Cumulative Effects on the Aboriginal Rights And

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ON THE ABORIGINAL RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF SAMSON CREE NATION A preliminary desktop analysis of Valued Components in the project affected area of NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL) – 2021 System Expansion Project

April 18, 2019 Draft

Firelight Research Inc. for the Samson Cree Nation in collaboration with the Samson Cree Consultation Office.

Final Report: [SCN] Desktop Analysis of Valued Components affected by NGTL

Table of Contents Background and Methods 5

Purpose of the Report ...... 5

The Project ...... 6

Gaps in NGTL’s Assessment of Cumulative Effects ...... 7

Samson Cree Nation Background ...... 17

SCN History and Territory ...... 17

Cumulative Effects Assessment Methodology ...... 22

Scope of Cumulative Effects Assessment ...... 22

Principles Underlying Methodology in this Report ...... 27

Summary of Impact Causing Agents or Stressors...... 31

Timeline of Past and Current Cumulative Effects in SCN Territory ...... 31

Loss of Crown Lands ...... 33

Forestry ...... 34

Oil and Gas ...... 35

Agriculture and Grazing Leases ...... 36

Environmental Factors (Climate Change and fires) ...... 36

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Stressors ...... 37

Works Cited ...... 39

Status of Health of Valued Components of Concern in the Eastern Slopes of the Rockies: Environment 45

Culturally Important Plants ...... 45

Priority Culturally Important Plant Species for SCN ...... 45

Vegetation Historical Baseline ...... 46

Vegetation Current Status and Degree of Change over Time...... 46

Causes of Change in Status of Culturally Important Plants ...... 48

Implications (Impacts) of Change in Vegetation Health Status ...... 48

Project Cumulative Effects on Culturally Important Plants ...... 49

Summary ...... 50

Works Cited ...... 51

Bees and Pollinators ...... 52

The Importance of Bees and Pollinators to SCN ...... 52

Bees in Alberta Current Status and Degree of Change Over Time ...... 52

Cause of Change in Bee Health Status ...... 54

Project Cumulative Effects on Culturally Important Plants ...... 55

Summary ...... 55

Works Cited ...... 56

Wetland and Sensitive Ecosystems ...... 58

Importance of Wetland and Sensitive Ecosystems for SCN ...... 58

Wetland Current Status and Degree of Change Over Time ...... 59

Cause of Change in Wetland Health Status ...... 60

Project cumulative effects on wetlands ...... 62

Summary ...... 62

Works Cited ...... 63

Water Quality and Quantity ...... 64

Importance of Water Quality and Quantity ...... 64

Water Quality and Quantity Current Status and Change Over Time ...... 64

Cause of Change in Water Quality and Quantity ...... 66

Project cumulative effects on water quality and quantity ...... 66

Summary ...... 67

Works Cited ...... 68

Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 70

Priority Fish Species and Fish Habitat of Concern for SCN ...... 70

Fish and Fish Habitat Current Status and Degree of Change Over Time ...... 71

Cause of Change in Fish and Fish Habitat Health Status ...... 72

Project cumulative effects on fish, fish habitat and fishing ...... 73

Summary ...... 74

Works Cited ...... 75

Status of Health of Valued Components of Concern in the Eastern Slopes of the Rockies: Wildlife 77

Caribou...... 77

Why Caribou is a Priority Species for SCN ...... 77

Woodland Caribou Status and Degree of Change Over Time ...... 78

Why the Decline? ...... 79

Current Level of Disturbance in Little Smoky ...... 80

Recovery Plans and Barriers to Recovery ...... 80

Project cumulative effects on Boreal Caribou from Proposed NGTL ...... 83

Summary ...... 86

Works Cited ...... 86

Paskwâw Mostos / Plains Bison (Bison bison bison) ...... 88

Why Bison is a priority species for SCN ...... 88

Bison Current Status and Degree of Change Over Time ...... 89

Barriers to Improving Bison Health Status ...... 91

Project Cumulative Effects on Bison Habitat recovery ...... 91

Summary ...... 92

Works Cited ...... 92

Maskwa/ Grizzly Bears ...... 95

Why Grizzly Bears are a Priority Species for SCN ...... 95

Grizzly Bear Current Status and Degree of Change Over Time ...... 95

Cause of Change in Grizzly Bear Status ...... 97

Project Impacts and SCN goals for grizzly bears ...... 97

Summary ...... 98

Works Cited ...... 99

Hunting and Wildlife Habitat Fragmentation ...... 101

SCN priorities for Hunting and Wildlife Habitat ...... 101

Cause of Change in Wildlife Habitat Health Status and Hunting ...... 102

Project Cumulative Effects on Hunting and Habitat Fragmentation ...... 105

Summary ...... 105

Works Cited ...... 106

Health of Valued Components: Sense of Place and Cultural and Heritage Resources 107

SCN Sense of Place and Transmission of Knowledge in the Eastern Slopes ...... 107

Current Status and Degree of Change Over Time ...... 110

Causes of Change in SCN Sense of Place in SCN Territory and the Eastern Slopes ...... 113

Impacts of Change in SCN Sense of Place and Transmission of Knowledge over Time .. 114

Project and Cumulative Effects on SCN Sense of Place in the Eastern Slopes ...... 114

Summary ...... 115

Works Cited ...... 115

Culture and Heritage Resources ...... 117

Priority Culture and Heritage Resources for SCN ...... 117

Current Status of SCN Culture and Heritage and Degree of Change Over Time ...... 122

Cause of Change ...... 124

Project and Cumulative Effects on Culture and Heritage Resources ...... 124

Summary ...... 125

Works Cited ...... 125

Conclusions 127

iii

BACKGROUND AND METHODS 1. PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

“And the best analogy I could use, was talking about if I was to sit here and somebody came up and started pinching me – and they just started pinching me, but there was no law in place for them to let me know they were going to start pinching me; they could just do it, so they came up and they started pinching me. And suddenly there was a law in place that said, “You have to notify the person before you pinch them.” And then they came up and they said, “Okay. Well, we’ve already been pinching you, so we’re going to grandfather this in and we’re going to start pinching you again.” And they start pinching me again and then they say, “All right, this time we’re going to hear you out. We want to know how does this affect you?”

And I start saying, “Well, my arm was fine before you started pinching.” “No, it was pre-existing; we were already pinching you before that law came into place. You can't go as far back and tell us how it was before we started pinching. We have to know how does this affect you right now.”

And to me that just, you know, it sounds ludicrous. And it’s funny that I have to put it in such an analogy to be understood. But these lands were used for our ceremonies. We went out, we found specific ceremonies to pass on stories, to pass on traditions, to pass on the pipe. These are very important to us.” (Councillor Katherine Swampy, Samson Cree Nation NEB Westpath Delivery Project Oral Testimony - A6I9Y8, line 267 2018a)

The Firelight Group Research Inc (“Firelight”) was retained by Samson Cree Nation (“SCN”) to undertake a technical review of the cumulative effects assessment (“CEA”) carried out by NGTL (the “Proponent“) as part of the NGTL 2021 application (the “Project”).

Samson Cree Nation is seriously concerned with the cumulative effects occurring in the Nation’s traditional territory, especially in the Project area (Figure 1) as this area includes some of the last corners of relatively pristine lands in the territory. As stewards of their land, SCN wants to ensure that lands and waters in the territory are healthy for future generations. The Nation cannot rely on proponents or the government to undertake a comprehensive review of cumulative effects that includes impacts to SCN rights and therefore SCN is undertaking this review, with support from Firelight. SCN is frustrated at seeing environmental reports issued in a piecemeal manner for individual projects with no thought for cumulative or regional impacts. SCN members are frustrated that their territory, their harvesting and cultural activities and

their treaty and Aboriginal rights being “pinched” without the calculation of the damage of every individual pinch and all the pinches in sum being considered in decisions about what is acceptable in the future.

This Report:

● Identifies key gaps and deficiencies with the Proponent’s CEA; and ● Develops a preliminary alternative assessment of cumulative effects of the Project in combination with past, present and reasonably-foreseeable future developments on the SCN member’s Aboriginal rights and interests.

An “enabling factors approach” is used to assess cumulative effects. This approach identifies that the focus of assessment should be on maintaining the minimum quality and quantity of land and resources among other key factors required for the full practice of Samson Cree Nation culture, mode of life, and Aboriginal rights. These quality and quantity criterion are discussed qualitatively regarding specific valued components with the exception of wildlife VCs where quantitative thresholds have been established. Adverse effects on these “enabling factors” will limit or prevent SCN members from meaningfully exercising their Aboriginal rights, for example by not having an adequate land base to pursue seasonal rounds or not having adequate preferred harvesting species in their traditional territory in order to conduct successful harvests.

2. THE PROJECT

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL) is looking to construct and operate the 2021 NGTL System Expansion Project (see Figure 1). The proposed Project is an extension of the NGTL System and aims to increase pipeline capacity to transport gas from areas of increasing natural gas production in the Peace River Project Area (PRPA) to intra-basin and export markets (NGTL 2018b, ESA Section 1).

The Project consists of approximately 344 km of 1,219 mm pipeline loops in eight section loops, three compressor station unit additions, a control valve, mainland valve sites, construction related temporary infrastructure such as access roads, borrow pits/dugouts and stockpile sites, a cathodic protection system, temporary access roads and other miscellaneous works, such as pipeline warning signs and aerial markers (NGTL 2018b, ESA Section 1).

The Project application involves the following main components and sections (NGTL 2018b, ESA Section 1, p. 1-1 and1-2):

1. Approximately 344 km of 1,219 mm (NPS 48) pipeline loops in eight sections:

Grande Prairie West:

● Grande Prairie Mainline Loop No. 4 – Valhalla Section - 36 km ● Grande Prairie Mainline Loop No. 3 – Elmworth Section - 46 km

Grande Prairie South:

● Grande Prairie Mainline Loop No. 2 – Karr Section - 57 km ● Grande Prairie Mainline Loop No. 2 – Deep Valley Section - 69 km ● Grande Prairie Mainline Loop No. 2 – McLeod River Connection Section - 14 km

Edson South:

● Edson Mainline Loop No. 4 – Robb Section - 42 km ● Edson Mainline Loop No. 4 – Dismal Creek Section - 32 km ● Edson Mainline Loop No. 4 – Brewster Section - 49 km

2. Three (3) compressor station unit additions at the following existing NGTL sites:

● Nordegg Compressor Station (Nordegg Unit C6 Addition) ● Didsbury Compressor Station (Didsbury Unit B7 Addition) ● Beiseker Compressor Station (Beiseker Unit A3 Addition)

3. Launcher and receiver facilities for cleaning and in-line inspection (ILI)

4. A control valve (January Creek control valve) and associated pipeline tie-ins to safely facilitate the flow of gas from the January Creek Lateral to the Western Alberta System

The minimum construction Right of Way (ROW) and Temporary Work Spaces (TWS) is approximately 32 m for the majority of the length of the pipeline components.

The proposed Project would be located in the western portion of SCN territory (see Figure 1), an area already subject to relatively high levels of industrial forestry, land privatization, and landscape fragmentation. 3. GAPS IN NGTL’S ASSESSMENT OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

In the Proponent’s Cumulative Effects Assessment inadequate attention has been given to total cumulative effects of the Project in combination with already significant cumulative effects from past, current, and reasonably foreseeable development, and other changes in the environment (e.g. climate change, forest fires) in the the Project ares and SCN’s traditional territory. Impacts such as privatized land and industrial development and deforestation,

among other land uses, have ongoing impact on the lands and waters that SCN members rely on for cultural and rights-based practices, and the pace of development and resulting alienation is increasing.

SCN knowledge and experience indicates that existing levels of impact in the Project area of SCN territory already severely constrain and significantly impact SCN access to preferred places and resources where SCN members practice rights, maintain critical connections to land, and pass on knowledge to younger generations. For SCN members, cumulative effects reduce access to traditional territory, traditional hunting and harvesting areas, oral history and heritage or archeological sites, and other sites of significance. Given this context, a robust cumulative effects assessment is required for the Project. This assessment has not considered the current and likely future sufficiency of access to places and resources important to SCN rights or mitigation of Project effects.

The Proponent’s Application/ESA has a finding of no significant cumulative effects (NGTL 2018a,14-6). However, the Application and ESA’s cumulative effects assessment exhibits substantial gaps as against best practice. As one example, the temporal scope for Cumulative Effects Assessment proposed by the Proponent does not follow best practice. Section 4.2 in NGTL 2018c identifies the temporal setting for baseline conditions: “the baseline setting describes the environment as it currently exists (i.e., in 2018) prior to any potential changes that may occur” (4-8). Furthermore, section 4.4.2 identifies the temporal scope for cumulative effects assessment for the Project: “The temporal scope of the cumulative effects assessment includes the construction and operation of the Project, which is expected to operate for more than 25 years” (4-33). Hegmann et al. (1999 15) explain that temporal boundaries for analysis of change over time require an appropriate historical baseline. Working from a degraded baseline minimizes actual impacts.

The Proponent states throughout the Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment (ESA) (NGTL 2018c; NGTL2018d; NGTL 2018e; NGTL 2018f) that the criteria for determining significance was weighted on the magnitude of the Project, and Ongoing & Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and not the magnitude of Past and Existing Projects. This weighting ignores that the magnitude for past and existing projects assigned by the Proponent - rated moderate to high. Best practice dictates the importance of past and existing disturbance in determining total effects loading (Duinker and Greg 2006; Hegmann et al. 1999; MacDonald 2014). Ignoring a degraded baseline ignores vulnerable values with higher sensitivity to change. For example, the Project will remove 6,100 ha of provincial Crown land from SCN use in their traditional territory – which may seem small, until you consider that more than 63% of SCN territory lands are disturbed or converted to industrial landscapes.

In the Cumulative Effects Assessment methods described in Volume 4 of the ESA, the Proponent makes the assumption that the current level of disturbance in the Regional Study Area (RSA) will remain the same for the life of the Project (NGTL 2018c, 4-44). This assertion does not fit with future population increases or a predicted future that includes increased

forest fires associated with climate change in the region (See Summary of Impact Causing Agents or Stressors). The proponent has also emphasized that reclamation in the province will also factor into this “sustained” level of disturbance but has not provided evidence beyond number of reclamation certificates applied for. Further evidence is required to substantiate the statement that: “As pressure increases for industries to step up reclamation activities, the amount of area being reclaimed may become equal to or greater than the area with new disturbance on an annual basis” (NGTL 2018c, 4-44). This is an entirely speculative statement not based on data or track record. Cumulative effects assessment does not work on the basis of wishful thinking.

The Proponent’s ESA also puts greater emphasis on land cleared in determining cumulative effects versus consideration of other potential impacts such as access and alienation or development of a zone of influence as advised on page 15 of Heggman et al. (1999). This likely underestimates the area functionally alienated from traditional use/Treaty rights practices for SCN. Based on its narrowed definition, the Proponent assumes cumulative impacts to traditional use are limited given the percentage of vegetation cleared in the RSA and the expectation that vegetation will regrow.

Best practice also promotes the comparison of effects to thresholds as part of analysis (Heggman et al. 1999, 2). Limited evidence is provided that thresholds were identified or included in the proponent’s cumulative effects assessment for Valued Components (VC). The Proponent did note looking for existing Provincial standards (NGTL 2018c), however, Samson Cree Nation has not been engaged in determining SCN thresholds with the Proponent.

The Proponent does not provide a cumulative effects assessment specific to Samson Cree Nation Current Use of Lands and Resources or impacts to Aboriginal Rights or Title. The Proponent instead takes a Pan-Aboriginal approach using other Indigenous Groups as Proxy. Indigenous groups are unique, with one group’s use not representative of another’s. Groups can differ in geographic scope for the practice of their rights or hold different priorities for values. An assessment for each group is also a requirement of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) 2012 section 5(1)(c).

NGTL have not conducted appropriate baseline data collection to inform residual project effects first. The Proponent has not responded adequately to SCN IR 1.5 concerning this inadequate baseline collection and assessment for SCN for the Project case (NGTL 2019). No meaningful Nation-specific cumulative effects assessment can be conducted until such baseline and trend over time data is collected.

NGTL’S cumulative effects assessment for Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes also relies inappropriately on biophysical proxies. For example, cumulative effects on fishing was determined solely on fish habitat alteration and fish populations, which is not adequate to determine the significance of cumulative effects on SCN fishing (see page 19-47) as there may be a range of impact pathways whereby the Project impacts fishing other than presence of fish themselves such as:

• peace and quiet; • perceived risk of contamination; • aesthetic and other sensory changes to the landscape; and • increased competition or activity around a fishing area;

all of which can reduce peoples’ abilities and willingness to access and harvest fish from a particular location.

Utilizing best practice available from Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA) literature,1 ten principles for CEA in relation to Indigenous Culture and Rights were also identified against which the adequacy of the Proponent’s CEA was compared. This comparison informed the identification of key gaps summarized in Table 1-1 below.

Table 1-1 Gaps in NGTL’s CEA for SCN Culture and Rights including Traditional Land and Resource Use

1 Duinker and Greig (2006), Hegmann et al. (1999), Noble (2013; 2014), and the Forest Practices Board (2011), were among the sources used to generate the list of best practice principles. See MacDonald (2014) for a fuller consideration of the principles and the literature behind them. In addition, Principle 8 of the First Nations Major Projects Coalition’s Major Projects Assessment Standard (FNMPC 2019), identifies expectations for meaningful cumulative effects assessments of major projects.

CEA Principle NGTL’s CEA Gap

1. CEA must be done at the CEA was not conducted No consideration of total proper scale, and must: specifically for SCN TLRU, cumulative effects or Aboriginal rights and loading on Aboriginal • Be conducted for the interests. people within their own entire territory of each territories, including affected Indigenous Traditional Land and Nation; Resource Use (TLRU), Baseline data and trends in Aboriginal rights, and • Include consideration of disturbance for habitat and related biophysical VCs. wildlife and fish trends at wildlife populations in the stock range; regional RSAs overlapping parts of SCN territory was • Take into account the undertaken (to a limited quality of fish and wildlife degree) by NGTL, stocks and change over however, past effect and time; and VC vulnerability were not • Cover an area large heavily weighted inputs in enough to assess determining significance. accumulated environmental conditions;

CEA Principle NGTL’s CEA Gap

2. CEA must be in the proper CEA was not conducted No characterization of context – reflective of the specifically for SCN TLRU SCN values, worldview, values and valued or, Aboriginal rights and history and priority VCs. components of the affected interests. parties, including:

• Traditional knowledge Determination of impacts inputs, description, The application provides to SCN TLRU and no evidence of integration Aboriginal Rights was observations, stories and of Samson Indigenous inappropriately done narratives of change, gain, Traditional Knowledge, through proxy in NGTL’s and loss; and Key values and CEA. for each region and culture group. key SCN values are not represented in the ESA. No collection of data on SCN’s TLRU was conducted within the The Proponent also did not footprint, LSA or RSA for engage with SCN on, or the proposed Project. adequately represent, the Nation’s history and worldview therefore the assessment is missing key narratives of change.

3. Cumulative effects must Baseline was not back-cast No calculation of pre- be measured against an at all; tied to current (2018) disturbance / pre-contact appropriate temporal conditions. – or even, pre-2018 – backcast – a pre-disturbance baseline for any VCs. baseline context, and must:

• Not use the current or Proponent ignored accumulated state, which “damaged” baseline in VC status and change significance over time doesn’t have represents a damaged determination. adequate time depth baseline; • Describe historical trends to clearly describe the sensitivity and resilience of the VC; and

CEA Principle NGTL’s CEA Gap

• Use an agreed upon No historical information suitable past starting point pertaining to SCN for assessing total incorporated. cumulative impacts to date.

4. The scope of assessment Proponent has assumed Underestimation of likely must consider all past, that the current level of cumulative effects given present, and reasonably disturbance in the RSA will faulty assumptions foreseeable change agents remain the same for the concerning foreseeable impacting on the VCs and life of the Project thereby human disturbance and indicators, including: ignoring non-human lack of consideration of cumulative effects-causing non-human cumulative • The combined, persistent, agents and future effects-causing agents. and legacy effects of development stressors. human activities on the

environment, economy, and society; and • Effects from other non- human cumulative- effects-causing agents.

5. CEA must focus on total No historical or future No calculation of existing effects on VCs over time, not consideration of total stressors on SCN TLRU or the individual Project’s likely effects loading. Aboriginal rights contributions, and must whatsoever. consider:

• The overall capacity of an Assumptions made that area or region to sustain reclamation will greatly No calculation of total reduce existing damage effects on wildlife, fish, values in the face of all over time. forests or available land human activities; for SCN Aboriginal rights • The sustainability of VCs practice. over time in the face of the

CEA Principle NGTL’s CEA Gap

full range of human- Underestimation of likely generated stresses; and cumulative effects given faulty assumptions • The sum total of changes concerning the likelihood over time. and rate of reclamation activities in the Province of Alberta compared to development.

6. CEA must look to change CEA was not specifically Complete lack of over time and trends in VCs, conducted for SCN TLRU assessment for SCN and must include or, Aboriginal rights and TLRU and Aboriginal consideration of: interests. rights and interest.

• Trends in changes over time to a VC, including Trend over time and rates Quantitative data for trend analysis and rates of of change were not effects for other VCs is change; and provided for wildlife, deficient given temporal • Trends over time across a vegetation, and fish VCs as scope (inadequate time series of resources baseline was established at depth to data). required to practice 2018. Indigenous rights (e.g. acceleration of deceleration of land fragmentation and alienation).

CEA Principle NGTL’s CEA Gap

7. Multiple VCs and Enabling factors for No assessment indicators may need to be Aboriginal rights practice conducted re: enabling assessed in combination to were not considered. factors for meaningful understand total effects practice of Aboriginal loading. Thus, CEA must rights. consider that: Determination of • The cumulative effect of vulnerability and/or stressors on the resilience of VCs was not part of the Proponent’s environment may be more assessment. Lack of consideration of than the simple sum of the vulnerability/resilience of individual stressors; and VCs can lead to • Impact-causing agents substantial Proponent did not may act in mutually underestimation of the adequately factor in ability of the VC to take reinforcing ways to impact-causing agents additional incremental compound effects (e.g. such as climate change. adverse effects, which climate change has more are predicted for rapid and extreme effects wetlands, vegetation, outcomes on already wildlife and wildlife fragmented or degraded habitat. ecosystems).

9. CEA must entertain the CEA was not specifically Given no CEA specific for possibility that there are conducted for SCN TLRU SCN TLRU or Aboriginal already “pre-project” or, Aboriginal rights and Rights, the possibility of significant adverse impacts interests. pre-existing significant or serious infringements in adverse effects for SCN is existence. Thus, CEA must never actually consider: entertained. VC pre-existing • A pre-Project contextual disturbance was rated as significance estimation for moderate to high in magnitude but was barely The Proponent has not each VC; and considered in significance considered the regional • Screening criteria that determination. declines of species highly include pre-existing valued by SCN such as significant adverse effects Caribou and Grizzly bear.

CEA Principle NGTL’s CEA Gap

adding to total effects loads.

10. CEA merits the same type No effort in specifically Proponent conducted no of effort and rigour as assessing TLRU or CEA on TLRU or Project-specific effects Aboriginal Rights for SCN Aboriginal right specific assessment, and: as CEA as proxies were to SCN. used for • Sufficient evidence and analysis must be provided SCN TLRU and Aboriginal In addition, no to support conclusions rights and interests. Indigenous group about potential territories-specific CEA cumulative effects and on any biophysical VCs their significance. Cumulative Effects was undertaken. Assessment focused primarily on clearing rather than determining a zone of influence.

The Proponent in this instance failed to complete a meaningful cumulative effects assessment across a broad spectrum of best practice considerations. Of primary concern is the Proponent’s faulty assumptions and subsequent lack of consideration for SCN’s specific rights and Traditional Land and Resource Use. Given these gaps SCN has taken on their own preliminary cumulative effects assessment through development of this document.

4. SAMSON CREE NATION BACKGROUND

The Samson Cree Nation, also known as Nipisihkopahk (willow meadows), is one of four band governments that belong to the Crees of Maskwacis (“Bear Hills” in Cree). The other three Maskwacis communities are Ermineskin Cree Nation, Louis Bull Tribe and Montana First Nation (Johnson 2017; Olson et al. 2015). The Maskwacis Cree2 are a distinct part of the Plains Cree Nation and have occupied the region since time immemorial (Olson et al. 2015). The SCN is a signatory to Treaty 6 signed between the Plain, Wood Cree and Queen Victoria in Central Alberta and Central Saskatchewan. The Maskwacis Cree language is part of the Plains Cree dialect and is a Central Algonquian language that is closely tied to Ojibwa, Fox and Menominee (Olson et al. 2015).

Samson Cree Nation is located approximately 90 kilometers south of Edmonton, Alberta, near the Queen Elizabeth Highway. Three reserves make up SCN, including Samson IR 137, Samson IR 137A, and Pigeon Lake 138A. In 2015, the population of SCN was registered at 8067 members, with approximately 5728 members living on reserve (Olson et al. 2015).

Today, Samson Cree Nation work is guided by the principles of Pimachihowin (way of life), Wahkohtowin (kinship), Sakitowin (love), and Tapwewin (honesty). These principles are informed by the knowledge of the Elders and shape the way the community thinks, speaks and lives (Samson Cree Nation 2013). With this in mind, Samson Cree Nation aims to collectively promote healthy socio-economic growth within the community and for future generations that sustains healthy lands and waters to enable the full and meaningful practice of culture and rights.

4.1 SCN HISTORY AND TERRITORY

4.1.1 History

Samson Cree Nation belong to the Maskwacis Cree, which are part of the Plains Cree. Long before European contact, the Plains Cree inhabited the areas now known as Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and parts of Montana. For thousands of years before contact, the plains people hunted buffalo and relied on seasonal fruits, vegetables and other game for subsistence (Brasser 2015).

The immense herds of buffalo were central to the economy and culture of the Plains societies. The buffalo hunt promoted cooperation among Plains peoples (Miller 2004). Cooperation was needed to locate, pursue, and harvest the buffalo (Miller 2004). The buffalo hunt transformed and became even more efficient with the introduction of horses to the continent in the 16th

2 In January 2014 the name officially changed from Hobbema to Maskwacis (See http://samsoncree.com/name- change).

century. The hunt changed further with the introduction of rifles in the 1860s and the increased involvement of the Plains people in the fur trade.

In the late 1600s, the Hudson Bay Company claimed a third of what is now Canada as its exclusive commercial domain. The Hudson Bay Company dominated the fur trade and the Plains people became an important player in that trade. They adjusted their hunting style and system to meet the growing demand and the Plains people moved from a subsistence way of life towards relying heavily on trade and increased interaction with the Europeans.

The fur trade led to a large decline in the game population, forcing the Plains Cree to move west towards the prairies (Olson et al. 2015).

The contact between the European settlers and the Plains Cree also led to the spread of cholera, influenza, and smallpox, which had devastating impacts on Plains Cree communities (Olson et al. 2015). The European religious missions also imposed foreign religion and values on much of the region, meaning the Cree were not only vulnerable due to the loss of the buffalo, famine and disease, but also the loss of culture and spiritual traditions (Brasser 2015).

As the buffalo population continued to decline, conflicts between the Cree and the Blackfoot increased. Cree leaders used a combination of war-making and peacemaking to gain access to the buffalo herds (Brasser 2015). This continued until the 1870s and reached a tipping point when a large battle took place called the Battle of Belly River/Old Man River in the 1870s, where hundreds of Blackfoot and Cree people died (Darnell 2001). Following the devastating battle, the two groups decided to formally establish a peace agreement (Darnell 2001). The Wetaskiwin/Peace Hills agreement aimed to establish peace between the nations as well as shared harvesting rights (Olson et al. 2015).

In 1870, the area claimed by the Hudson Bay Company was sold to the Canadian government for $1.5 million dollars and was further cleared to make way for European settlement (Brasser 2015). By this time, most of the buffalo population had been decimated and the Plains people experienced devastating losses to their own population due to epidemics, famine, denial of provisions, and forced relocation, among other factors (Brasser 2015). This eventually forced the Plains Cree to sign treaties with the government.

Between 1871 and 1876, Treaties 1 through 7 were signed. These treaties overrode the Plains Nations’ claims to their traditional lands. In 1876, SCN was one of the signatories of Treaty 6 was signed between the Plains, Woodland Cree, and the government at Fort Carlton, Fort Pitt, and Battle River in central Alberta and central Saskatchewan (Olson et al. 2015).

By 1880, over 11,000 Plains People were living on reserves and by 1891 about 250,000 European settlers moved to the Canadian prairies (Brasser 2015). Many of these settlers set up farms and expanded their holdings around the parkland-grassland regions.

4.1.2 Traditional territory

Samson Cree Nation traditional territory (see Figure 1) includes and goes beyond the area of Treaty 6. The territory stretches west to the Rocky Mountains, south to the Bow River, north to Lesser Slave Lake and east towards Manitoba (Samson Cree Nation 2009). SCN has a long and significant connection to the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains. The eastern slopes and foothills encompass critical areas for SCN citizens’ practice of Treaty rights and traditional purposes and continue to be used by SCN citizens today. Of critical note is that this area holds what limited Crown lands remain in SCN traditional territory (Samson Cree Nation 2009).

Although SCN is a signatory to Treaty 6, it has always asserted that the Treaty 6 process failed to include the lands encompassing the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains west of Treaty 6’s western boundary (southern portion of Treaty 8) (Samson Cree Nation 2009). Chief Bobtail signed the treaty (Treaty 6) while in Treaty 7 lands (Samson Cree Nation 2018a, line 200). The Blackfoot and Cree people also have a pre-colonial treaty signed in Wetaskiwin (or the Peace Hills) allowing SCN citizens –

Figure 1-1: Samson Cree Nation Traditional Territory in Relation to NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL) 2021 System Expansion Project

and formerly their ancestors – to access and harvest in this region. This is highlighted by SCN Councillor Katherine Swampy’s Oral Testimony:

“Again, this is a traditional land for us. We do have treaties so we can come in to this land and hunt and gather and do all of the traditional ceremonies and acts that we’ve always done. And yes, there is a Treaty 6 put in place that limits where we’re supposed to be, but this is our traditional land as well…” (Samson Cree Nation 2018a, line 264).

And from Elder Kenneth Saddleback:

“We have stories like in Wetaskiwin, they call it Peace Hills, and that's where all the tribes got together and made peace. And then since then, we share.” (Samson Cree Nation 2019a, line 224).

SCN members practice their rights throughout this territory even where permission is required to access private lands as demonstrated by Elder Kenneth Saddleback’s oral testimony:

“ – to this day, it doesn't matter where I go even if I have to ask, you know, these private owners to allow me to pick medicine. At one time, we didn't have to. That was our freedom.” (Samson Cree Nation 2018a, line 225).

4.1.3 SCN Rights

SCN citizens have constitutionally protected Aboriginal and Treaty Rights3 to hunt, fish, trap, governance rights and environmental stewardship rights incidental to Samson Cree’s ability to meaningfully exercise their established Treaty No. 6 Rights.

. SCN practice of rights is inextricably tied to the health of the land (Johnson 2017). The ability to practice rights relies on sufficient quantity and quality of “enabling factors”, tangible resources including fish, culturally important plants, water and game and intangible resources such as language, spiritual sites, cultural landscapes and the transmission of knowledge.

4.1.4 SCN Stewardship

In addition to rights within its territory, SCN has responsibilities as well. As the original stewards of Samson traditional territory, Samson Cree Nation believes it has a duty to the Creator to protect and preserve Mother Earth to protect Samson citizen’s wellbeing and to ensure the continuity of Samson’s way of life and identity (Samson Cree Nation 2018b).

3 SCN rights protected by but not limited to Treaty 6, Natural Resources Transfer Act, and Section 35 of the Constitution Act

Environmental stewardship of SCN territory, including advocacy for the land, is also a vital component of SCN Aboriginal rights and interests. Elder Saddleback raised this importance in Samson’s Oral testimony:

“I can be here for a long time to try and make my point across how important it is, you know, this land. When they made treaties, most of those tribes, they said that we come from this land. We're part of this land. And to this day, we still have to advocate for our mother, for our real mother, the earth.” (Elder Kenneth Saddleback, Samson Cree Nation 2018a, line 234)

Samson stewardship is framed within the context of the meaningful practice of Aboriginal rights of up to 7 future generations. According to one SCN Elder,

“The Samson Cree Nation and the Crown must plan for and consider the consequences to 7 generations in the future unseen (>140 years).” (Samson Cree Nation 2019) 5. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

5.1 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

5.1.1 Methods

As per good practice of cumulative effects assessment, this is a Valued Component-focused cumulative effects assessment rather than a Project contribution-focused cumulative effects assessment. What this means is that rather than looking solely for overlaps of other potential effects causing activities with the proposed Project’s footprint, we have focused on establishing total cumulative effects loading at the range of the resource value or Valued Component in question.

Many of these Valued Components are mobile resources, including wildlife, water, fish, and Indigenous peoples practicing their traditional land uses. Therefore, it is important to examine all the effects-causing activities throughout the range of these mobile resources rather than focusing on impacts artificially based on proximity to the Project in question. For example, the health of a regional stock of fish is impacted by alterations to lands and water and changes in harvesting pressures not within a single portion of a river, but within that entire river system. If we want to understand the state of vulnerability of that fish stock to further change, we must understand all those pressures, throughout the watershed. Anything less is an illusion, an underestimation of total effects loading.

The Valued Component-focused assessment requires specific regional scope for assessment of each Valued Component. Scope is defined in the Valued Component-specific section. For

example, for the purpose of this report, impacts to SCN Sense of Place is assessed in the geographic context of SCN’s traditional territory (described above and shown in Figure 1). This is because SCN members expect, under their treaty rights, to be able to practice their traditional land and resource use activities anywhere throughout their traditional territory. Any constraints on access to lands, quality of lands, or health and populations of the harvested resources, at any place within SCN territory and throughout SCN territory in total, is a cumulative effect on this Valued Component. As the number, size and contiguity of places where traditional activities can be successfully and meaningfully conducted by SCN members reduces, the total cumulative effects on this Valued Component increases, and the vulnerability of this Valued Component to any further adverse changes likewise increases. At the same time, the value of specific places in an ever-dwindling cultural landscape where these values still exist, and where Treaty rights can be practiced, increase immensely in value due to their rarity.

5.1.2 Spatial Scope of Assessment

For this report, to capture the extent of Project and cumulative effects on SCN Values/Valued Components a 25 km buffer around the Project footprint was used as a Regional Study Area (RSA). Due to the widespread impacts connected to SCN Sense of Place and Culture and Heritage Resources the entirety of Samson Cree traditional territory was used (see Table 2).

Table 1-2

Value Theme RSA

Environment 25 km buffer (watersheds were used for water, fish and fish habitat)

Wildlife Wildlife VCs use ranges of species (see VCs)

Sense of Place and Cultural and Heritage Samson Cree Nation Territory Resources

5.1.3 Temporal Scope of Assessment

Good practice of cumulative effects assessment requires consideration of impact causing agents (stressors) back in time to a reasonable and meaningful baseline, preferably before major anthropogenic changes to the landscape began. This establishes what the natural conditions were like before industrially caused changes began. This is important to establish some biological references for natural disturbance as well as for consideration of settler-caused changes to the environment enjoyed by Indigenous peoples before and for some time after contact. Without this appropriate temporal backcast, it is impossible to calculate the “past” part of cumulative effects - which must, after all, consider “past, present and reasonably

foreseeable future” impacts on each Valued Component. Suggestions that somehow characterizing current conditions allows us to both count and understand the causes and effects of all the changes that have previously occurred, are self-evidently false.

Establishing an appropriate backcast depends on data availability, including qualitative data from Indigenous peoples’ recollections and traditional knowledge about change over time, and quantitative data about indicators such as changes in land use cover and wildlife and fish population levels and geographic distributions over time. The absence of perfect data for conditions in the past, however, is not an excuse not to anchor the cumulative effects assessment in the past. Information can be triangulated from many sources to get a picture, however imperfect, of trends over time in the health/status of a Valued Component. A puzzle on the table with some missing pieces still shows you more than one in a box.

Since this is a Valued Component-focused assessment, each Valued Component has its own temporal backcast, based on data availability and consideration of the time frame when large scale anthropogenic changes began to impact on the Valued Component. For example, in relation to sense of place, while changes started to occur to Samson Cree territory prior to the 1880s, rapid changes began after 1905 and mapped data showing these changes becomes more readily available after this date as well. A qualitative narrative of change, therefore, can begin further back in time than the quantitative picture of that change; both will be integrated herein. The story of change is a cumulative history.

Proper cumulative effects assessment must also look to the future as well. Forecasting the future is an imperfect science, but a necessary one if reasonably foreseeable future change is to be included in the assessment. Where possible, research related to climate change impacts on VCs was found and incorporated. All possible factors should be considered, within reason and constraints of this project scope, when considering change over time for VCs – including human activities and even small incremental changes that are not normally subject to Environmental Assessment (for example, forest harvesting cutblocks and small mine permits).

In addition, the forward-looking aspect of a proper cumulative effects assessment will gauge future likely change not merely against today’s conditions (often heavily disturbed) or from past conditions (which may or may not be feasible to regain in the future), but also against the goals, aspirations and expectations of the future for the impacted parties, in this case the people of Samson Cree Nation. The forward-looking portion of this cumulative effects assessment will examine likely total cumulative effects in the future case against SCN’s aspirations and expectations, especially in relation to the ability to reconnect with a larger portion of traditional territory and for future generations to be able to meaningfully practice SCN’s Inherent and Treaty No. 6 Rights and Interests. .

5.1.4 Scope of Issues

As described in Section 1, the proposed NGTL 2021 project includes three discrete study areas and additional compressor stations, all of them within the western portion of SCN territory at the eastern edge of the foothills of the Rocky Mountains west of Edmonton and Calgary. The western portion of SCN territory is critical to the practice of rights partly due to the high proportion of the area that is Crown land and because it supports continued intergenerational practice of cultural and harvesting activities including, but not limited to:

● Medicinal Plants and Berry Picking ● Camping ● Fishing / Fish Trap ● Hunting / Hunting Areas ● Gathering / Ceremonials Areas ● Trails and Water Routes

There are two key considerations in defining the scope of issues in a cumulative effects assessment. The first is to define what matters most? What are the values that merit consideration in the assessment? These Valued Components must be important, and they must also be potentially impacted by the Project in question. For this Report, Values were identified and confirmed by the Samson Cree Nation Consultation Committee and verified through a community meeting (Samson Cree Nation 2019).

The second key consideration is to define the scope of the impact-causing agents or stressors that have, are, or likely will change the Valued Components. While this may seem like a simple logical determination, in fact many cumulative effects assessments in the past have ignored many – and in some cases, most – of the pressures that cause adverse changes to Valued Components. In many cases, only major projects – often defined as ones that merit a formal environmental assessment – have been included impact causing agents in cumulative effects assessments. This can create a situation where a large proportion of contributing factors and as a result, a large portion of overall change – because it is sub-EA threshold in nature or doesn’t require permits and licenses at all – can be ignored, again leading to a large underestimation of total cumulative effects loading on Valued Components. Examples of impact-causing agents that are sometimes artificially excluded from cumulative effects assessment include road building, the vast majority of oil and gas development activities, farming and ranching, forestry, water diversion, government hunting and fishing policies, and urbanization, among other major impact causes. This cumulative effects assessment makes every effort to identify these causes and include them in the cumulative effects characterization.

5.1.5 Assessment Lens - Rights Enabling Factors Approach

Following MacDonald (2014), this preliminary assessment of cumulative effects on SCN Aboriginal rights and interests adopts an approach that examines the factors required to

enable the full practice of these rights and interests within SCN territory. This approach holds that at minimum, the full practice of SCN culture, mode of life and the above-noted Aboriginal rights reasonably includes (but is not limited to) access to sufficient lands and resources, among other key factors in which the use of resources can be achieved. This approach accounts for both the quantity and also the quality of resources and is evaluated from the perspective of what is required to fulfill not only subsistence requirements, but also cultural needs, and by extension, ecological integrity needs, of the First Nations and the resources they rely upon, now and into the future.

Critical factors encompass a suite of interconnected tangible and intangible resources that underlie the meaningful practice of Aboriginal rights and exercise of title. Any negative influence on any of these “enabling factors” is arguably an adverse impact on SCN citizens’ meaningful practice of Aboriginal rights.

For the purposes of this assessment, the following rights “enabling factors” were considered:

● Healthy populations of fish, game and culturally important plants in preferred harvesting areas; ● Ability to maintain traditional land tenure and governance systems; ● Clean and plentiful water from natural sources on the land; ● Adequate, safe and well-known routes of access and transportation; ● An adequate land base within which to pursue seasonal rounds; ● Freedom from competition for access to and harvesting of resources; ● Confidence in the quality of country foods; ● Healthy cultural and spiritual relationships with the land; ● Abundant berry, other food crops and medicines in preferred harvesting areas; ● Adequate experience of remoteness and solitude on the land; ● Adequacy of – and access to – known and preferred habitation sites on the land; ● Feelings of safety and security on the land; ● High levels of traditional knowledge of specific locations and ability to pass this knowledge on across generations; ● A relatively unchanged visual landscape; ● A relatively “natural” non-visual sensory environment, including smell, taste, and noise sensory conditions; and ● Reasonable access to lands and resources accessible within constraints of time and cost.

A Samson Cree VC will be considered to be in a pre-existing state of significant adverse effects if one or more of the following applies:

○ The stock and/or health/status trend for that VC within SCN territory has noticeably declined between 1900 and today; or ○ The stock or health status is below a threshold identified as adequate to sustain the associated SCN rights; or ○ Those declines have created heightened vulnerability for that VC and related SCN values, rights and activities; or ○ SCN members report that these declines have adversely impacted on their ability to meaningfully practice their Treaty rights.

For each VC, it is the total cumulative effects loading, not the contribution of the Project, that is critical to the determination of significance. The significance of total cumulative effects must be examined within the context of past conditions or lesser-disturbed conditions, and not in reference to the current or accumulated state, which may represent a “damaged baseline”. To relate back to Councillor Katherine Swampy’s Oral Testimony, to understand what has changed and how SCN is affected you have to go back to what it was like before the “pinching” started (Councillor Katherine Swampy, Samson Cree Nation 2018a, line 267). Furthermore, proper Cumulative Effects Assessment must ensure the protection of the vulnerable; it is the “pinchee” and not the “pincher” that must be the focus.

5.2 PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING METHODOLOGY IN THIS REPORT

Three additional principles underlie this report: it is holistic, based on SCN valued components, and focused on VC status or change.

5.2.1 Holistic

A holistic approach to cumulative effects is required to both represent SCN’s worldview and to adequately capture the effects experienced by SCN citizens now in SCN territory. SCN has experienced the piecemeal and siloed approach taken by government and regulatory bodies in other environmental assessments (“EA”). SCN stewardship promotes a holistic approach with the need to consider all aspects of the environment, including how they relate to one another.

5.2.2 Based on SCN Valued Components

SCN lands and water are already impacted by agriculture, oil and gas, forestry, and associated road networks, among other cumulative effects impact causing agents (stressors). These impacts to Mother Earth exacerbate the negative effects experienced by SCN citizens from colonial institutions such as residential school and the pass system. While it is beyond the scope of this study to examine the social and health impacts from potential contamination of food or water, future work to examine the interactions with social and health values is important. This report examines cumulative effects in the context of SCN Treaty rights and interests. For the purposes of this report, cumulative effects on Treaty rights and interests are defined as:

Cumulative effects from all sources including existing industrial projects and infrastructure on land, vegetation, water, wildlife and fish which cause or contribute to adverse effects on the ability of SCN citizens to practice their Aboriginal rights, or which impact on other related interests.

Valued Components (VCs) were identified for this report by SCN and were confirmed by the Samson Cree Consultation Committee. These VCs represent resources that are central to SCN values and support the practice of SCN rights and interests. In relation to the Project Affected Area, SCN identified Environment, Wildlife, Water and Fish, and Culture and Heritage. Within these themes fall the following values:

Environment:

● Culturally Important Plants ● Bees and Pollinators ● Wetlands ● Water quality and quantity ● Fish and Fish habitat

Wildlife

● Caribou ● Bison ● Grizzly Bears ● Hunting and Wildlife Habitat Fragmentation

Sense of Place and Cultural and Heritage Resources

● Samson sense of place in the Eastern Slopes ● Culture and Heritage Resources

It is important to note that the VCs discussed in this Report do not represent the entirety of SCN values or interests.

While SCN has not had adequate time and resources to develop an in-depth baseline and assessment of existing cumulative effects, preliminary work reveals that the existing pre- project circumstances for many of the VCs should be considered vulnerable. Additional in- depth work will be required in order to accurately characterize the potential foreseeable future project effects.

5.2.3 Focus on VC status (changes over time and space)

A desktop search was performed following the methods of Macdonald (2014) and Toth and Tung (2014) in order to gather and analyse Information on the status of each VC. Research included consideration of biological, temporal, and spatial scales in order to capture changes over time and space (that have not been considered in the Proponent’s application). Information relating to the status and (as appropriate) health of each VC was reviewed and is provided in summary in this report. VCs are examined at the “Stock” or regional sub- population level rather than the species level in order to maintain focus on what is occurring within SCN traditional territory now and impacting SCN rights and interests.

In the case of “sense of place” and ability to transfer knowledge from generation to generation, GIS data showing changes over time in the availability and quality of territory for Samson Cree members to travel through, reside in, and harvest from, was gathered. Sources included:

● All Base Data and Indigenous Reserve Boundaries retrieved from Natural Resources Canada (NRCAN): https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/earth-sciences/geography/topographic- information/download-directory-documentation/17215 ● Samson Cree Traditional Territory retrieved from Samson Cree Nation's Traditional Land Use Area Map. Territory was digitized in Google Earth. ● Linear Disturbance Data (Railways, Roads, Seismic Lines, Transmission Lines obtained from AMBI's Wall-to-Wall Human Footprint Inventory: http://abmi.ca/home/data- analytics/da-top/da-product-overview/GIS-Land-Surface/HF-inventory.html ● Historic condition (ca. 1900) retrieved from Department of the Interior (1881) Township Diagram and Department of the Interior (1908) Township Diagram

5.2.4 Traditional knowledge as not merely an input; but a decision-making frame

As noted in SCN’s Oral Testimony, Indigenous Traditional Knowledge (ITK) is more than just a way of life for SCN citizens and represents the intimate relation SCN citizens have with the physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual life maintained by the health of SCN territory. Elder Bruno described ITK as a framework for knowing:

“Indigenous traditional knowledge you see is not in books for us to read, but rather a teaching that is underneath and on top of every rock, beneath and on top of every river bed, front and behind every blade of sweetgrass. Our educators whisper in the wind, howl at the grandmother moon, shout in the storms, laugh in the rain, glisten in the snow. Our knowledge is embedded in the tracks of our animal relatives and carried still on the sacred wings of (speaking in Native language), the eagle [Kihîw]” (Samson Cree Nation 2018a, Line 255).

ITK is typically marginalized and only paid lip service to by most Proponents in their applications. Samson ITK provided in previous ITK studies and EA written submissions were reviewed, integrated into this Report, and confirmed by the Samson Cree Nation Consultation

Committee and at a community meeting (Samson Cree Nation 2019). As already noted, this Report is only a preliminary review and understanding of cumulative impacts to SCN values and Rights. SCN would like to pursue opportunities with the Proponent and the Crown for on- the-ground fieldwork with traditional ecological knowledge environmental monitors, technicians, and elders, working in tandem with western scientists to identify and resolve any identified environmental and historical resource issue in the field. The goals of ITK perspectives in this instance would be to assist the team in understanding any concerns observed in advance of any clearing, construction and during operations.

5.2.5 Limitations of the Report

This report is a preliminary consideration of cumulative effects on SCN values, rights and interests only, and it should not be considered as a complete reporting on the dynamic and living system of use and knowledge maintained by SCN elders and citizens. Given capacity constraints and lack of support from the Proponent, there was no Project-specific SCN-focused TLU or indigenous traditional knowledge (ITK) study conducted for consideration in the 2021 NGTL System Expansion Project Application. A study is currently underway and preliminary results were provided for consideration in this report by SCN Consultation Committee. This report was not informed by Project-specific interviews with traditional knowledge holders/land users. The research for this report is based on desktop secondary review and analysis. ITK pulled from secondary sources was confirmed by the Samson Cree Nation Consultation Committee and in a community meeting April 2019.

This report may contribute to, but in no way should be treated as a replacement for, further community-based studies and assessments that should be undertaken. As this report is preliminary, further research is required.

This report undertakes a review of the cumulative effects to SCN VCs but does not include an analysis of Project mitigations nor does it include recommended mitigation for cumulative effects. Additional work with SCN members is required to develop recommendations for appropriate mitigation or redress for cumulative effects. The report also does not focus assessment of cumulative effects on the wage economy, social, or health impacts on of SCN citizens and these research themes merit further attention through additional research. It is important to recognize that many of the professional findings, opinions, and conclusions set out in this report will also require further data collection and analysis, including a Project- specific ITK study, in order to complete a comprehensive CEA in relation to industrial and other anthropogenic (human-caused) effects on the Aboriginal rights and interests of Samson Cree Nation. While data gaps do exist in the secondary documentation for extent and nature of SCN use and interests in this region, it is essential to recognize that absence of data does not suggest absence of knowledge, use or value.

6. SUMMARY OF IMPACT CAUSING AGENTS OR STRESSORS

6.1 TIMELINE OF PAST AND CURRENT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS IN SCN TERRITORY

Table 1-3 provides a timeline of key events related to the cumulative effects experienced by SCN members today.

Timeline of Cumulative Effects in Samson Cree Nation Traditional Territory

Late 1700s – Early 1800s: Fur Trade Era

1795 – 1799 Fort Edmonton (1795), Fort Augustus Samson Cree Nation (Rocky Mountain Cree) (1795), Rocky Mountain House (1799), Ancestors follow a seasonal round through and Acton House (1799) Fur trading the foothills of the Rockies and the prairies, posts established in Samson Cree reliant on bison, moose, and elk. Also Nation territory. trapped for the fur trade.

Early 1800s Samson Cree Nation Ancestors the Rocky Mountain Cree are hunting, trapping, and travelling in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains and actively participating in the Fur Trade.

1820s Escalating conflict with the Blackfoot.

Late 1830s Smallpox Epidemic ravages the plains – many Samson ancestors avoid the epidemic by retreating further into the woods in the foothills avoiding the ravages of the disease on the plains. Populations of other Nations seriously impacted.

1840s First Christian missionaries arrive on the plains in SCN Territory.

1860s- 1900: Bison Decline, Treaty, Residential School

1869 Maskpetoon, principle chief of the Following signing of Treaty 6, Government Crees, important ancestor of Samson policy restricts Samson Cree Nation Cree, killed by the Blackfoot. movement within their territory. Despite

1870 Rocky Mountain House (Fur Trade colonial controls SCN members continue to Fort) closes. practice traditional harvesting, maintain their culture, and maintain stewardship of 1874 North West Mounted Police enter lands and resources on and off reserve SCN territory. wherever possible.

1860 -1880 Decline and effective extirpation of the Buffalo from SCN territory.

1876-77 Treaty 6 is signed.

1880s First grazing leases issued in the Northwest Territories (including Alberta).

1885 Samson Cree Reserve surveyed and established.

1885 Pass System Implemented – Monitoring and restricting SCN member movements off reserve. Pass system would remain in place for ~ 60 years.

1891 Residential School – Ermineskin Roman Catholic Boarding School opened.

1893 Name change by government from Peace Hills/Bear Hills to Hobbema.

1896 Pigeon Lake Indian Reserve No. 138A fishing station reserved.

1900- 1930: Rapid expansion of settlement and early industry

1890-1900s Amendments to Indian Act make Development and further policy emerge SCN members subject to territorial restricting SCN practice of rights and game laws and later provincial game cultural values including restrictions on laws. ceremonial practices that reinforce and connect communities. 1900 -1910 Early Settlement, Alberta established as a province (1905), with rapid pre- emption and privatization of lands in Alberta by 1908 for settlement and agriculture.

Early 1900s First Oil well in 1902 and first gas wells ~ 1910.

1903 Fire suppression starts in SCN Territory with Dominion appointment of 4 Fire Rangers in Alberta.

1910s Railway expansion in Alberta including extension from Edmonton to Edson in 1911.

1930 to present - A time of change: regulation, agriculture, forestry, and oil and gas

1930 Natural Resources Transfer Following transfer of jurisdiction over Agreement – transferring jurisdiction natural resources to the Province of Alberta of natural resources to the province rapid development commences of forestry of Alberta from the Federal and oil and gas leading to the cumulative government. effects experienced by SCN members today.

1930 First Forestry Cutblocks harvested in Alberta 554 ha.

1930s Expansion of Oil and Gas.

1930s Expansion of road networks.

1941 – 1942 Registered Trapline system established restricting SCN trapping.

1955 First Forest Management Agreement Area in province (995,400 ha).

1960s Expansion of oil and gas pipelines in the province (> 20,000 km by 1963).

Sources Include: Dempsey 2010; Samson Cree Nation 2013; Passelac-Ross 2005; Murphy 1985; ALCES N.D.; and Calliou 2000.

6.2 LOSS OF CROWN LANDS

SCN members are concerned about loss of access/removal of Crown lands for the practice of Culture and Rights. The amount of areas of SCN territory where members can retain their critical connection to land and can pass on their traditional knowledge has shrunk massively since approximately 1900. Consider the following:

• % of Samson Cree territory that is in the form of Samson Cree Reserve lands: 2 o SAMSON 137, SAMSON 137A and PIGEON LAKE NO 138A: 155.40 km

2 o Total Samson Cree Traditional Territory: 311,446.75 km o % of Samson Cree territory in the form of reserve lands: 0.037% • The amount of SCN territory converted to private land has increased from 1.86% (1881) to 52.7% (1908) to 69.2% (1930). • The territory has become bisected by thousands of kilometers of roads and other forms of linear density. • % of Samson Cree territory that is in within 500 meters of a linear disturbance (not including roads).

Disturbance Type Buffer Distance Area (KM2) (2018) % of Samson Cree Territory

Railway 500 meters 5900 1.89

Seismic Lines 500 meters 149,427 47.98

Transmission Lines 500 meters 12,890 4.14

6.3 FORESTRY

SCN members have expressed concern over the degree of deforestation in preferred harvesting areas due to Forestry operations in the region. Forestry management in the Project Area commenced with the establishment of Timber Reserves near Edson in 1911 (Murphy 1985). Prior to 1900, industrial forestry operations did not exist. Forestry as an industry established and expanded after Alberta gained jurisdiction over forests in 1930 through the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement (Canada 1930). The first Forest Management Area in the province was established in 1955 (ALCES N.D.). The Project overlaps 14 Forestry Management Units (NGTL 2018b). Figure 1-3 shows the change in forestry industry coverage between 1955 and 1999.

1955 1999

Figure 1-3 Forestry in 1955 versus 1999.

Source: (ALCES N.D.)

6.4 OIL AND GAS

Early oil and gas exploration began in the early 1900s with development and associated infrastructure (roads and pipelines) rapidly growing in the1960s (ALCES N.D.). Today, the Project area has 7,761 ha of well sites and 11,258 ha of seismic lines (NGTL 2018c). Figure 1-4 shows the changes in well site coverage between 1965 and 2005.

1965 2005

Figure 1-4 Wellsites in Alberta 1965 compared to 2005.

Source: (ALCES N.D.)

6.5 AGRICULTURE AND GRAZING LEASES

SCN members have been alienated from traditional lands due to grazing leases (Samson Cree Nation 2019). According to the Alberta Grazing Leaseholders Association (AGLA),

“A grazing lease is a formal disposition from the Government of Alberta, normally granted on public land where grazing is considered to be the best long-term use of the land. The leases can be issued for a term not exceeding 20 years (usually issued for 10 years). Leaseholders have exclusive right to the use of land for grazing purposes.” (Alberta Grazing Leaseholders Association 2018).

The First Agricultural leases were released in 1881 (See figure 1-5). According to 5th Census of Canada 1911 (Canada 1915), 276,859 head of horned cattle were grazed in Alberta in 1901 (lxvii). Today Alberta has 5,700 grazing leases covering an estimated 5.2 million acres (2.1 million hectares) (Alberta Grazing Leaseholders Association 2018).

Figure 1-5. 1881 Grazing Leases

Source: (Alberta Cattle Feeder’s Association 1998)

6.6 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS (CLIMATE CHANGE AND FIRES)

Over the past 100 years, Alberta has seen an increase in mean temperatures by 1.4°C (Schneider 2013). Most of this increase has been since 1970, with temperatures increasing at a rate of 0.3°C per decade throughout the province (ibid). Water pattern changes are coinciding with temperature changes, as precipitation has declined by 5% in central Alberta and 20% in Northern Alberta over the past 100 years (Rodenhuis et al. 2007). It is projected that by the end

of the century, Alberta’s climate will increase by 4.2°C, and will be increasingly dry, especially in the summer months (Schneider 2013).

In the project area, climate change is likely to lead to changes in ecosystem services, biodiversity and wildlife, water resources, weather patterns and more (Government of Alberta 2019a). Climate change will impact the current form of ecosystem services, such as providing clean drinking water, filtration services, crop pollination, etc. Water storage will also be impacted, leading to changes in water levels, flows, distributions and quality throughout the entire province, and retreating glaciers in the mountains will likewise impact water levels and quality in the project area. This will also lead to less surface water and soil moisture and more seasonal and yearly variation (Government of Alberta 2019a).

There will likely be an increase in extreme weather events including droughts, forest fires, fluctuating precipitation patterns and flooding risks, and severe storms (Government of Alberta 2019b). Warmer temperatures and reduced soil moisture will lead to continued impacts from infestations of forest pests, grasslands replacing forest ecosystems, and increased magnitude and frequency of forest fires.

The combination of these changes will lead to changes in the current level, mix and geographic distribution of biodiversity in the project area, including changes to native species, wildlife and ecosystems (Government of Alberta 2019b). Amphibians are projected to be the most vulnerable to climate change, while birds are expected to be the least vulnerable due to their mobility (Shank and Nixon 2014). Many of the species found in the project area are projected to shift or expand their ranges as ecosystem transform (Shank and Nixon 2014).

6.7 REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE STRESSORS

Reasonably foreseeable stressors include environmental and human-induced stressors. In addition to human pressures, it is anticipated that there will be increasing environmental stressors (non-human) including extremes of weather, warmer and drier summers and increased frequency and intensity of forest fires (Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute 2019; See also climate change discussion under summary of stressors). Future stressors associated with development include oil and gas development, increased fracking, urban development, transportation, agriculture, and forestry (including second pass harvesting in areas currently re-vegetated).

6.7.1 Population and Urbanization

Population levels in central and southern Alberta are anticipated to continue to grow over the coming decades. Anticipated growth rates (By 2046) for census districts intersected by or in proximity to the Project are:

• Rocky Mountain House 12.9% • Edson 6.8% • Edmonton 15.5% • Red Deer 16.9% (Government of Alberta 2019, 10).

The Government of Alberta also predicts a further population transition to urban centres/increased urbanization with 8 out of 10 Albertans residing in the Urban corridor between Edmonton and Calgary by 2046 (Government of Alberta 2019, 1). Population growth in these regions will place additional stress on local agricultural and energy resources.

6.7.2 Foreseeable Future Projects

The NGTL 2021 System Expansion Project (NGTL 2018c) lists a number of projects anticipated to be constructed in the regional study area including:

• NGTL Clearwater West Project: Pipeline connecting the Valhalla and Elmworth sections of the Project, and the Elmworth and Karr sections of the Project – 135 ha of overlap with Project RSA; • Wapiti Gas Plant: within the RSA east of the Elmworth ROW – 21.5 ha of overlap with Project RSA; • NGTL McLeod River North Project: Pipeline connecting the Deep Valley and McLeod River. Connection sections of the Project, and extending south of the McLeod River Connection Section of the Project – 94.5 ha of overlap with Project RSA; • Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project: Pipeline crosses the RSA north of the Robb Section of the Project – 45 ha of overlap with Project RSA; • 2017 NGTL System Expansion Project: Pipeline extends northward from the north end of the Robb Section of the Project – 45 ha of overlap with Project RSA; • NGTL Smoky River Lateral Loop: Pipeline crosses the RSA and extends through Smoky River Caribou Range. – 45 ha of overlap.

NGTL (2018c) also notes an additional 300 ha of disturbance over 25 years from future NGTL compressor additions and meter station projects. An additional NGTL project not included in the Proponent’s assessment is the Edson Mainline Expansion Project (Project Description filed in January 2019) 86 km of pipeline which appears to connect to this Project.

6.7.3 Expansion of Hydraulic Fracturing and Seismic Events

The Project and the Edson Mainline Expansion Project are being built in anticipation of increased supply in North Western Alberta (Peace River Project Area) to transport to demand markets in Eastern Alberta (NGTL 2018g, 2-4). NGTL expects a 37.4% increase in system supply over the next 11 years (NGTL 2018d, 3-9). NGTL expects conventional supply to continue to decline over time, with supply contributions from unconventional plays (hydraulic fracturing) to increase over time (NGTL 2018d, 3-8). The NEB also predicts an increase in market supply from unconventional wells in the Duvernay Shale (located in northwestern Alberta) as technologies and efficiencies improve (National Energy Board 2017).

A key environmental stressor of particular concern to SCN members (especially within the context of continued infrastructure development, including the proposed pipeline) is increased seismic activity in association with expanding fracking. In December 2014, a cluster of 18 seismic events in the Fox Creek area occurred, with magnitudes recorded between 2.7 and 3.7 local magnitude (ML). Another series of events occurred in January 2015 with magnitudes recorded between 2.4 and 4.4 ML (Alberta Energy Regulator 2015a, 2). As a result of these events the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) issued Subsurface Order No.2 (Alberta Energy Regulator 2015b) requiring all operators in the Duvernay Zone to monitor and report on seismic events with a magnitude greater than 2.0 ML to the AER. Since the order, only one seismic event has been reported on the AER Compliance Dashboard a 4.3 ML local magnitude near the Chevron Canada Limited well-pad in the Fox Creek Area (Alberta Energy Regulator 2019).

SCN members have reported experiencing seismic events in the Fox Creek area and near Red Deer while out on the land. As events less than 2.0 ML are not reported, it is likely that minor seismic occurrences are happening that are not being documented by the regulator. 7. WORKS CITED

Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute (ABMI). 2019. Our Work: Climate Change Impacts. http://biodiversityandclimate.abmi.ca/our-work/climate-change-impacts. Accessed 11 April, 2019.

Alberta Cattle Feeder’s Association. 1998. From Start To Finish An Illustrated History of Cattle Feeding in Alberta. https://www.cattlefeeders.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/From-Start-to- Finish-Cattle-Feeding-History.pdf. Accessed 4 April, 2019.

Alberta Energy Regulator.2015a. Subsurface Order No. 2. FAQ: https://www.aer.ca/documents/orders/subsurface-orders/SO2_FAQs.pdf

Alberta Energy Regulator. 2015b. Subsurface Order No. 2: https://www.aer.ca/documents/orders/subsurface-orders/SO2.pdf

Alberta Energy Regulator. 2019. Compliance Dashboard: http://www1.aer.ca/compliancedashboard/index.html

Alberta Grazing Leaseholders Association. 2018. Grazing Lease FAQ. https://albertagrazinglease.ca/downloads/faqs.pdf. Accessed 3 April, 2019.

ALCES. N.D. Alberta Historical Landuse and Landscape Data Library. http://www.abll.ca/library/Library_Home. Accessed 4 April, 2019.

Brasser, Ted. 2015. Plains Indigenous Peoples in Canada. The Canadian Encyclopedia. Available at https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/aboriginal-people-plains

Calliou, Brian. 2000. Losing the game, wildlife conservation and the regulation of First Nations hunting in Alberta, 1880-1930. National Library of Canada = Bibliothèque nationale du Canada. http://www.collectionscanada.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/ftp01/MQ60048.pdf.

Canada. 1915. Fifth census of Canada, 1911- Agriculture Volume IV: https://archive.org/details/1915v50idpd_1081/page/n75

Canada. 1930. Agreement made on the fourteenth day of December, 1929 between the Dominion of Canada and the Province of Alberta: on the subject of the transfer of the Natural Resources of Alberta. Ottawa: [Canada. Dept. of the Interior].

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (S.C. 2012, c. 19, s. 52)

Darnell, Regna. 2001. Plains Cree. In Handbook of North American Indians: Plains (2v.). Sturtevant, William, Ed. Washington: Smithsonian Institution

Dempsey, Hugh A. 2010. Maskepetoon: Leader, Warrior, Peacemaker. Surrey, B.C.: Heritage House, 2010.

Duinker, P. and L. Greig. 2006. The impotence of Cumulative Effects Assessment in Canada: Ailments and ideas for redeployment. Environmental Management (37(2), 153-61.

FNMPC (First Nations Major Projects Coalition - 2019). Major Projects Assessment Standard. Available at [INSERT WEBLINK INTO FINAL DOCUMENT].

Forest Practices Board. 2011. Cumulative Effects: From Assessment Towards Management. Accessed at http://www.fpb.gov.bc.ca/SR39_Cumulative_Effects_From_Assessment_Towards_Managmen t.pdf

Government of Alberta. 2019. Climate change in Alberta: How the causes and impacts of climate change could affect Alberta's environment, health and economy. Accessed April 11, 2019. https://www.alberta.ca/climate-change-alberta.aspx

Government of Alberta. 2019. Population Projection: Alberta and Census Divisions, 2018– 2046. Available at: https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/90a09f08-c52c-43bd-b48a- fda5187273b9/resource/1748a22b-c37e-4c53-8bb5-eb77222c68d8/download/2018-2046- alberta-population-projections.pdf.

Hegmann, G. et al. 1999. Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioner’s Guide. Prepared for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, February 1999. Hull, QC.

Johnson, Pauline. 2017. E-kawôtiniket 1876: Reclaiming Nêhiyaw Governance in the Territory of Maskwacîs through Wâhkôtowin (Kinship). (PhD thesis, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada). Available at: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6257&context=etd

MacDonald, A. 2014. Cumulative Effects on the Aboriginal Rights and Interests of Carrier Sekani Tribal Council First Nations: A Preliminary Re-assessment of the Coastal Gaslink Project. Prepared for the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, October 2014. Accessed at http://www.carriersekani.ca/images/docs/cstc/Appendix%20B%20%20FL-CSTC- 309_CEA_extended_summary_Oct3_2014_final.pdf

Miller, J. R. 2004. Lethal legacy: Current native controversies in Canada. Toronto: M & S.

Murphy, Peter John. 1985. History of forest and prairie fire control policy in Alberta. Edmonton: Alberta Energy and Natural Resources.

National Energy Board. 2017. Duvernay Shale Economic Resources – Energy Briefing Note. Available at https://www.neb- one.gc.ca/nrg/sttstc/crdlndptrlmprdct/rprt/2017dvrncnmcs/index-eng.html

NGTL. 2018a. Application to the National Energy Board: Nova Gas Transmission Ltd. 2021 NGTL System Expansion Project, June 2018 - A6F4L4.

NGTL. 2018b. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment, June 2018, Section 1 – Introduction- A6F4Q3

NGTL. 2018c. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment, June 2018, Section 4 – Methods- A6F4Q3

NGTL. 2018d. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment, June 2018, Section 7 – Vegetation- A6F4Q4

NGTL. 2018e. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment, June 2018, Section 11 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat - A6F4Q6

NGTL. 2018f. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment, June 2018, Section 19 – Traditional Land and Resource Use- A92619.

NGTL. 2018g. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment, June 2018, Section 2 –Project Description- A6F4Q3

NGTL. 2019. Response to Samson Cree Nation Information Request 1 - A6S5R6.

Noble, B. 2013. Review of the Consideration of Potential Cumulative Effects on the Tsea Watershed. Report submitted to the Environmental Appeal Board for the Water Act appeal - Environmental Appeal Board File 2012-WAT-013, July 18, 2013.

Noble, B. 2014). Review of the Approach to Cumulative Effects Assessment in Spectra Energy’s Environmental Assessment Certificate Application for the Westcoast Connector Gas Transmission Project. Report for Blueberry River First Nation, May 31, 2014.

Olson, R., Malone, M. and the Firelight Group Research Cooperative with the Samson Cree Nation. 2015. Samson Cree Nation Knowledge and Use Study Report for Enbridge Inc.’s Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project. March 2, 2015.

Passelac-Ross, Monique. 2005. The trapping rights of aboriginal peoples in northern Alberta. Calgary: Canadian Institute of Resources Law = Institut canadien du droit des ressources, University of Calgary.

Rodenhuis, D., K.E. Bennett, A. Werner, T.Q. Murdock, and D. Bronaugh. 2007. Hydro- climatology and future climate impacts in British Columbia. Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium, Univ. Victoria, Victoria, B.C. http://www.pacificclimate. org/resources/publications/ (Last accessed 3 March 2008.)

Samson Cree Nation. 2019. Notes from Chief’s luncheon and community verification meeting for NGTL 2021 Project Cumulative Effects Assessment April 4, 2019. Maskwacis, Alberta.

Samson Cree Nation. 2009. Letter to Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines, RE: Northern Gateway Pipeline. CEAA Registry. https://www.ceaa- acee.gc.ca/050/documents/35526/35526E.pdf. Accessed April 4, 2019.

Samson Cree Nation. 2013. Samson Cree Nation Website. http://samsoncree.com. Accessed April 4, 2019.

Samson Cree Nation. 2018a. NEB Westpath Delivery Project Oral Testimony - A6I9Y8

Samson Cree Nation. 2018b. Springbank Off-stream Reservoir Project Written Submission. Prepared for CEAA June 25, 2018.

Samson Cree Nation. 2019. Notes from Chief’s luncheon and community verification meeting for NGTL 2021 Project Cumulative Effects Assessment April 4, 2019. Maskwacis, Alberta.

Schneider, Richard. 2013. Alberta’s Natural Subregions Under a Changing Climate: Past, Present and Future . Biodiversity Management and Climate Change Adaptation Project .

Shank, Christopher and Amy Nixon. 2014. Climate change vulnerability of Alberta’s terrestrial biodiversity: A preliminary assessment. Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute. Prepared for the Biodiversity Management and Climate Change Adaptation Project: http://biodiversityandclimate.abmi.ca/wp- content/uploads/2015/01/ShankandNixon_2014_ClimateChangeVulnerabilityofAlbertasTerrest rialBiodiversity_ABMI.pdf

Toth, Brian and Michelle Tung. 2014. Assessment of the Proposed Coastal GasLink Pipeline Project’s Effects on Select Fish and Wildlife Interests of the

Carrier Sekani Tribal Council (CSTC) First Nations. Prepared for the Upper Fraser Fisheries Conservation Alliance: http://www.carriersekani.ca/images/docs/cstc/Appendix%20A%20- Final%20Version%20UFFCA%20Report.pdf

STATUS OF HEALTH OF VALUED COMPONENTS OF CONCERN IN THE EASTERN SLOPES OF THE ROCKIES: ENVIRONMENT

There are three Valued Components under the Environment theme area, Culturally Important Plants, Pollinators, and Wetlands.

8. CULTURALLY IMPORTANT PLANTS

8.1 PRIORITY CULTURALLY IMPORTANT PLANT SPECIES FOR SCN

SCN members have highlighted the importance of culturally important plants (CIPs), including medicinal and spiritual plants, for practice of SCN culture and rights. Plants collected from foothill and mountain areas are especially important and sensitive as there are very few intact areas remaining for plant collection (Samson Cree Nation 2019).

So we depended on the herbs and whatever we gathered from these places. They’re important for us, and I know when they started the pipeline ... Back then, the elders I heard saying that what they’re trying to do is they’re going to ruin what we’ve lived on—depended on all our lives, and we still do that today. (Olson et al. 2015, S10)

As food plants, berries have particularly high cultural significance with “a direct connection to the lands and the creation story of the Indigenous Cree Peoples” (Samson Cree Nation 2015). Important berry species include cranberries, choke-cherries, and saskatoons, which are associated with wetlands / sloughs. Some examples of values associated with vegetation include:

• Berries are picked and used fresh or saved to use in soup, and other traditional foods in the winter • Berries are integral to ceremony and used as an essential offering • Moss is an important medicine • Many herbs are also important medicines • Ceremonial plants including sage, sweetgrass and tree fungus are important • Ratroot is an important medicinal plant associated with wetlands and is increasingly difficult to find.

It is important to note that knowledge regarding specific medicinal and ceremonial plants, including harvesting locations and detailed species information, is carefully protected in Cree tradition and is generally shared only under specific conditions and with specific cultural protocols. As such, the information shared by SCN knowledge holders for this study should be considered preliminary and open to additional elaboration and clarification by SCN experts and based on appropriate SCN protocols.

The available information on culturally important plants suggests that mature forests, wetlands and wet areas are particularly important to SCN members, as are grasslands with a rich diversity of herbs. Wet draws with willows are also an important ecosystem type that provides microsites for certain culturally important plant species. Wetland cumulative effects are examined as a separate Valued Component.

8.2 VEGETATION HISTORICAL BASELINE

For the NGTL 2021 Project, a regional study area of a 20 km wide corridor extending approximately 10 km on each side of the proposed centreline for the pipeline sections and a 10 km radius extending from the proposed fence line of each compressor station unit was used for analysis. For the purpose of this assessment, we will use a similar area as a local study area but consider effects within the context of the entire western portion of SCN territory.

Vegetation in the western portion of SCN territory has become increasingly important to the practice of SCN rights related to culturally important plants due to the extensive impacts to central and eastern portions of the territory from a range of stressors. According to the NGTL Application, the NGTL vegetation regional study area contains both Green Areas (forested public land managed for timber, wildlife, fisheries, and recreation) and White Areas (settled private land in Southern and Peace River areas used primarily for settlement and agriculture but may include recreation and conservation uses) (NGTL 2018, Application Section 7.0 Vegetation 7.1.3.1).

This area is composed of a broad range of natural subregions including but not limited to the Central Mixedwood (forested uplands (aspen, mixedwood and white spruce) and wetlands on level to gently undulating plains); Dry Mixedwood (plains, aspen stands with scattered spruce and fens); Lower Foothills (mixed stands of aspen, lodgepole pine, white spruce and balsam poplar); Upper Foothills (steep terrain with black and white spruce); Central Parkland (heavily cultivated lowland areas); and Foothills Fescue (nearly level plains with stands of balsam poplar, aspen and plains cottonwood on lower terraces along rivers).

8.3 VEGETATION CURRENT STATUS AND DEGREE OF CHANGE OVER TIME

Past and existing disturbances affect approximately 38% of the NGTL RSA. Historically (pre- 1960) areas accessed for culturally important plants in the western portion of SCN territory included a full suite of ecosystems from upland forests, grasslands, wetlands and fens maintained by a natural disturbance cycle heavily driven by fires. It was a biologically rich area with a diversity of ecosystems.

Elders recall abundant berries, medicinal and ceremonial plants in this area from when they were young (Samson Cree Nation 2019). Many portions of the SCN territory are part of designated White Areas and include extensive settlement and agricultural land. For example, more than 69% of the Valhalla section of the proposed project is already converted to settlement or agricultural land and 83% of the Elmsworth section. Area-based calculations were not available at the time of drafting this report for the SCN traditional territory, but community members noted that those areas not cleared for agriculture or settlement had been severely impacted by industrial forestry. For example, according to the NGTL application, 14% of the regional study area is cutblocks, 9% is other disturbance and 16% is agriculture (NGTL 2018, 7-8). According to community members in a meeting in April 2019, their ability to access culturally important plants is already severely impacted by the combined pressures listed in Section 1 of this report.

Plants identified as of particular importance in the western portion of SCN territory include, but are not limited to, sweet pine, sweet grass, sage, rat root, mint, gooseberry, black currants and pin cherries. Several ecosystems are already rare on the landscape due to this conversion of ecosystems including mature and old forests, wetlands (described under a separate VC below), early seral stage forests and grasslands.

Knowledge holders note changes in plant abundance:

“At least my partner and I, we walked every year. We used to walk, and we’d look at the place. We used to find different places, and all different types of medicine. Now, they’re [short]. It’s sad, you know, it’s dying off. It’s dying off, left, right and centre. We used to pick rat root in one of them lakes, not too far from where I showed you, you know? And not too far from there. You know, rat root, with that along—today, nothing. They [industry] killed the trees. They killed the plants. (Olson et al. 2015, S07)

Intact mature upland forests have rich natural diversity of mosses, fungus, and other culturally important plants. Intact mature and old growth forests in Alberta are increasingly rare and increasingly fragmented, and are often surrounded by agricultural land, grazing land, and other development. A pre-disturbance age class distribution is not available for this analysis. For future planning scenarios it will be important to include an analysis of fire risk in combination with an age class distribution analysis to better understand where old mature and old growth areas can be protected.

8.4 CAUSES OF CHANGE IN STATUS OF CULTURALLY IMPORTANT PLANTS

Factors contributing to change:

• Permanent conversion to non-native cover types: over the last 100 years, large areas of the SCN Territory have been permanently converted to non-native cover types; incremental losses continue. These changes result in a dramatic reduction in native plant biodiversity. • Forestry conversion of diverse mixedwood forests into even aged stands with low diversity and very low representation of mature or early seral age classes. • Anthropogenic edge density and fragmentation: roads, pipelines, and transmission rights-of-way lead to declining intactness of ecosystems, reducing health of ecosystem and by association culturally important plants. • Shadow effect and invasive species: anthropogenic edge results in disturbed; ecosystems; invasive species move from reclaimed linear features into natural edges more easily. The alteration of native plant communities may potentially alter habitat required to support wildlife species and plants of traditional importance” (NGTL 2018, 10-44). • Grazing by livestock reduce the vigour and cover of desirable native forage plants and create an environment for the invasion of non-native plants. • Climate change and associated changes to ecosystems (drying of wetlands, increased frequency of forest fires). • Spraying and herbicide or pesticide treatment on linear features or agricultural land; and • Localized spills and potential contamination from oil and gas.

8.5 IMPLICATIONS (IMPACTS) OF CHANGE IN VEGETATION HEALTH STATUS

8.5.1 Biophysical effects

• Loss or alteration of native plant communities; • Increased risk of invasive species incursions competing with culturally important plants; • Loss or alteration of native plant cover contributing to reduced CIP plant biodiversity; and • Increased risk of contamination of plants as managed / reclaimed ecosystems have higher herbicide use.

8.5.2 Socio-cultural effects on SCN

SCN members note changes in the landscape due to agriculture and industry have made it difficult for them to find plants and medicines for harvesting in preferred locations; they need to travel to find accessible, harvestable resources (Olson et al. 2015, 36). SCN member perceive the following effects:

• Reduced abundance and diversity of CIP plants; • Difficulty in accessing CIP plants, due to restrictions imposed by agriculture and industry; • Perceived contamination of plants and medicines due to agriculture and industry is also a concern for SCN members. Specific concerns include spills from industry, spraying of herbicides along roadways, and potential for contamination of berries along pipeline.

Members must travel much further than in the past to access healthy CIPs:

Already, we’re travelling quite a ways to pick that [sticky flowers] up ... When you pick that up, it’s very sticky. When you pick that up, it just sticks, and that’s how— it’s one of those very valuable medicines that they use on medicinal use … Last year, our elders were crying for rat root and even that yellow, sticky flower and the milkweed with no leaves. For that, I have to go to Marston … Everything is so medicinal, even the tea. They had tea, years ago—muskeg leaves. They have a lot of these medicines. Now, a lot of them don’t exist here. (Olson et al. 2015, S08).

I still do [collect plants], but I travel now, far. I even travel to the State of Montana, and some of those—we used to go to Saskatchewan. My grandfather used to go to Saskatchewan to go pick the small, black root. (Olson et al. 2015, S08).

While there may be some plants available in the vicinity of the Project, members note that accessing sites can be difficult:

That’s the thing—when I don’t have this one medicine, it doesn’t help me to go on a rampage, but in my thoughts, why? Why we cannot go into this farmer’s field? We’re not even allowed to go into a farmer’s field because they fenced it, because, if we go in there, they’ll charge us. (Olson et al. 2015, S08)

8.6 PROJECT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ON CULTURALLY IMPORTANT PLANTS

The ability of SCN members to access a diversity of plant communities and associated CIPs in preferred harvesting areas is already impacted at the current state of the value. The proposed NGTL Project is anticipated to remove approximately 1,081 hectares of native vegetation, and while much of this is anticipated to be re-vegetated some areas of infrastructure will be permanently altered. In addition, the proposed future stressors including reasonably foreseeable projects (summarized by NGTL in Section 7.6.2 p7-81 NGTL 2018) are anticipated to contribute additional vegetation clearing and forestry impacts will remain consistent to

present levels (NGTL 2018, 7-81). Forest fires will increase in frequency and magnitude, removing additional upland vegetation cover.

It is important to note that SCN knowledge holders have previously documented that alteration of medicinal plants should be considered permanent as noted in a written submission to the L3RP Project:

“It was explained to study participants that transplanting or reclaiming medicines may not be effective mitigation, because plants gain their potency over time and also based on the ecology that surrounds them and the spirits within the plants lose potency when moved.” (Samson Cree Nation 2015)

In addition, SCN is particularly concerned about loss of culturally important plants in ecosystems in the vicinity of the Project that are already rare or hard to find in SCN territory including mature forests.

• The loss of mature forest as a result of the Project should be considered permanent. Old growth forest is increasingly rare in SCN territory and has been severely impacted by permanent conversion of forest along with industrial forestry and will be further limited with anticipated future increase in fire frequency. While the incremental effect of the Project on old seral stage forest is estimated to be about .6% of old seral stage forest in the RSA, 1% in the LSA, this impact must be considered within the context of the already impacted baseline. Any incremental project effect to mature seral stage forests should be considered significant. The time lag associated with restoring mature forest is approximately 60 to 80 years, much longer for old growth (160-180 years Morgantini et al. 2003). Transmission of knowledge and culture related to the plants associated with mature and old growth forests will be lost after approximately 25 years due to the lack of intergenerational transmission. • Based on SCN’s review of the literature and the proposed project, this loss of native medicinal plants should be considered permanent. It is very unlikely that reclamation will result in the recovery for these plants in a manner that would sustain the SCN practice and rights. This loss occurs within the context of an already impaired baseline.

8.7 SUMMARY

Status of VC at pre-industrial baseline (1900 AD): Relatively pristine, mixedwood upland forest, grassland and wetland complexes with rich cultural plant biodiversity, natural disturbance fire regeneration (frequent fires).

Major causes of change over time: Agriculture, oil and gas development, transportation, expanding settlement areas, linear feature development, poor reclamation standards, and industrial forestry.

Major outcomes of change over time: Within the western portion of SCN territory, the native vegetation cover composition has been altered through a combination of factors including

permanent conversion of land to settlement or agriculture, transportation, and linear features among other factors. The diversity of plants available for cultural use, relative abundance, and health has been declining in recent decades.

Effects on SCN rights practices: Reduced access to and confidence in medicinal and food plants in the Project-affected area.

Significance of change over time in the Pre-Project circumstance: Significantly negative.

Are Project-specific residual adverse effects likely? Yes.

Total cumulative effects loading in the Project Case: Project effects will be significant and adverse. Impacts on SCN rights and cultural practice related to culturally important plants are already significant due to conditions at baseline. Within the context of existing and ongoing impacts, residual Project effects will further erode SCN rights and cultural practice related to culturally important plants.

Total cumulative effects loading (all reasonably foreseeable future stressors): Significant, further studies required to understand distribution of vegetation cover and associated CIPs. Project effects will act cumulatively with reasonably foreseeable development, and with changes in the environment including climate change, ecosystem shifts, and overall drying.

Works Cited

Morgantini, L. and J. Kansas. 2003. Differentiating mature and old-growth forests in the Upper Foothills and Subalpine Subregions of west-central Alberta. The Forestry Chronicle vol 79:3 p. 602-612.

NGTL. 2018. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment, June 2018, Section 7 – Vegetation- A6F4Q4

Olson, R., Malone, M. and the Firelight Group Research Cooperative with the Samson Cree Nation (2015). Samson Cree Nation Knowledge and Use Study Report for Enbridge Inc.’s Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project. March 2, 2015.

Samson Cree Nation. 2015. Samson Maskwacis Cree Cultural Impact Assessment & Recommendations Report for the Written Submission NEB Regulatory Submission L3RP. 27p

Samson Cree Nation. 2019. Notes from Chief’s luncheon and community verification meeting for NGTL 2021 Project Cumulative Effects Assessment April 4, 2019. Maskwacis, Alberta.

9. BEES AND POLLINATORS

Native pollinators are predominantly represented in Alberta by bees, with other pollinators including butterflies, moths, wasps, flies, some beetle species, hummingbirds, and bats (Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute 2015; Health Canada 2018). For the purpose of this report, the status and change over time for bees will be the focus.

9.1 THE IMPORTANCE OF BEES AND POLLINATORS TO SCN

Bees and pollinators are highly valued culturally and ecologically by SCN members for both their role in the environment and their support in the health of medicinal and culturally important plants.

Bees and other pollinators provide integral ecosystem services pollinating wild flowering plants and in turn supporting the wildlife that depend on those plants (e.g. seeds and fruits provide nutrition for birds). SCN Elders are concerned that they are seeing less bees when they are out on the land harvesting culturally important plants. Elders have observed this decline in bee populations over the last 5 years (Samson Cree Nation 2019). The health of bees and pollinators must be protected in order to protect SCN traditional harvesting rights. For this reason, and because SCN takes a holistic approach to environmental stewardship, the status of bees and pollinators must be included in any CEA.

9.2 BEES IN ALBERTA: CURRENT STATUS AND DEGREE OF CHANGE OVER TIME

Documentation of the population, distribution, and health of bee species in Canada is in progress and some gaps do exist in the data (Williams, Minckley, and Silveira 2001). While sampling has been more proactive in Alberta, more research has been done on the prairies south of Calgary (COSEWIC 2015b; Sheffield, Frier, and Dumesh 2014). Alberta’s bees come from five different families and approximately 30 different genera—including Bombus, the familiar bumblebee (Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute 2015). Alberta has 323 recorded bee species (Sheffield, Frier, and Dumesh 2014). The Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute (2012) has identified a decline in the western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis) and the yellow- banded bumble bee (Bombus terricola).

The historic range of the Western Bumble was documented by Milliron in 1971 and included central and western Alberta in the slopes of the Rockies. However, COSEWIC (2015a) notes the farthest northern extent in Alberta to be Innisfail. COSEWIC notes the distribution of Yellow- banded Bumble Bee (Bombus terricola) to be throughout Alberta and the rest of Canada (2015b).

Figure: B. Occidentalis range as determined by Milliron (1971) as based on >1,444 specimens

In recent years, there has been a global awareness of pollinator declines and potential crisis. The Western Bumble Bee (Bombus occidentalis) has seen declines across Canada, with a national status of “Threatened” (COSEWIC 2014) and is presently being tracked as a “Sensitive” species in Alberta. Alberta Environment and Parks is also tracking the Ashton/Gypsy Cuckoo Bumble Bee (Bombus bohemicus) a social parasite bee that often resides in the nests of Western Bumble Bees (ACIMS 2018; Alberta Native Bee Council 2017). The Ashton/Gypsy Cuckoo Bumble Bee (Bombus bohemicus) has SARA status and is presently listed as Endangered by COSEWIC (SARA Public Registry 2018; COSEWIC 2015). The status of this bee is arguably a symptom of the decline of the Western Bumble Bee (COSEWIC 2015).

The Yellow-banded Bumble Bee (Bombus terricola) is not presently being tracked by Alberta Environment and Parks (ACIMS 2018). COSEWIC 2015b notes marked declines in BC and Saskatchewan in the last decade with data gaps in the boreal region of Alberta (2015b). Proportional abundance for Alberta between 2003 and 2013 has changed by 66%. Further research is required to confirm the status of the Yellow-banded Bumble Bee in the Project Area.

Alberta does not presently have a recovery strategy in place for Sensitive and Threatened wild bee species such as the Western Bumble Bee. Federally, the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry (or “Senate Committee”) has made recommendations in 2015 related to further investigations on pesticide impacts for the protection of both commercial and wild bees. Health Canada is also in the process of developing a risk assessment framework for the use of Neonicotinoid pesticides in relation to bee health with recommendations due to be published in 2019 (Health Canada 2018). A comprehensive strategy addressing all stressors impacting bee decline in Alberta has not been undertaken.

9.3 CAUSE OF CHANGE IN BEE HEALTH STATUS

Wild bees in Alberta are subject to a number of pressures and stressors. Two key resources must be in place to support healthy bee populations: Adequate floral resources for nutrition and locations for nesting sites, meaning that habitat availability and condition is important (Sheffield, Frier, and Dumesh 2014; ABMI 2016). Given many bees species’ reliance on undisturbed soil for nesting sites, overwintering sites, and access to floral resources, bees are highly vulnerable to habitat fragmentation and loss (Cartar 2008; Williams, Minckley, and Silveira 2001; COSEWIC 2014; COSEWIC 2015). The Eastern Slopes of the Rockies are subject to forestry, pipelines, and agriculture (including grazing). Weed management in agriculture, forestry, and ROW management for pipelines can remove bee-visited flower species. Studies have demonstrated that human-induced changes in dominant vegetation species can result in declines in wild bee species richness (Cartar 2008; Williams, Minckley, and Silveira 2001). While some forms of agriculture can create habitat, intensive monoculture farms remove habitat (Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry 2015). Wild bees are also subject to other stressors in the Eastern Slopes of the Rockies exacerbating the impacts from habitat loss and fragmentation, which include:

• Pesticides associated with agriculture and forestry are associated with decreases in bee abundance and diversity (Cartar 2008; Sheffield, Frier, and Dumesh 2014; COSEWIC 2014); • Neonicotinoid pesticide use in agriculture is highly associated with bee mortality (Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry 2015; COSEWIC 2014; COSEWIC 2015; Health Canada 2018); • A new study by Motta, Raymann, and Moran has indicated that glyphosate in herbicides may affect bee immunity and health (2018). While raising awareness of a previously unknown stressor, this study is preliminary and does not perfectly replicate field conditions. Further research is required to confirm this as an impact; • Introduction to parasites and disease from non-native commercial honey bees (Cartar 2008; Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry 2015; COSEWIC 2014); and

• Climate change and warming-related extreme weather events can cause bumblebee population losses. Bee sensitivity to extreme heat can mean loss of habitat in southern areas (like Alberta) due to warming temperatures (Kerr et al. 2015).

9.4 PROJECT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ON CULTURALLY IMPORTANT PLANTS

Neither impacts of pipeline Right-of-Way (ROW) management on pollinators nor assessment of cumulative impacts to bee and pollinator habitat are yet standard practice in environmental assessment but both warrant consideration given the status of threatened and endangered species in this region. The proposed NGTL Project is anticipated to remove approximately 1,081 hectares of native vegetation likely altering already fragmented bee habitat. The Project Environmental Protection Plan also does not completely prohibit or avoid the use of herbicides in the ROW management of the pipelines (NGTL 2018, 40). Project use of herbicide will likely impact bee health and mortality adding stress to already vulnerable populations.

Foreseeable future projects and stressors including industrial forestry will contribute to cumulative effects on pollinators as they are expected to contribute additional clearing of pollinator habitat in the vicinity of the Project. Additional habitat fragmentation will occur with increased development and settlement associated with continued population growth and transportation. Climate change and warmer temperatures will also contribute to reduced effective habitat for pollinators over time.

9.5 SUMMARY

Status of VC at 1900: Museum Collection Records for Western Bumble Bee ca. 1882 - 1900 indicate abundant (COSEWIC 2015a).

Major causes of change over time: Habitat loss and fragmentation due to forestry, agricultural development, roads, urban development, energy development, parasites from commercial honeybees, contamination from pesticides, more recently climate change.

Major outcomes of change over time: Decrease in key species Relative Abundance (i.e. >30% decline in Western bumblebee RA, See COSEWIC 2014). Decrease in Proportional Abundance (PA) in last decade for Yellow-Banded Bumble Bee >66%.

Effects on SCN rights practices: Impacts to medicinal plants and impacts to other culturally important plants (e.g., berries).

Significance of change over time in the Pre-Project circumstance: Significantly negative.

Project-specific residual adverse effects likely: Unknown but likely. Bee and Pollinator effects were not assessed for this Project nor were specific mitigations or conditions proposed. Further studies are required to understand species specific vulnerability in the Project Footprint.

Total cumulative effects loading in the Project Case: Significant, further studies required.

Total cumulative effects loading (all reasonably foreseeable future stressors): Significant, impacts on SCN rights and cultural practice related to culturally important plants are already significant due to conditions at baseline. Within the context of existing and ongoing impacts, residual Project effects on pollinators in combination are likely to further erode SCN rights and cultural practice related to culturally important plants. As such, Project effects will likely be significant and adverse, and will act cumulatively with reasonably foreseeable development, and with changes in the environment including climate change, ecosystem shifts, and overall drying. Additional work is required to characterize the contribution of foreseeable future stressors.

Works Cited

Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute. 2012. Blog – Taking Bees for Granted: Bumble Bees in Decline. Available at: http://blog.abmi.ca/2012/09/07/taking-bees-for-granted-bumble-bees-in-decline/

Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute. 2015. Blog – The Latest Buzz on Alberta’s Wild bees. Available at: http://blog.abmi.ca/2015/02/04/the-latest-buzz-on-albertas-wild-bees/

Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute. 2016. Blog – Canola Fields Abuzz with Wild Bees. Available at: http://blog.abmi.ca/2016/08/09/canola-fields-abuzz-with-wild-bees/

Alberta Conservation Information Management System (ACIMS) 2018. Online data accessed (30 December 2018) . Alberta Environment & Parks, Edmonton, Alberta.

Alberta Native Bee Council. 2017. Bumble Bees of Southern Alberta. Available at: https://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$Department/deptdocs.nsf/all/prm13779/$FILE/bombus_guide.pdf

Cartar, R. 2008. Are bees declining? And if so, why?. Talk given to the November 12, 2008 meeting of the U of C Emeritus Association. Available at: https://emeritus.ucalgary.ca/Cartarbees

COSEWIC. 2014. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Gypsy Cuckoo Bumble Bee Bombus bohemicusin Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa: 64 pp.

COSEWIC. 2015a. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Western Bumble Bee Bombus occidentalis in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 65 pp.

COSEWIC. 2015b. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Yellow-Banded Bumble Bee Bombus terricola in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 69 pp.

Health Canada. 2018. Pollinator Protection. Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/health- canada/services/consumer-product-safety/pesticides-pest-management/growers-commercial- users/pollinator-protection.html

Kerr, Jeremy T., Alana Pindar, Paul Galpern, Laurence Packer, Simon G. Potts, Stuart M. Roberts, Pierre Rasmont, et al. “Climate Change Impacts on Bumblebees Converge across Continents.” Science349, no. 6244 (July 10, 2015): 177.https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa7031.

Milliron, H.E. 1971. A monograph of the western hemisphere bumble bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae; Bombinae) I. The genera Bombus and Megaombombus subgenus Bombias. Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada 82: iii- 80.

Motta, E. V. S., K. Raymann, and N. A. Moran. 2018. Glyphosate perturbs the gut microbiota of honey bees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America115(41): p. 10305 – 10310.

Sheffield, C. S., S. D. Frier, and S. Dumesh. 2014. The Bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea, Apiformes) of the Prairies Ecozone, with Comparisons to other Grasslands of Canada. In Arthropods of Canadian Grasslands (Volume 4): Biodiversity and Systematics Part 2. D. J. Giberson and H. A. Cárcamo (eds.). Biological Survey of Canada. pp. 427-467.

Species At Risk Act (SARA) Public Registry. 2018. Western Bumble Bee Occidentalis Subspecies Profiel. Available at: https://wildlife-species.canada.ca/species-risk- registry/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=1267

Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. 2015. The Importance of Bee Health to Sustainable Food Production in Canada. Available at: https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/Committee/412/agfo/rep/rep09may15-e.pdf

Williams, N. M., R. L. Minckley, and F. A. Silveira. 2001. Variation in native bee faunas and its implications for detecting community changes. Conservation Ecology5(1): 7. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss1/art7/

10. WETLAND AND SENSITIVE ECOSYSTEMS

10.1 IMPORTANCE OF WETLAND AND SENSITIVE ECOSYSTEMS FOR SCN

Wetlands provide many important ecological, environmental, and social functions. They provide habitats for fish and other wildlife, organic carbon storage, flood control, water supply and purification, economic production, and soil and water conservation. They also provide habitat for culturally important plants.

Wetlands are rich and productive ecosystems that provide an important source of biodiversity in prairie / grassland ecosystems. This rich biodiversity means many important plant species and animal species are found within wetlands many of which are SCN culturally important plants and animals. In Alberta alone, it is estimated that wetlands host approximately 400 species of plants, some of which are listed as rare, threatened, or endangered in the province (Government of Alberta 2013, p. 4). In the prairies, wetlands are known as the “duck factory” of North America and have been identified as Important Bird Areas, as migratory birds use them as stopovers between breeding areas and overwintering areas (Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute 2015).

Wetlands also act as a form of flood protection by storing and slowly releasing large volumes of surficial runoff, and also help with water filtration, by cleansing surface waters prior to discharge. In many parts of Alberta, wetlands are “groundwater recharge zones” that act as conduits between surficial water sources and aquifers beneath the ground (Government of Alberta 2013, p. 4).

From the SCN perspective, wetlands or wet draws in grassland areas are the most likely sources of key cultural use and medicinal plants (moss, tea, other medicinal plants) and berry picking (chokeberries, saskatoon berries, strawberries, gooseberries, and blackberries, etc.) as well as an important habitat for various wildlife including ducks. According to SCN members the majority of culturally important plants and herbs are found in abundance in many wetlands, riparian areas, and regions with water (Olson et al. 2015, 26):

Most of our food came from the river—in the summertime, the fish, ducks— springtime, we collected duck eggs, you know? And the sloughs along the river, they got wild game, and I know in the sloughs—my mom used to go pick up peat moss, and that used to be used for the kids' diapers. So, our—I tell my kids today, my grandchildren, that used to be our mall! That's where we'd go shopping! For food, for medicine—a lot of herbs, different kinds of herbs, of course, sweetgrass, that we'd obtain from the river… (Olson et al. 2015, S09)

SCN members have also noted the importance of wetlands for rejuvenating the land, “Wetlands are necessary for Mother Earth to Heal” (Samson Cree Nation 2019). SCN considers these areas to be highly important from both a cultural and ecological perspective (SCN 2015).

SCN members are concerned about the impact of the project on wetlands, specifically impacts to wetlands ability to filter water, land rejuvenation for "self-healing", water courses, flooding and water levels, loss of animals in the area, and impacts to culturally important plants (Samson Cree Nation 2019).

10.2 WETLAND CURRENT STATUS AND DEGREE OF CHANGE OVER TIME

10.2.1 Wetlands in the Project Area

Approximately 20 percent of Alberta’s surface area is covered by wetlands; more than 90 per cent of these are peatlands (primarily bogs and fens). According to the Project ESA, wetlands cover 7,616 ha or 19% of the Local Study Area (LSA). These wetlands include: bogs – coniferous wooded bogs (BWc) and shrubby bogs (BS); fens – coniferous wooded fens (FWc), shrubby fens (FS) and graminoid fens (FG); swamps – coniferous wooded swamps (SWc), deciduous wooded swamps (SWd), mixedwood wooded swamps (SWm), shrubby swamps (SS); marshes – graminoid marshes (MG); and open water – shallow open water (W) (2021 NGTL System Expansion Project, Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment, Section 10). These different types of wetlands can be found in different parts of the project sections and different natural subregions (NSRs).

The project sections fall within different natural subregions (NSRs) of Alberta including: Dry Mixedwood, Central Mixedwood, Lower Foothills, Upper Foothills, Central Parkland, and Foothill Fescue. Each of these areas are home to different types of wetlands (2021 NGTL System Expansion Project, Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment, Section 10, 201, 10-4-10-26):

• The Dry Mixedwood: Wetlands cover about 15% of the Dry Mixedwood NSR, 10% of which is deep organic soils and the remaining 5% is shallow peats/wet mineral soils. The sections of the project in the Dry Mixwood NSR include: (1) The Grande Prairie Mainline Loop No. 4 (Valhalla Section), where wooded swamps (approximately 129 ha, 3% of the LSA) and graminoid marshes (approximately 91 ha, 2% of LSA) are the dominant wetlands; (2) Grande Prairie Mainline Loop No. 3 (Elmworth Section), where wooded swamps (approximately 477 ha, 9%) and wooded coniferous fens (178 ha, 3%) are the main wetlands; and (3) Grande Prairie Mainline Loop No. 2 (Karr Section), where wooded coniferous swamps (7%) and fens (5%) are the dominant wetlands. • Central Mixedwood: This NSR consists of vast expanses of wetlands and forested uplands. Approximately 40% are wooded wetlands on organic soils and about 5% are fens and marshes on wet mineral soils. The project sections include (1) the Grande Prairie Mainline Loop No. 4 (Valhalla Section); (2) Grande Prairie Mainline Loop No. 3 (Elmworth Section); and (3) Grande Prairie Mainline Loop No. 2 (Karr Section). • The Lower Foothills: In this NSR, most wetlands are deep peatlands consisting mainly of tree fens with some bogs and open fens. The following project sections fall in this

NSR: (1) Grande Prairie Mainline Loop No. 2 (Karr Section); (2) Grande Prairie Mainline Loop No. 2 (Deep Valley Section), where the main wetlands are wooded coniferous swamps (approximately 857 ha, 11%) and wooded coniferous bogs (approximately 500 ha, 6%); (3) Grande Prairie Mainline Loop No. 2 (McLeod River Connection Section), where the main wetlands are wooded coniferous fens (approximately 351 ha, 22% of the LSA) and wooded coniferous bogs (approximately 124 ha; 8%); (4) Edson Mainline Loop No. 4 (Robb Section), in this area of the project wooded coniferous fens, bogs and swamps are the dominant wetlands; (5) Edson Mainline Loop No. 4 (Dismal Creek Section), where wooded coniferous bogs (approximately 544 ha, 15%), wooded coniferous swamps (6%) and wooded coniferous fens (6%) are the main wetlands (p. 10-20); (6) Edson Mainline Loop No. 4 (Brewster Section), in this section wooded coniferous swamps (5%) and wooded coniferous bogs (3%) are the dominant wetland forms; and (7) the Nordegg Compressor Station Unit Addition, where there is wooded coniferous bog overlapping and lying entirely within the Brewster Section and outside of the Brewster Section is a wooded coniferous swamp (10-24). • The Upper Foothills: This NSR consists of 10% wetlands, which are found mostly in the area’s valleys. These wetlands are mainly wetlands are treed and shrubby fens on organic deposits. On lower slopes, seepage is common. The following project sections fall in this area: (1) Grande Prairie Mainline Loop No. 2 (Deep Valley Section); and (2) Edson Mainline Loop No. 4 (Brewster Section) • The Central Parkland: This area is densely populated and cultivated and has very fertile soils. Approximately 10% of this NSR is covered by wetlands, and those found in the northern part of the NSR include marshes, willow shrublands, seasonal ponds and treed fens. The Didsbury Compressor Station Unit Addition is within this NSR. • Foothills Fescue: This area is about 50% cultivated. Approximately 3% of this NSR is wetlands. The Beiseker Compressor Station Unit Addition is within this NSR.

10.3 CAUSE OF CHANGE IN WETLAND HEALTH STATUS

An estimated 60-70% of wetlands have been lost in southern Alberta (Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute 2015). Current annual rate of wetland losses in the province is estimated at 0.3-0.5%. Wetlands have been lost and degraded due to human development, activity and expansion. The biggest impacts have been from include agricultural and urban expansion, forestry, oil and gas exploration and development, and mining. These activities both directly and directly impact wetlands. These industries have led to wetland loss and degradation, as they alter wetland “conditions and functions through fragmentation and disruption of natural hydrological pathways” (Government of Alberta 2013, p. 5). It is estimated that Alberta has lost two thirds of its wetlands in the settled areas of the province, and these losses have not slowed down. In Crown lands and natural areas, wetland losses and impacts are also occurring, but the extent is not entirely clear (Government of Alberta 2013, 5).

Knowledge holders also noted a drying of wetland ecosystems and that lower water levels are impacting on medicines.

Last year we did not find any rat root, we dug and dug but we did not find any and the areas where we used to get it were all dry (Samson Cree Nation 2019).

SCN considers this to be an important area for careful consideration of mitigations that will reduce the effect of this loss in a regional context. The Project ESA notes that there may be a loss or alteration of up to 260 ha of wetland cover types, alteration of hydrological function of wetlands, and the introduction of invasive species during construction and operation (Section 10, p. 10-41-44):

• A loss or alteration of wetland cover types: “A total of approximately 260 ha (<1% of the LSA) will potentially be altered during construction activities due to site clearing, stripping or minor grading of the Project Footprint, which comprises 3% of wetland cover types within the LSA. The majority of alteration is within the swamp wetland land cover type (approximately 116 ha; <1% of LSA)” (2021 NGTL System Expansion Project, Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment, Section 10, p. 10-41) • Alteration of hydrological function of wetlands: “The Project will have the potential to result in the alteration of hydrological function of wetlands [including] hydrological, biogeochemical, ecological and habitat functions ... Potential changes to hydrologic flow (i.e., surface or groundwater flow) of a wetland from Project construction activities, such as vegetation clearing and stripping and installation of cross drainages, may include wetland drainage, water diversion and natural flow impedance ... Excessive wetland drainage or diversion during construction can result in an unnatural decrease of water flow to wetland areas while flow impedance (i.e., inadequate drainage) creates wetland habitat. Each of these alterations is an interruption to the natural hydrologic regime and is considered to be an adverse environmental effect. In peatlands, tree removal during clearing for construction often results in an increased soil moisture regime altering the wetland type. Commonly, treed bogs and fens revert to sedge dominant marshes (with an organic base) because of the increased groundwater availability that had previously been lower due to tree uptake. This can result in a net increase in marshes and decrease in bogs and fens as a result of construction activities.” (2021 NGTL System Expansion Project, Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment, p. 10-43) • Weed and non-native species: “There is potential for the loss or alteration of wetland cover type due to potential invasive plant species (weed and non-native plants) establishment within the Project Footprint during both Project construction and operation … The construction of linear developments within native habitats, including

clearing for industrial use, weeds and other non-native plants may invade, establish resident populations and then spread. Weeds may enter a natural community along waterways or as air or animal borne seeds, or on equipment brought in from areas where weeds are more common. Weeds and non-native species are often aggressive competitors and can out-compete native plant species, causing an alteration of habitat. The alteration of native plant communities may potentially alter habitat required to support wildlife species and plants of traditional importance” (2021 NGTL System Expansion Project, Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment, p. 10-44 in NGTL 2018).

Wetland Policy goals are to protect wetlands of the highest value, to conserve and restore wetlands in areas of high loss, to avoid and minimize negative impacts to wetlands and, where necessary, to replace lost wetland value. Where development activities have the potential to impact wetlands, the wetland policy promotes avoidance and minimization, as the preferred courses of action. Where impacts cannot be avoided or minimized, and permanent wetland loss is incurred, wetland replacement is required. The amount of wetland replacement required will reflect differences in relative wetland value (Government of Alberta 2013).

10.4 PROJECT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ON WETLANDS

The baseline description of wetlands above identifies that wetlands in the vicinity of the Project have already experienced losses that may be up to 60%. The Project will contribute additional loss of 260 ha of wetland areas.

Foreseeable future projects and trends in stressors as described in Section 1 are anticipating continuing habitat fragmentation, transportation corridor expansion, expansion of settlement areas among other stressors that will contribute to Project effects. Climate change is predicted to result in the loss of more wetlands due to higher temperatures and less precipitation.

Given the policy statements mentioned above, and current levels of development and habitat fragmentation within the Project area, any loss of or impacts to wetlands should be considered significant. In this context, the minimum requirement should be offsetting. Avoidance of clearing through HDD is preferred.

10.5 SUMMARY

Status of VC at 1900: Wetlands abundant and intact.

Major causes of change over time: Agricultural and urban expansion, forestry, oil and gas exploration and development, mining, roads, fragmentation, and more recently climate change.

Major outcomes of change over time: Loss of number of wetlands and wetland function (e.g., water filtration, biodiversity, habitat for rare species).

Effects on SCN rights practices: impacts to medicinal plants; impacts to culturally important plants (e.g., berries); impacts to keystone species’ habitats; impacts to wildlife; water sources; and flood mitigations.

Significance of change over time in the Pre-Project circumstance: Significantly negative. An estimated 60-70% of wetlands have been lost in southern Alberta (Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute 2015). Current annual rate of wetland losses in the province is estimated at 0.3-0.5%. Wetlands have been lost and degraded due to human development, activity and expansion, including from agricultural and urban expansion, forestry, oil and gas exploration and development, and mining.

Project-specific residual adverse effects likely: Yes, Project ESA notes that there may be a loss or alteration of up to 260 ha of wetland cover types, alteration of hydrological function of wetlands, and the introduction of invasive species (2021 NGTL System Expansion Project, Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment, Section 10, p. 10-41-44).

Total Cumulative Effects Loading in the Project Case: Significant, factoring degree of loss and given the number of wetlands in the project area and their baseline conditions.

Total cumulative effects loading (all reasonably foreseeable future stressors): Project effects will likely be significant and adverse, and will act cumulatively with reasonably foreseeable development, and with changes in the environment including climate change, ecosystem shifts, and overall drying.

Works Cited

The Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute. 2015. The Status of Biodiversity in the Prairie and Parkland Regions of Alberta: Preliminary Assessment. Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute, Alberta, Canada. Report available at www.abmi.ca.

Government of Alberta 2013. Alberta Wetland Policy. Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. September 2013. 27pp.

Samson Cree Nation. 2019. Notes from Chief’s luncheon and community verification meeting for NGTL 2021 Project Cumulative Effects Assessment April 4, 2019. Maskwacis, Alberta.

11. WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY

11.1 IMPORTANCE OF WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY

The quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater is of extreme importance to SCN members. Water is important for all facets of life, for SCN members and all-natural elements, including the plants, animals and the land itself, as identified in the Samson Cree Nation Water Law/Bylaw:

“the Peoples of Samson Cree Nation have a direct relationship with all waters including rain waters, wetlands, groundwater, rivers, creeks, lakes and other water sources to ensure that the water provides for all living things on a daily basis” (Samson Cree Nation 2016, 2).

The NGTL RSA for water overlaps with four watersheds in SCN territory: The Peace River watershed, the Athabasca River watershed, the North Saskatchewan River watershed, and the Red Deer River watershed. These areas provide important habitat to a variety of culturally important wildlife, as well as important fishing sites, hunting areas, and sources of clean drinking water for SCN members.

SCN members have serious concerns about the current quality and quantity of water in their territory due to existing levels of industrial development and agriculture. The additional and cumulative effects of a new project on this valued component are deeply concerning to SCN.

“It used to be good water. Number one … Today it’s spoiled with these oil diggers … It’s spoiled. Well it’s the same thing with this pipeline.” (Olson et al. 2015, 26, S03)

“Our elders made sure that we live off the lakes, and not only the lakes — it’s medicines around the lakes as well. Most of these lakes are contaminated, and it really concerns me as an elder.” (Olson et al. 2015, 26, S17)

11.2 WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY CURRENT STATUS AND CHANGE OVER TIME

Watersheds overlapping with the RSA are considered to be in good to excellent condition by the Alberta River Water Quality Index (AWQI). According to the State of Watershed reports, however, all four watersheds are under significant pressure from agriculture, industrial use, and climate change. Outstanding concerns include diminishing drinking water quality and quantity in the Athabasca River, alteration of natural flows in Peace River due to large-scale

damming, and multiple accounts of decreases in water quality in subwatersheds close to urban centres and areas of high agricultural intensity.

Peace River Watershed: this watershed is the largest water basin in Alberta, which begins in the Rocky Mountains in BC and flows into the Slave River in Alberta. All ARWQI rated sites along the Peace River received scores of good to excellent (Alberta Environment and Parks 2017 (AEP) 2017). However, there have been notable decreases in water quality due to point sources of pollution from the Aquatera and Weyerhaeuser wastewater streams, as well as non- point sources of pollution from the City of Grande Prairie. Agriculture is the primary contributor to the human footprint in this watershed (Mighty Peace Watershed Alliance (MPWA) 2015). The Peace River watershed has also experienced changes in natural flow due to several dams, including the W.A.C. Bennett Dam on the Peace River (MPWA 2015).

Athabasca River watershed: The Athabasca River watershed has a total drainage area of 138,000 km². In 2016, the ARWQI rated the Athabasca River as “excellent”, although the majority of results since 1996 rate the river as “good” (AEP 2017). According to Athabasca State of the Watershed report (Athabasca Watershed Council 2018), there is moderate to high cumulative watershed pressure within most of the Athabasca River basin, largely attributed to water use and climate change. Indigenous communities have observed major changes in water flows within the lower range of the Athabasca River as well as smaller tributaries. Observations include drying up of wetlands and creek beds, while at the same time experiences of major flood events. Many Indigenous communities have also noted a decline in water quality in the Athabasca River over the last 50 years. Land users have stated that surface water no longer tastes good and that people no longer perceive untreated surface water as safe to drink (Athabasca Watershed Council 2018).

Red Deer River Watershed: this watershed has a total drainage area of 49,650 km²; it originates in Banff National Park and joins the South Saskatchewan River across the Saskatchewan border. The ARWQI for the Red Deer River has generally received a “good” surface water quality rating (AEP 2017). Red Deer Watershed Alliance grades subwatersheds based on a combination of risk and condition ratings. Five of the 15 subwatersheds in the Red Deer River watershed received a poor grade, with surface water nutrient levels, and oil and gas activity noted as being a leading concern (Red Deer River Watershed Alliance 2009). North Saskatchewan River Watershed: This watershed has a total drainage area of approximately 80,000 km²; extending from its headwaters in the Rocky Mountains to the confluence with the South Saskatchewan River. Upstream of Edmonton, the North Saskatchewan River received an ARWQI rating of “excellent” in 2015/2016 (Alberta Environment and Parks 2017). According to the North Saskatchewan State of the Watershed report,

watershed health is generally fair but tends to decrease towards the Modeste, Sturgeon, and Strawberry subwatersheds, where livestock density, anthropogenic activity, and human populations are greatest (North Saskatchewan Watershed Alliance 2005). The report noted that high agricultural intensity throughout several of the subwatersheds has contributed to higher phosphorus levels and decreased riparian health.

11.3 CAUSE OF CHANGE IN WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY

The Peace River, Athabasca River, the North Saskatchewan River, and the Red Deer River watersheds are increasingly under pressure due to population growth and industrial development, including agricultural use, industrial activities, and climate change. Combined, these lead to issues of water scarcity, water quality, increased risk of floods and droughts, and impacts on ecosystem integrity. Schindler and Donahue (2006) predict the impact of climate change on glaciers, snowpacks, and evaporation, combined with cyclic drought and population growth will cause a water quality and quantity crisis with far-reaching, and lasting, implications (2006). Current anthropogenic disturbance affects 38% of the RSA (345,011 ha), which is considered a moderate to high magnitude of change relative to an undisturbed landscape. Past and existing activities affecting water quality and quantity include: clearing, construction of roads and industrial facilities, forestry, agricultural activities, industrial development. Rapid population growth has made Alberta vulnerable to water shortages (Schindler and Donahue 2006) and has contributed to impacts on water quality (especially from increased nutrients and pesticide use). This has also led to loss of wetlands and degraded riparian lands, especially in urban areas where residential and commercial developments continue to expand. While seasonal fluctuations including droughts and floods occur naturally throughout these watersheds, studies have shown that the timing and volume of water flows will likely change significantly with climate change (Schindler and Donahue, 2006). Increasing temperatures in the Athabasca River have already contributed to a gradual decrease in flow across several of the central and northern subwatersheds.

11.4 PROJECT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ON WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY

Existing levels of disturbance in the watersheds of the RSA have reduced water levels, changed flow patterns, and impacted surface water quality. Any additional negative impacts to these watersheds, however small or incremental, are substantial and unsustainable for SCN use. Indigenous communities have already reported changes in the seasonal flow of the Athabasca over their lifetimes, with an overall trend towards lower water levels (Candler et al., 2010). Lower water levels make it more difficult for to travel by boat or practice subsistence harvesting, impacting SCN members’ ability to navigate and use the rivers and lands in their territory. According to the ESA (Section 8.6.1) surface disturbance causing alteration of natural drainage patterns in the RSA is predicted to have short-term (e.g. water crossings) and long-term (e.g.,

well sites, roads) impacts. It is estimated that a total of approximately 3,131 ha will be affected by the Project and reasonably foreseeable projects or activities in the RSA. Combined with existing disturbance from ongoing forestry and agriculture, the resulting changes to natural drainage patterns will have significant adverse impacts on the natural flow patterns of watercourses and the hydrology of wetlands in the RSA. This is of particular concern at water crossings sites, where ineffective reclamation may have direct and long-term impacts on natural flow patterns. The Project in combination with foreseeable future stressors will contribute significantly to cumulative effects on surface water quality through the impacts associated with clearing activities, particularly at water crossings. Project development and infrastructure overlap with areas that are already considered to be at a high risk to surface contamination according to Alberta Agriculture and Forestry. Past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the RSA will contribute to increased sediment loads and turbidity from erosion, deposition, and disturbance of sediments. Short-term increases in sediment load and TSS at stream crossing sites may persist for up to two years following effective reclamation, with implications for the aquatic environment (impacts on fish habitat, fish/aquatic invert. populations). Ineffective mitigation and reclamation of these disturbed areas could result in ongoing and long-term impacts to water quality.

11.5 SUMMARY

Status of VC at 1900 [or other date]: few impacts on water quantity and flow regimes as rivers within affected watersheds were undammed with no industrial-scale water-taking. Water quality much higher due to smaller population, less intense agriculture, and less industry pressure.

Major causes of change over time: large dams (especially W.A.C. Bennett Dam in Peace River), forestry, agriculture, industrial development (oil and gas, transportation projects), climate change.

Major outcomes of change over time: decreased water quality, alterations to natural flow patterns, loss of habitat for aquatic species.

Effects on SCN rights practices: low confidence in the quality of drinking water; potential negative impacts on wetland hydrology impacting low flows contribute to drying of wet areas.

Significance of change over time in the Pre-Project circumstance: Moderate to high magnitude of change from undisturbed landscape due to anthropogenic disturbance (approx. 38% of RSA disturbed). Gradual but significant change in natural flows due to climate change.

Project-specific residual adverse effects likely: alteration to natural drainage patterns with potential for negative impacts on natural flow patterns of watercourses and wetland hydrology. Potential for ongoing erosion and runoff due to clearing and disturbance (e.g.,

water crossings) contributing to long-term negative impacts on surface water quality (including, but not limited to, increased sedimentation and TSS).

Total cumulative effects loading in the Project Case: significant, due to high level of anthropogenic disturbance in RSA (especially ongoing forestry and agriculture) already contributing to decreases in water quality and alterations to natural flow regimes.

Total cumulative effects loading (all reasonably foreseeable future stressors): Project effects will likely be significant and adverse, and will act cumulatively with reasonably foreseeable development, with changes in the environment including climate change, ecosystem shifts, and overall drying.

Works Cited Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) (2017). Alberta River Water Quality Index Results (2015-2016). Available at: https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/28dfb45a-a60c-4864-98de- 966325a38ef0/resource/67d0c441-582a-44cc-b38b-e58464b5f9b3/download/waterqualityindexresults- 2015-16-jun2017.pdf

Athabasca Watershed Council (2018). State of the Athabasca Watershed: Summary Report. Available at: https://awc-wpac.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Athabasca-SoW-Summary-FINAL-DRAFT.pdf

Athabasca Watershed Council (2013). State of the Watershed Report Phase 3: Water Quantity and Basic Water Quality in the Athabasca Watershed. Available at: http://athabascawater.wpengine.com/wp- content/uploads/2017/09/SOW3complete_compressed.pdf

Candler, C., Olson, R., DeRoy, S., and The Firelight Group Research Cooperative (2010) As Long as the River Flow: Athabasca River Use, Knowledge and Change. ACFN Community Report. Available at: https://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/documents/p65505/56876E.pdf

Mighty Peace Watershed Alliance (2015). State of the Watershed Report. Available at: http://mightypeacesow.org/pdf/MPWA-SoW_Full.pdf

North Saskatchewan Watershed Alliance (2005) State of the North Saskatchewan Watershed Report. Available at: http://www.nswa.ab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2005/05/05- SOWstate_of_n.sask_subwatershed.pdf

Red Deer River Watershed Alliance (2009). Red Deer State of the Watershed Report: Discussion and Conclusions. Available at: http://www.rdrwa.ca/sites/rdrwa.ca/files/pdf/discussion-conclusions.pdf

Samson Cree Nation (2016). Water Law/Bylaw. Available at: http://samsoncree.com/wp- content/uploads/2017/03/Samson-Water-Allocation-By-law_2016.pdf

Schindler, D. W., & Donahue, W. F. (2006). An impending water crisis in Canada's western prairie provinces. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103(19), 7210-6.

12. FISH AND FISH HABITAT

12.1 PRIORITY FISH SPECIES AND FISH HABITAT OF CONCERN FOR SCN

SCN considers stewardship and environmental conservation of fish and fish habitat as part of their Aboriginal Treaty and Rights. Any impacts to fish and fish habitat will have a direct consequence on the ability of SCN citizens to exercise their section 35 rights. A key concern in respect to this is loss and or alteration of habitat. Impaired ecosystem function and degradation of habitat quality can alter the productivity of fisheries utilized by SCN citizens (Samson Cree Nation 2018).

Fishing is an integral part of the SCN way of life. Fishing is often a family activity and a key teaching activity for the transmission of culture (Olson et al. 2015). Fishing has been able to sustain hunting trips and is considered by SCN members as a basic survival means and key enabling factor for other traditional uses (Samson Cree Nation 2015). SCN members are known to fish for a variety of species, including salmonids, jackfish, whitefish, and suckers. The following SCN preferred species have been documented in the Regional Study Area (NGTL 2018):

• Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) • Mountain sucker (Catostomus • Brown trout (Salvelinus confluentus) platyrhynchus) • Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) • White sucker (Catostomus • Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii) commersoni) • Northern pike (Esox lucius) • Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus) • Mountain whitefish (Prosopium • Burbot (Lota lota) williamsoni) • Goldeye (Hiodon alosoides) • Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) • Lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) • Largescale sucker (Catostomus • Mooneye (Hiodon tergisus) platyrhynchus) • Walleye (Sander vitreus) • Longnose sucker (Rhinichthys cataractae) SCN members have noted a decline of water quality in fish habitat closer to the reserve (e.g. Pigeon Lake). There are concerns that fish in these areas have become contaminated, leading to a loss of confidence in the quality of this food source (Olson et al. 2015). Protection of remaining areas of relatively pristine fish habitat is therefore a priority. SCN members are concerned about the cumulative effects of oil and gas pipelines on the water, fish, and fish habitat throughout SCN territory, as adverse impacts have already been witnessed in an intergenerational context (Samson Cree Nation 2015).

“And then on top of that … the oil and gas that we are burning, and the same thing with these big pipelines that snake in here and there and go through the water … And it leaks through the river. And lots of fish are dying today. And even if the bird saw the fish laying in there he would go and eat it and he would die right there. That’s happening right now.” (Olson et al, 2015, 27, S03).

12.2 FISH AND FISH HABITAT CURRENT STATUS AND DEGREE OF CHANGE OVER TIME

While all fish are important to the diversity and integrity of ecosystems in the RSA, the current status of species considered a management concern makes these populations, and their habitat, a particularly high priority for conservation. Five SCN preferred fish species documented within the RSA are considered to be of management concern: bull trout, lake sturgeon, rainbow trout, largescale sucker, and Arctic grayling. While these species have no status under the Species at Risk Act (SARA), they have been assessed by either the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) and/or Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP). Bull Trout (Western Arctic and Saskatchewan – Nelson Rivers populations): This freshwater fish is a slow-growing and late maturing species that thrives in cold, pristine waters. Bull trout often require long unimpeded migratory routes and highly specific habitat that make them particularly sensitive to the impacts of human activity, and good indicators of watershed health (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Anecdotal information and historical records suggest a large decline in the distribution of bull trout in Alberta river systems since the early 1900s (COSEWIC 2012). Habitat deterioration and increased fragmentation have contributed to range contractions, limiting remaining bull trout populations to the foothills and east slopes of the Rocky Mountains. Continued declines in abundance of > 30% are projected for bull trout over the next three generations (COSEWIC 2012). Both populations of bull trout documented within the Regional Study Area are listed as Threatened by the Province of Alberta (Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) 2019). Within the RSA, proposed stream crossings overlap with several bull trout core areas, including the Wapiti River, the Simonette River, the McLeod River, the Pembina River, and the Smoky River. All of these core areas have experienced short- term declines in bull trout abundance, with the exception of the upper Smoky River, which is considered stable (COSEWIC 2012). These core bull trout areas are considered to be under moderate to substantial, imminent threat, and have conservation rankings of At Risk to High Risk.

Lake Sturgeon (Saskatchewan – Nelson River population): Lake sturgeon requires a variety of habitats to complete its life cycle, from fast-moving waters at the base of falls, rapids or dams for spawning, to downstream areas with finer sediments and a suitable forage base (COSEWIC 2017). Adult lake sturgeon may remain in downstream habitats year-round until they are ready to spawn or undertake seasonal migrations to meet their habitat requirements (Auer 1996). Changes in habitat availability and connectivity have contributed to substantial declines in lake sturgeon abundance (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD) 2002; COSEWIC 2017). Populations in Alberta are now at or below critical levels for sustainability (AEP 2019). Recent population estimates for the North Saskatchewan River

estimate that there are 2,681 adult lake sturgeon in the upstream reach from Drayton Valley to Smoky Lake, and 3,673 adult individuals in the downstream reach from Smoky Lake to the Alberta border (COSEWIC 2017). Lake sturgeon are listed as Threatened by the Province of Alberta (AEP 2019), and Endangered by COSEWIC (2017). Rainbow trout (Athabasca River population): Native rainbow trout utilize a variety of habitat characteristics in the cold headwater streams in the Athabasca drainage (COSEWIC 2014). Areas of ecologically important habitat for rainbow trout in the Athabasca River have been reduced or irretrievably lost due to the effects of industrial development, including selenium contamination, sedimentation, and stream fragmentation (COSEWIC 2014). Historically, Athabasca River rainbow trout were reported to be present in “incredible numbers” throughout every creek, beaver dam, and larger tributary (Miller and Macdonald 1949). The total abundance of Athabasca River rainbow trout is currently unknown, but trends from sampled streams indicate that the population is declining. Across the Athabasca drainage, 54% of sampled streams have experienced recent declines in population size and 63.3% are considered highly vulnerable to land use impacts (COSEWIC 2014). The RSA overlaps with Athabasca tributaries and McLeod tributaries, 60.7% and 56.3% of which, respectively, are considered to be high risk streams with less than 30 adult rainbow trout per 0.1 ha (COSEWIC 2014). Largescale sucker: In Alberta, the largescale sucker is exclusive to the Peace River system. While little is known about their habitat use in this region, largescale suckers tend to be found in areas with relatively slow currents, or the mid-channel sites of larger rivers (McPhail 2007). These fish often aggregate in deep pools and are relatively sedentary, with the exception of spawning migrations. Documented occurrences are rare in Alberta, and abundance is believed to be low in the Peace River system (AEP 2019). This population is listed as Sensitive by the Province of Alberta (AEP 2019). Arctic grayling: The Arctic grayling is a cold-water species found in foothills streams of the Athabasca, Peace, and Hay River drainages. This species requires cold, clear, and well- oxygenated waters, and a variety of specific habitats across life stages and seasons (AEP and ACA 2015). Arctic graylings have been observed migrating more than 50 km between habitats (Blackman 2002). The Arctic grayling population in Alberta is estimated to have declined by 70%, relative to the pre-1960 population size (AEP and ACA 2015). This species has been listed as a Species of Special Concern by COSEWIC, and May Be At Risk by the Province of Alberta (AEP 2019).

12.3 CAUSE OF CHANGE IN FISH AND FISH HABITAT HEALTH STATUS

Habitat degradation and fragmentation: The loss, degradation, and fragmentation of quality habitat has been identified as a major cause in the decline of bull trout (COSEWIC 2012), lake sturgeon (COSEWIC 2017), rainbow trout (COSEWIC 2014), and Arctic grayling (AEP and ACA 2015) populations. COSEWIC and AEP assessment reports for these populations indicate that impacts from oil and gas development, forestry, mining, roads, and hydroelectric projects have degraded fish habitat by increasing siltation, increasing water temperatures, or altering stream

flow and physical stream characteristics. The release of deleterious substances (such as wood fibres, sediment, and effluent) from mining or agriculture has also contributed to the irreversible loss of fish habitat. Fragmentation caused by culvert stream crossings associated with roads and other infrastructure has further compromised the resilience of fish habitat and made these populations more susceptible to declines.

Overharvesting: Overharvesting has historically posed a serious threat to the Arctic grayling (AEP and ACA 2015), bull trout (COSEWIC 2012), and lake sturgeon (COSEWIC 2017) populations in Alberta. Arctic grayling, for example, is easily caught and extremely vulnerable to overexploitation (McPhail 2007). Improved road access associated with industrial development has contributed to increased harvesting pressure for many fish species. In Alaska, for example, Arctic grayling populations near major access points experience harvesting rates two to three times higher than those in more remote areas (Riddler 1992).

Invasive species and disease: Interactions with introduced species pose a threat to SCN preferred species and their habitat, including rainbow trout (COSEWIC 2015), lake sturgeon (COSEWIC 2017), bull trout (COSEWIC 2012), and Arctic grayling (AEP and ACA 2015). Invasive aquatic animals and plants – such as the flowering rush, purple loosestrife, Prussian carp, and zebra mussels – can be introduced by vehicles, equipment, and recreational use of watercourses. Diseases, such as whirling disease (caused by Myxobolus cerebralis), can cause high levels of salmonid fish mortality (AEP 2017).

Climate change: Climatic variability and change has been identified as a threat to bull trout (COSEWIC 2012), rainbow trout (COSEWIC 2014), and Arctic grayling (AEP and ACA 2015) populations. Altered thermal regimes, changes in water quantity, and changes to seasonal flows as a result of climate change are anticipated to reduce the amount of suitable fish habitat during this century (AEP and ACA 2015).

12.4 PROJECT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ON FISH, FISH HABITAT AND FISHING

Current disturbances within the RSA affect approximately 38% of the landscape (NGTL 2018), and declines in SCN preferred fish populations of management concern are anticipated to continue under these conditions (e.g. COSEWIC 2012; COSEWIC 2014). Given existing changes to fish and fish habitat, combined with the anticipated impacts of climate change, any further degradation of this valued component is significant and unsustainable for continued SCN use. Project related activities and infrastructure that may have cumulative effects on fish and fish habitat include:

Watercourse crossings: the proposed project will cross a total of 157 watercourse or potential fishbearing drainages, with predicted residual effects on the quality or quantity of fish habitat (NGTL 2018). Watercourse crossings within six of the seven pipeline segments overlap with known or potential occurrences of SCN preferred species of management concern (NGTL 2018). For example, stream crossings on the Pembina River, McLeod River, Wapiti River, and Simonette River overlap with declining core bull trout areas that are already considered to be under moderate to substantial threat (COSEWIC 2012). The construction of watercourse

crossings will cause physical disruption or damage to stream beds, banks, and conditions for aquatic biota that could have serious consequences for fish and fish habitat. Watercourse crossings also have the potential to heavily impact fish and fish habitat through the accidental release or leaking of deleterious substances. Culvert stream crossings associated with access roads will decrease the resilience of fish habitat and fish populations by increasing habitat fragmentation.

Increased access: Greater public access within the RSA, associated with Project access roads and other linear features, may increase harvesting pressure on SCN preferred species. Populations such as the bull trout, lake sturgeon, and Arctic grayling have already been reduced by overexploitation, and are considered vulnerable to overharvesting despite management measures. Public access also increases the risk for introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species and disease in the RSA. The North Saskatchewan River and tributaries within the RSA have tested positive for whirling disease, and the remainder of watercourse crossings are considered areas of high risk for introduction and spread of the disease.

Construction and operation activities: Clearing, site preparation, and vegetation management activities near flowing water may affect the quality and quantity of fish habitat. This includes the construction and operation of compressor stations, as well as temporary construction camps and infrastructure associated with the project. Continued maintenance of the pipeline Right of Way is of particular concern, and could have lasting impacts on the availability and quality of riparian habitat.

12.5 SUMMARY

Status of VC at 1900 [or other date]: SCN preferred species of management concern were likely abundant prior to disturbance.

Major causes of change over time: Habitat degradation from agriculture, urbanization, forestry and energy industries; habitat fragmentation from stream crossings; overharvesting from commercial and/or sport-fishing; interactions with introduced species; and climate change.

Major outcomes of change over time: Five of the 17 SCN preferred fish species documented in the RSA are considered to be of management concern. Bull trout, lake sturgeon, rainbow trout, and Arctic grayling populations have experienced declines of up to 70%, relative to the pre-1960 population size. Population declines for these species are anticipated to continue under current conditions.

Effects on SCN rights practices: Loss of valued species, and loss of key resources required to support other traditional practices.

Significance of change over time in the Pre-Project circumstance: Significantly negative.

Project-specific residual adverse effects likely: Alteration and degradation of fish habitat caused by physical disruption or damage to stream beds, banks, and stream conditions, including ongoing erosion and runoff due to clearing and disturbance (e.g., water crossings). Increased fish habitat fragmentation caused by stream crossings. Potential for increased harvesting pressure and introduction/spread of invasive species and disease with increased public access.

Total cumulative effects loading in the Project Case: Significant, due to high level of anthropogenic disturbance in RSA (especially ongoing forestry and agriculture) already contributing to decreases in water quality and alterations to fish habitat. Fish populations of management concern in the RSA have already experienced substantial declines, which are anticipated to continue under existing conditions.

Works Cited

Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP). 2019. Wild Species General Status listing - 2015. Available at: https://open.alberta.ca/publications/alberta-wild-species-general-status-listing- 2015. Accessed April 2019.

Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP). 2017. Decontamination Protocol for Watercraft and Equipment. Last updated August 2017. Available at: https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/c6a491b1- 632f-405a-8f1a-1bad4b16127d/resource/94afd608-483e-4637-b822- 5b0f57ca3c0c/download/decontaminationprotocol-watercraft-equipment-aug30-2017.pdf Accessed April 2019.

Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) and Alberta Conservation Association (ACA). 2015. Status of the Arctic Grayling (Thymallus arcticus) in Alberta: Update 2015. Alberta Environment and Parks. Alberta Wildlife Status Report No. 57 (Update 2015). Edmonton, AB. 96 pp.

Auer, N.A. 1996. Importance of habitat and migration to sturgeons with emphasis on Lake Sturgeon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53: 152–160.

B. G. Blackman. April 2002. Radio Telemetry Studies of Arctic Grayling Migrations to Overwinter, Spawning and Summer Feeding Areas in the Parsnip River Watershed 1996-1997. Peace/Williston Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program, Report No. 263. 26pp plus appendices.

COSEWIC. 2017. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Lake Sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens, Western Hudson Bay populations, Saskatchewan-Nelson River populations, Southern Hudson Bay James Bay populations and Great Lakes-Upper St. Lawrence populations in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xxx + 153 pp. (http://www.registrelepsararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=en&n=24F7211B-1).

COSEWIC. 2014. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xi + 60 pp. (www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm).

COSEWIC. 2012. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. iv + 103 pp. (www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm).

McPhail, J.D. 2007. The Freshwater Fishes of British Columbia. University of Alberta Press. Edmonton, Alberta.

Miller, R.B., and W.H. Macdonald. 1949. Preliminary Fishery Survey of the Athabaska Watershed. 1948. Pp. 61-66 in Preliminary Biological Surveys of Alberta Watersheds 1947- 1949. Department of Lands and Forests, Government of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.

NGTL. 2018. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment for the 2021 NGTL System Expansion Project: Section 9 Fish and Fish Habitat. Prepared by Wood June, 2018. 47 pp.

Riddler, W.P. 1992. Abundance, Composition, and exploitation of selected Arctic grayling spawning stocks in the Tangle Lakes system, 1991. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Anchorage, Alaska. Fishering Data Series No. 92-6. 56 pp.

Rieman, B.E., and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of Bull Trout. Forest Service General Technical Report INT-302, USA Department of Agriculture, Ogden, Utah. 38 pp.

Samson Cree Nation. 2018. Springbank Off-stream Reservoir Project Written Submission. Prepared for CEAA June 25, 2018.

Samson Cree Nation. 2015. Interim Report for Samson Cree Nation’s (SCN) Traditional Land Use Study for Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP). Prepared by Samson Cree Nation Consultation Coordinator and Traditional Land Use Lead for Kinder Morgan, February 14, 2015. 16 pp.

STATUS OF HEALTH OF VALUED COMPONENTS OF CONCERN IN THE EASTERN SLOPES OF THE ROCKIES: WILDLIFE

13. CARIBOU

13.1 WHY CARIBOU IS A PRIORITY SPECIES FOR SCN

[Elder speaking about animal populations in his youth, approximately 30 years ago:] ... Things were very — the people, especially on the reserve in Battle Lake — in Battle River — they were so scarce that these elders, and these men would go way out there. They’d hunt to past Hardisty and even towards north from there, and south to Buffalo Lake, Hanna, and to Stettler area, Sylvain Lake, right up to Rocky Mountain House, Rimbey — past Rimbey. (Olson et al. 2015, S09)

The SCN Consultation Committee identified caribou as a culturally important value for this cumulative effect assessment. Elders report that ancestors harvested caribou in the past, and that the species remains of high cultural importance: “If we have a Cree name for it we hunted it … Caribou is Maskek Atihk.” (Samson Cree Nation 2019). Based on the knowledge shared by SCN knowledge holders during focus groups in April 2019, cumulative effects on many hunted animals, including caribou, are already well beyond a threshold that would sustain SCN rights – and have been for many years. SCN members participating in the ITK studies did not report hunting caribou at this time or in recent memory because of their rarity, but harvest would likely return if populations recover. As such, and consistent with federal guidance, hunting of caribou is considered a current use for the purpose of this assessment.

Indigenous hunting of boreal caribou in western Alberta would have become very difficult by the 1970s, as substantial population declines had already occurred. The loss of caribou as a food and cultural resource continues to be felt by SCN members today, not just because of the loss of subsistence value, but because of the loss of many other values connected to caribou — enjoyment of the land, health and wellness, reciprocity within the land and wider community, language, self-determination, and spirituality (Assembly of First Nations and the David Suzuki Foundation 2013).

From a cumulative effects perspective, the loss of boreal caribou habitat and populations is an indicator of a landscape that has been pushed well beyond natural conditions by human- caused disturbance. Caribou are indicators of intact forest ecosystems, thriving on large tracts of undisturbed forests and wetlands. Access to undisturbed boreal forest and wetland systems is a critical part of caribou survival strategy, which relies on dispersal during vulnerable periods

(particularly calving and post-calving) to avoid predation. Because of how caribou use the boreal forest, they are an excellent example of an umbrella species: protecting caribou and their habitat benefits animals throughout their range (Bichet et al. 2016). With their requirements for large tracts of undisturbed land to meet their life history requirements, caribou are also an excellent indicator species of cumulative effects in Samson Cree territory.

13.2 WOODLAND CARIBOU STATUS AND DEGREE OF CHANGE OVER TIME

13.2.1 Woodland caribou status in Alberta and Canada

Alberta has two ecotypes of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), mountain and boreal, which are assessed differently because of their different habits: mountain caribou migrate between mountain and lowland habitat on a seasonal basis, while boreal caribou are non-migratory. In the portion of SCN territory on which this cumulative effect assessment is focused, boreal caribou occurring within the Little Smoky range are the primary caribou ecotype of interest. The Little Smoky range is directly east of the A La Peche mountain caribou range, and for planning purposes, they are addressed together in Alberta’s recent range planning efforts for the two herds (Government of Alberta 2016). The Little Smoky range is outside of SCN’s approximate territorial boundary (see Figure X), but caribou from this area would have occurred south within SCN’s territory at the turn of the century (ASRDACA 2010).

Woodland caribou are designated as Threatened under Alberta’s Wildlife Act. The boreal woodland caribou population is designated as Threatened under Canada’s Species at Risk Act (SARA). The central mountain woodland caribou population is designated as Threatened under SARA, but was reassessed and recommended to be updated as Endangered by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife In Canada (COSEWIC) in 2014. To date, this designation has not been updated within the SARA.

13.2.2 Woodland caribou population changes over time

The decline of woodland caribou in northwestern North America, across all of the recognized ecotypes and designated population units that are tracked by COSEWIC, follows a trend that is hard to ignore: over time, caribou declines have been recognized throughout their ranges, initially within the south and gradually spreading northward. At this time, almost all of the woodland caribou populations in the southern portion of northwestern North America are either declining or extirpated (COSEWIC 2014). Woodland caribou in the northern portion of this area are faring slightly better, but many are also in decline. Overall, this trend matches patterns of increase disturbance, habitat fragmentation, and isolation, as well as patterns of potential habitat loss due to climate change. For caribou, it is the cumulative effects of all of these factors, interacting with habitat-induced increases in other ungulate populations, predator populations, and predator efficiency, that have caused widespread population decline.

Specific to Alberta, changes in the distribution and population numbers of woodland caribou are primarily anecdotal for the first half of the 20th century (AWA 2019). Woodland caribou distributions at the turn of the century were thought to be discontinuous over approximately two thirds of the province, throughout the mixed coniferous, boreal forest zone, and mountainous areas north of Banff National Park. Populations were reportedly stable until the late 1920s, at which point early government reports suggest southern range contraction. Population estimates vary quite broadly across the 20th century, with reported declines apparent since the 1940s. From the 1940s to 1960s, individuals reported declines in areas where caribou were normally abundant, and linked these declines to forest harvest and oil and gas development. For example, big-game hunter Jack O’Connor reported seeing several hundred caribou in 1943 in the Smoky River area. In 1961 he returned to the area and did not find a single caribou. O’Connor blamed easy access to backcountry areas from oil roads, noting that “unless there is a change for the better, the Smoky River caribou herd must certainly be extinct today.” By 1980, provincial biologists reported declines in caribou by at least 50% from 1965-1980 and pointed to industrial development as the root cause. Declines continued throughout the subsequent decades, leading to various plans to recover populations in the province, most of which were not implemented in any substantive form.

Today, based on data from Hervieux et al. (2013), all but one of the remaining woodland caribou populations in Alberta are in decline. Environment Canada reports that all of the boreal caribou ranges in Alberta are “not self-sustaining” based on total disturbances that are well over the 35% threshold established in their recovery document (Environment Canada 2012). Current population trends suggest extirpation of the species within the next 50 years in Alberta, without meaningful efforts to curb industrial disturbance in their ranges.

13.3 WHY THE DECLINE?

Declines in woodland caribou across western North America are linked to habitat loss, habitat fragmentation and degradation, and climate change. In particular, habitat changes associated with industrial development have led to changes in predator-prey dynamics in boreal caribou habitat. Boreal caribou rely on large areas of undisturbed habitat to “hide” from predators during periods of high vulnerability, particularly calving and post-calving. Increases in disturbance within these areas — both linear disturbances and aerial disturbances that result in the loss of old forest — have reduced the effectiveness of this predator evasion strategy, so fewer and fewer calves are surviving. At the same time, an increase in early seral habitat combined with a warming climate has allowed other ungulates, notably deer but also moose in some areas, to thrive, increasing the prey base for wolves. What happens next is not surprising: wolf populations increase, and caribou have become collateral damage. Add to that the increased efficiency that wolves now have in a landscape that is bisected with linear disturbances from oil and gas development, and the situation becomes untenable for caribou.

13.4 CURRENT LEVEL OF DISTURBANCE IN LITTLE SMOKY

The Little Smoky Range is 308,380 ha in size and has been subject to intensive industrial development from both forestry and oil and gas exploration. The 2012 Recovery Strategy reports the total anthropogenic disturbance in the Little Smoky range at 95%, while the Government of Alberta’s 2017 Draft Provincial Woodland Caribou Range Plan puts the level of disturbance at 99%; the population size in 2012 was estimated at 78 animals (updated to 110 animals in the 2017 Range Plan). The targeted disturbance threshold limit of 35% in each range was estimated by Environment Canada to give boreal woodland caribou herds a 60% chance of persistence. Little Smoky is so far beyond that level in terms of anthropogenic disturbance that the risk of extirpation in this range is very high. Based on a review of caribou population changes by Hervieux and colleagues published in 2013 (Hervieux et al. 2013), Little Smoky has a negative population trend, based on 13 years of radio collar data, despite ongoing wolf culls since 2005 (Marris 2015).

Alberta’s provincial Woodland Caribou Range Plan reports that 98% of the Little Smoky Range is disturbed by seismic lines, with a total length of 9,476 km. It is unclear from the report whether this includes all seismic lines or only “legacy” seismic lines, i.e., those lines that were constructed using large bulldozers that greatly reduced the ability of vegetation to re- establish. In addition, Little Smoky currently has 1,812 km of pipeline, encompassing 44% of the range. As pipeline rights-of-way are traditionally quite wide, the impact of a single pipeline can be important from the perspective of changing habitat.

There are no existing provincial or federal conservation areas within the Little Smoky range, and none are planned. As Little Smoky is the southernmost boreal caribou range in Alberta, the loss of caribou in this area would represent an important and concerning additional range contraction northward.

13.5 RECOVERY PLANS AND BARRIERS TO RECOVERY

The first plan to recover boreal caribou populations in Alberta was announced in 1978; other plans and assessments followed in 1986, 1993, 1996, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 (Federal), and 2016. The recommendations in these plans went largely unimplemented by the government of Alberta, and unchecked development continued within boreal caribou ranges. Wolf control in the Little Smoky range, ongoing since 2005, has allowed caribou to persist despite the level of industrial disturbance on the landscape. However, full recovery of caribou populations — and other values that rely on intact boreal forest landscapes — will not be possible without habitat recovery. As Alberta has a delegated responsibility to protect boreal caribou critical habitat on provincial Crown Lands, they are required to produce spatially explicit range plans that show how habitat will be recovered to 65% undisturbed within boreal caribou ranges in Alberta. These range plans were officially required by October of 2017.

In 2016, Alberta released the draft Little Smoky-A La Peche Range Plan. Following consultation on this plan, a draft Provincial Woodland Caribou Range Plan was released in December 2017. This range plan presents a combination of habitat and population management actions that are intended to address the goals and objectives of Alberta’s Woodland Caribou Recovery Plan and policy, as well as the Federal Recovery Strategies for both boreal and southern mountain woodland caribou populations. Alberta’s goal is to stabilize, recover and ultimately achieve naturally self-sustaining caribou populations, without the need for direction actions to reduce predation. The 2017 Draft Range Plan also identifies a number of objectives, including “achievement or maintenance of caribou minimum local population size targets identified in the federal boreal strategy (i.e., minimum of 100 animals for each boreal caribou local population).” This level is not likely to be sufficient to meet the province’s and federal government’s responsibility to maintain SCN’s treaty right to hunt these animals, as 100 animals does not provide for a harvestable surplus.

The Range Plan focuses on identifying a suite of management strategies that will put caribou ranges on a path towards achieving the desired minimum 65% undisturbed threshold, and relies on a number of different tools to achieve the identified goals and objectives, including: • Habitat restoration on seismic lines; • Reclamation and restoration of inactive oil and gas infrastructure; • Aggregated and staged forest harvest areas; • Integrated land management (including shared access); • Stricter requirements for future resource development (e.g., pipeline development, seismic exploration); and • Conservation areas which support conservation of critical habitat but do not unduly impact industry.

The Range Plan identifies general guidance on how each of these tools will be used in caribou range. Detailed explanations of how each of the approaches will be deployed in each range are still forthcoming. Notably in relation to the proposed NGTL 2021 Expansion Project: • Little Smoky has been identified as a priority area for restoration of legacy seismic lines (Denhoff 2016); • Several recommendations are made regarding the construction of pipelines, including using below ground pipelines, retaining vegetation and revegetating pipeline corridors, minimizing access routes on pipeline rights-of-way, and other mitigation strategies (e.g., managing line of sight). The specific standard identified for pipeline construction is: o Pipelines will use existing linear corridors and revegetate on top of active underground pipelines to maintain a minimum level of forest cover that would be acceptable for caribou following construction, ensuring that any residual linear corridor is less than 4m wide. . If human or predator access is still possible (insufficient vegetation height and density), access must also be effectively managed on the

pipeline corridors, using methods such as berms, woody debris, gates, or another suitable strategy as determined by Alberta and the proponent. • Appendix A7 describes the current state of the Little Smoky range and provides a very broad set of recommendations that will achieve the goal of managing to 65% undisturbed habitat, including: o Operational restoration plans for this range will be developed by the central region sub-committee working group; o Restoration activities within the range will follow all applicable strategies identified under the Restoration section of the Provincial Caribou Range Plan, but further refinement on the timing and implementation of restoration approaches needs to occur before the individual caribou range plan is released; o Industries operating within the range will follow all applicable strategies identified under the Management of Seismic Lines, Management of Pipelines, and Management of Transmission Lines sections of the Provincial Caribou Range Plan; o A Regional Access Management Plan will be developed by energy and forest industries operating within the range, with guidance from the Government of Alberta; and o Energy activities within the caribou range will follow all applicable strategies identified under the Management of Energy Activity section of the Provincial Caribou Range Plan. Further refinement on the appropriate and specific actions needs to occur before the individual caribou range plan is released.

The Draft Little Smoky - A La Peche (LSM-ALP) Range Plan provides some additional guidance for how Alberta plans to meet their habitat recovery goal for caribou in these two ranges (Government of Alberta 2016). In the initial stabilization phase (years 0-5), the LSM-ALM Range Plan requires restoration of all historical footprint, minimizing and mitigating new footprint to maintain habitat and develop future habitat, establishing a trajectory towards 65% undisturbed habitat, and managing biophysical habitat attributes. From an energy perspective, this is done by minimizing and mitigating new development. The target is interpreted to mean that all areas slated for restoration should be restored by the end of year 5. If year 0 is 2016, this target should be met by 2021. In the recovering phase (years 6-50), the LSM-ALM Range Plan identifies that restoration sites will be on a trajectory to effective habitat. In terms of energy management, the intent is to manage new development to ensure the amount and type is appropriate to achieve caribou objectives. Specific requirements for energy development in the LSM-ALM Range Plan that are relevant to pipeline construction include: • All new oil and gas development must adhere to appended development as a required approach. New development may be approved, provided there is a demonstrated inability to access resources from existing roads, pipelines, facilities and well pads; or it is identified in the approved multi-company regional access plan. Consideration will be given to human safety and best environmental outcomes in assessing the inability to access resources. • New disturbances should avoid open and treed wetlands throughout the ranges.

• Alberta will only approve pipeline construction that employs techniques to minimize the extent and duration of a new footprint, through application of appropriate construction and restoration techniques. Alberta will develop requirements for approval of pipeline applications.

The NGTL 2021 Expansion Project, if approved, will test how well Alberta’s Draft Caribou Range Plan and the Draft LSM-ALP Range Plans will work in practice. The draft Range Plans as currently written are lacking in spatial planning for ranges, specific targets by range, and strict requirements for industrial development to follow. As documented by Environment and Climate Change Canada, the current approach to protecting critical habitat in the Little Smoky range, as presented in the Draft LSM-ALP Range Plan and the Province’s Draft Range Planning document, is not consistent with the requirements of SARA, because the province retains the discretion to authorize activities — like the building of a pipeline — that will perpetuate the destruction of boreal caribou critical habitat (Environment and Climate Change Canada 2018). With no areas off limits to development and no mechanism to prevent future disturbance, is not clear how the plans will reverse the ongoing degradation of habitat in the Little Smoky range — and yet, that clearly must occur for caribou populations to return to the point that the population can be self-sustaining.

13.6 PROJECT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ON BOREAL CARIBOU FROM PROPOSED NGTL

A map showing the location of the Little Smoky range in relation to the proposed NGTL 2021 Expansion is provided in Figure 2. This map shows the proposed Grande Prairie South area bisecting through the Little Smoky range. Based on the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society’s Guide to Caribou Range Planning in the Little Smoky, the pipeline as proposed crosses an area of the Little Smoky range that is a high priority zone for habitat restoration, based on level of intactness (relatively intact, compared to the rest of the range) and current use from telemetry data.

The sections above clearly present the existing cumulative effects on boreal caribou populations in Alberta, and in the Little Smoky range in particular, as very high. At the current level of anthropogenic disturbance (99% of the range disturbed) and current population trends (consistently downward for the last 13 years; calf survival rates lower than the level needed to maintain the population; both of these trends occurring even with high wolf cull efforts by the province in the Little Smoky range), building a pipeline through the area is both inconsistent with stated provincial goals for boreal caribou recovery, and the province’s legal responsibility to prevent the extirpation of the species. On a purely economic level, both the ongoing expense of wolf culls in the area and the incredibly high cost of habitat restoration — both costs that are presumably borne in large part by the public — are seemly negated by the approval of this pipeline, which primarily benefits NGTL. From SCN’s perspective, pushing the

ecosystem further from its natural state incurs cultural, social, economic, and ecological costs that are impossible to quantify. This cost includes the continued alienation of SCN’s practice of rights related to this culturally important species, a right that is protected under Treaty 6.

As proposed, the NGTL 2021 project anticipates negative residual project effects on caribou habitat, mortality risk, habitat effectiveness and caribou movement (NGTL 2018,12-91). When considering the Project in the context of foreseeable future Projects and environmental stressors SCN members have little confidence that mitigation or restoration efforts in Little Smoky range will be adequately restored to a level that would sustain local populations or the practice of SCN rights.

Given this context, any further loss of habitat within the Little Smoky range must be considered a significant impact to boreal caribou. Approval of the proposed NGTL 2021 system expansion should only occur if the existing cumulative effects to boreal caribou are fully taken into account, and efforts are made to fully mitigate the impacts of the proposed pipeline consistent with provincial goals for boreal caribou recovery. These measures must include reducing the width of the pipeline, burying the pipeline or using Horizontal Directional Drilling to avoid impacting intact treed bogs and fens, encouraging appropriate vegetation regrowth on the pipeline, and fully offsetting the footprint of the pipeline using an SCN-approved offset ratio that considers the time lag to habitat recovery. As SCN has noted in earlier submissions, NGTL’s current Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offsetting Measures Plan (CHROMP) falls far short of these requirements. Approval of the NGTL 2021 Expansion in its current form would represent a failure by Alberta to meet their legal requirement under the Species at Risk Act to protect boreal caribou critical habitat.

Figure 2: Map showing SCN Approximate Traditional Territory, the Proposed NGTL 2021 System Expansion, and the Location of the Little Smoky Caribou Range in Alberta.

13.7 SUMMARY

Status of VC at 1920: Woodland caribou populations were considered stable. Total population count was unknown. Woodland caribou range extended further south than current southern extent.

Major causes of change over time: Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation; changes in predator-prey dynamics; climate change.

Major outcomes of change over time: Range contraction northwards; population levels have decreased precipitously over the last several decades, particularly in the 1940s, and again since the 1970s.

Effects on SCN rights practices: SCN hunted caribou and used them for a variety of purposes, including food and cultural practices. This right is no longer practiced as caribou populations are very low at this time.

Significance of change over time in the Pre-Project circumstance: Significantly Negative.

Project-specific residual adverse effects likely: Yes.

Total cumulative effects loading in the Project Case: Significant. Impacts on SCN rights and cultural practices related to caribou are already significant due to conditions at baseline. Within the context of existing and ongoing impacts, such as loss of other culturally important species (bison), residual Project effects will reduce the potential for restoring caribou to a level that would support the practice of rights.

13.8 WORKS CITED

Alberta Wildlife Association (AWA). 2019. Caribou. Accessed on 10 April 2019. Accessed at https://albertawilderness.ca/issues/wildlife/caribou/#parentHorizontalTab4.

Assembly of First Nations and the David Suzuki Foundation, 2013. The Cultural and Ecological Value of Boreal Woodland Caribou Habitat. A Joint Report by the Assembly of First Nations and David Suzuki Foundation, Researched by the Centre for Indigenous Environmental Resources (CIER).

Bichet et al., 2016. Maintaining animal assemblages through single-species management: the case of threatened caribou in boreal forest. Ecological Applications 26, no. 2: 612-623.

COSEWIC. 2014. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Caribou Rangifer tarandus, Northern Mountain population, Central Mountain population and Southern Mountain population in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xxii + 113 pp. (Species at Risk Public Registry).

Denhoff, E. 2016. Setting Alberta on the path to caribou recovery. Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement.

Environment and Climate Change Canada. April 2018. Progress Report on Unprotected Critical Habitat for Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada. Species at Risk Act Critical Habitat Report Series. Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa. 19 pp.

Environment Canada. 2012. Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal population, in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. xi + 138pp.

Government of Alberta, 2016. DRAFT Little Smoky and A La Peche Caribou Range Plan. June 2, 2016.

Marris, E. 2015. Wolf cull will not save threatened Canadian caribou. Nature News, 20 January 2015. doi:10.1038/nature.2015.16734

14. PASKWÂW MOSTOS / PLAINS BISON (BISON BISON BISON)

14.1 WHY BISON IS A PRIORITY SPECIES FOR SCN

Buffalos are part of our culture, a big part of our culture … Our provider, he was our provider, the buffalo… Going back, it would have been better if we were there. Like, to see it, right? Because to me, I believe that’s important. (Olson et al. 2015, S18).

For Samson Cree Nation, Paskwâw Mostos (the plains bison/buffalo) are of critical cultural and ecological importance to the past and future of the Project area. Prior to 1880, SCN ancestors’ economy and culture was closely linked with the buffalo hunt (Mandelbaum 1978; Dempsey 2010). SCN and other Indigenous communities have recently made a formal commitment to restore bison to the region (See Figure #), and as a signatory to the “Buffalo Treaty: A Treaty for Cooperation, Renewal, and Restoration,” SCN wishes to ensure the Project is supportive of future habitat restoration opportunities for bison. The purpose and objective of the Buffalo Treaty is

“To honor, recognize, and revitalize the time immemorial relationship we have with BUFFALO, it is the collective intention of WE, the undersigned NATIONS, to welcome BUFFALO to once again live among us as CREATOR intended by doing everything within our means so WE and BUFFALO will once again live together to nurture each other culturally and spiritually. It is our collective intention to recognize BUFFALO as a wild free-ranging animal and as an important part of the ecological system; to provide a safe space and environment across our historic homelands, on both sides of the United States and the Canadian border, so together WE can have our brother, the BUFFALO, lead us in nurturing our land, plants and other animals to once again realize THE BUFFALO WAYS for our future generations” (Buffalo Treaty 2014, para 2).

SCN is concerned that the assessment filed by NGTL for the Project fails to take into consideration potential cumulative effects of the proposed Project in interaction with industry and other factors on bison habitat recovery, particularly in light of the recent reintroduction of bison in Banff National Park. It also fails to consider the potential for future reintroduction of bison into the Project area as per the modern Buffalo Treaty, to which SCN is a signatory.

14.2 BISON CURRENT STATUS AND DEGREE OF CHANGE OVER TIME

14.2.1 Historical Baseline

Paskwâw mostos were prolific across Canada prior to European settlement. Their range once extended from the Rocky Mountains in the west to the eastern coast of the

Figure# Map of the Buffalo: A Treaty of Cooperation, Renewal, and Restoration (Courtesy of Samson Cree Nation Culture and Heritage Department).

United States (present day Washington DC) and from central Alberta in the North to the north of Mexico in the South (Government of Canada 2018). Plains bison were migratory in order to avoid depleting food sources and were known to travel hundreds of kilometers throughout their range to access different food sources in different seasons (Canadian Wildlife Federation 2005). Historic estimations of populations near the Project area were not available at the time of writing of this Report, however, it is believed that some thirty million plains bison existed in North America prior to the expansion of European settlement (Government of Canada 2018, para 4).

Examination of long-term ecosystem states and processes have demonstrated that Paskwâw mostos were once an integral part of Alberta ecosystems including in the area of Banff National Park (recent successful reintroduction site) and the Eastern Slopes of the Rockies (White et al. 2001; Steenweg et al. 2016; COSEWIC 2013). Bison have been described as landscape transformers. Grazing, dung production, and soil disturbance influenced vegetation structure and diversity, soil structure, and shaped the physical landscape (e.g. Bison wallows formed temporary ponds in the spring) (Canadian Wildlife Federation 2005; COSEWIC 2013). Bison once persisted in the east slope valleys of the Rockies as part of a seasonal migration from the plains. White et al. (2001) theorize that plains bison may have used mountain valley bottoms in the winter and fall taking advantage of “low-intensity, dormant-season grazing

such as rough fescue (Festuca saximonatana)” (White et al. 2001, p.155). As a keystone species, plains bison also influenced other herbivores and predator relationships in the eastern slopes.

14.2.2 Loss

Between 1840 and 1890, plains bison numbers were decimated, due mainly to commercialized hunting for meat and hide trading (COSEWIC 2013); subsistence hunting (including non- Indigenous hunters (COSEWIC 2013); habitat loss due to agricultural fragmentation, infrastructure development, and fire suppression strategies (Alberta Wilderness Association (AWA) 2015); and a lack of conservation efforts, as well as forage competition with domestic cattle stocks (Flores, 1991). It is estimated that by 1888, only a few hundred plains bison remained in Canada (COSEWIC 2013, p. 17). In the early 1900s, a small herd was located near the eastern slopes in Banff, then Rocky Mountains Park, and captured as a display herd that was managed in an enclosure up until 1997 (Boyd and Cormack Gates 2006; Parks Canada 2018).

14.2.3 Current Status

In North America, Plains Bison occupy less than 0.5% of their pre-1880 range within Canada (Government of Canada 2018; Steenweg et al. 2016; COSEWIC 2013). All remaining wild Plains Bison are the descendants of approximately 81 ancestors (COSEWIC 2013, p. v.). In 2005, despite being recommended for SARA status, plains bison was not listed as a protected subspecies due to issues with domestic bison in the agricultural industry. As a result of this, no national recovery strategy exists (COSEWIC 2013; Steenweg et al. 2016). Plains Bison recovery has been a part of Canada’s National Parks strategy which accounts for 50% of conservation herds in Canada (Boyd and Cormack Gates 2006, p. 21).

Recently a restoration program has commenced in the eastern slopes of the Rockies, in Banff National Park (Outside of the Project RSA). Steenweg et al. developed a habitat suitability index for plains bison in the park and determined that the park had the nutritional capacity to sustain 400 to 1000 bison (2016). Similar studies in SCN territory have not yet been undertaken.

The reintroduction of bison was included as a planned action in the Parks 2010 Management Plan (Parks Canada 2010; 2018a). As part of a five-year plan, 16 plains bison were translocated from Elk Island National Park (EINP) to a 16 hectares pasture in the Panther-Dormer Area in February 2017 (Parks Canada 2018a). SCN Elders and Chief Kurt Buffalo were in attendance at EINP before the bison were moved to perform blessing ceremonies and sign an adhesion to the Buffalo Treaty (Travel Alberta 2017). Ten females in the herd gave birth to ten healthy calves that same spring (Parks Canada 2018a). The herd was released to roam free in a 1,200 km2 backcountry reintroduction zone (confined by mountain ridges and fencing) in the summer of 2018 (Parks Canada 2018a). As of October 25, 2018, the herd is comprised of 34 bison (Parks Canada 2018b).

The Government of Alberta has not yet recognized plains bison as a wild species for protection. To support the Banff reintroduction, a special “Subject Animal” designation was granted by

the minister of Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) in August 2018 for any plains bison entering an area of the upper Red Deer River Basin. The Red Deer River Basin Special Bison Area is intended as a buffer zone to protect Plains Bison until Parks staff can redirect them back to federal lands and is not an area presently planned for reintroduction (Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) 2018).

14.3 BARRIERS TO IMPROVING BISON HEALTH STATUS

Restoration of Plains Bison to their pre-1900 range is presently impeded by a number of factors, which include:

• Severe habitat fragmentation has occurred since plains bison were effectively extirpated from their Alberta Range. As large mammals, plains bison need large connected areas of habitat to thrive (Government of Canada 2018; Steenweg et al. 2016). o Conversion of native prairies to agricultural lands occurred rapidly after bison were eliminated. This Loss of native rangelands has continued albeit at a reduced rate. (COSEWIC 2013) o Expansion of the Energy Industry (mainly supporting linear infrastructure in the region) also limits future habitat. • “Social intolerance” limits restoration programs due to public concerns associated with the potential for property damage, disease transmission to domestic stock, and human safety. o The Banff bison re-introduction is permissible only because Parks Canada has promised to keep the herd to the confines of the park (Parks Canada 2018). In August 2018, two bulls left the Park boundary and headed to private land. One had to be euthanized and the other was transferred to Waterton National Park (CBC.ca 2018; Parks Canada 2018c). • Populations in Alberta are also limited by founder effects due to small population sizes (Boyd and Gates 2006; COSEWIC 2013). • Cattle-borne and native (anthrax) pathogens (Boyd and Gates 2006; COSEWIC 2013).

14.4 PROJECT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ON BISON HABITAT RECOVERY

The Proponent has not undertaken habitat suitability modelling for Bison within the Project Area (NGTL 2019). The Project will intersect 471 parcels of provincial crown land, occupying 80% of the land area of these parcels. Assuming 1 parcel equals 40 acres, the Project will remove 6,100 ha of Provincial Crown land from potential bison habitat recovery. According to NGTL (2019), the Proponent has no future plans for abandoning and decommissioning the Project, meaning the Project represents a permanent industrial presence on the land. See Section 1 of this report for more information on loss of Crown land.

14.5 SUMMARY

Status of VC at 1900 [or other date]: Pre-1870 populations numbered in the millions within the historical range.

Major causes of change over time: Over-exploitation; habitat loss.

Major outcomes of change over time: Effectively extirpated with exception of a small number of herds managed in National Parks.

Effects on SCN rights practices: Long-standing impacts to SCN culture and harvesting.

Significance of change over time in the Pre-Project circumstance: Significantly Negative.

Project-specific residual adverse effects likely: Habitat suitability studies have not been completed for the Project. Likely Significant and adverse.

Total cumulative effects loading in the Project Case: Impacts on SCN rights and cultural practice related to bison are already significant due to conditions at baseline. Within the context of existing and ongoing impacts, residual Project effects will further erode SCN rights and cultural practice related to the restoration of bison and stewardship of this cultural keystone species.

14.6 WORKS CITED

Boyd, D.P. and C. C. Gates. 2006. A Brief Review of the Status of Plains Bison in North America. JOW.45(2): pp. 15 – 21.

Buffalo Treaty: A Treaty for Cooperation, Renewal, and Restoration.2014. Available at: https://programs.wcs.org/Portals/175/Documents/The%20Buffalo%20Treaty_2014.pdf?ver=20 16-01-29-184835-080

AEP [Alberta Environment and Parks]. 2018. Upper Red Deer River Special Bison Area. Available at: http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/species-at-risk/species-at-risk-conservation- stories.aspx

AWA [Alberta Wilderness Association]. 2015. Bison: Concerns. Available at: https://albertawilderness.ca/issues/wildlife/bison/#parentHorizontalTab3

Canadian Wildlife Federation. 2005. Hinterland Who’s Who – North American Bison. Available at: http://www.hww.ca/en/wildlife/mammals/north-american-bison.html

CBC.ca. 2018. Bison Destroyed After Wandering Out of Banff National Park. Available at:https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/bison-killed-banff-1.4790286

COSEWIC. 2013. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Plains Bison Bison bison bison and the Wood Bison Bison bison athabascae in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xv + 109 pp. (www.registrelep- sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm).

Dempsey, Hugh A. 2010. Maskepetoon: Leader, Warrior, Peacemaker. Surrey, B.C.: Heritage House, 2010.

Flores, D. 1991. Bison ecology and bison diplomacy: the southern plans from 1800 to 1850. The Journal of American History 78, 465–485.

Government of Canada. 2018. Species at Risk Public Registry – Species Profile Plains Bison. Available at: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=805#recoveryTeam

Mandelbaum, David Goodman. 1985. The Plains Cree: an ethnographic, historical, and comparative study. Regina: Canadian Plains Research Center, University of Regina.

NGTL (2019). Response to Samson Cree Nation Information Request 1 - A6S5R6

Parks Canada. 2010. Banff National Park Management Plan. Available at: https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/agence-agency/bib-lib/docs2bi

Parks Canada. 2018a. Banff National Park Bison Reintroduction Project. Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/parks-canada/news/2018/08/banff-national-park-bison- reintroduction-project.html

Parks Canada. 2018b. Bison Blog -October 25, 2018: Where the Buffalo Roam – a wandering life for Parks Canada’s bison stewards. Available at: https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn- np/ab/banff/info/gestion-management/bison/blog#oct25

Parks Canada. 2018c. Bison Blog -August 28, 2018: The Good, the Bad and the Buffalo - reintroducing bison isn’t always easy. Available at: https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn- np/ab/banff/info/gestion-management/bison/blog#aug28

Steenweg R, Hebblewhite M, Gummer D, Low B, Hunt B. 2016. Assessing Potential Habitat and Carrying Capacity for Reintroduction of Plains Bison (Bison bison bison) in Banff National Park. PLoS ONE 11(2): e0150065. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0150065

Travel Alberta. 2017. How A Small Alberta National Park Is Helping Save The World's Bison. Available at: https://www.travelalberta.com/ca/articles/2017/09/helping-save-the-worlds- bison/

White, C.A., E.G. Langemann, C. C. Gates, C. E. Kay, T. Shury, and T. E. Hurd. 2001. Plains bison restoration in the Canadian Rocky Mountains? Ecological and management considerations. In Crossing Boundaries in Park Management: Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Research and Resource Management in Parks and on Public Lands, David Harmon (Ed.) (Hancock, Michigan: The George Wright Society, 2001).

15. MASKWA/ GRIZZLY BEARS

15.1 WHY GRIZZLY BEARS ARE A PRIORITY SPECIES FOR SCN

In oral evidence Samson Cree Nation identified the extremely high cultural importance of bears, including grizzly bears:

“When God created those two people, he married them and then they had children. And those children – to make a long story short, it was those spirits, the ones that fly, the thunderbird, the eagle, the four-legged bear was the first one. It was a woman bear that shape shifted into a human and married that eldest son. And once she married him, she could never be a bear again. But their children had biological parents that were human, and they also had biological parents that were bears.

That's why we believe to this day, like, when we see a bear, we say "Mooshum", Grandfather. When we see a bear with cubs, we always tell our children, "That's our kokum, that's our grandmother," because of what happened in the beginning.

And to this day, we advocate for those bears because their homes are being destroyed too, because those are our relatives.” (Elder Kenneth Saddleback, Samson Cree Nation 2018, Line 237).

Given the vulnerability of bear populations in the region, Samson Cree Nation have identified stewardship rights and responsibilities for protecting grizzly bears.

…we have a sui generis relationship with these sacred beings [four legged, winged & crawlers of this Great Mother Earth] and we shall continue to perpetuate this relationship to the best of our ability through protection and preservation mechanisms. (Maskwacis Cree 2015, 1).

This section outlines a preliminary understanding of the total effects load of cumulative industrial effects impacting grizzly bear habitat and survival in SCN territory.

15.2 GRIZZLY BEAR CURRENT STATUS AND DEGREE OF CHANGE OVER TIME

15.2.1 Grizzly bear status in Alberta

In the Project area, grizzly bear range includes alpine tundra, mountain slopes, upland boreal forest of the foothills, and adjacent prairie (NGTL 2018). Grizzly bear populations have been decreasing in Alberta since the decline of bison at the turn of the century. Grizzly bears were recommended for listing as threatened as early as 1979, the Prairie sub-population grizzly bear was listed as extirpated in 1991. The Northwestern population was not listed as a threatened species under the Alberta Wildlife Act until 2010 (Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) 2016). The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC 2018) listed grizzly bears (Northwestern population) as a "Special Concern” mainly due to small population size (at

the time there was 700-800 grizzly bears), high rates of human-caused mortality, and deteriorating habitat conditions (AEP 2016).

15.2.2 Overview from Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan

The Alberta Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan or AGBRP was completed and accepted by the Alberta Ministry of Sustainable Resource Development in 2008. The AGBRP described 7 demographically separate grizzly Bear Management Areas (BMAs) and defined important management areas (Core and Secondary Zones) – primarily for managing motorized access on publicly managed land outside of protected areas. The BMAs were refined in 2016 and management priorities were set out for recovery, support and habitat linkage zones. Core zones include high quality grizzly habitat based on low road density and habitat modelling. Core zones are primarily located on Crown land or the provincial Green Zone and are connected by secondary buffer zones.

The Project directly crosses three of the seven BMAs, including BMA 2 – Grande Cache, 3- Yellowhead, and 4-Clearwater. According to the Project ESA, approximately 145 km of the Right of Way (ROW) length is within the eastern limits of the Yellowhead, Grande Cache and Clearwater grizzly bear zones. This comprises approximately 38% of the Project Footprint, and 42% of the Local Study Area (LSA), which are considered high and good habitat value for grizzly bears (AEP 2008).

15.2.3 Population status of Grizzly Bears in Alberta and BMAs 2, 3, and 4

While population inventory work is underway for some of the habitat units, including BMA 2, 3, and 4, the most recent published population estimate for Alberta as of 2010 was 691, plus the bears of Banff and the south half of Jasper National Parks (Festa-Bianchet 2010 in AEP 2016).

BMA 2 has the highest population of grizzly bears than any other BMA in Alberta with 353 bears estimated in 2008. At the time of the last population count, 58% of the population was in protected areas (Alberta Grizzly Bear Inventory Team 2009, in AEP 2016). The mortality rate is relatively low compared to the other BMAs in the Project area (AEP 2016). This BMA is the largest for Alberta, with 31.1% protected (Jasper National Park and the Willmore Wilderness Area) (ibid.) The biggest threat to bears in this BMA is poaching (13 out of 36 mortalities) (ibid.)

In BMA 3, the population in 2014 was 138.6 (AEP 2016). This is double what is was in 2004 (ibid.). A reason for this increase is because grizzly bears are being pushed into this area from other BMAs, making this an important habitat as so many bears continue to move into the area due to habitat loss. This BMA consists of 43.6% protected area, with the west side of the BMA being in Jasper National Park. Poaching is the main cause of mortality (8 of 9 mortalities) (ibid.)

In BMA 4, the estimated population as of 2005 was 47 (excluding Banff National Park and Siffleur Wilderness area) (Boulanger et al. 2005, in AEP 2016). 38% of this BMA is protected, with Banff National Park on the west side.

15.3 CAUSE OF CHANGE IN GRIZZLY BEAR STATUS

Human caused mortality is the biggest threat to grizzly bears, as habitat alterations has led to increasing risk of human-bear interactions. The top four sources of mortality from 2012-2016 include poaching, accidental collisions with highway vehicles or trains, self-defence kills, and black bear hunters mistakenly identifying grizzly bears as black bears (AEP 2016). Public motorized access associated with increased road density is also a major factor. Grizzly bears searching for food around human settlements or in high human use areas is an important source of conflict. Loss of habitat with safe refuges for bears has increased the risk of mortality; much of this loss was due to industrial forestry, industry, agriculture and the uptake of private lands. Transportation corridors and linear features decrease connectivity for bear (i.e. effects of large highway corridors). The degree of genetic separation between BMAs is larger than the effect of the continental divide between BC and AB (AEP 2016).

The increase in linear features and anthropogenic disturbance outside of protected areas are contributing to increased bear mortality in SCN territory, with most human-caused grizzly bear mortalities occurring within 500 m of a road or 200 m of a trail (NGTL 2018, Section 12). Due to this, the AEP has set the threshold of road density for roads open to public motorized access as follows: Core Zone: 0.6 km/km2; Secondary zone: 0.75 km/km2. Note that females with cubs are particularly vulnerable to risks associated with roads.

Management Targets of Relevance to the Proposed Project

AEP 2016 has set the draft recovery goals in each BMA as follows:

• BMA 2: Reduce and mitigate human-bear conflict in the Support Zone; work with landowners to secure and manage agricultural attractants; work with stakeholders to reduce road densities in GBWUs that are over threshold; and develop new Alberta BearSmart programs in cooperation with local communities. • BMA 3: Complete the analysis of 2014 population inventory data; implement strategies to reduce illegal killing; Implement access management priorities; and facilitate improved movement through Habitat Linkage Zones. • BMA 4: Assess current grizzly bear abundance in the BMAs; investigate and minimize causes of livestock related human-grizzly bear conflicts; implementation of access management priorities; and develop new Alberta BearSmart programs (with SCN).

15.4 PROJECT IMPACTS AND SCN GOALS FOR GRIZZLY BEARS

The Project Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment lists the potential project impacts as changes to suitable wildlife habitat, habitat effectiveness, and mortality risk: • Habitat: According to the Project ESA, clearing for the Project will affect 936-ha or 2% of available high and good quality habitat for grizzly bears in the LSA (Section 12, 12- 61). Along with physical disturbances to habitat, the project will lead to sensory disturbance, which may reduce grizzly bear foraging and hibernation den selection. Habitat effectiveness will be impacted in areas that are frequently travelled access

roads or construction activities (vegetation clearing, topsoil stripping, trenching, pipe installation, or backfilling). The primary challenge is to minimize the attractive sinks and sensory disturbance. This is particularly important where the pipeline crosses high value habitat, including riparian habitat. Maintaining access to high quality habitat, particularly for female grizzly bears, is important for ensuring the reproductive viability of the population (Gibeau et al. 2001). • Mortality: If the proposed pipeline and compressor stations associated with this project go ahead, there is an increased risk of human-grizzly bear interactions due to a) the linear feature itself, which facilitates human movement into bear habitat; b) the larger size of the compressor stations, which increases incursions into grizzly bear habitat; c) the work camps, which greatly increases the risk of bear attractants in the area and highlights the need for rigorous control of possible bear attractants. • Mitigations need to focus on providing a net reduction in the risk of human-bear interactions. As the draft 2016 recovery strategy notes, exemplary BearSmart practices are necessary around these structures.

Strategies to offset risks in BMA 2, 3, and 4:

• Offsetting measures outside of protected areas should be considered in addition to mitigations associated with the proposed Project infrastructure. • Bear translocation is not an acceptable mitigation to SCN; the only acceptable mitigation is prevention of the conflict in the first place. Available data, which is limited, suggests that translocated bears to not have a high survival rate (AEP 2016). • SCN’s stewardship role related to grizzly bears and ITK should be considered in the management of grizzly bears and in mitigation planning.

SCN goals for grizzly bears are tied to the importance of grizzly bears culturally. The ability of bears to freely access high quality nutrients and safely raise their young within SCN traditional territory such that the local populations are self-sustaining.

15.5 SUMMARY

Status of VC at 1900: Self-sustaining grizzly bear populations throughout the project area and the western portion of SCN territory, intact SCN’s cultural practices and responsibilities related to this species.

Major causes of change over time: Development (particularly agriculture, forestry, ranching and roads) has led to loss of secure habitat and increased human-bear conflict. Mortality caused by poaching, accidental collisions with highway vehicles or trains, self-defence kills, and black bear hunters mistakenly identifying grizzly bears as black bears.

Major outcomes of change over time: Declining grizzly bear populations and high SCN concern due to spiritual importance of grizzly bears.

Effects on SCN rights practices: Decline in a highly spiritually and culturally valued species within SCN territory, loss of SCN ability to effectively practice rights and stewardship for this VC.

Significance of change over time in the Pre-Project circumstance: Significant adverse effect, negative. Note that any incremental project contribution to this VC is considered significant as the Project directly crosses three of the seven BMAs of Alberta, including BMA 2 – Grande Cache, 3-Yellowhead, and 4-Clearwater.

Project-specific residual adverse effects likely: Yes, without offsetting measures.

Total cumulative effects loading in the Project Case: Significant, given conditions at baseline. Impacts on SCN rights and cultural practice related to grizzly bears are already significant due to conditions at baseline.

15.6 WORKS CITED

Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP). 2016. Alberta Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) Recovery Plan. Alberta Environment and Parks, Alberta Species at Risk Recovery Plan No. 38. Edmonton, AB. 85 pp.

Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP). 2008. Alberta Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan 2008-2013. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Species at Risk Recovery Plan No. 15. Edmonton, AB. 68 pp.

COSEWIC. 2018. Canadian Wildlife Species at Risk. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Web site: https://wildlife-species.canada.ca/species-risk- registry/sar/assessment/wildlife_species_assessed_e.cfm [accessed 25 September 2018]

Ghost Watershed Alliance 2013. An assessment of the cumulative effects of land uses within the Ghost River watershed, Alberta, Canada. Report prepared for the GWAS by Cornel Yarmoloy and Brad Stelfox, 2013. URL: http://www.ghostwatershed.ca/GWAS/ewExternalFiles/FINAL- GWAS_Report_Jan%2025_2013.pdf/

Gibeau, M.L., Clevenger, A.P., Herrero, S., Wierzchowski, J. 2002. Grizzly bear response to human development and activities in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta, Canada. Biological Conservation 103 (2002) 227-236.

Chruszcz, B., Clevenger, A.P., Gunson, K.E., Gibeau, M.L. 2003. Relationships among grizzly bears, highways and habitat in the Banff-Bow Valley, Alberta, Canada. Can. J. Zool. 81: 1378- 1391.

McKay, T., Sahlén, E., Støen, O-G., Swenson, J.E., and Stenhouse, G.B. 2014. Wellsite selection by grizzly bears Ursus arctos in west-central Alberta. Wildlife Biology 20: 310-391, 2014.

Stewart, B. P. et al. 2013. Quantifying grizzly bear selection of natural and anthropogenic edges. – J. Wildl. Manag. 77: 957 – 964

Neale, G., B. Held, P. Denney. 2007. Sundre Forest Products Mountain Pine Beetle Action Plan. Submitted to the Government of Alberta as part of Forest Management Plan.

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. 2018. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment for the 2021 NGTL System Expansion Project: Section 9 Fish and Fish Habitat. Prepared by Wood June, 2018. 47 pp.

Maskwacis Cree –L3RP Written -2015 p.11

Samson Cree Nation. 2018. NEB Oral Traditional Evidence Westpath Delivery System Volume 2 – A619Y8.

100

16. HUNTING AND WILDLIFE HABITAT FRAGMENTATION

16.1 SCN PRIORITIES FOR HUNTING AND WILDLIFE HABITAT

Sustainable populations of preferred wildlife species are an essential enabling factor for the practice of SCN hunting and harvesting rights. Wildlife including waterfowl, moose, elk, deer, beaver and muskrat are critically important for subsistence needs and cultural uses (SCN 2015). SCN members have expressed serious concerns about existing disturbance to wildlife, plants and medicines due to loss of habitat and habitat fragmentation (Olsen et al. 2015, p. 38):

And a lot of our plants are disturbed, our trees, our animals, our—look at what’s happening to our animals. You know, like, they don’t know where to go to—their security is no longer there. Even our security is no longer there. (Olson et al. 2015, S11)

In addition to declines in abundance, SCN members are also concerned about contamination of food and medicine from agriculture, industrial forestry and right of way vegetation management, especially for moose and ducks and other birds. (Samson Cree Nation 2019)

At one time there was a lot of pheasants in the area, but I haven’t seen one for years now—probably due to the spraying of the fields. And they eat the dead bugs and a lot of the birds too ... You see less and less for how many years now, I’ve noticed. Meadowlark, you don’t see hardly any of them anymore. There are a few in the area, but not very many. There are different kinds of birds that get poisoned from all the spraying ... They kill the bugs when they spray, and then when they eat the bugs, they’re gone ... And even now—I’m talking about now—even the counties spray along the ditches to kill the trees ... And along the railroad track, they spray that and that gets rid of a lot of the smaller animals and birds. And all through the country out there—all the cultivating—there’s hardly any place for the wildlife. It’s getting less and less … The spraying ... It’s one of the main concerns. And the wildlife in through those places. It doesn’t matter where you go around where there’s farmers, there’s hardly any place for animals to be anymore. (S01 2014– in Olsen et al. 2015)

SCN members are concerned that access to preferred hunting areas is increasingly difficult (Samson Cree Nation 2015). The availability of moose, elk, birds, and other preferred species has been dramatically declining and the expansion of grazing leases, pre-emption of land for settlement and industrial development has made accessing preferred species very challenging.

There was a lot of trails at the time—wagon trails, horse trails, horseback riding trails… And these are the areas that I, myself, travel a lot. Looking on both sides where my ancestors had once roamed with the buffalos and with the game—with the species—they live on wild game. Still today I’m into that—wild game. It’s getting scarce to get a treat because of all the fences, all the highways, all the white people claiming it’s their land. (Olson et al. 2015, S08)

101

Hunting and Wildlife Habitat Current Status and Degree of Change Over Time

• Bison, a Cultural keystone species was extirpated in the late 1880s and currently only exist within protected areas in SCN territory. They were decimated by loss of habitat and over-harvesting (see Bison VC for more detail). SCN members are no longer able to hunt bison, but harvest would likely return should populations recover. • Boreal caribou were also historically abundant in SCN traditional territory (see Caribou VC). Caribou have been in decline in recent decades. For the past 13 years the Little Smokey herd has declined in number and given close to 95% of their core range is disturbed, they too are facing likely extirpation. SCN members are no longer able to hunt caribou, but harvest would likely return should populations recover. • SCN ancestors hunted elk through use of pounds west of Red Deer on the Red Deer River Flats (Fromhold 2011). Although elk populations in Alberta are likely stable, the distribution of Elk in SCN territory has been altered by land use and SCN members noted that they have to travel much further to find elk than in the past (Samson Cree Nation 2015). • SCN members note that preferred species are declining in SCN preferred harvesting areas and members have to travel much farther to find healthy animals (Samson Cree Nation 2015). • SCN members have noted a decline in moose in SCN hunting areas (Samson Cree Nation 2015). Western scientists have raised concerns that moose are declining across the boreal forest. Moose populations are known to be declining in several boreal WMUs within Alberta (J. Castle, C. Found, L. Vander Vennen, Alberta Environment and Parks, unpublished data in Bjorge et al. 2018). • The uptake of private land for settlement and agriculture have made it impossible for Samson Cree members to reliably hunt over most of their territory east of the foothills and much of the territory west of the foothills (Samson Cree Nation 2015). • SCN confidence in the health of animals in the vicinity of the Project, other Right of Ways, industrial forest areas and agricultural areas is vulnerable due to observed or perceived contamination risk (particularly moose and ducks).

In ’98 when I killed a moose there, I skinned it ... I took the meat, but I had to get rid of it because ... there were pores inside the skin, you know like sores. I’m sure it was affected by something. It wasn’t good—something happened there. So, we just cut it up, bagged it up, and I told my late mom, I said, “Go bury it some place or burn it— that’s a sick animal.” And that’s what’s going to happen because of what the companies are doing—they’re going to kill the animals. (S07 2014 – in Olsen et al. 2015)

16.2 CAUSE OF CHANGE IN WILDLIFE HABITAT HEALTH STATUS AND HUNTING

Habitat loss is a major concern to SCN. Road, rail, linear features, pipelines, seismic and other linear features have proliferated in past decades. NGTL estimates that 38% of the NGTL wildlife RSA is currently affected by anthropogenic disturbance (not including fire) (NGTL

102

2018) and disturbances are predicted to continue to expand in the future development scenario.

Habitat fragmentation is of high concern for SCN members. The suitability of habitat and native vegetation changes with the proximity of human land use activities (ABMI 2017). 50% of Samson Territory impacted by seismic lines alone. Most of Samson Cree territory is within 500m of a pipeline or road edge. Very little intact interior habitat remains in the Project effected area. Land use edge is created by anthropogenic disturbance. According to Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, “These edges can fragment habitat, create movement barriers or filters, contribute to invasive species expansion, and increase mortality or predation rates.” (2008, 27).

Figure 3: Graphic depiction of density of pipelines in Alberta based on data from 2019.

103

104

Agricultural herbicide and pesticide spraying. Industrial forestry and Right of Way management frequently includes spraying of herbicides and pesticides. SCN Community members noted a concern regarding the effects of spraying increasing with the expansion of pipelines (Samson Cree Nation 2015).

Access hunting pressure increase in association with the proliferation of pipeline routes, forestry roads, seismic lines and other linear features. Linear features increase wildlife mortality from hunting, poaching and human-wildlife conflict. Hunting efficiency is increased in corridors versus more intact areas with less edge (Jalkotzy et al. 1997).

16.3 PROJECT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ON HUNTING AND HABITAT FRAGMENTATION

16.4 SUMMARY

Status of VC pre-1900: Large areas of intact wildlife habitat sustain SCN’s cultural practices and responsibilities related to hunting. Bison prolific but declining to late 1880s. Other preferred species including caribou, moose and elk with self-sustaining populations readily available in preferred harvesting areas.

Major causes of change over time: Development (particularly agriculture, forestry and ranching) has led to loss of habitat particularly for wide ranging species. Linear feature density has increased, access for hunters and predators has increased, spraying of pesticides and herbicides has increased with expansion of forestry, pipelines and agriculture.

Major outcomes of change over time: Loss of caribou and bison; declining populations of remaining preferred species in preferred areas; high levels of fragmentation in wildlife habitat.

Effects on SCN rights practices: Loss of a critically important subsistence species with cultural significance; impact to SCN rights related to hunting associated cultural practices and stewardship rights. Loss of ability to practice culture and rights related to bison and caribou.

Significance of change over time in the Pre-Project circumstance: Significant adverse effect, negative. Note that any incremental project contribution to this VC is considered significant as local populations of preferred species are already declining or extirpated. Habitat loss and fragmentation related to proliferation of linear features are beyond a threshold for sustaining preferred species particularly caribou in preferred harvesting areas.

Project-specific residual adverse effects likely: Yes, unless offsetting measures are undertaken

Total cumulative effects loading in the Project Case: Significant, given conditions at baseline. Impacts on SCN rights and cultural practice related to hunting and the associated habitat values are already significant due to conditions at baseline. Within the context of existing and ongoing impacts, residual Project effects will further erode SCN rights and cultural practice related to hunting of preferred species in preferred areas.

105

Total cumulative effects loading (all reasonably foreseeable future stressors): Project effects will likely be significant and adverse, and will act cumulatively with reasonably foreseeable developments, particularly incremental increases to habitat fragmentation and linear disturbance, and with changes in the environment including climate change, increased fires and ecosystem shifts.

16.5 WORKS CITED

ABMI 2017. The Status of Human Footprint in Alberta. Preliminary Report, 2017. Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, 2008. Alberta Southern East Slopes Integrated Land Management Pilot Project. Prepared by the ASPEN group: Brad Stelfox, Mark Anielski, Matt Carlson, Terry Antoniuk. September 2008.

Bjorge, r. r. d.Aanderson, E. Herdman and S. Stevens. 2018. Status and Management of Moose in the Parkland and Grassland Natural Regions of Alberta. ALCES: 54 p71-84.

Fromhold, J. The Western Cree (Pakisimotan Wi Iniwak) - Buffalo Pounds and the Donalda Pound, Alberta. Lulu.com, 2011.

Jalkotzy, M. G., Ross, P. I., and Nasserden, M. D. The effects of Linear Developments on Wildlife: A Review of Selected Scientific Literature. Report: 1-354. 1997. Calgary, Prep. for Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. Arc Wildlife Services Ltd.

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. 2018. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment for the 2021 NGTL System Expansion Project: Section 9 Fish and Fish Habitat. Prepared by Wood June, 2018. 47 pp.

106

HEALTH OF VALUED COMPONENTS: SENSE OF PLACE AND CULTURAL AND HERITAGE RESOURCES 17. SCN SENSE OF PLACE AND TRANSMISSION OF KNOWLEDGE IN THE EASTERN SLOPES

Samson Cree Nation cultural practice and associated Indigenous and Treaty rights depend on the cultural and ecological function of lands and waters, and the ability of Samson Cree members to reliably access the preferred places, resources (including species and conditions), and practices that sustain pimacihowin, or Cree way of life, including the passing on of knowledge, values, and identity from one generation to the next. SCN members continue to practice their culture and constitutionally-protected rights throughout their territory as best as they are able in the face of historic and ongoing impacts and restrictions. While still impacted in many ways, the eastern slopes of the Rockies provide some of the most ecologically and culturally functional lands and waters available to SCN members.

A critical component of ecological and cultural function is ‘sense of place’ which refers to the sensory and experiential quality of being in an environment that reinforces an ancestral connection to a landscape. Sense of Place is reliant on smells, sights, sounds, terrain and knowledge (including sense of safety or security) in a particular location and can be lost or disrupted as a result of changes in the environment (Candler et al. 2015). As described by Tim Ingold:

Through living in it, the landscape becomes a part of us, just as we become a part of it ... Human beings do not, in their movements, inscribe their life histories upon the surface of nature as do writers upon the page; rather, these histories are woven, along with the life- cycles of plants and animals, into the texture of the surface itself (Ingold 200,198).

Large intact landscapes that are culturally known and connected to use by SCN ancestors in the past, are required for the practice of SCN culture and rights. For SCN members, the integrity of cultural landscapes relies upon a number of factors, including but not limited to:

• Areas that support the desired biological diversity in the Maskwacis Cree Traditional Land Use region (e.g. landforms, species, vegetation) including important wildlife habitat and areas that enable movement of wildlife populations; • Landscapes that provide visual and cultural value; • Areas of sufficient size; • Areas providing landscape connectivity; and • Areas with little or no industrial activity. (Samson Cree Nation 2015)

Cultural Landscapes also sustain intangible cultural resources including sense of place, ability to transmit knowledge and practices, and confidence in wild foods and medicines. UNESCO

107

defines intangible cultural resources in the 2003 Convention for Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage:

… the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity. (UNESCO 2003, 2)

SCN supports and follows the International Council on Monuments and Sites (2008) Quebec Declaration in relation to the Spirit of Places:

1. Recognizing that the spirit of place is made up of tangible (sites, buildings, landscapes, routes, objects) as well as intangible elements (memories, narratives, written documents, festivals, commemorations, rituals, traditional knowledge, values, textures, colors, odors, etc.), which all significantly contribute to making place and to giving it spirit, we declare that intangible cultural heritage gives a richer and more complete meaning to heritage as a whole and it must be taken into account in all legislation concerning cultural heritage, and in all conservation and restoration projects for monuments, sites, landscapes, routes and collections of objects.

2. Because the spirit of place is complex and multiform, we demand that governments and other stakeholders call upon the expertise of multidisciplinary research teams and traditional practitioners in order to better understand, preserve and transmit the spirit of place.

3. Since the spirit of place is a continuously reconstructed process, which responds to the needs for change and continuity of communities, we uphold that it can vary in time and from one culture to another according to their practices of memory, and that a place can have several spirits and be shared by different groups. (ICMS 2008, 3).

Preservation of both intangible and tangible values associated with cultural landscapes in SCN territory is of high importance to Samson Cree Nation.

108

For SCN members, sense of place is intact where conditions are natural and where the experience of the environment is not impacted by industrial change or disturbance, or concerns regarding private property, traffic or lack of privacy. The importance of this connection to land, this “sense of place’, to the mental and physical health of individual SCN members and to the cultural survival of Samson Cree, cannot be overstated. The passing down of this connection between generations is the passing of knowledge about Samson Cree pimacihowin (“way of life” in Maskwaci Cree). Benefits from maintaining Pimacihowin include but are not limited to:

● A sense of connection and unity between SCN members

● Keeping the Maskwaci Cree language alive

● Supporting the mental and physical health and well-being of SCN youth

● Survival of cultural knowledge for future generations (SCN 2013).

In the recent and related NEB Westpath Delivery Project hearing Samson Cree members spoke of this connection and the importance of the eastern slopes in passing on knowledge from generation to generation. Elder Kenneth Saddleback described how the Rocky Mountains were his “school”:

“You know, back in the day, the Elders, some of us weren't allowed to go to university even though we got accepted, and we had to go to the mountains and, you know, it was Indian school. The Elders, they taught us how to live off the land and to honour and respect, you know, the environment. And we had good teachers because, to us, they were our professors and they taught us well ... So it's a good thing that some of us, we paid attention and we went to those mountains and we travelled this land. And those Elders, they taught us how – how to hunt, how to gather. And it doesn't matter to me – to this day, it doesn't matter where I go - even if I have to ask, you know, these private owners to allow me to pick medicine. At one time, we didn't have to. That was our freedom.” (Elder Kenneth Saddleback, Samson Cree Nation 2018).

Councillor Katherine Swampy discussed how SCN Territory is still valued and used by SCN members today:

“But for us, you know, it’s not even that far back. The map that we’ve provided you – Appendix C if you have the document, this map [Map depicting SCN traditional territory similar to Figure 1 in this Report] – this is our current traditional land use. Current as in these are our areas that we currently use, this is not traditional land use, this is just where we go and practice our culture, our traditions.” (Councillor Katherine Swampy, Samson Cree Nation 2018).

SCN members have witnessed increased industrialization of cultural landscapes at regional and local scales. Increased industrialization impacts sense of place and pushes SCN members out of preferred places for teaching and living in ways consistent with pimacihowin. SCN has

109

experienced substantial cumulative impacts to the transmission of SCN culture due to ongoing degradation and loss of preferred areas for traditional practice.

Connection to territory involves a wide number of considerations and factors. SCN members feel a connection to places where: they are culturally and personally familiar; they have learned from their relatives and elders about that place; oral histories and stories have been shared with them about the place; or where place names are tied to visual cues on the landscape that help make it navigable and knowable.

SCN members have indicated that they have in the past and continue today to use the Eastern Slopes for travel, camping, trading, harvesting and cultural activities over time, including in the LAA and RAA for the Project (Samson Cree Nation 2019). SCN members also highlight the importance of ensuring that their children, grandchildren, and future generations can continue rely on these areas, especially because so many areas further to the east have already become inaccessible due to private property, fence lines, and high levels of agricultural, residential, urban, or industrial disturbance.

As the areas closer to Maskwacis have become impaired by extensive anthropogenic change, areas to the west, which have retained at least some semblance of natural conditions, have become increasingly important to SCN members, both for their use and their integral value as places that remain ecologically and culturally functional for SCN members. More work is required to document and protect preferred places where SCN sense of place and ability to pass on knowledge is still intact and trusted for practices such as subsistence harvesting and medicinal collection.

“Where am I going to go if I want to pick plants? Where am I going to go? Where is a place that’s not disturbed, that’s clean, you know? that’s not marred by all these new inventions going on in this world, you know? The mountains is the only other place I can go now really, you know? And that’s why we go there, and that’s why we go through our ceremonies over there, because that’s reserved and nothing can be done over there. It’s a reserved place where things happen as naturally as possible.” (Olson et al. 2015, S11).

17.1 CURRENT STATUS AND DEGREE OF CHANGE OVER TIME

Privatization and disturbance of Crown land has been extensive in SCN territory (see Table x below). The area of SCN territory where members are able to retain their connection to land and can pass on their traditional knowledge has been impacted massively since signing of treaty. In 1881 private (non-Crown) lands represented only approximately 1.86% of SCN Territory (See figure # for townships surveyed for homesteading in 1881).

Figure 3 Townships surveyed for homesteading 1881

110

SOURCE: Library and Archives Canada. Department of the InteriorIndex to Townships 1881. Image n0021137k.

By 1930 approximately 69.2% had been surveyed for conversion to private lands. Figure 3 shows townships surveyed for homesteading.

Figure 4 Townships surveyed for homesteading 1930

111

SOURCE: Library and Archives Canada. Department of the Interior Index to Townships 1930. NMC 0043265

Table 3 highlights overall changes in availability of SCN lands where SCN sense of place and ability to pass on traditional knowledge has been maintained:

At signing of Treaty 6 Today (2019) (1876)

Total area of 311,446.75 km2 311,446.75 km2 Samson Cree Traditional Territory

Not applicable. Area of Samson 155.40 km2 (SAMSON 137, SAMSON 137A and PIGEON Cree territory LAKE NO 138A) (approximately 0.05% of total area) recognized as

112

At signing of Treaty 6 Today (2019) (1876)

Samson Cree Reserve lands

Area of lands where Majority of territory has been taken up by private lands. Samson Cree sense More than 95% - less Remaining crown lands are bisected by thousands of of place and ability than 2% of lands were kilometres of roads and other forms of linear to transmit taken up by private disturbance. More than 50% of Samson Cree territory is knowledge is in tact lands, and roads and within 500 meters of a linear disturbance. Remaining linear disturbance was crown lands are also subject to Forestry through Forest minimal. Management Agreements and grazing leases further restricting SCN members from SCN territory.

SCN member experience on the land within Crown portions of SCN territory (remaining intact areas) has also changed in recent decades (see Section 1 stressors timeline), including:

• Seismic events from fracking; • Changes in the visual landscape from forestry cutblocks; • Decreased confidence in the health of plants and animals due to contamination from herbicides, fungicides, and pesticides associated with forestry, pipeline ROW management, and agriculture, as well as potential contamination from oil spills; • Increased disturbance by non-indigenous land users; • Changes in availability of preferred species in preferred locations due to changes in habitat connectivity (Samson Cree Nation 2019).

17.2 CAUSES OF CHANGE IN SCN SENSE OF PLACE IN SCN TERRITORY AND THE EASTERN SLOPES

Since the 1840s, numerous stressors have constrained SCN member access to territory and sense of place (See also Table 1 in Section 1) including but not limited to:

• In-migration of settlers • Privatization of lands by the government for settlers • Increasing push of SCN members into “postage stamp” sized reserve areas, surrounded by private lands • Farming and ranching • Oil and gas development activity • Increased water diversion and contamination • Increased urbanization, town and city building • Development of an extensive road network bisecting SCN territory • Increased hunting, fishing and tree harvesting pressures by settlers

113

• Government policies restricting movement of SCN members (i.e. The Pass System) • Fundamental alterations to the visual landscape by industry, private land holders and government infrastructure development

17.3 IMPACTS OF CHANGE IN SCN SENSE OF PLACE AND TRANSMISSION OF KNOWLEDGE OVER TIME

As a result of dramatic changes over the past 150 years, SCN sense of place and ability to transmit knowledge is currently severely limited due to impacts on SCN ability to:

• pass on ecological knowledge to younger generations; • navigate through territory based on ancestral travel routes; • have confidence in country foods, including willingness to harvest from large areas of territory due to fear of contaminants; • peacefully enjoy cultural landscapes; • reliably harvest throughout most of territory - It takes much more time and effort, and often longer distances, to procure the same amount of resources from the land; • access preferred resources in the vicinity of preferred locations - including for medicines and other plants used for cultural purposes; and • maintain SCN Cultural Health.

17.4 PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ON SCN SENSE OF PLACE IN THE EASTERN SLOPES

The above noted impacts are ongoing and anticipated to continue into the foreseeable future. The Project will increase the extent of industrial disturbance in portions of SCN territory. The Project will reduce the amount of intact Crown land that is still ecologically and culturally functional. The Project will further alienate SCN members from highly valued Crown lands in SCN traditional territory and impair the sense of place and ability to transmit knowledge in these areas. Project effects coupled with ongoing impact of past developments and colonial institutions, continued forestry operations, and growing non-Indigenous populations are likely to result increasing impacts to already rare intact Crown lands where SCN sense of place and transmission of knowledge can occur.

17.4.1 Further Fragmentation of and Changes in Access to SCN Cultural Landscapes

The Project will contribute additional linear disturbance which compounds existing and future planned pipelines and roads. The Project will also add to an already substantial loss of Crownlands (>60% of SCN territory) removing access to important SCN cultural sites. Future oil and gas projects and other developments will act in concert with existing impacts to further fragmentation of SCN cultural landscapes.

114

17.5 SUMMARY

Status of VC pre-1900: Impacted as a result of colonial regulations, but otherwise largely intact. Approximately 95% of territory available to SCN as Crown lands.

Major causes of change over time: Colonization, privatization for Euro-Canadian settlement of the prairies and uptake of land for agriculture; development of energy industry; emergence of industrial forestry, construction of network of roads and other linear disturbance.

Major outcomes of change over time: Restrictions of movement and enjoyment of territory; limitations on the practice of SCN rights; impacts to SCN culture.

Effects on SCN rights practices: Decrease in harvesting success; restrictions on accessing specific resources in preferred areas; decline in ability to travel through much of SCN territory.

Significance of change over time in the Pre-Project circumstance: high magnitude, significant and negative

Total cumulative effects loading in the Project Case: In combination with past and current impacts, as well as changes in the environment, and reasonably foreseeable projects, Project effects on SCN sense of place and transmission of knowledge will be significant and adverse. Reasonably foreseeable projects including: future pipelines, fracking, and ongoing forestry operations, climate change, drying of wet areas, increased fires will further limit SCN member sense of place.

17.6 WORKS CITED

Candler, Craig et al. 2015. Wîyôw’tan’kitaskino (Our Land is Rich): A Mikisew Cree Culture and Rights. Prepared for Mikisew Cree First Nation Government and Industry Relations

Ingold, Tim. 1992. "Culture and the perception of the environment". Bush Base: Forest Farm. 39-56: https://leiaarqueologia.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/the-perception-of-the- environment-tim-ingold.pdf

International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICMS). 2008. Quebec Declaration on the Preservation of the Spirit of Place. Adopted at Québec, Canada, October 4th 2008. Accessible at https://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-646-2.pdf

Samson Cree Nation (SCN). 2015. Samson Maskwacis Cree Cultural Impact Assessment & Recommendations Report for the Written Submission NEB Regulatory Submission L3RP. 27p

115

Samson Cree Nation (SCN). 2018. NEB Oral Testimony for the West Path Delivery Project. In Hearing Transcript 18-10-17 Volume 2 – A619Y8.

Samson Cree Nation (SCN). 2019. Notes from Chief’s luncheon and community verification meeting for NGTL 2021 Project Cumulative Effects Assessment April 4, 2019. Maskwacis, Alberta.

UNESCO. 2003. Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage 2003: Paris, 17 October 2003, Accessible at http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php- URL_ID=17716&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

116

18. CULTURE AND HERITAGE RESOURCES

18.1 PRIORITY CULTURE AND HERITAGE RESOURCES FOR SCN

For Samson Cree Nation members, the Eastern slopes of the Rockies are filled with stories, cultural places, and ancestral connections that work together with the physical environment to form a cultural landscape. Cultural landscapes and intangible cultural heritage resources are strongly connected to physical heritage resources; however, cultural landscapes are a crucial element of SCN sense of place and are therefore discussed in the section on sense of place.

SCN members describe the entire area as “Nehiyaw (Cree or indigenous) territory”, in that Cree families travelled through this area without restrictions or borders, and Samson Cree Nation members continue to see the area as fundamental to Cree identity and rights practice. Having places that provide cultural connection and continuity is critical to Samson Cree Nation Members; as one member explained:

“Well, it's a really cool feeling because I know for a fact, based on our history, our forefathers also roamed this area… Yeah. That was a real—that feeling you have come over you—it's not really stepping back in time, but it's this feeling of connection—that you have towards the land and knowing that your forefathers were there.” (Olson et al. 2015)

Culture and heritage resources important to Samson Cree Nation members within the Eastern Slopes of the Rockies, and within the Project area, include, but are not limited to:

• Historic and Important Trails; • Burial Sites /Gravesites; • Camps, Cabins and Cabin Remains; • Historic Sites; • Oral History Sites and teaching areas; • Ceremonial, Plant, and Mineral Gathering Sites; • Sweat Lodge and Sundance Sites; • Buffalo and Elk Pounds; and • Cultural Landscapes

117

Samson Cree access to many currently and historically important places is already severely impacted as a result of cumulative effects from a range of colonial and industrial influences. SCN is working to preserve SCN identity, stewardship roles, and responsibilities through the protection of SCN Culture and Heritage in order to protect a culture, a people, and to avoid cultural genocide (SCN 2015a).

18.1.1 Historic and Important Trails:

Trails and travel routes were used extensively in the past by SCN families and remain important cultural features for guiding land use and teaching younger generations. Samson Cree ancestors travelled throughout the territory through a network of trails, including several that transect the Project Area and intersect with the proposed route. Figure # shows some of the historically document trails along the McLeod River in the Project Area.

Figure #: Historic Trails in proximity to the Edson Robb Loop SOURCE:3 Mile Sectional Maps- Brule Sheet 1916. (Highlights added) Available at: http://libdata.ucalgary.ca/public/mapscans/sectional_jpgs/N029977.jpg

118

The Palliser expedition in 1858 followed existing Indigenous trails, Figure # shows trails along the south fork of the North Saskatchewan where the Edson Brewster loop will be intersecting the river.

Figure # Close up of 1858 Palliser Map of the Rocky Mountains [Colour added post map production -not by author] Source: Digitized from the William C. Wonders Collection, University of Alberta, 2011.

Samson member Traditional Knowledge about trails and travel routes is an important component of Samson cultural heritage as trails provide ongoing connections to the Cree cultural landscape and are often closely associated with SCN burial sites and other SCN Culture and Heritage resources.

18.1.2 Burial Sites/ Grave Sites:

Given the extent of use in the Region by SCN ancestors and the network of trails, it is likely that unknown or unrecorded burials and historical resources are located within the Project area. Historically, when a member died along the trail network system, the burial was done immediately on the spot, as such many burial sites remain unmarked (Samson Cree Nation 2015a) except through oral history. Burial sites are sacred to SCN and need to be protected and respected.

119

18.1.3 Sacred Sites/Ceremonial Sites

The ability to continue accessing the places used by ancestors is a key part of the practice of Pimacihowin. SCN members have highlighted the importance of engaging with the land and its history of use by SCN ancestors as a means of passing down SCN cultural knowledge, history, and language.

“I’ve always had an interest in land - that was my concern growing up. My mother was a very strong advocate in land… both of them were very cultural, my mother and father. And they had that connection I keep talking about, and we’ve continued to say that, because that’s what our people had, was to the land, was that connection…I believe that people should be hearing this very important history from their own culture, because I believe it’s very important that my children know this, and my grandsons get to know this.” (Olson et al. 2015 interview)

SCN members are concerned that youth are in danger of losing their traditional way of life in part due to disturbance of sacred areas and ceremonial sites. There are several sacred sites within the Project area including ceremonial locations occurring between Hinton and Edson (Samson Cree Nation 2015b).

18.1.4 Stone Rings, Cairns, Tipi Rings and Medicine Wheels

Stone feature sites are culturally and historically significant for SCN members. According to Samson Elders, stone rings are associated with spirit and medicine and have a high potential to have gravesites near them. Medicine wheels are connected to Creation Stories and related stories of SCN identity and must be protected where discovered. According to Samson Elders Tipi rings are also connected to Samson identity (SCN 2015b). Tipi rings demonstrate how ancestors followed the buffalo throughout SCN territory as one SCN member recounted:

“So there’s sacred sites that were everywhere. There’s tipi rings everywhere, and there’s people from the United States that have ceremonial sites also into Canada over here. Because the buffalo were migrating, and that’s what they followed. That’s all this life that we’re talking about—it’s also the life of people coming in and following the herd. And that’s what this is—buffalo country…” (Olson et al. 2015 interview).

Cairns are also high priority sites identified by Samson Elders as important for ceremony and prayer and integral to passing on oral history (Samson Cree Nation 2015a).

18.1.5 Buffalo Pounds and Elk Pounds

As SCN ancestors hunted buffalo throughout SCN territory, buffalo pounds can also be found throughout. Maskwaci / Rocky Mountain Cree hunted buffalo differently than the Blackfoot and Peigan. While other groups herded buffalo through buffalo jumps/over cliffs, SCN ancestors constructed pounds (SCN 1980). Buffalo Pounds are historically, spiritually, and culturally important:

120

“They used to build the pound - towards where the door was they made a hole in the ground and when they went to hunt and look for the buffalo there were elders that would sing inside that hole. It was not done for nothing when they made the buffalo pound. The person who built the pound was given gifts to make this, is what the elders said. And the one who would go get the buffalo, sometimes one or two, was not for nothing either, they knew what they were doing to call the buffalo and to get the buffalo. And the night before they would go to get the buffalo they would go into that vault where there would be a pipe ceremony and they were given food, special food, and then they would leave. One, maybe two, over where they found the buffalo. They would wave at them and then run and the buffalo would chase them. They were called the ones who would get the buffalo. And the one who was on the look out he could see from a long distance and when he seen them coming from the distance he would run down as well. As they were coming down that hill, they would have the ones, they were called the ones who were left there and as the buffalo came by they would emerge so they wouldn’t run off the path, they would go in the right direction and follow each other towards the pound. And the pound, here is what the Elders said, they are something like these corrals modern day corrals is where they were chasing them towards that direction. And over where the entrance is there was a ramp where logs were tied together, and they would run up that thing then they would jump inside the pound with very high walls so they couldn’t jump over. The trees were very close together. There was another exit on the other side, another opening where they would take out the meat and hides. This was what I had heard from the elders.” (Interview with Elder Louis Sunchild, in SCN1980).

Ancestors that could build pounds are also considered powerful: “The making of pounds was not done for nothing, the person who built the pound was gifted and if it wasn’t done properly the buffalo would not enter the pound. Some were told about who would transform/shift shape. They were powerful and given powerful skills. At the time the land was very clean.” (Interview with Elder Louis Sunchild in SCN1980).

Oral histories of buffalo pounds and the ancestors who built them remain highly valued by SCN members, as are the places associated with them.

Dempsey’s (2010) examination of post records notes that buffalo hunts occurred south of the North Saskatchewan River but could vary depending on each seasons weather and fire regime. SCN Culture and Heritage department have a letter from Rocky Mountain Cree Chief and SCN Ancestor Maskepetoon, written in syllabics, remarking on paying 160 buffalo for his son to learn English, it is SCN’s understanding that this letter was written from the Eastern Slopes of the Rockies (SCN 2019). While SCN ancestors may have travelled farther away from the foothills when bison were in decline (1860’s to 1880s) and harder to find, during stable population levels SCN ancestors would have been able to hunt closer to the Eastern Slopes of

121

the Rockies (Dempsey 2010; SCN 2019). Fromhold (2011) also confirms the distribution of bison pounds in Alberta is concentrated in the western portion of Samson Cree territory. Figure # shows known locations of bison pounds in Alberta including sites west of Red Deer.

Figure # Bison Pound locations in Alberta. Source: Fromhold (2011).

18.2 CURRENT STATUS OF SCN CULTURE AND HERITAGE AND DEGREE OF CHANGE OVER TIME

In the past, SCN members were not consulted when significant artifacts were found and destroyed. Burial sites for SCN ancestors have been excavated and removed without even notification to SCN (SCN 2015a). SCN maintains that past, and potentially future, disruption or destruction of sites of cultural significance has a permanent effect on Samson Cree Nation culture and heritage that is passed down to younger generations (Energy East Pipeline Ltd.

122

2016). For SCN members data collection is not appropriate mitigation for SCN culture and heritage resources as members have expressed that:

“...when they mitigate a site, it’s no longer the same. They take everything out of that site. The only real – the only real thing – the only real evidence you have is a recorded evidence of a site that has been mitigated. And they’re no longer there. They’re gone.” (Energy East Pipeline Ltd. 2016, 16).

Cultural sites are tied to teachings and SCN identity. Elder Louis Sunchild described how future generations need to be taught how things were done in the past:

“There is so much that we have to tell our children. Maybe in the future some of these skills might be needed again. For all that we see that is happening today it is going to be very difficult in the future with all the changes we have seen. We have to mention and remember these skills. How to be able to hunt and the people of the past knew how to take care of themselves and to attain food. They have to be discussed because when you think about it these things like meat and how the animals are fed today they are given all kinds of things that are poisonous. For example all the roots and berries that were used for food and nutrition and what types of meats were attained to make pemmican and these are many things that should be discussed. All of the growth on the land is beneficial to people and the person who knows about getting these has a lot of knowledge; these are things that are very good to discuss.” (Elder Louis Sunchild, Samson Cree Nation1980).

With loss of Crown lands, SCN members have experienced alienation through restrictions on access to cultural sites and heritage values. One member described the “fences” that have barred SCN members from the practice of SCN Culture and Rights:

“When the Creator put us here, our Indian countries from the east to the west, north to the south—that was our country. We lived freely. We survived by animals— animal skins, buffalo hides, moose hide, elk hide was our house … Now today we can’t even go over beyond this. There’s fences all over ... If you go over that fence without permission, the owners—the so-called owners of the land can shoot us. There’s not a thing we can do. (Olson et al. 2015, S08)

To make matters worse, increased linear disturbance has fragmented the remaining sites and landscapes SCN members still have access to.

123

18.3 CAUSE OF CHANGE

• Disruption to physical cultural and heritage resources through habitat and ground disturbance from forestry, oil & gas, and infrastructure (e.g. roads) development. • Archaeological research, tied to development, undertaken without adequate engagement with SCN and resulting in destruction and removal of cultural property from SCN lands (SCN 2015a) • Fragmentation of cultural landscapes through habitat loss and linear disturbance (pipelines, roads, transmission lines). • Alienation and changes in access to important cultural sites due to impacts on crown land (e.g. privatization, forestry, agriculture, grazing, etc.) (Olson et al. 2015; SCN 2019).

18.4 PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ON CULTURE AND HERITAGE RESOURCES

Project impacts on SCN cultural and heritage resources have not yet been adequately identified but are likely adverse. Few Samson Cree Nation Culture and Heritage sites have been shared or mapped. As SCN Ancestors travelled throughout SCN traditional territory there are important cultural and heritage sites throughout the Eastern Slopes of the Rockies. Heritage resource studies conducted by industry (forestry and oil and gas) indicate the high likelihood of Indigenous heritage resources being located in the Project area.

Heritage resource planning is now a requirement for Forest Management plans in Alberta (See Government of Alberta 2019). The Weyerhauser, and West Fraser Mills Forest Management Agreements overlap the Project Area. Weyerhauser predictive modelling indicates a moderate to high likelihood of heritage resources occurring along the south fork of North Saskatchewan River and Brazeau River within the Weyerhauser FMA (Weyerhauser Company Ltd. 2005). West Fraser Mills have reported the likelihood of numerous historical resources existing along the McLeod River and its tributaries between Edson and Hinton (SFIL 2007).

The Proponent has acknowledged the high likelihood of cultural and heritage resources occurring within the Project RSA, “The potential for undiscovered historical resources is high within the HRLSA based on the numerous high potential areas delineated within the Listing and the landforms, which are observable on aerial imagery and NTS maps along the Project route (NGTL 2018 p. 17-32). SCN is concerned that the Project will harm yet unknown SCN Culture and Heritage resources. Data recovery is not acceptable mitigation as damage to SCN culture and heritage resources needs to be avoided. Additionally, future projects and ongoing forestry practices are likely to further disturb SCN physical culture and heritage resources as engagement with SCN to identify and protect these resources have been minimal.

124

18.5 SUMMARY

Status of VC at 1900: Highly valued sites undisturbed. Intact cultural landscapes sustaining SCN’s cultural practices.

Major causes of change over time: Development (particularly agriculture, forestry, ranching and roads) led to fragmentation of landscapes required to support culture and rights. Important sites disturbance by extensive land conversion and industrial land use.

Major outcomes of change over time: SCN Culture and Heritage resources removed or destroyed without SCN knowledge or permission. Reduced access to critically important places for the practice rights and access to important places constrained.

Effects on SCN rights practices: Loss of critically important places, stories, teachings, and properties required for Culture and Rights. Impacts to ability to pass on SCN history, values, and culture to future generations.

Existing condition: Significant adverse effect, negative.

Project-specific residual adverse effects likely: Yes, mitigation measures proposed are unlikely to be effective and do not address SCN concerns regarding cultural and heritage resources.

Total cumulative effects loading in the Project Case: Significant, given conditions at baseline. Impacts on SCN rights and cultural practice related to ceremony, harvesting, identity and history are significant due to conditions at baseline. Within the context of existing and ongoing impacts, residual Project effects will further erode SCN rights and cultural practice related to culture and heritage resources and culture and rights practices tied to cultural landscapes.

Total cumulative effects loading: Project effects will likely be significant and adverse, and will act cumulatively with reasonably foreseeable developments, particularly incremental increases to habitat fragmentation and linear disturbance, loss of SCN access to Crown land ongoing and future disturbance (including escalating climate change impacts) to known and unrecorded SCN culture and heritage resources.

18.6 WORKS CITED

Dempsey, Hugh A. 2010. Maskepetoon: Leader, Warrior, Peacemaker. Surrey, B.C.: Heritage House, 2010.

Energy East Pipeline Ltd. V25_Mitigation_Tables_Prairies_Region_9of9 - A5A9T3.pdf.

Fromhold, J. n.d. Alberta History - The Old North Trail (Cree Trail), 15,000 Years of Indian History: 1750-1822. Lulu.com, n.d.

125

Fromhold, J. 2011. The Western Cree (Pakisimotan Wi Iniwak) - Buffalo Pounds and the Donalda Pound, Alberta. Lulu.com, 2011.

Government of Alberta. 2019. Forest management plans. Accessible at: https://www.alberta.ca/forest-management-plans.aspx

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd (NGTL). 2018. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment for the 2021 NGTL System Expansion Project

Samson Cree Nation. 1980. Joe Tootoosis and Louis Sunchild Interview.

Samson Cree Nation (SCN). 2015a. Samson Maskwacis Cree Cultural Impact Assessment & Recommendations Report for the Written Submission NEB Regulatory Submission L3RP. 27p

Samson Cree Nation (SCN). 2015b. Traditional Land Use Report: Interim Report for Samson Cree Nation’s (SCN) Traditional Land Use Study for Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP).

Samson Cree Nation (SCN). 2019. Notes from Chief’s luncheon and community verification meeting for NGTL 2021 Project Cumulative Effects Assessment April 4, 2019. Maskwacis, Alberta.

Sundance Forest Industries LTD (SFIL). 2007. Forestry Management Plan. Accessible at: https://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/formain15771/$file/Sundance_FM P_07.pdf?OpenElement

Weyerhauser Company Ltd. 2005. Detailed Forest Management Plan: 2000-2017. Accessible at: https://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/formain15769/$file/Vol_1_dra yton_valley.pdf?OpenElement

126

CONCLUSIONS

The summary of current status of valued components in base case (Table X) illustrations a total that all VCs are already impaired in the base case (current status). This base case considers the context for each VC from pre-1900 conditions. Based on SCN knowledge and given the alteration in land use and significant pressures outlined in the cumulative effects’ timeline in Section 1 of this document, significant project effects on all selected SCN VCs are clear.

Prior to the signing of Treaty 6, Samson Cree members - Samson Cree ancestors - had access to plentiful natural resources in the Eastern Slopes and throughout Samson Cree traditional territory and a full suite of the factors that have been outlined for enabling the full practice of Aboriginal rights. Water was readily available from rivers, streams and lakes. Fish could be harvested at all times of the year. Bison, caribou and other preferred species critical for food, shelter and trade goods were readily available in preferred harvesting areas. The heart of the Samson Cree social economy was intact. Samson Cree could travel freely throughout their territory, camping where the game could be found and traveling back and forth to larger village sites. The laws and norms that have governed Cree peoples since time immemorial allowed for survival and continuity over time and space. Cree cultural practices, traditions and language were very strong.

After 1900, this all began to change, in often rapid and often extremely damaging ways (to Cree and to the lands they depend upon). Our current base case or the status of the SCN VCs today is placed into the context of significant changes to the land and the enabling factors over time. When Project effects are placed into the context of foreseeable future Projects, environmental factors such as climate change among other factors (see Section 1: Stressors) cumulative effects are also adverse and significant for all SCN Valued Components.

All told, a list of some of the cumulative effects (Including existing stressors,Project impacts and reasonably foreseeable future stressors) on Samson Cree include: • Significant erosion of ability of SCN members to access a diversity of plant communities and associated Culturally Important Plants due to changes in distribution of vegetation cover and availability (including distance required to travel for rare species) of culturally important plants to SCN members • Significant cumulative impacts to pollinators due to declines in habitat availability and habitat condition which in turn will impact the status of culturally important plants where strong associations exist. • Significant cumulative impacts to wetland abundance and function due to fragmentation and changes in climate which in turn will have significant impacts to VCs tied to wetland health such as culturally important plants amd keystone species. • Significant cumulative impacts to SCN member confidence in water quality and quantity due to changes in natural drainage patterns over time, in the project-case, and in the foreseeable future.

127

• Significant cumulative impacts to availability of SCN preferred fish populations due to declines in quality and quantity of fish habitat. • Significant cumulative impacts to the Little Smoky Caribou herd due to degradation of habitat to an unsustainable level. • Significant cumulative effects to bison from historical over-exploitation and habitat loss with effective extirpation in SCN territory in the base case. Project and cumulative habitat fragmentation will likely prevent bison habitat recovery. • BEARS • Significant cumulative effects to SCN hunting due to habitat loss, fragmentation, and changes in the health and status of SCN preferred populations • Significant cumulative effects to SCN Sense of place due to continued and future degradation and alienation of SCN members from highly valued Crown lands. • Significant cumulative effects to SCN physical culture and heritage resources due to existing, Project, and foreseeable future disturbance and or removal.

This work should be considered preliminary based on the limited budget and time available for the study and based on information readily available for a desktop review. If proponent and/or regulators have a different understanding from the one outlined in this review further work should be undertaken with Samson Cree Nation.

128

Table X: Summary of current status of valued components in base case

Valued Status of VC at pre- Major causes of change overtime Major outcomes of change over Effects on SCN rights practices Component industrial baseline (1900 from pre-industrial baseline time AD)

Culturally Relatively pristine, Conversion of land to The diversity of plants available Reduced access to and confidence Important Plants mixedwood upland anthropogenic disturbance for cultural use, relative in medicinal and food plants in the forest, grassland and (forestry, roads, pipelines, ROWs, abundance, and health has been Project-affected area. wetland complexes with invasive species, grazing leases, declining in recent decades. rich cultural plant climate change and drying of wet biodiversity. areas, spraying of herbicides and pesticides, localized spills and contamination from oil and gas.

Pollinators Abundant Habitat loss and fragmentation Decrease in key species Relative Impacts to medicinal plants and due to forestry, agricultural Abundance (i.e. >30% decline in impacts to other culturally development, roads, urban Western bumblebee RA, See important plants (e.g., berries) development, energy COSEWIC 2014). Decrease in development, parasites from Proportional Abundance (PA) in commercial honeybees, last decade for Yellow-Banded contamination from Bumble Bee >66%. pesticides, more recently climate change.

Wetlands Wetlands abundant and Agricultural and urban expansion, Loss of number of wetlands and Impacts to medicinal plants; intact forestry, oil and gas exploration wetland function (e.g., water impacts to culturally important and development, mining, roads, filtration, biodiversity, habitat for plants (e.g., berries); impacts to fragmentation, and more recently rare species) keystone species’ habitats; climate change. impacts to wildlife; water sources; and flood mitigations.

129

Valued Status of VC at pre- Major causes of change overtime Major outcomes of change over Effects on SCN rights practices Component industrial baseline (1900 from pre-industrial baseline time AD)

Water quantity Few impacts on water Large dams (especially W.A.C. Decreased water quality, Low confidence in the quality of and quality quantity and flow Bennett Dam in Peace River), alterations to natural flow water for drinking (while regimes as rivers within forestry, agriculture, industrial patterns, loss of habitat for practicing rights on the land); affected watersheds development (oil and gas, aquatic species. potential negative impacts on were undammed with no transportation projects), climate wetland hydrology impacting low industrial-scale water- change. flows contribute to drying of wet taking. Water quality areas. much higher due to smaller population, less intense agriculture, and less industry pressure.

Fish and Fish SCN preferred species of Habitat degradation from Five of the 17 SCN preferred fish Loss of valued species; loss of key Habitat management concern agriculture, urbanization, forestry species documented in the RSA resources required to support were likely abundant and energy industries; habitat are considered to be of other traditional practices. prior to disturbance. fragmentation from stream management concern. Bull trout, crossings; overharvesting from lake sturgeon, rainbow trout, and commercial and/or sport-fishing; Arctic grayling populations have interactions with introduced experienced declines of up to 70%, species; and climate change. relative to the pre-1960 population size. Population declines for these species are anticipated to continue under current conditions.

Caribou Woodland caribou Habitat loss, fragmentation, and Range contraction northwards; SCN hunted caribou and used populations were degradation; changes in predator- population levels have decreased them for a variety of purposes, considered stable. Total prey dynamics; climate change. precipitously over the last several including food and cultural population count was decades, particularly in the 1940s, practices. This right is no longer unknown Woodland and again since the 1970s. practiced as caribou populations caribou range extended are very low at this time.

130

Valued Status of VC at pre- Major causes of change overtime Major outcomes of change over Effects on SCN rights practices Component industrial baseline (1900 from pre-industrial baseline time AD)

further south than current southern extent.

Bison Pre 1870 populations Over-exploitation; habitat loss. Effectively extirpated with Long-standing impacts to SCN numbered in the millions exception of a small number of culture and harvesting. within the historical herds managed in National Parks. range.

Grizzly Bear Self-sustaining grizzly Development (particularly Declining grizzly bear populations Decline in a highly spiritually and bear populations agriculture, forestry, ranching and outside of protected areas; high culturally valued species within throughout the project roads) has led to loss of secure SCN concern due to spiritual SCN territory, loss of SCN ability area and SCN territory, habitat and increased human-bear importance of grizzly bears; to effectively practice rights and sustaining SCN’s cultural conflict. Mortality caused by impact to SCN rights related to stewardship role for this VC. practices and poaching, accidental collisions grizzly bears (harvesting and responsibilities related to with highway vehicles or trains, stewardship rights). this species. self-defence kills, and black bear hunters mistakenly identifying grizzly bears as black bears.

Hunting and Likely intact ecosystems Development (particularly Declining populations of preferred Loss of a critically important Habitat sustaining SCN’s cultural agriculture, forestry and ranching) species; high SCN concern due to subsistence species with cultural Fragmentation practices and has led to fragmentation of reliance on species for cultural significance; impact to SCN rights responsibilities related to habitat particularly for wide practices and subsistence; high related to hunting associated hunting. Bison prolific ranging species. Linear feature levels of fragmentation in wildlife cultural practices and stewardship but declining late 1880s. density has increased, access for habitat. rights. Other preferred species hunters and predators has including caribou, moose increased, spraying of pesticides and elk self-sustaining and herbicides has increased with

131

Valued Status of VC at pre- Major causes of change overtime Major outcomes of change over Effects on SCN rights practices Component industrial baseline (1900 from pre-industrial baseline time AD)

populations readily expansion of forestry and available in preferred agriculture. harvesting areas. Habitat relatively intact subject to disturbance by bison and fire.

Sense of Place Impacted as a result of Colonization, privatization for Restrictions of movement and Decrease in harvesting success; colonial regulations, but Euro-Canadian settlement of the enjoyment of territory; limitations restrictions on accessing specific otherwise largely in-tact. prairies and uptake of land for on the practice of SCN rights; resources in preferred areas; Approximately 95% of agriculture; development of impacts to SCN culture. decline in ability to travel through territory available to SCN energy industry; emergence of much of SCN territory. as Crown lands. industrial forestry, construction of network of roads and other linear disturbance.

Cultural Intact cultural Development (particularly SCN Culture and Heritage Loss of critically important places, Heritage and landscapes sustaining agriculture, forestry, ranching and resources removed or destroyed stories, teachings, and properties Resources SCN’s cultural practices. roads) led to fragmentation of without SCN knowledge or required for Culture and Rights. Highly valued sites landscapes required to support permission. Reduced access to Impacts to ability to pass on SCN undisturbed. culture and rights. Important sites critically important places for the history, values, and culture to disturbance by extensive land practice rights and access to future generations. conversion and industrial land use. important places constrained.

132

Table X: Rights enabling factors current status summary.

Rights “enabling factors” Status in Project effected area

Healthy populations of fish, game and culturally Health and abundance of preferred important plants in preferred harvesting areas; species of fish, culturally important plants and wildlife are impaired in SCN territory (See Environment and Wildlife VCs). Intact areas with healthy populations are increasingly rare and at risk.

Ability to maintain traditional land tenure and SCN ability to practice stewardship and governance systems; land tenure in the traditional territory has been impaired by cumulative effects (see Environment, Wildlife and Cultural Rights VCs, also see summary of stressors in Section 1: Background).

Clean and plentiful water from natural sources Perceptions of contamination due to oil on the land; spills, spraying of herbicides, fungicides and pesticides, extensive agricultural and grazing areas and settlement contribute to a lack of SCN confidence in clean water in the Eastern Foothills of SCN Territory and the Project effected area.

Adequate, safe and well-known routes of Trails and preferred travel routes are access and transportation; impacted by cumulative effects of pipelines, roads, seismic lines, railway and land pre-emption for settlement and agriculture (See Cultural Rights and Sense of Place VCs).

An adequate land base within which to pursue Environment and wildlife VC cumulative seasonal rounds; effects assessment demonstrate that the landbase is highly fragmented and much of the SCN territory is not accessible due to settlement, agriculture and industrial development.

Freedom from competition for access to and Increased access caused by cumulative harvesting of resources; effect of pipelines, seismic lines, roads, transmission lines and railways have contributed to readily available access for

133

Rights “enabling factors” Status in Project effected area

non-resident hunters. Competition for access for harvesting resources is quite high.

Confidence in the quality of traditional foods; Cumulative effects to fish, water, wildlife and culturally important plants have severely impaired SCN confidence in traditional foods.

Abundant berry, other food crops and As above, fragmentation, the expansion of medicines in preferred harvesting areas; industrial forestry and pipeline right of ways has limited SCN confidence in berries, medicines and culturally important plants except in more intact and remote areas of the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains.

Adequate experience of remoteness and More than half of SCN Territory is less solitude on the land; than 500m from a linear disturbance. Few intact remote areas exist in SCN preferred harvesting areas. Areas that do meet these criteria are highly valued due to the limited available intact Crown Land (less than 35% of Crown land unaffected by anthropogenic disturbance.

Adequacy of – and access to - known and SCN members continue to travel and preferred habitation sites on the land; camp in or near the Project affected area but are often limited by fenced private lands, grazing, forestry, and industry etc.

High levels of traditional knowledge of specific SCN is actively working to retain this locations and ability to pass this knowledge on knowledge despite cumulative effects in across generations; the Project Effected area. SCN is concerned that if key places continue to be damaged, destroyed, or access is lost this knowledge will be lost to future generations.

A relatively unchanged visual landscape; SCN members note dramatic changes in the landscape in preferred harvesting areas from a proliferation of fences on

134

Rights “enabling factors” Status in Project effected area

private land or grazing leases to forestry clearcuts.

A relatively “natural” non-visual sensory SCN members have been disturbed by environment, including smell, taste, and noise fracking induced seismic events within sensory conditions; and SCN Territory (near Red Deer) and the Project affected area (near Fox Creek).

Reasonable access to lands and resources SCN members have noted a need to travel accessible within constraints of time and cost. longer distances to access preferred species and spend much more time tracking the few animals that they do see when they are hunting.

135