Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Section 35 Rights Assessment Report

Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Section 35 Rights Assessment Report:

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. 2021 NGTL System Expansion Project

Prepared For: Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation

Prepared By: MNP LLP Calgary, AB

Date: April 18, 2019

Information collected for the Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Section 35 Rights Assessment Report remains the sole property of Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation. The information contained within this document is meant for a single application for the 2021 NGTL System Expansion Project only and to provide the National Energy Board and NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. with Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Project-related impacts, issues and concerns. Citation, use, or reproduction of the information contained in this document for any other purpose is permissible only with written consent from Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation.

For further information, please contact:

Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation PO Box 7 Glenevis, Alberta T0E 0X0 Phone: (780)-967-2225

Prepared by: MNP LLP, Calgary, AB

2 Study Team

REPORT AUTHORS: Jessica Kent Gail Matchullis Gillian Smith

SURVEY INTERVIEWS: Alyssa Ciaramella Jessica Kent Gail Matchullis Gillian Smith

GIS MAPPING: Mabel Bin

SENIOR REVIEW: Tracy Campbell Adena Vanderjagt (GIS)

ALEXIS NAKOTA SIOUX NATION LANDS CONSULTATION DEPARTMENT TEAM: Bridget Bull Duane Kootenay Ryan McQuilter

PHOTO CREDITS: Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Lands Consultation Department

3 Key Findings

The Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Section 35 Rights Assessment Report was commissioned by Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation to identify how the NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. proposed 2021 NGTL System Expansion Project may adversely impact their rights. Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation holds rights under Treaty No. 6, the National Resources Transfer Act, 1930 as recognized and affirmed under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, collectively referred to as Section 35 Rights. The purpose of the Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Section 35 Rights Assessment Report is to: • provide information about how the Project may adversely impact the ability of Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation to exercise their Section 35 Rights; • provide suggestions for appropriate accommodation measures for effects to the exercise of Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation’s Section 35 Rights; • document the exercise of Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation’s Section 35 Rights in the vicinity of the Project; and, • outline additional issues and concerns of Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation.

The Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Section 35 Rights Assessment Report identifies effects to Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Section 35 Rights through changes to Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation valued components chosen to represent Section 35 Rights. This report followed NGTL’s Environmental Assessment methodology where possible. The Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation valued components include the following: • species of importance (caribou) • harvesting; • culture; and, • lands. Species of Importance (Caribou) Of particular interest to Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation is how Woodland caribou is negatively impacted by the proposed 2021 NGTL System Expansion Project. Caribou was identified by ANSN representatives as a species of importance to ANSN, specifically as related to the exercise of ANSN Section 35 Rights, including stewardship and culture. Both the Government of Alberta and Government of Canada have identified Woodland caribou as threatened; however, there is lack of consensus between Governments as to the current state and path forward for recovery of the species. The Project proposes to intersect critical caribou habitat through the Little Smoky Caribou Range. The Little Smoky Caribou Range is the last area where caribou are located within the Alexis Nakota Sioux traditional territory.

4 Members of Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation who participated in this study, highlighted predation by wolves and other animals that are exacerbated by linear and other disturbances.

They [grandparents] said they used to see a herd sometimes…but there were too many wolves and they disappeared. (16ANS)

As a related issue there is an expressed concern of the inability of Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation to steward or influence management decisions for Woodland caribou. Members of Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation consistently stated concerns with a lack of meaningful consultation and accommodation measures related to impacts to the Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation species of importance.

Even though we are trying to protect it we can’t do nothing anyway, they [industry] are taking over everything...even though we say no, they just go and do it anyway. (2ANS)

For the Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation’s valued component of species of importance, the Study Team concluded, that there is a relationship between the residual effects from the proposed 2021 NGTL System Expansion Project to suitable caribou habitat and the land available for stewardship of caribou and caribou habitat; therefore, the ability of Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation’s to steward caribou and caribou The existing degree of impact to Woodland caribou has already breached an acceptable level of change as identified by the Government of Albert and Government of Canada. The addition of impacts from the proposed 2021 NGTL System Expansion Project are not acceptable to Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation and remain unmitigated. I didn’t grow up on caribou meat and stuff like that – mostly moose meat and mule deer, but if I had the opportunity to hunt them I would hunt them….It’s not our people’s fault that they’re in danger- it’s the white people that are doing a lot of that, and then they try to blame us on it. (17ANS)

To mitigate the impacts on Woodland Caribou, Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation request the proposed 2021 NGTL System Expansion Project be re-routed around the Little Smoky Caribou Range. Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation is seeking to work with NGTL on an acceptable re-routing strategy whereby the proposed 2021 System Expansion Project will parallel many other existing linear disturbances beyond the boundary of the critical Little Smoky Caribou Range. Other impacts resulting from the 2021 NGTL System Expansion Project include: Harvesting For the Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation valued component of harvesting (hunting), the Study Team concluded there will be a decrease in Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation preferred conditions which corresponds to an increase in avoidance behaviour for the exercise of Section 35 Rights on lands in the Project Footprint and study areas. Culture For the Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation valued component of culture, the Study Team concluded there will be an increase in Alexis Nakota Sioux Nations’ avoidance behaviours for the exercise of their Section 35 Rights that will negatively impact culture.

5 Lands For the Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation valued component of lands, the Study Team concluded, there will be a conversion of available lands (defined as unoccupied Crown lands where Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation members can exercise their Section 35 Rights) to unavailable lands (defined as occupied Crown lands with a diminished priority right of access). 100% of the identified Project Footprint will be unavailable for the exercise of Alexis Nakota Sioux Nations’ Section 35 Rights post-approval. The Project intersects sites and areas used for the exercise of Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Section 35 Rights. 121 sites are in the Regional Study Area, of which 100 sites fall within the identified Project Footprint. The types of sites identified includes areas used for hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, culture/ceremonial activities, camping and locations associated with specific traditional ecological knowledge. The Study Team notes that Participants emphasized the importance of knowledge transfer to the younger generation as a requirement for the continuation of ANSN harvesting and cultural activities on the land. The Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Traditional Land Use Study field by the ANSN monitoring team identifies 1339 sites in the Regional Study area, of which 784 are located in the Project Footprint. The Study Team notes the lack of site-specific evidence of land and resource use does not prove or disprove the existence of Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation’s Section 35 Rights. In addition to the above identified potential 2021 NGTL System Expansion Project effects, Workshop Attendees, Interview Participants and the Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Lands Consultation Department have additional concerns that remain outstanding. It is the expectation of Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation that the information contained in this Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Section 35 Rights Assessment Report will be used by NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. and the National Energy Board in the identification and accommodation of potential adverse effects to Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Section 35 Rights arising from the construction and operation of the 2021 NGTL System Expansion Project.

Table of Contents

Study Team...... 3 Key Findings ...... 4 Figures ...... 10 Tables ...... 11 Abbreviations and Acronyms ...... 13 1. Introduction ...... 14 1.1 Purpose of the Report ...... 14 1.2 The Project ...... 14 1.3 Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation ...... 16 1.3.1 Proximity of Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation to the Project ...... 16 1.4 Regulatory Framework for the Project ...... 20 1.4.1 Federal Approvals Required for the Project ...... 20 1.4.2 Alberta Public Lands Act ...... 20 1.4.3 Government of Alberta Green and White Areas ...... 21 1.4.4 Little Smoky Caribou Range ...... 21 2. Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Rights ...... 23 2.1 Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation and Treaty 6 ...... 23 3. Study Methodology ...... 25 3.1 Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Specific Valued Components ...... 28 3.1.1 Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Valued Component Workshop ...... 25 3.2 Methodology Comparison ...... 25 3.3 Baseline Data Collection ...... 30 3.3.1 Data Analysis ...... 32 3.3.2 Mapping Available Lands and Land and Resource Use ...... 34 3.3.3 Creation of the Maps – Avoidance Zones ...... 35 3.3.4 Verification ...... 37 3.1 Accommodation ...... 38 3.4.1 NGTL Mitigation Measures ...... 38 3.4.2 Suggested Accommodation Measures ...... 39 3.5 Limitations of this Study ...... 40 3.5.1 Sample Size ...... 40

7 3.5.2 Data Limitations for Crown Datasets ...... 41 3.5.3 Limitations of Identifying Project Impacts ...... 41 3.5.4 Reliance on 2021 Project Application ...... 41 3.5.5 Identification of Project Effects ...... 41 3.5.6 Spatial Identification of Effects ...... 41 4. Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Valued Component – Species of Importance (Caribou) ...... 42 4.1 Baseline Conditions ...... 42 4.1.1 Change in Ability of Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation to Act as Stewards of Caribou and Caribou Habitat 47 4.2 Effects Assessment ...... 52 4.2.1 Suitable Caribou Habitat ...... 52 4.2.2 Change in Alexis Nakota Sioux First Nation Ability to act as Stewards of Caribou and Caribou Habitat 55 4.2.3 Suggested Accommodation Measures ...... 55 4.2.4 Characterization of Residual Effects...... 56 4.2.5 Likelihood ...... 56 4.2.6 Prediction of Confidence ...... 56 5. Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Valued Component – Harvesting ...... 57 5.1 Baseline Conditions ...... 57 5.1.1 Change in Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Avoidance Behaviors ...... 57 5.2 Effects Assessment ...... 63 5.2.1 Change in Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Hunting Avoidance Behaviours ...... 63 5.2.2 Suggested Accommodation Measures ...... 70 5.2.3 Characterization of Residual Effects...... 70 5.2.4 Likelihood ...... 71 5.2.5 Prediction of Confidence ...... 71 6. Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Valued Component – Culture ...... 72 6.1 Baseline Conditions ...... 72 6.1.1 Change in Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Culture Avoidance Behaviours ...... 72 6.2 Effects Assessment ...... 77 6.2.1 Change in Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Culture Avoidance Behaviours ...... 77 6.2.2 Suggested Accommodation Measures ...... 83 6.2.3 Characterization of Residual Effects...... 83 6.2.4 Likelihood ...... 83 6.2.5 Prediction of Confidence ...... 83 7. Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Valued Component – Lands ...... 84 7.1 Baseline Conditions ...... 84

8 7.2.1 Change in Legal Restriction ...... 84 7.2 Effects Assessment ...... 85 7.3.1 Change in Legal Restriction ...... 85 7.3.2 Suggested Accommodation Measures ...... 88 7.3.3 Characterization of Residual Effects...... 88 7.3.4 Likelihood ...... 89 7.3.5 Prediction of Confidence ...... 89 8. Exercise of Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation’s Section 35 Rights ...... 90 8.1 Hunting ...... 100 8.2 Trapping ...... 101 8.3 Fishing ...... 103 8.4 Gathering ...... 104 8.4.1 Berries and Berry Plants ...... 104 8.4.2 Plants and Herbs ...... 106 8.4.3 Trees and Tree Products ...... 107 8.4.4 Fungus ...... 108 8.5 Ceremonial, Cultural and Sacred Sites ...... 109 9. Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Issues and Concerns ...... 110 9.1 Access ...... 110 9.2 Reconciliation and Compensation ...... 110 9.3 Safety and Accidents ...... 110 9.4 Water and Fish Habitat ...... 111 10. Conclusion ...... 113 11. References ...... 115 a. General References ...... 115 a. Legislation and Regulations ...... 116 b. GIS Data Sources ...... 117 12. Appendix A ...... 118 13. Appendix B ...... 119 14. Appendix C ...... 122 15. Appendix D ...... 126

9 Figures

Figure 1: Project Footprint, LSA, RSA ...... 15 Figure 2: ANSN Traditional Territory ...... 17 Figure 3: Map of Treaty No. 6 ...... 18 Figure 4: 2021 NGTL System Expansion Project in Relation to ANSN Reserves ...... 19 Figure 5: Green and White Areas (Government of Alberta 2008) ...... 21 Figure 6: NGTL Measurement to Determine Effects to Caribou Habitat Effectiveness (NGTL 2018b: Annex A 4-5) 22 Figure 7: Options in the Selection of Accommodation Measures...... 40 Figure 8: ANSN Caribou Evidence ...... 45 Figure 9: ANSN and NGTL Caribou Evidence ...... 46 Figure 10: Caribou Evidence and Habitat Suitability ...... 54 Figure 11: ANSN Hunting Avoidance Behaviours Prior and Post Approval (Grande Prairie West) ...... 65 Figure 12: ANSN Hunting Avoidance Behaviours Prior and Post Approval (Grande Prairie South) ...... 66 Figure 13: ANSN Hunting Avoidance Behaviours Prior and Post Approval (Little Smoky Caribou Range) ...... 67 Figure 14: ANSN Hunting Avoidance Behaviours Prior and Post Approval (Edson South) ...... 68 Figure 15: ANSN Hunting Avoidance Behaviours Prior and Post Approval (Didsbury & Beiseker Compressor Stations) ...... 69 Figure 16: ANSN Culture Avoidance Behaviours Prior and Post Approval (Grande Prairie West) ...... 79 Figure 17: ANSN Culture Avoidance Behaviours Prior and Post Approval (Grande Prairie South) ...... 80 Figure 18: ANSN Culture Avoidance Behaviours Prior and Post Approval (Edson South) ...... 81 Figure 19: ANSN Culture Avoidance Behaviours Prior and Post Approval (Didsbury & Beisker Compressor Stations) ...... 82 Figure 20: Available Lands [for Hunting] Prior to Project Approval within the RSA ...... 87 Figure 21: ANSN Land and Resource Use Composite Map ...... 91 Figure 22: ANSN Hunting Use Sites Within the RSA ...... 92 Figure 23: ANSN Trapping Use Intersecting the RSA ...... 93 Figure 24: ANSN Fishing Sites Intersecting the Project RSA ...... 94 Figure 25: ANSN Gathering Sites Intersecting the Project RSA ...... 95 Figure 26: ANSN Ceremonial, Cultural and Sacred Sites Intersecting the RSA ...... 96 Figure 27: ANSN Camping Sites Intersecting the RSA ...... 97 Figure 28: ANSN Traditional Ecological Knowledge Sites Intersecting RSA ...... 98 Figure 29: ANSN Industry and Development Sites Intersecting RSA ...... 99

10 Tables

Table 1: Distance from ANSN Indian Reserves to Closest Project Components ...... 16 Table 2: Available vs. Unavailable Lands ...... 24 Table 2: Methodology Comparison Chart ...... 28 Table 4: ANSN Survey Completion Dates ...... 31 Table 5: Protected Areas Intersecting the RSA ...... 33 Table 6: Crown Authorizations – Datasets in the RSA Representing Crown Authorized Land ...... 35 Table 7: Example of How Avoidance Zone is Calculated *Number of respondents is 16 ...... 36 Table 8: Data for Map Sets ...... 37 Table 9: Characterization of Residual Effects for ANSN VC of Species of Importance ...... 56 Table 10: ANSN Avoidance Behaviours – Existing Developments within the RSA ...... 59 Table 11: ANSN Hunting Avoidance Behaviours Prior to Project Approval ...... 59 Table 12: ANSN Hunting Preferred Conditions ...... 62 Table 13: Change in ANSN Hunting Avoidance Behaviours ...... 64 Table 14: Characterization of Residual Effects for ANSN VC of Harvesting ...... 70 Table 15: ANSN Culture Avoidance Behaviours ...... 75 Table 16: ANSN Culture Avoidance Behaviours Prior to Project Approval ...... 75 Table 17: ANSN Preferred Conditions ...... 76 Table 18: ANSN Culture Avoidance Behaviours Post-Project Approval ...... 78 Table 19: Characterization of Residual Effects for ANSN VC of Culture ...... 83 Table 20: Available Lands Prior to Project Approval ...... 84 Table 21: Available Lands Pre-Approval and Post-Approval ...... 85 Table 22: Characterization of Residual Effects for the ANSN VC of Lands ...... 88 Table 23: ANSN Preferred Species for Hunting ...... 100 Table 24: ANSN Preferred Animals for Trapping ...... 102 Table 25: ANSN Preferred Fish Species ...... 103 Table 26: ANSN Preferred Berry Species ...... 105 Table 27: ANSN Preferred Plants and Herbs ...... 106 Table 28: ANSN Preferred Trees and Tree Products ...... 107 Table 29: ANSN Preferred Fungi ...... 108 Table 30: ANSN Preferred Ceremony and Cultural Activities ...... 109 Table 31: Residual Effects Criteria ...... 118 Table 32: ANSN VC Selection Rationale ...... 121 Table 33: Suggested Accommodation Measures ANSN VC of Species of Importance (Caribou) ...... 122 Table 34: Suggested Accommodation Measures ANSN VC of Harvesting ...... 123

11 Table 35: Suggested Accommodation Measures ANSN VC of Culture ...... 124 Table 36: Suggested Accommodation Measures ANSN VC of Lands ...... 125 Table 37: ANSN Hunting Sites Intersecting RSA ...... 126 Table 38: Hunting Sites Intersecting LSA ...... 127 Table 39: ANSN Hunting Sites Intersecting Project Footprint ...... 128 Table 40: ANSN Trapping Sites Intersecting RSA ...... 129 Table 41: ANSN Trapping Sites Intersecting LSA ...... 129 Table 42: ANSN Trapping Sites Intersecting Project Footprint ...... 130 Table 43: ANSN Fishing Sites Intersecting RSA ...... 130 Table 44: ANSN Fishing Sites Intersecting LSA...... 130 Table 45: ANSN Fishing Sites Intersecting Project Footprint ...... 131 Table 46: ANSN Gathering Sites Intersecting RSA ...... 131 Table 47: ANSN Gathering Sites Intersecting LSA ...... 132 Table 48: ANSN Gathering Sites Intersecting Project Footprint ...... 133 Table 49: ANSN Ceremonial Cultural and Sacred Sites Intersecting RSA ...... 134 Table 50: ANSN Ceremonial, Cultural and Sacred Sites Intersecting LSA ...... 134 Table 51: ANSN Ceremonial, Cultural and Sacred Sites Intersecting Project Footprint ...... 135 Table 52: ANSN Camping Sites Intersecting RSA ...... 135 Table 53: ANSN Camping Sites Intersecting LSA ...... 136 Table 54: ANSN Camping Sites Intersecting Project Footprint ...... 136 Table 55: ANSN Traditional Ecological Knowledge Sites Intersecting RSA ...... 136 Table 56: ANSN Traditional Ecological Knowledge Sites Intersecting LSA ...... 137 Table 57: ANSN Traditional Ecological Knowledge Sites Intersecting Project Footprint ...... 137 Table 58: ANSN Industrial and Development Sites Intersecting the Regional Study Area ...... 137 Table 59: ANSN Industrial and Development Sites Intersecting the Local Study Area ...... 137 Table 60: ANSN Industrial and Development Sites Intersecting the Project Footprint ...... 138

12 Abbreviations and Acronyms

ANSN Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency CEAA 2012 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 Certificate Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity under the NEB Act EA Environmental Assessment ESA Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment, term used by NEB to reference an EA under the NEB regulatory process. EPP Environmental Protection Plan HSI Habitat Suitability Index km Kilometer LSA Local Study Area NEB National Energy Board NEB 2017 National Energy Board Filing Manual NEB Act National Energy Board Act, 1985 NGTL NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd NRTA Natural Resource Transfer Agreement, 1930 Participants Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation members who participated in the Survey Project NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd 2021 Expansion Project ROW Right-of-Way RSA Regional Study Area SARA Species at Risk Act, 2002 Section 35 Rights Rights under Treaty No. 6 and the National Resources Transfer Act, 1930 and recognized and affirmed under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 Study Team The team members who conducted the survey and developed the Report Survey Survey conducted by Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Study Team TLRU Traditional Land and Resource Use VCs Valued Components Workshop Study Team members who facilitated the Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Workshop Facilitators

Workshop Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation members who attended the Study Workshop Attendees

2021 Project The NGTL Expansion Project Application filed June 20, 2018 with the NEB Application

13 1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the Report

The Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Section 35 Rights Assessment Report (“Report”) was commissioned by Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation (“ANSN”) to identify adverse effects to ANSN rights resulting from the NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (“NGTL”) proposed 2021 NGTL System Expansion Project (“Project” or “NGTL 2021”). ANSN hold rights under Treaty No. 6 and the National Resources Transfer Act, 1930 (“NRTA”) recognized and affirmed under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (“Section 35 Rights”). The purpose of this Report is to: • provide information about how the Project may adversely impact the ability of ANSN to exercise their Section 35 Rights; • provide suggestions for appropriate accommodation measures for effects to the exercise of ANSN Section 35 Rights; • document the exercise of ANSN Section 35 Rights in the vicinity of the Project; and, • outline additional issues and concerns of ANSN.

1.2 The Project

The 2021 NGTL System Expansion Project Application (“2021 Project Application”), filed June 20, 2018 with the National Energy Board (“NEB”), identifies the following Project components: • approximately 344 km of 1,219 mm (Nominal Pipe Size 48) pipeline loops in eight sections located in the Grand Prairie West, Grand Prairie South and Edson South Areas of the greater NGTL system • three compressor station unit additions and related components at the Nordegg Compressor Station, Didsbury Compressor Station and Beiseker Compressor Station locations; • a control valve; • mainline valve sites; • launcher and receiver facilities to accommodate pipeline cleaning and in-line inspection; • construction related temporary infrastructure such as access roads, borrow pits/dugouts and stockpile sites; • a cathodic protection system; • temporary access roads; and, • miscellaneous works, such as pipeline warning signs and aerial • markers (NGTL 2018a: i-iii). The purpose of the Project according to NGTL in the 2021 Project Application is “to increase NGTL System capability to transport gas from areas where supply is growing, and also to meet delivery requirements in areas where market demand is growing. Customers have signed long-term contracts for firm receipt and delivery transportation services that exceed capacity of the NGTL System beginning in 2021” (NGTL 2018b: 2-1).

14 Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Reference Map 2021 NGTL System Expansion Project Project Footprint, LSA, RSA UV2 UV88 GRANDE PRAIRIE

49 EDMONTON UV ##

## ## CALGARY UV2 !( GPM 143 GPML Loop No. 4 2A 59 UV UV Valhalla UV2

GPM 120 !( UV49 43 GPM 115 !( UV GPML Loop No. 3 Elmworth GPM 85 !(

!( GPM 80 UV44 2 GPML Loop No. 2 UV Karr 32 33 !( GPM 60 UV UV

43 UV40 UV GPML Loop No. 2 ALEXIS WHITECOURT Deep Valley IR 232

LITTLE SMOKY GPM 30 !( UV18 CARIBOU RANGE GPM 28 !( UV28 !( GPM 27 GPML Loop No. 2 McLeod River Connection ALEXIS

!( January Creek IR 133 Control Valve EDMONTON !( UV16 ED 110 UV22 Edson ML Loop No. 2 Robb !( ED 100 UV39 UV40 Edson ML Loop No. 4 Dismal Creek !( ED 90 ALEXIS ELK RIVER UV13 IR 233 ALEXIS CARDINAL UV2 20 IR 234 UV ED 80 ##!( Nordegg UV53 Compressor Station

Edson ML Loop No. 4 UV12 UV93 Brewster !( D 60 E UV11 UV11

UV54 Legend UV21 Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation IR UV27 !( Mainline Valve Site Didsbury ## ## Compressor Station Compressor Station

2021 NGTL - Grande Prairie West Area eiseker Valhalla, Elmworth Preliminary Route B ## Compressor Station 2021 NGTL - Grande Prairie South Area UV9 Karr, Deep Valley, McLeod River Preliminary Route UV1 CALGARY 2021 NGTL - Edson South Area

Robb, Dismal Creek, Brewster Preliminary Route

LSA - Local Study Area Pipeline: 1.1 km corridor Compressor Station: 1.5 km radius RSA - Regional Study Area Pipeline: 20 km corridor Compressor Station: 10 km radius

Little Smoky Caribou Range

Protected Area DISCLAIMER: THIS MAP SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A SUBSTITUTE FOR DATA SOURCES: ESRI, HERE, GARMIN, INTERMAP, INCREMENT P CORP., GEBCO, CONSULTATION WITH ALEXIS NAKOTA SIOUX NATION. THIS MAP IS THE USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GEOBASE, IGN, KADASTER NL, ORDNANCE SURVEY, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF ALEXIS NAKOTA SIOUX NATION. ANY REPRODUCTION ESRI JAPAN, METI, ESRI CHINA (HONG KONG), SWISS TOPO, GIS USER COMMUNITY OR DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, GOVERNMENT OF ALBERTA, TRANSCANADA, PLUZ - Public Land Use Zone ALL TRADITIONAL USE AREAS/SITES ARE APPROXIMATE. ALEXIS NAKOTA SIOUX NATION PROJECT DATA LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 Date: Dec 20, 2018 Prepared For: Prepared By: Figure:

Coordinate System: Alexis Nakota MNP LLP 1 Ü Kilometers - Scale 1:1,800,000 NAD83 11N Sioux Nation 1.3 Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation

ANSN members are direct descendants of two identifiable groups: the Nakota (Assiniboine) who migrated westward in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries and detached themselves from other Siouan groups and the Indigenous kinship groups the Nakota married into (ANSN 2015). ANSN are a people who have preserved and celebrated their unique identify, culture, and “Isga Owawabi” (Our Language) from generation to generation (ANSN 2015). Today, ANSN has a registered population of 2,066 members with 1,171 residing largely on Alexis Reserve No. 133 and 895 members residing off reserves (INAC 2018). ANSN has four Indian Reserves (“IR”) set aside under Treaty No.6; Alexis 133 (approximately 6,174.20 hectares), Alexis Cardinal River 234 (approximately 4,661 hectares), Alexis Elk River 233 (approximately 98 hectares), and Alexis Whitecourt 232 (approximately 3,544.90 hectares) totalling 14,479.1 hectares (144.79 km2).

1.3.1 Proximity of Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation to the Project

Project components are located within the traditional territory of ANSN. ANSN’s approximate traditional territory, shown in Figure 2, reaches from Cardinal River in the south along the foothills and Rocky Mountains beyond Whitecourt and the Swan Hills in the north, and east past Barrhead (ANSN 2019a). The Study Team understands ANSN is currently undertaking a review of the extent of their traditional territory, through historical, archival and oral research. Project components are located within Treaty No.6, of which ANSN is a signatory (Figure 3). Project components are located on lands subject to the NRTA (see Report Section 2.3). Figure 4 shows the closest Project components located within the vicinity of the ANSN IRs; Alexis 133, Alexis Cardinal River 234, Alexis Elk River 233 and Alexis Whitecourt 232; set aside for ANSN under the terms of Treaty No. 6.

Distance to Distance to Nordegg Edson South line compressor station

Alexis 133 118 km 132 km

Alexis Elk 38 km 61 km River 233

Alexis Cardinal 65 km 86 km 234

Alexis 85 km 164 km Whitecourt 232 Table 1: Distance from ANSN Indian Reserves to Closest Project Components

The Study Team notes that proximity of the Project to ANSN IR’s is only one factor used to show connection between the Project and ANSN.

16 Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Reference Map

2021 - NGTL System Expansion Project GRANDE PRAIRIE Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Traditional Territory

EDMONTON

!( ## ## Grande Prairie CALGARY !( !( West Area

!( !(

!( Grande Prairie South Area ALEXIS WHITECOURT LITTLE SMOKY !( IR 232 !( CARIBOU RANGE !(

!( ALEXIS IR 133 !( January Creek Control Valve ALEXIS ELK RIVER !( IR 233 !( Edson South Area ALEXIS CARDINAL IR 234 Nordegg ##!( Compressor Station !(

Didsbury ## Compressor Station

Legend ## Beiseker Compressor Station Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation IR

Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Traditional Territory

!( Mainline Valve Site

## Compressor Station

2021 NGTL - Grande Prairie West Area

Valhalla, Elmworth

2021 NGTL - Grande Prairie South Area

Karr, Deep Valley, McLeod River

2021 NGTL - Edson South Area SOURCES: ESRI, HERE, GARMIN, INTERMAP, INCREMENT P CORP., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GEOBASE, IGN, KADASTER NL, ORDNANCE SURVEY, ESRI JAPAN, METI, ESRI CHINA (HONG KONG), SWISS TOPO, GIS USER COMMUNITY

Robb, Dismal Creek, Brewster GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, GOVERNMENT OF ALBERTA, TRANSCANADA, ALEXIS NAKOTA SIOUX NATION

DISCLAIMER: THIS MAP SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A SUBSTITUTE FOR CONSULTATION WITH ALEXIS NAKOTA SIOUX NATION. THIS MAP IS THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF ALEXIS NAKOTA SIOUX NATION. ANY REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION Little Smoky Caribou Range WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. ALL TRADITIONAL USE AREAS/SITES ARE APPROXIMATE. PROJECT DATA LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.

050100150Date: Dec 20, 2018 Prepared For: Prepared By: Figure:

Coordinate System: Alexis Nakota MNP LLP 2 Ü Kilometers - Scale 1:4,000,000 NAD83 11N Sioux Nation Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation

2021 NGTL System Expansion Project Treaty No. 6

TREATY 8

!( Grande Prairie !( !( West Area

!( !( TREATY Grande Prairie 10

!( South Area

ALEXIS WHITECOURT !( !( IR 232 !(

!( ALEXIS !( January Creek IR 133 Control Valve ALEXIS ELK RIVER !( IR 233 Edson TREATY 6 !( South Area ALEXIS CARDINAL IR 234 ##!( Nordegg Compressor Station !(

Didsbury ## Compressor Station

## Beiseker Compressor Station

Legend

Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation IR TREATY 7

Treaty 6 (1876)

!( Mainline Valve Site TREATY 4 ## Compressor Station

Grande Prairie West Area SOURCES: ESRI, HERE, GARMIN, INTERMAP, INCREMENT P CORP., GEBCO,USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GEOBASE, IGN, KADASTER NL, ORDNANCE SURVEY, ESRI JAPAN, METI, ESRI CHINA (HONG KONG), SWISS TOPO, GIS USER COMMUNITY Grande Prairie South Area GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, GOVERNMENT OF ALBERTA, TRANSCANADA, ALEXIS NAKOTA SIOUX NATION DISCLAIMER: THIS MAP SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A SUBSTITUTE FOR CONSULTATION WITH ALEXIS NAKOTA SIOUX NATION. THIS MAP IS THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF ALEXIS NAKOTA SIOUX NATION. ANY REPRODUCTION OR Edson South Area DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. ALL TRADITIONAL USE AREAS/SITES ARE APPROXIMATE. PROJECT DATA LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.

0 50 100 150 200 Date: Dec 20, 2018 Prepared For: Prepared By: Figure:

Coordinate System: Alexis Nakota MNP LLP 3 Ü Kilometers - Scale 1:4,500,000 NAD83 11N Sioux Nation Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Reference Map 2021 NGTL System Expansion Project in Relation to Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation ReservesUV2 UV88 GRANDE PRAIRIE

EDMONTON 49 UV ##

## ## CALGARY UV2 !( GPM 143 GPML Loop No. 4 2A 59 UV UV Valhalla UV2

GPM 120 !( UV49 43 GPM 115 !( UV GPML Loop No. 3 Elmworth GPM 85 !(

!( GPM 80 UV44 2 GPML Loop No. 2 UV Karr 32 33 !( GPM 60 UV UV

43 UV40 UV GPML Loop No. 2 ALEXIS WHITECOURT Deep Valley # IR 232

LITTLE SMOKY GPM 30 !( UV18 CARIBOU RANGE GPM 28 !( UV28 !( GPM 27 85 km GPML Loop No. 2 McLeod River Connection ALEXIS

!( January Creek # IR 133

Control Valve # EDMONTON !( UV16 ED 110 118 km 22 Edson ML Loop No. 2 UV Robb !( ED 100 39 UV40 Edson ML Loop No. 4 UV Dismal Creek

ALEXIS ELK RIVER # !( # ED 90

IR 233 UV13 #

40 km 2 ALEXIS CARDINAL # UV 70 km 20 IR 234 UV ED 80 ##!( Nordegg UV53 Compressor Station

Edson ML Loop No. 4 UV12 UV93 Brewster !( D 60 E UV11 UV11

UV54 Legend UV21 Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation IR UV27 !( Mainline Valve Site Didsbury ## ## Compressor Station Compressor Station

Robb, Dismal Creek, Brewster Preliminary Route

LSA - Local Study Area Pipeline: 1.1 km corridor Compressor Station: 1.5 km radius RSA - Regional Study Area Pipeline: 20 km corridor Compressor Station: 10 km radius

Little Smoky Caribou Range

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 Date: Dec 20, 2018 Prepared For: Prepared By: Figure:

Coordinate System: Alexis Nakota MNP LLP 4 Ü Kilometers - Scale 1:1,800,000 NAD83 11N Sioux Nation 1.4 Regulatory Framework for the Project

1.4.1 Federal Approvals Required for the Project

NGTL filed the 2021 Project Application with the NEB, one of the regulatory authorities for the Project, on June 20, 2018. The 2021 Project Application seeks a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (“Certificate”) pursuant to Section 52 of the National Energy Board Act (“NEB Act”). Project applications pursuant to Section 52 of the NEB Act require a comprehensive Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment (“ESA”) and automatically trigger a public hearing. Furthermore, the Project is deemed a designated project under Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (“CEAA 2012”), specifically Section 5(2), 6(a)(b), 7(a)(b) and 19(1). As such, according to NGTL the Project ESA will be prepared pursuant to the requirements under CEAA 2012 along with the NEB Act (NGTL 2018a: ii-iii). Under the NEB Act Section 77(1), Taking and Using Lands, “no company shall take possession of, use, or occupy lands vested in Her Majesty without the consent of the Governor in Council” (Emphasis added). Under Section 77(2) “a company may, with the consent of the Governor in Council and on such terms as the Governor in Council may prescribe, take, and appropriate for the use of its pipeline and works, so much of the lands of Her Majesty lying on the route of the line that have not been granted, conceded, or sold as is necessary for the pipeline, and also so much of the public beach, bed of a lake, river or stream, or the land so vested covered with the waters of a lake river or stream, as is necessary for making, completing and using its pipeline and works.” For this Project lands used or occupied are vested in the provincial Crown. The NEB has identified a list of issues it will consider in assessing the 2021 Project Application. The NEB Hearing Order issued June 28, 2018 (NEB 2018), outlined issues of concern to ANSN including: 1. The need for the Project. 3. The potential commercial impacts of the Project, including potential economic impacts on Indigenous peoples. 5. The potential environmental and socio-economic effects of the Project, including cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the Project as set out in the NEB’s Filing Manual, as well as those to be considered under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (see Appendix III). 6. The appropriateness of the general route and land requirements for the Project. 7. Project impacts of the Project on the interests of Indigenous peoples, including potential impacts on Indigenous and Treaty rights. 8. Potential impacts of the Project on owners and users of lands. 9. The suitability of the design of the Project. 10. Contingency planning for leaks, accidents or malfunctions, during construction and operation of the Project. 11. Safety and security during construction and operation of the Project, including emergency response planning and third-party damage prevention. 12. The terms and conditions to be included in any recommendation or approval the Board may issue for the Project (NEB 2018a: Appendix II).

1.4.2 Alberta Public Lands Act

Along with the 2021 Application to the NEB, NGTL is seeking the disposition of Crown lands from Alberta Environment and Parks (“AEP”) under the Public Lands Act, RSA 2000, c P-40. NGTL will also be responsible for following the consultation process in Alberta outlined in the Government of Alberta’s Guidelines on Consultation with First Nations on Land and Natural Resources Management, 2016 (the “Alberta Consultation Guidelines”) and Government of Alberta Proponent’s Guide to First Nation Consultation Procedures for Land Dispositions, 2016.

20 1.4.3 Government of Alberta Green and White Areas

In 1948 the Government of Alberta identified land-use based on “Green Area” and “White Area” boundaries which divided Alberta into two zones (Harvie and Mercier 2010) (see Figure 3). The White Area is designated as primarily privately-owned lands or fee simple lands used for agriculture, tourism and recreation, natural resource development, conservation and settlements. The Green Area is comprised of publicly owned, or Crown, lands that are primarily used for forestry operations, tourism and recreation, conservation, and natural resource development. The lands within the Green and White Areas are managed differently in accordance to the primary uses and ownership of the lands (Government of Alberta, Sustainable Resource Development 2007). For this Report, lands designated as White Area and not under Public Lands Act dispositions are assumed to be private.

Figure 5: Green and White Areas (Government of Alberta 2008)

1.4.4 Little Smoky Caribou Range

Woodland caribou (caribou) is a species listed as Threatened under Canada’s Species At Risk Act, Schedule 1 (SARA) and the Alberta Wildlife Act (AWA 2000, AWR 1997). In 2012, the Government of Canada released The Government of Canada’s Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou, Boreal Population, in Canada 2012 (Recovery Strategy) which requires provinces to develop caribou range plans. In July 2017, the Government of Canada released its Action Plan for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou, Boreal Population, in Canada” (Action Plan). The Action Plan highlights the recovery goal for caribou: to achieve self-sustaining local populations in all boreal caribou ranges throughout their current distribution in Canada, to the extent possible. Achieving the recovery goal would allow for local population levels sufficient to sustain traditional Indigenous harvesting activities, consistent with existing Aboriginal and treaty rights (Environment Canada 2018:1).

21 Environment Canada identified a self-sustaining population to consist of more than 300 caribou (Environment Canada 2012:9). In December 2017, Alberta released its Draft Provincial Woodland Caribou Range Plan (Range Plan). The Little Smoky is occupied by the last boreal population of woodland caribou occurring in the eastern slopes of Alberta and has greatly declined over the last 50 to 80 years (GOA 2017: 58). The Little Smoky Caribou Range (Little Smoky) has been designated to protect caribou habitat in response to the Government of Canada Species At Risk Act and the specific requirements for action plans, including specified protection of critical habitat. As of 2017, the Government of Alberta estimates the Little Smoky population at 110 individuals, which is considered a “stable” population by the Government of Alberta, however, remains classified as not self-sustaining by Canada (GOA 2017: 58). According to NGTL in the 2021 Project Application, Project effects were considered on species within the LSA that are listed as requiring protection under Species at Risk Act, Schedule 1 and on species listed under the Alberta Wildlife Act (AWA 2000, AWR 1997) when identified as endangered or threatened (NGTL 2018b: 12-1). The proposed Project, if approved, would intersect with critical woodland caribou habitat through the Little Smoky. A total of 43.9km or 72% of the Deep Valley section of the Project goes through the Little Smoky (NGTL 2018b: 11-45). Potential impacts of the Project identified by NGTL on woodland caribou include changes to suitable wildlife habitat, habitat effectiveness, movement patterns, mortality risk and increased predation (NGTL 2018b: 12-50-52). As a measurement to determine adverse effects on caribou and caribou habitat, NGTL applied a 500 m buffer around anthropogenic disturbances (including linear features) as a conservative measure of reduced habitat effectiveness (NGTL 2018b: 12-51) which in turn is used to identify adverse effects to caribou.

Figure 6: NGTL Measurement to Determine Effects to Caribou Habitat Effectiveness (NGTL 2018b: Annex A 4-5)

2. Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Rights

2.1 Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation and Treaty 6

ANSN is a signatory to Treaty No. 6, one of the eleven numbered treaties in Canada which extends across central portions of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Treaty No. 6 encompasses a landmass of approximately 121,000 square kilometers. The terms of Treaty No. 6 include the right to hunt, trap and fish throughout Treaty No. 6. The terms of Treaty No. 6 also contained a specific geographic limitation for the exercise of Section 35 Rights: Her Majesty further agrees with Her said Indians that they, the said Indians, shall have right to pursue their avocations of hunting and fishing throughout the tract surrendered as hereinbefore described, subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by Her Government of Her Dominion of Canada… (Treaty No. 6 1876). ANSN Elders and members consider Treaty 6 to be the foundation of a relationship between Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Peoples that is based on sharing land and resources and protecting ANSN culture and livelihood. ANSN consider the oral promises made by the Treaty Commissioners to be sacred, and the words spoken are important to ANSN people today. For example, Treaty No. 6 Commissioner Alexander Morris noted during treaty negotiations that he “ascertained that the Indian mind was oppressed with vague fears” regarding the prospect of the Crown curtailing harvesting activities within their traditional territory (Morris 2014 [1880]: 201-202). Morris assured the assembled Indigenous leaders that this was not the case, and that traditional activities would continue on into the future: I want you to think of my words, I want to tell you that what we talk about is very important. What I trust and hope we will do is not for to-day and to-morrow only; what I will promise, and what I believe and hope you will take, is to last as long as that sun shines and yonder river flows...What I have offered does not take away your living, you will have it then as you have now, and what I offer now is put on top of it (Morris 2014 [1880]: 201-202 [Emphasis added]). Further, Crown Treaty Commissioners did not require Indigenous signatories signing on behalf of their Indigenous nations to identify and declare their exclusive use areas or identify the geographic extent of their traditional territories which would in turn limit the extent of rights under Treaty No. 6 prior to signing. ANSN Elders confirmed their understanding of the Treaty included the following, which we understand are also supported by judicial interpretations of the Treaty: • ANSN members have the right to be out on the land, to hunt, trap, fish and practice the way of life fully, regardless of where or when they were born, where they live or how they were raised. • ANSN rights were established at signing of treaty and they do not erode or become less over time. They are meant to last forever. • ANSN rights are held collectively. It is not acceptable for government or industry to remove the ability of any ANSN member or family to practice harvesting and way of life in their preferred and culturally known places which puts strain on community relationships. • ANSN rights depend on certain conditions being present, including ANSN members being able to maintain relationships with lands and waters, including hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering plants, teaching and practicing the ANSN way of life, free from outside interference, and with confidence Therefore, to understand how the Project impacts ANSN rights, it is important to understand what conditions ANSN members need to support a meaningful exercise of their rights and culture.

23 This is particularly important in the context of the governments’ ability under the Treaty to exercise what is referred to by government as the “taking up” clause. Treaty No. 6 specified the Crown’s treaty right to “take up land.” As follows: …and saving and excepting such tracts as may from time to time be required or taken up for settlement, mining, lumbering or other purposes by Her said Government of the Dominion of Canada, or by any of the subjects thereof duly authorized therefor by the said Government (Treaty No. 6 1876). The Study Team understands that the Courts have said although the Crown can take up land, that taking up is subject to the Duty to Consult, and furthermore it would be unlawful for the Crown to take up so much land that the Indigenous signatories are left without a meaningful right. For example, ANSN has clearly been left without a meaningful right to hunt and steward caribou, which is a serious impact of the Project. The Study Team notes regulatory approval processes do not consider adverse affects to the exercise of rights from a proposed project throughout the entire traditional territory. Regulatory approval processes are restricted to considering adverse effects resulting from a project within a defined spatial scope specific to that project. Therefore, the consequences of taking up of land from the approval of a project is not considered in a comprehensive way to ascertain whether a meaningful right to hunt, fish or trap remains post-approval. One of the issues for the regulator is how much land is left for the meaningful exercise of rights. Based on our interviews with ANSN members, for the purposes of this Report, lands under review as classified by the Study Team as available or unavailable for the exercise of Section 35 Rights are as follows:

Lands Available for the Exercise of Section Lands Unavailable for the Exercise of 35 Rights Section 35 Rights

Crown land without Crown authorizations Crown land with Crown authorizations

Crown land with Crown authorizations where a Land under a visible use incompatible with the statue allowing for the exercise of activities exercise of activities related to Section 35 related to Section 35 Rights Rights1

Private land where permission has been Private lands3 specifically obtained2

Table 2: Available vs. Unavailable Lands

1 The Study Team notes lands under a visible use incompatible with the exercise of Section 35 Rights could not be identified for this Report and is not used in the calculation of unavailable lands. 2 The Study Team notes private land where permission has been specifically obtained is defined under the category of available lands for this Report; however, private land where permission has been specifically obtained could not be identified for this Report and is not used in the calculation of available lands. 3 The Study Team notes this Report uses the proxy of White Area for the identification of private lands.

24 3. Study Methodology

According to NGTL, the 2021 Project Application “considers the potential effects of the Project on the environment and humans in the context of defined spatial and temporal boundaries” (NGTL 2018b: 1-4). The Study Team notes that the 2021 Project Application did not consider potential effects of the Project on the Section 35 Rights held by ANSN. As stated, the purpose of the Report is to: • provide information about how the Project may adversely impact the ability of ANSN to exercise their Section 35 Rights; • provide suggestions for appropriate accommodation measures for effects to the exercise of ANSN Section 35 Rights; • document the exercise of ANSN Section 35 Rights in the vicinity of the Project; and • outline additional issues and concerns of ANSN.

3.1 Methodology Comparison

In order to fulfill the objectives of this Report the Study Team followed NGTL’s Environmental Assessment (“EA”) methodology, where possible. The following table illustrates commonalities and departures from NGTL’s stated methodology outlined in the 2021 Project Application.

2021 Project Application: ANSN Report:

The 2021 Project Application determined “the The Study Team, in consultation with ANSN, determined ANSN environmental and socio-economic VCs4 and related VCs and related indicators that may interact with the Project to key indicators that may interact with the Project” represent changes to ANSN Section 35 Rights. (NGTL 201b8:14-4) The ANSN VCs are: The NGTL VCs are: • Species of Importance (Caribou_ • Vegetation • Harvesting • Water quality and quantity • Culture • Fish and fish habitat • Lands • Wetlands • Wildlife and wildlife habitat See Section 3.1 and Appendix B for additional details on ANSN • Species at Risk or Species of Conservation VC selection process. Concerns • Acoustic environment • Human occupancy and resource use • Heritage resources • Navigation and navigation safety • Traditional land and resource use • Social and cultural well-being • Human health • Employment and economy

• Accidents and malfunctions Valued Components

4 Valued Components

25 2021 Project Application: ANSN Report:

2021 Application spatial boundaries: Report spatial boundaries: • Project Footprint 75 m wide, narrowed • Project Footprint 75 m wide narrowed to 42 m to 42 m within the Little Smoky within the Little Smoky Caribou Range (43.9km) Caribou Range (43.9km of ROW), and delineated solely on the west side of the plus the area within each compressor existing line. The compressor stations (Nordegg, station unit addition fence line; Didsbury, Beiseker) were digitized from maps • Local Study Area (“LSA”) 1.1 km wide that were submitted in the Project application corridor centered over the centerline (NGTL 2018b: Appendix 9-11, pg. 16-19), as the with expansion to 2 km at nine water Study Team did not receive shapefiles for any of crossings 5 and a 50 m radius from the compressor stations. proposed fence line of compressor • LSA 1.1 km wide corridor centered on the station unit additions); and Project Footprint centerline with expansion to 2 • Regional Study Area (“RSA”) 10 km km at nine water crossings and a 50 m radius on either side of the pipeline from the proposed fence lines of compressor centerline and 10 km radius from station unit additions delineated by the shapefiles proposed fence line of compressor provided by NGTL on September 27, 2018; and station unit additions (NGTL 2018b: 4- • RSA 10 km on either side of the Project Footprint 2 and 19-1). centerline and 10 km radius from proposed fence line of compressor station unit additions 2021 Application temporal boundaries: delineated by the shapefiles provided by NGTL

• Construction: Activity period during on September 27, 2018.

which there are physical disturbances Report temporal boundaries: in the Project Footprint. Anticipated to begin Q2 2020 till end of Q1 2021 • Construction: Activity period during which there (NGTL 2018b: figure 2.6-1). are physical disturbances in the Project • Operation and maintenance: The in- Footprint. Anticipated to begin Q2 2020 till end of service date is expected to be April Q1 2021 (NGTL 2018b: figure 2.6-1). 2021 (NGTL 2018b: 2-6). The Project • Operation and maintenance: Due to limiting lifecycle was not identified or factors including data availability, time, and considered in the 2021 Application. budget constraints the Study Team has applied the precautionary principle (CEAA JRP 2015: 46) and assumed the maximum potential effect from

construction to apply to the Project lifecycle. Spatial Temporal Spatial Boundaries

The 2021 Project Application describes “the The Report describes baseline conditions for each ANSN existing environment and socio-economic VC.

conditions that represent the baseline conditions in which the Project will be constructed and operated” (NGTL 2018b: 14-

4). Baseline

5 Wapiti River, Smoky River, Latornell River, Simonette River, Deep Valley Creek, Little Smoky River, McLeod River, Pembina River, and North Saskatchewan River” (NGTL 2018b: 19-1).

26 2021 Project Application: ANSN Report:

The 2021 Application assessed “the potential The Report assesses Project-related effects relative to the effects of the Project relative to the baseline baseline conditions. Assessment of Project effects conditions. Assessment of Project effects includes identification of potential effects, the includes identifying the potential effects, the consideration of the 2021 Application ESA mitigation application of mitigation measures, identifying measures, and the suggested application of any residual effects, and determining the accommodation measures and characterization of significance of any residual effects” (NGTL residual effects. 2018b: 14-4). The Study Team characterizes accommodation measures

“Mitigation measures are implemented to using the NEB Filing Manual definition of mitigation: the avoid or reduce potential adverse effects on elimination, reduction or control of the adverse effects of key indicators” (NGTL 2018b: 4-10). the Project and includes restitution for any damage through replacement, restoration, compensation or any other means (NEB Filing Manual Glossary of Terms 2017). The Study Team further defines “eliminate” as avoiding or completely removing the identified effect. The Study Team defines “reduce” as making the identified effect smaller in size or scope; effect is not eliminated. The Study Team defines “control” as compensating or

offsetting for effects that cannot be eliminated or reduced. ProjectEffects Assessment

Residual effects are predicted to occur when The Study Team concurs with the identification of residual a change resulting from a project alters the effects and criteria used to describe and evaluate baseline conditions. Mitigation can sometimes predicted effects used by NGTL (see Appendix B) with the avoid or reduce potential adverse effect. exception of duration which the Study Team defines as:

Where mitigation reduces but does not avoid the effect, a residual effect is predicted to • Short-Term (<1 Seasonal Round or 1 yr) occur. For any adverse effects that remain • Medium-Term (>1 Seasonal Rounds or 1 yr) after the application of feasible mitigation, a • High-Term (20+ years or equivalent to a residual effect is identified and assessed. generation) • Permanent (unlikely to recover to baseline The criteria used to describe and evaluate the conditions)6 predicted effects are direction, geographic extent, magnitude, duration, frequency and

reversibility (NGTL 2018b: 4-10). PredictedResidual EffectsAssessment

6 The Study Team deviated from NGTL’s definition of duration to better align with ANSN worldviews and the exercise of ANSN Section 35 Rights.

27 2021 Project Application: ANSN Report:

NGTL relied on the guidelines and principles The Study Team has no control or confidence that

of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2017), suggested accommodation measures will be applied, ecological and socio-economic principles, therefore a significance determination was not completed alignment with public objectives, and as part of this Report. professional judgement and experience

(NGTL2018b: 4-24)

Determination of Significance

Likelihood is a measurement of whether or not The Study Team used same criteria to describe

the effect in likely to occur (NGTL 2018b: 4- likelihood.

28) Likelihood

Prediction of confidence refers to the degree The Study Team used the same criteria to describe of certainty of the residual effect prediction prediction of confidence as the 2021 Application ESA and associated evaluation of determination of related to the identification of residual effects.

significance (NGTL 2018b: 4-29).

Prediction of Confidenc e

The 2021 Project Application conducted a The Study Team was unable to complete a cumulative “cumulative effects assessment for the Project effects assessment because the Study Team had no in combination with past, present and control or confidence that suggested accommodation reasonably foreseeable projects and activities” measures will be applied, therefore a significance for all residual effects (NGTL 201b8: 14-4) determination was not completed as part of this Report, therefore cumulative effects were not assessed. However, effects extending in to the RSA were identified

for each VC. Cumulative Effects Cumulative

The 2021 Application identified “any follow-up The Report includes suggestions for follow-up or up - and monitoring programs that will be monitoring programs to ensure effective mitigation by undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of NGTL of negative Project-related effects on ANSN planned mitigation and address environmental Section 35 Rights. issues identified during Project operation”

(NGTL 2018b:14-4).

Monitoring andFollow Table 3: Methodology Comparison Chart

3.2 Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Specific Valued Components

As stated, the Study Team notes the VCs selected by NGTL and their consultants did not reflect components that could be used to clearly identify change to Section 35 Rights of ANSN, nor did the 2021 Project Application reflect information with respect to ANSN Section 35 Rights (NGTL 2018b:4-2). The Study Team notes that ANSN was not consulted on the selection of the 2021 Project Application VCs. ANSN VCs were identified to characterize the potential Project impacts to Section 35 Rights of ANSN. VC selection was made based on several key criteria including: • Degree of importance to ANSN; • High probability to be directly or indirectly impacted by the Project; • Ability to be measured and monitored in relation to the Project; and, • Availability of sufficient baseline information

28 3.2.1 Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Valued Component Workshop

A workshop to select ANSN VC’s (“VC Workshop”) was held with ANSN on September 6, 2018. Workshop attendees included ANSN harvesters, traditional knowledge holders, Elders, and ANSN Lands Consultation Department representatives (“Workshop Attendees”). The VC Workshop began with a broad overview of the Project and provided Workshop Attendees with a summary on the VC selection process proposed by the Study Team. The Study Team posed several guiding questions to the Workshop Attendees to capture general concerns or values that may be used to select ANSN VCs. The questions posed to the Workshop Attendees included: • What makes ANSN unique? • How could the Project or other development in your territory change this? • What are your concerns about the Project related to your Section 35 Rights?

Responses by Workshop Attendees were documented and grouped into themes by the Study Team. Not all issues and concerns raised at the VC Workshop met the criteria used by the Study Team to select VCs as shown in Appendix B. The following ANSN VCs met the criteria identified by the Study Team and were selected for the assessment:

ANSN VC 1: Species of Importance (Caribou)

• Indicator: change in ability of ANSN to act as stewards of caribou and caribou habitat

The Project proposes to intersect critical caribou habitat through the Little Smoky Caribou Range. The Little Smoky Caribou Range is the last area where caribou are located within the Alexis Nakota Sioux traditional territory. Caribou was identified by ANSN representatives as a species of importance to ANSN, specifically as related to the exercise of ANSN Section 35 Rights, including stewardship and culture. Within the environmental assessment process, the consideration of Section 35 Rights has largely focused on environmental effects (CEAA and Mikisew Cree First Nation 2018). Furthermore, examples of impacts on the exercise of Section 35 Rights can include the diminishment of “opportunities to uphold stewardship and other societal norms” (CEAA and Mikisew Cree First Nation 2018).

ANSN VC 2: Harvesting7

• Indicator: change in ANSN hunting avoidance behaviours Avoidance behaviours can be understood as aversion to conditions or attributes. For example, a person preferring a quiet place over a noisy place would, when the option was available, would avoid noisy places. For this Report ANSN avoidance behaviours are defined as an action or a choice to avoid non-preferred conditions or attributes for harvesting. ANSN avoidance behaviours are compiled from Participants and reflect the non-preferred conditions or attributes that detract from the meaningful exercise of ANSN Section 35 Rights. To assess changes to ANSN hunting avoidance behaviors, the Study Team posed questions to Participants who indicated that they were a hunter, related to both physical attributes they avoid and conditions they prefer for the exercise of their Section 35 Rights related to harvesting (hunting). ANSN preferred conditions are defined by the Study Team as biophysical attributes (real or perceived) associated with land or resources that are preferred by ANSN for the exercise of Section 35 Rights. Preferred means can be understood as, if faced with a choice of options, the option that would be preferentially chosen over another available option. It is the inverse of Avoidance Behaviors. For example, a person tending to choose a quiet place over a noisy place prefers a quiet place. For this Report, ANSN preferred conditions are defined as preferred species and/or preferred conditions necessary for meaningful exercise of Section 35 Rights. ANSN preferred conditions are compiled from ANSN Survey Participants (“Participants”) and reflect preferred conditions required for the meaningful exercise of ANSN Section 35 Rights.

7 For the purposes of this Report, the activity of hunting is used as a representative activity for the exercise of Section 35 Rights related to harvesting.

29 ANSN VC 3: Culture8

• Indicator: change in ANSN culture avoidance behaviours. The ceremonial and cultural activities undertaken by ANSN members are integral to the cultural identity of ANSN. Preferred areas, including sacred and ceremonial sites within ANSN traditional territory are necessary to undertake activities by ANSN members to maintain the cultural identity of ANSN. The ceremonial activities undertaken by ANSN members are necessary to maintain the cultural identify of ANSN. Preferred areas (including sacred and ceremonial sites and ANSN family territories) or lands not under a visible use incompatible with ANSN Section 35 rights are necessary to undertake activities by ANSN members to maintain the cultural identify of ANSN. To assess changes to ANSN Culture Avoidance Behaviours, the Study Team posed questions to Participants who indicated that they attend ceremonies, cultural events and visit sacred sites related to both physical attributes they avoid and conditions they prefer for the exercise of their Section 35 Rights related to culture.

ANSN VC 4: Lands

• Indicator: change in legal restriction resulting from the application of a Crown disposition leading to a decrease of available lands for the exercise of Section 35 Rights (hectare and %).

The exercise of Section 35 Rights has geographic limitations and is not legally permitted on all types of land according to the Crown. Therefore, changes in legal restriction on Crown land causing a decrease in available lands for the exercise of Section 35 Rights is an important consideration.

For the purposes of this Report, lands under review as classified by the Study Team as available or unavailable for the exercise of Section 35 Rights are as follows:

3.3 Baseline Data Collection

The ANSN Survey (“Survey”) was developed for the collection of baseline data related to the four ANSN VCs. The Survey using structured and semi-structured interview techniques was designed using Survey Monkey®, a web-based survey platform used to collect and analyze data (Bernard 2006). ANSN Lands Consultation Department reviewed and provided comments on the draft Survey. This Survey was administered in-person and designed to be filled out by hand during the interview. ANSN members were provided with an honorarium for their time. The Study Team administered Surveys to 23 Participants. Participant Selection ANSN members identified as potential Participants were invited to take part in the Survey by the ANSN Lands Consultation Department. ANSN members were selected as Participants using purposive sampling methods. Purposive sampling involves the identification of subpopulations that are of interest, harvesters and ceremonial attendants in this case, and recruits as many of these individuals as possible (Bernard, 2006: pg. 190). Survey methods that utilize purposive sampling and recruits using personal invitation to known individuals, and chain-referral methods, generate non-random (non-probability) samples. Non-random samples are the preferred method of sampling when a study is labour intensive, requires critical or key information and experiences, and Participants are from a hard to find or hard to identify population (Bernard 2006).

8 For the purposes of this Report, cultural activities including ceremony, cultural events and sacred sites will be used as a representative activity for the exercise of Section 35 Rights and calculations for change in ANSN Culture Avoidance Behaviours.

30 The Study Team in consultation with ANSN established the following purposive sampling criteria:

• Member of ANSN • Identifies as at least one of the following: • Hunter o Trapper o Fisher o Gatherer o Ceremonial participant • Over the age of 18

Between October 23 and November 8, 2018, the Study Team administered the Survey at:

Location Date

Alexis Nakota Sioux October 23 – October 25, 2018 Nation Administration Office November 6 – November 8, 2018 Table 4: ANSN Survey Completion Dates

Survey Questions In the Surveys, Participants were asked to identify harvested species and their associated natural laws and protocols. Participants were also asked a series of related questions about their participation in ceremonies and visiting sacred sites. Participants were then asked to identify their preferred and avoided conditions for exercising their Section 35 Rights including whether they preferred to harvest or participate in cultural and ceremonial activities in the presence of noise, contamination, the presence or absence of other people, and evidence of industrial activity. Participants were also asked to identify their avoidance behaviours for hunting, gathering and ceremonial, cultural and sacred sites by indicating how close to or far from different types of developments (e.g., pipelines, oil and gas facilities, active logging), and lands or leases (e.g., private lands, protected areas) the Participant exercised their Section 35 Rights. For each development and land type Participants were given a choice between the following distances: • On the development or land to 100 meters • Next to the development/land: at least 100m (1-minute walk), • At least 250m (2-minute walk) • At least 500m (5-minute walk) • At least 1km (10-minute walk) • At least 2 km (20-minute walk)

At the end of the Survey, Participants were shown maps of the Project. Participants were then asked to identify if they exercised their Section 35 Rights including hunting, trapping, fishing, gathering, and ceremonial and cultural activities in the Project RSA. This land and resource use information was recorded and mapped according to the methodology established in this Report. Informed Consent and Confidentiality Each Participant was provided information on the Project and read the consent form requesting permission to use the data collected before the interview commenced. The consent form further outlined that the information shared during the Survey the sole property of the Participant and ANSN. The consent form also explained that all Participants are intended to remain anonymous. Prior to data entry, the Study Team assigned each Participant a number code (e.g. 2ANS or 9ANS) and all quotes or observations taken from Participants were attributed to the assigned number code. Permission was also requested from Participants to allow for voice recordings, used by the Study Team to ensure all valuable information was accurately captured and included in data analysis. Of the 23 completed Surveys, 3 Participants did not want to be voice recorded.

Data Entry The Study Team completed 23 Surveys. Of the 23 Surveys that were competed, all 23 were included in the sample. Interviews could be excluded if: • The Survey was incomplete, or the Participant did not enter any data other than basic demographic information. • The Study Team did not feel the information was reliable or the Participant was unable to answer the preponderance of questions. None of the Surveys were excluded based on these criteria. Interview answers were entered manually into an online version of the interview using data streaming and question logic built into the Survey Monkey® platform. Following this entry, the Study Team transcribed selected qualitative information contained within the interviews using interview recordings. As noted above, to ensure Participant confidentiality, Participants were assigned a number code that was then used throughout the data entry, quote transcription and the Report. Participants were referred to by their assigned number code rather than by their name.

3.3.1 Data Analysis

Data analyzed for the Report was derived from a variety of publicly available and private sources including AltaLIS Ltd.’s Digital Integrated Dispositions (DIDs), Natural Resources Canada, Alberta Parks, Surveys, mapping data identified by Participants, and mapped data collected and provided by ANSN from the field visits for this Project, etc. Lands Unavailable for the Exercise of Section 35 Rights Lands with Crown authorizations are defined for this Report as Crown lands under a third-party or Crown disposition. These lands, along with private lands held by fee simple land holders, have been moved from the inventory of lands where Indigenous nations have an unrestricted right of access to exercise their Section 35 Rights (i.e. unoccupied Crown land) to the inventory of lands where they can no longer exercise these rights without permission or where their right of access is now diminished in priority compared to other rights holders. For the purpose of this Report, these Crown lands now under disposition are referred to as unavailable lands. Unavailable lands include all public land that is the subject of a legislative instrument under the Public Lands Act that conveys an estate or interest sufficient to enable the holder of the disposition to exclude persons from entering on public land, including: • Orders (Orders-in-Council; Ministerial Orders; Directors Orders); • Notifications and Sell-back Agreements; • Reservations and Notations (Dispositions and Holdings); • Leases, licenses, permits, agreements, authorizations and approvals (collectively known as dispositions). The application of the Public Lands Act conveys an interest to a third-party disposition holder, in this case NGTL, priority access and can restrict or limit ANSN access to the Project Footprint during construction and operations. Crown authorizations also refers to lands in Alberta that are within the legislative competence of the Alberta Legislature under any other enactment that may lead to a restriction on the exercise of Section 35 Rights, including the designation of public roads, road allowances, conservation and protected areas. It is assumed, that where the disposition is silent on the exercise of specific activities related to Section 35 Rights (for example, hunting or gathering), then those right(s) do not have priority over the stated purpose of the disposition. For example, Saskatoon Mountain and Aurora Provincial Recreation Areas are under a Crown authorization that expressly allows for hunting activities. The same Crown authorization is silent on trapping, gathering, fishing, and ceremonial activities. It is assumed, for the purposes of this Report, that hunting, and camping are permitted activities that are not subject to diminished priority while all other activities are subject to restrictions and diminished priority. An analysis of private lands and Crown authorizations attempts to identify a Project impact by quantifying the amount of unavailable lands in the vicinity of the Project.

32 For the purpose of this Report, unavailable land includes lands under private ownership, provincial Crown lands, federal Crown lands, including IRs, railways, national parks, and military bases, and other lands under Federal control. These lands are considered unavailable for the exercise of Section 35 Rights. Crown land not under Crown authorizations is considered available. This Report seeks to identify the amount of available land to which ANSN members have a right of access that will be made unavailable for the exercise of Section 35 Rights by ANSN. This information is relevant for a consideration of Project effects. For the purposes of this Report, the activity of hunting will be used as a representative activity for the exercise of Section 35 Rights. Restrictions for hunting are identified as a prohibited activity for many provincially mandated parks and protected areas including provincial recreation areas, natural areas, and provincial parks. Protected areas intersecting the RSA that restrict the Section 35 Rights of ANSN (activity of hunting) include:

Protected Area Activities Allowed and Prohibited

Saskatoon Mountain Hunting is allowed; Primitive weapons only (shotgun, muzzle loader, bow)

Public Recreation Area

Aurora Natural Area Hunting is allowed

Natural Areas in RSA

Hunting is prohibited; Allowed geocaching, fishing, group use, hiking, OHV riding, and Big Mountain Creek snowmobiling

Hornbeck Creek Hunting is prohibited; Allowed geocaching, camping, fishing and swimming

Hunting is prohibited; Allowed geocaching, camping, canoeing/kayaking, fishing, hiking, Wolf Lake West power boating and swimming

Hunting is prohibited; Allowed camping, canoeing/kayaking, fishing, group use, mountain Jackfish Lake biking, OHV riding, ice fishing and snowmobiling

Chambers Creek Hunting is prohibited; Allowed camping, fishing, hiking, mountain biking and OHV riding

Chambers Creek Group Hunting is prohibited; Allowed geocaching, fishing, group use, hiking, mountain biking and Camp OHV riding

Hunting is prohibited; Allowed camping, canoeing/kayaking, fishing, hiking, mountain biking, Horburg

OHV riding and snowmobiling Provincial Recreation Area in RSA in ProvincialRecreation Area

Hornbeck Cross Hunting is prohibited; Allowed geocaching, Camping, Fishing and Swimming

Country Skiing

Public Land Recreat ion Area in RSA Table 5: Protected Areas Intersecting the RSA

Land and Resource Use Composite base maps used during the interviews were created by the Study Team. The base maps focused on the lands surrounding the Project components. These black and white maps were used during interviews. Base maps were used to document the exercise of Section 35 Rights (e.g. hunting, fishing, gathering, ceremonial and sacred sites, camps, burial sites, campsites, trails/travel routes etc.), as well as areas where family members have exercised their rights and locations that are suitable for the exercise of Section 35 Rights (i.e. sites such as moose licks or berry habitat). All sites that a Participant visited within their lifetime are considered a current use site.

33 3.3.2 Mapping Available Lands and Land and Resource Use

Composite base maps depicting available lands were created using shapefiles of Crown lands under disposition and private lands. The scale for the land and resource use maps was set at 1:1,800,000 to allow for an extent where the RSAs and LSAs are defined. Creation of the Maps- Private Lands and Crown Authorizations A calculation was conducted in ArcGIS 10.6.1 to approximate how much of the total area in the Project Footprint, LSA and RSA is unavailable for the exercise of Section 35 Rights. Table 6 outlines the different developments and land designation types that can be found in the RSA and how they may limit the exercise of rights by ANSN members. Table 6 also lists the datasets that were publicly available and/or accessible. Analysis of the land available for the Project Footprint, LSA and RSA during construction were created using this data. For each of the areas of concern, calculations were conducted to determine how much of the total land area is unavailable land under Crown authorizations9 or private ownership10. To achieve this, the Crown authorizations and White Area datasets were merged into one shapefile, dissolved (to prevent double counting of overlapping features) and clipped to the Project Footprint, LSA and RSA. The resulting area of unavailable occupied and private land was compared to the total land area to ascertain the percentage of unavailable land. The data derived from AltaLIS Ltd.’s Digital Integrated Dispositions (“DIDs”) layer is current as November 19, 2018. For land based activities, the total area of the Project Footprint, LSA, RSA does not include waterbodies.

Development or Section 35 Rights Land Restricted by Dataset Data Source Designation Development/Land Type Designation

Primary Roads All rights National Road Natural Resources Canada, Government of Canada or Highways Network

Secondary All rights National Road Natural Resources Canada, Government of Canada Roads (paved Network and unpaved)

All rights Digital Integrated AltaLIS Ltd., Alberta Data Partnerships Ltd., Lease Roads Dispositions Government of Alberta

All rights Access Polygon AltaLIS Ltd., Alberta Data Partnerships Ltd., Airstrips Government of Alberta

Pipeline Right- All rights Digital Integrated AltaLIS Ltd., Alberta Data Partnerships Ltd., of-Way (below Dispositions Government of Alberta ground)

Pipeline All rights Digital Integrated AltaLIS Ltd., Alberta Data Partnerships Ltd., Facilities Dispositions Government of Alberta (including: compressors/m eter stations and risers)

Power Lines All rights Access Polygons AltaLIS Ltd., Alberta Data Partnerships Ltd., Government of Alberta Powerline Arc

9 For the construction phase, this includes temporary field authorizations for TWS, camps, and laydown yards. 10 The Study Team notes because of the difficulty and expense involved in locating and digitizing private lands, the White Area was used a proxy.

34 Development or Section 35 Rights Land Restricted by Dataset Data Source Designation Development/Land Type Designation

Conventional All rights Access Polygons AltaLIS Ltd., Alberta Data Partnerships Ltd., Oil and Gas Government of Alberta Facilities

Sand and All rights Digital Integrated AltaLIS Ltd., Alberta Data Partnerships Ltd., Gravel Pit Dispositions Government of Alberta Access Polygons

Electricity All rights Digital Integrated AltaLIS Ltd., Alberta Data Partnerships Ltd., Generation Site Dispositions Government of Alberta Access Polygons

Structures and All rights Access Polygons AltaLIS Ltd., Alberta Data Partnerships Ltd., Dwellings Government of Alberta Digital Integrated Dispositions

Private Land – All rights Landcover - Natural Resources Canada Cropland and GeoBase Pasture

Provincial Hunting allowed in Parks and Alberta Parks Parks and Saskatoon Mountain Protected Areas Protected and Aurora Provincial Areas Recreational Area All other rights subject to limitation

Town All rights Municipal AltaLIS Ltd., Alberta Data Partnerships Ltd., Boundary Government of Alberta

Campground All rights Digital Integrated AltaLIS Ltd., Alberta Data Partnerships Ltd., Dispositions Government of Alberta Table 6: Crown Authorizations – Datasets in the RSA Representing Crown Authorized Land

3.3.3 Creation of the Maps – Avoidance Zones

In addition to identifying available and unavailable lands another assessment was conducted to spatially represent and approximate the area that extends beyond the private lands and lands with Crown authorizations where Participants report avoiding in the exercise of their Section 35 Rights. Creation of Avoidance Zones Participants were asked during the Survey how far from certain developments or land designation types they felt comfortable exercising their Section 35 Rights. Avoidance Zone distance for each development or land type was identified by calculating the average distance or mean of the distances selected by the Participants for that development or land type. For example, Participants were asked how close/far from a pipeline right-of-way under construction they preferred to hunt. The Participants answered:

35 Example Avoidance Zone Calculation: Q : How far/close do you like to hunt from a pipeline right-of-way under construction?

Development On the At least a At least a At least a At least a 20- N/A Sub-total Mean Type development or 2-minute 5-minute 10-minute minute walk (in x m) (Subtotal/#of under a 1- walk walk walk (~1km) (~2km) respondents*) minute walk (~250m) (~.5km)

Pipeline right- of-way under 0 2 0 0 14 0 28500 1781 construction Table 7: Example of How Avoidance Zone is Calculated *Number of respondents is 16

Based on the above information, the average or mean distance Participants preferred to stay from a pipeline right-of- way under construction is 1781 metres. It is important to note that while Participants were asked how far they would stay from a wide range of lands and development types (i.e. pipeline facilities, structures, pad sites) only those development types for which shapefiles could be obtained in the RSA and LSA are shown in the maps; therefore, these calculations likely underrepresent the amount of land that is unavailable or not preferred by Participants. To spatially represent and approximate the amount of lands that Participants indicated were not preferable for the exercise of Section 35 Rights, appropriately sized buffers were created in ArcMap 10.6.1 defined by development type for the activity of hunting (See Section 5). A calculation was conducted for each buffer set to illustrate how much land, in addition to the land already under Crown authorizations, is not preferable. Creation of the Maps – Land and Resource Use Maps The documentation and mapping of land and resource use information collected during the Survey, was physically controlled by the Study Team. Where applicable, the sites were marked on a base map and were given a feature number which corresponded with the notes taken. Polygons were predominantly used to record use information for several reasons; while not exact, they allow for the Participants to represent a lifetime of experience in a short interview format. Polylines were used to document travel routes or animal migration routes. All polygons and polylines are considered approximate as field verification was not completed as part of the Report. This Report also uses site specific field study information collected for the Project and provided by ANSN (Section 8).

36 The shapefiles each contain an associated attribute table which was used to document information specific to each mapped site, including:

Attribute Table Field Name Details Project The Project Interview Date The date the interview took place (dd/mm/yyyy). Nation Identifies Indigenous nation that Participant belongs to. Participant The Participants name. Name Code Alpha-numeric code assigned to Participant. Berry Gather Y or N if site is related to berry gathering. Cultural Y or N if site is related to sacred or ceremonial sites. Habitation Y or N if site is related to habitation or camping. Hunting Y or N if site is related to hunting.

Plant Gather Y or N if site is related to plant gathering.

Travel Route Y or N if site is related to a travel route. Fish Y or N if site is related to fishing. Moose Y or N if site is related to hunting moose. Elk Y or N if site is related to hunting elk. Caribou Y or N if site is related to hunting caribou. Deer Y or N if site is related to hunting deer. Walleye Y or N if site is related to fishing walleye. Trout Y or N if site is related to fishing trout. Grayling Y or N if site is related to fishing grayling. Huckleberry Y or N if site is related to gathering huckleberries. Blueberry Y or N if site is related to gathering blueberries. Medicine Y or N if site is related to gathering medicine. Fungus Y or N if site is related to gathering fungus. Rat Root Y or N if site is related to gathering rat root. Grizzly Bear Y or N if site is related to hunting grizzly bear. Jackfish Y or N if site is related to fishing jackfish. Info Any other relevant site detail which may be provided. Table 8: Data for Map Sets

3.3.4 Verification

A draft Report was provided to the ANSN Lands Consultation Department for review and verification. This was done to ensure the information contained within the draft Report was accurate and respected any confidentiality concerns. Comments and observations on the Report were included in this Report where appropriate as determined by the Study Team. The Report was provided for submission to the NEB and NGTL on April 18, 2019.

37 3.4 Accommodation

3.4.1 NGTL Mitigation Measures

NGTL identified Project effects to their selected VCs. A fulsome list of measures meant to eliminate, reduce or control identified adverse effects are described in the 2021 Project Application. For example, NGTL identified all lands required for the Project and routed the Project to be adjacent to existing ROW’s for 93% of the Project route except where deviations cannot be avoided (NGTL 2018b: Appendix A-1). NGTL used the following criteria to select and refine the routing of the Project: NGTL’s route selection process considers and balances several criteria when evaluating route options, including the following, where practical or feasible: • minimizing length to reduce overall environmental and socio-economic footprint • ensuring pipeline sections and facilities are economical to construct and operate • paralleling existing linear disturbances to: o minimize the fragmentation of land parcels by introduction of infrastructure to areas in which it currently does not exist o maximize the amount of TWS on existing ROWs o minimize the amount of new (non-parallel and non-overlapping) ROW required o minimize potential effects on environmental resources (e.g., native plant communities and wildlife habitat) and agricultural operations • ensuring public safety • minimizing the number, and ensuring the construction feasibility, of watercourse, road, rail and utility crossings • considering and avoiding sensitive environmental features (e.g., wetlands, riparian areas, and watercourse crossings) and sites with known occurrences of provincially or federally listed wildlife and plant species (habitat features for species of management concern, provincially listed species at risk, species and habitats for species listed under the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada [COSEWIC] or the federal Species at Risk Act [SARA]) • avoiding terrain subject to geotechnical issues such as areas of unstable slopes, problem soils, or known seismic activity • avoiding lands of designated status, such as parks, protected areas, cemeteries and historic, archaeological or heritage sites • avoiding concentrated areas of rural residences and urban developments considering input received from potentially impacted landowners, stakeholders and Aboriginal groups through various engagement activities (NGTL 2018b: 7-1). The Study Team assumes that NGTL applied the above criteria to the highest degree feasible in selecting the Project route. The Study Team notes that some criteria used by NGTL may exacerbate potential adverse effects to the ANSN VC’s of Lands, Harvesting, Species of Importance, and Culture. See Section 4.2.3, 5.2.3, 6.2.3 and 7.2.3 for examples. Additionally, NGTL in the 2021 Project Application Environmental Protection Plan (EPP), Table 1, summarizes mitigation measures to be applied to the Project throughout its lifecycle including: • cleaning and disinfecting equipment being used within the North Saskatchewan River before moving it to a different waterbody; • scheduling clearing and construction activities outside breeding bird window (May 1 – August 10); • conducting field surveys for bear dens if construction begins after bear denning has begun; • scheduling of clearing and construction activities outside of breeding, emergence and migration periods for wildlife where feasible; • implementing a Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zone Protection Plan outlined in Appendix F of 2021 Project Application EPP; • Reduce sensory disturbances of construction activities during trumpeter swan buffer period (prior to Sept 30); • cleaning and sanitization of equipment to prevent spreading of club rot; • treating sites to eradicate noxious weeds; • implementing the Plant Species and Ecological Community of Concern Discovery Contingency Plan outlined in Appendix 1E of 2021 Project Application EPP;

38 • marking of all sensitive resources; • natural recovery methods for reclamation of wetlands; • marking of all historical or palaeontological features; • following requirements related to historical resources of Alberta Culture and Tourism under the Alberta Historical Resources Act; • stock piling topsoil/strippings from temporary disturbances to be used for reclamation activities; and, • addressing any specific issues related to noise emissions (NGTL 2018b; EPP 16-35).

The Study Team assumes in the analysis of ANSN-VCs that all mitigation measures identified by NGTL will be applied to the highest degree feasible in implementing the 2021 Project Application EPP. Within this assumption, the Study Team notes that the above mitigation measures may not result in reduction in negative and adverse effects to ANSN VCs. The Study Team notes that NGTL has not identified specific mitigation measures as it relates to ANSN Section 35 Rights.

3.4.2 Suggested Accommodation Measures

The Study Team defines accommodation measures as measures to eliminate, reduce or control identified effects to selected VCs (NEB Filing Manual 2017). In order to be effective, accommodation measures must be directly responsive and proportional to the identified effect. For those effects that cannot be eliminated or controlled through the application of mitigation measures residual effects remain. Residual effects are predicted to occur when a change resulting from the Project alters baseline conditions. Accommodation can be used to eliminate, reduce or control the potential adverse impact. Where mitigation reduces but does not eliminate or control the effect, a residual effect is predicted to occur. For all adverse effects that will be avoided, residual effects are not predicted, and no further assessment is required. For any adverse effects that remain after the application of feasible mitigation, a residual effect is identified and assessed (NGTL 2018b: 4-10). The Study Team defines “eliminate” as avoiding or completely removing the identified effect. The Study Team defines “reduce” as making the identified effect smaller in size or scope, but the effect is not eliminated. The Study Team defines “control” as managing or offsetting an identified effect that is not eliminated or reduced through the initial accommodation steps. When measures to reduce an effect are applied, an identification of unintended changes to other effects is required. For this Report, the Study Team notes that selection of an accommodation measure to eliminate the effect would not require additional selection of reduction or control measures. Selection of reduction measures would require additional measures to control to offset residual effects as shown below Figure 7. The Study Team has developed a table of suggested mitigation and accommodation measures (Appendix C) to eliminate, reduce or control each identified adverse Project effects to the ANSN VCs of Species of Importance, Harvesting, Culture, and Land: Apply Control Measure(s)

39 Project Effect

Apply Elimination Apply Reduction Measure Measure

Identify No Residual unintended Residual Effects Effects change to other effect(s)

Apply Control Measure(s)

No Residual Effect

Figure 7: Options in the Selection of Accommodation Measures

3.5 Limitations of this Study

3.5.1 Sample Size

Because of time and budget constraints, the Surveys were conducted with 23 Participants. While the data contained in this Report is an accurate reflection of the concerns and the exercise of Section 35 Rights of the Participants, the Report should not be considered a representative sample of the entire ANSN population or a complete representation of land and resource use by the Participant (s). Project-specific land and resource use information is not the totality of information about the exercise of Section 35 Rights in an area by a Nation. It is also impossible to fully represent the extent of knowledge or areas of use learned over a lifetime during a standard interview format. A representative map of land and resource use will identify ‘used’ and ‘unused’ areas which may not accurately reflect the totality of a lifetime of cultural knowledge and practices. Because of limited information in relation to the location of private lands, Participants were unable to identify private lands they have or had permission to access for exercising their Section 35 Rights, as such the maps likely under represent the amount of land and resource use sites in the vicinity of the Project.

40 3.5.2 Data Limitations for Crown Datasets

The spatial data used to represent private lands and Crown authorizations was accessed on November 19, 2018. Data used in this Report is limited to information that is available through AltaLIS Ltd., Alberta Data Partnerships Ltd., GeoGratis, Statistics Canada, and Alberta counties/municipal districts. Lands subject to temporary authorizations such as geophysical activity, laydown yards, logging, and/or temporary construction spaces are generally not included in the publicly available data. Other land types for which shape files are not publicly available include active logging sites, former cut blocks, gates, and signage. Because there is limited publicly available information on private lands, Alberta’s White Area was used as a proxy for private and fee simple lands.

3.5.3 Limitations of Identifying Project Impacts

Section 35 Rights are limited by specific geographic locations. The Study Team assumed the terms of Treaty No. 6 and the NRTA identify that ANSN members have the right to exercise their Section 35 Rights on all unoccupied Crown land and other lands to which they have a right of access within Treaty No. 6 and within the Province of Alberta. The Project impacts identified in this Report are restricted to an examination of ANSN members’ right to exercise their Section 35 Rights on all unoccupied Crown land and other lands to which they have a right of access within the Project Footprint, LSA and RSA.

3.5.4 Reliance on 2021 Project Application

The Study Team did not have independent access to information related to biophysical impacts resulting from the Project including changes to land, habitat, species composition, or other physical changes than was otherwise described in the 2021 Project Application.

3.5.5 Identification of Project Effects

The Study Team notes that this Report is not an exhaustive identification of effects resulting from the Project to ANSN Section 35 Rights. For the purposes of this Report, the activity of hunting be used as representative harvesting activities for the exercise of Section 35 Rights.

3.5.6 Spatial Identification of Effects

Due to limiting factors including data availability, time, and budget constraints the Study Team has applied the precautionary principle (CEAA JRP 2015: 46) and assumed the maximum potential effect from construction to apply to the Project lifecycle.

41 4. Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Valued Component – Species of Importance (Caribou)

Caribou was identified by ANSN representatives as a species of importance to ANSN, specifically related to the exercise of ANSN Section 35 Rights, including stewardship and culture.

The following indicator was chosen to characterize change for the ANSN VC of Species of Importance:

• change in ability of ANSN to act as stewards of caribou and caribou habitat

4.1 Baseline Conditions

The Little Smoky comprises 308,380 ha of Alberta’s Green Area of public managed lands within the Foothills, Subalpine and Alpine Natural Regions, and Lower Foothills and Upper Foothills Sub-regions (GOA 2017). The Little Smoky has contained numerous resource extraction activities over the past decades including petroleum, natural gas, metallic and industrial minerals, and forestry - all contributing factors to habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation within the range (GOA 2017).

Caribou are known to be sensitive to both natural and anthropogenic disturbances11 such as noise, human presence, and linear corridors. Natural and anthropogenic disturbances can cause caribou to avoid otherwise suitable habitat at a distance of approximately 500 m from the edge of the disturbance (GOA 2017). According to the Government of Canada, a 500-meter buffer on disturbance features is the best way to represent the combined effects of increased predation and avoidance on caribou population trends at the national scale (Environment Canada 2012).

While NGTL reports 95% of the delineated range is considered disturbed by anthropogenic development and fire (NGTL 2018b: 12-21), the GOA reports the Little Smoky caribou habitat is currently considered 99% disturbed by natural12 and anthropogenic footprint including the 500 m applied buffer (GOA 2017). In a 2010 caribou status update, the Government of Alberta reported 86.8% anthropogenic habitat disturbances in the Little Smoky, meaning there has been an 12.2% increase in anthropogenic disturbances between 2010 and 2017 (ASRD and ACA 2010).

A Government of Canada threshold has been implemented for caribou ranges and mandates that all ranges have at least 65% undisturbed habitat (GOA 2017). According to the Recovery Strategy, critical habitat is defined as:

the area within the boundary of each boreal caribou range that provides an overall ecological condition that will allow for an ongoing recruitment and retirement cycle of habitat, which maintains a perpetual state of a minimum of 65% of the area as undisturbed habitat; and biophysical attributes required by boreal caribou to carry out life processes (Environment Canada 2012: 32).

Furthermore, the required condition of a minimum of 65% undisturbed habitat threshold provides a minimum 60% probability for a local population to be self-sustaining. This threshold is only considered a minimum threshold because at 65% undisturbed habitat there remains a significant risk (40%) that local populations will not be self-sustaining (Environment Canada 2012).

11Anthropogenic disturbance includes both linear (roads, pipelines and seismic lines) and area type disturbance (forest harvest areas, well pads, and facilities). Natural disturbance is defined as wildfire disturbance in the last 40 years (and does not include a buffer) (GOA 2017: 24). 12 Wildfires within the past 40 years account for less than 1% of the disturbance within the Little Smoky Caribou Range (GOA 2017, pg. 59).

42 Caribou require “large range areas comprised of continuous tracts of undisturbed habitat” (Environment Canada 2012: 9). In general, boreal caribou prefer habitat consisting of mature to old-growth coniferous forest (e.g. jack pine (Pinus banksiana), black spruce (Picea mariana)) with abundant lichens, or muskegs and peat lands intermixed with upland or hilly areas (Environment Canada 2012). This means the maintenance of mature to old-growth forest habitat is critical to caribou survival and recovery.

Additionally, habitat alteration (disturbance, loss, degradation or fragmentation) brought about by human activity has caused an imbalance in predator-prey relationship (wolves and/or bear). This has resulted in the unnaturally high predation rates of caribou (Environment Canada 2012). The Government of Alberta implemented an annual wolf population management program starting in winter 2005/2006 and continues this program in order to maintain population stability and growth of the Little Smoky caribou population (GOA 2017).

Baseline Conditions According to NGTL The Project proposes to intersect critical caribou habitat through the Little Smoky. A total of 43.9km of pipeline (72% of the Deep Valley Section of the Project) goes through the Little Smoky (NGTL 2018b: 11-45) and parallels existing disturbance primarily associated with NGTL GPML for approximately 98% of its length within the Little Smoky (NGTL 2018b: Appendix 1: 2-1). The Project Footprint Study Area of 75 m was narrowed to 42 m within the Little Smoky (43.9km) (NGTL 2018b: 4-9). The ROW width required to construct the Project is generally 42 m with expansions to 50 m at select watercourses (NGTL 2018b: Appendix 1: 2-1).

As part of the Project effects assessment, Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) modeling was undertaken within the portions of proposed Project LSA (Deep Valley Section) that intersects critical caribou habitat (NGTL 2018b:12-22). The HSI categories identified by NGTL included poor, marginal, moderate, good and high ratings based on criteria including avoidance behaviour and characteristics supporting foraging, proper cover and breeding (NGTL 2018b:12-8). The 2021 Project Application ESA reports that within the portion of the Little Smoky that intersects the Deep Valley Section, a total of 684 ha (13%) of high and good quality habitat is available for caribou in the LSA.

The 2021 Project Application ESA caribou detections and observations through historical observations include (NGTL 2018b:12-23):

• 30 in the LSA between 1989 and 1997 • 79 within 10km of the Project Footprint between 1986 and 1997

Through the 2021 Project Application ESA winter tracking results (NGTL 2018b:12-23), the following caribou evidence was reported:

• 5 caribou tracks recorded within the LSA • 4 caribou tracks incidentally detected in RSA

Baseline Conditions According to Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Of the 23 Participants interviewed, 35% (n=8) participants had reported either seeing caribou, caribou tracks, or shooting caribou. Some Participants recall seeing caribou on cutlines (13ANS), in Jasper (7ANS), crossing roadways (23ANS), and near Zeta Lake (21ANS), whereas other Participants only detected caribou tracks (17ANS). As shown in Figure 14, Participants identified 11 caribou observation sites within ANSN traditional territory (4ANS, 13ANS, 14ANS, 16ANS, 17ANS, 19ANS, 22ANS, and 23ANS). Five out of the eleven observations sites intersect the RSA. Figure 15 identifies ANSN caribou evidence overlapping with NGTL historical and winter tracking baseline information13.

Participants talked about how historically, caribou traveled across a much larger area. Participants (4ANS, 1ANS) explained that caribou are found near the Grande Cache area and Participant 22ANS noted “shooting one [caribou] 40 years ago when we used to see [them] back then”.

Imagine that whole north area -that’s where the caribou lived – now they are [in] the small little piece like that- see the impact that it has on us? seasonally the caribou don’t stay in that area, they move. As the seasons, they go with the seasons. (13ANS)

13 Shapefiles provided by NGTL did not include all the 2021 Project Application ESA recorded historical and winter tracking results.

43 Participants noted that some of the decline to caribou populations was likely attributed to predation, such as wolves, grizzlies and cougars (13ANS, 16ANS, 19ANS, 22ANS, and 23ANS). In part, Participants talked about these animals catching caribou as part of the natural cycle of life, and balancing the ecosystem, however roads and cutlines, coupled with the Participants’ understanding that caribou are slow runners, and easy prey have made catching caribou easier for the predators (13ANS, 16ANS, 19ANS, 22ANS, and 23ANS).

They [grandparents] said they used to see a herd sometimes…but there were too many wolves and they disappeared. (16ANS)

My grandpa told me long time ago, that they used to eat them…they [caribou] were all secretive, like they hide away from people… they’re pretty smart that way but looks like the bears are really tracking them or cougars or wolves. (19ANS)

44 Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Reference Map 2021 NGTL System Expansion Project ANSN Caribou Evidence GRANDE PRAIRIE

EDMONTON ##

## ## CALGARY

!( GPM 143

GPML Loop No. 4 Valhalla

!( GPM 120 GPM 11 !( 5 GPML Loop No. 3 Elmworth

!( GPM 85 !( GPM 80 !.! ! GPML Loop No. 2 !.!. Karr !.! !( GPM 60 GPML Loop No. 2 Deep Valley !.!. !. ALEXIS WHITECOURT IR 232 GPM 30 GPML Loop No. 2 !( GPM 28 McLeod River Connection !( GPM 27 !(

ALEXIS IR 133 !( January Creek Control Valve ED 110 !( EDMONTON

Edson ML Loop No. 2 Robb !( ED 100

Edson ML Loop No. 4

Dismal Creek !( ED 90

ALEXIS ELK RIVER ALEXIS CARDINAL IR 233 IR 234 ED 80 Nordegg ##!( Compressor Station

Legend Edson ML Loop No. 4 !( Brewster Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation IR

ANSN Field Data !. Caribou Evidence ANSN Report Data Caribou Evidence

!( Mainline Valve Site

## Compressor Station Didsbury ## Compressor Station 2021 NGTL - Grande Prairie West Area

Valhalla, Elmworth Beiseker Compressor ## Station 2021 NGTL - Grande Prairie South Area

Karr, Deep Valley, McLeod River COCHRANE

2021 NGTL - Edson South Area CALGARY

Robb, Dismal Creek, Brewster

LSA - Local Study Area Pipeline: 1.1 km corridor BLACK DIAMOND

TURNER Compressor Station: 1.5 km radius VALLE Y RSA - Regional Study Area Pipeline: 20 km corridor Compressor Station: 10 km radius

Little Smoky Caribou Range

Protected Area DISCLAIMER: THIS MAP SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A SUBSTITUTE FOR DATA SOURCES: ESRI, HERE, GARMIN, INTERMAP, INCREMENT P CORP., GEBCO, CONSULTATION WITH ALEXIS NAKOTA SIOUX NATION. THIS MAP IS THE EXCLUSIVE USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GEOBASE, IGN, KADASTER NL, ORDNANCE SURVEY, PROPERTY OF ALEXIS NAKOTA SIOUX NATION. ANY REPRODUCTION OR ESRI JAPAN, METI, ESRI CHINA (HONG KONG), SWISS TOPO, GIS USER COMMUNITY DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, GOVERNMENT OF ALBERTA, TRANSCANADA, Public Land Use Zone ALL TRADITIONAL USE AREAS/SITES ARE APPROXIMATE. ALEXIS NAKOTA SIOUX NATION PROJECT DATA LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 Date: Mar 14, 2019 Prepared For: Prepared By: Figure:

Coordinate System: Alexis Nakota MNP LLP 8 Ü Kilometers - Scale 1:1,800,000 NAD83 11N Sioux Nation GPML Loop No.Alexis 3 Nakota Sioux Nation Reference Map Elmworth 2021 NGTL System Expansion Project ANSN and NGTL Caribou Evidence GRANDE PRAIRIE

EDMONTON ##

## ## CALGARY

UV43

.!.! GPML Loop No. 2 Karr

.!.!

Deep Valley Creek LSA Crossing

! . 2018 Winter Tracking .! Caribou Observation .!

Little Smoky River LSA Crossing LITTLE SMOKY CARIBOU RANGE 2018 Winter Tracking Caribou Observation Legend

ANSN Field Data GPML Loop No. 2 .! Caribou Evidence Deep Valley ANSN Report Data Caribou Evidence Caribou Species Observation

(! 2018 Winter Tracking Observation (2)

## Historical Species Observation (14) LSA - Local Study Area Pipeline: 1.1 km corridor Compressor Station: 1.5 km radius RSA - Regional Study Area Pipeline: 20 km corridor Compressor Station: 10 km radius GPML Loop No. 2 McLeod River Connection

Little Smoky Caribou Range

DISCLAIMER: THIS MAP SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A SUBSTITUTE FOR DATA SOURCES: ESRI, HERE, GARMIN, INTERMAP, INCREMENT P CORP., GEBCO, Note on Historical Species Observation Data: CONSULTATION WITH ALEXIS NAKOTA SIOUX NATION. THIS MAP IS THE EXCLUSIVE USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GEOBASE, IGN, KADASTER NL, ORDNANCE SURVEY, PROPERTY OF ALEXIS NAKOTA SIOUX NATION. ANY REPRODUCTION OR ESRI JAPAN, METI, ESRI CHINA (HONG KONG), SWISS TOPO, GIS USER COMMUNITY There40 are 14 points recorded at 5 locations, DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. UV GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, GOVERNMENT OF ALBERTA, TRANSCANADA, ALL TRADITIONAL USE AREAS/SITES ARE APPROXIMATE. ALEXIS NAKOTA SIOUX NATION with multiple observations per location. PROJECT DATA LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.

0 5 10 15 20 25 Date: Mar 14, 2019 Prepared For: Prepared By: Figure:

Coordinate System: Alexis Nakota MNP LLP 9 Ü Kilometers - Scale 1:350,000 NAD83 11N Sioux Nation 4.1.1 Change in Ability of Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation to Act as Stewards of Caribou and Caribou Habitat

Prior to contact, ANSN was able to maintain their traditional territory and govern land and resource use activities according to ANSN natural laws and protocols. Based on information provided by the ANSN Lands Consultation Department, Participants, and Workshop Attendees, the Study Team understands that ANSN natural laws and protocols guide ANSN land and resource management. Further, Participants and Workshop Attendees indicated that the ability to act as stewards of the land and resources within ANSN traditional territory is linked to the ability for ANSN to maintain its culture. Stewardship is defined as “the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one’s care.”14

It was reported to the Study Team by the ANSN Lands Consultation Department, Participants, and Workshop Attendees that a challenge related to ANSN’s ability to act as stewards is the lack of control or influence ANSN has related to development activities in ANSN traditional territory.

Following the signing of Treaty 6 and implementation of the Indian Act (as noted in Section 2) ANSN members were unable to maintain their ability to steward the land and had no control over the management of lands or the activities that would take place within ANSN traditional territory.

Currently, ANSN has not regained any legislative authority to manage, or steward, land and resources necessary for the exercise of their Section 35 Rights. As a result, ANSN is not able to sustain their way of life to the extent in which they would like, including the ability to preserve cultural practices, or steward caribou and caribou habitat.

According to the Sections 92(5) and 92(A) of the Constitution Act,1982 land and resource management responsibilities within provincial boundaries falls to the Government of Alberta. According to Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1982, the Government of Canada holds jurisdiction over Indians, and lands reserved for Indians. Currently, the Indian Act is the legal framework for controlling activities, including lands and resource management activities, on ANSN IRs.

The inclusion of Section 35 and the subsequent protection afforded to ANSN Aboriginal and treaty rights in the Constitution Act, 1982, require the duty to consult and accommodate process be undertaken by the Crown for projects that have the potential to negatively effect Section 35 Rights. The purpose of the duty to consult and accommodate has been clarified in case law and is, largely, to identify potential impacts to the exercise of ANSN Section 35 Rights and appropriate accommodation measures for those impacts.

Within the environmental assessment process, the consideration of Section 35 Rights has largely focused on environmental effects (CEEA and Mikisew Cree First Nation 2018). Furthermore, examples of impacts on the exercise of Section 35 Rights can include the diminishment of “opportunities to uphold stewardship and other societal norms” (CEEA and Mikisew Cree First Nation 2018).

14 Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary (10th ed.). (1999). Springfield, MA: Merriam- Webster Incorporated

47 The United Nations Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) Article 26(2) states:

Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired. (p. 10)

UNDRIP acknowledges consultation should obtain a nation’s free, prior and informed consent before the adoption or implementation of legislative or administrative measures that may affect them (Article 19).

Culturally Important Species Caribou as a species of importance to ANSN can be correlated to the concept of Cultural Keystone Species:

Similar to what ecologists have long recognized that some species, by virtue of the key roles they play in the overall structure and functioning of an ecosystem, are essential to its integrity (i.e., keystone species), in human cultures there are plants and animals that form the contextual underpinnings of a cultures as reflected in their fundamental roles in diet, as materials, or in medicine. In addition, these species often feature prominently in the language, ceremonies, and narratives of native peoples and can be considered cultural icons (Garabaldi and Turner 2004: 1).

Garibaldi and Turner state that, “a cultural keystone species, once identified, can serve as a starting point from which to assess the effects of environmental disturbance or stress on a culture and whether it is able to withstand change without losing its identity” (Garibaldi and Turner 2004: 18). In other words, if an Indigenous nation can continue to use and relate to culturally significant species, they will be better equipped to retain their cultural identity and conversely, losing access to such species, or moving away from the knowledge about them, can foreshadow or symbolize a more drastic loss of language and culture (Garibaldi and Turner 2004).

70% (n=16) of the Participants interviewed answered the question ‘Why are caribou important to you?’ Of the 16 participants who answered, 69% (n=11) stated that caribou were important to protect and restore, and 56% (n=9) said they are a species of value. Of the 17 Participants who were asked the question ‘Is the Little Smoky Caribou Range an important area to you, ANSN and future generations?’, 100% said yes.

Caribou out of all the animals, is the only animal that you could eat- like it’s got all the nutrients you need to survive on- it’s the only animals, you know moose, deer- they got some but lack others, but caribou is the only one you live off of it -pretty much forever. (9ANS)

There are Elders' stories, there have been other people that have used caribou for different reasons, you know way before my time, pretty sure that they were used in some ceremonies, I mean a lot of the animals have been used in some sort of ceremony but because things have changed the animals moved- but they are of significance in the greater First Nations culture, so I think that they are important. (6ANS)

Participants talked about how caribou are important to protect and restore because they are part of a larger ecosystem (13ANS, 15ANS, 18ANS, 21ANS, and 22ANS). The Little Smoky area was noted as being important because it is one of the last areas where caribou are located within the ANSN traditional territory (6ANS). One Participant commented on their frustration with the lack of historical protection and need for restoration:

I didn’t grow up on caribou meat and stuff like that – mostly moose meat and mule deer, but if I had the opportunity to hunt them I would hunt them….It’s not our people’s fault that they’re in danger- it’s the white people that are doing a lot of that, and then they try to blame us on it. (17ANS)

48 Most participants (93%, n=14) said that protecting and restoring critical habitat of the Little Smoky is important for ANSN’s ability to harvest caribou in the future. Participants mentioned the importance of increasing the population of the Little Smoky to create an opportunity to harvest, which would also create the space for learning more about caribou in the future (8ANS, 16ANS, 17ANS, and 23ANS).

Yes, I think it is important [to protect and restore critical habitat] if it’s basically the last area for caribou to be in in Alberta, and Alexis is connected in some way, I mean that’s some of our traditional territory is through there, so yes, it is important. (6ANS)

Probably [important for the herd to recover] in the future we might harvest but, I don’t know. For our young generation too, they probably would like lots. (1ANS)

Though caribou are not harvested as often as other species such as moose, deer, and elk, 17ANS noted that in the Stoney language caribou are known as “Towa” and Slave Lake is known as “Caribou Lake” (17ANS) 15 . Some Participants explained how the knowledge they had about caribou was passed on from their parents and grandparents (6ANS, 16ANS, 17ANS, 19ANS, 22ANS, and 23ANS). From stories their relatives would share, 5ANS and 19ANS recalled that people used to hunt and eat caribou. Participant 23ANS had learned that when killing a caribou, it needed to be worked on right away or it would spoil. One Participant noted that their grandfather shot a caribou but could not recognize what animal he had shot (16ANS). Other Participants remembered that people used caribou for the hide as well as for fresh and dried meat (1ANS, 2ANS, and 4ANS).

Participants expressed a need to enhance their knowledge of caribou as there was concern that future generations may need to harvest caribou, especially if more commonly harvested species populations such as moose, were to decrease (1ANS, 10ANS, and 23ANS).

Also, participants recognized that the caribou are of value for culture, for language and for future generations, not only for ANSN, but other Indigenous communities as well (1ANS, 2ANS, 9ANS, 10ANS, 13ANS, 21ANS, and 22ANS). 23ANS noted that other communities nearby Grand Cache were not hunting caribou to ensure the populations can grow.

For one thing we live on that stuff, and don’t want them [caribou] to be bothered by someone else. (4ANS)

Ability to Steward Lands and Resources Participants were asked questions related to their ability to exercise stewardship over ANSN traditional territory:

Of the 21 Participants who where asked “Do you think it is important for you or other ANSN members to take care of, protect and/or restore ANSN important species, lands and water?” 100% (n=21) reported that it was important.

Participants described the importance of caring for land and resources and explained that an ecosystem is holistically connected.

That’s our life, you know, they [land and species] take care of us, we take care of them, we are trying our best to protect them, that’s all we can do. (6ANS)

13ANS further explained the importance of understanding potential impacts prior to new disturbance.

If any land is a virgin soil, you go there, you disturb it, you disturb a lot of things you don’t even realize. You gotta view it like that, it’s a disturbance, you disturb a lot of things you don’t even know until later on sometimes. So you gotta do your best to try and figure out what could be- what are we gonna disturb if we done this and that, you know it’s very important -on both sides, you see because we live in this land, something happens to this land is going to affect you as much as it affects me. (13ANS)

15 Verify with Participant 17ANS regarding spelling

49 As Participants talked about the importance of protection of land and resources; many were concerned with their own ability to protect the land (1ANS, 6ANS, 10ANS, 12ANS, 13ANS, 14ANS, 15ANS, 17ANS, 18ANS, 21ANS).

We don’t even have the ability to protect the reserve, because the reserve is set up in a communal way- even the house I live in doesn’t belong to me- that piece of land outside there doesn’t belong to me, so here we’re trying to protect Crown land, again it’s at the whim of the government these places, at the whim of Chief and Council and how they want to run things, how they want to do things. (12ANS)

I heard this elder talk about mother nature like she’s talking to our people. They’re [industry] just draining the blood out of her. She can’t continue to look after us the way she has been. Because what she lives on, is all being taken away from her. She’s suffering too now. (18ANS)

Participants reported that ANSN principles center around showing respect for mother earth. These principles include following ANSN natural laws or protocols when it comes to harvesting, and visiting sacred, cultural and ceremonial site. As stated, these natural laws or protocols are based on ANSN culture and are linked to the concept of stewardship. For example, Participants described the offering tobacco and praying as a way of giving thanks to mother earth for what it provides (1ANS, 4ANS, 6ANS, 7ANS, 9ANS, 10ANS, 11ANS, 12ANS, 13ANS, 15ANS).

When we do get lucky, we usually give thanks, put tobacco down, for you know because you have to give back- they [animals] are giving their life for us. (6ANS)

Of the 20 Participants who were asked, “Do you feel you are able to take care of, protect and/or restore ANSN important species, lands and water to the extent you would like?” 75% (n=15) said no.

Participants reported their desire to care for, protect and restore ANSN important species, lands and water but expressed their frustration with not being able to do so.

Even though we are trying to protect it we can’t do nothing anyway, they [industry] [are] taking over everything...even though we say no, they just go and do it anyway. (2ANS)

How I feel doesn’t play into this whole thing, the land is sacred to us, but it’s daily just being ripped apart and the logs are ripped out of there and everything. (12ANS)

Participant 13ANS explained how the rules and natural laws that ANSN follow are different than government regulation. Many Participants expressed frustration with both government and industry’s development of rules and regulation without acknowledging ANSN’s natural laws, understanding of stewardship, and cultural connection to the land (12ANS,13ANS, 17ANS, 19ANS, 22ANS).

A lot of people that regulate all of this, never step a foot in the bush. They don’t know what or where the animals walk, where they live…but they’ll [government] say well we’ll do this, and then they get the right because they have power, politics right- they have politics and we have nature, so we follow nature. (13ANS)

Our connection to mother earth, and the sanctity we hold for mother earth and all our culture and traditions and everything are based around that belief, and people that we go in with they question everything- they want to know what the rocks are for they want to know what this is for... (12ANS) They [industry] do create problems by the rules that they make, sometimes they put gates- in there, we can’t go in there…so there’s different ways of looking at this thing but the bottom line is the impact on the natural environment – the cumulative impacts – the cumulative effects on the ecosystem. They unbalance one part of it they unbalance the whole thing. And of course, you know they all have the argument that they’re gonna make it better- but it doesn’t get better. (22ANS)

50 Participants were also asked questions regarding ANSN natural laws or protocols and stewardship principles that govern the way in which they exercise their Section 35 Rights. Participants noted that sharing knowledge with the younger generation is an integral component to the continuation of ANSN culture. Participants discussed how hunting, trapping, fishing, gathering activities as well as cultural activities and stewardship practices require knowledge transfer from relatives, community members and Elders (1ANS, 12ANS, 13ANS, 15ANS, 16ANS, 17ANS, 18ANS, 19ANS, 22ANS, and 23ANS).

Ability to Influence Decisions about Industrial Development within ANSN Traditional Territory Participants were asked whether they felt ANSN has control over project locations or whether projects get approved in ANSN traditional territory:

Of the 17 Participants who were asked the question “Do you think that ANSN has control over what projects are approved in your territory?” 76% (n=13) said no.

Well actually we should have a say [in whether or not projects are built in ANSN traditional territory] but they [industry] don’t think that way, they just go right through, no we don’t feel like we have anything, but we should have yeah. (1ANS)

It doesn’t matter to us whether or not a pipeline goes through or pipeline doesn’t go through- they’ll put it through at the end of the day, no matter what we say , no matter what we do- no matter how many roaming GPS points we take out there to identify universal things in the forest, it doesn’t go anywhere. (12ANS)

Participants frequently expressed, that, no matter what ANSN could provide to industry and government as proof of impacts to ANSN Section 35 Rights, the projects would be approved anyway.

We do our site visits- we give our input, and we give our recommendations, but when it boils down to it- it is words on paper- but it’s overlooked. (6ANS)

Participants spoke about how they view money as a main driver in government and industry decision-making (19ANS and 21ANS). 22ANS Participant expressed frustration in having rules imposed on ANSN without ever being consulted.

We never made the rules, the rules are made and imposed upon us, we never had a hand in developing any of these processes- it’s already in place. And we’re just subject to it, so how can we change it? (22ANS)

The laws are made for white people – they’re not made for natives. So how can we change anything? We’re not even consulted on what kind of laws should be in place... We have no protection. We have no one standing up for us- we try to stand up for ourselves, and we’re not listened to anyway. (22ANS)

Of the 16 participants who were asked the question “Do you think that ANSN has control over where projects are located in your territory?” 75% (n=12) said no.

Participants expressed their frustrations with the inability to ‘have a say’ on the types of projects and where projects occur within the traditional territory. Participants noted that by not having control or influence over where projects are located, there are increasingly greater impacts on ANSN way of life, including ANSN’s ability to act as stewards on the land and resources.

51 Participants additionally reported that the ability for ANSN to exercise stewardship, including ability to govern land and resource use, in the traditional territory must remain intact in order for ANSN to preserve and pass-on ANSN culture to younger generations. This is evident from Participants description of their experiences on the land as they exercise their Section 35 Rights. Without ANSN important species, lands, and water, transmitting ANSN culture including knowledge, skills, ANSN laws and protocols and culture to younger generations is challenging.

They [kids] have to have interest in it [teachings] and then there’s certain way you pick it, there’s certain songs you sing, there’s certain ceremonies you have to attend when you’re doing this kind of stuff, but like I said, lately it’s tough when Natives can’t even live off their own land. (19ANS)

The way of life of our people is slowly going away- our people are hunting down the isles of Safeway- including myself, when I don’t have moose or deer, I go there. We forgotten our …natural vegetables all of us- it’s still there- our pharmacy is still there, but the knowledge holders are slowly diminishing…they’re forgetting that- so this policy of assimilation by degradation has worked really well for the Canadian government and the Canadians, they have us right where they want us - they occupy our lands. (22ANS)

We’re supposed to be protected under the constitution, that’s what we’re held to- we try to impart to them but they keep asking who else hunts here, or what is happening here- that’s none of their business, that’s our land- it was our land, it will forever be our land no matter what happens in this world, they can’t even use it properly it’s being destroyed. (12ANS)

4.2 Effects Assessment

4.2.1 Suitable Caribou Habitat

NGTL identified Project related residual effects to caribou resulting from Project activities, including:

• Change in suitable wildlife habitat; • Change in wildlife habitat effectiveness; • Change in wildlife movement patterns; and, • Change in wildlife mortality risk (NGTL 2018b: Table 23.0-1).16

NGTL indicates its assessment of caribou only occurs within the Deep Valley Section of the Project where it intersects with the Little Smoky (NGTL 2018b: 12.3.4). Therefore, according to the 2021 Project Application ESA, Project construction will result in:

• 98.3 ha of incremental direct disturbance; • 0.5 ha incremental indirect disturbance (NGTL 2018b:12:50-12:51).

The Study Team notes that while NGTL has confined its assessment to the intersecting portion of the Project within the Little Smoky, NGTL’s calculations take into consideration the entire area of the Little Smoky, measured at 308,606 ha.17

In addition, the Study Team notes, the 2021 Project Application ESA based its assessment on outdated information (See baseline conditions Section 6.1) from the Recovery Strategy of 95% anthropogenic disturbance levels within the Little Smoky, or 15,430.3 ha of remaining undisturbed habitat (NGTL 2018b: 12-117), rather than the Range Plan indicating 99% anthropogenic disturbance levels within the Little Smoky, or 3,083.8 ha of remaining undisturbed habitat (GOA 2017). Therefore, the Study Team notes that both the direct and indirect Project disturbance levels (98.3 ha and .5 ha) may result in a higher percentage of disturbance than was indicated in the 2021 Project Application ESA.

16 NGTL predicts the Project related residual effects to caribou will be: throughout the RSA; a magnitude of low; a frequency of rare; effects are reversible; high likelihood; and, not considered significant (NGTL 2018b: Table 23.0-1). 17 308,606 ha was the range size of the Little Smoky assessed in 2011, whereas the present range size has been determined to be 308,380 ha (GoA 2017: 60).

52 The Study Team suggests that any disturbance in the Little Smoky would result in an adverse effect to caribou and the remaining habitat available for caribou within the Little Smoky. Supporting this conclusion, NGTL notes that: the majority of habitat within the Little Smoky Caribou Range is currently disturbed, with only 5% remaining as undisturbed habitat (Environment Canada 2012a). As a result, all remaining undisturbed habitat within the Range is considered critical habitat. (NGTL 2018b: 12-21). According to 2021 Project Application ESA, Project construction will result in a decrease of approximately 25 ha (4%) of potentially suitable (high and good quality) caribou habitat. Figure 16 overlays NGTL’s HSI with ANSN and NGTL caribou evidence. The Study Team notes that both NGTL and ANSN caribou evidence demonstrates caribou utilization of all HSI categories within the LSA.

As noted above, NGTL’s calculations, which are based on outdated anthropogenic disturbance levels within the Little Smoky (i.e. 95% vs 99%), in combination with NGTL’s narrow assessment of habitat suitability within the LSA, does not accurately portray the potential for impact on remaining undisturbed caribou habitat within the Little Smoky (3,083.8 ha). The Study Team notes NGTL has not provided clarity on how the 2021 Project will impact the suitable habitat (high and good quality) that remains in the undisturbed portions of the Little Smoky.

53 Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Reference Map 2021 NGTL System Expansion Project Caribou Evidence and Habitat Suitability GRANDE PRAIRIE

EDMONTON ##

## ## CALGARY

LITTLE SMOKY CARIBOU RANGE

Deep Valley Creek LSA Crossing .! 2018 Winter Tracking Caribou Observation .! Poor Habitat Suitabilty

Little Smoky River LSA Crossing

Legend

ANSN Field Data .! Caribou Evidence ANSN Report Data Caribou Evidence 2018 Winter Tracking Caribou Observation and Habitat Suitability Caribou Observation Poor Habitat Suitability #! Poor - Winter Tracking Observation (2)

#! Poor - Historical Observation (6)

#! Good - Historical Observation (2)

#! No Habitat Data (6) Caribou Habitat Suitability - LSA

Good

High

Marginal

Moderate

Poor

LSA - Local Study Area Pipeline: 1.1 km corridor Compressor Station: 1.5 km radius RSA - Regional Study Area Pipeline: 20 km corridor Compressor Station: 10 km radius

Little Smoky Caribou Range

DISCLAIMER: THIS MAP SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A SUBSTITUTE FOR DATA SOURCES: ESRI, HERE, GARMIN, INTERMAP, INCREMENT P CORP., GEBCO, CONSULTATION WITH ALEXIS NAKOTA SIOUX NATION. THIS MAP IS THE EXCLUSIVE Note on Historical Species Observation Data: USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GEOBASE, IGN, KADASTER NL, ORDNANCE SURVEY, PROPERTY OF ALEXIS NAKOTA SIOUX NATION. ANY REPRODUCTION OR ESRI JAPAN, METI, ESRI CHINA (HONG KONG), SWISS TOPO, GIS USER COMMUNITY There are 14 points recorded at 5 locations, DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, GOVERNMENT OF ALBERTA, TRANSCANADA, ALL TRADITIONAL USE AREAS/SITES ARE APPROXIMATE. ALEXIS NAKOTA SIOUX NATION with multiple observations per location. PROJECT DATA LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.

048121620Date: Mar 15, 2019 Prepared For: Prepared By: Figure:

Coordinate System: Alexis Nakota MNP LLP 10 Ü Kilometers - Scale 1:200,000 NAD83 11N Sioux Nation 4.2.2 Change in Alexis Nakota Sioux First Nation Ability to act as Stewards of Caribou and Caribou Habitat

As the baseline information for the ANSN VC Species of Importance indicates, caribou are not a commonly hunted species. However, this could be attributed to many factors such as decline in caribou population, degradation of critical habitat over the last several decades, and ANSN self-regulation of hunting caribou based on stewardship principles. Many Participants link the protection and restoration of caribou and caribou habitat to greater ecosystem health (Section 6.1.2). Participants agreed that the survival of the Little Smoky was critical to ANSN’s ability to steward and harvest caribou in the future. Participants also commented that ensuring ANSN has a greater ability for self-governance is necessary for the survival of ANSN’s way of life.

The Study Team has concluded the identified residual Project effects (NGTL 2018b: Table 23.0-1), to have a corresponding negative effect on ANSN ability to steward the land and resources, and thus an inability for ANSN to protect caribou and caribou habitat. Without reflecting ANSN natural laws in Project design, construction and operation these Project effects would result in a decrease in ANSN’s ability to steward caribou and caribou habitat.

The analysis of the data indicates the amount of land currently impacted by development within the Little Smoky leaves little remaining habitat available for caribou survival and the ability for ANSN members to steward caribou and caribou habitat.

Specific to NGTL, the Study Team notes the duty to consult and accommodate process led by the NEB is the mechanism for ANSN to provide evidence on adverse effects to ANSN Section 35 Rights related to the Project in efforts to influence decisions concerning the Project by the Crown. The Study Team understands that ANSN wishes to have more influence over activities on the land in order to maintain ANSN stewardship abilities.

As demonstrated in the examples and collected information noted in the baseline conditions above, it is important to ANSN that community members can access lands in order to exercise stewardship in ANSN traditional territory. Information collected by the Study Team additionally demonstrates that Participants generally understand that ANSN does not have control over the land and resource management decisions made in its traditional territory; control sits with the Government of Alberta and the Government of Canada. Participants expressed a general frustration over the lack of ANSN control or influence over the decision-making process for the Project, and the related inability of ANSN to exercise stewardship over the lands and resources in ANSN traditional territory.

The Project, if approved, will result in further degradation of suitable caribou habitat within the Little Smoky, which will have a corresponding effect on ANSN’s ability to act as stewards of caribou and caribou habitat. The impacts to caribou from the Project are not acceptable to ANSN and remain unmitigated.

4.2.3 Suggested Accommodation Measures

The Study Team determined Project effects to the ANSN VC of Species of Importance (change in ANSN ability to act as stewards of caribou and caribou habitat).

The 2021 Project Application ESA concludes that effects to suitable caribou habitat are not significant because of the restoration measures and offsets described in the Preliminary Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan (CHROMP) (e.g., including implementation of habitat restoration/tree planting) (NGTL 2018:12-90).

The Study Team assumes that although NGTL applied the criteria outlined in Section 3.4.1 (Project route selection and EPP) and the CHROMP to the highest degree feasible, it may not result in a reduction in negative and adverse effects to the decrease in suitable caribou habitat and ANSN ability to act as stewards of caribou and caribou habitat. Furthermore, the Study Team notes that NGTL has not identified specific mitigation measures as it relates to ANSN Section 35 Rights.

Following the methodology outlined in Section 3.4.2 the Study Team suggested accommodation measures to eliminate, reduce or control the impact from the Project on changes to the ANSN VC of Species of Importance. For a list of suggested accommodation measures for the ANSN VC of Species of Importance see Appendix C.

55 4.2.4 Characterization of Residual Effects

The assumption of the Study Team is that application of the suggested accommodation measures outlined in Appendix C will not eliminate the identified effect to changes in ANSN ability to act as stewards of caribou and caribou habitat. A residual effect remains for the ANSN VC of Species of Importance. The following is a characterization of the residual effects for the ANSN indicator of change in ability of ANSN to act as stewards of caribou and caribou habitat.

Residual Effects Characterization

Project Mitigation

Study Area Measure

Direction Geographic Extent Magnitude Duration Frequency Reversibility

Change in ability of ANSN to act as stewards of caribou and caribou habitat

Project Pending Negative Project Moderate High-Term Continuous Permanent (no Footprint Footprint decommissioning contemplated)

LSA Pending Negative LSA Moderate High-Term Continuous Permanent (no decommissioning contemplated)

RSA Pending Negative RSA Moderate High-Term Continuous Permanent (no decommissioning contemplated) Table 9: Characterization of Residual Effects for ANSN VC of Species of Importance

4.2.5 Likelihood

Likelihood is a measurement of whether or not the effect in likely to occur. The Study Team notes that it has no control or ability to require the application of suggested accommodation measures outlined in Appendix C. The Study Team predicts there is a high likelihood that the Project effect to the indicator will occur.

4.2.6 Prediction of Confidence

Prediction of confidence refers to the degree of certainty of the residual effect prediction. The assessment process deals with predictions of future circumstances. Therefore, predictions can vary in their level of certainty which can be influenced by availability of data, resiliency of ANSN, degree of understanding of the Project and Project interactions and factors beyond the control of the Study Team. The confidence rating by the study team for the degree of certainty for changes to the ANSN VC of Species of Importance (change in ability of ANSN to act as stewards of caribou and caribou habitat) associated with the exercise of Section 35 Rights) is high.

56 5. Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Valued Component – Harvesting

Considering ANSN’s preferred means of exercising Section 35 Rights is an important criterion to understanding potential Project impacts. The Study Team determined that ANSN preferred means could be assessed based on avoidance behaviours. Therefore, the Study Team identified an indicator to characterise change to the ANSN VC of Harvesting18:

• change in ANSN hunting avoidance behaviours.

5.1 Baseline Conditions

The 2021 Project Application ESA contains a description of NGTL’s understanding of traditional land and resource use (TLRU). According to NGTL, the description for existing conditions for TLRU in the 2021 Project Application relies on the information provided in traditional knowledge studies and information shared with NGLT by ANSN during Project engagement activities. For NGTL’s TLRU assessment NGTL used “publicly available reports and environmental assessments with a similar socio-cultural context or regulatory context and academic reports” (NGTL 2018b: 19-4). The Study Team is not familiar with NGTL’s definition of socio-cultural context. It is the Study Team’s understanding that impacts to ANSN Section 35 Rights are not included in the 2021 Project Application except for the statement that: Aboriginal and treaty rights, which include the right to practice traditional activities such as hunting, trapping, fishing, and plant gathering on Crown land, are protected under Section 35 of the Constitution Act (1982) and there is potential for Aboriginal groups to exercise those rights in the Project area. The effects assessment takes a conservative approach and assumes TLRU activities occur within the LSA on Crown land and that private lands could be used by Aboriginal groups for traditional purposes if there is an agreement in place with the landowner for access (NGTL 2018b: 19-17).

5.1.1 Change in Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Avoidance Behaviors

All Participants were asked the question “Are you a hunter?” If the Participant answered “Yes” or “Yes in the past” the Participant was then asked a series of hunting-related questions. If the Participant answered “no” the hunting related- questions were skipped. Of the 23 Participants interviewed, 77% (n=17) of the Participants referred to themselves as hunters (i.e. hunted in the past or currently hunt today), whereas 23% (n=5) reported that they do not hunt. The preferred large game animals19 by Participants are moose, deer, and elk; small game 20 included rabbits and; and preferred birds21 are chicken (e.g., big, prairie, Chinese) and ducks (mallard, black). For additional baseline conditions related to ANSN harvesting activities see Section 8. Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Hunting Avoidance Behaviours To understand how different types of development effect ANSN Section 35 Rights with respect to harvesting (including hunting, trapping, gathering), Participants were asked how close/far (meters) to the following developments and land types do you like to hunt, trap or gather [assuming you do not have permission?]. Participants were provided a choice of avoidance distances and answers were captured on the Survey, voice recordings and summary notes. The mean was calculated to arrive at the ANSN Avoidance Zone for each development type. The ANSN hunting avoidance behaviours for each development type is presented in Table 10.

18 As noted in Section 3.2.1 for the purposes of this Report, the activity of hunting will be used as a representative activity for the exercise of Section 35 Rights in order to assess effects to the VC of Harvesting. 19 Moose (100%, n=17), White-tailed deer (65%, n=11), Mule deer (71%, n=12) 20 Rabbits (47%, n=8) 21 Ducks (71%, n=12), Chicken (65%, n=11)

57 The types of industrial development that Participants reported avoiding the furthest for the activity of hunting included: pipeline ROW’s under constructions by at least 1781.3 meters, pipeline water crossings under construction by 1718.8 meters and, pipeline facilities by 1781.3 meters. Other associated industrial development that is avoided by long distances included: pipeline facilities during operation by 1650 meters, industrial campsites by 1781.3 meters, and sand and gravel quarries by 1218.8 meters. Participant 17ANS explained that during pipeline construction they would “stay away until job completed”; for a pipeline ROW under operation, “if access, we use it, sometimes they lock us out”; for pipeline water crossing construction, “we don’t go near” and for pipeline facilities operation “why hang there, no game there, but if we saw one and opportunity arose, we’d take it if no one around”. Participant 15ANS explained that for pipeline construction they “couldn’t hunt while construction or after”; for pipeline water crossing construction they would stay away because of “noise from machinery and pollution”; for pipeline facilities under construction they would stay away due to “noise and pollution”; for pipeline facilities operation they would stay away because of “gas pressure lines and safety concerns”.

Development Types22 Hunting

1390.6 Primary road or highway (e.g. HWY 63; 16 HWY) (n=16) 921.9 Secondary road (paved and unpaved) (e.g. Range Roads; Winter Roads) (n=16) 562.5 Lease road (n=16) 1781.3 Pipeline right-of-way under construction (n=16) 109.4 Pipeline right-of-way under operation (n=16) 1718.8 Pipeline water crossing during construction (n=16) 437.5 Pipeline water crossing during operation (n=16) 1781.3 Pipeline Facilities (compressor/meter stations) during construction (n=16) 1650.0 Pipeline Facilities (compressor/meter stations) during operation (n=15) 1031.3 Power lines (n=16) 31.3 Seismic lines (n=16) 1781.3 Active padsites (including fracking) (n=16) 732.1 Reclaimed/capped padsites (n=14) 1718.8 Oil and gas facilities (processing plant, gas plant) (n=16) 1078.1 SAGD facilities (processing plant and associated infrastructure) [SAGD is Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage] (n=16) 562.5 Oil sands mines (mine site, tailings pond, upgrading facilities) (n=16) 1468.8 Coal mines (mine site, taillings pond, processing facilities) (n=16) 593.8 Borrow pit (excavation made to provide soil materials for construction) (n=16) 1218.8 Sand and gravel quarry (n=16) 1656.3 Active logging site (n=16)

22 Not all of the above activities exist in the RSA. For the purposes of this Report, only development types that intersected the RSA were used in this Report.

Development Types22 Hunting

216.7 Cutblock (≤ 10years of age) (n=15) 1718.8 Pulp Mill (n=16) 1718.8 Electricity generation site (n=16) 1562.5 Structures and Dwellings (n=16) 984.4 Private land (including grazing leases and agriculture) (n=16) 1166.7 Provincial Parks and Protected Areas (n=15) 1125.0 National Parks (n=16) 966.7 Other Indian Reserve (n=15) 1781.3 Town or village (n=16) 1500.0 Campgrounds (n=16) 1781.3 Industrial Campsites (n=16) Table 10: ANSN Avoidance Behaviours – Existing Developments within the RSA

The Study Team selected hunting as a representative activity for the exercise of ANSN Section 35 Rights. The amount of land that is currently avoided by ANSN for the exercise of the Section 35 Rights (hunting) in the Project study areas are:

Percent of Hectares of ANSN Hunting Avoidance Behaviours Lands Avoided Lands Avoided

Project Footprint ANSN Hunting Avoidance Behaviours Prior to 99.98% 2,447.03 ha Project Approval Total Area: 2,458.18 ha Total Waterbodies: 10.67 ha Total Land: 2,447.51 ha

Local Study Area ANSN Hunting Avoidance Behaviours Prior to 90.98% 37,692.64 ha Project Approval Total Area: 41,904.65 ha Total Waterbodies: 473.15 ha Total Land: 41,431.50 ha

Regional Study Area ANSN Hunting Avoidance Behaviours Prior to 85.32% 757,823.93 ha Project Approval Total Area: 901,705.83 ha Total Waterbodies: 13,492.90 ha Total Land: 888,212.93 ha Table 11: ANSN Hunting Avoidance Behaviours Prior to Project Approval

59 The data presented in Table 11 above shows that Participants already avoid or prefer to avoid the majority of lands for the exercise of the Section 35 Rights (hunting) in the Project Footprint, LSA, and RSA due to the amount infrastructure and industrial development. The Study Team notes that this illustrates that there are already minimal lands available for ANSN members to exercise their Section 35 Rights (hunting) in a preferred manner. Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Hunting Preferred Conditions Baseline data collected for harvesting (hunting) included preferred species for harvest, hunting protocols (i.e., time of year, types of habitat, techniques), identification of hunting locales and preferred conditions. See Section 8 for detailed information on baseline data including hunting locales. Many Participants shared unique ANSN hunting protocols related to ceremonial practices that have been passed down through generations (4ANS, 9ANS, 12ANS, 17ANS, 22ANS, 15 ANS). Participants explained while they hunt all year, there are specific times of year and types of animals that are taken in order to ensure sustainability of animal populations. Participant 22ANS explained we “don’t take cows in spring because of calves and don’t take bulls after rutting [as they] aren’t good to eat’. Of the 19 Participants asked, “Are you able to harvest the way you would like to?” 58% (n=11) Participants reported that they are not able to harvest the way they would like to. Participants explained that they had to travel farther (14ANS), that land was not available (1ANS, 13ANS, 14ANS, 17ANS), and that animals have moved away because of disturbances such as clearing, construction, noise...etc. (3ANS, 6ANS, 13ANS, 17ANS, 19ANS, 22ANS). Several Participants commented on how much of the land they once used for harvesting and exercising Section 35 Rights has been taken up and is no longer available for them to use. We take as much as we can, but they limited us now, but I think it affects what we take and the animals, the native people – this was all ours once... the whole thing. (1ANS) In the beginning, they [government] told us that all they would be concerned with -6 inches of top soil- that’s all when they first came and signed treaties. And the rest still will remain the way it was, and then the federal government was whatever they take off the land, they’re supposed to give us half of it, half the federal land and the other half to us first nations. And that never happened. (13ANS) I’m not able to [take care of and steward my traditional land] because its already like most of the time- the construction is there, and the damage is done right? (14ANS) No, they’ve taken that away from us, we have no say. They give traplines to other people and the white people and what happens is they do it as they please. (17ANS) We can’t [ take care of the land the way we want to] because since we were young people [we] started hunting with our parents travelling the land, on horse back and then wagon- then vehicle. All the places that we went to – are overrun by development, grazing leases. The springs that we used to go to- are just wrecked and the camping areas that we used to go to are all occupied- altered topography. Alteration hurts the mind, the eye, the heart, the spirit, and we have no control over it. (22ANS) One Participant commented about the residual impacts from the residential school system, which has foundationally influenced past, present and future abilities to harvest. They feel as though they lost the opportunity to harvest at a time when there was abundance, and instead came back into a time where the landscape and the community dynamic were significantly impacted. I lost quite a bit of my culture, my culture was taken away- my way of life. Who I was and it’s still confusing today- it’s not cut and dry into what I thought I would return to – when I came back from residential school I envisioned some beautiful place where everybody got along together, and the ceremonies and I was really looking forward to it, and it wasn’t the case, totally the opposite, all the negative influences were already in play. (12ANS)

60 Participants reported on the importance of harvesting for the transmission of knowledge, skills and culture. Participant 18ANS talked about the knowledge shared by parents and grandparents about hunting practices and the land: …learn by experience; sometimes (we) don't listen to parents, then learn hard way; we'd go with parents when they hunted, couldn't go in bush by ourselves; my dad knew the land so well he found us one time when we went out by ourselves as kids and we got lost; our parents taught us traditional ways; we were taken care of, we were scared of the bush; go hunting, spring to summer then august so many hunters so you have to do bush hunting; you count cutlines, always count how many you cross, my brother taught me how; the bush is really deep; where lots of berries there are bears; lots of rabbits there are wolves; we share whatever we get; we do thanksgiving feasts once we take animals, thank creator. (18ANS) Participants commented you will find moose in “muskegs and valleys and near creeks” (4ANS); “moose like a lot of bush, thick areas, muskeg” (6ANS); “go where there’s springs [water], animals go early am or late pm for drinking” (1ANS).

They [moose] are always near water, ponds, muskeg, and that’s something that’s tough now of days. They’re basically being pushed out of their homeland, so now it’s tougher for us to gather. (6ANS) Participants described how development has impacted wildlife resources and habitat of important wildlife species. Participant 16ANS explained that big game (i.e., moose, elk, deer) “need a lot of cover to survive and many areas are affected by so much clearing”. 4ANS said “there was a lot of trees around at that time, now it’s just a big field out there now… no squirrels, no lynx, the beaver- they cut all the beaver’s food. There’s nothing to catch up there.”

Many Participants expressed concern that construction activities would create greater initial disturbance causing impacts to wildlife (1ANS, 2ANS, 3ANS, 6ANS, 14ANS, 17ANS, 21ANS). Well they’re in the wilderness and they are wild, and for a period of time it will disturb them, there’s no lights, there’s no noise where they’re at- nothing like that, you know they might move somewhere else until they get used to it or something, there is some impact there. (13ANS) Well the only thing I’m concerned about for the wildlife, the safety of the wildlife if anything would happen to them- in case they get explosion of something- everything might all die. (1ANS) Animals are not stupid, they shy away from people, from noise, and then they may end up moving and god knows what happens then. (3ANS)

61 As part of the Survey, ANSN Participants were asked to identify their preferred conditions for hunting within their traditional territory (Table 12). Majority of Participants indicated they prefer hunting in quiet locations where there is no development (100%), no other hunters (87%), no industrial workers (100%), no recreational users (100%), no vehicles (87%), all-terrain vehicles (ATV’s) (87%), no fences/gates (93%) or signs (93%), no evidence of contamination (100%) and no sensory disturbances such as dust (100%), industrial smell (100%), noise (86%) or even the sight of industrial development (100%). If you smell it [industrial development] the animal smells it. Anything unnatural to them is unnatural to us, which means it’s tough for us to hunt, which means it’s scarce. (6ANS)

Do you like to gather in a location if there are/it is ___? Yes No

Quiet 100% 0%

Development 0% 100%

Other Hunters 13% 87%

Recreational users 0% 100%

Industrial/Construction workers 0% 100%

Vehicles 13% 87%

ATV (snowmobile, Argo, quad) 13% 87%

Cleared areas 40% 60%

Cultivated fields 21% 79%

Livestock or domestic animals 7% 93%

Fences, gates, Texas gates 7% 93%

Signs (e.g. “No Trespassing”, “No Hunting”, “Private Property”) 7% 93%

Dust 7% 93%

Industrial development smell 0.00% 100%

Industrial development noise 14% 86%

Industrial development in sight 0% 100%

A recent spraying/herbicide application 0% 100%

Evidence of contamination 0% 100%

A recent forest fire 43% 57% Table 12: ANSN Hunting Preferred Conditions

62 5.2 Effects Assessment

5.2.1 Change in Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation Hunting Avoidance Behaviours The Study Team notes that NGTL identified Project related residual effects resulting from the Project that may conflict with ANSN preferred conditions or increase ANSN hunting avoidance behaviours. These include: • clearing and vegetation removal, alteration and ongoing mechanical vegetation management; • chemical vegetation management; • sensory disturbance (noise from welding, excavating or traffic; night time lighting; odors); • avoidance due to the presence of human activity; • increased traffic; • increased human access and hunting pressure; and • alternation of ground water supply (NGTL 2018b: Table 23.0-1)

In addition, the Study Team notes that NGTL in the 2021 Application EPP, detail certain activities, tools and other mitigation measures to be used by NGTL during construction and operation of the Project that may exacerbate Project effects to ANSN VC of Harvesting, including: • the use of signs, fences, gates or flags; • the use of heavy equipment and vehicles and increased personnel and traffic; and • clearing, grading, trenching, pipe stringing/welding/ lowering, backfill, cleanup and reclamation activities (NGTL 2018b: Appendix A).

The Study Team notes that a decrease in ANSN preferred conditions will result in an increase in ANSN avoidance behaviours.

The amount of land avoided by ANSN for hunting post-Project approval in the LSA and RSA is show in Table 13:

Percent of Hectares of ANSN Hunting Avoidance Behaviours Lands Avoided Lands Avoided

Project Footprint ANSN Hunting Avoidance Behaviours Prior 99.98% 2,447.03 ha to Project Approval Total Area: 2,458.18 ha Total Waterbodies: 10.67 ha ANSN Hunting Avoidance Behaviours Post- 100.00% 2,447.51 ha Project Approval Total Land: 2,447.51 ha

Change in Lands Avoided in Project ⮝ 0.02% ⮝ 0.48 ha Footprint

Local Study Area ANSN Hunting Avoidance Behaviours Prior 90.98% 37,692.64 ha to Project Approval Total Area: 41,904.65 ha Total Waterbodies: 473.15 ha ANSN Hunting Avoidance Behaviours Post- 100.00% 41,431.51 ha Project Approval Total Land: 41,431.50 ha

Change in Lands Avoided in LSA ⮝ 9.02% ⮝ 3,738.87 ha

Regional Study Area ANSN Hunting Avoidance Behaviours Prior 85.32% 757,823.93 ha to Project Approval Total Area: 901,705.83 ha Total Waterbodies: 13,492.90 ha ANSN Hunting Avoidance Behaviours Post- 87.37% 776,043.27 ha Project Approval Total Land: 888,212.93 ha

Change in Lands Avoided in RSA ⮝ 2.05% ⮝ 18,219.34 ha Table 13: Change in ANSN Hunting Avoidance Behaviours

The change to ANSN hunting avoidance behaviours resulting from the Project is: • A change of 0.48 ha or 0.02% in the total amount of avoided lands for hunting post-Project approval in the Project Footprint. • A change of 3,738.87 ha or 9.02% in the total amount of avoided lands for hunting post-Project approval in the LSA. • A change of 18,219.34 ha or 2.05% in the total amount of avoided lands for hunting post-Project approval in the RSA.

Figures 11 to 15 show the change in hunting avoidance behaviors for each segment of the Project. The Study Team notes that the baseline levels of avoidance are high, prior to Project approval, due to existing infrastructure and industrial development. Following approval, avoidance behaviors will further increase. With limited preferred land, ANSN cannot easily access suitable areas for the exercise of their rights. While suitable preferred land may exist outside of the Project study areas, it is unreasonable for ANSN to be directed to ‘go elsewhere’ to exercise their rights. Therefore, the Study Team notes that any change to ANSN harvesting avoidance behavior will have a substantial impact.