CA PDF Page 1 of 70
Energy East Project Part E: New Brunswick Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use
This section was not updated in 2015. Figures referencing the Project description have been updated to reflect the removal of a marine terminal in Québec. However, the analysis of effects is still valid. This TLRU assessment is supported by Volume 25, which contains information gathered through TLRU studies completed by participating Aboriginal groups, oral traditional evidence and TLRU-specific results of Energy East’s aboriginal engagement program from April 19, 2014 to December 31, 2015. The list of First Nation and Métis communities and organizations engaged and reported on is undergoing constant revision throughout the discussions between Energy East and potentially affected Aboriginal groups. Information provided through these means relates to Project effects and cumulative effects on traditional land and resource use, and recommendations for mitigating effects, as identified by participating Aboriginal groups. The most relevant information for this section is Volume 25 for Woodlands ecoregion, which reviews additional TRLU information identifies proposed measures to mitigate potential effects of the Project on TRLU features, activities, or sites identified, as appropriate. The TLRU information provided in Volume 25 reflects Project design changes that occurred in 2015.
5 TRADITIONAL LAND AND RESOURCE USE
Traditional land and resource use (TLRU)1 was selected as a valued component (VC) due to the potential for the Project to affect traditional activities, sites and resources identified by Aboriginal communities. Project Aboriginal engagement activities and the review of existing literature (see Appendix 5A.2) confirmed the potential for Project effects on TLRU. The NEB also requires detailed information regarding effects on TLRU when proposed projects cross Crown land (NEB 2014), which is the case for the Project.
This TLRU section provides information regarding potential Project effects on Aboriginal groups’ current use of lands, waters and resources for traditional purposes. The objective of the TLRU assessment is to understand and document current use of land and resources for traditional purposes by Aboriginal peoples, identify mitigation strategies and characterize anticipated project effects. Activities associated with construction, operation, decommissioning and abandonment phases of the Project have the potential to affect current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by Aboriginal peoples.
Information regarding Energy East’s Aboriginal engagement program and the parameters for community inclusion in TLRU studies can be found in Consolidated Application Volume 10.
5.1 New Brunswick Aboriginal Communities
Through Energy East Aboriginal engagement activities to May 2014, TLRU study discussions were initiated with: • Buctouche First Nation (Tijpõgtõtjg First Nation) • Eel Ground First Nation (Natoaganeg First Nation) • Eel River Bar First Nation (Ugpi’ganjig First Nation)
1 The term “traditional land and resource use” or TLRU is conceived broadly in its use throughout this Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment (ESA) to include all aspects of terrestrial and marine environments, in recognition of the inextricable link between the environment that supports traditional land and resource use, the use activities themselves and Aboriginal culture.
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 5-1
CA PDF Page 2 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Energy East Project Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment
• Elsipogtog First Nation • Esgenoôpetitj First Nation (Burnt Church First Nation) • Fort Folly First Nation (Amlamgog First Nation) • Indian Island First Nation (L’nui Menikuk First Nation) • Kingsclear First Nation (Pilick First Nation) • Madawaska Maliseet First Nation • Metepenagiag Mi'kmaq Nation (Red Bank First Nation) • Oromocto First Nation (Wolamuktuk First Nation) • Pabineau First Nation (Oinpegitjoig First Nation) • Saint Mary's First Nation • Tobique First Nation (Neqotkuk First Nation) • Woodstock First Nation Profiles for these potentially affected Aboriginal groups can be found in Appendix 5A.1, and community locations are shown in Figure 5-1. Energy East is committed to ongoing engagement with potentially affected Aboriginal groups and there is the potential for additional groups to request TLRU studies.
5.2 Traditional Land and Resource Use Program
Two types of information are being requested from Aboriginal groups for the purposes of this application: TLRU information and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) information.
For this application, TLRU and TEK are defined as follows:
• TLRU is the knowledge held by an Aboriginal group regarding the community’s use of land, water and resources. TLRU 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 TLRU 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 within 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. TEK may also be provided regarding water or air quality, weather patterns (temperature or precipitation), soil stability, flooding, permafrost or other environmental features.
5-2 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 3 of 70
Energy East Project Part E: New Brunswick Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use
TEK and TLRU are closely related, but these two types of information are subject to different NEB filing requirements, and are therefore used differently in the application. TLRU information is needed to complete an assessment of effects on current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, as is required by the NEB. The NEB suggests that TEK information be used throughout the application and in Project planning, in addition to other sources of information such as scientific literature or previous environmental assessment or monitoring reports (NEB 2014).
Throughout the remainder of this section, and in the TLRU sections for other provinces and in Volume 17, this component of the ESA will primarily address TLRU and will be referred to as TLRU. Any TEK information provided by Aboriginal groups may be included within any supplemental environmental reports being submitted to the NEB, once it is available for the Project. TEK information may also be documented within each Aboriginal group’s TLRU study report. As a matter of corporate practice, Energy East, as a subsidiary of TransCanada PipeLines Ltd. (TCPL), supports the conduct of TLRU studies within the context of its proposed developments across the Project in a manner that meets or exceeds regulatory requirements. During the Project Aboriginal engagement process, Energy East communicated to Aboriginal communities its intent to support TLRU and TEK information gathering. Where Energy East negotiated agreements with participating Aboriginal communities, the terms Traditional Knowledge (TK), Traditional Land Use (TLU) and TEK were used. See Consolidated Application Volume 10 for further information regarding Energy East’s Aboriginal engagement program.
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 5-3
CA PDF Page 4 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Energy East Project Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment
5-4 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 5 of 70
P at 172 ap ed ia 132 R NewRic hmond 170 iv e r Dalhousie Trois-Pistoles QUÉBEC / QUEBEC Campbellton 138 e Chaleur Bay t Rive 17 r ouche r e stig V Re e r è i v i R er Caraquet R ivière-du-Loup Lac iv t R ue Témiscouata cq p a u Cabano J o Tetagouche River L Bi u Pic ard Notre-Dame-du-Lac g T d Bathurst ra La MalbaieLa e c r ad è i ie v R i Degelis ive 132 R r t R pisigui iver 20 Ne Edmundston St.
La PocLa atière Léonard S Northwest Miramichi River rtibog R 11 a a i ver B ve i 2 l r R m hn Saint-Onésim e t Jo o ain n S R
i NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK v
e r / NEW BRUNSWICK
Grand Falls
r ve Ri 14 ac gu Plaster ou ib R oc k D er ch MAINE un Riv ou garvon River K ew r lom ive 16 tho i R ar ich B ram Mi Northumberland Strait est 20 hw ut So r 12 Souris ve er Assem bléede Che s de fs Prem s ièresNations Prem ièreNation de Maléc s ites Ri iv ÎLE-DU-PRINCE-ÉDOUARD ns R Sum m erside Stanley ai n dNouveau-Brunswick u Assem / blyofFirst d eMadawaska Madawaska / C er o iv lm / PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND NChiefs ations' inNe wBrunswick MaliseeNation First t R Sa au re Charlottetown Prem ièreNation de Bouctouche (Tjipõgtõtjg) / Prem ièreNation de Tobique pe as 17 BuctoucheNation First (TjipõgtõtjgNation) First (Ne qTobique otkuk)/ First G 19 Montague K 1
N ation(Ne q otkukNation) First e
Autre réserveAutre de Prem ièreNation / s 15 24 w 8 Cum berland Othe r First NationOthe First Reserve r Prem ièreNation de Wood stoc k/ i Pe c Bay titc k od W oodNation stoc kFirst i R Monc ton a Prem ièreNation d'Eel Ground iv c er R (NatuaqaneEel Ground/ k) First Prem ièreNation d'Ind ianIsland i
10 v
Grand e
r r
N ation(Natoagane Nation) gFirst (L’nuiMe nikuk)Ind ian/ Island First e
Lake v N ation(L’nuiMe nikukNation) First i
R
Prem ièreNation d'Eel River Bar t t
Frederic ton Saint e (Ugpi’ganjig)Eel RiverFirst/ Bar Prem ièreNation d'Orom oc to Joh l n R l 6 N ation(Ugpi’ganjig Nation) First (Wolamuktuk)Orom / ocFirst to ive 2 o Amherst r P N ation(W olamuktukNation) First Prem ièreNation de Fort Folly (Amlamgog) / Pic tou Fort Folly FortNation First (Amlamgog Nation) First Prem ièreNation mi'km aqde Sussex 4 Me tepe nagiag(Red Bank) / New Prem ièreNation de Kingsclear (Pilijk) / Me tepe nagiagMi’km aqNation Glasgow KingsclearNation First (Pilick Nation) First 7 (RedBankNation) First Spednic Hampton 104 Prem ièreNation d'Elsipogtog / Lake Stationde pom pagePump / Station ElsipogtogNation First Magaguadavic River Terminalmaritime Marine / Terminal West River St. Ma Prem ièreNation de Pabine au Truro rys (Oinpe gitjoig)Pabine / First au 3 N ation(Oinpe gitjoigNation) First N ouveaupipe lineNe / wPipe line ke River iac w te Prem ièreNation de /Saint Mary's Parcnational National / Park S Saint Mary's First Nation SaintFirst Mary's St. Saint Parcprovinc Provinc ial/ ialPark Prem ièreNation d'Esge noôpe titj Stephen John Com plexemaritim de e NOUVELLE-ÉCOSSE (Burnt Church)Esge (Burnt / noôpeFirst titj Réservenationale de faune / SaintJohnSaint / John / NOVA SCOTIA N ationChurch (Burnt Nation) First N ationalWildlife Area 1 MarineTerm inalCom plex Kentville 0 20 40 60 101 Kilom ètresKilom / etres Middleton 7 123511954-0557 1:1,650,000 N AD1983UTM Zone 19N Bay of Fundy
NF PRÉPARÉPREPAREDPAR / BY PROJETD'OLÉODUC ÉN ERGIEENEST / ERGY EAST PIPELINE PROJECT QC Zoned'intérêt / AreaInterestof UTRTpar les collectivités autoc htonesduNouveau-Brunswic kProjet – Oléoduc Énergie Est / PRÉPARÉPOUR PREPARED / FOR: NB PE NS NewBrunswic kAboriginal Com m unitiesTLRUEnergy - East Pipeline Project USA FIGURENO.N° / Sources: Données sur le projet fournies par TransCanada Pipelines Limited. Données de base fournies par les gouvernements du Canada, du Québec et du Nouveau-Brunswick. /
Sources: Project data provided by TransCanada Pipelines Limited. Base data provided by the Governments of Canada, Quebec and New Brunswick. 5-1 Dernière mod ification: 4/18/2016 par: mbelbin / Last Mod ified : 4/18/2016 By: mbelbin By: 4/18/2016 Mod : ified Last / mbelbin par: 4/18/2016 mod ification: Dernière CA PDF Page 6 of 70 CA PDF Page 7 of 70
Energy East Project Part E: New Brunswick Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use
5.3 Assessment Scope
The following section describes the components of the Project in New Brunswick.
PIPELINE
The New Brunswick segment of the Project comprises 407 km of new pipeline, with a PDA of 2,441 ha. Of this, 127 km is on Crown land, with a footprint of 759 ha (31% of the new pipeline PDA).
The pipeline crosses approximately 300 watercourses in New Brunswick. Of these, none are scheduled and 34 have been deemed potentially navigable for boating.
PUMP STATIONS
There will be five new pump stations in New Brunswick at 9 ha each. Four are on freehold land, and no data are available for the Cumberland Bay pump station.
PUMP STATION ACCESS ROADS
Permanent access roads will be required for pump stations; existing access roads will be used or upgraded as necessary to provide all season access. Three pump stations require new permanent access roads to be built totalling less than 1 km. None of these is on Crown land. It is assumed that new access will have potential effects on traditional land and resource use irrespective of whether it is on Crown land.
5.3.1 Regulatory Requirements
The assessment of TLRU is guided by the National Energy Board (NEB) Filing Manual, 2014-01 (NEB 2014) which provides guidance as to the type of information the NEB would typically need to make a decision pursuant to the NEB Act and the CEAA 2012. For all requirements related to Traditional Land and Resource Use, see Table A-3 in the NEB Filing Manual, 2014-01 (NEB 2014). The filing requirements are to assess potential effects of the Project on “the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by Aboriginal people.” Where residual effects are predicted, the filing requirements also include “identifying whether those residual effects would be likely to act in combination with the effects of other physical facilities or activities…” (NEB 2014).
Traditional Land and Resource Use is also a factor to be considered under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 (CEAA 2012). CEAA 2012 includes in its definition of environmental effects, “with respect to Aboriginal peoples, an effect occurring in Canada of any change that may be caused to the environment on i) health and socio-economic conditions, ii) physical and cultural heritage, iii) the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, or iv) any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance” (p. 7.) The Act further states that “the environmental assessment of a designated project may take into account community knowledge and Aboriginal traditional knowledge” (CEAA 2012:14).
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 5-7
CA PDF Page 8 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Energy East Project Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment
In addition to federal requirements, provincial Aboriginal consultation guidelines were also considered when developing and undertaking TLRU studies in New Brunswick, including the Government of New Brunswick’s Duty to Consult Policy, Aboriginal Affairs Secretariat (2011).
5.3.2 Assessment Boundaries
TEMPORAL BOUNDARIES
The temporal boundaries for the TLRU assessment are the Project construction, operations, decommissioning and abandonment phases (see Volume 14).
To respond to the guidance provided in the NEB filing manual to assess “current” use of lands and resources for traditional purposes (NEB 2014), current has been defined for this assessment as extending back from the present time to within the last 25 years (or one generation); baseline TLRU information with associated temporal details has therefore been limited to 1989 or later. Twenty-five years was chosen as the boundary because knowledge regarding traditional practices or locales can potentially be lost or may not be passed on to younger members of an Aboriginal group if it goes unused for a generation’s time.
SPATIAL BOUNDARIES
The following spatial boundaries were used to assess the Project’s residual and cumulative effects on TLRU:
• local assessment area (LAA): the TLRU LAA follows the LAA described for the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat assessment and is defined as the area that extends 1 km beyond the PDA. This area reflects the largest of the terrestrial biophysical LAAs, and is considered to be the area where there is a reasonable potential for Project-related effects on TLRU. • regional assessment area (RAA): the TLRU RAA also follows the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat RAA. It includes the PDA and LAA, and extends 15 km beyond the PDA. The RAA was used to assess where Project-specific effects overlap with effects of planned activities (i.e., cumulative effects).
For self-directed TLRU studies conducted by Aboriginal groups for the Project, different spatial and temporal boundaries may be used by the community for data collection and any assessment undertaken by the group. In order to achieve conformity for the purposes of this assessment, the spatial boundaries outlined above have been applied to any site-specific information received from Aboriginal groups.
In order to obtain the most detailed information possible regarding direct Project effects, Energy East has communicated to Aboriginal groups that the focus of TLRU studies should be the PDA and adjacent lands; however, consideration is being given to TLRU information provided by Aboriginal groups pertaining to the broader landscape and regional land use contexts.
ASSESSMENT LIMITATIONS
Project-specific TLRU studies are the best source of information on which to base an assessment of project effects on Aboriginal groups’ current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes. In the absence of completed Project-specific TLRU studies, the preliminary conclusions in this section are
5-8 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 9 of 70
Energy East Project Part E: New Brunswick Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use
derived primarily from the conclusions of the other biophysical and socio-economic assessments, in combination with information from the literature review, information received through the Project Aboriginal engagement program (to May 2014), past project experience and professional judgment. The reliance on the other VC assessments has been implemented based on the assumption that assessments of resources such as wildlife, fish and vegetation species can inform an assessment of traditional harvesting activities. Additional consideration was given to the conclusions of other VC’s assessments that provide information regarding changes in environment that may affect conditions for TLRU (such as acoustic environment).
Relying on the results of other VC assessments in order to understand effects on TLRU has limitations. Firstly, there is often a lack of clear or complete concordance between other VCs and TLRU. For example, using the wildlife assessment to understand effects on hunting can be problematic if the key indicator species for the wildlife assessment do not adequately reflect traditionally harvested species. In many cases, species assessed by the vegetation, wildlife and fisheries VCs are chosen based on their status as species of management concern, rather than their traditional use potential. Further, the assessments of effects on plant, animal or fish species do not capture the conditions that influence the act of harvesting. An attempt was made to bridge this gap by considering results of the all the biophysical and socio-economic assessments, but it remains important to note that these assessments are not undertaken from the standpoint of understanding changes to an Aboriginal group member’s experience of being on the land. Additionally, some of the conditions that influence TLRU, such as perceptions of contamination, are not assessed by any of the other biophysical or socio-economic VCs.
The extrapolation of the species assessment to the harvesting assessment may be problematic due to differing temporal and spatial parameters of these assessments. Despite a determination of no significant effect for vegetation or wildlife, harvesting could still be significantly impacted based on the fact that animals have moved away from a traditional hunting area or plants have been cleared from a particular gathering area for a period of time that is important in relation to TLRU. Regardless of whether a plant species can be reclaimed and eventually returned to baseline condition, or whether an ungulate population will remain viable, individuals may not engage in traditional harvesting or gathering practices as long as the Project effect to that species continues.
Finally, TLRU practices and related knowledge are often rooted in specific places that have important cultural, aesthetic, and spiritual associations; therefore, TLRU cannot always be readily transferred to other locations within an Aboriginal group’s traditional territory or occupancy area, even if harvested resources can be found elsewhere within the territory.
This assessment of Project effects on TLRU was undertaken with an awareness of these limitations. Information from the Aboriginal engagement program, the literature review, past experience and professional judgment was considered in determining potential effects, baseline and residual effects, in order to reduce the uncertainty that can result from reliance on the other VC assessment conclusions. Using only the results of other VC assessments, confidence in an assessment of effects on TLRU would be very low. As more specific information is gathered through ongoing Project Aboriginal engagement activities and Project-specific TLRU studies, and mitigation discussions are undertaken with Aboriginal groups, confidence in this assessment will increase.
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 5-9
CA PDF Page 10 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Energy East Project Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment
5.4 Methods and Baseline
The TLRU assessment process follows the same basic methodological steps of any other VC. Energy East, Stantec and Aboriginal groups all influence scoping of the TLRU studies and assessment. Stantec and Aboriginal groups both provide inputs from baseline data collection through to the assessment conclusion and determinations of significance. While information from Aboriginal groups and Project-specific TLRU studies is the foundation of a TLRU assessment, other VC assessments can provide relevant information regarding effects on plant and animal species, and aspects of the biophysical and socio-economic environment that may affect TLRU.
Figure 5-2 shows the interaction between TLRU information and VC information in the TLRU assessment process.
Figure 5-3 demonstrates the application of TLRU information in the environmental assessment and in ongoing Project Aboriginal engagement activities. This figure also shows the process for the meaningful consideration of TLRU information received after the initial Project application.
5-10 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 11 of 70
Energy East Project Part E: New Brunswick Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use
Figure 5-2 TLRU Assessment Process
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 5-11
CA PDF Page 12 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Energy East Project Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment
Figure 5-3 Process for Consideration and Application of TLRU Information
5-12 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 13 of 70
Energy East Project Part E: New Brunswick Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use
5.4.1 Approach and Methods – TLRU Studies
The best sources of baseline TLRU information are studies conducted with potentially affected Aboriginal groups, specifically for the project under review. These studies contain the most geographically relevant data, the most current and detailed information possible, and frequently also provide contextual information regarding Aboriginal community concerns regarding the Project as well as mitigation recommendations.
To undertake TLRU data collection, Aboriginal groups may choose to conduct project-specific TLRU studies, either facilitated by Stantec on behalf of Energy East or carried out independently by the community (with the assistance of a third-party contractor, at the community’s discretion). Aboriginal groups may also elect to provide previously documented TLRU information to Energy East for use in Project planning and assessment activities.
Energy East and Stantec are working with those Aboriginal groups interested in conducting project-specific TLRU studies to develop a study scope to potential project-related effects that: • consider Aboriginal groups’ needs and capacity • provide information for project-planning purposes • meet regulatory requirements
For the purposes of the studies, Aboriginal group representatives can hire study coordinators, select study participants, and identify sites and locales for field visits. TLRU studies for the Project will adhere to protocols provided by Aboriginal groups.
Upon completion of TLRU studies, each Aboriginal group will determine the conditions for release of their group’s TLRU study report (e.g., publically with the NEB, confidentially with the NEB and Energy East, or confidentially with the NEB).
5.4.1.1 TLRU Study Objectives
The overall objectives of the TLRU studies are to document current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, to gain an understanding of each Aboriginal community’s views regarding potential project effects, and to discuss possible mitigation strategies.
As directed by the guidance provided in the NEB Filing Manual (2014), Energy East is seeking to gather and document current traditional land and resource use information from Aboriginal groups in order to assess potential Project effects on TLRU. Data collection will focus on TLRU within temporal boundaries (see section 5.3.2) but historic TLRU information and information based on community members’ living memory will also be considered and documented as contextual information in the Project application. Similarly, information regarding future land and resource use will also be recorded and considered when provided by Aboriginal groups. Future use pertains to the opportunities for generations of descendants to practice traditional activities and maintain traditional cultural and spiritual values. An understanding of any places, species or practices considered important for future use can aid in understanding Project effects on TLRU.
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 5-13
CA PDF Page 14 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Energy East Project Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment
Although each Aboriginal group is responsible for designing the scope of their TLRU study, Energy East is providing guidance during TLRU study scoping discussions on study components that are useful for Project planning and the regulatory assessment process. Those components include:
• description of traditional territory or lands • 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 (including, but not limited to, sacred sites, burial sites, trails or other travelways, archaeological or paleontological sites, cabins, camping areas, fishing villages, spawning areas, calving or kidding areas, mineral licks, quarries) • lists of species or resources harvested (including, but not limited to, wildlife, plants, fish, marine mammals) • timing or seasons for harvesting (if applicable) • changes in the territory that have affected traditional land and resource use within the last 25 years (or more) • potential effects the Project may have on traditional land and resource use practices, sites and areas. • recommendations for mitigating those effects
Each Aboriginal group will ultimately determine the components of their project-specific TLRU study, depending on the interests and needs of the group in relation to the Project.
Similarly, Aboriginal groups will determine the appropriate areas for data collection. Energy East has recommended that field data collection focus on Crown land and land to which Aboriginal groups have been granted access within the PDA, and that information gathered through mediums such as interviews, workshops and meetings focus on the vicinity of the Project, but data collection may extend to other areas within the Aboriginal group’s traditional territory or lands.
5.4.1.2 TLRU Program Status
As of May 2014, Energy East commenced TLRU study discussions with 15 Aboriginal groups in New Brunswick. As described in Consolidated Application Volume 10, these communities were invited to provide TLRU information based on relative proximity to the Project and potential for Project effects on TLRU. To date, Energy East has conducted 12 TLRU scoping sessions and 14 TLRU introductory sessions with Aboriginal groups within New Brunswick. In addition, Energy East is advancing discussions with several Aboriginal groups in respect to the Communications and Funding Agreement (CEFA), which would allocate funding to support TLRU research.
Energy East will consider requests from additional Aboriginal groups to conduct TLRU studies, and studies will commence once scoping and approval is complete.
5-14 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 15 of 70
Energy East Project Part E: New Brunswick Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use
5.4.2 Approach and Methods – Literature Review
TLRU information may also be available in documents accessible to the public. A review of existing Aboriginal TLRU information was conducted in order to provide a summary of publicly available TLRU data for Aboriginal communities potentially affected by the Project. This review is included in Appendix 5A.2. Relevant publicly available documents reviewed for the Project include, TLRU reports from regulatory applications for other developments, Aboriginal community-initiated studies and government reports. Additional sources reviewed were:
• general historical and ethnographic literature • relevant internet resources (such as the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada website) • public land claims documents • the NEB website • academic libraries and databases
The literature review was limited to the same temporal boundary as the TLRU studies (25 years before present) and only includes documents dating from 1989 or later. This review is intended to capture information for the same communities that have been invited to provide TLRU information for the Project. Documents were generally included if some or all of the Aboriginal groups involved have also been engaged in Energy East. TLRU studies held in confidence by Aboriginal communities or identified as being for the one time use of another project or study were excluded from the review and associated summaries.
5.4.3 Literature Review Summary
The literature review for the Project in New Brunswick considered relevant publicly available documents, including TLRU reports from regulatory applications for other developments, Aboriginal community-initiated studies and government reports. There are few publically available TLRU studies and there are large portions of the Project corridor in New Brunswick for which no traditional knowledge information is available. The sources consulted indicate that many TLRU activities remain important to Aboriginal groups engaged on the Project. Plant gathering for food, medicinal and ceremonial purposes was commonly cited. Hunting of big and small game, especially moose was mentioned in several of the sources. TLRU sites, traditional gathering places, and sites of social, ceremonial and spiritual importance were identified by several Aboriginal groups. There are stated concerns about the health and distribution of traditionally harvested plants and animals; concerns regarding accesses were also noted. Many Aboriginal groups stated that non-Aboriginal land use practices and activities were affecting TLRU resources and activities.
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 5-15
CA PDF Page 16 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Energy East Project Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment
5.4.4 Views of Aboriginal Groups
During Project Aboriginal engagement activities conducted through May 2014, Aboriginal groups in New Brunswick raised issues related to Project effects on TLRU. These issues include:
• potential effects on Aboriginal fisheries; • potential effects of the pipeline at Grand Lake, and the marine terminal, on Aboriginal and commercial fisheries; and • potential effects on traditional harvesting.
For more information regarding these issues, see Consolidated Application Volume 10.
5.4.5 Overview of Baseline Conditions
The literature review, Project engagement activities and past project experience indicate that TLRU is likely within the RAA in New Brunswick. No TLRU studies have been completed for the New Brunswick section of the Project. These studies, in combination with ongoing Aboriginal engagement activities, will provide more detailed information regarding the nature and extent of TLRU within the RAA. Summaries of baseline TLRU information documented through Project-specific studies and ongoing Project engagement activities will be provided to the NEB through additional reporting.
5.5 Potential Effects, Key Indicators and Measureable Parameters
For the purposes of this assessment, the types of TLRU activities and sites that are commonly identified in TLRU studies have been classified under four broad categories:
• harvesting (hunting, trapping, fishing, plant gathering, and associated locales and species) • travel (including trails, routes, waterways, and landmarks) • habitation (including cabins, campsites, meeting areas, gathering places) • cultural/spiritual (including burial sites, sacred sites, and archaeological sites)
5.5.1 Potential Effects
Potential effects on traditional land and resource use were determined based on Project Aboriginal engagement activities, past project experience and the literature review. TLRU effects due to construction and operation of the Project (including associated accidents and malfunctions) may include:
• temporary or permanent loss of hunting areas or opportunities • temporary or permanent loss of fishing areas or opportunities • temporary or permanent loss of trapping areas or opportunities • temporary or permanent loss of plant harvesting areas or opportunities • temporary or permanent loss of trails or travelways, or their use (including navigation) • temporary or permanent loss of habitation sites or their use • temporary or permanent loss of cultural or spiritual practices or sites
5-16 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 17 of 70
Energy East Project Part E: New Brunswick Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use
Effects on TLRU sites and practices may result from direct disturbances to harvesting sites, habitation sites, trails or other cultural sites, or loss of access to these sites. Changes to harvesting (hunting, fishing, trapping and plant gathering) may also result from effects on harvested species (e.g. animal displacement, vegetation removal, reduction in habitat or decreases in species’ health, abundance, or diversity). Increased pressure on harvested species from new access created by the Project for recreational land users can also affect traditional harvesting activities. TLRU may also be affected by changes in the quality and perceptions of the quality of TLRU sites and harvested resources (e.g., decreased air or water quality, visual or noise disturbances or perceptions of contamination may result in reduced TLRU).
Once TLRU studies are complete, potential effects on TLRU will be confirmed based on information provided by Aboriginal groups. It is expected that potential effects identified in TLRU studies will focus on the PDA on Crown land and freehold land where Aboriginal groups have been granted right of access.
5.5.2 Project Interactions
Table 5-1 presents a summary of potential effects on TLRU that could results from interactions between the environment and project activities during construction and operation in New Brunswick. A conservative approach was used to identify potential interactions between the Project and TLRU activities, whereby activities with a degree of uncertainty have been assumed to contribute to the environmental effect.
5.5.2.1 Accidents and Malfunctions
Any fluid spills during construction or crude oil releases during operation could also interact with the Project effects on TLRU listed in Table 5-1 (see Volume 19 for more information on accidents and malfunctions).
Given the length of the Project, it is impractical to conduct a site-specific risk assessment for the effects of spills for every location, as the effect of a crude oil spill would vary both temporally and spatially depending on the volume and location of the spill. The likely incidence of a spill occurring over the projected operational life of the Project is considered extremely low at any discrete location. If a spill were to occur, it likely would be relatively small (4 barrels or less). For any 1 km segment, the probability of any spill is one spill every 2,340 years (for converted pipeline) or 2,957 years (for new pipeline). For any 1 km segment, the probability of a spill of 10,000 barrels or more is one spill every 499,983 years (for converted pipeline) or 528,200 years (for new pipeline).
Energy East analyzed the projected consequences of spill scenarios at selected sites along the route that are representative of similar locations elsewhere on the Project. Energy East will review this scenario modelling with Aboriginal groups who have expressed concerns regarding accidents and malfunctions.
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 5-17
CA PDF Page 18 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Energy East Project Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment
5.5.3 Key Indicators and Measurable Parameters
Project effects are framed with reference to measurable parameters. Measurable parameters facilitate quantitative or qualitative measure of potential residual and cumulative effects, and provide a means to determine the level or amount of change. The environmental effects of concern in this assessment include changes in the ability to harvest plants, hunt, fish, trap or access sites and areas that are used for traditional purposes. In the absence of Project-specific TLRU data, measureable parameters are primarily based on the conclusions of other VC assessments, as well as the literature review and information received through Project Aboriginal engagement activities. The parameters and the rationale for their selection are summarized in Table 5-2.
5-18 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 19 of 70
Energy East Project Part E: New Brunswick Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use
Table 5-1 Potential Effects on Traditional Land and Resource Use
Potential Effects
Temporary or Temporary or Temporary or Temporary or Temporary or permanent Temporary or permanent permanent Temporary or permanent permanent loss of trails permanent loss of loss of permanent loss of loss of plant or travelways, loss of cultural or hunting areas loss of fishing trapping areas harvesting or their use habitation spiritual Project Activities and or areas or or areas or (including sites or their practices or Physical Works opportunities opportunities opportunities opportunities navigation) use sites
Construction
Pipeline
Pump stations (including permanent access roads)
Operation
Pipeline N/A N/A N/A N/A
Pump stations (including permanent access roads)
Decommissioning and abandonment1
NOTES: Indicates that an activity is likely to contribute to the environmental effect N/A indicates not applicable. 1 For effects of decommissioning and abandonment, see Volume 14, Section 8.
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 5-19
CA PDF Page 20 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Energy East Project Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment
Table 5-2 Measurable Parameters and Key Indicators – Traditional Land and Resource Use
Measurable Environmental Effect Key Indicators Parameters Data Sources Rationale for Selection
Temporary or permanent Hunting and hunting Availability of • TLRU Studies* Hunting depends on the health and loss of hunting areas or areas harvested species. abundance of traditionally • Project Aboriginal Engagement activities opportunities harvested species. • Literature Review • Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Assessment
Hunting areas and • TLRU Studies Hunting depends on the continued associated access. availability of traditional hunting • Project Aboriginal Engagement activities areas, and continued access to • Literature Review these areas. • Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Assessment
Appropriate • TLRU Studies Various biophysical and environmental socio-economic environmental • Project Aboriginal Engagement activities conditions for hunting. conditions may affect hunting. For • Literature Review example, poor air quality or water • Atmospheric Environment Assessment quality, noise, or altered visual aesthetics may deter individuals • Acoustic Environment Assessment from hunting. Perceptions of • Employment and Economy Assessment environmental contamination may also deter hunting. Project • Human Occupancy and Resource Use employment may leave individuals Assessment with less time to hunt or relocate • Groundwater Resources Assessment individuals away from hunting areas. Poor health or decreased • Infrastructure and Services Assessment community cohesion may affect the • Social and Cultural Well-Being Assessment ability or desire to undertake traditional practices such as • Soils and Terrain hunting. • Surface Water Resources Assessment
5-20 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 21 of 70
Energy East Project Part E: New Brunswick Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use
Table 5-2 Measurable Parameters and Key Indicators – Traditional Land and Resource Use
Measurable Environmental Effect Key Indicators Parameters Data Sources Rationale for Selection
Temporary or permanent Fishing and fishing Availability of • TLRU Studies Fishing depends on the health and loss of fishing areas or areas harvested species. abundance of traditionally • Project Aboriginal Engagement activities opportunities harvested species. • Literature Review • Fish and Fish Habitat Assessment
Fishing areas and • TLRU Studies Fishing depends on the continued associated access. availability of traditional fishing • Project Aboriginal Engagement activities areas, and continued access to • Literature Review these areas. • Fish and Fish Habitat Assessment
Appropriate • TLRU Studies Various biophysical and environmental socio-economic environmental • Project Aboriginal Engagement activities conditions for fishing. conditions may affect fishing. For • Literature Review example, poor air quality or water • Atmospheric Environment Assessment quality, noise, or altered visual aesthetics may deter individuals • Acoustic Environment Assessment from fishing. Perceptions of • Employment and Economy Assessment environmental contamination may also deter fishing. Project • Human Occupancy and Resource Use employment may leave individuals Assessment with less time to fish or relocate • Groundwater Resources Assessment individuals away from fishing areas. Poor health or decreased • Infrastructure and Services Assessment community cohesion may affect the • Social and Cultural Well-Being Assessment ability or desire to undertake traditional practices such as fishing. • Soils and Terrain • Surface Water Resources Assessment
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 5-21
CA PDF Page 22 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Energy East Project Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment
Table 5-2 Measurable Parameters and Key Indicators – Traditional Land and Resource Use
Measurable Environmental Effect Key Indicators Parameters Data Sources Rationale for Selection
Temporary or permanent Trapping and Availability of • TLRU Studies Trapping depends on the health loss of trapping areas or trapping areas harvested species. and abundance of traditionally • Project Aboriginal Engagement activities opportunities harvested species. • Literature Review • Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Assessment
Trapping areas and • TLRU Studies Trapping depends on the continued associated access. availability of traditional trapping • Project Aboriginal Engagement activities areas, and continued access to • Literature Review these areas. • Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Assessment
Appropriate • TLRU Studies Various biophysical and environmental socio-economic environmental • Project Aboriginal Engagement activities conditions for trapping. conditions may affect trapping. For • Literature Review example, poor air quality or water • Atmospheric Environment Assessment quality, noise, or altered visual aesthetics may deter individuals • Acoustic Environment Assessment from trapping. Perceptions of • Employment and Economy Assessment environmental contamination may also deter trapping. Project • Human Occupancy and Resource Use employment may leave individuals Assessment with less time to trap or relocate • Groundwater Resources Assessment individuals away from trapping areas. Poor health or decreased • Infrastructure and Services Assessment community cohesion may affect the • Social and Cultural Well-Being Assessment ability or desire to undertake traditional practices such as • Soils and Terrain trapping. • Surface Water Resources Assessment
5-22 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 23 of 70
Energy East Project Part E: New Brunswick Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use
Table 5-2 Measurable Parameters and Key Indicators – Traditional Land and Resource Use
Measurable Environmental Effect Key Indicators Parameters Data Sources Rationale for Selection
Temporary or permanent Plant harvesting and Availability of • TLRU Studies Plant harvesting depends on the loss of plant harvesting plant harvesting harvested species. health and abundance of • Project Aboriginal Engagement activities areas or opportunities areas traditionally harvested species. • Literature Review • Vegetation and Wetlands Assessment
Plant harvesting areas • TLRU Studies Plant harvesting depends on the and associated continued availability of traditional • Project Aboriginal Engagement activities access. plant harvesting areas, and • Literature Review continued access to these areas. • Vegetation and Wetlands Assessment
Appropriate • TLRU Studies Various biophysical and environmental socio-economic environmental • Project Aboriginal Engagement activities conditions for plant conditions may affect plant harvesting. • Literature Review harvesting. For example, poor air • Atmospheric Environment Assessment quality or water quality, noise, or altered visual aesthetics may deter • Acoustic Environment Assessment individuals from plant harvesting. • Employment and Economy Assessment Perceptions of environmental contamination may also deter plant • Human Occupancy and Resource Use harvesting. Project employment Assessment may leave individuals with less time • Groundwater Resources Assessment to trap or relocate individuals away from plant harvesting areas. Poor • Infrastructure and Services Assessment health or decreased community • Social and Cultural Well-Being Assessment cohesion may affect the ability or desire to undertake traditional • Soils and Terrain practices such as plant harvesting. • Surface Water Resources Assessment
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 5-23
CA PDF Page 24 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Energy East Project Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment
Table 5-2 Measurable Parameters and Key Indicators – Traditional Land and Resource Use
Measurable Environmental Effect Key Indicators Parameters Data Sources Rationale for Selection
Temporary or permanent Trails and Trails and travelways • TLRU Studies The use of trails and travelways loss of trails or travelways, use and associated depends on continued availability • Project Aboriginal Engagement activities travelways, or their use thereof access. and access. In addition to TLRU (including navigation) • Literature Review studies, the Heritage Resources • Heritage Resources Assessment Assessment may provide information regarding trails and travelways.
Appropriate • TLRU Studies Various biophysical and environmental socio-economic environmental • Project Aboriginal Engagement activities conditions for use of conditions may affect use of trails trails and travelways. • Literature Review and travelways. For example, poor • Atmospheric Environment Assessment air quality or water quality, noise, or altered visual aesthetics may deter • Acoustic Environment Assessment individuals from pursuing TLRU • Employment and Economy Assessment practices, thereby reducing use of trails and travelways. Perceptions • Human Occupancy and Resource Use of environmental contamination Assessment may also deter TLRU. Project • Groundwater Resources Assessment employment may leave individuals with less time to engage in TLRU or • Infrastructure and Services Assessment relocate individuals away from • Social and Cultural Well-Being Assessment TLRU areas. Poor health or decreased community cohesion • Soils and Terrain may affect the ability or desire to • Surface Water Resources Assessment undertake TLRU.
5-24 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 25 of 70
Energy East Project Part E: New Brunswick Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use
Table 5-2 Measurable Parameters and Key Indicators – Traditional Land and Resource Use
Measurable Environmental Effect Key Indicators Parameters Data Sources Rationale for Selection
Temporary or permanent Habitation sites, use Habitation sites and • TLRU Studies The use of habitation sites depends loss of habitation sites or thereof associated access. on continued availability and • Project Aboriginal Engagement activities their use access. In addition to TLRU • Literature Review studies, the Heritage Resources • Heritage Resources Assessment Assessment may provide information regarding habitation sites.
Appropriate • TLRU Studies Various biophysical and environmental socio-economic environmental • Project Aboriginal Engagement activities conditions for use of conditions may affect the use of habitation sites. • Literature Review habitation sites. For example, poor • Atmospheric Environment Assessment air quality or water quality, noise, or altered visual aesthetics may deter • Acoustic Environment Assessment individuals from pursuing TLRU • Employment and Economy Assessment practices and using habitation sites. Perceptions of environmental • Human Occupancy and Resource Use contamination may also deter Assessment TLRU. Project employment may • Groundwater Resources Assessment leave individuals with less time to engage in TLRU or relocate • Infrastructure and Services Assessment individuals away from TLRU areas. • Social and Cultural Well-Being Assessment Poor health or decreased community cohesion may affect the • Soils and Terrain ability or desire to undertake TLRU. • Surface Water Resources Assessment
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 5-25
CA PDF Page 26 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Energy East Project Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment
Table 5-2 Measurable Parameters and Key Indicators – Traditional Land and Resource Use
Measurable Environmental Effect Key Indicators Parameters Data Sources Rationale for Selection
Temporary or permanent Cultural or spiritual Cultural or spiritual • TLRU Studies The use of cultural or spiritual sites loss of cultural or spiritual sites or areas, use sites or areas and and areas depends on continued • Project Aboriginal Engagement activities practices sites or areas thereof associated access. availability and access. In addition • Literature Review to TLRU studies, the Heritage • Heritage Resources Assessment Resources Assessment may provide information regarding • Palaeontological Resources Assessment cultural or spiritual sites, and continued access to these areas.
Appropriate • TLRU Studies Various biophysical and environmental socio-economic environmental • Project Aboriginal Engagement activities conditions for use of conditions may affect the use of cultural or spiritual • Literature Review cultural or spiritual sites or areas. sites. • Atmospheric Environment Assessment For example, poor air quality or water quality, noise, or altered • Acoustic Environment Assessment visual aesthetics may deter • Employment and Economy Assessment individuals from pursuing TLRU practices and using cultural or • Human Occupancy and Resource Use spiritual sites or areas. Perceptions Assessment of environmental contamination • Groundwater Resources Assessment may also deter TLRU. Project employment may leave individuals • Infrastructure and Services Assessment with less time to engage in TLRU or • Social and Cultural Well-Being Assessment relocate individuals away from TLRU areas. Poor health or • Soils and Terrain decreased community cohesion • Surface Water Resources Assessment may affect the ability or desire to undertake TLRU.
NOTES: * TLRU studies have been noted as a data source for every measurable parameter. TLRU Studies not only provide information regarding traditionally harvested species and traditional use sites and areas, but can also provide different conclusions from the VC assessments regarding the environmental effects of the Project.
5-26 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 27 of 70
Energy East Project Part E: New Brunswick Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use
5.6 Mitigation
Mitigation will depend on the types of sites and activities identified through Project TLRU studies and engagement activities. Mitigation for potential effects on TLRU may include:
• avoiding of TLRU sites through route re-alignment • narrowing the Project footprint to minimize potential disturbance to TLRU sites • flagging, fencing or signage of sites to prevent disturbance during construction • detailed mapping and recording of identified TLRU sites where avoidance is not possible • timing construction or maintenance to avoid key harvesting periods • providing opportunities for harvesting plants or other resources before construction • notifying Aboriginal groups regarding Project activities and schedules, including provision of Project maps • at the request of Aboriginal groups, participating in ceremonies prior to the start of construction • employing Aboriginal TLRU monitors during construction • developing and implementing a training program for employees and contractors that outlines TLRU requirements and sensitivities • consulting Aboriginal groups on post construction access-management and reclamation planning • not using chemical applications for vegetation management within 30 meters of a watercourse or wetland • adhering to species specific timing constraints and setbacks unless otherwise approved by regulatory agencies • leaving breaks in topsoil and grade piles, and strung pipe to allow wildlife movement across the RoW • adhering to regulations, standards and guidelines for watercourse crossings as outlined in the EPP • maintaining access to identified TLRU sites during construction and operations • reclaiming disturbed areas following completion of construction to restore access to and use of affected areas not required for aboveground facilities. • creating new, temporary portages to allow transport of watercraft around active construction areas. • restoring bed and banks of watercourse crossing to provide continued use of the waterbody for travel • prohibiting hunting or fishing by Project personnel on the worksite • following the Company’s Post-Construction Monitoring Program (PCMP), which complies with specific reclamation performance expectations and conditions • maintaining ongoing engagement with Aboriginal groups to discuss Project activities and mitigation
If TLRU sites are identified prior to or during construction, conditions outlined in the Traditional Land Use Sites Discovery Contingency Plan within the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) (see Volume 21) will be followed.
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 5-27
CA PDF Page 28 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Energy East Project Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment
Additionally, the mitigation measures discussed in the various biophysical and socio-economic VC sections and the EPP will reduce or eliminate effects on traditional use resources, and reduce or eliminate effects on conditions that may prohibit or deter TLRU.
For more information regarding mitigation of Project effects on other biophysical and socio-economic VCs for New Brunswick, see Volumes 15 and 16, Part E.
The recommended mitigation measures pertain to environmental conditions that could influence TLRU and apply to all effects.
It is anticipated that mitigation recommendations might be received from some Aboriginal groups in TLRU reports and through the Project engagement process. Energy East will discuss mitigation with each Aboriginal group; as appropriate, mitigation recommendations will be included in the EPP.
5.7 Residual Effects
Conclusions regarding residual effects on TLRU are primarily based on the conclusions of the biophysical and socio-economic assessments, as well as outcomes to May 2014 of Aboriginal engagement activities, past project experience and professional judgment. Information from other biophysical and socio-economic VC residual effects assessments is summarized below.
5.7.1 Residual Effects Description Criteria
Table 5-3 provides the effects classification criteria used to characterize residual effects on TLRU.
Table 5-3 Effects Classification Criteria – TLRU
Criteria Criteria Definitions
Direction The expected long-term Positive The Project activity will have a positive effect trend of the effects on TLRU compared to baseline conditions
Negative Effect on TLRU is negative compared to baseline conditions
Neutral No effect compared to baseline conditions
Magnitude The expected change in N/A Not applicable due to the subjective nature of a measurable parameter effects on TLRU or variable relative to baseline case
Geographic The geographic area PDA Effect is limited to the PDA (i.e., construction Extent within which an effect of a RoW and footprints associated with defined magnitude is constructing the pipeline, access roads and expected to occurs associated facilities)
LAA Effect extends to the LAA
RAA Effect extends to the RAA
5-28 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 29 of 70
Energy East Project Part E: New Brunswick Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use
Table 5-3 Effects Classification Criteria – TLRU
Criteria Criteria Definitions
Duration The period of time that is Short term Effect is restricted to construction period required until TLRU returns to its baseline Medium term Effect occurs throughout construction and up to condition 10 years during operation Long-term Effect continues through the life of the Project and beyond
Permanent Effect is measurable indefinitely
Frequency The number of times Single event Effect occurs once during the construction and during a project or a operation phases of the Project specific project phase that an effect could occur Multiple irregular Effect occurs at irregular intervals during event construction and infrequently during the operation phase of the Project
Multiple regular Effect occurs on a regular basis and at regular event intervals during the construction and operation phases of the Project
Continuous Effect occurs continuously during the construction and operation phases of the Project
Reversibility The likelihood that Reversible Recovery from an environmental effect is likely, a measurable parameter through active management and mitigation will recover from an effect Irreversible Recovery is unlikely
Ecological and The general Negligible or Largely undeveloped land and limited Socio-economic characteristics of the area limited motorized access Context in which the project is disturbance located Low disturbance Low levels of recreation use and resources levels exploration
Moderate Forestry, conventional oil/gas extraction disturbance activities; isolated permanent facilities and all levels weather roads
High Extensive land modification from industrial disturbance complexes, mines and agriculture levels
The description criteria used in the VC conclusions in Section 5.7.3 are based on the criteria used for each of the biophysical and socio-economic VCs. For definitions of assessment terms, see Volumes 15 and 16, Part E.
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 5-29
CA PDF Page 30 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Energy East Project Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment
5.7.2 Significance Thresholds for Residual Effects
Under CEAA 2012, there is a requirement to make a determination of significance in the TLRU assessment. The lack of laws, policies, management plans or standard industry practice regarding thresholds for this VC makes choosing and applying significance thresholds methodologically challenging with regards to TLRU. Additionally, the subjective nature of describing and understanding the importance of effects on TLRU means that any selected threshold might not adequately apply across all Aboriginal groups and circumstances.
In advance of TLRU studies being completed, significance thresholds for assessment of Project effects on TLRU are based on the biophysical and socio-economic valued component assessments:
• Not significant: The assessment indicates that there will not be a significant adverse effect on any of the TLRU resources or environmental conditions noted as data sources in Table 5-2. • Significant: The assessment indicates that there will be a significant adverse effect on one or more of the TLRU resources or environmental conditions noted as data sources in Table 5-2.
Any information received from Aboriginal groups regarding Project residual or cumulative effects will be included in the summary of TLRU findings provided to the NEB.
5.7.3 Biophysical and Socio-Economic Residual Effects Assessment Conclusions
Conclusions of the VC assessments noted in Table 5-2 are provided below.
5.7.3.1 Biophysical VCs
ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
The atmospheric environment assessment considered potential changes in air quality due to Project construction and operation. The effects from the New Brunswick segment of the Project are associated with emissions during construction and operation of the pipeline and pump stations. The potential effects are described in Volume 15, Part E, Section 2. Potential effects are associated with pipeline and facility construction. The pump stations will be electrically driven and will not produce air emissions. Fugitive vapour emissions from the operation of the pipeline and electrically driven pump stations (e.g., leaks from valves, flanges, connectors) are assumed to be not substantial. Maintenance of the pipeline and pump stations will result in the generation of air contaminants that are low in magnitude occurring on occasion from equipment such as heavy equipment and fugitive dust in the event that pipeline excavation is required. As maintenance is periodic and emissions of air contaminants are very limited, effects from these emissions are not anticipated and not assessed further. Effects of emissions from pipeline and facility construction on the atmospheric environment and air quality were assessed 1 km beyond the PDA. Greenhouse gas emissions will be assessed at a national level for the entire Project. No key indicators are identified for the atmospheric environment VC.
Mitigation measures are recommended to reduce the effects of the Project.
5-30 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 31 of 70
Energy East Project Part E: New Brunswick Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use
Residual effects on the air quality with construction are deemed to not be significant and prediction confidence for the construction phase is moderate due to the approximate nature of the emissions information. The air emissions associated with pipeline conversion and pump station construction are temporary and transient in nature. With the application of recommended mitigation measures residual effects on air quality are predicted to be not significant. Prediction confidence phase is high because of the quality of emissions data, confidence in analytical methods and the use of proposed mitigation measures, which reflect accepted best industry practice and have been vetted by regulatory agencies.
ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT
The acoustic environment assessment (Volume 15, Part E, Section 3) considered potential change in the existing acoustic environment due to Project construction and operation. The potential effects include change in existing acoustic environment as a result of pipeline and facility construction and facility operation.
Mitigation measures are recommended to reduce the effects of the Project on the acoustic environment.
Residual effects on the acoustic environment, in the New Brunswick segment, were assessed by comparing the predicted combined (Project and baseline) and construction sound levels to thresholds at various receptors. In general, if the combined or construction sound levels at receptor locations are below the corresponding thresholds, the noise effects are not significant. Residual effects on the acoustic environment during construction and operation were found to be of low magnitude, short to medium term in duration (for construction and operation, respectively), and reversible. With the application of recommended mitigation, potential adverse effects of the change in acoustic environment are predicted to be not significant for the construction and operation of the Project pipeline and facilities. Prediction confidence is high because of the use of ISO standard prediction methodology, conservative estimates of the source sound power levels, and feasible noise control/mitigation
SURFACE WATER RESOURCES
The surface water resources assessment (see Volume 15, Part E, Section 4) considered potential changes in water quantity and water quality due to Project construction and operation. The effects assessment included variables such as flows, nutrients and metals. For surface water resources, the assessment area includes the PDA and stream crossings potentially affected by the Project, and extending to 100 m upstream and 300 m downstream beyond the PDA of pipeline crossing locations. For larger rivers and rivers with greater streamflow, the assessment area may extend up to 500 m upstream and 1 km downstream of new build pipeline crossing locations. No key indicators are identified for the surface water resources VC.
Surface-water resources provide important habitat for major groups of traditionally harvested species and are associated with several traditional use VCs, including groundwater, freshwater fish and fish habitat, vegetation and wetlands, wildlife and wildlife habitat, and human health. The fish and fish habitat assessment identified major groups of traditionally harvested species in the desktop and baseline surveys. In addition, Atlantic salmon is a species of management concern and identified as a key indicator and a major species for traditional is historically present in several watercourses for part of its lifecycle. Recreationally fished species include gaspreau; American shad; Atlantic salmon (including
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 5-31
CA PDF Page 32 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Energy East Project Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment
landlocked populations); trout (e.g., brook trout, brown and rainbow trout); rainbow smelt; tomcod; Atlantic silverside; white perch; and striped bass. Commercially fished species not already listed includes American eel. In New Brunswick, three fish species at risk (SAR), including two distinct populations of Atlantic salmon (inner and outer Bay of Fundy populations) were identified in the Saint John marine terminal complex assessment area. The striped bass (Bay of Fundy population) and the American eel are both designated as threatened under the NB Species at Risk Act. While the potential exists for these species to occur in the assessment area, the likelihood of their occurrence is small. No additional freshwater fish SOMC were identified in the Saint John marine terminal complex assessment area.
Mitigation measures are recommended to reduce the effects of the Project on surface water resources.
Land-clearing activities during construction of the pipeline and permanent pump station access roads could introduce sediments and total suspended solid (TSS) to watercourses. While these effects are considered to be of low magnitude, short-term duration and reversible, they have the potential to limit traditional land and resource use during construction.
Residual effects on surface water quantity and quality were identified because of pipeline construction, land clearing and the associated alteration of flow patterns and sedimentation. All pump stations will be re-sited to be further than 30 m from a waterbody and watercourse; therefore, no residual effects are anticipated from pump station construction. Residual effects on surface water resources were found to be of a low magnitude, short-term duration, and reversible. As a result, residual effects were considered not significant. Maintenance and operation activities during the operations phase were not expected to result in residual effects on water quantity and quality.
GROUNDWATER RESOURCES
The groundwater resources assessment (see Volume 15, Part E, Section 5) considered potential changes in groundwater quantity and quality during all Project phases including construction, operation, decommissioning, and abandonment. Potential Project effects include changes to groundwater quantity arising from alteration of groundwater levels, physical damage to wells, or physical alteration of hydraulic properties; and changes in groundwater quality, arising from the generation of acid rock drainage or the physical alteration of groundwater flow patterns. No key indicators are identified for the groundwater resources VC.
Groundwater is understood to be an important resource for Aboriginal communities and the numerous species that communities traditionally harvest. Groundwater is associated with several traditional use VCs, including freshwater fish and fish habitat, surface water resources, vegetation and wetlands, wildlife and wildlife habitat, and human health.
Mitigation measures are recommended to reduce the effects of the Project on groundwater resources.
Residual effects on groundwater quantity and quality were identified for pipeline construction and associated activities, including dewatering trenches, blasting consolidated bedrock, and construction of HDD crossings. Residual effects on groundwater quantity were found to be negative or positive in direction, of low magnitude, local in extent, short-term in duration, multiple irregular in frequency and reversible. Residual effects on groundwater quality were found to be negative or positive in direction, moderate to high in magnitude, limited to the PDA in extent, short term in duration, single frequency, and reversible. With the application of appropriate mitigation measures, residual effects are considered not
5-32 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 33 of 70
Energy East Project Part E: New Brunswick Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use
significant. Maintenance and operation activities during the operations phase are not expected to result in residual effects on groundwater quantity or quality.
FISH AND FISH HABITAT
The fish and fish habitat assessment (see Volume 15, Part E, Section 6) considered potential changes in fish habitat, fish movement, migration and passage, and fish mortality, as well as the introduction of deleterious substances into fish habitat due to Project construction and operation activities. Two key indicator groups were considered during our assessment of potential effects: commercial, recreational and Aboriginal fisheries (as defined under the Federal Fisheries Act), and species of management concern.
Commercial and recreational fisheries were identified within 15 km upstream and downstream of the PDA in New Brunswick. Aboriginal fisheries are considered to be species fished recreationally and commercially. Atlantic salmon is a species of management concern, a traditionally used species and a key indicator for the assessment.
For all watercourses, mitigation measures are recommended to reduce the effects of the Project on fish habitat.
Residual effects on fish habitat, movement, migration and passage and fish mortality, as well as residual effects of deleterious substances on fish habitat were identified because of construction of pipeline and access road crossings. Residual effects were also identified where facilities (i.e., pump stations) were proposed to be located within 30 m of a watercourse. Residual effects on fish and fish habitat were found to be of a low magnitude and short-term duration, and reversible. As a result, residual effects were considered not significant. Maintenance and operation activities during the operations phase were not expected to result in residual effects on fish or fish habitat. The project does not include any permanent structures or facilities that might limit access to fish habitat and any deleterious substances that may be released are not expected to constrain or limit fish consumption or use.
SOILS AND TERRAIN
Project effects on soil capability are anticipated where physical disturbance is expected to occur, but not outside the PDA. The Project has the potential to result in an effect on soil capability through a change in soil quality and soil loss. Potential effects on soil capability are described in Volume 15, Part E, Section 7. There are no key indicators identified for this VC.
Mitigation measures are recommended to reduce the effects of the Project.
The potential for wind and water erosion to result in sedimentation of streams may limit traditional land and resource use. Mitigation measures are addressed in Surface Water Resources (Volume 15, Part E, Section 4) and Fish and Fish Habitat (Volume 15, Part E, Section 6).
The soils assessment found a potential for the residual effect of a change in soil quality (as measured by a change in agricultural capability class) through admixing, compaction and rutting for new pipeline during construction and operation of the Project. The potential for a change in soil quality is not anticipated for the construction and operation of pump station PDAs. There is also a potential for a residual effect on soil loss through enhanced wind and water erosion risk and inappropriate soil handling for new pipeline and
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 5-33
CA PDF Page 34 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Energy East Project Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment
pump station PDAs during the construction phase of the Project. With mitigation, the change in soil quality and soil loss will not result in a reduction in overall agricultural land capability class. Although there is potential for soil degradation during construction, with mitigation the effect will be not significant. Soil compaction and rutting are unavoidable even with mitigation, but the effects can be reversed during reclamation so the residual effects on soils are considered to be not significant.
VEGETATION AND WETLANDS
The vegetation and wetlands assessment (see Volume 15, Part E, Section 8) provides baseline conditions and assesses the potential project effects on native vegetation communities, wetlands, ecological communities of management concern (ECMC), plant species of management concern (SOMC), and invasive and non-native plant species. Key indicators for the vegetation and wetlands assessment are native vegetation communities, wetlands, ECMC, plant SOMC (including plant SAR) and invasive and non-native plant species, according to provincial regulations.
During construction of the Project, clearing, grading, and other activities will likely result in the temporary direct loss and fragmentation of native vegetation communities. Following construction, native vegetation communities will be re-established throughout the PDA except in areas of long-term disturbance where pump stations, valve stations, and permanent access roads are constructed. The Project will likely affect deciduous, coniferous and mixed upland forest and five classes of wetland. Five cultural community series will also be affected by the Project, excluding other categories such as agricultural, settlement, infrastructure, and developed areas.
Mitigation measures are recommended to reduce the effects of the Project. Mitigation measures for minimizing effects on vegetation and wetlands, including traditionally harvested species, are described in the vegetation and wetlands assessment.
Native vegetation communities and wetlands will likely be permanently affected as the result of construction of some pump stations, the tank terminal, valve sites, and permanent access roads. The Project has the potential to affect native vegetation communities, wetlands, SAR, and non-SAR SOMC and ECMC, and has the potential to introduce and spread invasive and non-native plant species. With the implementation of mitigation effects on the vegetation and wetland VC are expected to be mostly temporary and reversible with the following exceptions: native vegetation communities and wetlands will likely be permanently affected as the result of construction of pump stations, valve sites, and permanent access roads and; occurrences of SOMC or ECMC could be affected by Project construction. Construction and operation of the Project could affect vegetation and wetlands through changes in native vegetation communities, wetland loss or disturbance, effects on ECMC and SOMC, and through introduction or spread of invasive or non-native plant species. With the implementation of avoidance and mitigation through environmental protection measures, the effects of the Project on vegetation and wetlands are predicted to be not significant.
5-34 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 35 of 70
Energy East Project Part E: New Brunswick Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use
WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT
The wildlife and wildlife habitat assessment (see Volume 15, Part E, Section 9) considered changes in habitat availability, habitat connectivity, mortality risk, residences of species at risk, and critical habitat of species of risk. Seven key indicator groups were considered during the assessment of potential effects, including insects, amphibians, reptiles, upland game birds, raptors, migratory birds, and mammals. Within each key indicator group, particular focus is placed on representative wildlife species of management concern or species guilds based on similar habitat requirements (e.g., wetland-associated migratory birds or terrestrial mammals). For the New Brunswick study area, the species of management concern include 16 insects, 2 reptiles, 18 raptors, 53 migratory birds, 5 bats, and 5 other mammals.
Mitigation measures are recommended to reduce the effects of the Project on wildlife and wildlife habitat.
Residual effects on habitat availability will occur as a result of construction activities and may continue through operation because of sensory disturbance from maintenance of the RoW and operation of aboveground facilities. Overall, residual effects of construction and operation on habitat availability will be negative in direction and the change from baseline case will be low to moderate, as much of the land is forested. The effects will be limited mainly to the PDA, whereas sensory disturbance will extend into the LAA. Ground disturbance and vegetation removal due to construction will be a single event, while the sensory disturbance of operation will occur multiple times (irregularly) along the pipeline, and continuously at facilities; effects on habitat availability during operations will also be continuous along the RoW where it intersects forested habitat. The effects will be short- to long-term in duration and will be reversible for both construction and operation. As a result, the residual effects on habitat availability are expected to be not significant.
Residual effects on habitat connectivity are anticipated due to construction and operation activities, such as increased traffic, sensory disturbance, and the building of new access, particularly for species with small ranges (e.g., amphibians and snakes) as well as certain bird species. The residual effects of construction and operation on habitat connectivity are anticipated to be negative in direction and the change from baseline case will be low to moderate, as a portion of the RoW will be through intact forested habitat. The effects will occur within the LAA, be short- to long-term in duration, and be reversible for both construction and operation. The duration of the effects will be a single event during construction; however, the effects will occur continuously within forested areas along the RoW and at facilities during operation. As a result, the residual effects on habitat connectivity are expected to be not significant.
Residual effects on mortality risk are anticipated for some species, particularly for less-mobile wildlife such as reptiles, small mammals, as well as potentially migratory birds. However, effects should be minimal if mitigation measures are adhered to, particularly recommendations for timing restrictions and setback distances. For both construction and operation, the residual effects will be negative and the change from baseline case is expected to be low. Although the majority of the residual effects will be limited to within the LAA, some additional mortality is anticipated in the regional assessment area due to increased traffic during construction. The effects are expected to be short to long-term in duration, occur multiple times (irregularly) during both construction and operations, and to be reversible. As a result, the residual effects on mortality risk are not expected to be significant.
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 5-35
CA PDF Page 36 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Energy East Project Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment
Mitigation measures are recommended to avoid direct effects on identified residences of SAR during construction. However, residual effects due to sensory disturbance may continue through operation of the above-ground facilities. There should be no measurable effects associated with operation activities (e.g., vegetation management) along the RoW if mitigation measures are adhered to, particularly recommendations for timing restrictions and setback distances. The residual effects will be negative, and the change from baseline case will be low, limited to within the LAA, short- to long-term in duration, and reversible. The effects will occur multiple times (irregularly) during construction; sensory effects from the facilities will be continuous during operation. As a result, the residual effects on residences of species at risk are considered to be not significant.
No critical habitat was found within the RAA in New Brunswick; therefore, no effects on critical habitat are anticipated.
Overall, the residual effects of construction are anticipated to be negative in direction, low in magnitude, largely limited in extent to the LAA, and range between short- to long-term in duration. Occurrences of the effects are expected to range between single events, multiple times (irregularly), and continuously in the case of sensory disturbance at facilities and habitat loss along the RoW in forested habitat. All identified residual effects are predicted to be reversible, and none are considered significant. These conclusions are based on the following assumptions: (a) appropriate timing windows and recommended setback distances for construction and maintenance activities along the RoW will be implemented where possible to minimize interactions with wildlife and mortality risks to vulnerable species, and (b) measures would be employed to maintain wildlife movement patterns across the RoW during construction. With these key mitigation measures, the Project is not expected to have measurable effects on the long-term sustainability of wildlife.
5.7.3.2 Socio-Economic VCs
HUMAN OCCUPANCY AND RESOURCE USE
The human occupancy and resource use assessment (see Volume 16, Part E, Section 2) considered potential changes to land use due to Project construction and operation activities. The main land uses within 15 km from Project footprint include agriculture; oil and gas and other industrial activities; forestry; fishing, trapping and hunting; and designated recreational activities including recreational boating.
Pipeline and facility construction and operation might remove lands used for key indicators including agriculture, oil and gas and other industrial uses; fishing, hunting or trapping; and recreational activities and boating from their current uses either temporarily or for an extended period. The operation phase is not expected to cause adverse effects on land use. The pipeline crosses 286 watercourses and many tributaries to these watercourses that are accessible and restrictions to fishing activities will occur on a temporary basis at the crossing locations and in the immediate vicinity during the construction period.
Mitigation measures are recommended to reduce the effects of the Project. Mitigation measures for minimizing Project effects on human occupancy and resource use are described in Volume 16, Part E, Section 2.4.
5-36 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 37 of 70
Energy East Project Part E: New Brunswick Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use
Residual effects are anticipated for agriculture, forestry, hunting or trapping; as well as navigability of streams or rivers. The Project might temporarily alter land uses within and across the Project corridor during construction and early reclamation, but not operation, as the pipeline is buried. It is not anticipated that the pipeline will alter access to recreational opportunities. Permanent aboveground facilities (pump stations and mainline valves) will change the existing land uses at specific locations for the operational life of the Project and until the sites are decommissioned, abandoned and reclaimed.
Residual effects on fishing are anticipated during construction of watercourse crossings but not operations as the pipeline will be buried. Access across the Project corridor for fishing, hunting, or trapping will be restricted during construction of the Project. Pipeline construction might overlap with the hunting seasons for some species; however, wildlife tends to avoid areas of industrial activity and due to the short-term and localized nature of Project construction, any effects on hunting are anticipated to be limited to 500 m from the Project development area. Construction of the pump stations will last a year or longer; however, this is still a temporary disruption. Pipeline construction activities may also cause fur-bearing animals to avoid the area, but the effects are anticipated to last only for the period of construction. None of the pump stations are located near known traplines; therefore, potential interactions are not anticipated.
HERITAGE RESOURCES
The heritage resource assessment (see Volume 16, Part E, Section 3) addresses effects of new pipeline and pump stations. Primary effects on heritage resources occur during construction, including loss or disturbance to site contents and contexts through brush or topsoil removal, compaction, vehicle traffic, grading and trenching. Secondary effects may include illegal artefact collection by workers during construction or damage to surface sites through artefact collection or vandalism if the Project creates new access. For heritage resources, the assessment is conducted within the PDA, which is considered to be the maximum area for which effects can be predicted or measured with accuracy. Because each heritage resource site is evaluated separately on a site-specific basis, there are no key indicators or measurable parameters defined for this VC.
A review of the archaeological potential map and database identified three traditional travel or portage routes, four historic plane wrecks, and one Euro-Canadian cemetery located in the general survey region. Supplementary background research identified one additional traditional travel or portage route. It is likely that the travel and portage routes and possibly the cemetery have traditional land and resource use value. Local First Nations will be engaged in circumstances involving pre-contact or historic period First Nations archaeological sites within or immediately adjacent to the PDA.
All areas subject to ground-breaking construction activities and not included in the 2013 survey will be subject to a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) and Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) in 2014. Any historic period cemetery sites identified during the background research or during the AIA will be avoided by the Project, its associated pipeline, pump stations, facilities and activities through route adjustments or restrictions on the width of the RoW, and restrictions or relocations of temporary work spaces. For historic period archaeological sites and historic period plane wrecks, mitigation will include an archaeological survey of the site location, and mapping and photography of surface features. Built heritage resources identified during the HIA will be avoided by the Project through realignments or restrictions on the width of the RoW, restrictions or relocations of temporary work spaces, and locating
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 5-37
CA PDF Page 38 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Energy East Project Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment
aboveground facilities to avoid these resources. Should avoidance not be feasible, additional consultation with Historic Places will take place to develop a mitigation strategy.
Where elevated archaeological potential is confirmed, a shovel testing program will be developed based on the results of the archaeological survey and in consultation with Archeological Services. A mitigation plan for archaeological or heritage resources identified in the PDA, will be included in the AIA archaeological field research permit final report. A heritage resource discovery contingency plan that includes procedures if heritage resources, unidentified bone material, or verifiable human remains are exposed, will be developed and included in the EPP.
The completion of the HIA and the AIA will result in the avoidance of most heritage resources, and those that cannot be avoided will have mitigation applied as required by the provincial regulatory agency for heritage resources
An adverse residual environmental effect on heritage resources is considered significant if it results in an unauthorized project-related disturbance to, or destruction of, all or part of a heritage resource considered by the provincial heritage regulators to be important and that is not mitigated or compensated as required by regulators.
With the application of mitigation as required by the provincial regulators, the effects of the Project on heritage resources are not significant because there will be no unauthorized project-related disturbance to, or destruction of, a heritage resource considered by the provincial heritage regulators to be of importance that are not mitigated or compensated as required by regulators. This determination is made with a high level of confidence based on the successful implementation of similar mitigation for other projects and the regulatory consultation in the development of the recommended mitigation before implementation.
PALAEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The palaeontological resources assessment (see Volume 16, Part E, Section 4) considered potential changes in palaeontological resources (fossils) comprising evidence of past multicellular life, including body fossils (e.g., bones, shells and plant stems), impressions (e.g., leaf imprints) and trace fossils (e.g., dinosaur trackways). The assessment was completed to protect known fossil sites and areas of high palaeontological potential recognizing that pipeline and pump station construction may disturb palaeontological sites, resulting in loss of fossils or site context. Since each palaeontological resource site is evaluated separately on a site-specific basis, there are no key indicators defined for the palaeontological resources VC.
To date, First Nations engagement has not documented palaeontological sites of interest to Aboriginal people along the Project. Traditional knowledge and traditional land use studies for the project are ongoing. If palaeontological sites of Aboriginal interest are identified in the future, potential effects on the sites will be addressed.
Mitigation is recommended to limit the loss of fossils or site context caused by Project activities, including the implementation of a heritage resources discovery contingency plan.
5-38 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 39 of 70
Energy East Project Part E: New Brunswick Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use
The significance of residual effects on palaeontological resources is determined by the Minister of Wellness, Culture and Sport operating under the regulations of the Heritage Conservation Act of New Brunswick. With the application of recommended mitigation required by provincial regulators, and based on the fact that there are no known fossil sites in the PDA, effects of the Project on palaeontological resources are anticipated to be not significant.
EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMY
The employment and economy assessment (see Volume 16, Part E, Section 6) considered potential changes in employment, income and government revenue due to Project construction and operation activities. Project activities may have an effect on employment and the economy with several pathways including the creation of employment opportunities; revenue for municipal, provincial and federal governments generated through various types of tax; business opportunities; the need for goods and services; labour requirements; and demands on available land and land use. There are no key indicators for this VC.
Mitigation measures are recommended to reduce potential adverse effects on employment and economy. The Project will provide an inclusive and supportive work environment for Aboriginal workers and businesses through TransCanada’s existing Aboriginal Human Resources Strategy and Aboriginal Contracting Strategy.
Residual effects from Project construction and operation phases include changes to employment, income, and government revenue. All identified residual effects are positive in direction and given the recommended mitigation and enhancement measures, residual effects are not predicted to cause adverse changes in the employment and economy VC.
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES
The infrastructure and services assessment (see Volume 16, Part E, Section 7) considered increased demand in accommodation, community services and transportation. No key indicators are considered in this assessment. Mitigation and other management measures are recommended to reduce the effects of the Project on infrastructure and services.
Residual effects on increased demand in accommodation, community services and transportation were identified due to the expected influx of workers into eight counties traversed by the project. Residual effects on infrastructure and services in the presence of work camps in selected locations were found to be of a low magnitude, mostly of medium-term duration, and reversible. As a result, residual effects were considered not significant. Maintenance and operation activities during the operations phase are not expected to result in residual effects on infrastructure and services.
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 5-39
CA PDF Page 40 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Energy East Project Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment
SOCIAL AND CULTURAL WELL-BEING
The social and cultural well-being assessment (see Volume 16, Part E, Section 8) considered potential changes in social and cultural well-being due to Project construction and operation activities. The potential effects include out-of-region workers’ interaction with local communities and project-related changes to the landscape, wage employment opportunities and population. Project-related changes to the landscape might also interfere with traditional activities. There are no key indicators for the social and cultural well-being VC. Mitigation measures are recommended to reduce the effects of the Project on social and cultural well-being.
Residual effects on social and cultural well-being were identified because of Project activities and the potential for associated population increases to cause deterioration in social and cultural services. Residual effects on social and cultural well-being were found to be of a low magnitude, variable duration and reversible. Residual effects were considered not significant. Maintenance and operation activities during the operations phase were not expected to result in residual effects on social and cultural well-being.
VISUAL AESTHETICS
The visual aesthetics assessment (see Volume 17, Part A, Section 20) considered the potential for change in the local viewshed as a result of the Saint John marine and tank terminal, and associated lighting requirements during construction and operation phases of the Project. The effects assessment included the potential change in visual value and ambient light from the Project. The potential effects were assessed up to 8 km from the boundary around the marine and tank terminal. Mitigation measures are recommended to reduce the effects of the Project.
Residual effects on visual value and ambient light were identified at the Saint John marine terminal complex; however, the effects on both measurable parameters are predicted to be low in magnitude because of the application of mitigation measures. The average visual value rating is expected to remain at low throughout the construction and operation phases of the Project. The ambient light conditions within the area adjacent to the tank terminal are expected to remain characteristic of a rural environment. The residual effects on both visual value and ambient light were found to be of low magnitude, short to medium-term duration, and reversible. With the application of recommended mitigation, residual effects of both Project construction and operation phases on visual aesthetics, including visual value and ambient light, are predicted to be not significant.
5.7.4 Views of Aboriginal Groups
As noted in Section 5.4, Aboriginal groups have raised concerns regarding Project effects on TLRU through the Energy East Aboriginal engagement program. These include concerns regarding effects of the Project on traditional harvesting and Aboriginal fisheries, particularly at Grand Lake and the marine terminal. Grand Lake falls within the LAA; therefore, the Project has the potential to affect TLRU in this area and at the marine terminal.
5-40 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 41 of 70
Energy East Project Part E: New Brunswick Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use
Aboriginal groups may provide feedback regarding the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures. Further information regarding residual effects provided by Aboriginal groups through ongoing Aboriginal engagement or TLRU studies conducted for the Project will be provided to the NEB through additional reporting.
5.7.5 Overview of Residual Effects
Given that this assessment assumes that TLRU activities occur throughout the Project area and takes into consideration the conclusions of the VC assessments, it is anticipated that residual effects on TLRU are likely to result from Project construction and operation. Conclusions regarding residual effects on TLRU are primarily based on the conclusions of the biophysical and socio-economic assessments, as well as outcomes to date of Aboriginal engagement activities, past project experience and professional judgment.
During construction, residual effects are anticipated on TLRU. These effects are anticipated to be negative in direction and limited to the LAA with the exception of effects on hunting and trapping, which may extend to the RAA during construction. Effect duration is anticipated to range between short-term and permanent, and frequency is expected to range between single events and continuous occurrences. Residual effects on the resources harvested through hunting, trapping, fishing and plant harvesting are predicted to be reversible.
During operation of the pipeline, fewer residual effects on TLRU are anticipated. Wildlife and wildlife habitat has identified effects related to operation of the pipeline that may impact hunting and trapping; vegetation and wetlands have also identified residual effects of operations, and the loss of plant species removed during construction may result in ongoing effects on plant harvesting. For pump stations, residual effects on TLRU are anticipated due to operations effects on wildlife and the atmospheric, acoustic and visual environments. The residual effects of all operations are expected to be negative in direction, limited to the LAA, and range between medium- and long-term duration. Occurrences of the effects are expected to range between irregular events and continuous occurrences. All effects of operations are predicted to be reversible.
Most effects on TLRU are expected to result from construction activities on Crown land. Project facilities include 127 km of new pipeline on Crown land (out of a total 407 km) and one out of five required pump stations is on Crown land. Approximately 70% of the pipeline PDA is on private land.
The existing ecological and socio-economic context reflects low to moderate levels of disturbance due to agricultural, residential and industrial development. Although most of the PDA is dominated by forested areas, the northernmost section of the Project passes through agricultural land.
Based on this context and the results available at the time of filing from the biophysical and socio-economic VC assessments, significant residual adverse effects on TLRU are not anticipated.
Though unlikely, accidents and malfunctions might also have an effect on TLRU. Accidental releases and related reclamation can potentially remove traditionally harvested resources and culturally important sites and areas, limit access, change the quality of resources and change the perception and experience of TLRU. For more information on accidents and malfunctions, see Volume 19.
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 5-41
CA PDF Page 42 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Energy East Project Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment
Confidence in these conclusions is low based on the relatively limited amount of TLRU information received to date through Aboriginal engagement activities and the lack of completed Project-specific TLRU studies. The implementation of TLRU studies and ongoing Aboriginal engagement activities is expected to increase confidence regarding the assessment of adverse residual effects.
As TLRU studies are completed, information provided through the studies will be considered and residual effects on TLRU will be reviewed. Given the qualitative and subjective nature of assessing TLRU, the views of Aboriginal groups may differ from this assessment. Should concerns regarding residual effects be identified through ongoing Aboriginal engagement or TLRU studies conducted for the Project, this information will be provided to the NEB through additional reporting.
Energy East will continue to work with Aboriginal communities to reasonably address Project-specific issues related to residual effects, and will take Aboriginal concerns and recommendations into account during the Project planning process. For information regarding Energy East’s ongoing Aboriginal engagement program, see Consolidated Application Volume 10.
5.8 Cumulative Effects
A cumulative effect occurs if a residual effect of the Project acts cumulatively with the effects of other physical activities that have been or will be carried out. For cumulative effects assessment methods, see Volume 14, Section 6. Following the conservative approach taken throughout this assessment, all Project effects on TLRU have been further assessed. In keeping with the method used for the residual effects assessment, the assessment of the Project contribution to cumulative effects on TLRU is primarily based on the conclusions of the biophysical and socio-economic assessments, as well as past project experience and professional judgment.
Existing physical activities such as private land holdings, agricultural conversion, residential developments, existing linear infrastructure and other resource activities have affected TLRU within the Project area. Although the Project traverses primarily forested and some wetland habitat, the majority of Project facilities in New Brunswick are sited on lands subject to fee simple title. The Project terminates in an industrial area in east Saint John, an industrial and commercial activity centre. These existing developments have affected TLRU by reducing the extent of lands available for traditional activities, restricting land access, disturbing or destroying TLRU sites and areas, displacing, removing or reducing the quality of traditionally harvested species, and changing conditions such as noise, water quality or air quality that may influence land use.
The Project will incrementally contribute to existing cumulative effects on TLRU by displacing additional lands, changing land access and other environmental conditions that influence TLRU, removing vegetation, and affecting fish and wildlife species. In addition to Project interactions with effects of existing developments, other certain and reasonably foreseeable physical activities within the RAA have the potential to act cumulatively with Project effects on TLRU. Beyond the RAA, other activities throughout Aboriginal groups’ traditional territories or lands may further add to these cumulative effects on TLRU.
In consideration of the above and reflecting the conclusions of other VCs, significant cumulative effects on TLRU are not anticipated.
5-42 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 43 of 70
Energy East Project Part E: New Brunswick Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use
Confidence in these conclusions is low based on the relatively limited amount of TLRU information received to date through Aboriginal engagement activities and the lack of completed Project-specific TLRU studies. The implementation of TLRU studies and ongoing Aboriginal engagement activities is expected to increase confidence regarding the cumulative effects assessment.
As TLRU studies are completed, information provided through the studies will be considered and cumulative effects on TLRU will be reviewed. Given the qualitative and subjective nature of assessing TLRU, the views of Aboriginal groups may differ from this assessment. Should concerns regarding cumulative effects be identified through ongoing Aboriginal engagement or TLRU studies conducted for the Project, this information will be provided to the NEB through additional reporting.
Energy East will continue to work with Aboriginal communities to reasonably address Project-specific issues related to cumulative effects, and will take Aboriginal concerns and recommendations into account during the Project planning process. For information regarding Energy East’s ongoing Aboriginal engagement program, see Consolidated Application Volume 10.
5.9 Monitoring and Follow up
TLRU information received following application filing and additional reporting may further inform mitigation and will be considered for incorporation into Project planning, including the Project-Specific EPPs and environmental alignment sheets, as appropriate.
Construction monitoring will be accomplished through Energy East’s environmental inspection program. Environmental inspectors will be onsite during pipeline and facility construction to monitor activities for compliance with regulatory commitments and mitigation measures as outlined in the EPPs (see Volume 21), including the TLU Sites Discovery Contingency Plan. Monitoring by Aboriginal community representatives might be required for some aspects of Project construction.
Energy East will follow TransCanada’s standard post-construction monitoring program. This program:
• evaluates the success of mitigation implemented during construction • documents opportunities for procedural learning and improvement • reviews the success of re-establishing equivalent land capability • compares predicted effects (including cumulative effects) and mitigation measures with actual documented effects
No follow-up programs are anticipated. All proposed mitigation to date has been previously approved by regulators for use on other large-diameter pipeline projects.
Monitoring programs for TLRU will be developed in collaboration with Aboriginal groups to address residual effects. The need for monitoring and follow-up programs will be informed by TLRU information provided by the Aboriginal groups and subject to agreement with Energy East.
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 5-43
CA PDF Page 44 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Energy East Project Section 5: Traditional Land and Resource Use Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment
5.10 References
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. 2012. Government of Canada. Available online at: http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=16254939-1. Accessed February 2014.
National Energy Board (NEB). 2014. Filing Manual.
National Energy Board Act (NEB Act). 2014. R.S.C. 1985, c. N-7; current to February 6, 2014. Government of Canada. Available online at: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/N-7.pdf. Accessed February 2014.
Province of New Brunswick. 2011. Government of New Brunswick Duty to Consult Policy, Aboriginal Affairs Secretariat. Available at: http://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/aas- saa/pdf/en/DutytoConsultPolicy.pdf. Accessed February 2014.
5-44 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 45 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Energy East Project Appendix 5A: Aboriginal Community Profiles and Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment Literature Review – New Brunswick
APPENDIX 5A Aboriginal Community Profiles and Literature Review – New Brunswick
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016
CA PDF Page 46 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Appendix 5A: Aboriginal Community Profiles and Energy East Project Literature Review – New Brunswick Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment
May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 47 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Energy East Project Appendix 5A: Aboriginal Community Profiles and Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment Literature Review – New Brunswick
5A.1 Community Profiles
Profiles for Aboriginal communities potentially affected by Energy East in New Brunswick appear below.
5A.1.1 Buctouche First Nation (Tijpõgtõtjg First Nation)
Buctouche First Nation (Tijpõgtõtjg First Nation) (Band No. 4) is a Mi’kmaq Nation affiliated with the North Shore Micmac District Council. Buctouche First Nation (Tijpõgtõtjg First Nation)has one reserve, Buctouche 16, located in Kent County, New Brunswick, and encompassing an area of 39 ha (AANDC 2014a).
As of 2011, Buctouche First Nation (Tijpõgtõtjg First Nation) had a registered population of 112 members, with 85 members living on reserve, and 27 living off reserve. Buctouche First Nation (Tijpõgtõtjg First Nation) is governed under a custom electoral system and is represented by a Chief and two-member council, elected for a five-year term (FNCNB 2014).
As of June 2014, Buctouche First Nation (Tijpõgtõtjg First Nation) had three concluded specific claims, all of which are related to land and Treaty Land Entitlement: Aboushagan Reserve (concluded in 2010), stated that the Crown breached its fiduciary duty and obligation by failing to prevent dismemberment of reserve through private sales and squatting; Cocagne Island (concluded in 2010), alleged the illegal disposition of the Cocagne Island Reserve by the Crown in 1850, and Establishment of Buctouche Indian Reserve (concluded in 2010) involved the original creation date, 1802, and size, a 4 × 8 mile tract of the Buctouche IR No. 16 (AANDC 2014).
In addition, as of June 2014, Mi’kmaq and Maliseet of New Brunswick had one comprehensive land claim representing the following participating Nations: Buctouche First Nation, Burnt Church No. 14 First Nation, Eel Ground First Nation (Natoaganeg First Nation), Eel River Bar First Nation (Ugpi’ganjig First Nation), Fort Folly First Nation (Amlamgog First Nation), Indian Island First Nation (L’nui Menikuk First Nation), Kingsclear First Nation, Metepenagiag Mi'kmaq Nation (Red Bank First Nation), Oromocto First Nation, Pabineau First Nation (Oinpegitjoig First Nation), and Tobique First Nation (Neqotkuk First Nation). This comprehensive land claim was accepted in 2003 and a Framework Agreement has been drafted (AANDC 2014p).
5A.1.2 Eel Ground First Nation (Natoaganeg First Nation)
Eel Ground First Nation (Natoaganeg First Nation) (Band No. 7) is a Mi’kmaq Nation affiliated with the North Shore Micmac District Council. Eel Ground First Nation (Natoaganeg First Nation) has three reserves: Big Hole Tract 8 (South Half) located 21 km west of Newcastle, New Brunswick and encompassing an area of 1,740 ha; Eel Ground 2 located 5 km west of Newcastle, New Brunswick and encompassing an area of 1,073 ha; and Renous 12 located 27 km west of Newcastle, New Brunswick and encompassing an area of 10 ha (AANDC 2014b).
As of May 2014, Eel Ground First Nation (Natoaganeg First Nation) had a registered population of 997 with 545 members living on reserve, 15 living on other reserves, and 437 members living off reserve. Eel Ground First Nation (Natoaganeg First Nation) is governed under an Indian Act electoral system, represented by a Chief and ten-member council elected to a two-year term (AANDC 2014b).
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 5A-1
CA PDF Page 48 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Appendix 5A: Aboriginal Community Profiles and Energy East Project Literature Review – New Brunswick Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment
As of June 2014, Eel Ground First Nation (Natoaganeg First Nation) had one concluded specific claim; it was related to land and Treaty Land Entitlement: 1946 Surrender – Pipeline Right of Way was submitted in 1976, 1984, and again in 1997; it alleged that the 1946 surrender of land was invalid as certain procedures were not followed by the Federal Government (AANDC 2014).
In addition, as of June 2014, Mi’kmaq and Maliseet of New Brunswick had one comprehensive land claim representing the following participating Nations: Buctouche First Nation, Burnt Church No. 14 First Nation, Eel Ground First Nation (Natoaganeg First Nation), Eel River Bar First Nation (Ugpi’ganjig First Nation), Fort Folly First Nation (Amlamgog First Nation), Indian Island First Nation (L’nui Menikuk First Nation), Kingsclear First Nation, Metepenagiag Mi'kmaq Nation (Red Bank First Nation), Oromocto First Nation, Pabineau First Nation (Oinpegitjoig First Nation), and Tobique First Nation (Neqotkuk First Nation). This comprehensive land claim was accepted in 2003 and a Framework Agreement has been drafted (AANDC 2014p).
5A.1.3 Eel River Bar First Nation (Ugpi’ganjig First Nation)
Eel River Bar First Nation (Ugpi’ganjig First Nation) (Band No. 8) is a Mi’kmaq Nation affiliated with the North Shore Micmac District Council. Eel River Bar First Nation (Ugpi’ganjig First Nation) has three reserves: Eel River 3 located 3 km south of Dalhousie, New Brunswick and encompassing an area of 122 ha; Indian Ranch located 2 km south of Dalhousie, New Brunswick encompassing an area of 46 ha; and Moose Meadows 4 located 32 km south of Dalhousie, New Brunswick encompassing an area of 405 ha (AANDC 2014c).
As of May 2014, Eel River Bar First Nation (Ugpi’ganjig First Nation) had a registered population of 701 with 337 members living on reserve, 11 members living on other reserves, and 353 members living off reserve. Eel River Bar First Nation (Ugpi’ganjig First Nation) is governed under an Indian Act electoral system, represented by a Chief and six-member council elected to a two-year term (AANDC 2014c).
As of June 2014, Eel River Bar First Nation (Ugpi’ganjig First Nation) had three concluded specific claims, all of which related to land and Treaty Land Entitlement: Loss of 180 Acres (concluded in 2009), claimed that between 1842 and 1867 180 acres were alienated from the Nation without surrender; Sand and Gravel (concluded in 2012) claimed that the removal of sand and gravel from the reserve in 1910 and 1925-30 caused damage to the Nation and was done without proper consent; and Union of New Brunswick Indians (UNBI) – Flooding (concluded in 1997) involved allegations of outstanding land entitlement, delay of adding lands to the Nation and invalid expropriation of lands for the dam. It further alleged social, psychological, and economic damage as the result of the construction of the dam (AANDC 2014).
In addition, as of June 2014, Mi’kmaq and Maliseet of New Brunswick had one comprehensive land claim representing the following participating Nations: Buctouche First Nation, Burnt Church No. 14 First Nation, Eel Ground First Nation (Natoaganeg First Nation), Eel River Bar First Nation (Ugpi’ganjig First Nation), Fort Folly First Nation (Amlamgog First Nation), Indian Island First Nation (L’nui Menikuk First Nation), Kingsclear First Nation, Metepenagiag Mi'kmaq Nation (Red Bank First Nation), Oromocto First Nation, Pabineau First Nation (Oinpegitjoig First Nation), and Tobique First Nation (Neqotkuk First Nation). This comprehensive land claim was accepted in 2003 and a Framework Agreement has been drafted (AANDC 2014p).
5A-2 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 49 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Energy East Project Appendix 5A: Aboriginal Community Profiles and Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment Literature Review – New Brunswick
5A.1.4 Elsipogtog First Nation
Elsipogtog First Nation (Band No. 3; formerly known as Big Cove Band) is a Mi’kmaq Nation affiliated with the MAWIW Council. Elsipogtog First Nation has two reserves: Richibucto 15 located 8 km southwest of Rexton, New Brunswick encompassing an area of 1,742 ha; and Soegao 35 located 5 km west of Moncton, New Brunswick encompassing an area of 105 ha (AANDC 2014h).
As of May 2014, Elsipogtog First Nation had a registered population of 3,204 with 2,461 members living on reserve, 43 members living on other reserves, and 700 members living off reserve. Elsipogtog First Nation is governed under an Indian Act electoral system, represented by a Chief and 12-member council elected to a two-year term (AANDC 2014h).
As of June 2014, Elsipogtog First Nation had one settled specific claim, which related to land and Treaty Land Entitlement.1879 Surrender – 1880 Order in Council, received in 1984, involved alleged alienation of 203 ha of reserve land without adherence to land sales stipulations of the 1879 surrender and 1880 order in council. This land claim was settled through negotiations in August 1988 (AANDC 2014).
5A.1.5 Esgenoôpetitj First Nation (Burnt Church First Nation)
Esgenoopetitj First Nation (Burnt Church First Nation) (Band No. 5) is a Mi’kmaq Nation affiliated with the MAWIW Council. Esgenoôpetitj First Nation (Burnt Church First Nation) has three reserves: Esgenoôpetitj Indian Reserve 14 located 32 km northeast of Chatham, New Brunswick encompassing an area of 985 ha; Pokemouche 13 located 64 km east of Bathurst, New Brunswick encompassing an area of 151 ha; and Tabusintac 9 located 40 km northeast of Chatham, New Brunswick encompassing an area of 3,269 ha (AANDC 2014i).
As of May 2014, Esgenoôpetitj First Nation (Burnt Church First Nation) had a registered population of 1,818 with 1,274 members living on reserve, 38 members living on other reserves, and 506 members living off reserve. Esgenoôpetitj First Nation (Burnt Church First Nation) is governed under an Indian Act electoral system, represented by a Chief and 12-member council elected to a two-year term (AANDC 2014i).
As of June 2014, Esgenoôpetitj First Nation (Burnt Church First Nation) had no specific claims. AANDC (2014) does not list Esgenoôpetitj First Nation (Burnt Church First Nation) in the status report on specific claims Nation listings.
5A.1.6 Fort Folly First Nation (Amlamgog First Nation)
Fort Folly First Nation (Amlamgog First Nation) (Band No. 9) is a Mi’kmaq Nation affiliated with the North Shore Micmac District Council. Fort Folly First Nation (Amlamgog First Nation) has one reserve, Fort Folly 1, located approximately 2 km southeast of Dorchester, New Brunswick. Fort Folly 1 encompasses an area of 56 ha (AANDC 2014d).
As of May 2014, Fort Folly First Nation (Amlamgog First Nation) had a registered population of 126 with 35 members living on reserve, 1 member living on Crown land and 90 members living off reserve. Fort Folly First Nation (Amlamgog First Nation) is governed under an Indian Act electoral system represented by a Chief and two-member council elected to a two-year term (AANDC 2014d).
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 5A-3
CA PDF Page 50 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Appendix 5A: Aboriginal Community Profiles and Energy East Project Literature Review – New Brunswick Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment
As of June 2014, Fort Folly First Nation (Amlamgog First Nation) had one concluded specific claim; it was related to land and Treaty Land Entitlement: IR#27 – 1966 alleged that the sale of IR #27 in 1966 was unlawful without first obtaining surrender from the Nation. It was concluded without settlement in 2006 (AANDC 2014).
In addition, as of June 2014, Mi’kmaq and Maliseet of New Brunswick had one comprehensive land claim representing the following participating Nations: Buctouche First Nation, Burnt Church No. 14 First Nation, Eel Ground First Nation (Natoaganeg First Nation), Eel River Bar First Nation (Ugpi’ganjig First Nation), Fort Folly First Nation (Amlamgog First Nation), Indian Island First Nation (L’nui Menikuk First Nation), Kingsclear First Nation, Metepenagiag Mi'kmaq Nation (Red Bank First Nation), Oromocto First Nation, Pabineau First Nation (Oinpegitjoig First Nation), and Tobique First Nation (Neqotkuk First Nation). This comprehensive land claim was accepted in 2003 and a Framework Agreement has been drafted (AANDC 2014p).
5A.1.7 Indian Island First Nation (L’nui Menikuk First Nation)
Indian Island First Nation (L’nui Menikuk First Nation) (Band No. 10) is a Mi’kmaq Nation affiliated with the North Shore Micmac District Council. Indian Island First Nation (L’nui Menikuk First Nation) has one reserve, Indian Island 28, located approximately 8 km northeast of Rexton, New Brunswick. Indian Island 28 encompasses an area of 38 ha (AANDC 2014e).
As of May 2014, Indian Island First Nation (L’nui Menikuk First Nation) had a registered population of 182 with 103 members living on reserve, 1 member living on another reserve, and 78 members living off reserve. Indian Island First Nation (L’nui Menikuk First Nation) is governed under an Indian Act electoral system, represented by a Chief and two-member council elected to a two-year term (AANDC 2014e).
As of June 2014, Indian Island First Nation (L’nui Menikuk First Nation) had one concluded specific claim; it was related to land and Treaty Land Entitlement: Richibucto Island alleged ownership of Richibucto Island on the basis of unchallenged occupancy and has been reclaimed by the First Nation with no objection made by anyone regarding said occupation (AANDC 2014).
In addition, as of June 2014, Mi’kmaq and Maliseet of New Brunswick had one comprehensive land claim representing the following participating Nations: Buctouche First Nation, Burnt Church No. 14 First Nation, Eel Ground First Nation (Natoaganeg First Nation), Eel River Bar First Nation (Ugpi’ganjig First Nation), Fort Folly First Nation (Amlamgog First Nation), Indian Island First Nation (L’nui Menikuk First Nation), Kingsclear First Nation, Metepenagiag Mi'kmaq Nation (Red Bank First Nation), Oromocto First Nation, Pabineau First Nation (Oinpegitjoig First Nation), and Tobique First Nation (Neqotkuk First Nation). This comprehensive land claim was accepted in 2003 and a Framework Agreement has been drafted (AANDC 2014p).
5A-4 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 51 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Energy East Project Appendix 5A: Aboriginal Community Profiles and Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment Literature Review – New Brunswick
5A.1.8 Kingsclear First Nation
Kingsclear First Nation (Pilick First Nation)(Band No. 11) is a Maliseet Nation located west of Fredericton, New Brunswick and comprised of two reserves: The Brothers 18 (also affiliated with Woodstock First Nation, Tobique First Nation (Neqotkuk First Nation), and Madawaska Maliseet First Nation) located on two small islands in Kennebecasis Bay, 3 km north of Saint John, New Brunswick encompassing 4 ha; and Kingsclear 6 located 14 km west of Fredericton, New Brunswick encompassing 375 ha (AANDC 2014o).
As of May 2014, Kingsclear First Nation (Pilick First Nation) had a registered population of 986 with 695 members living on reserve, 1 member living on Crown land, and 290 members living off reserve. Kingsclear First Nation (Pilick First Nation) is governed under an Indian Act electoral system, represented by a Chief and nine-member council elected to a two-year term (AANDC 2014o).
As of June 2014, Kingsclear First Nation (Pilick First Nation) had one concluded specific claim; it was related to land and Treaty Land Entitlement: 1.08 Acres Land alleged that the St. John and Quebec Railway Co. took possession of 1.08 acres of land prior to the 1914 Order-in-Council which authorized sale of the land, allegedly contravening the 1906 Indian Act (AANDC 2014).
In addition, as of June 2014, Mi’kmaq and Maliseet of New Brunswick had one comprehensive land claim representing the following participating Nations: Buctouche First Nation, Burnt Church No. 14 First Nation, Eel Ground First Nation (Natoaganeg First Nation), Eel River Bar First Nation (Ugpi’ganjig First Nation), Fort Folly First Nation (Amlamgog First Nation), Indian Island First Nation (L’nui Menikuk First Nation), Kingsclear First Nation, Metepenagiag Mi'kmaq Nation (Red Bank First Nation), Oromocto First Nation, Pabineau First Nation (Oinpegitjoig First Nation), and Tobique First Nation (Neqotkuk First Nation). This comprehensive land claim was accepted in 2003 and a Framework Agreement has been drafted (AANDC 2014p).
5A.1.9 Madawaska Maliseet First Nation
Madawaska Maliseet First Nation (Band No. 6) is a Maliseet Nation located in northern New Brunswick bordering both Quebec and the state of Maine. Madawaska Maliseet First Nation is comprised of two reserves: St. Basile 10 located 2 km east of the town of Edmunston, New Brunswick, encompassing 340 ha; and The Brothers 18 (also affiliated with Kingsclear First Nation, Tobique First Nation (Neqotkuk First Nation), and Woodstock First Nation communities). It is located on two small islands in Kennebecasis Bay, 3 km north of Saint John, New Brunswick, encompassing 4 ha (AANDC 2014k).
As of May 2014, Madawaska Maliseet First Nation had a registered population of 355 with 155 members living on reserve and 200 members living off reserve. Madawaska Maliseet First Nation is governed under an Indian Act electoral system, represented by a Chief and two-member council elected to a two-year term (AANDC 2014k).
As of June 2014, Madawaska Maliseet First Nation had one settled and one outstanding specific land claims. Of these, both are related to land and Treaty Land Entitlement. Received in 1998, and settled on March 28, 2008, St-Basile – Pipeline R/W alleged that 7.88 acres of reserve land taken in 1870 and later abandoned by NB Railway (succeeded by CPR) should have been returned to the Nation and not leased to Fraser Co. Filed in 2008, and currently undergoing negotiation with the specific claims tribunal,
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 5A-5
CA PDF Page 52 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Appendix 5A: Aboriginal Community Profiles and Energy East Project Literature Review – New Brunswick Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment
Alienation of Reserve Lands, alleges that reserve land was illegally alienated from the Nation between 1790 and 1850 (AANDC 2014).
5A.1.10 Metepenagiag Mi’kmaq Nation (Red Bank First Nation)
Metepenagiag Mi’kmaq Nation (Red Bank First Nation) (Band No. 14) is a Mi’kmaq Nation affiliated with the North Shore Micmac District Council. Metepenagiag Mi’kmaq Nation (Red Bank First Nation) has four reserves: Big Hole Tract 8 (North Half) located 21 km west of Newcastle, New Brunswick encompassing an area of 1,396 ha; Indian Point 1 located 19 km west of Newcastle, New Brunswick encompassing an area of 42 ha; Red Bank 4 located 23 km west of Newcastle, New Brunswick encompassing an area of 1,457 ha; and Red Bank 7 located 24 km west of Newcastle, New Brunswick encompassing an area of 1,012 ha (AANDC 2014f).
As of May 2014, Metepenagiag Mi’kmaq Nation (Red Bank First Nation) had a registered population of 657 with 419 members living on reserve, 29 members living on other reserves and 209 members living off reserve. Metepenagiag Mi’kmaq Nation (Red Bank First Nation) is governed under an Indian Act electoral system, represented by a Chief and seven-member council elected to a two-year term (AANDC 2014f).
As of June 2014, Metepenagiag Mi’kmaq Nation (Red Bank First Nation) had five settled, three concluded, and two outstanding specific claims. Of these, nine are related to land and Treaty Land Entitlement.
Settled:
• Loss of use - Big Hole Tract, (settlement signed in 1994) involving alleged loss of use of land (1843-1877) owing to non-Indian occupation • IR#7, (settlement signed in 2007) involved alleged illegal alienation of Lots 1 through 7 on IR#7 in 1904 – seeking return of lands, or compensation and loss of use • Hosford Lot, (settlement signed in 2007) involved unlawful alienation from the First Nation when patented to a non-Indian in 1906 while never having been surrendered (third claim in Red Bank Joint Research Pilot Project) • 1974 Squatter Removal, (settlement signed in 2010), involved research and analysis on approximately 29 non-Aboriginal families who were removed from lands not surrendered located at Red Bank Reserve #4 (fourth claim in Red Bank Joint Research Pilot Project) (AANDC 2014).
Concluded without settlement:
• 1844 Act (concluded in 2011), alleged that reserve land that was taken in 1870 by New Brunswick railway, then abandoned in 1936 should have been returned to the First Nation • Additional Removals to 1974 Squatter Removal (concluded in 2009) was the sixth claim in the Red Bank Joint Research Pilot Project. This claim aimed to complete research as an addendum to the 1974 Removal report mentioned above. Specifically, it will cover the history of the non-Indian occupation of village lots at Red Bank and the removal of those parties • Lots A-B-1 (concluded in 2006) alleged that the grant for Lot A was invalid, as were the letter patents for Lots B and 1 (AANDC 2014).
5A-6 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 53 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Energy East Project Appendix 5A: Aboriginal Community Profiles and Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment Literature Review – New Brunswick
Outstanding:
• 1895 Surrender (currently in negotiation), the second claim in Red Bank Joint Research Pilot Project which re-examines the terms and conditions of the 1895 surrender of parts of IR#4, IR#7, Big Hole Tract and Indian Point • Public Roads and Utilities: ROW (claim filed November 16, 2008 and currently in negotiation) involves the alleged breach of Canada’s fiduciary obligation to protect First Nations interests in taking of reserve lands for public roads and utilities right of way without authority or compensation (AANDC 2014).
In addition, as of June 2014, Mi’kmaq and Maliseet of New Brunswick had one comprehensive land claim representing the following participating Nations: Buctouche First Nation, Burnt Church No. 14 First Nation, Eel Ground First Nation (Natoaganeg First Nation), Eel River Bar First Nation (Ugpi’ganjig First Nation), Fort Folly First Nation (Amlamgog First Nation), Indian Island First Nation (L’nui Menikuk First Nation), Kingsclear First Nation, Metepenagiag Mi'kmaq Nation (Red Bank First Nation), Oromocto First Nation, Pabineau First Nation (Oinpegitjoig First Nation), and Tobique First Nation (Neqotkuk First Nation). This comprehensive land claim was accepted in 2003 and a Framework Agreement has been drafted (AANDC 2014p).
5A.1.11 Oromocto First Nation
Oromocto First Nation (Wolamuktuk First Nation) (Band No. 12) is a Maliseet Nation affiliated with the Saint John River Valley Tribal Council. Oromocto First Nation (Wolamuktuk First Nation) has one reserve, Oromocto 26, located north and adjacent to Gagetown, New Brunswick. Oromocto 26 encompasses an area of 32 ha (AANDC 2014l).
As of May 2014, Oromocto First Nation (Wolamuktuk First Nation) had a registered population of 655 with 308 members living on reserve, 2 members living on other reserves, and 345 members living off reserve. Oromocto First Nation (Wolamuktuk First Nation) is governed under an Indian Act electoral system, represented by a Chief and four-member council elected to a two-year term (AANDC 2014l).
As of June 2014, Oromocto First Nation (Wolamuktuk First Nation) had one settled specific claim, related to land and Treaty Land Entitlement. Camp Gagetown – Oromocto Point 1953 (settled in 1983) alleged improper surrender of 29 ha at Oromocto Point for use by the Department of Natural Defense, at Camp Gagetown (AANDC 2014).
In addition, as of June 2014, Mi’kmaq and Maliseet of New Brunswick had one comprehensive land claim representing the following participating Nations: Buctouche First Nation, Burnt Church No. 14 First Nation, Eel Ground First Nation (Natoaganeg First Nation), Eel River Bar First Nation (Ugpi’ganjig First Nation), Fort Folly First Nation (Amlamgog First Nation), Indian Island First Nation (L’nui Menikuk First Nation), Kingsclear First Nation, Metepenagiag Mi'kmaq Nation (Red Bank First Nation), Oromocto First Nation, Pabineau First Nation (Oinpegitjoig First Nation), and Tobique First Nation (Neqotkuk First Nation). This comprehensive land claim was accepted in 2003 and a Framework Agreement has been drafted (AANDC 2014p).
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 5A-7
CA PDF Page 54 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Appendix 5A: Aboriginal Community Profiles and Energy East Project Literature Review – New Brunswick Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment
5A.1.12 Pabineau First Nation (Oinpegitjoig First Nation)
Pabineau First Nation (Oinpegitjoig First Nation) (Band No. 13) is a Mi’kmaq Nation affiliated with the North Shore Micmac District Council. Pabineau First Nation (Oinpegitjoig First Nation) has one reserve, Pabineau 11, located approximately 8 km south of Bathurst, New Brunswick (AANDC 2013g). Pabineau 11 encompasses an area of 429 ha (AANDC 2014g).
As of May 2014, Pabineau First Nation (Oinpegitjoig First Nation) had a registered population of 292 with 99 members living on reserve, 2 members living on other reserves, and 191 members living off reserve. Pabineau First Nation (Oinpegitjoig First Nation) is governed under an Indian Act electoral system, represented by a Chief and two-member council elected to a two-year term (AANDC 2014g).
As of June 2014, Pabineau First Nation (Oinpegitjoig First Nation) had one concluded specific claim, related to land and Treaty Land Entitlement: Gould Island (concluded in 2009) alleged that Gould Island was part of the Pabineau reserve, at least 30 years before its purchase by the Federal Government and further alleged that the 1927 surrender and sale were not valid since conditions of the Indian Act were not met (AANDC 2014).
In addition, as of June 2014, Mi’kmaq and Maliseet of New Brunswick had one comprehensive land claim representing the following participating Nations: Buctouche First Nation, Burnt Church No. 14 First Nation, Eel Ground First Nation (Natoaganeg First Nation), Eel River Bar First Nation (Ugpi’ganjig First Nation), Fort Folly First Nation (Amlamgog First Nation), Indian Island First Nation (L’nui Menikuk First Nation), Kingsclear First Nation, Metepenagiag Mi'kmaq Nation (Red Bank First Nation), Oromocto First Nation, Pabineau First Nation (Oinpegitjoig First Nation), and Tobique First Nation (Neqotkuk First Nation). This comprehensive land claim was accepted in 2003 and is in Framework Agreement has been drafted (AANDC 2014p).
5A.1.13 Saint Mary’s First Nation
Saint Mary’s First Nation (Band No. 15) is a Maliseet Nation affiliated with the Saint John River Valley Tribal Council. Saint Mary’s First Nation is the largest Maliseet First Nation community along the St. John River and is comprised of two reserves: Devon 30 located 6 km east of Fredericton, New Brunswick, encompassing 126 ha; and St. Mary’s 24 located 6 km east of Fredericton, New Brunswick, encompassing 1 ha (AANDC 2014m).
As of May 2014, Saint Mary’s First Nation had a registered population of 1,781 with 817 members living on reserve, 35 members living on other reserves, 2 members living on Crown land, and 927 members living off reserve. Saint Mary’s First Nation is governed under an Indian Act electoral system, represented by a Chief and 12-member council elected to a two-year term (AANDC 2014m).
As of June 2014, Saint Mary’s First Nation had no specific claims. AANDC (2014) does not list Saint Mary’s First Nation in the status report on specific claims Nation listings.
5A-8 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 55 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Energy East Project Appendix 5A: Aboriginal Community Profiles and Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment Literature Review – New Brunswick
5A.1.14 Tobique First Nation (Neqotkuk First Nation)
Tobique First Nation (Neqotkuk First Nation) (Band No. 16) is a Maliseet Nation affiliated with the MAWIW Council. Tobique First Nation (Neqotkuk First Nation) has two reserves: The Brothers 18 located on two small islands in Kennebecasis Bay, 3 km north of Saint John, New Brunswick, encompassing an area of 4 ha; and Tobique 20 located 27 km south of Grand Falls, New Brunswick encompassing an area of 2,724 ha (AANDC 2014j).
As of May 2014, Tobique First Nation (Neqotkuk First Nation) had a registered population of 2,227 with 1,477 members living on reserve, 6 members living on other reserves, 1 member living on Crown land, and 743 members living off reserve. Tobique First Nation (Neqotkuk First Nation) is governed under an Indian Act electoral system, represented by a Chief and 12-member council elected to a two-year term (AANDC 2014j).
As of June 2014, Tobique First Nation (Neqotkuk First Nation) has one outstanding specific claim, related to land and Treaty Land Entitlement: 1892 Surrender, involving the first claim submitted in a Joint Research Project that questions the validity of an 1892 surrender of 12,000 acres below the Tobique River (AANDC 2014).
In addition, as of June 2014, Mi’kmaq and Maliseet of New Brunswick had one comprehensive land claim representing the following participating Nations: Buctouche First Nation, Burnt Church No. 14 First Nation, Eel Ground First Nation (Natoaganeg First Nation), Eel River Bar First Nation (Ugpi’ganjig First Nation), Fort Folly First Nation (Amlamgog First Nation), Indian Island First Nation (L’nui Menikuk First Nation), Kingsclear First Nation, Metepenagiag Mi'kmaq Nation (Red Bank First Nation), Oromocto First Nation, Pabineau First Nation (Oinpegitjoig First Nation), and Tobique First Nation (Neqotkuk First Nation). This comprehensive land claim was accepted in 2003 and a Framework Agreement has been drafted (AANDC 2014p).
5A.1.15 Woodstock First Nation
Woodstock First Nation (Band No. 17) is a Maliseet Nation affiliated with the Saint John River Valley Tribal Council. Woodstock First Nation is comprised of two reserves: The Brothers 18 (also affiliated with Kingsclear, Tobique and Madawaska Maliseet First Nation communities) located on two small islands in Kennebecasis Bay, 3 km north of Saint John, New Brunswick encompassing 4 ha; and Woodstock 23 located 5 km south of the Town of Woodstock, New Brunswick encompassing 160 ha (AANDC 2014n).
As of May 2014, Woodstock First Nation had a registered population of 977 with 287 members living on reserve, 5 members living on other reserves, and 685 members living off reserve. Woodstock First Nation is governed under an Indian Act electoral system, represented by a Chief and seven-member council elected to a two-year term (AANDC 2014n).
As of June 2014, Woodstock First Nation had one settled specific claim, related to land and Treaty Land Entitlement: 1904 Surrender – IR #23 Land Claim alleged the 1904 land surrender to be invalid and claimed damages for land flooded in 1966 (AANDC 2014).
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 5A-9
CA PDF Page 56 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Appendix 5A: Aboriginal Community Profiles and Energy East Project Literature Review – New Brunswick Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment
5A.2 Literature Review
A desktop review of existing Aboriginal TLRU information was conducted in order to provide a summary of publicly available TLRU data for Aboriginal communities potentially affected by the Project. Relevant publicly available documents reviewed for the Project include TLRU reports from regulatory applications for other developments, Aboriginal community-initiated studies and government reports. Additional sources reviewed were:
• general historical and ethnographic literature;
• relevant internet resources (such as the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada website);
• public land claims documents;
• the NEB website; and
• academic libraries and databases.
The literature review was limited to the same temporal boundary as the TLRU studies (25 years before present) and only includes documents dating from 1989 or later. This review is intended to capture information for the same communities that have been invited to provide TLRU information for the Project. Documents were generally included if some or all of the Aboriginal groups involved have also been engaged in Energy East. TLRU studies held in confidence by Aboriginal communities or identified as being for the one time use of another project or study were excluded from the review and any associated summaries.
Not all TLRU studies that have been completed in New Brunswick are publicly available. Many Environmental Assessments (EA) reference community-held traditional knowledge but do not provide detailed data of findings, citing confidentiality.
5A.2.1 The Saint John River: A State of the Environment Report (Canadian Rivers Institute 2011)
The Saint John River: A State of the Environment Report was published by the Canadian Rivers Institute, a multidisciplinary network of academic, government, and industry researchers that is based at the University of New Brunswick. This comprehensive report is a compilation of assessments based on recent and historic data and observations describing the environmental setting and quality of the Saint John River with the objective of protecting and restoring the quality of the ecosystem. The information was obtained from publicly available sources and through studies undertaken directly by the Canadian Rivers Institute. It provides an overview of the development of the Saint John River Basin, dating back to the early 17th century and covers current socio-economic conditions, physical conditions, habitat, water quality, and fish species. Included within the report is an oral history narrative shared by a knowledge holder whose father was from the community that is now known as Sitansisk (St. Mary’s old reserve). The TEK information provided in the report focuses on the Walastoqiyik people (Maliseet) in the St. Mary’s area and the Mactaquac Dam (located approximately 40 km southwest of the Project area). This report does not indicate that the information collected was released for one time use or provide intellectual property rights restrictions.
5A-10 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 57 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Energy East Project Appendix 5A: Aboriginal Community Profiles and Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment Literature Review – New Brunswick
KEY FINDINGS
The knowledge holder described TEK as a “fluid, diverse system of knowledge based in the ongoing relationships of indigenous peoples with their environment”.
Key findings included in the TEK section of the report include:
• Traditional use areas were identified within the waters of the Walastoq (Saint John River) that are now underwater or eroding away due to the dams that have been built on the river. • Ekpahok Island (formerly Savage Island), and • Meductic (under water from the head pond of Mactaquac Dam).
Culturally significant plants that were traditionally found along the Saint John River Basin include black ash (Fraxinus nigra), fiddleheads (Matteucia struthiopteris), Kilhuswasq (Acorus amaericanus), and sweetgrass (Hierochloe odorata).
The knowledge holder stated that striped (black) bass (Morone saxatilis) used to be abundant in the river but as a result of dam construction on the river and the waste water discharges to the river, the habitat has changed and it not desirable for spawning and the water is no longer clean.
The community is also concerned for loss of land for agriculture and the effects that development has had on the levels of contaminants in their traditional medicines when they are harvested near areas that have been used for agricultural purposes due to the use of pesticides and herbicides.
The knowledge holder also noted that “Being Wloastoqiyik means being able to go out and fish and hunt and collect food, and sustain themselves off the land” (CB).
An assessment of the fishes of the Saint John River also included in the report identifies the following fish species as being traditionally harvested by the Aboriginal population:
• Atlantic salmon • Gaspereau • American shad; • American eel • rainbow smelt • Atlantic sturgeon and short-nosed sturgeon.
5A.2.2 Evaluation of the Level of Contaminants, Mercury and Arsenic in Fiddleheads, New Brunswick (MNCC 2010)
This study was conducted by the Maliseet Nation Conservation Council (MNCC) in 2010 to test fiddleheads for levels of nickel, arsenic, mercury and cadmium contamination. Samples for the study were collected from four traditional gathering areas in the Fredericton area (Jemseg, Sugar Island, Mactaquac and Nashwaaskis) located approximately 45 km southwest of the Project area. The study included the traditional knowledge of fiddleheads in the area as described by the Maliseet First Nations. This report does not indicate that the information collected was released for one time use or provide intellectual property rights restrictions.
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 5A-11
CA PDF Page 58 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Appendix 5A: Aboriginal Community Profiles and Energy East Project Literature Review – New Brunswick Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment
KEY FINDINGS
Fiddleheads are important traditional plant used for food consumption, trade and medicinal purposes by the Maliseet First Nations. Jemseg, Sugar Island, Mactaquac and Nashwaaskis have been major fiddlehead picking areas for the Maliseet First Nation communities of Kingsclear, Saint Mary’s and Oromocto. Submerged following the construction of the Mactaquac Dam (1968), the Little Bear and Big Bear islands were once gathering locations abundant with fiddleheads.
Other plants traditionally gathered by the Maliseet for consumption, medicinal purposes and trade include:
• calamus roots (medicinal only) • wild onion • sweet hay • wild rice
Concerns raised during the study include:
• the untreated wastes that flow into the Saint John River due to urbanization, deforestation and agriculture may have an impact on the suitability of fiddleheads for consumption • an assumed accumulation of heavy metals in the nutrient rich soils of the river basin are accumulating in the fiddleheads, potentially adversely affecting the health of those consuming the plants.
The results of the analytical testing on the fiddleheads showed that the concentrations of arsenic and mercury were less than the method detection limits. The concentrations of nickel and cadmium had levels slightly higher than the recommended concentrations referenced in the study.
5A.2.3 Evaluation of the Level of Contaminants, Cadmium, Mercury and Arsenic in the Muscle Tissue and Organs of Moose, New Brunswick (MNCC 2012a)
In 2011/2012, the MNCC conducted a study analyzing samples of the tissue and organs from hunted moose for levels of analysis of arsenic, mercury and cadmium. The samples were collected from 12 hunting zones in New Brunswick from traditional hunters of each of the Maliseet First Nation communities, with the exception of Madawaska Maliseet First Nation. The hunting zones are located in northern and western New Brunswick and five of these zones are located in the Project area. This report does not indicate that the information collected was released for one time use or provide intellectual property rights restrictions.
5A-12 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 59 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Energy East Project Appendix 5A: Aboriginal Community Profiles and Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment Literature Review – New Brunswick
KEY FINDINGS
The study included the traditional knowledge of moose in the area as provided by the Maliseet First Nation. Elders and knowledge holders from the communities shared this information and these concerns:
• The moose is a highly valued animal to Maliseet First Nation. Every part of the animal from a traditional hunt is consumed or used.
• With the amount of development occurring within the Saint John River Basin, there is a concern that the tissues and organs of the moose consumed by the First Nations people in the area may become contaminated.
• Moose meat is valued as a protein rich food and for ceremonial purposes. The Maliseet believe that a boy is considered a man if he hunts and kills a bear or moose. • In addition to the moose meat, the Maliseet consume the organs of the animals, including the liver, brain and heart. • Historically, the Maliseet hunted the following small and big game animals: • moose • deer • bear • muskrat • porcupine • partridge • rabbit • ducks. • Older moose appear to be less abundant in the watershed. • Current hunting locations for moose included York, Charlotte and Saint John Counties, Durham Area, Anderson Road, Mount Pleasant and Gagetown. • Results of contaminant testing: The results of the analytical testing on the moose meat showed that the concentrations of arsenic and mercury were less than the method detection limits. • The concentrations of cadmium in the moose meat and liver had elevated levels of cadmium • The cadmium levels in the samples from the male moose were generally higher than those from the female moose. • The liver samples with the higher concentrations of cadmium were provided by the Maliseet hunters from the St. Mary’s community.
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 5A-13
CA PDF Page 60 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Appendix 5A: Aboriginal Community Profiles and Energy East Project Literature Review – New Brunswick Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment
5A.2.4 Gathering Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge on Endangered Wildlife Species that have Direct Relevance to the Culture and Practices of Maliseet First Nation (MNCC 2011)
This study was conducted by the MNCC to gather traditional knowledge from ten Elders from each of six of the Maliseet First Nation communities in New Brunswick. The report is a summary of information collected through questionnaires that were distributed about four different species (American eel, North Atlantic right whale, Furbish’s lousewort, and butternut trees). The specific communities that were consulted were not identified; therefore, the proximity to the Project area is unknown. The information gathered from the study was compiled and stored in the data repository (including sound clips) at MNCC in Fredericton, NB. This report does not indicate that the information collected was released for one time use or provide intellectual property rights restrictions.
KEY FINDINGS
The MNCC identified four wildlife species that had a direct relevance to the culture and practices of the Maliseet community and compiled traditional knowledge from local communities. Items highlighted by the summary report are as follows:
• Current non-Aboriginal land use practices and activities along the watershed are having an adverse effect on the American eel populations in the river. • The location and distribution of the Furbish’s lousewort and butternut tree has changed over time as a result of development and activities in the watershed. • The Furbish’s lousewort and the butternut have cultural importance and are used for medicinal purposes. • The existence of the Furbish’s lousewort is being threatened by the invasive lupine plant. • While the Maliseet maintain an important relationship with the Saint John River, “their access to the ocean has been denied and therefore it was not possible to collect much Aboriginal traditional knowledge information on whales at the time that this study was conducted”.
5A-14 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 61 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Energy East Project Appendix 5A: Aboriginal Community Profiles and Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment Literature Review – New Brunswick
5A.2.5 Collection of Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge of Ecologically Sensitive Wildlife Species at Risk which have Direct Relevance to the Maliseet First Nation (MNCC 2012b)
In 2011/2012, the MNCC conducted a study to collect traditional knowledge about four species at risk in Canada that have cultural and/or economic significance to Maliseet First Nation. This report is a summary of the information collected from questionnaires that were distributed to 51 Elders from six different Maliseet First Nations for four different species (rainbow smelt, shortnose sturgeon, striped bass and yellowlamp mussel). Communities involved in the traditional knowledge study include: Madawaska Maliseet First Nation, Tobique First Nation (Neqotkuk First Nation), Woodstock First Nation, Kingsclear First Nation, Saint Mary’s First Nation and Oromocto First Nation. The report did not define a specific geographic study area. Therefore, the proximity to the Project area is unknown. The information gathered from the Aboriginal traditional knowledge study was compiled and stored in the data repository (including sound clips) at MNCC in Fredericton, New Brunswick. This report does not indicate that the information collected was released for one time use or provide intellectual property rights restrictions.
KEY FINDINGS
Key findings of the study include:
• Rainbow smelt was traditionally harvested at fishing camps and sites in the area surrounding Lake Utopia. Elders believe that the current non-Aboriginal land use practices and activities taking place along the lake are having an adverse effect on the long-term smelt population in the lake. • Historically, the shortnose sturgeon was abundantly available in the Saint John River and Maliseet First Nation believe that overfishing, development of hydroelectric dams, and other development and activities in the watershed are having a negative effect on the sturgeon population. • Sturgeon caviar is typically used by the Maliseet, and that the fish itself is not generally used as a food source. • Little Aboriginal traditional knowledge was available regarding the yellowlamp mussel, though the Elders indicated that the population of these mussels in the Saint John River was “poor”. • Most of the Elders interviewed had knowledge of the striped bass in the Bay of Fundy, and they noted that the population of striped bass in the Saint John River appears to be relatively healthy; however concerns were raised that the development along the watershed would have a negative impact on the fish population.
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 5A-15
CA PDF Page 62 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Appendix 5A: Aboriginal Community Profiles and Energy East Project Literature Review – New Brunswick Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment
5A.2.6 Traditional Ecological Knowledge and New Brunswick’s Forest: A Conversation (CCNB 2009)
In 2009, the Conservation Council of New Brunswick (CCNB) initiated a study to discuss and document the state of the Acadian Forest using traditional ecological knowledge. A talking circle on conservation and cooperation was hosted by the University of St. Thomas in Fredericton, New Brunswick. There were participants from the CCNB, the Schoodic Band of the Passamaquoddy Nation of St. Andrews, the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence Coalition on Sustainability, and the Bay of Fundy Ecosystem Partnership. Following the talking circle, informal interviews were conducted with volunteers (Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal) and knowledge keepers to document their experience and thoughts regarding the status of the Acadian Forest. While no specific study area was identified, the Acadian Forest is defined as the mixed forest found in the Maritimes, Quebec and the northeast United States. Seven knowledge keepers were interviewed and the report captures their insights into the challenges the Acadian forest faces with regard to its health. Informal interviews were conducted with participants using a guided questionnaire. The main topics of conversation included living memory and the current state of the forest, differences between the forests, human activities negatively affecting the forest, species of special concern, TEK and decision-making, the relationship between TEK and western-based science, and threats to TEK and how to overcome them. Key points raised by participants during these interviews include: In New Brunswick, there is more Mi’kmaq territory than Maliseet territory. “More land means more culture”. This report does not indicate that the information collected was released for one time use or provide intellectual property rights restrictions.
KEY FINDINGS
• Deforestation and clearcutting were raised by many participants as a concern: • “Policies on Crown Lands force Aboriginal communities to clearcut”. • An FMP dictates which blocks to harvest. ”We are concerned about the medicinal plants in the forest that existed before the clearcuts…” “We can’t find birch trees big enough to make canoes or baskets”. • Access to land and resources was also raised as a concern by participants. • “Still today, access to land and salmon fishing are prohibited to those who should be able to access the land or resource.” • Flooding due to deforestation and dam construction has affected the abundance of sweetgrass. • The following types of plants were identified as culturally significant (consumption and medicinal purposes) and species of concern: • touch-me-nots • jack-in-the-pulpit • Indian cucumber • pin-cushion moss • black ash
5A-16 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 63 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Energy East Project Appendix 5A: Aboriginal Community Profiles and Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment Literature Review – New Brunswick
• butternut • elderberries • bloodroot • wild ginger • goldthread • ash • elm • maple • pines • spruce • cedar • birch • flag root (CCNB 2009).
5A.2.7 Comprehensive Study Report (CSR): Eider Rock Project, Marine Terminal, Saint John Harbour (Jacques Whitford Stantec Limited 2009)
The Comprehensive Study Report (CSR) was prepared to address the requirements for a federal Environmental Assessment (EA) under CEAA for the Eider Rock Project. Proposed by the Irving Oil Company, the Eider Rock Project involves construction and operation of a new petroleum refinery and marine terminal in Saint John Harbour, New Brunswick. A component of the CSR is a TEK study that was conducted by the Tobique Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO) and included participation by the six Maliseet First Nations communities in New Brunswick (Oromocto First Nation, Saint Mary’s First Nation, Kingsclear First Nation, Woodstock First Nation, Tobique First Nation (Neqotkuk First Nation) and Madawaska Maliseet First Nation). While completed, the TEK study had not been made available at the time the CSR was being completed. TEK information included in the CSR was compiled from personal communication and open houses with representatives from TEDCO. Additional information was also gathered through direct correspondence and communication with elected Chiefs of the six Maliseet First Nations.
The study area for TLU covered in the CSR is limited to the Project RoW boundaries and within the limits of highway expansion located of the easternmost end point for the Project area in the Saint John area. This report does not indicate that the information collected was released for one time use or provide intellectual property rights restrictions.
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 5A-17
CA PDF Page 64 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Appendix 5A: Aboriginal Community Profiles and Energy East Project Literature Review – New Brunswick Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment
KEY FINDINGS
The major points summarized in the CSR that relate to TLU are described below.
• During the engagement process, comments received from both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal groups regarding the commercial fisheries listed the following concerns: • Potential loss of access to areas currently fished; • Potential increased travel time to reach fishing areas; • Potential accidental gear loss; and • Perceived potential for changes in lobster quality and quantity. • The closest reported social, ceremonial, or spiritual site of importance to Aboriginal groups is The Brothers 18, a First Nation reserve located on Goat and Indian Islands in the Kennebecasis River north of the City of Saint John. • There currently are no First Nation communities in the vicinity of the Eider Rock Project; however, the entire province of New Brunswick is traditional territory of the Mi’kmaq and Maliseet peoples. • Concerns were raised by interviewees that “the construction of the Project could adversely affect the availability of various game animals located along the proposed highway route, in areas considered traditional Maliseet territory”. • “…locations within the Meductic (Maliseet Trail) and Flat Top Mountain areas that have been used by the Maliseet People in the past for ceremonial and spiritual purposes. Davidson Lake, in the Pokiok to Longs Creek area, was also mentioned in this context” • No known fishing, hunting, or gathering sites for trade or personal use by Aboriginal persons in the vicinity of the project were reported in the current use study. • An Aboriginal commercial fishery was noted in the Bay of Fundy, which could have created interactions and residual Project effects; however, effects were not considered significant with the exception of vessel traffic, which was assessed. • There were no known Aboriginal fisheries in shores near marine-based portions of the Project during both construction and operations. • No current use of forestry resources by Aboriginal groups within the vicinity of the project were reported in the current use study (forestry activities were not mentioned as a matter of concern to First Nations leadership or participants at the engagement meetings). • General reference was made to Aboriginal sweetgrass gathering at Peck Point and Peck Beach during the engagement sessions, though these areas are located in Rockport, near Cape Maringouin. • It was noted during some of the Aboriginal engagement activities that the Saint John area in general was a traditional gathering point for historic period meetings with the Wabanaki and later with the British.
5A-18 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 65 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Energy East Project Appendix 5A: Aboriginal Community Profiles and Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment Literature Review – New Brunswick
5A.2.8 Sisson Project (Tungsten and Molybdenum Mine): Environmental Impact Assessment Report (Stantec 2013)
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Sisson Project was completed by Stantec in 2013 as part of the proposal by Northcliff Resources Ltd. to develop an open-pit tungsten-molybdenum mining operation and associated facilities infrastructure in central New Brunswick near Napadogan, approximately 60 km northwest of Fredericton within the Nashwaak River watershed. The EIA was prepared to address the requirements of the EIA Regulation, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), and the New Brunswick Environmental Impact Assessment Regulation–Clean Environment Act. An Indigenous Knowledge Study (IKS) was conducted by Moccasin Flower Consulting Inc. as part of CEAA requirements to understand potential changes to the current use of land and resources for traditional purposes by Aboriginal groups. Communities included in the IKS include Saint Mary’s First Nation, Woodstock First Nation and Madawaska Maliseet First Nation. The Project Development Area (PDA) is considered by the Maliseet peoples to be part of their traditional territory, but there are currently no Aboriginal communities located within or immediately adjacent to the PDA.
KEY FINDINGS
The IKS included the compilation of data through historical research, field surveys, interviews and discussions with community knowledge holders and mapping and recording of traditional uses, including sites and activities. The Aboriginal groups closest to the Project are Saint Mary’s First Nation (47 km south), First Nation (49 km south), and Woodstock First Nation (46 km west).
Key findings of the IKS included:
• “A variety of tree species also continue to be harvested to make carious pieces of Maliseet material culture such as black ash for baskets and cedar for furniture. Resources continue to be harvested for medicine (e.g. golden thread) and ceremony (e.g. sweet grass for smudge and alder for building sweat lodges”
• Several camps, fishing, hunting, cutting, gathering and multi-use areas were identified by study participants within the general area of the Sisson Project.
• “Maliseet people continue to use the general area in the vicinity of the Project for traditional purposes to support their culture and livelihood (i.e., harvesting of tree species and medicinal plants). Many continue to harvest, hunt and consume foods traditional to the diet, including but not limited to moose, dead, fish, fiddleheads, and berries.”
• The physical presence of Project facilities and other exclusion zones will affect access to and use of traditional land and resources and potentially change the use of traditional land and resources. • Certain construction activities will have significant impact on access to and use of traditional land and resources: “Site Preparation through clearing, grubbing, levelling, and other earth moving activities, as well as the implementation of site access restrictions for safety and security reasons, will result in a long-term loss of access to land and resources.” Specific mitigation measures to address access to and use of traditional land and resources will be implemented.
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 5A-19
CA PDF Page 66 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Appendix 5A: Aboriginal Community Profiles and Energy East Project Literature Review – New Brunswick Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment
5A.2.9 Phased Environmental Impact Assessment Submission for Development of the Bronson Hydrocarbon Well: Well Pad Construction and Vertical Stratigraphic Drilling (Stantec 2014)
This Phased Environmental Impact Assessment was prepared for SWB Resources Canada Inc. to comply with New Brunswick Department of Environmental and Local Government. SWB Resources Canada Inc. has proposed construction of well pad and vertical stratigraphic drilling on Crown Land located near Bronson Settlement and the Village of Chipman, New Brunswick. The Project Development Area (PDA) may be located within the Wolastoqiyik and Mi’kmaq First Nations traditional territories and is in close proximity to the Project area. Historical and current land use by First Nations is addressed in the EIA through engagement activities, research and literature review.
KEY FINDINGS
Major points of the key findings and concerns from the Phased EIA include:
• Travelways: • “located 34 km northeast of the PDA, [a route] was used to travel between the coast and the Saint John River via a portage between the Richibutco and Salmon rivers” • Portage points located at Southwest Miramichi River and the Nashwaak River (approximately 72 km west of the PDA) and The Cains and Gaspereau rivers (approximately 26 km northwest of the PDA). • “The general area likely provided several sources of subsistence for First Nations populations through its many marshes, lakes, rivers, and wetlands that provided fish, waterfowl, and other food sources” • Archaeological sites located along the major rivers.
5A.2.10 Summary of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIA Report) for the Irving Oil Limited Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Marine Terminal and Multi-Purpose Pier Project (DOE and LG 2004)
Irving Oil Limited proposed the development of an LNG marine terminal and pier at the Irving Canaport facility near St. John, New Brunswick. LNG would be stored, converted, and redistributed at the facility. This report summarizes the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that was prepared for Irving Oil Limited to comply with the New Brunswick Clean Environment Act Environmental Impact Assessment Regulation (87-83) and CEAA. First Nations communities, including the Union of New Brunswick Indians, were included in the communications plan.
KEY FINDINGS
There is no site-specific or community-specific traditional knowledge information in the Irving Oil Limited LNG EIS.
5A-20 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 67 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Energy East Project Appendix 5A: Aboriginal Community Profiles and Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment Literature Review – New Brunswick
5A.3 References Cited – New Brunswick
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC). 2014. Status Report on Specific Claims. New Brunswick. Available at: http://services.aadnc- aandc.gc.ca/SCBRI_E/Main/ReportingCentre/External/externalreporting.aspx. Accessed: June 2014.
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC). 2014a. First Nation Detail: Buctouche First Nation. Available at: http://pse5-esd5.ainc- inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=4&lang=eng. Accessed: May 2014.
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC). 2014b. First Nation Detail: Eel Ground First Nation. Available at: http://pse5-esd5.ainc- inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=7&lang=eng. Accessed: May 2014.
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC). 2014c. First Nation Detail: Eel River Bar First Nation. Available at: http://pse5-esd5.ainc- inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=8&lang=eng. Accessed: May 2014.
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC). 2014d. First Nation Detail: Fort Folly First Nation. Available at: http://pse5-esd5.ainc- inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=9&lang=eng. Accessed: May 2014.
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC). 2014e. First Nation Detail: Indian Island First Nation. Available at: http://pse5-esd5.ainc- inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=10&lang=eng. Accessed: May 2014.
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC). 2014f. First Nation Detail: Metepenagiag Mi’kmaq Nation. Available at: http://pse5-esd5.ainc- inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=14&lang=eng. Accessed: May 2014.
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC). 2014g. First Nation Detail: Pabineau First Nation. Available at: http://pse5-esd5.ainc- inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=13&lang=eng. Accessed: May 2014.
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC). 2014h. First Nation Detail: Elsipogtog First Nation. Available at: http://pse5-esd5.ainc- inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=3&lang=eng. Accessed: May 2014.
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC). 2014i. First Nation Detail: Esgenoopetitj First Nation. Available at: http://pse5-esd5.ainc- inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=5&lang=eng. Accessed: May 2014.
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC). 2014j. First Nation Detail: Tobique First Nation. Available at: http://pse5-esd5.ainc- inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=16&lang=eng. Accessed: May 2014.
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC). 2014k. First Nation Detail: Madawaska Maliseet First Nation. Available at: http://pse5-esd5.ainc- inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=6&lang=eng. Accessed: May 2014.
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 5A-21
CA PDF Page 68 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Appendix 5A: Aboriginal Community Profiles and Energy East Project Literature Review – New Brunswick Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC). 2014l. First Nation Detail: Oromocto First Nation. Available at: http://pse5-esd5.ainc- inac.gc.ca/FNP/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=12&lang=eng. Accessed: May 2014.
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC). 2014m. First Nation Detail: St. Mary’s First Nation. Available at: http://pse5-esd5.ainc- inac.gc.ca/FNP/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=602&lang=eng. Accessed: May 2014.
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC). 2014n. First Nation Detail: Woodstock First Nation. Available at: http://pse5-esd5.ainc- inac.gc.ca/FNP/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=17&lang=eng. Accessed: May 2014.
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC). 2014o. First Nation Detail: Kingsclear First Nation. Available at: http://pse5-esd5.ainc- inac.gc.ca/FNP/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=11&lang=eng. Accessed: May 2014.
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC). 2014p. Comprehensive Land Claim and Self-Government Negotiation Tables. Available at: http://www.aadnc- aandc.gc.ca/eng/1346782327802/1346782485058. Accessed: June 2014.
Assembly of First Nations (AFN). No date. Available at: http://www.afn.ca/index.php/en. Accessed: May 2013.
Assembly of New Brunswick Chiefs (AFNCNB). No date. Available at: http://www.chiefsnb.ca/. Accessed: May 2014.
Atlantic Policy Congress (APC). Available at: http://www.apcfnc.ca/en/. Accessed: May 2013.
Canadian Rivers Institute. 2011. The Saint John River: A State of the Environment Report. Edited by Kidd.
Conservation Council of New Brunswick (CCNB). 2009. Traditional Ecological Knowledge and New Brunswick’s Forest: A Conversation. Funded by the New Brunswick Wildlife Trust Fund and the Atlantic Council for International Cooperation. New Brunswick. Available at: http://www.ibsltd.ca/pub/conservation_council/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Knowledge-Final- Nov09.pdf. Accessed: April 2013.
Curry & Munkittrick. 2011. The Saint John River: A State of the Environment Report. University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick. Available at: http://www.unb.ca/research/institutes/cri/_resources/pdfs/criday2011/cri_sjr_soe_final.pdf. Accessed: April 2013.
Department of the Environment and Local Government (DOE and LG). 2004. Summary of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIA Report) for the Irving Oil Limited Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Marine Terminal and Multi-Purpose Pier Project.
5A-22 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.
CA PDF Page 69 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Energy East Project Appendix 5A: Aboriginal Community Profiles and Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment Literature Review – New Brunswick
Elsipogtog First Nation. No date. Community website. Available at: http://www.bigcoveband.com/. Accessed: April 2013.
First Nations Communities in New Brunswick (FNCNB). 2014. Available at: http://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/aas-saa/pdf/contacts-e.pdf. Accessed: June 2014.
Fort Folly First Nation. No date. Community website. Available at: http://www.fortfolly.nb.ca/firstpg6.html. Accessed: April 2013.
Francis, A and M. Leavitt. 2008. A Passamaquoddy-Maliseet Dictionary (PeskotomuhkatiWolatoqewiLatuwewakon). Fredericton: Goose Lane Editions.
Jacques Whitford Stantec Limited. 2009. Comprehensive Study Report (CSR): Eider Rock Project, Marine Terminal, Saint John Harbour (Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry # 07-03- 28779). Prepared on behalf of Irving Oil Company Limited. New Brunswick. Available at: http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/documents_staticpost/28779/39352E.pdf. Accessed: April 2013.
Jacques Whitford Environment Limited. 2004. Final Comprehensive Study Report (CSR): New Route 2 Trans-Canada Highway Project, Perth-Andover to Woodstock New Brunswick (Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry # 07-03-28779). Prepared on behalf of the New Brunswick Department of Transportation Planning and Land Management Branch. New Brunswick. Available at: http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=94D3062E- 1&offset=1&toc=hide. Accessed: April 2013.
Kingsclear First Nation. 2013. Community website. Available at: http://www.kingsclear.ca. Accessed: April 2013.
Madawaska Maliseet First Nation. No date. Community website. Available at: http://www.madawaskamaliseetfirstnation.com/index.html. Accessed: April 2013.
Maliseet Nation Conservation Council (MNCC). 2010. Evaluation of the level of contaminants, Mercury and Arsenic in fiddleheads, New Brunswick. Funded by the National First Nations Environment Contaminant Program (NFNECP) of Health Canada. New Brunswick. Available at: http://www.fnehin.ca/images/uploads/Heavy_Metal_Content_-_Fiddleheads.pdf. Accessed: April 2013.
Maliseet Nation Conservation Council (MNCC). 2012a. Evaluation of the level of contaminants, Cadmium, Mercury and Arsenic in the muscle Tissue and Organs of Moose, New Brunswick. Funded by the National First Nations Environment Contaminant Program (NFNECP) of Health Canada. New Brunswick. Available at: http://mncc.ca/pdf/Moose%20Contaminants%20Study.pdf. Accessed: April 2013.
Maliseet Nation Conservation Council (MNCC). 2011. Gathering Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge on endangered wildlife species that have direct relevance to the culture and practices of Maliseet First Nation. Funded by the Aboriginal Funds for Species at Risk and Environment Canada. New Brunswick. Available at: http://mncc.ca/pdf/Traditional%20Knowledge%20Study.pdf. Accessed: April 2013.
Energy East Pipeline Ltd. May 2016 5A-23
CA PDF Page 70 of 70
Part E: New Brunswick Appendix 5A: Aboriginal Community Profiles and Energy East Project Literature Review – New Brunswick Volume 16: Socio-Economic Effects Assessment
Maliseet Nation Conservation Council (MNCC). 2012b. Collection of Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge of Ecologically Sensitive Wildlife Species at Risk which have direct relevance to the Maliseet First Nation. Funded by the Aboriginal Funds for Species at Risk and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans of Canada. New Brunswick. Available at: http://mncc.ca/pdf/MNCC%20Traditional%20Knowledge%20Study%20Report%20(2011- 2012).pdf. Accessed: April 2013.
MAWIW Tribal Council (MAWIW). 2011. Available at: http://www.mawiwcouncil.ca/. Accessed: May 2013.
Metepenagiag/Red Bank First Nation. No date. Community website. Available at: http://www.metepenagiag.com/rbaccueil_en.htm. Accessed: April 2013.
New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council (NBAPC). No date. Available at: http://nbapc.org/. Accessed: May 2013.
New Brunswick Department of Environment (DENV). 2007. Summary of Public Participation: Environmental Impact Assessment for the Proposal by NB Department of Supply and Services. Removal of the Eel River Dam.
North Shore Micmac District Council. 2013. Available at: http://www.nsmdc.ca/. Accessed: May 2013.
Oromocto First Nation. 2003. Community website. Available at: http://www.ofnb.com/. Accessed: May 2013.
Pabineau First Nation. No date. Community website. Available at: http://www.pabineaufirstnation.ca/. Accessed: May 2013.
Saint John River Valley Tribal Council (SJRVTC). No date. Available at: http://www.sjrvtribalcouncil.com/. Accessed: May 2013.
Stantec Consulting Ltd (Stantec). 2013. Sisson Project: Environmental Impact Assessment Report. Available at: http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/document-eng.cfm?document=93967. Accessed: June 2014.
Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec). 2014. Phased Environmental Impact Assessment Submission for Development of the Bronson Hydrocarbon Well: Well Pad Construction and Vertical Stratigraphic Drilling.
St. Mary’s First Nation. No date. Community website. Available at: http://stmarysfirstnation.com/. Accessed: May 2013.
Trigger, B. 1978. Handbook of North American Indians. Volume 15, Northeast. Smithsonian Institute. Washington, D.C.
Union of New Brunswick Indians (UNBI). No date. Available at: http://www.unbi.org/. Accessed: June 2014.
Woodstock First Nation. 2013. Community website. Available at: http://www.woodstockfirstnation.com/. Accessed: May 2013.
5A-24 May 2016 Energy East Pipeline Ltd.