails and travel routes to disturbance associated with the Project.
16.5.2.2 Mitigation for Access to Traditional Resources for Current Use or Current Use Sites and Locations
In an effort to mitigate Project effects on access to traditional resources for current use Suncor will engage potentially affected Aboriginal groups regarding access-related concerns as part of the long-term stakeholder engagement plan (Volume 1, Section 5.4). Suncor also proposes the following mitigation measures to avoid or reduce potential adverse effects on access to current use site and locations:
• application of integrated land management practices to reduce land disturbance, and allow for multi-stakeholder access and coordination by using previously disturbed land, common access corridors and existing access wherever practicable
• construction traffic to and from the site will be restricted to approved access routes, or use of alternative routes will be considered to reduce travel near residences
• reclamation of roads when they are no longer required and roll back right-of-ways to reduce access
• fishing and hunting in the Project Area by Suncor staff and contractors while on shift will be prohibited.
• Suncor will work with Aboriginal groups to maintain access to identified current use sites during construction and operations including for hunting, fishing and trapping
• develop and implement an Access Management Plan for the Project; the traditional land use portion of the Access Management Plan will be discussed with Aboriginal groups prior to its finalization
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.71
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
The reclamation of areas no longer required for operation will also help mitigate effects on access by re-establishing vegetation along trails and travel routes that may have been disturbed by Project activities.
16.5.2.3 Project Residual Effects on Access to Traditional Resources for Current Use or to Current Use Sites and Areas
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation and Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation identified trails and travelways through the TRSA (Figure 16-3). Highway 63, which crosses the Project footprint, is used as by Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation, Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation and Fort McMurray Métis members in order to access current use sites and areas. Residual effects on use of Highway 63 are anticipated to be negligible in magnitude as the Traffic Impact Assessment (Volume 1 Appendix 10) concluded that capacity issues are not expected.
Project components including access roads, wellpads, and processing locations and their operation (e.g., drilling, traffic) may alter access for TLU activities. This may take place through restrictions to travel through active areas of the Project or reducing the level of effort required to access a previously secluded area which may increase activity in the area and place additional pressure on TLU. Residual effects on Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation’s two additional land based travel routes in the TLSA. Access routes identified in Section 16.2.3.5 are not considered an exhaustive list of travel routes used for TLU purposes. In keeping with a conservative approach and in recognition of the large area of Crown land where TLU activities may be practiced, other trails and travelways may occur near the Project, even if these sites have not been specifically identified by Aboriginal groups at this time.
It is acknowledged that appropriate conditions for current use entail more than access to traditional resources, sites and areas and that Aboriginal groups may choose not to pursue TLU activities in the vicinity of the Project for a variety of personal, practical, aesthetic and spiritual reasons.
Overall, the residual effects of the Project on access to traditional resources, current use sites or locations are low in magnitude, with no appreciable change expected in regards to the level of effort required to travel along Highway 63, Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation’s two travel routes in the TLSA and to potential TLU areas in the TLSA. Project effects are limited to the footprint, and the effect is considered to be long-term because reclamation will not occur for more than 25 years after the vegetation is cleared. With reclamation, residual effects are considered reversible.
16.72 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.5.3 Change in Current Use Sites and Areas
16.5.3.1 Methods
Change in current use sites and areas primarily occurs as a result of vegetation clearing and disturbance during Project construction and operations. The assessment examined the interaction between the Project footprint and known TLU site and areas identified by Aboriginal groups as potentially effected by the Project. In keeping with a conservative approach and in recognition of the large area of Crown land where TLU activities may be practiced interaction between the Project footprint and TLU areas identified through a literature review and potential TLU sites and areas were also considered.
16.5.3.2 Mitigation for Effects on Current Use Sites and Areas
Suncor has proposed mitigation measures to avoid or reduce potential adverse effects on current use sites and areas. Mitigation measures for construction and operations include the following:
• notify Aboriginal groups regarding Project activities and schedules, including provision of Project maps and maintain ongoing engagement with, and seek input from, Aboriginal groups on Project activities and mitigation through the long-term stakeholder engagement plan for the Project (Volume 1, Section 5.4)
• implement an adaptive management approach through of life of the Project: develop, modify and update project operations and reclamation techniques/approaches to reduce Project risks
• apply integrated land management practices to reduce land disturbance, and allow for multi-stakeholder access and coordination by using previously disturbed land, common access corridors and existing access wherever practicable
• provide Aboriginal Cultural Awareness training to Suncor employees and contractors that outlines TLU requirements and sensitivities
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation identified recommendations which are applicable to adverse effects on current use sites and areas. Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation recommended:
• Suncor provides the opportunity for FM468FN to survey the Project footprint (FM468FN 2017)
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.73
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.5.3.3 Project Residual Effects on Current Use Sites and Areas
Current use sites and areas identified by Aboriginal groups in the TRSA include; harvesting areas (hunting, trapping, fishing, plant gathering), habitation sites, and areas of spiritual importance. Figure 16-3 identifies non-confidential traditional use sites and areas that have been disclosed by Aboriginal groups. Although Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation traditional use sites have been mapped relative to the Project, Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation directed that these locations are to remain confidential and are not to be disclosed in this assessment. Table 16-12 above identifies current use sites and areas located in the TLSA, as well as the type of activities and Aboriginal groups they are associated with.
Current use sites identified by Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation, Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation and Fort McMurray Métis are overlapped by the Project footprint. The following Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation’s current use sites and areas are overlapped by the Project footprint; 10 hunting areas, six plant gathering areas, two habitation areas, two cultural or spiritual areas, one fishing area and one trapping area, as well as a seasonal round. Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation’s harvesting area is also overlapped by the Project footprint. Due to reliance on secondary source information the specific location of this site could not be determined.
Current use sites and areas identified in Section 16.2.3.5 are not considered an exhaustive list; should other sites or locations be identified, Suncor will engage with potentially affected Aboriginal groups to discuss concerns related to traditional use sites and areas. It is acknowledged that appropriate conditions for current use entail more than preserving traditional sites and areas and that Aboriginal groups may choose not to pursue TLU activities in the vicinity of the project for a variety of personal, practical, aesthetic and spiritual reasons
The current use sites or areas located in the Project footprint and associated with harvesting activities (hunting, trapping, fishing, plant gathering) will be removed during construction and operations. Residual effects are anticipated to be reversible when the footprint is reclaimed. Although some current use activities could be conducted elsewhere in the TRSA, TLRU sites, locations and related knowledge are often rooted in specific places that have important cultural and spiritual associations that are not readily transferrable to other locations.
The habitation sites, and spiritual sites or areas located in the Project footprint will also be removed during construction and operations. Residual effects to these sites or areas however will be irreversible because once disturbed, these sites cannot be reclaimed or returned to baseline conditions.
Overall, the residual effects of the Project on current use sites or locations in the footprint are anticipated be a single event, moderate in magnitude, long-term in duration and range from reversible to irreversible. Residual effects are not anticipated to extend to the current use sites or areas outside of the Project footprint.
16.74 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.5.4 Summary of Project Residual Effects for Application Case
For the characterization of the Project residual effects on Traditional Land Use at Application Case, see Table 16-13.
Table 16-13 Project Residual Effects on Traditional Land Use
Residual Effects Characterization Project Phase Project Reversibility Geographic Frequency Magnitude Direction Duration Extent
Residual Effect Change in availability of traditional C, O A L/M TLSA LT IR R/I resources for current use Change in access to traditional C, O A L F LT IR R resources for current use or current use sites and areas Change in current use sites or C, O A M F LT S I/R areas KEY See Table 16-2 for detailed definitions Geographic Extent: Frequency: Project Phase F: Footprint S: Single event C: Construction LSA: Local Study Area IR: Multiple Irregular event O: Operation RSA: Regional Study Area R: Multiple Regular event Direction: Duration: C: Continuous P: Positive ST: Short-term Reversibility: A: Adverse MT: Medium-term R: Reversible N: Neutral LT: Long-term I: Irreversible Magnitude: N: Negligible N/A: Not applicable L: Low M: Moderate H: High
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.75
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.6 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CASE
Aboriginal groups engaged by Suncor for the Project have noted the high incidence of industrial development in the area. Over the past 50 years, the pace and extent of development in the region has been rapidly increasing. Since the commencement of commercial oil sands development in the late 1960s, Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation has noted more pronounced effects on TLU resources (FM468FN 2017, JACOS 2010). Numerous changes in the landscape were identified by Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation including linear disturbance from the construction of the railway, anthropogenic disturbances from industry such as forestry, and destruction from wildfire, and changes in land and resource use potential because of industrial development, particularly oil sands exploration and development (FM468FN 2017, AXYS 2000a; AXYS 2000b). Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation expressed concern related to too much development occurring in the Project area. Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation has also identified numerous changes in the landscape; including linear disturbance from the construction of the railway, anthropogenic disturbances from industry such as forestry, and destruction from wildfire, and changes in land and resource use potential because of industrial development particularly oil sands exploration (FM468FN 2017, AXYS 2000a, AXYS 2000b).
The Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. have also noted extensive and ongoing industrial development and expressed that as development continues, it is becoming more difficult for the Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. to hunt, fish, trap and gather in their traditional territory (Chard 2015b).
16.6.1 Change in Availability of Traditional Resources for Current Use
The Project is predicted to have adverse residual effects on the availability of traditional resources for current use, and these effects could act cumulatively with residual effects of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future physical activities in the TRSA.
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation reported that land disturbance and the associated loss of wildlife habitat from multiple developments has resulted in direct and indirect cumulative effects on traditional land and resource use (FM468FN 2017, AXYS 2000a, AXYS 2000b). In locations where potential habitat exists, changes to the landscape are confusing the animals and ruining habitat that could be important, such as calving area or migration routes for caribou (FM468FN 2017). The combination of industry throughout the region was also identified as creating stress on the furbearing population and changing their normal distribution (AXYS 2000). A decline in wildlife populations and a change in wildlife migration has been observed by Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation members all over the region (FM468FN 2017). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation members also noted that changes in moose hunting first began approximately 25 years ago when JACOS started developing in the area and indicated that disturbances created for drilling, seismic, and forestry activities also create migration corridors for wolves chase down moose (FM468FN 2017). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation expressed concerns over trapping to the south of the Project, in what is considered to be a prime trapping area (FM468FN 2017).
16.76 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation expressed concern about sensory disturbances (noise, light, odours) and pollution created by industrial development. Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation members have observed; noise pollution occurring kilometers away from development plants, unpleasant odours emanating from the surrounding oil sands plants particularly at night when materials are being burned, and reported that the northern lights and stars are no longer visible due to the bright glow in the sky from development. These effects contribute to; the reduction of wildlife and plant species in the traditional territory, changes in weather, increased allergies among community members and limit members' ability to practice traditional activities (FM468FN 2017).
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation reported that as oil sands development continues, each project adds strain on the water levels in the region due to project water use. Water quality has also declined since the first oil sands plant was established in the region. The increase in sulphur levels in the water during the past 2 years and the sheen on the water which has been observed in Cold Lake is attributed by Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation to oil sands development (FM468FN 2017). Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation expressed concern related to too much development occurring in the Project area. Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation state that harvesting areas encompass the entire TLSA. The harvesting areas extend beyond the TLSA into the TRSA. Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation indicate that land disturbance from previous and future developments have direct and indirect results on both terrestrial and aquatic wildlife and wildlife habitat through sensory disturbance, mortality, loss of connectivity. Furthermore, sensory impacts such as noise odours, and visual impacts cause harvesters to question the integrity of the harvested resources (CPDFN 2016).
The availability of wildlife habitat in the TRSA is expected to decrease slightly compared to Base Case because of direct and indirect habitat loss for all the key indicators. The largest change in upland regional cover classes at PDC relative to Base Case will occur for coniferous forest, with a loss of 132 ha (0.3%) in the TRSA and for broadleaf forest, with a loss of 81 ha (0.4%). These vegetation cover types are considered preferred winter habitat for traditionally harvested species including moose and fisher. The largest decrease in wetland regional cover classes in the TRSA relative to Base Case will occur for fens (781 ha [0.8 %]), swamps (540 ha [0.9%]), and bogs (336 ha [0.6%]). Fens are considered as preferred winter habitat for caribou, and swamps are preferred year-round habitat for beaver and winter habitat for Canada lynx.
A greater number of in situ operations with human activity and aboveground pipelines will likely increase hindrances to movement in the TRSA. However, much of the TRSA, including an identified key wildlife and biodiversity zone (KWBZ) along the Athabasca and Christina Rivers and habitat in the Stony Mountain Wildland Park will not be disturbed by planned developments. Additionally, it is expected that other in situ projects in the TRSA will implement mitigation measures such as aboveground pipeline wildlife crossing structures to reduce hindrance to wildlife movement.
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.77
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
The availability of vegetation cover classes with the potential to support traditional use plants will decrease due to additional vegetation clearing from planned projects in the TRSA, with a loss of 437 ha (-0.6%) of cover classes with high potential and 701 ha with moderate potential (-0.6%) relative to Base Case.
Overall, with the exception of caribou, residual cumulative effects on the availability of traditional resources for current use due to habitat loss associated with the Project and other planned and approved developments in the TRSA is expected to be moderate in magnitude. The effect is considered to be long- term because reclamation will not occur for more than 25 years after the vegetation is cleared. With reclamation, residual cumulative effects for most species are considered reversible. Effects are considered reversible for most species with the implementation of reclamation. Because the East Side Athabasca River (ESAR) caribou range has more disturbed habitat defined as acceptable in the federal recovery strategy (Environment Canada 2012), the residual cumulative effect on change in boreal caribou habitat is considered to be high. Information on mitigation measures developed to avoid or reduce incremental disturbance to the ESAR caribou range are referenced in the wildlife assessment (Section 13.4.3.2).
16.6.2 Change in Access to Traditional Resources for Current Use or to Current Use Sites and Areas
The Project is predicted to have adverse residual effects on access to traditional resources for current use, and these effects could act cumulatively with residual effects of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future physical activities in the TRSA.
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation’s noted that oil sands activity has affected members' ability to practice traditional activities and harvest for subsistence purposes. Plant harvesting has diminished due to a decrease in the quantity of plants, and berries and has resulted in longer travel times to find sufficient resources, with some members travelling as far as Lac La Biche to harvest berries. Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation members report being surrounded by oil sands developments and being forced to travel greater distances to harvest food.
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation reported that land disturbance from multiple developments has resulted in direct and indirect cumulative effects on traditional land and resource use through the high density of developments in the area resulting in increased road traffic (AXYS 2000). Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation has expressed concern regarding the effects of development on access to TLU sites (decreased access to remote locations for Aboriginal harvesters and increased access to recreational harvesters) (AXYS 2000b).
16.78 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
Similar sentiments were noted by Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation who indicate that direct physical disturbance in the TRSA has resulted in a decline in the quality and quantity of water, land, biodiversity of wildlife, fish and vegetation, as well as a decline in air quality. Impacts from these declines include increased burden and costs of transporting water while travelling, increased travel time and associated costs, increased effort to harvest traditional resources, and stress due to concerns regarding the contamination of harvested resources (CPDFN 2016).
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation has also noted that an increase in linear developments including roads, seismic lines, and pipeline ROWs increases public access and results in a lack of access by Aboriginal harvesters to previously undisturbed harvesting areas that are blocked off by gates or other means (AXYS 2000b). Increased development has also blocked access to camps at Stoney Mountain and community members now must access the Maqua camp on foot (FM468FN 2017). In the past community members could live off the land while conducting traditional activities, however now supplies are packed into the area including wood and water (FM468FN 2017).
Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation expressed concern about being prevented from utilizing Stony Mountain Road, limiting harvesting and gathering, especially during the winter months. Linear disturbances, including cutlines are currently used as transportation networks connecting Janvier, Cowper Lake and Winefred Lake. Direct impediments, such as physical barriers or entire removal of trails will result in displacement from hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering and occupancy areas. Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation express concern regarding competition and conflict due to increased non-Aboriginal land users at harvesting sites and areas, which has resulted in a decline in the quality and quantity of resources (CPDFN 2016).
The Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. reported that cumulative industrial effects have already required the Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. members to venture further in search of wildlife and plants (Chard 2015c). The Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. have also noted an increasing need to supplement traditional diet with food purchased from a grocery store (Chard 2015b).
Projects identified in the PDC may further alter access for TLU activities by restricting travel through active project development areas or reducing the level of effort required to access a previously secluded area. Linear disturbances. It is expected that other operators will engage with potentially affected Aboriginal groups to address concerns related to access.
Overall, the residual cumulative effects on access to traditional resources, current use sites or locations are low in magnitude, with disturbance from planned projects expected to increase the level of effort to access potential TLU areas in the TRSA. The effect is likely to be long-term because reclamation will not occur for more than 25 years after the vegetation is cleared.
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.79
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.6.3 Change in Current Use Sites and Areas
The Project is predicted to have adverse residual effects on current use sites and areas, and these effects could act cumulatively with residual effects of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future physical activities in the TRSA.
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation noted that as the number of developments scattered across the landscape continues to grow there are fewer places for members to practice traditional activities as there is less land available (FM468FN 2017). Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation noted that although current impacts from encroachment have lead to increased difficulties in exercising traditional land and resource use in the TRSA, that areas sufficient for harvesting remain available. These areas are increasingly more important to sustaining the system as a whole, and should be protected. Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation also noted the restriction of firearm use around project components further decreases the area in which traditional activities can be exercised (CPDFN 2016). Projects identified in the PDC will affect current use sites and areas by reducing the amount of land in the TRSA which is available for TLU activities to be practiced. Some of the current use sites identified by Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation and Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation are overlapped by the Project footprint and at lease one additional project included in the PDC. A cumulative residual change is anticipated for the following current use sites and areas; Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation’s access trail system and harvesting area (see Figure 16-3) and twelve of Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation current use areas (including a seasonal round, as well as hunting, trapping, plant gathering, habitation areas).
Suncor will engage with potentially affected Aboriginal groups to address concerns and minimize clearance and disturbance of known current use sites and areas, and it is expected that other operators will apply similar mitigation. Residual cumulative effects are anticipated to be moderate in magnitude, long-term in duration, reversible for sites associated with harvesting activities (hunting, trapping, fishing, plant gathering) and irreversible for habitation sites and spiritual sites which can not be reclaimed.
Although some current use activities could be conducted elsewhere in the TRSA, TLRU sites, locations and related knowledge are often rooted in specific places that have important cultural and spiritual associations that are not readily transferrable to other locations.
16.80 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.6.4 Summary of Residual Cumulative Effects for Planned Development Case
For the characterization of the residual cumulative effects on Traditional Land Use at PDC, see Table 16-14.
Table 16-14 Residual Cumulative Effects on Traditional Land Use at PDC
Residual Cumulative Effects Characterization Reversibility Geographic Frequency Magnitude Direction Duration Extent
Residual Cumulative
Effect Residual Cumulative Effect on Availability of Traditional Resources for Current Use Residual cumulative A L-H TRSA LT IR I effect Contribution from the The Project’s contribution to effects on the availability of traditional resources will be Project to the residual localized in the context of the TRSA. The greatest decrease in regional cover classes for cumulative effect wildlife species of traditional importance represent <1% of the TRSA. The Project will have a limited contribution to the loss of availability of traditional resources in the TRSA. Residual Cumulative Effect on Access to Traditional Resources for Current Use or to Current Use Sites and Areas Residual cumulative A L TRSA LT IR I effect Contribution from the The Project’s contribution to effects on access to traditional resources will be localized in Project to the residual the context of the TRSA. The project is not expected to alter overall access to Traditional cumulative effect Resources in the RSA. Residual Cumulative Effect on Current Use Sites and Areas Residual cumulative A L-M TRSA LT IR I effect Contribution from the The Project’s contribution to effects on current use sites and areas will be localized in the Project to the residual context of the TRSA. The Project will have a limited contribution to the loss of land cumulative effect available to practice TLU activities in the TRSA. KEY See Table 16-2 for detailed definitions. Geographic Extent: Frequency: Direction: F: Footprint S: Single event P: Positive TLSA: Terrestrial Local Study Area IR: Multiple Irregular event A: Adverse TRSA: Terrestrial Regional Study Area R: Multiple Regular event N: Neutral Duration: C: Continuous Magnitude: ST: Short-term Reversibility: N: Negligible MT: Medium-term R: Reversible L: Low LT: Long-term I: Irreversible M: Moderate H: High N/A: Not applicable
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.81
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.7 CONCLUSIONS
16.7.1 Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation uses the land to hunt, trap, fish, and harvest plants, as well as for habitation, for travel, and for cultural and spiritual purposes. Moose is the most commonly hunted species, and the conservation of caribou herds was noted to be of primary importance. Watercourses and waterbodies were identified as being very important to Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation members as harvesting corridors, fishing sites, and transportation routes.
Issues of importance related to the harvesting of wildlife, fish, and plants, and the associated effects of development on members’ ability to carry out TLU activities include:
• loss of habitat vital for species of traditional use, including muskeg, and specific concerns about the effects of development on moose, caribou and other wildlife species
• elimination of medicinal plant and berry harvesting sites due to clearing and construction activities
• an increase in linear disturbance resulting in increased pressure on resources
The Project is expected to result in a reduction in habitat used by animals such as moose and caribou due to vegetation clearing and indirectly through sensory disturbance. This loss contributes incrementally to a loss of preferred habitat for traditional use species identified by Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation members. However, improved access for hunters is not anticipated due to the Project, because access will be actively controlled during construction and operation and no new access will be created outside the TLSA. Project development will result in a small decrease in vegetation cover types in the TRSA with the potential to support traditional use plants. The Project will not increase fishing access to the Hangingstone River, and combined with the implementation of angling restrictions for Project staff and contractors, a measurable change in fisheries is not predicted.
Overall, the Project is not expected to limit the availability of TLU resources in the TRSA.
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation identified concerns around changes or destruction to traditional trails and travel routes and around increased access to remote harvesting areas and cultural or spiritual sites. Safety was also a concern (i.e. theft, vandalism) along with pressure on infrastructure (i.e. roads, bridges).
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation members use Highway 63 in order to access current use areas however capacity issues are not expected as a result of project related traffic. Project components including access roads, wellpads, and processing locations and their operation (e.g., drilling, traffic) may alter access for TLU activities. To help mitigate these restrictions, Suncor will work with Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation as part of the access management
16.82 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017 planning process. Effects are on the two additional land based travel routes Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation’s identified in the TLSA are anticipated to be minimal.
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation identified general concerns around the effects of development on TLU sites and areas including camps, cabins, gathering areas, and cultural areas. Adverse effects are anticipated for the following Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation current use areas which are intersected by the Project footprint;10 hunting areas, six plant gathering areas, two habitation areas, two cultural or spiritual areas, one fishing area and one trapping area, as well as a seasonal round. These areas will be removed during construction and although effects to areas associated with harvesting activities can be reversed following reclamation effects to habitation and spiritual site or areas would be permanent.
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation identified that the Project could change the quality of spiritual experience felt when engaging in current land use activities. Fort McMurray No.468 First Nation reported that the ability to transmit knowledge and culture to youth has been limited by the disturbance to the land as a result of oil sands exploration and development (FM468FN 2017). Intangible effects such as quality of an individuals experience and the ability to transmit knowledge can only be meaningfully evaluated by the individuals and communities experiencing these effect in the context of their culture. These intangible components are presented for consideration by AER in the context of the Project.
16.7.2 Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation
Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation uses the land to hunt, trap, fish, harvest plants, for habitation and travel, and for cultural and spiritual purposes. Moose is the most commonly hunted species, and the conservation of caribou herds was noted to be of primary importance.
Issues of importance related to the harvesting of wildlife, fish, and plants, and the associated effects of development on members’ ability to carry out TLU activities include:
• loss of habitat vital for species of traditional use, including mineral licks and muskeg, and specific concerns about the effects of development on moose, caribou, furbearing and other wildlife species
• elimination of medicinal plant and berry harvesting sites due to clearing and construction activities, and effects on ecosites supporting berry species
• potential for loss of access to ancestral fishing areas and Aboriginal fisheries due to construction activities
• an increase in linear disturbance resulting in increased pressure on resources, specifically non-Aboriginal hunters
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.83
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
The Project is expected to result in a reduction in habitat used by animals such as moose and caribou due to vegetation clearing and indirectly through sensory disturbance. This loss contributes incrementally to a loss of preferred habitat for traditional use species identified by Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation members. However, improved access for hunters is not anticipated due to the Project, because access will be actively controlled during construction and operation and no new access will be created outside the TLSA. Project development will result in a small decrease in vegetation cover types in the TRSA with the potential to support traditional use plants. The Project will not increase fishing access to the Hangingstone River and combined with the implementation of angling restrictions for Project staff and contractors, a measurable change in fisheries is not predicted.
Overall, the Project is not expected to limit the availability of traditional resources in the TRSA.
Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation members use Highway 63 in order to access current use areas however capacity issues are not expected as a result of Project related traffic. Project components including access roads, wellpads, and processing locations and their operation (e.g., drilling, traffic) may impede access for TLU activities by restricting travel through active Project areas. To help mitigate these restrictions, Suncor will work with Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation as part of the access management planning process. Effects on Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation’s access trail system in the TLSA is anticipated to be minimal.
Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation identified general concerns around the effects of development on TLU sites and areas including camps, cabins, gathering areas, and cultural areas and the potential for destruction to or loss of solitude at the sites and areas. Adverse effects are anticipated for Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation’s harvesting area which is intersected by the Project footprint. A portion of the harvesting area will be removed during construction. Following reclamation effects are anticipated to be reversible.
Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation reported that changes to the land negatively affect spiritual experiences both during access to harvesting sites and areas and while conducting traditional activities in those sites and areas and also reduce the amount of knowledge and culture transmitted to younger generations. Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation also noted that these changes also negatively effect individual and community wellbeing. Intangible effects such as spiritual experiences, transmission of knowledge between generations and changes to wellbeing can only be meaningfully evaluated by the individuals and communities experiencing these effect in the context of their culture. These intangible components are presented for consideration by AER in the context of the Project.
16.7.3 Heart Lake First Nation
At the time of filing, no information has been identified through a review of publicly available information or the Aboriginal Engagement program for the Project. Suncor will continue to engage Heart Lake First Nation to identify any issues or concerns related to the Project.
16.84 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.7.4 Willow Lake Métis Local 780
At the time of filing, no information has been identified through a review of publicly available information or the Aboriginal Engagement program for the Project. Suncor will continue to engage Willow Lake Métis Local 780 to identify any issues or concerns related to the Project.
16.7.5 Fort McMurray Métis
Fort McMurray Métis use the land to hunt, trap, fish, harvest plants, for habitation and travel, and for cultural and spiritual purposes throughout the region. Fort McMurray Métis reported that traditional hunting practices in the region have adapted in response to reductions in animal populations. Fort McMurray Métis cited the depletion of caribou habitat vital to protection of the species as a factor accelerating the decline of the caribou population. Fort McMurray Métis reported that changes to the environment and declining animal populations, as well as decreasing fur prices, have affected the ability of Métis people to continue to secure a livelihood through trapping activities. Berry harvesting has been greatly diminished due to a loss of harvesting areas. Fort McMurray Métis noted that fish harvesting occurs near the Project.
The Project is expected to result in a reduction in habitat used by animals such as moose and caribou due to vegetation clearing and indirectly through sensory disturbance. This loss contributes incrementally to a loss of preferred habitat for traditional use species identified by Fort McMurray Métis members. However, improved access for hunters is not anticipated due to the Project, because access will be actively controlled during construction and operation and no new access will be created outside the TLSA. Project development will result in a small decrease in vegetation cover types in the TRSA with the potential to support traditional use plants. The Project will not increase fishing access to the Hangingstone River and combined with the implementation of angling restrictions for Project staff and contractors, a measurable change in fisheries is not predicted.
Overall, the Project is not expected to limit the availability of traditional resources in the TRSA.
Project components including access roads, wellpads, and processing locations and their operation (e.g., drilling, traffic) may impede access for TLU activities by restricting travel through active Project areas. To help mitigate these restrictions, Suncor will work with Fort McMurray Métis as part of the access management planning process.
Fort McMurray Métis identified general concerns around the effects of development on TLU sites and areas including camps, cabins, gathering areas, and cultural areas. In addition, Fort McMurray Métis noted that TLU sites exist along Highway 63 and along the Hangingstone River; however, the specific locations were not identified. Highway 63 is considered an existing disturbed regional ecological setting and the Project will not interact with the Hangingstone River. Therefore, effects on traditional use sites and areas due to the Project are not anticipated.
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.85
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.7.6 Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc.
The Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. uses the land to hunt, trap, fish, harvest plants, habitation and for travel, and cultural and spiritual purposes. The Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. identified issues of importance related to the harvesting of wildlife, fish, and plants, and the associated effects of development on their ability to carry out TLU activities.
Issues of importance related to the harvesting of wildlife, fish, and plants, and the associated effects of development on members’ ability to carry out TLU activities include:
• distribution, abundance and quality of wildlife habitat for species including caribou, deer, moose, rabbit, bear, frog, squirrel, mink, wolf, beaver and bird populations
• effects on vegetation, including muskeg regions
The Project is expected to result in a reduction in habitat used by animals such as moose and caribou due to vegetation clearing and indirectly through sensory disturbance. This loss contributes incrementally to a loss of preferred habitat for traditional use species identified by the Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. members. However, improved access for hunters is not anticipated due to the Project, because access will be actively controlled during construction and operation and no new access will be created outside the TLSA. Project development will result in a small decrease in vegetation cover types in the TRSA with the potential to support traditional use plants. The Project will not increase fishing access to the Hangingstone River and combined with the implementation of angling restrictions for Project staff and contractors, a measurable change in fisheries is not predicted.
Overall, the Project is not expected to limit the availability of traditional resources in the TRSA.
Project components including access roads, wellpads, and processing locations and their operation (e.g., drilling, traffic) may impede access for TLU activities by restricting travel through active Project areas. To help mitigate these restrictions, Suncor will work with the Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc.as part of the access management planning process.
The Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. identified general concerns around the effects of development on TLU sites and areas including camps, cabins, gathering areas, and cultural areas and the potential for destruction to or loss of solitude at the sites and areas. No TLU sites were identified by the Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc. in the footprint or TLSA. Should TLU sites be identified, Suncor will engage with the Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Déne Inc.to discuss concerns related to the TLU sites.
16.86 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.7.7 Conklin Métis
Conklin Métis identified issues of importance related to the harvesting of wildlife, fish, and plants, and the associated effects of development on their ability to carry out TLU activities.
The Project is expected to result in a reduction in habitat used by animals such as moose and caribou due to vegetation clearing and indirectly through sensory disturbance. This loss contributes incrementally to a loss of preferred habitat for traditional use species identified by Conklin Métis members. However, improved access for hunters is not anticipated due to the Project, because access will be actively controlled during construction and operation and no new access will be created outside the TLSA. Project development will result in a small decrease in vegetation cover types in the TRSA with the potential to support traditional use plants. The Project will not increase fishing access to the Hangingstone River and combined with the implementation of angling restrictions for Project staff and contractors, a measurable change in fisheries is not predicted.
Overall, the Project is not expected to limit the availability of traditional resources in the TRSA.
Project components including access roads, wellpads, and processing locations and their operation (e.g., drilling, traffic) may impede access for TLU activities by restricting travel through active Project areas. To help mitigate these restrictions, Suncor will work with Conklin Métis as part of the access management planning process.
Conklin Métis identified general concerns around the effects of development on TLU sites and areas including camps, cabins, gathering areas, and cultural areas and the potential for destruction to or loss of solitude at the sites and areas. No TLU sites were identified by Conklin Métis in the footprint or TLSA. Should TLU sites be identified, Suncor will engage with Conklin Métis to discuss concerns related to the TLU sites.
16.8 PREDICTION CONFIDENCE
Prediction confidence in the assessment of effects on TLU resources, sites, and access is low-to-moderate. This prediction confidence assignment reflects available Project-specific TLU data, and reliance on assessment of other VCs of relevance to TLU (Section 16.8.1). Given the qualitative and subjective nature of assessing TLU, the views of Aboriginal communities may differ from the findings of this assessment. As additional information continues to be gathered through Suncor’s ongoing consultation and mitigation discussions are undertaken with Aboriginal communities, relevant TLU information will be considered against the results of the EIA and incorporated into Project planning as practical. Ongoing Project-specific Aboriginal consultation activities and TLU studies will further contribute to understanding these issues.
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.87
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.8.1 Assessment Limitations
Project-specific traditional knowledge, obtained through a TLU study or site visit, is the best source of information on which to base an assessment of an Aboriginal group’s use of lands and resources. In the absence of Project-specific TLU information, the conclusions in this section are derived primarily from the conclusions of other biophysical assessments in combination with the information from the literature review. The assessments of resources such as wildlife and biodiversity, vegetation and wetlands and fisheries can inform an assessment of traditional harvesting activities, while assessments of other biophysical elements, such as hydrology, can provide information regarding changes in environment that may affect conditions for TLU. However, biophysical effects do not fully align with TLU, nor do the mitigation measures biophysical effects necessarily mitigate the effects on TLU, which is taken into consideration when cross-referencing such sections of the assessment.
In the absence of Project-specific TLU information, publicly-available TLU information was used to provide context regarding existing conditions, issues and concerns, and environmental observations that may affect conditions for TLU relative to the Project. In an effort to represent the Project spatial parameters, the information was selected based on its proximity to the assessment boundaries of the Project. Because of the limited amount of publicly available information on TLU activities that are practiced in the TRSA, this assessment relies on older sources of information.
This assessment of Project effects on TLU was undertaken with an awareness of these limitations. Suncor is currently supporting the completion of TLU studies and reviews with three First Nations and continues to engage with other Aboriginal communities in the area to share information on the Project and learn about potential concerns (Volume 1, Section 5.2).
16.9 FOLLOW-UP AND MONITORING
Suncor will develop site-specific mitigation plans including a wildlife mitigation and monitoring plan that will include measures to reduce habitat loss through mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management. Suncor will continue to engage with Aboriginal groups and share results of site-specific monitoring as part of the long-term stakeholder engagement plan (Volume 1, Section 5.4).
16.88 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
16.10 REFERENCES
ATC (Athabasca Tribal Council). 2014. Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation. Accessed January 2017 from: http://atc97.org/first-nations/fort-mcmurray-no-468-first-nation
AXYS (AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd). 1999. Traditional Land Use for the Surmount Commercial Oilsands Project Environmental Impact Assessment. Prepared for the Gulf Canada Resources Ltd., Calgary AB. Prepared by: AXYS Environmental Consulting Limited.
AXYS. 2000a. Application for the Approval of the Surmount Commercial Oil Sands Project. Technical Appendix 3: Traditional Land Use Study. Final Draft. Prepared for Gulf Canada Resources Limited. Prepared by: AXYS Environmental Consulting Limited.
AXYS. 2000b. JACOS Hangingstone SAGD Demonstration Project. Traditional Land Use Study for the Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation. Prepared for Japan Canada Oil Sands Co. ltd on behalf of Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation. Prepared by AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. Calgary, Alberta.
Chard (Chard Métis). 2012. Opening Statement. National Energy Board Hearing Order GH-004-2011: File No. OF-Fac-Gas-N081-2010-15 02. Retrieved February 2017 from: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/814034
Chard. November, 2013. Schedule B: Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Dene Inc. (“Chard Métis”) concerns with respect to oil companies and governments. Prepared by the Chard Métis Society.
Chard. July, 2015a. Application to Participate. 2017 NGTL System Expansion Project. Accessed January 2017 from: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/2797289
Chard. 2015b. Additional Written Evidence of the Chard Métis Society. 2017 NGTL System Expansion Project. Accessed January 2017 from: https://apps.neb- one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/2825405
Chard. 2015c. Written Evidence of the Chard Métis Society. 2017 NGTL System Expansion Project. Accessed January 2017 from: https://apps.neb- one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/2825405
Chard (Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Dene Inc.). 2015d. Statement of Concern, Alberta Energy Regulator Application No. 1841092, Suncor Energy Inc. Meadow Creek East SAGD Project. Prepared by Rae and Company.
Chard (Chard Métis Society and Chard Métis Dene Inc.). n.d. Schedule A: Chard Métis Society Chard Métis Dene Inc. Membership List. Prepared by the Chard Métis Society.
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.89
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
CPDFN (Chipewyan Prairie Déné First Nation). 2007. Kai’ Kos’ Dehseh: The Red Willow River (Christina River) People, A Traditional Land Use Study of the Chipewyan Prairie First Nation. Nicomasian Publishing: Calgary, AB.
CPDFN. December, 2015. Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation Statement of Concern for Suncor Meadow Creek East Project: AER Application No. 1841092. Prepared by Chipewyan Prairie IRC.
CPDFN 2016. Suncor Meadow Creek East. Chipewyan Prairie Déné First Nation Traditional Land and Resource Use Study. Prepared for Chipewyan Prairie Industry Relations Corporation on Behalf of Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation.
CRDAC (Conklin Resource Development Advisory Committee). December, 2015. Statement of Concern regarding Suncor’s Notice of Amendment to Application No. 1841092 (Oil Sands Conservation Act Application No. 9424). Prepared by the Conklin Resource Development Advisory Committee.
CTSFN (The Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations). n.d. Treaty No. 6 Member Nations. Retrieved January 2017 from: http://www.treatysix.org/member_nations.html
Dersch, Ave. Moccasin Flower Consulting Inc. 2014. Suncor Meadow Creek East. Framework for Identifying Project Effects for a Traditional Land and Resource Use Study for Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation. Prepared for Chipewyan Prairie Industry Relations Corporation on Behalf of Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation.
Environment Canada. 2012. Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal population, in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. xi + 138pp.
ESRD. 2014. Aboveground Pipeline Wildlife Crossing Directive. ESRD Public Land Management. 2014, No.7. Operations. February 2014. 6pp.
FM468FN (Fort McMurray #468 First Nation). 2006. Nistawayaw: Where Three Rivers Meet: Traditional Land Use Study. Nicomasian Publishing: Calgary, AB.
FM468FN. 2017. Suncor Meadow Creek West Project Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Table. CRE-Stantec Consulting Ltd.
FMML (Fort McMurray Métis Local 1935). 2012. Mark of the Métis: Traditional Knowledge and Stories of the Métis Peoples of Northeastern Alberta.
FMT (Fort McMurray Today). 2015. Local Métis communities agree to fall under one banner. Accessed January 2017 from: http://www.fortmcmurraytoday.com/2015/09/03/local- metis-communities-agree-to-fall-under-one-banner
16.90 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
GOA (Government of Alberta). 2014. The Government of Alberta’s Guidelines on Consultation with First Nations on Land and Natural Resource Management. Retrieved January 2017 from: http://indigenous.alberta.ca/documents/First_Nations_Consultation_Guidelines_LNRD.p df
GOA. 2016. Alberta Guide to Sportfishing Regulations. Accessed December 2016 from: http://albertaregulations.ca/2016-Alberta-Fishing-Regs.pdf
Golder (Golder Associates Ltd). 2002a. Traditional Land Use: Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation. Prepared for Petro-Canada Oil and Gas on behalf of Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation. Prepared by Golder Associates Ltd.
Golder. 2002b. Traditional Land Use: Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation. Prepared for Petro-Canada Oil and Gas on behalf of Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation. Prepared by Golder Associates Ltd.
Golder. 2011. Leismer to Kettle River Crossover Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment, Section 4.14: Traditional Land and Resource Use. Accessed January 2017 from: https://docs.neb-one.gc.ca/ll- eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90550/554112/666941/704296/747851/702711/B1-17_- _ESA_Section_1_to_4_-_A2A6Q3.pdf?nodeid=702727&vernum=-2
Golder (Golder Associates Ltd). 2013. Cenovus FCCL Ltd. CLTP - Phase H and Eastern Expansion Appendix 6-I Traditional Land Use Baseline Report. Accessed January 2017 from: https://www.cenovus.com/operations/docs/christinalake/phase-h/6/a-i.pdf
INAC (Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada). 2010. First Nations in Alberta. Accessed January 2017 from: http://www.aadnc- aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100020670/1100100020675#chp3.
INAC. 2016a. First Nation Detail: Chipewyan Prairie First Nation. Accessed January 2017 from: http://fnp-ppn.aandc- aadnc.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=470&lang=eng
INAC. 2016b. Reserves/Settlements/Villages: Chipewyan Prairie First Nation. Accessed January 2017 from: http://fnp-ppn.aandc- aadnc.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNReserves.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=470&lang=eng
INAC. 2016c. Geography: Chipewyan Prairie First Nation. Accessed January 2017 from: http://fnp-ppn.aandc- aadnc.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNGeography.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=468&lang=eng
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.91
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
INAC. 2016d. Registered Population: Chipewyan Prairie First Nation. Accessed January 2017 from: http://fnp-ppn.aandc- aadnc.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNRegPopulation.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=470&lang=eng
INAC. 2016e. Governance: Chipewyan Prairie First Nation. Accessed January 2017 from: http://fnp-ppn.aandc- aadnc.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNGovernance.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=470&lang=eng
INAC. 2016f. Reporting Centre on Specific Claims: Chipewyan Prairie First Nation. Accessed January 2017 from: http://services.aadnc- aandc.gc.ca/SCBRI_E/Main/ReportingCentre/External/externalreporting.aspx
INAC. 2016g. First Nation Detail: Fort McMurray #468 First Nation. Accessed January 2017 from: http://fnp-ppn.aandc- aadnc.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=468&lang=eng
INAC. 2016h. Reserves/Settlements/Villages: Fort McMurray #468 First Nation. Accessed January 2017 from: http://fnp-ppn.aandc- aadnc.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNGeography.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=468&lang=eng
INAC. 2016i. Geography: Fort McMurray #468 First Nation. Accessed January 2017 from: http://fnp-ppn.aandc- aadnc.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNGeography.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=468&lang=eng
INAC. 2016j. Registered Population: Fort McMurray #468 First Nation. Accessed January 2017 from: http://fnp-ppn.aandc- aadnc.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNRegPopulation.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=468&lang=eng
INAC. 2016k. Governance: Fort McMurray First Nation. Accessed January 2017 from: http://fnp- ppn.aandc- aadnc.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNGovernance.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=468&lang=eng
INAC. 2016l. First Nations Profile: Heart Lake First Nation. Accessed January 2017 from: http://fnp-ppn.aandc- aadnc.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=469&lang=eng
INAC. 2016m. Reserves/Settlements/Villages: Heart Lake First Nation. Accessed January 2017 from: http://fnp-ppn.aandc- aadnc.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNReserves.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=469&lang=eng
INAC. 2016n. Geography. Heart Lake First Nation. Accessed January 2017 from: http://fnp- ppn.aandc- aadnc.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNGeography.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=469&lang=eng
16.92 Suncor Energy Inc.
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
INAC. 2016o. Registered Population: Heart Lake First Nation. Accessed January 2017 from: http://fnp-ppn.aandc- aadnc.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNRegPopulation.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=469&lang=eng
INAC. 2016p. Governance: Heart Lake First Nation. Accessed January 2017 from: http://fnp- ppn.aandc- aadnc.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNGovernance.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=469&lang=eng
JACOS (Japan Canada Oil Sands Limited). 2010. JACOS Hangingstone Expansion Project: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Land Use 2:18. Prepared for Application for Approval to the Energy Resources Conservation Board and Alberta Environment.
KNOC (Korea National Oil Corporation Application for Approval of the BlackGold Expansion Project, Volume 2- Environmental Impact Assessment). 2009. Traditional Land Use and Traditional Ecological Knowledge- Heart Lake First Nation. Available at: http://www.harvestenergy.ca/upload/media_element/259/01/volume_2_section_16.pdf. Accessed: September 2014.
Ladouceur, Pete (Chard Métis). 2002. Métis Concerns and Issues Relevant to Petro Canada Oil and Gas, Petro-Canada Meadow Creek Project Supplemental Information Requests and Responses. Volume 2, Appendix 2 (Stakeholder Questions-- Métis Concerns and Issues).
MNA 1935 (MNA Local 1935 [McMurray Métis]). 2013. About Us. Accessed January 2017 from: http://mcmurraymetis.org/about
MNA 1935. 2015. Statement of Concern from McMurray Métis – Alberta Energy Regulator Application No. 1841092 -Suncor Energy Inc. application to amend Approval No. 9424 issued under Oil Sands Conservation Act (OSCA) and for other approvals under the Oil and Gas Conservation Act, Pipeline Act, Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, Public Lands Act, and Water Act to construct, operate, and reclaim the Meadow Creek East Project.
Petro-Canada (Petro-Canada Oil and Gas). 2001. Commercial Application for the Approval of the Meadow Creek Project. Submitted to Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and Alberta Environment
Province of Alberta. 2010. Weed Control Regulation. Edmonton, Alberta.
Suncor (Suncor Energy Services Inc.). 2016. First Nation Consultation Plan Meadow Creek West Project. Submitted to Aboriginal Consultation Office and Alberta Indigenous Relations on November 3, 2016.
Suncor Energy Inc. 16.93
MEADOW CREEK WEST PROJECT VOLUME 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Potential Effects on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use September 2017
Teck (Teck Resources Limited). 2012b. Teck Resources Limited (Teck) Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project (Frontier) Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (SEIA) Review. Accessed April 2017 from: https://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/documents/p65505/81570E.pdf
TEFNA (Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta). n.d. List of Nations. Retrieved January 2017 from: http://treaty8.ca/list-of-nations/
TERA (TERA, a CH2M Hill Company). 2015. Appendix 10: Aboriginal Field Study Participation and Traditional Land Use Report for the Proposed Nova Gas Transmission Ltd. 2017 NGTL System Expansion. Accessed January 2017 from: https://docs.neb-one.gc.ca/ll- eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90550/554112/2671288/2758964/2786592/2748828/B3- 48_ESA_Appendix_10_TEK_TLU_TDR_Part1of1_- _A4K2W1.pdf?nodeid=2758523&vernum=-2
16.94 Suncor Energy Inc.
APPENDIX 16A TRADITIONAL LAND USE AND OCCUPANCY TABLE FORT MCMURRAY NO. 468 FIRST NATION
Suncor Energy Inc.
Suncor Meadow Creek West Project
Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Table
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation
January 2017
Prepared for: Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Fort McMurray, Alberta
Prepared by: CRE-Stantec Consulting Ltd. Calgary, Alberta
Meadow Creek West Project Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation
FORT MCMURRAY NO. 468 FIRST NATION TLUO INFORMATION AND MITIGATION TABLE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Suncor Energy Inc. (Suncor) is proposing to develop the Meadow Creek West Project (the Project) within portions of Townships 84 and 85, Ranges 9, 10, 11 and 12, W4M, located about 33 km west of the town of Anzac and about 38 km south of the city of Fort McMurray. The Project is owned by Suncor (75% operating interest) and Nexen Energy ULC (25%). The Project will use in situ technologies for extraction of bitumen from the McMurray formation, known as Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) (Suncor 2016).
The Project is expected to produce 40,000 barrels of bitumen per day (bpd) from one central processing facility (CPF) for 25 to 40 years. Project components will include steam generation including natural gas-fired cogeneration, water treatment and recycling, bitumen treatment, multi-well production pads, steam delivery pipelines, product recovery pipelines, local access roads, and borrow pits. The Project will be accessed from Highway 63. Pending regulatory approval, Suncor is planning to construct the project in a single phase beginning in 2022 with first oil in 2025 (Suncor 2016).
TLUO INFORMATION SOURCE:
Two group mapping sessions and eight individual interviews were conducted with the participants regarding the Project on November 29, 2016 and November 30, 2016. The purpose of the mapping sessions and interviews was to collect Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation’s Traditional Land Use and Occupancy information in relation to the Project, regarding:
• Cultural and historical background information • Locations of harvesting sites and areas (including, but not limited to, hunting, trapping, fishing, plant gathering) • Locations of sites and areas of importance to the Aboriginal group • Species or resources harvested • Timing or seasons for harvesting • Changes in the territory that have affected traditional land and resource use within the last 25 years (or more) • Description of traditional territory or lands • Potential effects the Project may have on traditional sites and areas and the practices associated with those sites and areas • Recommendations for mitigating those effects
TLUO INFORMATION CATEGORIZATION:
The TLUO information provided by Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation (FM468FN) has been organized under the following categories:
• hunting areas or opportunities • fishing areas or opportunities • trapping areas or opportunities • plant harvesting areas or opportunities • trails and travelways, or their use (including navigation) • habitation sites or their use • cultural or spiritual practices or sites
Other categories (e.g., accidents and malfunctions, cumulative effects) that may affect TLUO are also included, based on information provided by Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation.
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation January 2017 1
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Meadow Creek West Project
DISTANCE FROM MEADOW CREEK WEST LEASE BOUNDARY:
Distances provided in this column are based on information from GIS metrics. The intent of this column is to identify the distance of the TLUO sites or areas from the Project area boundary. In the case where specific locations were identified by Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation members at the mapping sessions or interviews, distances from the marked locations are provided.
PROPOSED EIA SECTION (AS PER THE MEADOW CREEK WEST TERMS OF REFERENCE):
Information included in the Proposed EIA Section column has been extracted from the Terms of Reference (ToR) issued for the Project, made available through the public advertisement period. The ToR provides guidance on the scope of the EIA with consideration of all applicable provincial and federal legislation, codes of practice, guidelines, standards, policies and directives. The traditional land and resource use information collected during discussions with the Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation has been correlated with the guidance in the ToR.
TLUO Information– Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation
Distance from Meadow Creek Proposed EIA Section (as per the Meadow Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Mitigation Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Information West Lease Boundary Creek West Terms of Reference) Recommendations & Requests
Wild foods were once the traditional diet for FM468FN. FM468FN members recalled living off the land growing up, • Impact Assessment for Vegetation eating wild food. FM468FN members reported that community members continue to carry out traditional practices • Impact Assessment for Wildlife and Wildlife including drying and smoking meat and fish, collecting traditional medicines, and living off the land. Habitat • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Land Use
The seasonal round of movement, and geographic placenames were discussed by FM468FN, including the House • Anzac: 24 km • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological River (Seasonal Round 2) and House River Indian Cemetery (Seasonal Round 1). Knowledge and Land Use • Cheecham Lake: 37 km FM468FN explained that before the 1950s, there were a lot of intermarriages which meant that families would travel • House River: following a seasonal route from Anzac (in the winter months), Kinosis, and to Cheecham Lake and then follow the 42 km
railroad tracks to other places, stopping a lot of places around Willow Lake and along the tracks and around to • House River Indian Cemetery: congregate or rest, including Mile 224. (Seasonal Round 3) 48 km • Janvier 194: 57 km • Kinosis Lake: 24 km Hunting Areas or Opportunities
FM468FN identified hunting and eating wild game as an important traditional activity that is still practiced today. • Anzac: 24 km • Access Control Measures FM468FN recommends that waterbodies within the vicinity of the Project are preserved, as not to drive Animals commonly hunted by FM468FN include but are not limited to, bear, beaver, caribou, chicken (grouse), • Christina River: Hunting Area • Impact Assessment for Wildlife and Wildlife away the plants and animals that live in and use them. deer, waterfowl, elk, lynx, moose, muskrat, rabbit, squirrel. mapped 16 km away from Habitat
FM468FN noted not currently hunting caribou due to their endangered status. Project Area • Impact Assessment for Land Use and FM468FN members reported that hunting occurs year-round, at many locations throughout the region (Hunting Area • Clearwater 175: Hunting Area Management 9). Past and current hunting locations include, but are not limited to: mapped 32 km away from • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological Project Area • Anzac area Knowledge and Land Use • Conklin: 79 km • Along the Athabasca River • Cottonwood Creek: 27 km • Christina River (Hunting Area 21) • Gipsy Lake: Hunting Area • Clearwater 175 (Hunting Area 20) mapped 39 km away from • Conklin Project Area • Cottonwood Creek • Lac La Biche: 175 km • Gipsy Lake (Hunting Area 16) • Hangingstone River: Hunting Area mapped within Project • Hangingstone River and in the Hangingstone area (Hunting Area 17) area • Horse River • Horse River: 10 km • Between the JACOS plant and Gregoire Lake 176 and 176A reserves
2 January 2017 Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation
Meadow Creek West Project Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation
Distance from Meadow Creek Proposed EIA Section (as per the Meadow Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Mitigation Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Information West Lease Boundary Creek West Terms of Reference) Recommendations & Requests • Janvier area • Between the JACOS plant and Gregoire Lake 176 and 176A • Kinosis area reserves: Within Project area • Lac La Biche • Janvier: 57 km • Between Lac La Biche and Highway 881 • Kinosis: 24 km • Maqua Lake, in the vicinity of Stony Mountain • Maqua Camp: 8 km • Along the railroad line near Mile 253 (Hunting Area 8) • Surmont Creek: Hunting Area • Surmont Creek (Hunting Area 6) mapped 6 km away from • Willow Flats (Hunting Area 12) Project Area • • Wandering River Mile 253 (along the railroad line): Hunting Area mapped In the past, FM468FN members would leave for weeks at a time to hunt, travelling on horseback. 25 km away from Project Area A FM468FN recounted hunting for ducks in the springtime after the ice broke while fishing with family. • Willow Flats: Hunting Area mapped within Project Area • Wandering River: 99 km
The muskeg within the Project area is prime moose habitat, and was identified by FM468FN as a traditional hunting • Cheecham: 34 km • Conceptual Conservation and Reclamation Plan FM468FN requests that an area of land is designated location. Due to the lichen growing in the muskeg, the Project area used to be woodland caribou habitat; however, by the Government of Alberta exclusively for • Fort McMurray: 22 km • Impact Assessment for Wildlife and Wildlife FM468FN reported that due to a combination of overhunting and land clearing the caribou population has drastically Aboriginal use, where FM468FN can practice TLUO Habitat declined. FM468FN elaborated that the caribou have been killed off due to a combination of oil development, • Gregoire Lake 176 Reserve: activities including camping, hunting fishing and berry deforestation, and wolves; explaining that wolves are using access roads to easily gain access to caribou habitat, 14 km • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological collecting; traditional users would care for the land.. where, due to the clearing of the vegetative cover used as protection, the caribou are easily spotted by the wolf. • Gregoire Lake 176A Reserve: Knowledge and Land Use FM468FN recommends a moratorium on hunting for (Hunting Area 1, Hunting Area 10, Migration Route 1, Migration Route 2) The Hangingstone area near Highway 63 16 km non-Aboriginal (recreational) hunters in the region and Highway 881 was noted as a high traditional use area in the past, with FM468FN members hunting off roads between the Gregoire Lake 176 and 176A reserves • Hangingstone River: Within and cutlines. FM468FN reported that the Hangingstone area is comprised of prime moose habitat; however and Janvier, to allow wildlife populations— especially Project area FM468FN have observed a large decrease in the moose population in the area. moose— a chance to recover. • Highway 63: Within Project FM468FN indicated that the development of Highway 63 in 1964 provided greater access to hunting areas for FM468FN requests involvement in the pre- Area FM468FN community members, compared to before, where travelling along the railway was the only way to gain development field surveys for the Project to determine access to the area to hunt. (Hunting Area 18, Hunting Area 19, Hunting Area 22) • Highway 881: 14 km baseline conditions, and to gain a better FM468FN members continue to hunt moose, although report it takes more effort to get a moose today than in the • Wandering River: 99 km understanding of effects to the land and the past. FM468FN stated it was possible to get one moose per day within a day’s travel from home; however today community’s ability to carry out traditional practices in members are traveling further to find undisturbed areas to hunt. traditional locations FM468FN noted that in the past there was an abundant moose population in areas including along Highway 63 and FM468FN recommends that pre-development surveys Highway 881, near Cheecham and heading west along the road (Travel Route 4), and along creeks. One FM468FN are completed seasonally throughout the year to member described observing a group of five moose in approximately 2005 to 2008 while hunting in a gravel pit ensure an accurate account of all seasonal activity south of the Project area. (Hunting Area 13, Hunting Area 14, Hunting Area 15) FM468FN recommends that aerial and ground FM468FN stated that the moose population is not sufficient to provide for the number of hunters in the area, surveys completed to tally the remaining caribou specifically those hunters who are required to purchase a license – non-Aboriginal recreational and trophy hunters. population, including caribou tracking. FM468FN reported that, in the past, there was also an abundance of deer in the bush around Fort McMurray, FM468FN recommends that Suncor invest in however their population has diminished and they are not hunted as often in that area anymore. strategies to protect and restore caribou populations, 2 FM468FN stated that if the Project increases disruption in the area from construction and operation activities, it e.g., designating an area (100 km ) exclusively for would drive away the wildlife and force FM468FN members to travel further to hunt. One FM468FN member regeneration of the caribou population, fenced off reported having to travel south three hours to find areas to hunt moose near Wandering River, due to the low from predators including wolf and bear. FM468FN moose population closer to the Gregoire Lake 176 and 176A reserves. requests related employment opportunities are offered to FM468FN including building the fence and FM468FN voiced concerns that the Project would greatly decrease hunting in what is now a prime hunting area, monitoring of the area. and expressed concern that the construction and operation of the Project would result in the inability to hunt within or near to the Project area. FM468FN recommends the Project is built so that animals can move around freely. FM468FN requests information regarding how the Project will affect the movement and migration of small and large animals across the Project area.
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation January 2017 3
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Meadow Creek West Project
Distance from Meadow Creek Proposed EIA Section (as per the Meadow Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Mitigation Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Information West Lease Boundary Creek West Terms of Reference) Recommendations & Requests
Some participants indicated eating wild food almost daily while other participants commented on eating a variety of • Impact Assessment for Wildlife and Wildlife FM468FN requests that an area of land is designated wild game as part of the weekly diet, including moose, beaver, deer, and muskrat (G. Donovan, B. Cree, A. Cree, H. Habitat by the Government of Alberta exclusively for Cockerill). Some FM468FN members cannot afford to buy food from the local grocery store and therefore rely on Aboriginal use, where FM468FN can practice TLUO • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological the land to provide food, including chickens (grouse), ducks and rabbits. activities including camping, hunting fishing and berry Knowledge and Land Use Wild meat was a main staple in the traditional FM468FN diet. FM468FN recalled certain delicacies such as squirrel, collecting; traditional users would care for the land. duck, moose, bear, muskrat and beaver tail. FM468FN recommends a moratorium on hunting for FM468FN recounted having learned to hunt at an early age as a necessary means of sustenance. non-Aboriginal (recreational) hunters in the region between the Gregoire Lake 176 and 176A reserves Individual families had preferences for the types of wild meat eaten, including some frequently eating bear or lynx and Janvier, to allow wildlife populations— especially meat, which in, in general, were not commonly consumed species by FM468FN members. moose— a chance to recover. FM468FN members, both in the past and currently, smoke and dry meat in teepees in the summer, with one FM468FN member explaining that it takes about three days for the meat to dry. Species harvested for smoked meat include moose, elk, and buffalo. Changes in wildlife populations have resulted in changes to the diets of FM468FN members; with FM468FN noting wild meat consumption has gone down drastically amongst community members. A FM468FN member indicated that, in the past, there was an abundance of animals to harvest and provide sustenance to people; however, presently there are not enough animals for someone to sustain themselves entirely on a wild food diet.
FM468FN explained that in addition to hunting for meat, members would also process animal hides, including • Surmont Creek: Hunting Area • Impact Assessment for Wildlife and Wildlife moose, bear, and beaver, and would combine lard from wild meat with flour and baking powder to make bannock. mapped 6 km away from Habitat
FM468FN identified a caribou prepping area around the Surmont Creek area where, in the past, FM468FN Project Area • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological members would dry meat and process hides (Prepping Area 1, Migration Route 2, Spiritual Area 1) Knowledge and Land Use
FM468FN reported that the Project area has been used for hunting, both historically and currently (Hunting Area 9, • Access Control Measures FM468FN requests that an area of land is designated Hunting Area 23); however FM468FN noted an overcrowding of hunters within and to the south of the Project area by the Government of Alberta exclusively for • Impact Assessment for Wildlife and Wildlife (Hunting Area 2), attributing this to the area being abundant moose habitat. Some FM468FN members no longer Aboriginal use; where FM468FN can practice TLUO Habitat hunt in the Project area because there are too many other hunters within that area. activities including camping, hunting fishing and berry
FM468FN stated that it is difficult to find areas without human activity, due to the combination of recreational collecting. hunters, ATVs, and campers. FM468FN recommends a moratorium on hunting for One FM468FN member recalled hunting for three to four weeks within the Project area without finding any animals, non-Aboriginal (recreational) hunters in the region consequently moving further south in an effort to find animals to hunt. between the Gregoire Lake 176 and 176A reserves and Janvier, to allow wildlife populations— especially moose— a chance to recover.
• Gregoire Lake 176 Reserve: • Impact Assessment for Wildlife and Wildlife FM468FN requests involvement in Project monitoring, One FM468FN member reported hunting from areas south of the Gregoire Lake 176 and 176A reserves and Anzac 14 km Habitat in order to provide input on the actions required to area, and consuming this food almost daily. The FM468FN member indicated not having concerns with eating food minimize any destructive activity of the Project. from this area and that it remains pollution-free. (Hunting Area 11) • Gregoire Lake 176A Reserve: 16 km However, the FM468FN member voiced concerns with animals from the area north of the Gregoire Lake 176 and 176A reserves, refusing to eat them due to their close proximity to development and contaminants.
Changes in animal health have been observed by FM468FN within the past five years, with some members having observed cysts on moose livers and diseased deer.
Fishing Areas or Opportunities
FM468FN identified fishing and eating wild fish as an important traditional activity that is still practiced today. • Athabasca River: 21 km • Access Control Measures FM468FN recommends monitoring the effects of the project on long-term water quality, and requests FM468FN reported that, in the past, the fish were fresh and abundant. • Calling Lake: 149 km • Impact Assessment for Fisheries FM468FN member involvement in the monitoring. FM468FN stated that 20 years ago 150 to175 fish could be caught in a net at one time, whereas “now you could set • Cheecham: Fishing Area • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological a net and you’d be lucky if you get 17”. FM468FN requests involvement in the pre- mapped 35 km away from Knowledge and Land Use development field surveys for the Project to determine
FM468FN members reported fishing year-round at various locations, including: Project Area baseline conditions, and to gain a better • Athabasca River • Cheecham Lake: Fishing Area understanding of effects to the land and the mapped 37 km away from community’s ability to carry out traditional practices in • Calling Lake Project Area traditional locations. • Cheecham (Fishing Area 2) and Cheecham Lake (Fishing Area 9)
4 January 2017 Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation
Meadow Creek West Project Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation
Distance from Meadow Creek Proposed EIA Section (as per the Meadow Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Mitigation Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Information West Lease Boundary Creek West Terms of Reference) Recommendations & Requests • Christina Lake • Christina Lake: 45 km • Clearwater River • Clearwater River: 31 km • Cowper Lake (Fishing Area 5) • Cowper Lake: Fishing Area • Grand Rapids area (Fishing Area 1) mapped 67 km away from Project Area • Hangingstone River (Fishing Area 6, Fishing Area 10, Fishing Area 11) • Grand Rapids Area: 31 km • Lac La Biche • Gregoire Lake (assumed to be • Kinosis Lake (Fishing Area 3) Willow Lake) • Milton’s Lake • Hangingstone River: Within • Willow Lake (Fishing Area 4, Fishing Area 7, Fishing Area 8) Project area • • Winefred Lake Lac La Biche: 175 km Of these, Winefred Lake is said by some community members to have the best fish. • Kinosis Lake: 24 km Fish species harvested by FM468FN include, but are not limited to, grayling, jackfish, pickerel, and suckers. Inland • Milton’s Lake: 15 km lakes surrounded by jackpine forests around the Hangingstone River have clear, healthy water and an abundance • Willow Lake: Fishing Area of healthy fish populations, with many people still fishing in that area, including jackfish and pickerel. FM468FN mapped as close as 10 km reported that in the past there were healthy waterbodies everywhere in the bush. away from Project Area FM468FN stated that Willow Lake is supposed to be inland lake; however it is no longer a healthy lake. Some FM468FN members would use nets to catch fish. In the past, some FM468FN members would catch fish in the summer months by setting out nets once the fish had spawned, particularly in Willow Lake, Clearwater and Milton’s Lake. Rabbit snare wire was also used to catch fish; by tying the hooks to a stick, and fishing from a canoe, “We would use whatever needed to get the job done”. FM468FN members recalled fishing in the creek by snaring or shooting into the creek in the 1970s, but these fish were not used for sustenance. In the summertime, teepees were made to hang and smoke the fish. Typically, it took three days for the fish to dry. Some FM468FN members still harvest and smoke fish.
Some participants indicated eating wild food almost daily, while other participants commented on eating a variety of • Gregoire Lake 176 Reserve: • Impact Assessment for Surface Water Quality FM468FN requests that an area of land is designated fish as part of the weekly diet. by the Government of Alberta exclusively for 14 km • Impact Assessment for Fisheries Aboriginal use, where FM468FN can practice TLUO Declines in fish populations and size of fish were reported by FM468FN, with FM468FN attributing this to • Gregoire Lake 176A Reserve: • Impact Assessment for Public Health activities including camping, hunting fishing and berry overfishing. 16 km collecting; traditional users would care for the land. Changes in fish health have been observed by some FM468FN members, including sores on fish. Some FM468FN • Willow Lake: Fishing Area members do not consume fish from certain waterbodies due to concern with contamination and/or due to low water FM468FN requests involvement in Project monitoring, mapped as close as 10 km including monitoring the effects of the Project on long- levels, including, but not limited to: the Hangingstone River, Willow Lake, and Winefred Lake. away from Project Area term water quality, and requests FM468FN member Some people will not eat fish from Winefred Lake, but others are not concerned about eating fish from this lake. In • Winefred Lake: 99 km involvement in the monitoring. the past, some FM468FN members would fish in Winefred Lake and did not observe anything wrong with the health of the fish. FM468FN requests involvement in Project monitoring, in order to provide input on the actions required to Some FM468FN members indicated that they will not eat fish from Willow Lake, stating that the lake is low and the minimize any destructive activity of the Project. fish that come from it are very soft. It is recommended not to eat more than one fish a month from the lake. FM468FN requests information regarding water well One FM468FN member reported fishing in from areas south of the Gregoire Lake 176 and 176A reserves and abandonment, including the potential for displacement Anzac area, including Winefred Lake and Calling Lake. The FM468FN member indicated not having concerns with of the groundwater. eating food from this area and that it remains pollution-free, stating “I’ve never seen any fish that were deformed, bad livers, or any problems inside with a fish”. However, the FM468FN member voiced concerns with fish from the area north of the Gregoire Lake 176 and 176A reserves, refusing to eat them due to their close proximity to development and contaminants.
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation January 2017 5
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Meadow Creek West Project
Distance from Meadow Creek Proposed EIA Section (as per the Meadow Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Mitigation Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Information West Lease Boundary Creek West Terms of Reference) Recommendations & Requests Trapping Areas or Opportunities
FM468FN recounted having learned to trap at an early age, taught by parents, or observing and assisting in • Impact Assessment for Wildlife and Wildlife trapping activities. Habitat • Impact Assessment for Land Use and Management • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Land Use
FM468FN identified trapping as an important traditional activity and is currently practiced. • Birch Lake: 60 km • Access Control Measures FM468FN recommends the Project is built so that animals can move around freely. Species trapped and snared by FM468FN include, but are not limited to, beaver, fisher, fox, lynx, mink muskrat, • Christina Lake: Trapping Area • Impact Assessment for Wildlife and Wildlife otter, rabbit, squirrel, weasel, wolverine, and wolf. mapped 44 km away from Habitat FM468FN requests information regarding how the Project will affect the movement and migration of Both in the past and currently, FM468FN traplines were established and trapping activities were practiced locally Project Area • Impact Assessment for Land Use and small and large animals across the Project area. and within the vicinity of the Project area. (Trapping Area 3) • Christina River: Trapping Area Management FM468FN requests involvement in the pre- Locations used by FM468FN as traplines and trapping areas include: mapped 14 km away from • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological Project Area development field surveys for the Project to determine • Birch Lake Knowledge and Land Use baseline conditions, and to gain a better • Clearwater 175 area: Trapping • Christina Lake (Trapping Area 5) understanding of effects to the land and the Area mapped 35 km away community’s ability to carry out traditional practices in • Christina River (Trapping Area 4) from Project Area traditional locations. • Clearwater 175 area (Trapping Area 2) • Corner of Gregoire Lake 176 FM468FN requests involvement in Project monitoring, and 176A Reserve to Highway • Corner of Gregoire Lake 176 and 176A Reserve to Highway 881 in order to provide input on the actions required to 881: 14 km minimize any destructive activity of the Project. • Hangingstone Area (Trapping Area 8); including along the Hangingstone River and where Hangingstone • Hangingstone River and where River crosses Highway 63 Hangingstone River crosses • Gregoire Park (Trapping Area 6) Highway 63: 4 km • Saprae Creek (Trapping Area 7) • Gregoire Park: Trapping Area • Stony Mountain Area mapped 15 km away from Project Area • Along Thickwood Road (now called Tower Road) • Saprae Creek: Trapping Area • Willow Lake mapped 30 km away from FM468FN reported setting rabbit snares in the muskeg located within the Project area. Project Area One FM468FN spoke of a family trapline at Gregoire Park, stating that the development of a nearby road caused • Stony Mountain Wildland: disruption to the trapline and resulting in the trapline being sold, and purchasing a different trapline along the 10 km Hangingstone River. • Tower Road: 37 km Trapping often takes place in the winter. Traplines were accessed using snowshoes, dog teams, horses, and • Willow Lake: 16 km snowmobiles. FM468FN explained that, in the past, people would not pack supplies when spending time in the bush, being that people were able to live off the land; however, now supplies are generally packed into the area, including wood and water, but sometimes water is made from snowmelt. Traditionally, a trapline will stay within a family and be passed down through the male lineage. The trapline can be passed on to a woman in the family on occasion. FM468FN reported the 2016 wildfire in the Fort McMurray area resulted in the loss of trapper’s cabins and tools on traplines. FM468FN expressed concerns that the Project would affect trapping south of the Project area in what is known as a prime traditional trapping area.
6 January 2017 Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation
Meadow Creek West Project Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation
Distance from Meadow Creek Proposed EIA Section (as per the Meadow Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Mitigation Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Information West Lease Boundary Creek West Terms of Reference) Recommendations & Requests
Trapping resources were utilized by FM468FN members as sustenance and a source of revenue; however trapping • Access Control Measures no longer provides the livelihood it did in the past, with members indicating that the economic viability of trapping • Impact Assessment for Wildlife and Wildlife has almost completely declined. A FM468FN member recounted trapping weasels and squirrels on the way to Habitat school, and selling the pelts for 10 cents each. • Impact Assessment for Land Use and In the past, FM468FN members would leave for weeks at a time to attend to traplines, harvesting wild meat and hides to sell to provide income to the family, in order to purchase store-bought goods. FM468FN explained that any Management species found in a trap would be skinned and brought home. • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Land Use Plant Harvesting Areas or Opportunities
FM468FN identified plant gathering as an important traditional activity that continues to be practiced. • Cheecham: 34 km • Access Control Measures FM468FN recommends that following the life of the Project, Suncor reclaims the Project area and replants FM468FN harvest plants for food, as well as medicinal, ceremonial, and utility purposes. • Cottonwood Creek: 27 km • Conceptual Conservation and Reclamation Plan trees cleared for the purposes of the Project, including FM468FN members reported gathering plants at various locations, including: • Gregoire Lake 176 and 176A • Impact Assessment for Vegetation poplar and diamond willow. Reserves area: • Cheecham area (Plant Gathering Area 1) and Cheecham Lake (Plant Gathering Area 7) Plant • Impact Assessment for Land Use and FM468FN recommends the Project area be reclaimed Gathering Area mapped 7 km Management to its natural state and no area is left bare.FM468FN • Cottonwood Creek away from Project Area requested further information on the amount of land • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological • Gregoire Lake 176 and 176A Reserves area (Plant Gathering Area 3) • Hangingstone River: Within cleared to construct each well pad. Knowledge and Land Use • Hangingstone area (Plant Gathering Area 8), including along the Hangingstone River (Plant Gathering Project Area
Area 6; Plant Gathering Area 12, Plant Gathering Area 13, Plant Gathering Area14) • Hay Lake: Plant Gathering • Hay Lake (Plant Gathering Area 15) Area mapped 65 km away from Project Area • Horse River • Horse River: 10 km • Kettle River (Plant Gathering Area 4) • Kettle River: Plant Gathering • Kinosis Area mapped 41 km away • Kinosis Lake (Plant Gathering Area 2) from Project Area • Mile 224, near Quigley • Kinosis: 28 km • Stony Mountain • Kinosis Lake: Plant Gathering Plants commonly harvested by FM468FN include, but are not limited to berries (blueberries, highbush cranberries, Area mapped 20 km away lowbush cranberries, mooseberries, saskatoons, strawberries), Labrador tea, wild mint and peppermint, wild onions, from Project Area diamond willow, rosehips, fiddleheads, bluebells, spruce, jackpine, balsam and poplar trees, and willow bark. • Mile 224: 45 km • Stony Mountain Wildland: Medicinal uses for plants reported by FM468FN include, but are not limited to: relief from stomach aches; ointment 10 km for eczema, sores, scabs, bites, and burns; cough suppressant; cold and flu medication; cancer treatment; coagulants; and vitamins. Medicinal plants are often processed by boiling down or making tea from the roots.
FM468FN noted that spruce and jackpine gum are used to whiten teeth; birch bark is used to carry supplies, and moss is used as diapers, women’s products, hair brush, dish scrubber, fire starter, and cold food storage.
FM468FN explained the value of the diamond willow tree, stating the wood is extremely durable wood, and can be used to create a variety of materials and tools, and the diamond willow fungus is highly valued as a ceremonial material, used for smudging.
Birch and aspen water is consumed by FM468FN by puncturing a small hole into the birch tree trunk and placing a bucket to collect the water; or as a snack, scraping the bark off the tree and eating it as a dessert.
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation January 2017 7
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Meadow Creek West Project
Distance from Meadow Creek Proposed EIA Section (as per the Meadow Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Mitigation Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Information West Lease Boundary Creek West Terms of Reference) Recommendations & Requests
FM468FN members recounted having learned to gather plants at an early age, taught by parents, or observing and • Access Control Measures assisting in plant gathering activities. • Impact Assessment for Vegetation FM468FN members are knowledgeable about a wide range of plants and medicines from spending extensive time • Impact Assessment for Land Use and in the bush; however, some FM468FN members are not familiar with specific names of plants, being that family members did not always elaborate on the names and specific properties of the plants, as some plants could Management potentially cause harm without the proper knowledge of how to use them. • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological Some FM468FN members are currently learning to identify medicinal plants and their specific properties. Knowledge and Land Use
FM468FN stated that plant harvesting has diminished because berries and plants are less abundant. As a result, it • Cheecham: 34 km • Access Control Measures FM468FN requests that an area of land is designated is becoming difficult to find berries to harvest and that members must travel farther away to find them. FM468FN by the Government of Alberta exclusively for • Hangingstone Area: Within • Impact Assessment for Vegetation members have to travel as far as Lac La Biche to harvest berries. Aboriginal use, where FM468FN can practice TLUO
Project Area • Impact Assessment for Land Use and In the past, FM468FN members would gather berries near Highway 63 but cannot find any berries to harvest there activities including camping, hunting fishing and berry • Highway 63: anymore. Similarly, FM468FN would harvest berries near Cheecham, but there are no longer enough in the area to Within Project Management collecting; traditional users would care for the land. make it worthwhile. Area • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological FM468FN requests involvement in the pre- • FM468FN recounted a time when there was an abundant supply of healthy blueberries. They are now very hard to Lac La Biche: 175 km Knowledge and Land Use development field surveys for the Project to determine baseline conditions, and to gain a better find and the reduction in blueberries for harvest has affected the FM468FN way of living. • Mile 224: 45 km understanding of effects to the land and the A FM468FN member stated that cranberries are scarce. community’s ability to carry out traditional practices in In the past, FM468FN gathered berries in the Hangingstone area; however, the prime berry patches within that area traditional locations. are gone due to the expansion of Highway 63. FM468FN requests involvement in Project monitoring, FM468FN explained that, in the past, there were good berry picking areas along Mile 224, near Quigley and in order to provide input on the actions required to confirmed that there are mooseberries and raspberries on the roads up to Stony Mountain. minimize any destructive activity of the Project. FM468FN identified a popular camping location, located within the top northeast corner of the Project area and extending outside of the lease upward to the northeast area; FM468FN explained that in the past the area had an abundance of berries, however, due to the expansion of Highway 63 and the gravel pit in the Hangingstone area all the primary berry patches are gone. (Plant Gathering Area 9 [Camp 10, Hunting Area 5, Trapping Area 3]) Medicinal plants were once frequently gathered in the Fort McMurray area and plants used to be plentiful in the bush around Fort McMurray, but residential housing developments have replaced much of the bush around Fort McMurray. Some FM468FN have noticed a light coating on the blueberries they pick for harvesting and are hesitant to eat them.
FM468FN expressed concern that the Project area is dominated by a boreal forest and muskeg that has an • Access Control Measures FM468FN recommends that following the life of the abundance of berry patches throughout the lease, including patches of blueberries, highbush and lowbush Project, Suncor reclaims the Project area and replants • Conceptual Conservation and Reclamation Plan cranberries, and saskatoons. (Plant Gathering Area 5, Plant Gathering Area 9, Plant Gathering Area 10, Plant trees knocked cleared for the purposes of the Project, Gathering Area 11). FM468FN voiced concerns that the Project would greatly diminish or remove prime plant • Impact Assessment for Vegetation including poplar and diamond willow. gathering areas. • Impact Assessment for Land Use and FM468FN recommends the Project area be reclaimed Furthermore, FM468FN noted that a portion of the Project area contains large spruce and poplar trees, noting that Management to its natural state and no area is left bare. medicinal plants that people use is “on every tree around here”. • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological FM468FN requested further information on the FM468FN identified diamond willow fungus habitat within the Project area, particularly along the shores of creeks Knowledge and Land Use amount of land cleared to construct each well pad. and low lying areas where creeks run across the roads. FM468FN noted that diamond willow fungus is also found in wet areas such as along creek bed shores, and low-lying areas where the creeks run across the roads.
Plant gathering resources were utilized by FM468FN members as a source of revenue. A FM468FN member • Janvier 194: 57 km • Access Control Measures recounted gathering blueberries then cranberries around Janvier and sell boxes of berries along Mile 224 (known as • Mile 224: 45 km • Impact Assessment for Vegetation Quigley in the past). • Impact Assessment for Land Use and Management • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Land Use • Impact Assessment for Socio-Economics
8 January 2017 Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation
Meadow Creek West Project Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation
Distance from Meadow Creek Proposed EIA Section (as per the Meadow Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Mitigation Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Information West Lease Boundary Creek West Terms of Reference) Recommendations & Requests Trails and Travelways, or their Use (Including Navigation)
FM468FN described accessing TLUO areas in the past; stating that trails were made by people gaining access to FM468FN members travelled to: • Access Control Measures FM468FN requests that an area of land is designated an area. FM468FN also indicated that waterways provided a vital means of travel. by the Government of Alberta exclusively for • Within Hangingstone region: • Impact Assessment for Land Use and Members traveled all over in the bush and visited many traditional use areas. Some FM468FN members travelled Aboriginal use, where FM468FN can practice TLUO • Mile 224: 45 km Management alone, others with a harvesting partner or with family. FM468FN identified the Hangingstone region as a primary activities including camping, hunting fishing and berry • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological travel route, with members travelling throughout the region along the river to harvest wildlife, fish, and plants, • Kinosis (Mile 253): 29 km collecting; traditional users would care for the land. Knowledge and Land Use including berries and medicines. (Travel Route 1, Travel Route 2, Travel Route 3, Travel Route 7) • Cheecham: 34 km FM468FN explained that, in the past, there was a trail and a little village encampment at Horse River. (Travel Route • Chard: 62 km 5) • Clearwater River: Travel Route FM468FN identified a traditional travel route on the Clearwater River. (Travel Route 6) mapped 32 km away from Mile 224, Mile 253 (now called Kinosis), Cheecham, Chard and Chipewyan Prairie (now called Janvier) were among Project Area the many locations visited (R. Cheecham) FM468FN also reported that some members would travel to House River • Janvier (Chipewyan Prairie): to camp. 57 km In the past, FM468FN used the railway as a primary mode of transport, especially when travelling great distances, • including from: Horse River: Travel Route mapped 11 km away from • Anzac to Cheecham Project Area • Janvier to Anzac • House River: 42 km FM468FN identified a travel route, starting at Cheecham and going to Carson Lake, SK, that is now a winter road. • Winefred Lake: 99 km FM468FN would travel on foot along trails from Anzac to Mile 253 (now called Kinosis). FM468FN members would • Hangingstone River: Within also travel by horse and wagon, and sometimes by horseback when going hunting in the Chard area, where the Project Area train stopped. • Area travelled by truck to One FM468FN member recounted travelling via dog sled to visit family members in Saskatchewan. access area to hunt via FM468FN members would also travel on foot to many different locations to harvest, including Winefred Lake and Highway 63, Highway 881, areas beyond the Hangingstone River. existing roads to forestry areas FM468FN members reported travelling by truck to access hunting areas, including via Highway 63 (Travel Route 8), and gravel pits (Travel Route 4): Highway 881, as well as roads to forestry areas and gravel pits. Within Project Area
FM468FN described changes in TLUO related to access, stating that in the past members could travel all over, and • Maqua Camp: 10 km • Access Control Measures now there are several access restrictions blocking trails, travelways and harvesting areas. For example, Maqua • Maqua Lake: 8 km • Impact Assessment for Land Use and Lake is blocked off and members are no longer able to access the area. • Nexen Plant1 : Management Similarly, there is a large fence blocking portions of the Hangingstone River due to the Nexen lease that is blocking 27 km • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological an area where FM468FN members would often congregate in the past. (Gathering Area 1) • Hangingstone River: Within Knowledge and Land Use Project Area
FM4668FN indicated that the number of access roads in the region has increased, as well as the ability to travel • Access Control Measures FM468FN recommends a moratorium on hunting for through the traditional territory with a vehicle year round. This has led to an increase of recreational hunters and non-Aboriginal (recreational) hunters in the region • Impact Assessment for Land Use and harvesters in traditional use areas. between the Gregoire Lake 176 and 176A reserves Management and Janvier, to allow wildlife populations— especially • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological moose— a chance to recover. Knowledge and Land Use
1 “Nexen Plant” is assumed to be the Nexen owned Long Lake oilsands area southeast of Anzac, Alberta.
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation January 2017 9
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Meadow Creek West Project
Distance from Meadow Creek Proposed EIA Section (as per the Meadow Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Mitigation Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Information West Lease Boundary Creek West Terms of Reference) Recommendations & Requests Habitation Sites or their Use
Cabins and camping areas are used when practicing traditional activities. (Camp 1, Camp 2, Camp 5, Camp 8,). FM468FN member’s cabin • Access Control Measures FM468FN requests that an area of land is designated Cabins were often built on FM468FN member’s traplines (Camp 3, Camp 17) locations: by the Government of Alberta exclusively for • Impact Assessment for Vegetation Aboriginal use; where FM468FN can practice TLUO FM468FN members reported cabins located at various sites, including: • Algar River: Cabin site • Impact Assessment for Land Use and activities including camping, hunting fishing and berry mapped 32 km from Project • Algar River (Camp 12) Management collecting; traditional users would care for the land. Area • Athabasca River at Little Cascade Rapids (Camp 11) • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological • Athabasca River at Little Knowledge and Land Use • Near Cheecham Cascade Rapids: Cabin site • Hangingstone River (Camp 6) mapped 19 km from Project Area • Horse Creek, including near the Sand Tiger Campground • • House River Cheecham: 34 km • Kinosis • Hangingstone River along Highway 63: Cabin site • Stony Mountain area mapped 1 km from Project • All around Willow Lake Area Most cabins are still standing and are currently used. • Horse River: 10 km FM468FN members also identified camping areas near House River Indian Cemetery and at Stony Mountain. • Kinosis: 28 km (Camp 7) FM468FN member’s camping FM468FN explained that, in the past, there was small village encampment at Horse River. Horse River was also a areas: camping area used by many FM468FN members. • Anzac: Camp site mapped FM468FN identified a popular camping location, located within the top northeast corner of the Project area and 6 km away from Project Area extending outside of the lease upward to the northeast area, where members would camp along the Hangingstone • Cottonwood Creek: Camping River off Highway 63, and harvest animals and plants from the surrounding area (Camp 9, Camp 10 [Hunting Area site mapped 38 km away from 5, Trapping Area 3, Plant Gathering Area 9]). Project Area Certain camping areas that were frequently used by FM468FN in the past are no longer used; however, some • Hangingstone area: Camping FM468FN members still congregate in these areas; including Maqua Camp, which was used in the past as a site mapped 2 km away from trapping area, until access was blocked off in 1956 when the area was turned into a radar site. FM468FN noted that Project Area Maqua Camp is now a provincial recreation area and managed by Alberta Parks as a day use area. • Horse River: 10 km FN468FN reported that the Cottonwood Creek area was a popular camping location for FM468FN members. (Camp 4, Camp 16, Gathering Area 2). FM468FN also noted Mile 224 as a camping location. (Camp 15) • House River Indian Cemetery area: When preparing for fishing, some FM468FN would set-up camp and live in canvas tents along waterways near Fort Camping site mapped
McMurray. 43 km away from Project Area • In those days, gathering areas were usually in locations where people lived. FM468FN explained that some Maqua Camp at Stony members would also come together with horses or wagons to berry collecting areas. (Camp 13) Mountain: 8 km • Maqua Lake: 8 km • Mile 224: Camping site mapped 41 km away from Project Area
10 January 2017 Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation
Meadow Creek West Project Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation
Distance from Meadow Creek Proposed EIA Section (as per the Meadow Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Mitigation Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Information West Lease Boundary Creek West Terms of Reference) Recommendations & Requests Cultural or Spiritual Practices or Sites
FM468FN reported that community members continue to carry out traditional practices. The Hangingstone area is • Amaco Road: 15 km • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological important to the community and is frequently visited for spiritual purposes. Spiritual gatherings are held at sweat Knowledge and Land Use • Hangingstone area: Within lodges near Indian Beach and on Amaco road. FM468FN also identified a sacred tree located down Highway 881, Project Area and a spiritual area at Surmont Creek (Spiritual Area 1). • Horse River: FM468FN members still practice traditional ways of life out in the bush, such as hanging flags for healing. Cloths 10 km were tied to trees Beach and prayer flags were hung on large trees near Cottonwood Creek camp. • Indian Beach: 16 km Stony Mountain was identified as a spiritual place that Elders would travel to, both in the past and today. FM468FN • Janvier 194: 57 km explained that at the top of Stony Mountain is a large ridge that Elders travel to and hang prayer flags and make • Sacred tree located down offerings. FM468FN reported sweat lodges in the Stony Mountain area. (Spiritual Area 3) Highway 881 (S. Arthurs) FM468FN explained that in the past, when people died while travelling along a trail, a burial was made right there • on the trail. These burials were marked on a tree by writing something in Cree or nailing something to the tree. Cottonwood Creek (S. Arthurs) (Burials 1) • Stony Mountain: Spiritual Area Many people travelled along Amaco Road, and there may be burials along Amaco Road as a result, as well as mapped within Project Area Cheecham and Janvier, Willow Lake and Indian Beach. However, FM468FN members noted that it is unlikely these • Cheecham graveyard burial markers still exist. • Lake St. Anne: 333 km FM468FN indicated that a cemetery is located at Big Horse River near a roadway, primarily due to the 1918 flu • Surmont Creek: epidemic; FM468FN noted there was a grave marker but the location is unknown. Spiritual Area mapped 4 km away from Some FM468FN members also take part in the pilgrimage to Lake St. Anne, near Edmonton, Alberta. Project Area Burials: • Amaco Road: 15 km • Cheecham: Burial mapped 35 km away from Project Area • House River Indian Cemetery: Burial mapped 48 km away from Project Area • Indian Beach: Burial mapped 16 km away from Project Area • Janvier 194: 57 km • Willow Lake: Burial mapped 15 km away from Project Area
Mustasinee Rock (or “the rock”, “big rock”) is an important spiritual and gathering site that was frequently visited by • Sacred Area: Buffered area • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological FM468FN members. Large groups of people (approximately 15), would travel to the sacred rock before the hunting mapped ~1 km away from Knowledge and Land Use season. (Sacred Area) Project Area FM468FN also noted a pilgrimage around Mustasinee Rock used as a passageway to hunting, fishing and berry picking areas (Spiritual Area 2)
FM468FN members use a mixture of mud and water as a topical ointment for bee stings. • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Land Use
FM468FN stated development on the land affects cultural transmission, explaining that members are losing ties to • Impact Assessment for Wildlife and Wildlife FM468FN recommends Elders are included in further the land, knowledge of how to use the land, and culture; indicated that some FM468FN members no longer feel at Habitat Project-related consultation, as Elders can provide the home on the Gregoire Lake 176 and 176A reserves. most comprehensive knowledge and evaluation of • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological potential Project effects on FM468FN. This includes FM468FN noted that traditional ways of making ceremonial clothing have also changed due to changes in wildlife Knowledge and Land Use populations. For example, FM468FN members are no longer able to make headdresses out of porcupine quills due conducting interviews at hospitals and care facilities • to a diminished porcupine population. Impact Assessment for Socio-Economics where some FM468FN Elders are currently residing. Although cultural transmission is affected, FM468FN Elders and knowledge holders continuously attempt to pass on FM468FN recommends that industry contributions to traditional knowledge, and keep traditions alive, especially the cultural traditions including: living off the land the community have an emphasis on culture; such as (harvesting), creating traditional clothing including moose hide gloves and moccasins, and reintegrating language building a Cultural Centre or hiring teachers to teach and dance into the community. Cree to FM468FN youth.
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation January 2017 11
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Meadow Creek West Project
Distance from Meadow Creek Proposed EIA Section (as per the Meadow Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Mitigation Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Information West Lease Boundary Creek West Terms of Reference) Recommendations & Requests
FM468FN stated that some members do not know how the Project will affect the community’s language and culture. • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological FM468FN recommends Suncor provide visibility on Some FM468FN members added that, to date, economic benefits from development have not really enhanced the Knowledge and Land Use employment opportunities that the Project may culture and language of the people, and that it would be helpful to have community members who understand how provide, and requests information regarding how the • Impact Assessment for Socio-Economics these decisions affect the community’s culture working with proponents to make decisions. Project will benefit FM468FN members. FM468FN recommends Suncor hold an employment open house for FM468FN members, in order to engage FM468FN youth and other community members in meaningful and local employment opportunities. FM468FN recommends Suncor take FM468FN small businesses into consideration as part of Project planning. FM468FN recommends that industry contributions to the community have an emphasis on culture; such as building a Cultural Centre or hiring teachers to teach Cree to FM468FN youth. Traditional Ecological Knowledge
FM468FN members explained that only what is needed is harvested. All portions of the animal are used for food • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological and also medicine. Even food that goes bad is utilized, such as using rotten fish for fertilizer. Knowledge and Land Use
FM468FN emphasized the importance of water and air for the existence of all species. • Conceptual Conservation and Reclamation Plan FM468FN requests involvement in Project monitoring, in order to provide input on the actions required to Muskeg was reported as being a vital component to the health of the area, helping to keep the water in place while • Impact Assessment for Vegetation cleansing and feeding the surrounding ecosystem. minimize any destructive activity of the Project. • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological FM468FN requests information regarding water well FM468FN have observed boggy areas drying up, stating that dry conditions affect the entire ecosystem, including Knowledge and Land Use wildlife, vegetation, and fish. abandonment, including the potential for displacement of the groundwater. FM468FN requests information regarding the approximate depth that water wells will be drilled, and the water retrieval and discharge methods associated with SADG operations. FM468FN recommends FM468FN involvement in further investigation on the effects of drilling. FM468FN requests that Suncor make reclamation plans available to FM468FN.
Muskeg environments house animals and feed large animals like caribou, moose and deer; moose like the muskeg • Cheecham Village: 17 km • Conceptual Conservation and Reclamation Plan FM468FN recommends that aerial and ground and caribou like the lichen in the muskeg. FM468FN indicated that the Project area could be a calving ground for surveys completed to tally the remaining caribou • Hangingstone Area: Within • Impact Assessment for Vegetation caribou or moose. population, including caribou tracking. Project Area • Impact Assessment for Wildlife and Wildlife FN468FN have observed wolves at Cheecham Village. FM468FN recommends that Suncor invest in • Horse River: 10 km Habitat Moose travel from Horse River to the Hangingstone area. strategies to protect and restore caribou populations, • Impact Assessment for Biodiversity e.g., designating an area exclusively for regeneration of the caribou population, fenced off from predators • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological including wolf and bear. FM468FN requests related Knowledge and Land Use employment opportunities are offered to FM468FN including building the fence and monitoring the area.
12 January 2017 Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation
Meadow Creek West Project Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation
Distance from Meadow Creek Proposed EIA Section (as per the Meadow Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Mitigation Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Information West Lease Boundary Creek West Terms of Reference) Recommendations & Requests
FM468FN explained that the Project area is a low lying, boggy area; therefore, berries such as lowbush and • Conceptual Conservation and Reclamation Plan FM468FN recommends the Project area be reclaimed highbush cranberries, mooseberries and muskeg berries grow there, as well as white flowers, crocus and lady to its natural state and no area is left bare. • Impact Assessment for Vegetation slippers, tamarack, balsam and rat root. FM468FN recommends that following the life of the • FM468FN explained that berries including raspberries, strawberries and cranberries are still found on the ground, Impact Assessment for Biodiversity Project, Suncor reclaims the Project area and replants but their taste has changed and they are bitter now. • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological trees knocked cleared for the purposes of the Project, FM468FN has noticed an unfamiliar and possibly invasive plant (deep purple in colour) growing in areas where they Knowledge and Land Use including poplar and diamond willow. did not grow in the past. FM468FN reported that populations of wetland species are decreasing, including cattails and frogs. FM468FN has also observed a decrease in the lady slipper population and noted that this may be due to development and land clearing. When lady slippers are pulled out of the ground, they do not grow back in that location. In regards to the ability of the land to regenerate native vegetation, FM468FN indicated that reclaiming muskeg ecosystems back to their original state is not possible.
FM468FN explained that spring or fall, just before freeze-up, is the best time to harvest firm fish, stating that during • Impact Assessment for Fisheries the summer the fish will get soft. • Impact Assessment for Vegetation FM468FN explained that optimal berry picking times are the end of July for raspberries, and especially my • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological blueberries, and the end of August for cranberries. Knowledge and Land Use
Some FM468FN members noted that lately blue jays or whiskey jacks are not observed anymore, magpies, a very • Impact Assessment for Wildlife and Wildlife territorial and aggressive bird, are seen instead. FM468FN reported that magpies are an invasive species, adding Habitat that the magpies may be the reason why blue jays or whiskey jacks are not observed as often as they used to be.. • Impact Assessment for Biodiversity
FM468FN spoke of overharvesting, explaining that it is important not to harvest all of the plant species in an area so • Impact Assessment for Vegetation that the plant can regenerate. • Impact Assessment for Biodiversity • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Land Use
In the past, muskeg was used as a bathing area and water system for the First Nation’s people. • Impact Assessment for Vegetation • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Land Use
FM468FN reported the presence of salt licks throughout the traditional territory, including Horse Creek and Kinosis • Horse Creek: Within Project • Impact Assessment for Wildlife and Wildlife Lake. Area Habitat FM468FN explained that moose are found in muskeg areas that have salt in them. • Kinosis Lake: 28 km • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Land Use Other Environmental
FM468FN indicated that there have been a number of general changes from how things were in the past; for • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological instance, it does not get cold in the winter like it used to. Knowledge and Land Use
FM468FN reported changes in the muskeg water levels within the traditional territory compared to the past, stating • Surface Water Management Strategy the muskegs have dried up. • Impact Assessment for Hydrogeology • Impact Assessment for Vegetation
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation January 2017 13
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Meadow Creek West Project
Distance from Meadow Creek Proposed EIA Section (as per the Meadow Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Mitigation Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Information West Lease Boundary Creek West Terms of Reference) Recommendations & Requests
Wildlife species reported by FM468FN to be declining include: • Highway 63: Within Project • Impact Assessment for Wildlife and Wildlife FM468FN requests involvement in the pre- development field surveys for the Project to determine • Bear Area Habitat baseline conditions, and to gain a better • Janvier 194: 57 km • Impact Assessment for Biodiversity • Bluebirds understanding of effects to the land and the • • Caribou Stony Mountain Wildland: community’s ability to carry out traditional practices in 10 km traditional locations. • Chicken (grouse) FM468FN recommends that pre-development surveys • Deer are completed seasonally throughout the year to • Marten ensure an accurate account of all seasonal activity. FM468FN recommends Suncor provides the • Moose, whose population has dropped over the past 20 years (Hunting Area 4) opportunity for FM468FN to survey the project • Porcupine footprint. • Rabbit FM468FN requests involvement in Project monitoring, in order to provide input on the actions required to • Skunk minimize any destructive activity of the Project. • Whisky Jack FM468FN requests involvement in Project monitoring, Caribou populations are in decline, with FM468FN stating that caribou used to go all over, including around the including ongoing monitoring focused on the Stony Mountain area, Janvier area, west of Janvier and near the Project area by Highway 63. FM468FN reported cumulative impact of industrial development in the that, in the past, porcupines were abundant in the forest surrounding Fort McMurray. region. FM468FN commented that rabbit populations are slowly recovering.
FM468FN expressed concern regarding garbage being left behind in the Stony Mountain area, including shotgun • Stony Mountain Wildland: • Waste Management Plan shells, alcohol bottles, dump barrels, refrigerators and stoves. A FM468FN member added, “I know we can’t stop it, 10 km • Impact Assessment for Public Health but we need something in place where we can address our concerns and people need to take our concerns seriously”. FM468FN explained that a large army camp was located up Stony Mountain near Winefred Lake and many FM468FN Elders previously worked at this camp. Some FM468FN members observed oil containers and other garbage being buried near Stony Mountain. FM468FN expressed concern at the potential for residual contamination from the buried oil containers and other garbage, especially within the muskeg, in the Stony Mountain area.
FM468FN explained that bears are scavengers and will go where food is easy to get. Because of this, in general, • Waste Management Plan people do not feel confident consuming bear meat, due to concerns that the bears are consuming all kinds of • Impact Assessment for Wildlife and Wildlife garbage from the area. Habitat
FM468FN voiced concern that wildlife will be affected by noise generated from the Project; stating that animals such • Impact Assessment for Air Quality, Climate and FM468FN requests involvement in Project monitoring, as coyotes and bears may be drawn to the noise while other animals such as moose and caribou may be driven Noise including caribou tracking and aerial and ground away. FM468FN also identified that wildlife within the Project area will be impacted by the Project, and that human surveys completed to tally the remaining caribou • Impact Assessment for Wildlife and Wildlife activity would displace game from the area. Concern about the adverse effects or elimination of caribou habitat was population. Habitat also identified by FM468FN.
FM468FN expressed concern regarding the quantity of water needed for the Project for steam generation, stating • Impact Assessment for Hydrogeology FM468FN requests information regarding water well that it may affect the ground, and question the effectiveness of recapturing the steam to reuse in the SAGD abandonment, including the potential for displacement process. of the groundwater. Concern about the containment of contaminated water used in the Project operations was noted as concern by FM468FN recommends monitoring the effects of the FM468FN, stating that the contamination will seep into the waterways eventually. project on long-term water quality. FM468FN requests involvement in Project monitoring, in order to provide input on the actions required to minimize any destructive activity of the Project.
FM468FN reported that moose now have more ticks than ever before, due to the warmer weather. FM468FN • Impact Assessment for Wildlife and Wildlife members explained that in the past gloves would not be worn to skin moose, however now member occasionally Habitat have to wear plastic gloves to protect against ticks. • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Land Use
14 January 2017 Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation
Meadow Creek West Project Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation
Distance from Meadow Creek Proposed EIA Section (as per the Meadow Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Mitigation Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Information West Lease Boundary Creek West Terms of Reference) Recommendations & Requests
FMFN reported that the environmental changes and increasing human activity occurring in the region have made a • Impact Assessment for Wildlife and Wildlife difference to wildlife populations and species, including species moving into the area that did not occupy the area in Habitat the past, such as ravens magpies, and hummingbirds. • Impact Assessment for Biodiversity
Changes to water quality are affecting the plant populations and FM468FN ability to harvest certain plants from • Impact Assessment for Surface Water Quality areas where concern of contamination exists. • Impact Assessment for Vegetation • Impact Assessment for Public Health
FM468FN provided specific observations regarding changes in rainfall, snowfall and water levels, noting that • Impact Assessment for Air Quality, Climate and snowfall levels have dropped in the last seven years, and rain is uncommon. FM468FN indicated that the lack of Noise moisture adds to the risk of wildfires, such as the 2016 Fort McMurray wildfire. • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological The changes in snowfall levels have also affected how FM468FN members travel on the land during the winter Knowledge and Land Use months, noting that in the past skidoos were necessary after October, however skidoos aren’t necessary anymore.
FM468FN reported lower water levels in water bodies within their traditional territory, including the Athabasca River, • Impact Assessment for Hydrogeology FM468FN requests more information about what Christina River, and Hangingstone River. FM468FN reported that water levels throughout the whole region have effects industry will have when they drill into aquifers • Impact Assessment for Hydrology dropped over the past 25 years, which has resulted in changes in traditional use activities, particularly fishing. for water, and what effects will occur on the land from • Impact Assessment for Fisheries FM468FN also voiced concerns that the Project would have an effect on the water and organisms that depend on it. the SAGD development. • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological FM468FN requests involvement in Project monitoring, Knowledge and Land Use including monitoring the effects of the project on long- term water quality.
Employment and Livelihood
Some FM468FN members hunt every year for sustenance, in order to get by; however TLUO activities no longer • Impact Assessment for Land Use and provide the livelihood that FMFN study participants were once used to, and many FM468FN have to supplement Management their income with work from surrounding industry, including forestry. • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Land Use • Impact Assessment for Socio-Economics
Population increases in the region and oilsands developments have resulted in changes to regional employment • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological and livelihood, with FM468FN stating that in the 1950s there were approximately 1500 people living in Fort Knowledge and Land Use McMurray. • Impact Assessment for Socio-Economics
FM468FN commented on the importance of community members receiving training and education from industry, • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological FM468FN recommends Suncor provide visibility on explaining that any opportunity for meaningful long-term employment instead of short term employment is important, Knowledge and Land Use employment opportunities that the Project may and the community would benefit from these opportunities even though the Project may affect community prime provide, and requests information regarding how the • Impact Assessment for Socio-Economics hunting area and displace game further from hunting areas. Project will benefit FM468FN members. FM468FN voiced concern regarding the lack of follow through from proponents promising employment FM468FN recommends Suncor hold an employment opportunities. open house for FM468FN members, in order to engage FM468FN youth and other community members in meaningful and local employment opportunities. FM468FN recommends Suncor take FM468FN small businesses into consideration as part of Project planning, including: • More meetings with industry; and • When doing reclamation, seek input from FM468FN members.
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation January 2017 15
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Meadow Creek West Project
Distance from Meadow Creek Proposed EIA Section (as per the Meadow Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Mitigation Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Information West Lease Boundary Creek West Terms of Reference) Recommendations & Requests
An FM468FN member stated, “In order to survive in this world, everyone has to work, so if it’s [development] going • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological FM468FN recommends that employment to create a benefit for the FM468FN community, then so be it”. Knowledge and Land Use opportunities are kept local, and that Suncor works directly with the community to hire FM468FN Some community members travel long distances to work, including from Saskatchewan to northern British • Impact Assessment for Socio-Economics Columbia. members directly. One FM468FN member explained that, “It’s up to the people around here if they want to work,” and added that the community would benefit from having jobs close to home.
FM468FN members expressed concern that if there is a possibility of employment, FM468FN community members • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological FM468FN recommends that education and training are not properly trained in the positions that industry promises to provide, for example millwrights. Knowledge and Land Use opportunities are provided to FM468FN members, in order to meet hiring requirements for meaningful FM468FN expressed interest for the community to acquire training and be prepared for future employment • Impact Assessment for Socio-Economics opportunities. employment opportunities provided by the Project, including plant operators, pipeline monitors, and environmental monitors. FM468FN requests employment opportunities are made available to FM468FN members for the entire life of the project, and are made accessible to FM468FN members by providing transportation to the worksite. Community Health and Wellbeing
Some FM468FN members mentioned that after harvesting animals, such as moose, meat is shared with family • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological FM468FN recommends that industry contributions to members, and shared with everyone in the community. Knowledge and Land Use the community have an emphasis on culture; such as building a Cultural Centre or hiring teachers to teach FM468FN stated that in the past it was common to share food and materials among community members; this is • Impact Assessment for Socio-Economics still important and being carried out today. FM468FN members are raised to share food with all community Cree to FM468FN youth. members, family members and Elders. FM468FN members have observed a decline in the sense of community and FM468FN recommends industry investment in culture of sharing between community members compared to the past, noting loss of cultural transmission through community wellness, including Cultural Camps, in factors such as drugs and alcohol. FM468FN explained that it is rare to know someone who has killed a moose and order to help mitigate the effects an influx of fortunate if they share their meat. One FM468FN member commented that, “People don’t value sharing, both now development has had on FM468FN members. and how they were before,” within the community.
In the past, First Nation peoples would support themselves with wildlife: “They didn’t have money because there • Impact Assessment for Wildlife and Wildlife were no jobs, so they needed to hunt. People don’t need to do that anymore.” Habitat Increased industrial development has made hunting and acquiring wild food by FM468FN difficult because there is • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological less game to hunt and animals have been displaced further south and west. FM468FN commented that some Knowledge and Land Use members travel farther to maintain the traditional diet. • Impact Assessment for Socio-Economics FM468FN explained that some members stated the influx of the oilsands development correlates with the dependence on the local foodbanks, due to the effects development has had on FM468FN member’s ability to live off the land. FM468FN noticed that consumption of wild food has diminished greatly due to proximity of local grocery stores, with some FM468FN members stated that ease of access to stores and reliance on local grocery stores has resulted in less people learning to hunt and trap as it is no longer a necessity. FM468FN explained that the land is very important, stating, “it is what we lived on. We didn’t do a lot of shopping at grocery stores”, stating that store-bought canned food or certain produce was very rare and having something store bought was special. One FM468FN member recounted fighting over an orange, saying now people will throw one out if it’s got a spot on it. FM468FN indicated that the loss of traditional diet has resulted in an increase of diabetes within the community. In the past, some members would dry the wild meat, including moose, bear meat and fish. However, some members only eat wild, bush meat once a week, and rarely eat wild moose meat or fish anymore due to possible contamination. FM468FN explained that some members only eat wild meat when someone shares meat, but that does not occur very often anymore. Now, the community can go to the local grocery store and get whatever the member wants. When one FM468fN member was asked if wild or store bought meat is preferred the member replied, “Easier to just go to the store and buy it and spend my time raising my grandkids”.
16 January 2017 Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation
Meadow Creek West Project Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation
Distance from Meadow Creek Proposed EIA Section (as per the Meadow Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Mitigation Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Information West Lease Boundary Creek West Terms of Reference) Recommendations & Requests FM468FN reported that the majority of Elders are currently in the hospital due to the lack of options for long-term care; with FM468FN indicating the benefits of a wild food diet for maintaining the health of Elders if it was still available.
FM468FN recounted observing and assisting in hunting activities with parents and grandparents as children, such • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological as collecting duck eggs by canoe. Some FM468FN members learned how to clean rabbits and squirrels, and how to Knowledge and Land Use craft beading as children.
FM468FN spoke of children pretending to hunt, and wanting to go hunting with their parents and grandparents. Often, FM468FN members who did not participate in trapping the animals would have the task of skinning and stretching the hides.
Some FM468FN members used to speak Cree as young children, but do not speak Cree now. FM468FN noted that • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological few people speak Cree now; most have lost the language. Knowledge and Land Use
FM468FN stated it is tougher for FM468FN to maintain the traditional ways of living. • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological FM468FN recommends that industry contributions to FM468FN explained that, in general, youth do not have an interest in learning the traditional way of life. Knowledge and Land Use the community have an emphasis on culture; such as building a Cultural Centre or hiring teachers to teach • Impact Assessment for Socio-Economics FM468FN members are uncertain how the Project will affect the community, but some members predict that the Cree to FM468FN youth. project will go ahead from an economic viewpoint. Some FM468FN members prefer that the Project not proceed, however some members stated the Project could benefit the FM468FN community.
One FM468FN member discussed how traditional ways of living has been lost, “Because there was a time where people were disassociated from it all and turned to alcohol. But now the community is back on their feet and now there are people that practice it [traditional ways of living].” The member continued to explain that, “The way of the world is now more important than anything else…living off the land is most important”. FM468FN discussed how First Nation people try to incorporate a certain lifestyle; however it is very difficult because they don’t have enough money for vehicles, insurance or education. Some FM468FN members have noticed that the Industry Relations Committee is doing a lot to invigorate the community’s youth to partake in cultural activities, but feels that many traditional cultural activities and knowledge including tanning hides and making dried meat might not be around in the next ten years due to the low rate of cultural transmission. FM468FN explained that for some members the times in the past were the best, “It will never be the like that again. It was a hard life but it was the best having everything you needed right with you. That is why it is so important that we go out into the bush for this”. FM468FN explained that having the opportunity to visit the Project Area is important for cultural transmission between generations.
FM468FN stated that in the past the community would gather together for dances, and get-togethers, but now some • Cheecham Village: 17 km • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological members are isolated, even though members live close together in Cheecham Village. Knowledge and Land Use
When discussing how First Nations people have to “mesh with society now”, some community members expressed • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological frustration and commented on how change is difficult for some people. One FM468FN member added that when the Knowledge and Land Use Highway was constructed in the 1960’s, some people could not handle the change and eventually resorted to alcoholism because it was easy to get, eventually leading to instances of suicide. Some members also spoke about “Progress” and the impacts on family members and the FM468FN community. In particular, one FM468FN member spoke of the previous generation and how progress made it easier for some, but not all FM468FN community members.
FM468FN members expressed frustration when recalling the days when regulations and restrictions did not exist for • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological hunting, “now you can’t shoot things, and now there’s all these rules you can’t shoot animals. We’ve lost a lot and a Knowledge and Land Use really good way of life. But, if anything were to happen, those in the community who know survival skills would survive.” FM468FN members commented that the youth in the community should learn survival skills, “… so if anything were to happen, they could survive in the bush”.
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation January 2017 17
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Meadow Creek West Project
Distance from Meadow Creek Proposed EIA Section (as per the Meadow Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Mitigation Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Information West Lease Boundary Creek West Terms of Reference) Recommendations & Requests
The FM468FN added that some residents of Fort McKay no longer eat food harvested from the land, due to • Fort McKay: 87 km • Impact Assessment for Air Quality, Climate and concerns about pollution; stating that residents from Fort McKay and Fort Chipewyan are getting sick with Noise • Fort Chipewyan: 257 km respiratory problems and cancer. • Impact Assessment for Public Health • Impact Assessment for Socio-Economics
FM468FN members have noticed that everything is changing as a result of environmental changes and the climate • Halfway Creek: 9 km • Impact Assessment for Air Quality, Climate and FM468FN is not always involved in Project getting warmer. These changes affect the traditional ways of life of FM468FN community members. FM468FN Noise consultation on projects in the Conklin area; these • Nexen Plant2 : 27 km explained that some members cannot eat or use many of the traditional food or medicines. Projects have down-stream effects on the rivers and • Impact Assessment for Surface Water Quality Some FM468FN members eat fish but not from Willow Lake, stating that members feels the pollution, including acid drinking water used by FM468FN, and therefore • Impact Assessment for Fisheries raid, from surrounding developments such as Suncor and Nexen have contaminated the fish. FM468FN should be engaged. • FM468FN also explained that previous generations would get clean drinking water from lakes, rivers, streams and Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological the muskeg, including from an area called Halfway Creek (near the Gregoire Lake 176 and 176A reserves). Now, Knowledge and Land Use most FM468FN members would not seek out drinking water from such sources; there is too much development in • Impact Assessment for Public Health the area. • Impact Assessment for Socio-Economics FM468FN attributed the onset of many illnesses in the community is linked to the influx of the oil industry in the surrounding areas, which started around the 1970s to1980s. Accidents and Malfunctions
FM468FN expressed concern regarding spills, stating that, “… We are supposed to be keepers of the Earth”. • Emergency Response Plan FM468FN requests information regarding the safety of the Project. Some FM468FN members expressed concern that a pipeline break could affect water and surrounding rivers, • Spill Response Plan because the Project Area is very close to important waterbodies. FM468FN requests information regarding the integrity • Wildfire Control Plan FM468FN expressed concern at the potential for a pipeline leak to travel a large distance if it were to occur in an of project components. • area where there was a downward slope. Impact Assessment for Land Use and FM468FN requests information regarding stability of Management FM468FN members asked what industry would do in the case of a pipeline break, and how FM468FN would be project components across the lease site during involved in the spill response. • Impact Assessment for Public Health Project construction, regarding the terrain at the lease site and construction practices. FM468FN members also expressed concerns about contamination from a potential spill and wondered if people • Impact Assessment for Socio-Economics would still be able to use their fishing areas near or within the Project Area. FM468FN recommends that Suncor develops a strong emergency response plan specific to FM468FN members stated that if there is a fire in the Project Area, it will burn for years because the Project Area is FM468FN, including evacuation and response boggy; the undergrowth will smolder for years and could flare up again. measures in the event of an explosion or accidental release of harmful gas.
FM468FN spoke of other spills and accidents that have occurred in the area, including Nexen and Encana, and • Nexen Plant3 : 27 km • Impact Assessment for Public Health indicated the Encana oil spill was not fully cleaned up.
2 “Nexen Plant” is assumed to be the Nexen owned Long Lake oilsands area southeast of Anzac, Alberta. 3 “Nexen Plant” is assumed to be the Nexen owned Long Lake oilsands area southeast of Anzac, Alberta.
18 January 2017 Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation
Meadow Creek West Project Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation
Distance from Meadow Creek Proposed EIA Section (as per the Meadow Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Mitigation Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Information West Lease Boundary Creek West Terms of Reference) Recommendations & Requests Cumulative Effects
FM468FN commented that cumulative effects are an important concern for members, and that all developments • Cumulative effects are assessed as part of the FM468FN recommends completing ongoing combine into one total effect. EIA monitoring focused on the cumulative effects of industrial development in the region. FM468FN stated that as development expands, there are fewer places for members to practice traditional activities • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological due to reduction in available land and concerns about pollution. Knowledge and Land Use FM468FN also indicated the amount of disturbance to the land as a result of economic activity and oilsands • Impact Assessment for Public Health exploration in the traditional territory, stating the number of developments scattered across the landscape continues to grow, driving away wildlife, forcing FM468FN members to travel further to find areas to hunt, and limiting the use of FM468FN member’s traditional and cultural involvement, and the ability to transmit knowledge and culture to youth. (Hunting Area 7). FM468FN recounted having to pass up shooting game while out hunting, because of the risk of hitting an above-ground pipeline. Referring to the human impact on the landscape, one FM468FN member explained that, “We are not the Creator, we cannot do all that stuff”.
Some FM468FN members have commented that oil sands activity has affected members' ability to hunt in the • Hangingstone Area: Within • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological Hangingstone Area, stating, “We’re being surrounded by oilsands development. We’re having to go further and Project Area Knowledge and Land Use further to get our foods”.
FM468FN noted an increase in pollution levels, including noise, light, and air pollution due to development and • Nexen Plant4 : 27 km • Cumulative effects are assessed as part of the human activity in the area, resulting in diseases and changes in weather patterns. FM468FN noted the value of • Stony Mountain Wildland: EIA undisturbed areas of the bush, away from vehicles and other sources of noise. 10 km • Impact Assessment for Air Quality, Climate and FM468FN reported noise pollution occurring kilometers away from development plants, resulting in an increase in Noise noise levels within FM468FN traditional territory. FM468FN attributed noise pollution as a contributing factor in the • Impact Assessment for Biodiversity reduction of wildlife within the traditional territory. • FM468FN reported changes in the visual landscape due to light pollution from surrounding developments, with one Impact Assessment for Public Health FM468FN member reporting the northern lights and stars are no longer visible due to the bright glow in the sky from development. FM468FN members noted environmental changes as a result of the increased development on the land, including reductions in plant and animal species and changes in weather, including storms becoming more violent and increased wind, including tornadoes. FM468FN indicated the effects of SAGD projects in other areas of the traditional territory, including Stony Mountain, stating that they result in lack of vegetation growth. There are existing developments in the Fort McMurray area that currently affect FM468FN members, such as Nexen, Syncrude and JACOS. FM468FN explained that unpleasant odours emanate from the surrounding oilsands plants, including the nearby Nexen plant; FM468FN indicated a reduction in air quality related to a rotten smell emanating from the plant, adding that the smell is correlated to times when the plant burns materials at night. FM468FN indicated a correlation between such smells and members allergies flaring up. Up until approximately ten years ago, some community members did not have allergies, but now have itchy eyes and a runny nose. Some members indicated a needed to go inside when odours are emanating from plants in order to subside allergy symptoms. FM468FN expressed concern that the Project will add to the odours in the area.
4 “Nexen Plant” is assumed to be the Nexen owned Long Lake oilsands area southeast of Anzac, Alberta.
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation January 2017 19
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Meadow Creek West Project
Distance from Meadow Creek Proposed EIA Section (as per the Meadow Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Mitigation Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Information West Lease Boundary Creek West Terms of Reference) Recommendations & Requests
Development in the area has led to an increase in road development and more trees being cleared. • Migration Route 1: 30 km • Cumulative effects are assessed as part of the EIA FM468FN stated that a decline in wildlife populations has been observed all over the region. • Migration Route 2: Within FM468FN indicated that changes to the landscape are confusing the animals and ruining habitat that could be Project Area • Impact Assessment for Wildlife and Wildlife important, such as calving area or migration routes for caribou. (Migration Route 1, Migration Route 2) Habitat • Impact Assessment for Land Use and Management
One FM468FN member expressed that, “Companies are not going to listen to anyone, so we need to say what we • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological need to say and hope it’s directed to the right people”. Knowledge and Land Use • Impact Assessment for Socio-Economics
FM468FN members reported that some community members are not against development because it will go ahead • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological regardless of what the community thinks, but commented that industry needs to consider the environment, including Knowledge and Land Use the air, water and everything else. • Impact Assessment for Socio-Economics
FM468FN explained that some members believe the Project will not affect animals within the Project Area as • Cumulative effects are assessed as part of the existing development has already dispersed the animals away from that area. FM468FN members added the size of EIA the animal population observed and hunted in the past will not exist again. • Impact Assessment for Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Land Use
Increased development has restricted access to traditional activities and has blocked access to camps at Stoney • Maqua camp at Stoney • Cumulative effects are assessed as part of the FM468FN recommends that Suncor designates an Mountain. FN468FN members commented that the community now must access the Maqua camp on foot, since the Mountain: 8 km EIA area exclusively for Aboriginal use, where FM468FN road is blocked, and lamented, “it’s not the same”. can practice TLUO activities including camping, • Impact Assessment for Wildlife and Wildlife hunting fishing and berry collecting. FM468FN indicated that oilsands development have changed the migration of the animals. Habitat FM468FN requests involvement in Project monitoring, FM468FN stated that drilling, seismic, and forestry activities in the oilsands have created migration corridors for • Impact Assessment for Land Use and in order to provide input on the actions required to wolves to chase down moose. Management minimize any destructive activity of the Project. FM468FN study participants noted that moose populations have declined since oilsands plants starting operations • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological in the region. FM468FN requests involvement in Project monitoring, Knowledge and Land Use FM468FN recommends completing ongoing According to FM468FN, changes in hunting moose first began approximately 25 years ago when JACOS started monitoring focused on the cumulative effects of developing in the area. industrial development in the region. FM468FN requests information regarding water well abandonment, including the potential for displacement of the groundwater. FM468FN requests information regarding the approximate depth that water wells will be drilled, and the water retrieval and discharge methods associated with SADG operations. FM468FN recommends further investigation on the effects of drilling.
An influx of industrial development was reported at a FM468FN member’s trapline along Thickwood Road (now • Tower Road: 37 km • Cumulative effects are assessed as part of the called Tower Road). EIA • Impact Assessment for Land Use and Management • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Land Use
20 January 2017 Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation
Meadow Creek West Project Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation
Distance from Meadow Creek Proposed EIA Section (as per the Meadow Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Mitigation Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Information West Lease Boundary Creek West Terms of Reference) Recommendations & Requests
FM468FN indicated that water quality has declined since the first oilsands plant was established in the region. As • Cold Lake: 216 km • Impact Assessment for Air Quality, Climate and oilsands development continues, each project adds strain on the water levels in the region due to project water use. Noise FM468FN attributed oilsands development to high levels of sulphur in the water, reporting an increase in sulphur • Impact Assessment for Surface Water Quality levels in the past 2 years. • Impact Assessment for Hydrology FM468FN members commented that a sheen on the water is coming out of the muskeg in Cold Lake and attributed • this to SAGD projects in the area If water quality concerns exist in Cold Lake, members are concerned that the Impact Assessment for Public Health proposed SAGD Project may affect water quality. One community member speculated that the amount of pressure used with the steam injection could drive contaminants to the surface. FM468FN also noted that there is less rain and it is becoming drier due to a combination of events such as use of water by industry and changing climate. FMFN also noted more fluctuation in water levels than in the past, which results in river bank erosion and more fallen trees and debris in the rivers, including in the Clearwater River; noting such erosion has resulted in adverse effects to traditional river travel routes. FM468FN partially attributes river bank erosion to increasing jet boat traffic. FM468FN members are curious to know whether surface water levels will be affected in the Project area, since other waterbodies have been greatly affected by SAGD projects, including in the Cold Lake area.
FN468FN reported that the influx of development in the area has resulted in an inflow of workers; FM468FN • Cumulative effects are assessed as part of the expressed concern at the population increase and the associated increase of vehicles on the roads alcohol and EIA drugs brought into the area, and garbage scattered throughout, including jerry cans and oil containers. • Waste Management Plan • Traffic Impact Assessment • Impact Assessment for Socio-Economics
FM468FN discussed the loss of plants as being due to industry throughout the Hangingstone area to Lake • Cumulative effects are assessed as part of the Athabasca, not just oil sands development. EIA • Impact Assessment for Biodiversity • Impact Assessment for Vegetation • Impact Assessment for Land Use and Management
FM468FN indicated that there are two salt licks within the Project area that no longer exist due to the development • Cumulative effects are assessed as part of the of a camp located in a large muskeg area where FM468FN members used to go and pick medicinal plants. (Hunting EIA Area 3, Salt Lick 1, Salt Lick 2) • Impact Assessment for Vegetation • Impact Assessment for Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Land Use • Impact Assessment for Socio-Economics
Development near Fort McMurray has reduced the ability to practice traditional use activities, but has created • Fort McMurray: 22 km • Cumulative effects are assessed as part of the employment opportunities. EIA FM468FN commented that some members do not have concerns with development in the area and indicated some • Impact Assessment for Traditional Ecological members are past the stage of worrying about future development. FM468FN further explained that people protest Knowledge and Land Use development projects, however the government approves the projects regardless, and therefore some members • Impact Assessment for Socio-Economics just accept it. FM468FN indicated that some members recognize ultimately development is needed, explaining that the Fort McMurray economy slowing down causes the whole economy to slow down.
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation January 2017 21
Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation Meadow Creek West Project
REFERENCES:
Suncor Energy Inc. (Suncor), 2016. Terms of Reference Environmental Impact Assessment Report For Suncor Energy Inc.’s Proposed Meadow Creek West In-Situ Project. Suncor Energy Inc.
SIGN OFF
This report and the Traditional Land Use and Occupancy (TLUO) contained herein are the intellectual property of Fort McMurray #468 First Nation. This report has been reviewed and authorized for release by Fort McMurray #468 First Nation. The information in this report is intended to inform the regulatory process and project planning of the Suncor Meadow Creek West Project. No other use of this report may be made without the express written consent of Fort McMurray #468 First Nation.
Roni-Sue Moran Director, Industry Relations Corporation (IRC) Fort McMurray #468 First Nation
22 January 2017 Fort McMurray No. 468 First Nation